Kerry would run against Hitler by complaining about his street repair

Bush has done so many things wrong, incl. letting Americans get killed on our own soil, sending soldiers to die in a useless war, destroying the Constitution. Ignoring all this, Kerry hits back on--jobs? WTF? I mean, jobs, yeah, important, but I'm kinda angry about all these people dying and the fact that Bush lied about 9/11. I'd also like my freedom of speech back. I think Kerry is a weak candidate and I hope that there's some way to bend the rules at the convention so we can pick someone else.

than in Iraq.

250 billion for Bush's Bogus Iraqi Adventure? How much unemployment could that cover? How many public works projects putting people into jobs with benefits? No, Iraq is quite relevant, but Kerry can't touch the topic...

He's more than "touched the topic!!!"

Artfully nuanced?

No, I mean touched, as in slap the shit out of Bush for his war based on lies.

Problem is, Kerry voted for the fucking thing. How's he going to attack b*sh on the WRONGNESS of Operation Occupation when he mostly disagrees with HOW it was done, not THAT it was done?

To quote Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby: "This stupid country!"

The thing that irks me about Kerry is he is poll driven.

Were the polls to say "Americans concerned about Iraq" he would capitalize on it.

People are interested in 9/11 and war, for and against. Speaking of snoozing, I tried to listen to Kerry the other day. I'm really trying to like him, but he's boring and weak and off-topic.

The economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education, etc. I'm sure Kerry will cover them all.

Fine, vote for a gameshow host. Geeeez...

Kerry is a weak candidate.

So who do you consider a "strong" candidate? A fringe perennial candidate unlikely to break 2%?

:shrug:

unless he is caught inflagrante delecto with newt gingrich and ann coulter in a bath of jello, high on pixie stix - he will be the nom.

this is a long campaign. throw the big punches now and short attention span america will go back to the more convenient fictions of the news braodcasts where karl rove will spin all his little tops to smooth over the fuss by november. kerry is playing it well at this point and should be really tested when he has to build on the groundwork of placing a little cognitive dissonance out there now so that people are more able to comprehend and believe the full enormity of bush's hideousness when he attacks that in late august. strategy - at least i really really hope so.

Be as snide as you like, Kerry won't beat Bush. He's shown me nothing that suggests he will. I am proud of not supporting him and I'll be telling you all I told you so from Canada.

If you don't support Kerry, you can help guarantee he won't beat Bush.

I am proud of not supporting him

Proud? Wow. Ok have fun.

Weak candidates don't run even with incumbent presidents seven months before the election, and that's after being the object of $40 million in ads in March alone. Pretty damn good if you ask me.

for him he could win big. With all the crooks and scandals out there Kerry should not have to make one speech. Because a good part of America is asleep or don't give a damn we have to work very hard.

I hear you moveonne.

So many people here don't care about waking the sleeping masses.

This country is split 50/50 but we do not care to tip the balance.

We just call them sheeple and move on. Content to lose.

Gore won the popular vote but the American people are unworthy of a progressive message with a truly populist streak to combat the Repuke/Corporate press machine.

If they do not get, then we should all move to Canada or form circular firing squads for Ann Coulter's ultimate amusement.

We love to live up to the Repukes ideal of the wimp progressives elitist and whining.

MoveOn and other organizations are trying to get the word out.

Kerry is not a leftist or Repuke-lite. He is a good solid liberal Democrat from his total record.

I heard his speech in California on CSPAN and he stayed on point and stuck it to the shrub well in my opinion.

It will take a massive effort to reclaim America and combat decades of propaganda and media manipulation by the Republicans.

Some fair-weather patriots here just want to whine or give up.

_

I suspect you are a disgruntled supporter of a different candidate, still suffering a bad hangover from the primaries?

Ever heard the 60's phrase, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? Or do you see no difference between a man being called "Extremist Liberal Outside the Mainstream" and the Chimp in Chief?

is someone other than a primary challenger? Maybe a GE opponent?

S/he said s/he was "proud" of opposing the Democratic nominee. Bizarre.

And as Democrats, we should welcome so-called "progressives" (in name only) and listen to them, although they oppose the Democratic nominee, because of our "shared goals," ... Uh huh...

I had hoped a Dem would win, and was willing to root for Kerry, but I don't think he's strong enough. I sure have not been seeing a lot written about him or his stand on the issues.

I sure don't want * to get in - his government affects all of us - but I think that given 49% are still supporting him in spite of all the lies and scanda, that the Dems are seriously underestimating his determination to win.

I would like to see Kerry come on a lot stronger than he has been doing. And with sensible policies. There is no reason why he shouldn't address domestic and foreign policy issues. Just seems very wishy-washy to me.

The citizens have spoken: THEY'RE the ones who chose Kerry, not US. The majority of voters in all the primaries, even before people started dropping out, declared their majority confidence in Senator Kerry's presidential campaign.

Some of us might not like the trend that Kerry's politics follow, but the whole idea is NOT to beat other Democrats--the idea is to get this illegal regime out of the white house, and restore some dignity and some honor.

Many of us might not have chosen John Kerry as our main candidate to do battle for the white house. Many of us had other thoughts, other potential nominess. But the people have spoken--the citizens, who even pay a little attention to the way the world had been degraded since the Bush regime has taken over, knew it would be a difficult battle regardless of which of the potential nominees was chosen. They chose someone with a great deal of experience, both as a Senator and a Lt. Governor; they chose someone who has, both in the past and the present, spoken up against many of the policies this regime has enforced; they have chosen someone who is not a stranger to knowing how to fight a campaign aimed at dislodging the teflon coating around this heinous regime; and they have chosen someone who knows the score in many subtle ways as well as more blatant ways.

Do you really think it's just YOU against the whole world? Do you really think that your lack of support for Kerry makes you a hero of some sort? It doesn't. Instead, those who fail to support Kerry at this stage of the game are worse than republicans who will vote for Bush in November. Why? Because you know the score. You know that a lack of support for Kerry adds another vote to the Bush coffers, and does nothing to help us overthrow this maligning petty dictator and his force of thieves, criminals and liars.

Many of us have been ABB for a long time now--the idea was to win back the government and secure the liberties of those in this country and abroad regardless of any other goal. Some of us would have liked to have been more choosy ultimately, but that's not how it's happened. Get used to the idea that regardless of anything else, that John Kerry is the best and sole chance we have of retaking back our country.

If you forget that goal; if you forget how much we need to remove the BFEE from our country's positions of power; and if you forget that Bush and his cronies are our enemy, and NOT our candidate, you are as much a part of the problem as they are.

We fought for our candidates to be on top during this primary season--there was only one inevitable candidate: all the others would fall by the wayside. There would be winners and there would be losers. However, being a Democratic loser is still a lot more of a prestigious position in which to be than a republican winner--we are the party that truly holds the welfare of the public sacred.

Regardless of your desire to continue support for one of the other candidates, remember this: your candidate is no longer likely to be the nominee for the Democratic Party. It is only by supporting the one candidate who has been chosen that we will win this election--an election more important than most any other EVER in American history. You can choose to be part of that history, or you can choose to sit it out. If you choose to sit it out, your personal stake in the scheme of things is likely to completely and utterly be forgotten and destroyed when the rest of us do our best to get a decent president to be the forefront leader of the free world.

To say that Kerry is the de facto nominee is correct, to suggest that he has some sort of "citizens'" mandate is an illusion. He was chosen by an extremely small plurality of a select electorate and has a long way to go to secure a majority of all voters.

This war just got a lot worse, in case you haven't noticed.....the whole country--or at least both the sunni and the shiites, are out to get us now...and I would really really appreciate it if Sen. Kerry would find a voice to speak about this as we head into wehat is beginning to look like a Vietnam, part 2.

The Bush administration has wasted its best shots at Kerry early in this campaign and poll-wise, it has not had significant effects on Kerry's support. Out of the state polls in 25 states, Kerry has been ahead in 36 polls in the last three weeks, Bush ahead in 24. And most of those 24 polls in states where polling is being done are in states that are expected to go Republican to begin with. Kerry has been ahead in most of the states that are considered too close to call.

Every election is won in the last 4 weeks of the camapain and as was proven in the nominiation process, Kerry was a master of timing during that campaign.

It would be a pity for him to say what you want to hear now, and have nothing to say when it really counts. A good prosecutor, such as Kerry is, does not give away his hand and makes his entire case at one time and in one place.

"...we are the party that truly holds the welfare of the public sacred."

Then why did the Democrats, under Bill Clinton's leadership, imprison more black men than Reagan and Bush Sr. combined?

When you're done explaining that, tell me why the Democrats, under Bill Clinton's leadership, screwed Native Americans out of 137 billion dollars owed them under the terms of the Dawes Act?

And when you're done explaining that, tell me why the Democrats sent cops to threaten Nader away from even ATTENDING the debates?

Then explain why (MA) Democrats are going to deny out-of-state gay marriages to people from states where it is not legal...by using the same 1913 law they enacted to prevent bi-racial marriages.

And then tell me why the Democrats want their cops to crack my skull when I protest in Boston this summer, OUTSIDE the "Free Speech Zone." Make sure it's a good explanation, too, because while I am not too concerned about being pepper-sprayed, clubbed, and arrested, thinking about it makes my wife a nervous wreck.

Try as I might, I just can't see the sanctity of those actions.

I think that the Democrats' best chance of beating Bush and best hope of growing their minority party is to QUIT ACTING LIKE ASSHOLES.

When they lose--which I fear they just might..our party will be in REALLY tough shape--not to mention the world!!!!

Eh? I don't want to start any threads, just send a private message.

Go to the ATA Forum and ask the Admins, they can tell you....

I get the distinct impression that I'll probably have more profitable discussions through private mails. Might cut down on the flames a bit...

Bill Clinton did not arrest anybody, and the laws (mandatory drug sentencing, mostly) that put so many people in American prisons were not enacted by him. Those laws were enacted by Congress in a charge that was led by Republicans.

The fraud and theft perpetrated against Native Americans has gone on for hundreds of years. This most recent example was decades in the making. It was uncovered during Clinton's administration, and covered right back up by the Bush administration. It is totally unfair to lay the blame entirely on Clinton. If Gore had been elected I feel sure that this issue would still be open. As it is, it is buried deep under the hundreds of billions Bush has spent in Iraq.

As for your other examples - sure, Democrats can be assholes just like everybody else. I'm not going to quibble with you about that.

It's just that the magnitude of the problem is much, much larger with *, and the thought of four more years with no worries about running for reelection are truly frightening.

Please think about it.

you want to beat bush but you're proud of not supporting the man who's in the only position to do so. It's kinda hard to win when your front line is standing in a circle.

... he's not throwing many punches right now, and he's landing even fewer. He may have many things going for him, but he needs to get some streetfighter in him *pronto*.


MDN

Raising money

In the upside down world of the daffy left, this whole Clarke thing is bad for Kerry.

don't care about whether what one does or says is effective as long as it makes them feel good to hear something for a few seconds. even if it means most of the country would be turned off by it and therefore lead to losing the election. the truth is that even in polls showing kerry is behind it's not by that much and one has to take into account the millions bush has spend against kerry all around the country compared to the far less amount kerry spend in less areas and not to mention the free media bush gets. and i don't get why ANYONE who wants democrats to win would want them to stop talking about issues that matter to most americans. if you think bush is so bad then wouldn't you want to try to get rid of him rather than just say things that one might like but lead to losing an election ?

Time to speak about the war.

Clearly.

I think our best hope is to win back the Senate or House, so I'm not going to waste time on Kerry. I'll man the phones or whatever for my candidates for Congress, but Kerry is only going to get my vote--unless he starts fighting back.

people who vote in congressional and senatorial elections turn out for the presidential race.

if people aren't excited about kerry, they're not going to bother to go to the polls in order to vote for the congressional/senatorial elections you think you're supporting.

if you want to say 'vote kerry, and give him a democratic senate', or emphasize the virtues of a more democratic house, that's fine, but if you don't lead with the top of the ticket, sorry, that's it. the rest of the ticket has no pull.

Better change that attitude, unblock. We have elections to lose!! :-)

Kerry SHOULD be running on a platform that promotes DEMOCRACY... by eliminating the EC for a start... but like most Dems... he's AWOL on democracy.

Kerry SHOULD be exposing the TRUE agenda of the Right's Tax Cut Psychos who are out to destroy New Deal programs like SS. But he just rearranges the tax cuts.

But I doubt Kerry even thinks about such issues. He's just another establishment Dem who's lost all his way.

So he runs a lame campaign on jobs.... as if ALL recessions don't come to an end.

Color me unimpressed. Color me gloomy on 2004... and democracy itself.

How about reading?

How about reading Kerry's website?

How about reading Kerry's proposals on Kerry's website?

If you did that, you could never honestly say anything you've said about "AWOL on democracy" or "just rearranges the tax cuts" or "just another establishment Dem" or "lame campaign on jobs..."

Unless you're working for the opposition. Are you?

BTW... I live in MASS. Back when he was a Vet against the Vietnam War I had immense respect for Kerry. Ever since NAFTA I have not voted for him.

While I admit that I voted Perot in 92.... and Nader in 96 and 2000... I will be voting for Kerry in 04. But as a TRUE Progressive I'll be holding my nose. That's why I raise the issues I did and you are oblivious to them.

You said I'm "oblivious" to the issues you raised, which included accusations of "AWOL on democracy," "just rearranges the tax cuts," "just another establishment Dem," and "lame campaign on jobs." Yet all you defended that with is an old NAFTA vote.

Glad you'll be voting for Kerry this time. Hope you'll encourage others to do the same. As a "TRUE Progressive," I wouldn't expect anything less.

Ya, I've been to Kerry's web site. He's a classic liberal Democratic. That you confuse that with being progressive is because you use the limited spectrum of US politics as your reference point instead of broader spectrum in other advanced democracies.

That is what many of us would like to hear--things are headed into chaos and catastrophe--we need to hear from him on this NOW.....can we agree on that?

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

Let the adults run the campaign.

Maybe you forgot the candidates that scream like banshees don't go far in elections.

right that kerry is running a mosquito-bite athematic campaign w/o any sense of uplift, issue redefinition, or appeal to underlying values.

wrong that the shift should be away from domestic issues necessarily. he needs to use domestic issues like the bush defecit to relate to underlying values like sacrifice and hard work and inter-generational equity.

Here are some of the problems I have with Kerry:

He supports the occupation of Iraq.

He's in favor of a national ID card.

He supports the Patriot Act.

He loves NAFTA.

He's pro-FTAA.

He's against Gay Marriage.

He's in favor of video surveillance of innocent citizens.

He's a long-standing advocate of prison industrial complex.

He supported the No Child Left Behind act.

He's against universal health care.

Trouble is, those are Bush's positions on those issues, too.

Thanks for the info, no one has ever posted something like that before! Really, thx!

So how long until McAuliffe & Co. realize that fighting for the "swing" voters is iffy at best, and that a much safer strategy is to work harder to prevent people from leaving the party? The Repuds and the Dems are losing followers at about the same speed, so if the Dems could just figure out how to quit bleeding they'd beat the Repuds by attrition. Or better yet, why not take a few issues like Native American unemployment, African American life expectancies, and the American sex-slave industry, and really, truly focus on resolving them? The party might GAIN members, instead of losing them.

While I'm wondering, why doesn't the Democratic candidate, whoever it turns out to be, offer an olive branch to the Left? Kerry didn't mind making sympathetic overtures to the multi-national oil companies by bashing Chavez - does he really think he'll get more votes by kissing their fat heinies than by making a few empty promises to the firebrands?

Here's one that'd go a long way without costing him a single vote: Come out strong against the "Free Speech Zone" that's going to hide all the protesters at the convention in Boston this summer. He'd GAIN votes by displaying respect for the 1st Amendment, rather than embitter people with legitimate grievances.

Kerry can attack Bush on the war and he should be. I buy what Kerry is selling on the war and I think he can explain it easily. He should show how much it's really costing us. He doesn't need to scream but he's got to start fighting back. He is feeling boring right now.

Nader would run against Hitler by saying there's "no difference" between Kerry and Hitler, and to "vote your conscience" because only by letting more Jews die by making Kerry lose to Hitler can you make the Democratic Party learn.

They are here...

http://www.freerepublic.com/

I tried watching Kerry today. I want to like him. Don't. Kept thinking of Willow on Buffy--"Bored now."

"boring". Maybe Americans would like a boring leader after Clinton and Bush?

because he doesn't like Kerry? Even though he clearly stated that he would vote for Kerry?

Do we have to encourage total group think over this election?

Isn't it enough to vote for and support Kerry in his quest? Do we have to pretend to like him as well, else be termed a freeper or of lower intellect?

By some of our well-meaning but hopelesly misguided colleagues.

If this strategy leads us to ruin, it shall be their burden to bear.

It is not FREEPERISH to want stronger leadership on issues like the war. etc.

I am not allowed to link you to ONE such site--but there are many others that will set you on your way..

But keep posting HERE too...there are many thinking and concerned posters on DU who share your concerns....don't let the bullies drive you away....

Some of them do, anyhow. The Libertarians are furious with Bush, and so are the constitutional conservatives. Kerry should reach out to them by promising to make restoring our constitutional rights a priority. If he could say it like he meant it, they'd dump Bush in a heartbeat.

Conversely, if he says nothing, why should they vote for him?

I would vote for Kerry over Bush and Nader and Buchanan and everybody else on one condition:

This summer I intend to exercise the rights enshrined in the First Amendment - I am going to walk up to the doors of the Fleet Center with sign in hand and protest. I will NOT let myself be corralled in a "Free Speech Zone" two blocks away.

If I'm allowed to exercise my right to speak freely, assemble, and petition the government with my grievances, I'll vote for Kerry.

If I am assaulted and incarcerated, I will not vote for Kerry.

Now, before you say anything really stupid, think about it for a minute. Why should ANYONE support ANY candidate who wants to scrap the First Amendment? Do you really think that Kerry would LOSE votes by fighting to restore our rights?

He gave a speech in CA on how shrub screwed up Iraq and broke down our support with our allies and mislead the American people.

Of course, his main message will be about jobs. However, meander over to the ads section of the Kerry site.

"Bush is misleading our Country and we are not going to take it" is one ad.

"No Mr President" is the best one for what you are talking about.

As in Bush had no plan for winning the peace and even slammed him for the Mission Accomplished banner.

Come on people of course he will emphasize on the issue the American people care the most about -- jobs.

However, just because the whore press does not tell you the full message does not mean we can't go to the Kerry site and look for ourselves.

Most of the ads I mentioned were done back in Feb.

He was unfocused and uninspiring. Maybe I just caught the worst five minutes.

Because he slammed Bush for screwing over our relationship with our allies.

He slammed Bush for his lack of a plan in the post-Sadamm era.

He slammed Bush for misleading the American public and the crowds cheering.

I thought it was one of his best speeches ever.

_

We seem to approaching a moment of truth..or haven't you been paying attention?

The IWR vote may be in the PASt, as the ABB crowd has endlessly chanted.

But the WAR is still going on, and going BADLY, right now....and it is about THAT that I would like to hear some good, clear words from Kerry.

He USED to speak out eloquently against this kind of monstrousness--PLEASe, sen, Kerry, find you voice AGAIN....

And the incompetance in the Bush Administration in the California speech.

That is recent.

_

I'll be listening and hoping....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr...

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Monday that President Bush (news - web sites) has stubbornly refused to address the chaos in Iraq (news - web sites) and questioned Bush's adherence to the deadline for ending the U.S. occupation.


The four-term Massachusetts senator was reacting to Bush's statement that he is committed to ending the U.S. occupation and transferring power to the Iraqis by June 30, despite calls for the deadline to be extended because of continued violence.


"The measurement is stability, not the date," Kerry said. "You should not have a date that has anything whatsoever to do with the election in the United States of America"


Kerry said the Bush administration should be "less ideological and more practical" by laying out a security plan for Iraq's self-rule that involves the United Nations.

Playing by the rules in this media is an absurd, horrifying spectacle. An alternative is not always obvious especially when Kerry DOES speak out as you suggest, it gets little play or irrational counterpunches and slant. Meanwhile, taking the broad ground of economic failure is a good strategy since the Big Lie has its last refuge there if all else goes bad. Anyone can quote individual instances, scandals and mistakes but it is the big picture where Bush sustains his possibly winning support.

I think in the end it will all catch up with him and then Kerry DOES have to get the nation back to the normal state of efficient democratic government people can trust and hope in. All negatives will not give people a positive reason to vote FOR a real President.
Of course if this were Iraq and we needed a leader for armed revolt not an election then maybe your point would be stronger.

It IS scary to have the fate of so much ride on a political contest for votes.

the most about. Like it or not, Americans as a whole care about feeding their kids and their pocketbooks more than a bunch of people halfway across the world.

1. The polls already show that most Americans agree Kerry would be better on the economy, jobs, etc. That question is settled already.

2. There are a lot of Dems and Indeps who have crossed party lines to support Bush solely because of national security. They feel, IMHO, that national security is more important than money. Kerry has to bring them back. And talking to them about economics ain't gonna do it.

If Kerry brings them back - those misinformed fools who are really Dems but are now supporting Bush - then he wins solid in November.