This Moment in History: The Case for John Kerry

Senator John Kerry and his wife are releasing a book in late March titled This Moment on Earth. It's a collection of stories about environmental pioneers and change-makers, people who stepped up to do what was right and what was necessary, to help protect the planet.

Sir, it is now time for you to do what is right and what is necessary to help protect our planet. It is time for you to step up to the plate and announce your candidacy for President of the United States. Now is your moment in history.

Kerry's detractors often say that "he had his chance and America rejected him."

Well, yes, apparently the latter is true. But Americans can make a mistake, and in recent months they have acknowledged that they did indeed make a mistake.

The last two years have been horrific. Two terrible tragedies have hit the nation, both of which were avoidable and would have been avoided if not for the great mistake of November 2, 2004. The tragedy in Iraq is staggering -- not just the 3,000+ American dead, but the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed, the thousands of soldiers who were wounded, the tens of thousands who experienced psychological trauma, and their loved ones. Just as one example, Army Specialist Alyssa Peterson, one of the first who died in the war, was assigned to a facility to interrogate and probably torture prisoners of war. She died on Sept. 15, 2003, as a result of a "non-combat weapons discharge," military jargon often used to describe a suicide. If that is in fact what happened to her -- if she took her own life because the sights and sounds in that interrogation facility were too much for her to cope with -- what does it say about the other soldiers who were also ordered to commit acts against their own human nature? There are hundreds of Alyssa Petersons out there. Although the election was too late for her, how many of them would not have experienced what they did if the war had been stopped in 2005 under a President Kerry?

The soul-wrenching tragedy of Hurricane Katrina continues to this day. 2,000 people lost their lives. A booming region lost its vitality. New Orleans lost over half its population. Entire neighborhoods were abandoned to rot. A landfalling hurricane will almost inevitably have a death toll and a damage toll, but how much of this had to happen? How many people died in the storm itself because of inadequate transportation out of the city, or in the horrific aftermath because help arrived too late and too throttled by bureaucracy and low funds? How many lost all their worldly goods because no one was there to fight for them?

But there are other, less known tragedies. Each day, Americans lose their homes, their jobs, their livelihoods, and often their lives because of the cruel joke that is the U.S. health care industry. President Kerry would have addressed this, and Senator Kerry still has a detailed plan that would provide for health care for all Americans.

The damage that has been done to the American psyche is another great tragedy of the Bush administration. The administration has cynically used the threat of terrorism to terrorize America itself, and to lay waste to the institutions of democracy that we have cherished since our beginning as a nation. Americans in general do not fall for it anymore, but the damage has been done. We have been conditioned into cynicism about all who work in politics. We have come to see other Americans as the enemy. We are no longer surprised when Bush says he can read our mail without a warrant; we're just surprised that he bothered to tell anyone about it. We are not surprised when another piece of information comes out about the rottenness and corruption of someone in a high office; we just wonder what has not been uncovered yet. President Kerry would have opened the books on all the dirty deeds, exposed them to the public, and brought Americans of all political stripes together to stand up and say, "Not in our name!" He would have restored trust to the government. Senator Kerry still wants a return to open and ethical government.

Even with the rampant cynicism about our elected officials, a recent poll showed that even fewer Americans trust the media than the government. The media consolidation that has been encouraged by the Bush administration, and has contributed to this cynicism, would have been dealt with by President Kerry. Senator Kerry has long supported impartial oversight of those who purvey news. The taint and distrust of the Fourth Estate is one more tragedy wrought by Bush.

Yes, America -- a thin majority of Americans -- made a big mistake in 2004. But the important thing is that they know it. They know it was their mistake, too, not John Kerry's.

I am not going to pretend that "it's better this way." It isn't better for those who have suffered as a direct result of the 2004 election. I'm also not going to pretend that "Kerry just wasn't meant to be in 2004." It minimizes the real impact of such events to try to convince ourselves that it was all for the best in the long run. Not everything that happens is like that. Sometimes we can reach the same end result without going through needless pain and suffering, and I believe that 2004 was one such time. What happened was not for the best, but it happened anyway. 2004 could have been Kerry's moment in history, but it simply wasn't.

In times of great trial, America has realized its dire situation and has selected leaders who end up going down in history for their greatness. Kerry is such a person. Rather than self-serving angry rhetoric, nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless sound bites, or nakedly political stunts and photo-ops, he offers a comprehensive, workable, doable set of solutions to the things that are wrong with America today. After fixing what's wrong, he would be proactive in building up what's right with America. He has the experience in public service to do this, both as a U.S. Senator and an executive -- Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts. He has the ideas and eye for detail to make it happen. When he interacts with people, he can't help but exude warmth because he truly does understand and care. And, as a bonus -- he's been through the ringer already against the worst bunch of dirty politicians we have known in our lifetimes. He knows what to expect, and they used up their arsenal against him already. No one else in the field has all of this.

Sir, this is your moment in history.

For the sake of America, for the sake of the planet, please run.

Oh, and because I really, really want him to give it another shot. This country needs his leadership!!

by the challenger as 'rejection' just rings false.

Rejection is losing by a landslide.

Kerry is a very accomplished guy but he can't say things without giving the Repukes ammunition to blast him and the Dems generally.

What of it?

You know, the guy you claim is DOA.

He looks French. :sarcasm:

I'm not impressed by the rest of the field - at ALL. And if you think the Repukes won't find - or invent, as they've had to do with Kerry numerous times - "ammunition to blast him and Dems generally" from any other Dem candidate, well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

...it was even condemned as a non-issue by many Republicans, including Bill O'Reilly.

The only people who saw it as "an issue" were Repig KoolAid drinkers and political opportunists who knee-jerkingly jumped the gun.

If any candidate wants to bring up that topic or use the thoroughly debunked SwiftBoaters, they can have at it. It won't stick.

what kind of world we'd have if he were president.

Here's just the latest example of the good work he's doing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070118/ap_on_go_co/military_surplus_stings_1

Kerry calls for probe of Pentagon sales

WASHINGTON - Sen.John Kerry on Thursday called for an investigation into security weaknesses in the Defense Department's surplus sales that have let buyers for Iran and China acquire aircraft parts and other valuable military gear.

The Massachusetts Democrat sought an inquiry by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after The Associated Press reported that in several instances middlemen for the countries had exploited security flaws to acquire sensitive surplus.

The surplus sales include parts for F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets, a plane retired last year by the United States and now flown only by Iran. Iran bought the jets in the 1970s before the U.S. government banned most exports, including defense-related sales, to the Mideast country.

"There is no way that Iran should be getting these sensitive military parts, especially with the situation in the Mideast so turbulent," Kerry said.



He's the one for our times to right all the Bush wrongs.

that he had fought for our votes. imagine.

And voter suppression that amounted to votes not cast is not grounds for contesting an election. I always felt he did the right thing conceding when he did.

...according to most computer and statistical experts worldwide. Kerry won by approx. 3-5 Million votes.

Though the "perception" JK lost (in Repug "reverse reality") DOES mean in SOME 'parallel universe,' JK did lose. Though not really.

Speaking Truth to Authority, JK did win '08. And can do so again...this time without backing down.

Fitrakis&Wasserman: Do New Ohio Recount Prosecutions Mean Unraveling of 04 Election Theft cover-up?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x465104

and protecting our voting rights before and after they were cast.

How did the Office of Voter Integrity do its job those 4 yrs? THEY were the ones telling Dem voters and Dem candidates that they were on top of everything.

Kerry had no legal recourse on Nov 3 because he had no legal evidence to continue - and that was the same Dem legal election team telling Kerry there was no legal case to continue in court that told Gore he HAD a case to continue.

I appreciate his wisdom and experience, and the fact that he has been fighting for Democratic principles and open government for over 30 years. We could not do better, in my opinion.

John Kerry is exactly who he said he'd be in 2003 and 2004. He's continued to fight for what he said he would, most specifically ending the war. For people who say they care about the war, environment, poor, - he's the only logical choice with a proven track record. There still isn't anybody else who can compete with him on every single progressive issue. Makes no sense that he doesn't have progressive support, never did for that matter.

:kick:

Unless Al Gore enters into the fray, I am still a Kerry-man all the way.

They have the brains, experience and knowledge of serious military matters BESIDES the many other issues they can handle competently.

with those three at the helm? We'd clean up the country and the world in no time!

TOGETHER to pull this country out of the mudhole Bush is putting it in.

I would bet anything that those three are capable of calling each other and more to do whatever it takes. I just don't see heavy egos in play for any of them - not when it comes to actual WORK.

ususally agree with you, but those "brilliant" dem minds bear heavy responsibility for that mudhole. playing politics since 2000 instead of opposing the usurper at every turn is a big part of what got us here. they waited for the tide to turn in public opinion and then jumped on the band wagon. there are a few exceptions along the way, courage in the face of the fascist beast, but not anywhere near enough to justify relying on their "brilliance".

We have to have a singular executive. Because Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were tools. Cato tried, whoever he was.

He'll have have my full support. But I don't think he's going to run.

If anyone thinks that Kerry shouldn't run in 2008, I would venture to think that it's because they see him as a serious candidate that could indeed beat their current choice.

If Kerry is "such a bad candidate", then he would get as much comments as Vilsack's or Dodd's candidacy does here at DU...which is probably in the single digits.

Run John, Run!

Kerry is still the best, and I still believe in him. If he runs again, I'll be back out knocking on doors!

If he does, it won't be a repeat of '04, when his principal rival was the unknown governor of a small northeastern state. In the current field, he stands to finish fourth at best--behind Edwards, Clinton and Obama. If Gore enters the race, Kerry finishes fifth at best. '04 was probably his best shot. That said, he'll make a fine Attorney General.

This man has the resume' we'd look for in a candidate if we had to create one from whole cloth.

America needs John Kerry.

K&R!:kick:

I'll just copy my response from another thread in the John Kerry Forum . . .


"If all the planets aligned, Gore and Kerry IMHO would be the team from heaven. However, Gore is doing good work on Global Warming awareness, and we need him as an environmental czar to work with Kerry as President, and the Kerry administration.

Kerry is attacked so viciously by the GOP and Neo-cons because he is such a threat and they know it. Just look at what Kerry has going . . . in no particular order:

1) He's absolutely honest and trustworthy

2) He's a real war veteran/hero

3) He's an anti-war activist

4) He has a charismatic presence

5) He is a thinker, a damn good writer, and public speaker

6) He's a prosecutor. He hates and doesn't put up with corruption.

7) He has challenged corruption and the Neo-con Rethugs through bringing down BCCI and his investigations into Iran/Contra and has even challenged those in our own party caught in the corruption. He has put them all on notice.

8) He's an environmentalist

9) He is a committed and loving father, husband, and expresses personal faith

10) He loves adventure and is willing to take risks

11) He's a pilot

12) He loves outdoor adventure sports

13) He keeps himself fit and can run circles around many athletes much younger

14) He is unbelievably hardworking, and often fore-goes the spot-light for all he does behind the scenes

15) He is humble

16) He cares about the people, and he listens

17) He is all about the good intentions of what originally our great country was founded upon by our founding fathers

18) He is international and knows the world views, and he listens to what the world has to say

19) He seeks advice from others who know better and he listens

20) He speaks truth to power, and feels dissent is patriotic when the right thing must be done

21) He is brave

Now I could go on and on, but perhaps you can add to the list . . .

Bottom line, Kerry is the one and I agree he must run.


He has already won once, and he can do it again with an honest and fraud-free election. I have no doubt about that. The people cry for what we could have had."

to convince me he is up for the task.

True, he sounds like a good candidate now. In fact, he sounds much BETTER than he did in 2004. But the fact of the matter is, he isn't a good campaigner. He let the SwiftBoaters have their way with him (even though a court now PROVED what they did was illegal). And, there is that infamous 'botched joke'. On the campaign trail, there is a 1000% increase of something like that being said, because he would be SPEAKING so much more. As ironic as it is, while he may be right on the issues I don't know that he is 'electable'.

If he won the nomination, I'd sell my soul and fight for him (after 2004 I quite frequently said he was an idiot). But he needs to prove to me he is up to the task.

I wonder you have the gall to come on here and try and peddle that line! The Republicans only made THEMSELVES and their media concubines, figures of fun with that one. Don't you keep up with what the American people think of what Republican spin-and-smear machine?

You don't seem able to grasp that the Dennis Kuchinich would beat ANY Republican now - despite the historical brainwashing of socialism in the US.

But, as for the Swiftboat liars, you really insult the intelligence of the American people with that one, thinking, as you clearly do, that they can't distinguish between a real war hero and a bunch of cynical chickenhawks. Because, although it seems to have escaped you, that's what it was about.

you still keep giving the Eagles their chance, and I am an Eagles fan, please tell me why you wouldn't do the same for a candidate, whom offers a vision that we need to win.

Kerry gave the press the information - over 100 pages of naval records - to counter it in April and they were all up on his web site. (In fact, they were useful to people on the Kerry blog to end the argument on the color of his eyes - hazel) Clinton's aim in 1992 was to counter in the news cycle any claim with something. Here the Media had proof that they were lying - this goes BEYOND Clinton's having a "response". The media did not do the job they would have done even 4 years before.

When this became evident, Kerry and his team did try to counter it. It was an unprecedented attack - a book with hundreds of charges all in contradiction of the official records and no proof - and the media asked for none. Then as lies were proven to be lies, the media did not make the assumption that it discredited the source - they went to the next lie. Clearly, neither the official records or identifying a very significant number of charges to be lies worked. So, what could be done. I really think the only thing that would have worked required the Democratic party to stand behind the man who was their standard bearer - just as they had with every previous candidate. They pure and simple failed to do this. They could have picked their battles. The purple heart band aids would have been one of the best - as it really did step over the line. It could have HONESTLY hit a Republican strength, the perception that they supported the military.

Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops. They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.

Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.

What is infuriating is that Kerry as a 25 year old, who was extremely athletic and fit, suffered these wounds, well aware that but for luck the angle could have been worse, his hearing was damaged and he has had nightmares years later. Yet these bastards implied he was barely in battle. Where were McAuliffe and the rest of the Democrats?

Kerry had every reason to be proud for having been tested and shown to be willing to risk his own life rather than not help a man who almost certainly would have died. For his other medal, he used his intelligence and solicited information from anyone in previous ambushes, worked out and sold to 2 of his peers a way to avoid these ambushes that the swiftboats were exposed to, then had the guts to implement it and came out of an ambush with no one in any of the 3 boats killed. This was what these people couldn't defend?

They had the Navy records and a tape where they could hear that Nixon investigated him 2 years later (when events were recent) - and found he was a war hero. Those two things alone should have been more than enough. What's weird is the RW still won't believe it. What I suspect is that among the high level of the party elite you have as many chicken hawks (or chicken doves) as the Republicans do and the vast majority of them were too cool to honor someone who consistently did the right thing and had a nobility of character they lacked.

Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.

The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)

Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion. In fact, their lack of support likely raised questions of whether the Democratic leaders were concerned the charges were true. Kerry deserved better.

It might be that the goal was to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)

I want someone with more back bone than that. He is a better choice than Hillary but not better than others.

Just my .02

not then and two years later, we inch closer and closer to getting that evidence. However, Nov. 3, 2004 there was nothing but speculation.

It just wasn't in the Corporate press.

I agree. We need John Kerry's experience. IMO, he's our best chance to recover from the damage Bush has done to this country and the world.

OT, I preordered the Senator and Teresa's book on Amazon. I can't wait to see it!

Many people have acknowledged that they were mistake in their support of Bush. But I have never heard of anyone who believes they should have supported Kerry instead. I have heard a lot of people saying "but there was no real alternative. I wasn't going to vote for John Kerry."

I have difficulty arguing in his favor.

a new direction for America. It is up to John Kerry to make that case. If he does, they will indeed want him.

did everything they could to make sure the public knew Bush had Dem support for his policies.

Because I know I want him, my husband wants him, and about anybody who is not a GOPer in my family wants him.

enter this time...When a man gts asked a question that he should have knocked out of the park, he does not deserve another chance...The question was: If you knew then what you knew now would you still send troops into Iraq? well hell of course we all were looking for the NO answer but John had to say YES,,,,,Tell me again why he deserves another shot?

he has the most integrity and the best interests of this country at heart. He is intelligent and well respected throughout the world and the caliper of the candidates running now is pathetic. He needs to run to just give people an idea what a real president could do for this country.
As for the bunk about he ran and lost, who cares, that is based on a fifty year old idea. Can't we be more progressive than that. Do you really think a woman and a minority candidate has a better chance?

ultimately we could possibly salvage the mission with the right leadership. And, the majority of the American people still believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and the mission was still to new to really pass judgment on the outcome and whether it was right or wrong.
Senator Kerry, has come out and said that he regrets his vote and has reversed himself on his original opinions. He has since that time been a tireless supporter of ending the conflict as safely as possible and bringing our troops home.

he was asked about the VOTE. Kerry was NEVER for the invasion.

And I certainly agree with you.

Thank you for supporting Kerry without knocking down other candidates. It is so rare these days.

Thanks for the heads up!

would have been our best hope for peace in Iraq. Instead we got more of the criminal in power.

I hope John Kerry runs. We really need him now more than ever.

Thank you for posting this. I'll have to buy the book by the senator and Mrs. Kerry when it comes out.