So Now Kerry is out of the running? Were Democrats behind this?

I have to wonder. I don't think that Democrats wanted him to run again. He probably has little chance now and would mess up the election.

But this is such a sad commentary on our times. He misspeaks one time and he is gone - kind of like Dean and his "funny" rant that everyone went crazy over. People just looking for any excuse to bring these guys down.

Sad for us. Horrible for them.

You watch - Hillary will be next. She probably doesn't have a chance in hell and she would mess up their unholy election, too. So they will find some way to get rid of her next.

Same with Edwards. I don't think he has a chance, either.

That will leave Obama and Wes Clark. And maybe they are our best chance.

Dont listen to the MSM to know what will happen.

right before the midterm elections.......

to defend him? They are just distancing themselves all over the place. He is gone. You watch. If he had Democratic momentum behind him this would never have happened.

I like John Kerry. And I hope he will stay in the govt and do everything he can from there. He is an important voice and he has the courage to say things others back away from.

And I'm officially going to start making bets with people about this, get them in writing, notarize them, and then collect on Inauguration Day, 2009.

can you cover? Because that bet would be better than buying google at 25 and still having it.

I'm betting against Kerry even getting the nomination.

Bake

And whether it's the result of any wagers you make or not--your going to have a rough 2009-13, honey. But good luck out there, anyway.

when condemning Kerry ... "yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look".

Hillary saying what she did and as she did will likely be seen as an over-reaction and show a nasty cold side of her personality. It is also hypocritical as she just defended her own husband's rant on Fox News. (I assume from the use of "comments" she meant his Tuesday response to the RW distortion - which was necessary and appropriate.)

she reinforced the lies and smears against Kerry by the republicans. She helped them do their dirty work. This was not a smart move on her part. She risked nothing supporting and defending Kerry, yet she chose to stab him in the back and aid the cause of the White House.

many other issues re Iraq - and most importantly - how will she answer when she is asked if she'll continue her husband's COVERING UP for BushInc - how do you think she'll handle that one?

There won't be any debates...just more power politics.

more than in the mood to defend his country from the continuation of BushInc. and their Dem party enablers who cover up for them.

They now have their scapegoat.

And I'd say the DNC under Dean wouldn't pull crap on Kerry the way McAuliffe did in his service to the Clintons.

me want to walk,...... the way i did with repugs....

for the most part i am pretty balanced in taking the dem imperfection to get this lyin sack of shit group out of the whitehouse, but dems that do this piss me off so much. it lacks integrity and honesty.... two things that disgust me, hence my revulsion to repugs

Our politics are pretty low. Pretty low. Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats piling on were likely an attempt to take him out. The real question is what this will be seen as when the dust settles. Kerry did misspeak - but he both fought the RW characterization and is winning on that - as even Republicans are conceding that he wasn't disparaging the troops.

The fact is that no one can be taped the number of hours Kerry was and not make any mistakes. Unlike the stuff caught on tape for Allen, nothing caught on Kerry has exposed any unknown personality flaws or changed his positions on issues. If anything, it showed that he did quickly fight the RW mischaracterization and then had the grace to apologize to any military people hurt by the comments as distorted by the right. His misspeaking was not his finest moment - but it doesn't change the fact that overall he has been an articulate spokesman. He also did fight back which shows he did learn you can't count on anyone else to call charges unfair when they are.

Clearly both the left and the right want to get rid of Kerry. From past experiences, I bet he comes out of this saved by the integrity, dignity and honesty that he has shown over the last 3 years (and earlier). He will need to work on his ties to the military - but he has them unlike most Democrats, including Hillary. He also will have to be more careful in what he says, which is hard, because like Dean he is someone who is speaking out more than most others - both in how often he speaks and his willingness to tell the truth about the messes of the Bush administration.

You are right that people are eliminating candidates very quickly - the problem is that no one can meet that criterion.

But to pull a comeback after losing an election might just be too much.

I noticed on the Johnkerry site that many of the events he had before this were with veterans groups. I just hope that after the election, he will find ways to stomp this out completely. The strange thing is that a strength he's always had is that he has some veterans who know he's always been there.

Of course, if your only news diet is right wing radio or some the usual claptrappers on mainstream media channels, you'd think Kerry's career is over. Then again, he apologized.

But I haven't heard ANY progressive talk where people thought Kerry's fire is out.

The Repug base will chant that Kerry insulted the troops like little robots, but most people will see the incident as much ado about nothing.

Add that in politics, a year is like 10 years.

All ya gotta do is read the prepared (for the media, who collectively WON"T READ) text to realize that JK
didn't "read" the line correctly. It's obvious that he was referring to * when describing a not-so-good
student ( * ,Yale , C-minus, legacy...) who got "us" stuck in Iraq. He should have said "who" got us stuck,
not "you get stuck..."
Now I know why JK isn't an actor...too many takes over flubbed lines. That said, I think he's running in '08;
IMHO he'd make a good prez. But politics being what it is, a black art, his chances are dimmed somewhat
with this one.

worse than we're hearing from the opposition..

Ford, Tester, Hillary and others certainly didn't help our prospects this November by piling on him. They were incredibly selfish and stupid by demanding an apology, when one wasn't appropriate (bush is an ignorant loser. All Kerry did was tell the truth about the resident.).

On the other hand, Kerry is the one who fumbled the ball. He has to live with the political consequences of his actions, whatever they are, in '08.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Voters are getting a little tired of these GOP smear campaigns and are learning to sift through the spin for facts.

out there? He obviously was telling the truth and there was no issue.

Why does it just leave Clark and Obama?? Obama is a corporate tool and should not be considered until we know exactly who he is going to work for.

Clark is a smart man and has been working really hard.

But what about Feingold??? He has been an absolute hero to us when Obama sat with his thumb up his ass going for the war and whatever else came out of the GOP pocket.

We can have all of the Kerry discussions we want once we control congress.

the hate came from.:eyes:

A couple Democrats (Clinton/Ford) seeking to prevent any negative result from Kerry's words by asking for an apology is 1)not unexpected and 2)in their interest. That doesn't provide for some enormous conspiracy. Obviously they care about the 2006 elections and called Kerry out in spite of that because Ford wants to win and Clinton wants as large a margin of victory as possible. If I were in their position, I wouldn't want the clumsy words of some out-of-touch politician getting between me and my voters. They have a right to show their constituents what they stand for and Kerry's clumsiness forced their hand.

Kerry is a loser anyway. Who wants to see him run again anyway?

I just think there are lot of powerful people that want him out of the way. And they may very well do it.

Even if I was Kerry's best friend, I would tell him how dumb and moronic he was for making that comment. Stupid just Stupid. A week before the elections where we are looking so good in. He gives the repukes another talking point about Democrats

the DLC wing of our party who are pushing Hillary.
This will all blow over and be forgotten. The whole thing is really dumb. Kerry is the comeback kid.

After all he has done he really deserves to be treated a lot better than this.

It was, as the NYTimes said in it lead editorial today, just a minor gaffe, after all.

of the running.

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

:shrug:

I'm not currently in favor of Kerry in '08, but I think he has a right to run and I think he gets a bum rap from way too many people. I'm proud to have cast a vote for John Kerry in '04, I think he woud've made an excellent president, and were he to be the nominee all over again, I would gladly vote for him again without regret.

And I wouldn't listen to the pundits pontificate. They're constantly blowing any and every little thing completely out of proportion. It doesn't matter who. Everything becomes a "defining moment," or a "blunder."

This will have ZERO effect on the election. If it sways ANY voters, it's not going to make much of a difference overall. This roiled partisans, and judging from Letters to the Editor, plenty of folks are with Kerry on this one (though not so much in the media-punditry).

Remember that this is the same CW that predicted a Bush landslide after Saddam Hussein was captured (one political scientist was quoted "well, you might as well cancel the election"). This is the same that had Howard Dean as unbeatable. And, just like with John Kerry, this is the same CW-crew that only in the last year finally abandoned the meme of the "angry" and "unhinged" Al Gore.

Remember that they also said that Nixon was out of the running after his attack on the press in '62. I don't want to emulate Nixon here, but the point is that nobody knows what this is going to affect in a year or even 3 months down the road. And especially if Democrats make huge gains next week, nobody is going to give a damn about something John Kerry didn't-actually-say-but-worried-people-it-would-cost-us-seats.

Keep our focus on winning in 2006. We need to concentrate.

but he has a tough time explaining himself in simply straightforward terms. He shot himself in the foot with this one, just like he did with "I voted against it before voting for it". Anyone that has seen him has to admit, he often answers questions in a very structured form, eventually answering questions at the end of a statement. His speaking is terrible for a soundbite society and it's easy to take his comments out of context or misinterpret them. It's almost as though he's writing an essay each time he speaks (HAHA, like my long worded DU posts).

You see this often in professors and other academics, and non elected policy officials. Now this says nothing of Bush. He's incapable of speaking coherently, period. But he'd held to a VERY low standard.

And Kerry should have known that he couldn't afford to make a joke that could be seen insulting anyone other than Bush or republican congressional candidates. This is the difference between, him and say Hillary, who has been attacked for "insulting comments" toward republicans. The simple difference between Kerry's joke, and her comments, was she was unambiguously attacking republicans or Bush...and while the repukes tried pouncing, there isn't much meat in making unfavorable comments toward the rival party. The media just let it go.

"Insulting" troops (which Kerry obviously didn't do - I immediately knew he was talking about Bush, and it took me a minute to realize why his joke was a big deal) is very different. It's like kicking a grandma or something. You just can't afford doing something like that. Actually, it's almost Macacaish, though of course, unlike Allen's history of racism, Kerry doesn't have a history of troop bashing (though the perception exists among millions that he does). In politics, it's all about perception.

What he said was stupid. I realize it came out wrong and not what he intended to say and has been spun out of control, but still, he said it.

And that's that.

He's not out of the running for me. But that's a decision he will have to make. I will support him for some sort of cabinet post if he doesn't run. Or I will just be a supporter in Wisconsin for a Senator in Massachusetts.

Regardless, I will have his back.

Except Kerry, of course. Republicans are just taking advantage of his verbal er, misstep.

Your predictions are certainly interesting. Ousting Hillary and Edwards next? Why not take it one step further, and "get rid of," for election purposes, Obama and Clark? Then we might be able to nominate someone I actually WANT to campaign and vote for. Someone from the pool of people I think are "the best we've got." I'm a Democrat and I don't want any of those you mentioned to run. My nefarious plans to keep them off the ballot include supporting and voting for others, and withholding support and votes from those I don't want. That's politics for ya.