on edit, way premature maybe - just wandering aloud...

I'd vote for either ticket. I happen to think very highly, VERY HIGHLY of both men. Perhaps not the best choice for winning an election, but I sure as hell would like to see it.

They're both excellent candidates and of unquestionable integrity. I wish Kerry was a little stronger in his opposition to free trade, but I'd vote for him again if he was in the top position.

Gore is outstanding as well.

Novelty is an important ingredient in electoral politics. You can't rerun two (unsuccessful) retreads and claim to be a forward thinking party.

They are both viable candidates separately but not together. It's not marketable.

It'd be too easy to paint it as a party of "also rans".

But both of these men are known to everyone in America. They could build a platform upon telling the story of what happened during the Bush octet, and how they are going to make sure that it never happens again.

Gore is an amazing intellect. Kerry is braver than any of us could hope to be and expresses thoughts in a more complex style than many people are conditioned for. By this I mean he doesn't read every word of his speech four words at a time.

and his weakness. It's a strength 'cause it points to his intelligence and integrity ( he refuses to simplify and demagogue complex issues); a weakness because, well, it's hard to get elected that way.

Gore is quite bright but the media is IMPLACABLY hostile... in a way that it wasn't ( or was afraid to be too obvious about) toward Kerry.

For that reason Kerry would make the stronger nominee of the two.

I agree he shouldn't fix what isn't broken about his style; but the man need a Spiro T. Agnew sort of guy.

Nixon coyly used Agnew to do the Tanya Harding sort of take out the knees with the club work he never could have been able to do himself.

He would have look bad doing in, and Kerry using tactics one could use to make Jesus Christ look evil and successfully run against him is just not him. And those of us getting flack because we dare to say we really like Kerry personally as a human being would be massively turned off by him doing this.

Kerry needs a V.P candidate who can be a lightning rod, who will take on Swift Boat liars rhetorically grabbing them by the nose hairs, some who will mock them back and return the charges of politically motivated liar right back at them for example.

Just my thoughts on this. Other then it is very, very critical to take the White House away from th Repugs in 2008, and to lame duck Bush's ass by taking one or both of the chambers of Congress away from GOP control.

What evidence do you have of that?

I'm not knocking Kerry here, but aren't you getting a little bit Kerried away?

Why?

A courageous Senator for all these years.

:hi:

If you knew even HALF of what he faced, you'd never ask a question like that. The ENTIRE powerstructure in DC stacked up against him on BCCI.

Even when he advocated for gays to serve openly in the military one of the few voices to speak up and give him back up was Wes Clark. Everyone else shut up or fought him.

I suggest spending time wading through the National Security Archives before you speak against Kerry.

In fact, I challenge you to name one other person in the last 35 years who investigated and exposed more serious government corruption than John Kerry.

I expected so much more toughness because of Iran Contra and BCCI. At least the courage to tell the truth about the thoroughly corrupt *ush administration-- and he just wouldn't shoot the fish in the barrel... Because some sharp operatives told him it wouldn't be polite? Or wouldn't play well ? He really let me down. Me and my friends. He didn't even hold out for 72 hours of vote counting before conceding. And please-- surely being called a 'sore loser' while votes are more properly counted, is a pain that can be borne out of respect to the voters who stood for hours and hours at the polls to vote for him... And I probably shouldn't have supported him based on my memories of his courage in BCCI and I-C because he voted for giving the reckless and corrupt appointed-president the authority to go to war if he could convince others of what Kerry, I and millions of others knew was bogus WMD fear mongering. And then, during the election, said he would vote the same way again-- even after the lies had been exposed more broadly to the American people. He and the Democrats didn't take advantage of glaring failures of the administration to inspire voters with hope for a true change. The results should have been over 10% in the Democrats favor so that vote manipulation would have to be very pronounced to overcome the actual numbers. With Kerry just winning by 3 percentage points, it was easy for the Republican dribs & drabs vote manipulation methods to succeed and go undetected because each technique alone "would not make a difference in the total outcome." I am still far too sad and angry to support Kerry for President again.

who was on one of those swift boats was one brave ----------er! Kerry was the commander of one. 'nuff said.

Which really strikes a blow for that lie that he only went to Vietnam for his resume.

Except for politicians.

Although I do believe Gore can serve again. Kerry has maxed on the Peter Principle.

Forget about Senators! The last Sen to win an election was JFK in 1960!!! As they said on West Wing tonight..."There's a reason for that!"

Like it or not, we need a player. National politics is a very dirty game, and yes it IS a game! We need a candidate who is willing and capable of playing that game to win! Always looking for the honest, thoughtful and intelligent candidate will cause the Dems to lose every single election!

duh

count was what it was, GWB is living in the WH! That's the difference between winning and losing.

It doesn't matter if the votes were fraught with fraud. Nobody could prove that! I didn't say ignore it! I say we should be fighting much harder NOW for verifiable ballots! The way I see it, we are going to be back screaming and crying about voter fraud AGAIN in 2006! Soon we will have lost the window of opportunity, and the excuse is going to be, ther's not enough time to make any major changes before the election!!!!

We've got to stop with the Kerry/Gore won stuff. Fair or not, they lost!

instead the votes of state delegates in the Electoral College now select our President. If Al Gore received more popular votes than Bush, then why should Bush have more electoral college votes than Gore?

Winning the national popular vote and becoming President is fair, winning more electoral college delegates while losing the national popular vote is not fair. Failing to make the abolishment of the Electoral College ie..having a President elected by the voting public, into a campaign issue..is a loss for taxpaying voters in every party.

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html

There's been lots of arguments to eliminate it, but you're still going to have the majority of the middle states fighting to keep it. If the election depended totally on the popular vote, all the candidates would concentrate on pleasing all the very populace states and the others would get no attention at all!

let the people decide, let each state decide whether or not to amend the constitution, and make those who oppose having a President elected by the voting majority stand-up publicly and be counted!! :spank:

I am a Democrat because I am a democrat. Without a Commander-in-Chief elected by the people, all Americans are only taxpayers of the executive branch, without representation. Small and large states each deserve attention, so do liberal voters in a majority conservative state..and conservative voters in a majority liberal state.

impossible for them to run again? Why should we ignore some of our best people? Neither Kerry or Gore lost because they were disliked by the American people. It came down to issues, war and morals. I am tired of the "rule" that says you can only run once. I think it's time we broke this "rule".

that won by theft? If you would settle for theft then so be it. Gore won, plain and simple. The problem is that WE THE PEOPLE allowed the theft of the office to stand. WE THE PEOPLE need to get off of our dead asses and go to the streets to right the wrong of stolen elections. Gore is the best one to spearhead- be the figurehead of that movement. What better platform to run on then, "See what happens when you allow voter fraud to select the President" We the people chose Gore and the theives put in a disasterous administration instead. We are all paying dearly for it now.

it just complicated and most people.. i guess you too.. havent taken the time to understand the proof. We wont get true fair elections till enough people know the system was rigged! KERRY won GORE won.. YOU get over it!

And if we STUCK with someone, if we stuck with a central message, instead of doing something "new" every time, we might gain something - integrity, in the eyes of the voting public.

I definitley think one of them should be on the ticket, no doubt in my mind. It makes sense politically. bush argued how much better we'd be under him than them. We argued we'd be better with Gore, then Kerry. There is a strong, compelling, "We told you so" moment to be had. Politically, how would they fight back? What would they do, drag out, "Gore's sigh" again?

We were right. We had the right man twice. Here's a second chance, America.

.

already proved that he cannot win a presidential election?
I think so.

Gore, on the other hand, DID win one. SCOTUS took it away.

No more Kerry. Please.

EOM

Gore believed he won. Kerry never did.
Big difference.

Gore had the courage and backbone to move it up to the supreme court and NOW he's got fire and the fearlessness this country needs to get back our democracy - which Kerry completely ducked and ran for cover.

I can forgive Gore for running a really bad campaign in 2000, (despite a bad campaign he still won) since that time he has developed perspective and learned some very important things about himself and the level of corruption while on the outside.

I think he'll do what he needs to do to win support in his home state, Tennessee - and he should pick someone like Obama for running mate - put Wes Clark in as Secretary as Defense, etc.

Kerry doesn't appear to have learned the lessons or to have the moxy to speak truth to power - which is the only way we get out of this mess.

what good would that have done?

The theives were good at it. It wasn't a theft readily proven the next day. Where did that leave Kerry and our party? Live to fight another day, that's where.

Imho.

btw...it was BUSH who took it to the Supreme Court.

BushInc had the voting machines rigged by 2004 to give them the illusion of a popular vote.

I wish Gore had used his 4 years to expose the voting machines and the fact that the GOP controls 80% of the vote counting in this country.

He would have been the best person to do that.

for abandoning the Congressional Black Caucus:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Black-Protest-Bush-Victory.htm

I don't forgive Al Gore for caving on black voting rights.

I don't forgive Al Gore for convincing Barbara Boxer not to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus.

She's apologized and so should he.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0107-02.htm

Kerry has been working since last November to rebuild the local parties party. Issues like voting systems are determined at the state level by law. Strenghening the local parties is needed to demand change. http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051010/NEWS09/510100332/1001/NEWS Gore, having identified biased media as a problem is working on that by starting a network.

Gore was down something like 537 votes, Kerry by over 100,000. Both states, run by Republicans had voting problems in the Democratic areas. The reality is the Republicans cheated and both Democrats took it as far as they could. It was closer in 2000, so Gore could fight longer; Kerry didn't have a compelling case. Both have long careers as honorable decent men.

Their actions contrast with those of lesser character. Bill Clinton Carvelle and other people associated with them are willing to essentially be dishonest, saying what will win, and seeing politics as a game to win or lose (with no scuples). He won in 1992 against a President polling in the 30s with a strong 3rd party candidate who mostly targeted the President. Both Gore, largely because of Clinton, and especially Kerry had tougher races.

We have the nefarious "Help America Vote Act of 2002". How convenient. And in 2000, people were trying to process PAPER BALLOTS. They were poorly designed to be sure. Once the repugs got the black box, they can do any freaking thing.

In HINDSIGHT, I wish Gore (and Clinton)would have dedicated themselves to shepherding a clean up the vote process that would have fixed everything. Gore is a person interested in technology who could have immediately got concepts like open source code. BUT, in 2000, the idea that there could be rampant cheating in US elections wasn't there.

Kerry was starting a Presidential run then. As such, he was getting backers and articulating his issues - just like Edwards, Dean, Gephaert etc. None of them were focused on election dirty tricks - and it realisticly can't be the job of the candidate.

I agree that this is a problem and that it needs to be fixed. Also, there is a vicious circle: National legislation to fix it is not likely to pass if the party benefitting holds the majority. But taking back the legislature, if elections are fixed, won't happen. Hard as it is, the answer may be state level legislation.

different circumstances. Actually, Kerry's run was more difficult because he faced an incumbent and a War President. Gore represented a positive time in America. The economy was good and their was no war. Gore just had to run on morality issues. Kerry actually garnered more votes than Gore and also Clinton. I say, More Kerry, Please.

I don't want Kerry anywhere near the Whitehouse. He had his chance. He blew it big time. Have your own opinion. I'll have mine.

and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

Why would an honest citizen concerned with good, honest governance find Kerry undeserving?

If that's the best Kerry can do, he cannot do.
I'll leave it to you to figure out.

to any education.

I would guess that you haven't figured out that just about everything we DO know about the BFEE is thanks to those National Security Archives and Kerry's considerable contributions to those archives and our nation's historical record.

I trust in FACTS and not how the media has been able to downplay and distort the facts to protect the Bush family.

And I don't fully trust any Democrat who actively worked against the revelations of BCCI....do you?

has it stopped? Slowed down even? I think not.

See post # 52

And I don't really care if you trust me or not. Irrelevant.

the investigation of BCCI and blocked its revelations.

Unless you were part of the powerstructure in DC who did that for the last 20 years, then I wasn't referring to you, was I?

And what did the BCCI investigation do? It gave us a blueprint of how the BFEE operates and who most of the international financiers of terror are and who they target.

Unfortunately, TOO many in the media and too many citizens ignored BCCI and shrugged off its implications. Too many shrugged off Kerry's book about the funding of global terrorism and its purpose, The New War.

Do you really think if BCCI had been fully revealed as Kerry pursued it, that this nation would not have been served?

9-11 would not have happened and no Bush would ever have been allowed in the White House again.

I didn't think so. I get tired of this argument for Kerry. Because he accomplished just what he always does. Nothing.

You seem to believe that only a lawmaker who the media promotes is worthy.

Kerry's accomplishment is that he has investigated and exposed more serious government corruption than ANY OTHER LAWMAKER in modern history.

In fact, I would challenge you to name even ONE lawmaker who has effected this nation's HISTORIC RECORD more positively than John Kerry has in the last 35 years.

His efforts helped to end three wars and exposed IranContra and BCCI. BCCI was the blueprint of the agenda of the Bush Family Evil Empire and Kerry's investigation exposed the roots of global terror, and our current policies in the world.

9-11 and a Bush presidency would never have happened if this nation had been better informed and supported Kerry's work to expose BCCI.

Instead, it was those who chose to cover up its revelations who were rewarded. And those who ignore it or distort it are complicit. Including the citizens who chose ignorance.

Do we have indictments? Anyone get thrown into jail?
Anything? He was a PROSECUTER for gawed's sake. And he doesn't know how to make a case?

Like I said. I will never change my mind. He needs to represent the the people of MA, if they are so inclined. But not me.

edit: and I refuse to belive he ended three wars. That's over the top.

the illegal wars in Central America.

Surely you must know something of his work?

Kerry was a Senator investigating the case, not the prosecutor or US attorney responsible for the end result.

When Mueller refused to prosecute federally, Kerry was undeterred and pressed for a prosecution by the state of NY and Robert Morgenthau who did succeed with part of the case.

That act kept the case open for more discovery and investigation. Kerry even kept an office open to work on BCCI when the case was officially closed by Bush and then Clinton.

Would you discount any work of Conyers or Waxman over the last few years because there are no prosecutions?

Should they not bother with the historic record at a time when the GOP controlled media shapes national perception?

with what could be construed as a guilt factor for 911 on my shoulders.

I'm not in public office. If Kerry knows all and tells all, why the fuck didn't he do anything?

He did plenty, but an entire DC powerstructure was working to diffuse and distort his work.

That is why the National Security Archives are so important. It preserves the factual record which the corporate media seeks to ignore or cover up.

An informed citizen relies the facts of history. When we ignore the historic record it makes Limbaugh's job alot easier.

I speak about the citizenry in general terms like as the general public.

If you were ignoring the terror warnings and ignoring the work of John Kerry and Robert Morgenthau, then you are not unlike the general public who was misled and left uninformed by a corporate media who refused to discuss the import of their work or the subsequent consequences.

I blame the lawmakers and the media more than the citizenry. I blame people like me, who knew about it but did not push it further at the time and support Kerry with the same fervor we now have against the Bush regime who took advantage of our complacency then.

on blaming the lawmakers.

You do not think this nation would have been better served to have discussed Kerry's book THE NEW WAR in 1997 instead of Ann Coulter's or Bill O'Reilly's polemics against Clinton and the Democrats?

That was the media's doings. And it was up to informed citizens to try to keep the focus on what was important for the country. The corporate media was a huge obstacle in that endeavor.

My perception is that John Kerry rolled over and said, no go ahead and let my buddy Bush have the job. And I defy anyone to say differently. He BLEW his lead in the debates. He could have cooked Bush's ass. Did he? oh. no. He let Bush keep his job. Kerry's JOB was to replace Bush. He failed. Miserably.

The RNC outmaneuvered the DNC for the years leading up to Nov. 2004, which also allowed for the voting machines to go unchallenged.

The left leaning and objective media got their asses handed to them on a daily basis by a RW media machine that controlled the message.

Hell, you could even say that Free Republic bested DU by virtue of the fact that Cspan and corporate media gave them credibility while labeling DU as too fringe.

Does that make it true? Is Free Republic a legitimate source? Did we fail miserably because the corporate media defined us?

And you said you agreed with blame ONLY for the lawmakers who ignored the facts reBCCI and its consequences we are forced to live with today. That is why I questioned your regard of the media's share in the blame.

while he was in the race? Or SINCE? Did he challenge ONE VOTE? NO!

Listen. You are obviously in love with this guy. Take it private if you want. We need a LEADER. A WINNER. This guy ain't it.

Why do you feel the need to try to convince those of us who VOTE Democratic that a lame horse needs to run again.

I think you need to reconsider your position.

some real history.

May I ask why you think Kerry is the one in charge of the voting machines when it is clearly the duty of the DNC to insure fair voting for ALL the candidates on the ballot? What leader in the Democratic party has publicly gone after the voting machines? Gore should have when we first found out about it. He had the time and the techsavvy to do it. He chose not to. Maybe he's only finding out about it now just like Kerry is. But they want to know for sure and need the proper access to the machines to pull it off.

Is it not possible that you don't factor in much of actual history or the roles of various organizations and their duties in your quest to blame Kerry for everything?

YOU and me failed in 2004. Freepers won.

DNC failed. RNC won.

Air America and left media failed. Rush and all GOPcontrolled media won.

Record registration of new voters failed. Electronic voting machines won.

Get it?

to every question. I do not want to debate this with you any longer.

You seem to be oblivious to the obvious.

Kerry didn't know about the voting machines? WHY NOT? And he wants to lead the country? GIVE ME A BREAK! It is their DUTY to be informed. Clueless is what we have, not what we NEED.

.

Howard Dean.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/features/2004/05/25/demand_records.php

E-voting requires blind faith that computer systems will work perfectly. There is no way to do a recount, so we have to accept whatever the machines say.

E-voting machine manufacturers claim that printing vote totals or copies of ballots from the machine memory satisfies the legal requirement (under the Help America Vote Act) for a "manual audit capacity". Don't try handing the IRS a second copy of your tax filing when you're audited -- they'll demand the original records!

...

Dennis Kucinich

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/e_voting.php

Electronic Voting
Democracy today is at risk by the very instrument that seeks to uphold it. Electronic voting machines with meager security and significant technical flaws threaten to undermine our voting rights and thus the reliability of the election process. Without federal review and software testing, these voting machines are being marketed by companies and bought by states at an alarming rate. We cannot wait for Congress to pass legislation to address this danger. We, the people, must take action NOW to ensure the accuracy and integrity of upcoming elections.


There's two. For starters.

to expose the machines? If they were doing it ACTIVELY back then, while Kerry was campaigning and debating, then why didn't they work on exposing the machines BEFORE the election?

And what evidence have they gathered?

I am sticking by my assertion that Dean and Kerry are working quietly behind the scenes now to access the machines legally through the secretary of state races.

They are working to put in savvy candidates aware of the voting problems and they will be better able to expose the machines and those operatives who control their input and output.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ad hominem attacks as replies are generally regarded as unhelpful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2147223&mesg_id=2152032

If "ad hominem attacks" are 'unhelpful', why do you persist?

There was nothing argumentum ad hominem in my reply.

I think that's a scientfic principle.

I cannot do this windy dance with you. You continue to change refernece points. Can't stick with the subject.

You obviously do not want to gain any information in this debate.
You have an already stated agenda.
Kerry at ALL COSTS .. even 4 more years of George W. Bush.

So thank you very much. We'll take over from here.

However, so far, you've proven you are unwilling to do that.

there are some who believe they have evidence that Kerry USED the electronic voting devices to get Dean out of the Primaries. Some say that. They really do.

He practically predicts 9/11 in one passage. That book was another definite step in my evolution from ABB to Kerry supporter. Most impressed was I.

As a result, when he talks on the subject of terrorism, I know I am listening to an authority on the subject, and so I must respect his point of view, even if I don't always share it.

What fools these Americans be if they could not tell that they would be safer with Kerry than Bush.

Oddly, the letter recently intercepted from one of Bin Laden's people, the one that talks of a Muslim superstate, reminded me of exactly what Kerry talked about (in one of the debates I believe, actually)

why hasn't Kerry said squat about Black Box Voting?

He does not belong near the white house, and to be honest, too early to make predictions, but Kerry should just stay home

Dean are emphasizing sec of state races. They want to access the machines and are putting up smart, savvy candidates to do it. I expect them to expose the machines and those who control their input and output PUBLICLY.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't acknowledge Kerry's enormous contributions to this country needs to visit the National Security Archives. There's a huge chunk of American history that is being ignored.

Kerry is probably the only Democrat who would get into the WH and allow historians and the public to see the real documents on IranContra and BCCI that are CRUCIAL to everything that is happening today.

Most others have gone out of their way to accomodate BushInc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And to what end? What we have already? Zip. Zero. Nada.

Because some of us are women and because, on the whole, many of us are issue oriented than average. As to "good ole boys", that is less true of the Kerry followers than of say Clinton followers. I know I am not a "professional promoter" and I don't think the other john Kerry group people are either. I find nothing fascist in any of the many threads in the Kerry group. (Kerry is very unlikely to attract fascists as supporters because of who he is and what he has done.)

I was one who questioned why you went to an informational thread that was talking about some work Kerry is doing to invigorate the party at the grassroots level to say "Not Kerry". YOU SOUGHT OUT A Kerry thread, not the other way around. Kerry's stated view that as former nominee, a Senator, and a public person he feels a responsibility to try to help the Democratic party is welcome and it doesn't (as many people mention in the article) mean he should get the nomination again. I take this at face value, while knowing that doing good in 2005 - 2006 helps in 2008.

How many 2008 possibilities have gone to Iowa? Even if Kerry were JUST concerned with 2008, why does he have less right to try? The primaries will determine the nominee.

you are a sincere blogger and that you are one of us in our hope that
that the sinister grip of the Republican administration can be loosed
in order for America and Americans to try to regain some of the freedom and glory that was once ours. And if this is the case, our posts need not have a adversarial tone.

1. I am firmly convinced that Kerry is not our best choice for the Presidential candidacy 2008. I see a good many posts on DU that disagree with my opinion. That's to be expected. I responded to the post about Kerry's recent political activities in Iowa because it appeared to me that those actions were the first stages of his intentions to run again for President. My statement, "Please not Kerry" or whatever I actually said was simply my one voice that opposed the idea of Kerry as our candidate. I was creeping around DU looking for Kerry comments. I was doing what I do every day, scanning the last political posts for anything of interest to me.

2. My use of the term "good ole boys" was meant as a generic term that had no literal relationship to gender. The last thing I would do is to denigrate women. In the first place, with regard to national American politics, statistics indicate that women are showing better judgments about their political choices than are men.
I'm familiar with the common use of "good ole boy". But, my usage has morphed (in my mind) to any group of like minded people who are loosely joined in some sort of social agenda.

3. I suggested the possibility that the Kerry supporters were a committee of people that were organized for the purpose of systematically slapping down any opposition to Kerry's next campaign. I could have been in error. I just voiced my opinion, largely due to the immediate and vociferous attacks on my simple
negative comment. If I'm wrong about you and the others, I'm glad. I'd like to think all of the DU'ers are honest Americans, intent upon
getting rid of Bush and his fellow criminals.

4. Kerry has every right to make any political moves he so chooses. Just has I the right to suspect that those moves have ulterior motives. How can any of us not become suspicious of most politicians?

5. I have no convincing evidence the Kerry himself is a fascist. Yet, those who chose to install him as the Democratic candidate in 2004, particularly the media are most definitely either fascists or consorting with them. Kerry himself could have been as innocent as new snow while being used by more malevolent entities. There are indeed wheels within wheels.

Our brief posts on DU generally leave out the needed details in order that meanings are crystal clear. As you can see, I'm not a gifted writer. If we are actually on the same general political side but are now viewing each other as adversaries, you might attribute that to my less that precise writing techniques. I'll continue to try to improve.

ladjf

1) and 4) I understand you don't want Kerry. There are endless threads where people are pushing candidates. This wasn't one of them. It was informational and talked of Kerry's grassroots efforts. I do understand that IOWA sets off red flags - but Kerry did the same thing at 5 events one Saturday in NJ (NJ has a June primary - we are USELESS) I went to the local event in NJ - at minimum the county now has a list (phone numbers and emails) of over 450 possible volunteers.

Another NJ location (Edison) was primarily Indian (as in India). In NJ this is a fast growing, VERY well educated group - it is great that a major Democrat spoke to them. (That it was one on the SFRC who is very well informed on Indian/Pakistani issues was a plus).

I am smart enough to know that this may very well signal Kerry wants to run again. Well, he can - and he can win or lose the nomination. I think it is fascinating that he is working so hard on building the party. He could easily take an easier path and simply enjoy life as a Senator with his wonderful family. If he gave up the idea of a Presidential run, he would likely find himself at some point in the future, the greatly esteemed Senior Senator from Massachusetts.

There is nothing in Kerry's actions that could be called ulterior motives. At worst, he is doing good things so people will look more favorably on him as a person and a possible President.

2) I understand the term "good ole boy" and was being snarky in the first comment. That said, a cursory reading of literature on Kerry would show he is not a "good ole boy" in the Senate or elsewhere. He was criticised more for being a loner (which is a strech for someone with many 40 + year friends) and commended for standing alone when he thought it was right.

3) Although I can't speak for the group, the Kerry group may be more intense than other groups, because we had invested so much hope and were bitterly disappointed - not just because Bush was still there,but for a great feeling of loss of someone we thought could make an exceptional President. We saw the CSPAN rallies, read some of the books and really saw a very unique statesman. Also, the group became a safe haven while the main forums focused all their anger on Kerry. People still will make comments about Kerry, that would likely get them tombstoned if said about Dean, Clark, or recently Gore. This leads me to sometimes be too ready to defend Kerry - when defense may not be needed. So, simple comments like yours, may get more response than they deserve. (But do you go to all threads on other candidates saying "No, Candidate X" or just Kerry.)

5) You say: "I have no convincing evidence the Kerry himself is a fascist." This sentence is indefensible and inappropriate - There is compelling proof that Kerry is NOT fascist. He has fought Fascists his entire life, possibly more consistently than anyone else I know of. (His actions against the Contras - when the very popular Reagan supported them alone should prevent this comment.) Substitute Dean, Clark, or your own name here - how do you react to the sentence?

Then you imply he was a dupe for Fascists who made him the candidate.
Kerry and people who believed in him made him the nominee. You have been annoyed with BLM's attempts to remind you that it was Kerry who pursued investigations that the powers that be and the media preferred to not have. After several years of very dilligent work, Kerry proved the contra drug running - but Newsweek simply called him a randy conspiracy buff and he was left off te Iran/Contra hearings where Congress essentially destroyed the case. On BCCI, it was only Kerry who chose to do the right thing. Think about it, if you were a fascist would you WANT to give Kerry a shot at the Presidency or would he be your worst nightmare? (As someone in the Kerry group once fantasized, which secret documents would Kerry ask for first just to satisfy curiousity if he were President? After a career of fighting tooth and nail to get them)

You might make a better case, that the problem with Kerry is that the media doesn't want things currently hidden under the rug with their complicity to come out and he is the candidate they can least control. Kerry has somehow made it through over 22 years in office without being corrupted. (He's not a saint (nor is he running to be one), but he is a very sincere honest politician).

He was not the candidate who had money or media helping him - his candidacy was near dead in Dec 2003. He mortgaged his house to get money and he won though very normal basic campaigning in Iowa.

that you've got a lot more energy in support of Kerry than I do in opposition. I thank you for taking so much of your time and thought into crafting a response to my earlier message.

As for me, I'm basically in political shock as a result of the damage that has been done by the Republicans over the past few years.
Somehow they must be stopped. Their destructiveness goes far beyond mere U.S. politics. They are pillaging the entire planet. Obviously, there are natural laws that will eventually step in and bring this crazy cycle to an end. However, it would be better if positive action by concerned people could bring that about sooner rather than later.

A more likely scenario is that after the U.S. government goes bankrupt, as did the U.S.S.R., a more stable, wealthy and therefore more powerful Country (such as China) will decide to "finish us off". Maybe even a coalition of U.N. members would decide that we've gone far enough.

I wish that I were as enthusiastic about any possible opposition candidate as you are about Kerry. At the point I seem to only have aversions to certain front runners, Senator Clinton in particular.
Maybe it's not realistic, but I want a candidate who sees the dangers
of fascism and who would work to move us toward a government that favors the common people rather than the rich. I don't think that person is likely to come from the ranks of the wealthy, old family blue bloods.

I absolutely disagree with you on welcoming either the economic collapse or a military invasion of this country by China or a coalition. Please think about what you are saying. As bad as Bush is both of those things would be infinitely worse.

Responsible Democratic leaders are working as hard as they can seeking out moderate Republicans to moderate what Bush wants to do. Some parts of Bush's legislative agenda may lose because of that. They need the support of Democrats, not brick bats or temper tantrums, because they can't do more.

I am more enthusiastic about Kerry than any candidate in my lifetime - because he has stayed truer to his values than any politician I know of. Listening to Teresa and his daughters, it is clear that they share his values and respect him for them.

As to your contention, that we need someone not from a wealthy family, Dean,who grew up in an apartment on Park Avenue in NYC, was from a far wealthier family. Kerry is from an old family, but he was never personally wealthy until very recently. Kerry worked part-time and for part of the summers when he was at Yale for spending money. His aunt payed for his schooling. He did not contest the view that he was wealthy and connected because he recognized that in real terms it was true - in spite of the fact that he was less rich than all his friends.

He was given a privileged education and was a well accepted member of a group of friends who had ski lodges, yachts and other luxuries at their fingertips. When Kerry joined his friends in running around Europe for part of a summer, they stayed at his grandparents' estate in Normandy and their families' and family friends' estates elsewhere. Not a lifestyle most of us could aspire too.

If wealth were his goal, his family and school connections plus his intelligence and energy would have quickly made him a wealthy man. In Tour of Duty, there are a few pages talking about his very brief career as a private lawyer. This is the only time in his life that he made a lot of money. Although very successful, he didn't feel satisfied doing the personal injury work that made Edwards rich (and Kerry was at least as spell binding). He spent the rest of his life in public service.

For much of his time in the Senate, he lived with friends in both DC and Massachusetts because the cost of private school education and child support for his daughters and his commitment to returning to Massachusetts every week to be with his daughters left him unable to afford apartments in both places. (Although he bought an expensive bicycle). So, as in his youth, the natural hospitality of his wealthy friends allowed him to live well when he couldn't afford it. A choice few people would have. What he didn't do was to sell his position - which many politicians effectively do. It's clear the 2 things that mattered to him were his daughters and his job in the Senate.

The real question is whether he can relate to the problems middle class and lower class people have. Vanessa Kerry talked about how traveling the country and seeing how hard for some people made it so hard to lose as these people really needed the help Kerry would have more chance to bring as President. Judging from Kerry's rhetoric, I think that he also became more aware of other people's situations last year. He had always been sympathetic, but he genuinely seems to be outraged at the way the poor are treated and has worked on legislation to help them.

In no way did I mean to say that I wanted America to be taken over by any other Country. I was stating what I thought might eventually happen if things continue in the directions in which they are now headed. I thought that I was making myself clear that such an eventuality would be the ultimate disaster for us.

Those of us who rise to Kerry's defense when we see RW talking points twisted around and regurgitated as progressive outrage do not do so out of any "agenda." We do so because we genuinely believe in him, something that is rare in the political world, and thus confuses those who look for agendas behind every word.

Since you've been "posting for years," you deem yourself an expert on other people's motives. Well, guess what? I voted for DEAN in the primaries, and I happen to know that a number of other Kerry supporters who "get his back" also voted for Dean or Clark or Kucinich, and even worked on their campaigns. But we were won over by Kerry as we got to know him better, and that is why we are so devoted to him now.

You are certainly welcome to your beliefs about Kerry and to post whatever you like, but when you accuse other DUers of being in some conspiracy to screw the Democratic Party and call them "pro fascists," you have gone way over the line.

The two guys that got more votes then any other Democratic canidate in history. But I think Gore isn't allowed to serve as Vice-President again so it would probably have to be a "Gore/Kerry" ticket.

It could happen if they both run and we don't have a clear cut nominee going into the convention and they team up against a third canidate (Hillary, Bayh, Edwards, Clark, Warner, Richardson).

But I'm sure some of the future replies to this message won't like the idea of a Gore/Kerry ticket and will promote and push for Wesley Clark.

puts Kerry on the ticket again, I'm outa here.

It's Gore or its Kerry, and Gore is the better candidate. Still, I will back with ever fiber of my being (just like the last time) whomever is the party's nominee and anyone who doesn't will be responsible to my eyes for letting the devil win...again.

To quote Arianna Huffington, you don't remodel when the house is on fire.

I think Gore isn't allowed to serve as Vice-President again so WHY? Where is that written?

outcomes to decide who to vote for. Situations and running conditions were different. Personally, I would go with John Kerry over Gore, because Gore has been removed from what has been going on for a while. He retreated and grew a beard. John Kerry has continued to take the harassment hurled at him by the right and has still be there to support we the people.

I agree.

Gore, to me has more integrity than Kerry and more real fight.

Kerry is the consumate politician.

nt

Gore has earned the top ticket. Kerry has not earned the second ticket.

Any of these tickets would clean the Rethugs' clock, especially since their party is imploding now with the Miers nomination. We can help the process along by categorically rejecting Miers and rubbing a little more salt into Bush's wound. No more Swift-Boating-- Bush and his ilk are finished as a political force.

Can't the Democrats do better than that? Does the DLC have to always sabotage the Democratic Party's presidential aspirations?

If you think the candidate who best appeals to the cameras and is somehow magically "pretty" enough to solve this nation's massive, complex, ever-deepening (and multiplying) crises is the best person for the job...go vote for Arnold. God damn. And people say it's the Republicans who have the obsession with winning at all costs, even with terrible, unqualified nominees. Sad.

Pretty enough to get *elected*. I really think that we need to acknowledge this aspect of politics. It doesn't matter if you have the most brilliant political scientist in the world - if he or she is short, nerdy looking, bad at public speaking, they will never win when up against a dumb person with charisma.

Whether you agree or not, the "Kerry = stuffy intellectual" and "Gore = boooorrrring" labels have stuck. Many people are smart enough to actually look for qualifications over star power, but not enough to win an election in a country where people are specifically interested in who looks better on TV.

Bill Clinton is smart and charismatic. Good enough to do the job, and good enough to be "popular" and capture votes. We need another person like that.

Every campaign is different. The 1968 campaign was about the "New Nixon," the southern strategy and law and order. The 1960 campaign was about Nixon's anti-communist credentials and his used-car-salesman persona.

Gore is speaking to SRO crowds who wait hours to hear him talk about the decline of democracy and the grave threat of climate change. He is the most charismatic figure in the party today. A 2008 convention with crowds roaring their approval of a visionary Gore as the nominee will set a new tone.

The bloggers won't allow the MSM to do what they did in 2000. If Chris Matthews and Ceci Connolly, etc., try their lies and spin again the bloggers will debunk their crap in real time. That didn't happen in 2000.

Kerry was half-asleep during his campaign. He didn't even have the b*lls to defend himself with the truth when attacked. I don't think he's got what it takes to win against these Republican rats.

I would also guess that you got your news from Fox News. Kerry was very active and he did come out and defend himself. It would have been nice if he received additional help from other Dems and even those of us who worked to support him. I personally think he has what it takes and he proved that by coming close to winning over an incumbent, War President. Most of what Kerry talked about during the campaign has come to be. He is honest, intelligent and not afraid to speak the truth. He also actually received more votes than both Clinton and Gore. I would love to see him run again. I would be willing to devote my time and some money to see him try again.

I made calls, took time off work, gave money, I almost gave my firstborn. When the not-so-swiftboaters began to lie, and Kerry said nothing for weeks, I began to die inside. Every day that passed in which he said nothing, I thought I was going out of my mind. My efforts were going to hell. I'm not saying he has bad ideas. I'm not saying he's not brilliant. However, he wasted my time, my money, my efforts, my hope. :( I want someone else. I want a Dean. Someone who's not afraid to speak out.

Then the debates. Who couldn't wipe out Bush with a couple of words? Certainly Kerry could've! Kerry is highly intelligent. But he didn't. Instead, he decided to be sweet n' friendly.

Never again. I'm exhausted. Beat.

Could not agree more. We had to put our faith where it needed to be. And we got let down. Big time. I don't understand this love affair with Kerry. He's invisble now. Howard isn't. There's a huge difference in ethics implied there.

If he had showed a tenth of the power against George that he had for Howard Dean, he might have actually won. As if that's what he wanted, and as far as I'm concerned never showed such a thing. He acted like a LOSER .. an also ran. That's it!

We followed the election closely. Do not think we did not.

Kerry did NOT defend himself. The swift boaters got him nails down. He did nothing. Bush got him in the debates. I thought Kerry performed very well there, but cheering on George W. Bush during a Presidential debate is low class, loser status. That's what I saw. And then the hugs. Don't forget the hugs. Laura and Theresa all huggy and Bush and Kerry all huggy. Excuse me. But we did not need hugs right then. We needed a leader. One we did not get.

I'm so sorry that some seem to think that Kerry has ANYTHING to offer to the national arena. He doesn't want the job. Let him off the hook.

but he chose not to defend it

BBV was never mentioned, he let us down

Sorry... he is a brilliant man, and has served his country well, but not as a president, he failed us there.

from the swifties?

The facts were there in the print media investigations, but the broadcast media wouldn't give them the airtime that they gave to the GOP liars.

And Kerry DID do his job...in the man to man matchup with Bush, Kerry won all 3 debates DECISIVELY.

It was the DNC who matched up [oorly against the onslaught of the RNC, and it was the objective and left-leaning media who couldn't break through the daily messaging from the RW media machine.

I note you can use the words "media" and "DECISIVELY".

He DECISIVELY LOST. Get it? He doesn't get another chance and I again propose that you reconsider your position and find someone to Lead our Country out of the mess that George made.

see the debates? Handshakes and backslapping all around.

It was disgusting. A war monger liar, thief, environmental rapist president being back slapped by OUR supposed leader. No. There has to be a better way. Kerry ain't it. He had his chance. And he FAILED. F-

If Kerry refused to shake hands, he would have looked like a jerk and lost at least 10 points overnight for rudeness. Or would you have preferred Kerry insist on a duel - he was on Yale's fencing team - and come prepared with 2 swords?

Kerry looked, acted and sounded Presidential - which was the only sensible thing to do.

I did. Kerry gave COMPLIMENTS TO BUSH! FER CRYING OUT LOUD .. that is not a debate. It's a love fest.

Using major party players.

Two failed candidates, teaming up to fail again.

Regardless of how you think the elections actually turned out, they're not going to have a campaign based on the premise that both men should really be president, and that is not the public perception. They'd look like a bunch of losers.

As long as Kerry keeps his motorcade out of Nashville it just might work!

(kidding there)

that it's about two years too early to be even thinking about this --let's make sure the 2006 elections are honest and then accurately counted first -- neither of those two will be on the ticket in 08.

Kerry crumbled immediately, after initially saying he wouldn't concede until all the votes were counted.

Gore sort of fought, but not very well, and then the day the electoral college votes were counted he refused to pay any attention to the Black Congressional Caucus. Go watch the opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in case you've forgotten.

Instead of trying to handicap a presidential race three years out, do what you can to get Democrats elected next year. Run for office yourself. Help out someone who is running. Become a precinct committee chair. And forget about John Kerry and Al Gore.

Remember, the official vote count was supposed to be announced that day.
Of course it wasn't.

edit: These people who want to sally forth with JOHN KERRY frustrate me. NO WAY! If this party doesn't get a freaking GRIP we are destined to be ruled by fascists. Does that occur to anyone else? Either that or we find our own rule. I won't put up with pansy pants "leaders" any more. This is too serious.

while Kerry obstucted your work for twenty years.

You were SO brave and determined while Kerry was such a pansy. He even let Clinton cover up BCCI and didn't even bother to warn the country about the global financing of terror.

Oh wait...yes he did...he wrote The New War. It was the media and the public who were the pansies who didn't bother to read it.

The best I can be in my capaicity as a private citizen. Yes I am.

That's why we have ELECTIONS (hint)... they are called REPRESENTATIVES (huge hint).

I see you have not been able to produce one shread of evidence that John Kerry ever did anything to avert what some people propose he defined as the adversary.

HELL! HE couldn't even fight the Swift Boat guys. DUH! He's a WAR HERO? We're in a war here and I do not want John fighting on my behalf. I don't think he's up for it.

Again. What did he do? Investigate. That helped NOTHING. Life goes on.

whatever makes the national discussion is the only thing that happens in this country.

The byproduct of a corporate media.

IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America may not mean much to those who disdain the historic record.

They mean everything to those concerned with honest governance and the consequences of ignoring the facts revealed there.

Ignoring the historic record allowed another Bush presidency and 9-11.

to do with allowing George W. Bush any public forum. Never voted for him, never will.

I know plenty about the historic records. I'm just pragmatic. Looking for RESULTS. Which, to date have not been forthcoming, especially from John Kerry. So we will need to hide and watch, ever hopeful that their dastardly deeds will catch up with them.

If anyone is culpable here it is John Kerry. He has power. I have very little. If he truly found corruption (which I have no doubt), and did NOTHING to stop it, then he is to blame. Not me.

many of who actually tried to stop him.

Can you even NAME one other lawmaker who would work for FIVE years alone pushing to disclose serious evidence against BushInc?

If you actually knew the congressional record, I doubt you would act as if the revelations are unimportant or would dare point a finger at Kerry instead of at the hundreds of Republicans and scores of Democrats who worked against him. You would KNOW that most Dems refused to work with Kerry or promote the BCCI case in the public eye.

THE powers in the GOP and Dem party had the DC power structure and controlled the media perception. Kerry had GOP operatives working the press against him and his work and was labeled a "conspiracy theory nut" while the press ignored the facts that showed that what he said was TRUE and BCCI was shut down. It wasn't shut down because of a conspiracy theory nut was it?

why did he backslap Bush at every opportunity during the debates?
Good ole' boy time?

I have my own theory about what you're putting forth, but I don't care to disclose it.

Bottom line. He LOST. And didn't give a damn.

And he is working still. He and Dean are both emphasizing the sec of state races all over the country.

I believe they intend to use that position to get into the actual machines and expose their vulnerabilities and the people who own and control their input and output. They have tapped savvy candidates for those offices who wiill be sharpening their focus on the machines.

I expect the GOP will be too intimidated to rig the machines in 2006. And I expect them to be publicly exposed before 2008.

Kerry is used to working behind the scenes to preserve historic record and is also accustomed to being unheralded for his efforts by the media and the public.

well have a nice day. I sense there is a mood of denial in the air.
But we will move on.

The National Security Archives is the best place to learn the facts.

but thanks for the tip.

But, I will not let that determine what the facts of history are for me.

I never pay attention to what they say. I don't even own a t.v.

The corporate media is not my boogy man.
I respect your energy.

:D

as BLM has shown most of the people we usually think should have been on our side weren't. Clinton was President for 8 years.

When Kerry was forced to close down his investigation, he did everything he humanly could.
- He took the evidence to the Justice Department (they did nothing)
- He took it to Mongenthau (who with the UK) acted against BCCI, which was later shown to have been used by Bin Laden.
- He wrote a summary of items he thought still needed investigation One was that BCCI funded the development of Pakistan's bomb and Kerry felt they needed to investigate if Khan (the father of the bomb) was selling nucleur technology or materials **** which it turns out they were - to North Korea, Iran and Syria*****

Consider both points: Kerry spent 5 years fighting everyone to do this - is it possible BCCI could have been shut down before Pakistan got the bomb. Did both Bush I and Clinton make the world more dangerous by not LETTING Kerry investigate. There wasn't much he could do without Supoena power or a comittee.

- lacking any official function on this - Kerry did what he could - He wrote a book.

- Oh, and if you ask why he didn't go on TV to try to talk about this, you may have to explain why the Boston area RW nutcases ended up calling him "live shot" because he tried to get TV time.

So tell me what more the guy was supposed to do and seeing that you don't want him on the ticket - who do you want?

for outlining yet more of John Kerry's failures.

He's a SENATOR for crissakes. Those guys form committees. They work in tandem. He couldn't even get a COMMITTEE?

We may have been better off having someone else in charge of this "investigation". Ya think?

He wrote a couple of books, didn't he? One of which was used against him during the election.

He can't even get a committee together and you think he can influence the hearts and minds of Americans to make him President?
No thanks.

The Democratic party (as well as the Republican party) pressured Kerry to stop. There were Democratic money men and party officals with dirty hands. BCCI bought off both parties by giving them money. The committee was started with a specified life - when that ended, noone supported Kerry. He took enormous risks, both personally and career wise to do this. He also got the committee set up in the beginning. (Initially there was a Republican Senator (Brown?) on the committee - but he left the Senate.)

NO ONE ELSE was willing to take this or the Contra drug running on. NO ONE. So, should Kerry have said no one else wants to do this, there's likely no political gain in this, it could damage my career - I'll do something easier with a group of other Senators.

Do you thing it was important to:
- Shine a light on the immoral act of bringing drugs into the US to fund the contras, thereby ending it.
- Pursueing a bank with terrorist ties, and using contacts outside of the Senate play a part in closing it down.

Kerry pushed the significance of the danger - Question why neither Dashle or President Clinton re-opened the issue. My reaction to the question of why didn't Kerry have several Senators helping on these issues, is that THEY weren't acting in our interest.

But I'd like Gore/Clark, Gore/Edwards, or Gore/Obama too.

I know Kerry would have a hard time running as VP because he tried for President (and he won) but for the good of our country I think these two together would be just what we needed to heal. They are both very strong on the environment too.

I like Kerry too--got nothing against him, and he worked like a S.O.B. last year, but fact of the matter is, he still has that "I voted for the war before I voted against it" stigma (something I never held against him!), and for most Independents & Progressives, and a good number of Dems, but ALL Repubs (tho they don't really count), there's no excusing it.

On the other hand, BOTH Al Gore and Gen. Wesley Clark were against the war from the git-go; Gore not getting much air-time because of a Repub-friendly broadcast, and print media that just wanted him to go away, but in everything he says, and writes...he's been against the war from the beginning which is why he supported Howard Dean last pres. election, instead of his old (and antiquated) running mate, Joe Lieberman PLUS he's as close to an expert environmentalist as a politician could come, AND passionate about it.

Clark too, at a time when it was highly UNpopular to say anything negative about the rush up to, and impending war in Iraq, was on just about every broadcast talking-heads' show (because of his military credentials) and was clearly against the U.S./Iraq war even-though he was shouted down by fellow generals and talking-heads.

To Clark's credit, he was tough, and fearless, and didn't let it get to him, but maintained his stance (back then and from then on) that we should allow the U.N Inspectors more time (or as long as it takes) before committing our troops to this dangerous, and illegal war.

Both Gore and Clark are, in my mind and knowing the anti-Democratic news media, the best ticket for 2008--IF we can get our easily corruptible election systems corrected before then.

Otherwise, everything is just for naught...

No thanks.

at this point. They've both been elected to the higher office, and have made The Transition to the mindset of men prepared to be Presidential. I cannot see any scenario in which either could agree to play second-string to the other. I also can't see those two agreeing to run together due to the ideological and strategic differences between them.

to accept VP under the right circumstances. Perhaps, a similar job description to the one Chaney follows. I think Kerry would do what ever he felt was in the best interests of this country. Gore would never accept being VP again. He already held that post. I don't think he has any interest in revisiting this position.

the Iraq invasion. No Clinton.

honestly. Blaming the IWR for war is a false assumption and lets Bush completely off the hook for not adhering to the IWR's guidelines.

Interesting that the Republican noise machines also claim that Bush went to war with the IWR but never mention that he went AGAINST the guideline that a decision should be reached by the president AFTER weapons inspections and after proof is given the president that an invasion is necessary.

DSM proved that he didn't administer IWR with integity, but, enough on the left give Bush cover by keeping the focus of blame on the IWR and any Dem who voted for it.

season. I don't want these bums either.

Garry Trudeau is a Skull and Bonesman!



Run for your lives! And don't forget your roll of tinfoil!!!

editor is a "bonesman", I'll pass on ever reading it. We need a Democratic candidate who will do real work and care about the middle and lower income Americans rather that the ultra rich.

10/05/2005 John Kerry on Senate Defeat of LIHEAP Amendment
10/04/2005 Senate to Debate Kerry LIHEAP Amendment This Week
10/03/2005 Statement on the Nomination of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice
09/29/2005 Kerry, Durbin, Solis, Hastings Fight to Protect Public Health And Environmental Equality in the Gulf Coast
09/26/2005 John Kerry Addresses American Competitiveness
09/23/2005 John Kerry Joins Effort to Protect Communities' Rights to Provide Broadband Services
09/22/2005 Kerry Introduces Plan to Combat Global HIV/AIDS, Neglected Diseases
09/21/2005 John Kerry Opposes Roberts’ Nomination for Chief Justice
09/21/2005 Remarks by Senator John Kerry on His Opposition to Judge Roberts' Nomination for Chief Justice
09/20/2005 John Kerry Addresses African American Prostate Cancer Summit; Demands Washington Address Racial Disparities
09/19/2005 John Kerry Addresses the Lessons of Katrina
09/15/2005 John Kerry Responds to President Bush’s Speech to the Nation
09/15/2005 Senate Passes Kerry Legislation to Provide Tax Relief, Help Guard and Reserve Troops Hurt By Katrina
09/14/2005 John Kerry: Administration Must Investigate Gas Price Gouging
09/13/2005 John Kerry Statement on President Bush’s Failure to Respond to Hurricane’s Devastation
09/13/2005 OTIS REMAINS OPEN FOR NEW MISSION
09/12/2005 Senator John Kerry on Resignation of FEMA Director
09/09/2005 John Kerry Says SBA Must be Held Accountable for Misuse of 9/11 Funds
09/09/2005 John Kerry Offers Major Package of Legislation to Help Small Businesses, Others Devastated by Hurricane Katrina
09/07/2005 Kerry, Kennedy and Meehan Demand EPA Cleans Up Water Contamination at W.R. Grace Superfund Site
09/07/2005 Kennedy, Kerry Announce Introduction of Lowell Park Expansion Legislation
09/06/2005 Senator Kerry Applauds Fight to Keep Otis Open, A-10s at Barnes
09/04/2005 Senator John Kerry on the Passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist
08/26/2005 Senator John Kerry on BRAC Commission’s Decision on Otis and Barnes Air National Guard Bases
08/26/2005 STATEMENT FROM SENATOR JOHN KERRY ON BRAC VOTES ON HANSCOM
08/25/2005 Senator John Kerry Commends Decision of BRAC to Keep Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Open
08/23/2005 John Kerry Says Proposed Fuel Economy Standards Don’t Address Problems with Foreign Oil, High Gas Prices
08/17/2005 SENATOR KERRY, SENATOR KENNEDY ANNOUNCE GRANT FOR MEDFORD LAW ENFORCEMENT
08/17/2005 SENATORS KERRY AND KENNEDY ANNOUNCE FEDERAL GRANT TO WEST SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY
08/17/2005 SENATORS KERRY AND KENNEDY ANNOUNCE FEDERAL GRANT TO WEST SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR FINGERPRINTING TECHNOLOGY
08/13/2005 Senator John Kerry Delivered Democratic Hispanic Radio Address on Saturday August 13, 2005
08/13/2005 Senador de Massachussets, John Kerry, Emite el Mensaje Semanal Demócrata por Radio
08/12/2005 Senator John Kerry Delivered Democratic Hispanic Radio Address
08/10/2005 Kerry, Kennedy, Romney and Delahunt Say New Calculations Show Defense Department Overstates Savings from Closing Otis ANGB by $500 Million Dollars
08/09/2005 John Kerry Says Energy Policy Fails Americans

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/press-statement.cfm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Strange kind of Presidential candidate. Drop off the radar screen.
That's fine with me though. He needs to drop off.

I don't understand the Kerry-mania either. It is spelled L.O.S.E.R.

...then you're missing out.

I'm sure you haven't kept up on what Kerry has been doing (which is a lot)...He hasn't dropped off the radar screen. Perhaps you don't know where the radar screen is.

You made the statement "he wasn't too active after the 2004 election.", which is false. Kerry and Edwards and their legal team have been and continue to fight for investigations regarding the Ohio, Florida and other election results. Also, perhaps you don't know that a concession speech is not legally binding...what should Kerry have done? Go to the White House and taken over the building?

Perhaps you might look a little bit more openly at what Kerry is ACTUALLY doing instead of trash him. I do that for any other candidate that has a track record. It's called being honest and above board.

Perhaps if I said Kucinich hasn't done anything about stating comments about the war, that would be a lie. If I said Dean hasn't done anything as DNC Chair, that would be a lie. If I said Wesley Clark is just playing golf with his buddies and not caring about what's going on, that would be a lie. Get it?

We Kerry supporters are not "nasty". We just don't and will not accept lies and liars trashing someone we consider on our (and your) side. Period.

about who said what about Kerry.

1. My comment that "Kerry was not too active after the 2004 election" was most definitely not a lie. The fact that he appeared to be invisible shortly after the election, showing no opposition to the obvious cases of election abuse, particularly in Ohio justified my opinion that he wasn't too active. If anything, my remark showed considerable restraint. Many of us were very disappointed by what seemed to be his unwillingness to fight for the Democratic cause.

2. If anyone has lied,it is you who have accused me of "trashing" Kerry. Nothing I have said has "trashed" Kerry as a person. I really don't know much about him as a person. As a politician, I don't like his record or his style. I want the Democrats to pick a person who will represent all Americans and be able to convey that support in ways that fire people up.

You wrote:

"The fact that he appeared to be invisible shortly after the election, showing no opposition to the obvious cases of election abuse, particularly in Ohio justified my opinion that he wasn't too active. If anything, my remark showed considerable restraint. Many of us were very disappointed by what seemed to be his unwillingness to fight for the Democratic cause."

OK, maybe I'll do some homework for you. Here are some links that prove without a doubt that you have need to read and listen to. Here are some links to what Kerry (and Edwards) have been doing since the Election. You can find more related speeches, proposals and other issues related to the Election and MANY other issues here:
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/press-statement.cfm

You can hear Kerry talk about strategies on November 7th here:
http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/kerry_110904.mp3

Other articles include:

Kerry campaign recount http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Recount efforts by Kerry in Ohio
http://www.voxpopuli-ne.com/2004_12/page49.html

Kerry pushes for election reform
http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-pushes-for-federal-election.html

Recount efforts intensify
http://www.northcountynews.com/view.asp?s=11-17-04/news5.htm

The Perfect Election Day Crime
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_perfect_election_day_crime.php

What Went Wrong In Ohio
http://www.harpers.org/WhatWentWrongInOhio.html

Conyers Proud of Kerry/Edwards for Staying Involved in Voter Fraud Issue
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=321

Maybe you didn't read this from John Conyers:

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters."

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

of opinions about Mr. Kerry's future candidacy.

Whether you're for Kerry or not in future races, you at least should be familiar with the efforts Kerry HAS been making since the Election.

That's all I ask.

To accuse Kerry of "doing nothing since the Election" is patently false....that's all.

activities. It's just that I don't consider them to be significantly positive enough to warrant risking another Presidential election on that basis.

In the literal sense, it would certainly not be true that "Kerry has done nothing since the election". Had I been more patient and precise in my writing, I would have said that, "Although Mr. Kerry remains political active after the election, it is MY OPINION that those actions are too little and too late to merit his ascendancy to the candidacy in the 2008 election. We have given him one chance and he was not successful. Why would we risk another failure? Aside from that, if his efforts are sincere and constructive toward the common good of the America people, I support them wholeheartedly."

Zulch: That's the best I can do to express my thoughts about Kerry. I'm already expending more of my personal energy on the studying of American politics than I should. I can't retire from life in order to devote myself entirely to researching the full nuances of Senator Kerry's political life. I, like everyone else, must go with the news reports available to me. (and that includes blogs).

Curious... I'm sure I can find some dirt on your choice that would be less than truthful...

As for going with news reports available to you about Kerry, I hope you enjoyed the ones I cited that skewered your opinion that Kerry "has done nothing..."

:hi:

John Kerry (my bold):
Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

Leave that to the GOP operatives who've been working against him for over 30 years.

Both those guys are yesterday's news, despite the fact they were both elected in 00 and 04, respectively.

I also don't think Hillary is going to be on the ticket.

But I can't figure out where that leaves us. I'd love to see something with John Conyers involved...

It makes no sense. Neither of these guys was able to beat bush. Think about that, they lost to the stupidest man ever to run for the office on a major parties ticket. Don't give me that 'Gore actually won' crap. He's not in the oval office, he lost. It should have been an easy win for both of these guys and neither was up to the challenge.

in history by a corporate media who protected him from the facts of his actual record.

The corporate media gave more airtime to spin against Clinton on the terror issue than they did about the facts revealed in the 9-11 commission report that detailed Clinton's work while noting the complete absence of Bush's efforts against terror.

The public was given no indication by the media that it was Bush's stupidity, incompetence, and cronyism that led to 9-11.

They sold him as the leader who couldn't be beat on the terror issue.

Even silver-tongued Clinton was unable to control the media perception with a book and a promotion tour to set that record straight.

Are you going to put the "media" on trial? Have they committed crimes against humanity? (I would tend to think so, but there are no laws on the books that I know of.. please enlighten me if you do).

Who the hell do you think controls "media"?
THE GUYS IN CHARGE.

So. What is your point?

The facts were ignored, and not even the ubertalented Clinton with a media spotlight on his book and promotional tour was able to dent that perception in the public arena last year.

It's easy to SAY that Bush was the worst president in history, but it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that the truth about Bush and his presidency was not being told to the public by the media.

I wish the media WAS sued for using the public airwaves to distort and hide the truth.

In the meantime I support Media Matters and forums like this to keep track of and objectively counter the lies and distortions that interfere with the honest governance of this nation.

We cannot afford another friendly, mushy, back-slapping person that doesn't defend himself. Gore maybe. Kerry? Hell no.

board.

We need new blood.

NO KERRY. Sorry. I stood behind him for the election last time, but he was not my first or even second or third choice. He doesn't frame the issues in ways that dumbasses can understand and apparently we need dumbasses on our side.

job, lets run an dumbass. This is what America needs. I supported Kerry during the past election and I would do it all over again. I have to doubt you offered to much support duiring the campaign seeing that he wasn't even on your favorites list to begin with. And, I suppose you think your pick would have done better too.

Kerry has problems speaking to the masses. They didn't say "we should run a dumbass", that's your contribution to the debate.

Whether you agree that Kerry had a problem relating to the electorate or not, do not mischaracterize what they said.

he connected very well and very easily (and he was very likeable) - which is the same thing I saw on CSPAN in the campaign. Why CSPAN? That was the only place to see more than 1 minute a day of Kerry. (Something is wrong when an ex-girl friend of a California murder gets more TV time than a major party's candidate - but it sure seemed that was the case.)

You know, all those guys who only watch the local news for 1/2 hour a day and the national news for 1/2 hour. You remember them?

The point I was trying to make is that it might not be the candidate but the media access. Why? If it's just that Kerry (or Gore) could not connect, then the proposed solution should be to get someone (with the right skills) who is outgoing and can connect.

My point was that in a moderate size (about 600) crowd, the comments in all the local media and from neighbors and friends were about how good he was, how well he connected and that he was charismatic. Many adding that they wished he were like this last year. (we didn't see him in NJ - too blue) From the CSPAN rallies, he was very much like this last year.

So, working the media issue may be needed.

I said we need someone that can effectively communicate basic concepts to ALL people, including dumbasses. I certainly prefer that person to be extremely intelligent, thank you.

BTW, I worked my BUTT off for Kerry to get elected. And my first choices were Howard Dean and Wes Clark but Kerry would have been a vastly better president than any Republican and I worked hard for Kerry once he was nominated.

Did you ever come close and know you could make it if given another chance.Where do you think the saying "If first you don't succeed, try again" came from? Many successful people aren't winners the first time around. Usually they learn from their mistakes and come back stronger the second time around. Maybe Bush would be a better person if he would learn to lose and not have to get his own way all the time. Clinton benefited from losses during his political career to. IMO, your too quick to just discard two great men simple because they lost one race. It's time to start supporting our people instead of putting them down and tossing them aside.You don't sound like much of a Dem to be putting down two good men with such a statement as a "proven losers".

'tricky dick' is the only proven loser in modern times to make a comeback in presidential elections and we all know how that turned out. I'm sorry that I can't relate to the 'liitle engine who could'. Clinton's losses were for congressman and governor not president.

I have to take the bruises as they come. Let me down once, we'll see. Do it again and it has to be over.

The Dems do NOT have another "chance". We have to get it right or reisgn ourselves to being ruled by fascists. I prefer the first thought.

I have great respect for Al Gore, who is a brilliant man and actually a very good speaker (despite the image that the dumbass media paint).

But haven't we had enough of John Kerry?

because the media was right about him?

Because John Kerry was really an empty suit like the media said he was and didn't actually help to end three wars and didn't investigate and expose IranContra and BCCI?

Because we've had enough of Senators who expose more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history and recognize that they have no place in the public arena let alone the presidency?

Talking points.

He never ended three wars. Give me a break.
If he exposed anything, nothing ever happend. Proved above by your's and other's posts.

No one but YOU have said anything about media image.
Sounds like . um . a "soundbite"?

Please leave the forum to people who truly care and stop trying to push your own agenda.

but something tells me you aren't exactly up on actual history from the last 35 years.

There are several books you could read about what happened in IranContra and BCCI, including the indictments but I doubt that you're truly interested and denying they exist is probably more your style.

Maybe try clicking on any of Octafish's threads. Or do a search of Octafish's threads here at DU. They're loaded with links and excerpts that you may find educational.

same ole same ole. Is there something you don't understand when I say I look for RESULTS and not rhetoric?

btw. I was alive and paying attention during Iran/Contra. But thanks for the condescending attitude. What a way to win friends and influence people. Just like John Kerry. Match Point.

historic RECORD. That happens to matter.

And there WERE indictments in IranContra AND in BCCI, but that doesn't matter to you.

You would prefer that there was NO historic record that collected the hard-fought-for evidence throughout those years?

By that token, Conyers and Waxman should shut up and go away instead of hounding the Bush administration for documents they're unlikely to get.

I really think it's odd that you would show disdain for the incredible determination that Kerry maintained to even get those investigations started.

You may have been around during those years, but what did you absorb and learn? Do you really think that investigations that don't result in impeachment or jail time shouldn't happen at all?

Should corruption in government not be investigated and evidence gathered by honest lawmakers even if the Justice Dept. won't help prosecute?

How odd that you direct your scorn at the one person who worked the hardest to expose that corruption.

Geez, I can only imagine the disdain you must feel for those who knew there was corruption but chose not to lift a finger to help expose it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

meaningless.

And I pity you that attitude.

So sue me.

Historical "fact" means NOTHING.

Reality is where it's at. Catch a clue train.

There will be a swing back to accuracy eventually as long as people demand it in a consistent fashion. MediaMatters and FAIR exist to aid us in that quest.

Do you realize that MANY of us do not pay any attention whatsoever to the freaking "media"? I don't watch t.v.

When Clinton was in office, I had to pick up current events from my coworkers because I just do not zombie out in front of the television. I don't allow someone else to form my brain. I'll take care of that.

I love mediamatters.com. They serve a useful function.
Finally something we agree on.

...I've had enough of his cheerleaders running the same script about "all he knew about the Bush Criminal Empire (but oddly enough couldn't do jack shit about it)"

Just love me some of that Reagan-Bush Contra policy.......uh huh.

..go back to your Skull & Bones altar and worship Lurch already.

Dems stood while Kerry was working his ass off to expose Reagan-Bush on IranContra and on BCCI, and yet you have utter faith in them and denounce the one lawmaker who did more than ANYONE ELSE EVER to expose the truth, it smacks of hypocrisy.

I know you're not a Republican. I just think you have shifting standards for what you will forgive of your favored lawmakers while accusing Kerry of a cronyism that never existed and which is easily proven false by the historic record.

and Reagan won 58.8% to Mondale's 40.5% in 1984. For whatever reason, he was and is still a popular President. Most people (Dems and Reps) would take him over W. anyday http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1020. I'd guess there are even a few DUers who voted for Reagan, and it doesn't make me question their current loyalty to Democrats at all. Heck, I wasn't as against this war as I am now. People make mistakes.

I'd love to have a President who, unlike Bush, learns from his mistakes, and changes his mind as new information comes in. I'd love to have a Dem nominee who could appeal to al of the people who have become disenchanted with what Republicans have become. I'd love to have a Democrat who could rise above the accusations of playing "partisan politics" and who better than someone who used to a Republican but outgrew it. I'd love to have a Dem nominee who can win over the people who are so worried about terrorism and see Dems as wimpy. And most importantly, I'd love to have a Dem who is CURRENTLY fighting for Democratic causes. To me Clark is all of those things.

Alas, maybe 2008 is a long a way off, and I doubt I will change your mind. Just sayin'.

especially on terror issue. Kerry was the first lawmaker to expose the funding of global terrorism and concerned enough about the future to write what he learned in his investigations to warn the country.

But, if media discussed Kerry's actual work they would have to acknowledge that they ignored his findings and his work at the time while they were protecting BushInc.

running again to prove what? That in the best-out-of-three, votes might actually be counted?

And since they both truly won, they'd be Incumbents...running against....another Incumbent? In Shrubco world anything is possible, I suppose.

"Doesn't this country deserve to have leaders not indebted to Halliburton and Enron?"

"Shouldn't sending troops to war--and winning the peace--finally be tackled by leaders who've actually BEEN in war?"

"Bring back the REAL adults."

"Fiscal sanity AND military intelligence."

"Isn't it time YOU had someone in your corner?"

"America can--and will--do better!"

"Brains AND Integrity"

"Gore/Kerry--we're listening."

"Bush/Cheney have SQUANDERED the past eight years and led America to the edge of the cliff. Do you want more blind marching and "trust us," or do you want real leadership and a bridge?" (This slams Bush for claiming Clinton and Gore "squandered" their time in the White House, and also references Clinton's "bridge to the 21st Century.)

"Let's get back on track!"

Gore, possibly. Hillary, absolutely no.

that if you EVER see Kerry run again, you will see a stampede running from the Democratic Party. Is that what you want?

If that's true, he will read the polls in 2007 or early 2008, decide it's not in the cards and either concentrate on running in MA for Senate or doing something new. Or, if he chooses to win, he won't win the nomination.

I don't know if Kerry will be the beat thought of in 2007. Much can happen between then and now. A great candidate may emerge - who may be one we know of or maybe not. If he is the nominee, you may leave, but there won't be a stampede - where would they go?

1/ Democrats are not smart enough for that. They cannot figure that there is a learning curve to become an effective candidate and that those two have already started the learning curve and would start way ahead of any other nominee (in addition to the fact they got more vote than any other democratic nominee ever). Interestingly, this is how all the other countries get great leaders and we do not: when a candidate loses not too badly, they continue to keep him as party leader and he learns.

2/ Unfortunately, I doubt that any of the two whould agree to be VP for the other one: Gore has already been VP for 8 years and can legitimately expect more. Kerry was ready for that 5 years ago, when Gore unfortunately chose Lieberman. What would he have to gain in that, and given the fact that Gore does not need somebody to do the job for him, as Bush does, how would Kerry be useful to Gore?

Too bad people feel the need to trash them both when they are doing good things.

didn't carry?

.

Lieberman would have made a bit of difference in New Hampshire. As to Ohio, Kerry would not have made enough of a difference to pick up 4-5%.

NH shared the same news market, so they would have been more familiar with his actual record than most other states.

NH also had a strong vets group there that hated Bush, especially for what he did in SC to McCain after his NH win.

NH was definitely ripe to win in 2000.

Ohio also didn't have rigged machines in 2000 or the gay marriage amendment on the ballot then. It was winnable.

lost some of the extra Jewish votes all over the country. I can't tell you how cool some of my older (and less politically aware) relatives were that we could have had the first Jewish VP.

Basically, the VP choice has nothing to do with what goes on finally in the general election. If it did, with such choices as Quayle and Agnew, the GOP would have never made it into office.

And that was before Lieberman was picked for VP slot.

Sad, that trust was another betrayed by Bush post 9-11.

The point, though, about the large vets groups in NH is that the electoral equation would have favored Gore.

anti-Muslim Jewish voters? That's not anyone I know.

Bottom line is we'll never know. But I do get an idea of what the Kerry crowd has against Al Gore.

and Arab votes at the time. I always thought that was an unusual dynamic.

But, no Kerry person I know has anything against Gore.

In fact, many see them both in similar ways.

I never thought Gore was anything like the media portrayed just as Kerry was never what the media portrayed.

I wished both Gore and Kerry handled the lies about them more aggressively and had better surrogates facing the RW onslaught in the media - but that's really an overall Dem problem.

And when I pointed out that Gore's uneven appearances during his campaign were caused by a mild form of stagefright, it was as way of explanation knowing that he suffered from stagefright when he joined the senate, though some jumped on it and called it bashing.

Nope - both Kerry and Gore have more similarities than they do differences, and I would submit that it's likely true about their supporters, as well.

I'm Jewish too and I know no Jew who voted for Gore/Lieberman but not for Kerry. The nationwide % were 79% and 75% respectively and the fact that Bush was a wartime president was probably more responsible for the difference. Jews are only 2% of the population.

Also, it turns out Kerry was descended not just from Jews, but he has an ancester who was the chief Rabbi in Romania! (He is not Jewish because his mother's side wasn't and because he IS Catholic.)
I've been in Jewish groups where a favorite acter or singer was "claimed" for less.

His connection to Vets would have been more significant. Because Tour of Duty wasn't written, Hoffman wouldn't have led the SBVT and in a time of peace there would be far less problem with the anti-war protest.

And yes, I know that the Democratic Party has the lion's share of the Jewish vote. Always has.

I didn't say he was and I knew several people who mentioned Kerry's heritage to me - NOT THAT IT WAS EITHER A NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE.

That Kerry had Jewish heritage notion was debunked. He does not.

Which in no ways makes him Jewish! He's not.

But then I will vote for whomever is the candidate.

that's the ticket

All I have to say is if Al Gore runs in 08, there better not be another major fuckup with the VP pick. Get Wes Clark and run with it damn it.

If Gore would have chosen Kerry over Leiberman things would certainly be different now.

He'd want to be the big cheese.

But I don't think Gore and Kerry exactly mesh.

Yeah, I wouldn't have minded a Gore/Kerry ticket in 2000. Much better than Leiberman. The only thing Leiberman is better than is a Republican.

Biden is a PNAC signator, a plagarist, and an MBNA stooge. And those are his "best" qualities.

:)