John Kerry aims to thwart challenger

John Kerry aims to thwart challenger
By Dave Wedge
Tuesday, June 3, 2008


U.S. Sen. John Kerry - wary of a potential political embarrassment - has been calling in favors to top Bay State Democrats in a bid to block a Gloucester lawyer from getting on the ballot to challenge him, the Herald has learned.

Several high-ranking Democrats said the senator has reached out in recent days seeking support and asking for help in preventing attorney Ed O’Reilly from getting the convention votes he needs to force a September primary race against Kerry.


>

Insiders say Kerry has drawn the ire of some party officials for backing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary race and that some may use Saturday’s convention to exact political payback.

Clinton backers recently showed their clout in intra-party elections, ousting longtime state delegate Margaret Xiafaras, reportedly because she backed Obama.

“In a (presidential) primary race as close as this one has been, it would not surprise me to see people take sides and for there to be hard feelings,” said state Sen. Jack Hart. “I know the Kerry campaign is calling around to all the delegates, which they haven’t done in the past, asking for their support.”

If O’Reilly gets on the ballot, he would be Kerry’s first primary opponent since 1984.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/general/view/2008_06_03_Kerry_aims_to_thwart_challenger/srvc=home&position=recent

...you might want to give some second thoughts to the principles of ethical intra-party conduct you advocate, seeing as one side is going to be in a serious position to see that things "come around" if they feel so inclined and there is a LOT that has "gone around" from the Clinton camp.

Of course Obama isn't a dick, so he won't do that, but the point stands.

that's in trouble.

She is in trouble not only for her endorsement but also her behavior on the campaign trail. One prominent leader in the city feels that she committed political suicide with her actions during this campaign.

praising both HRC and Edwards as fit to be President and saying they would lead the country in the right direction. Also, more than any advocate on either side, he has taken pains - when it makes sense - to include HRC with Obama when contrasting the "Democratic" position to the to McCain's. This is infinitely better than WJC and HRC, praising her and McCain over Obama.

As to the competitor. He told the Boston Globe that Kerry needs to dispel the SBVT charges. When challenged on line he made it worse. As to his own record - he did win the position of being on the school board and was designated the chair. How did he do? He quit mid way through his term because "it was too much work". Contrast this to Kerry's workaholic schedule - where during Senate breaks he does things like going to Africa to oversee the AIDS program that Kerry and Frist were early advocates of, going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, and India. Then there was a long Senate weekend, where Kerry became the entire US Congressional delegation to Bali even though to do that requires him taking 40 hours of commercial flights to spend 36 hours at Bali. Was it important? At an Earth Day SFRC on the Bali conference one of the official team members said there would have been no treaty without Kerry's work.

So, what is one of the things this guy is running on? That Kerry is on vacation too much. If you think this is true - visit an independent site that follows Kerry's work - www. Kerryvision.net . What is starling is how much he does and has done on every important issue the country faces. The Democratic party is lucky to have him as is the country.

So, the Clinton people in MA, in a truely obnoxious fashion can use there vote at the convention to punish Kerry. There is no doubt that Kerry will win the convention. What they can accomplish is to create a primary fight - thst Kerry would win hands down. So, what is the cost? Kerry has been one of the best people going after McCain's national security and foreign policy positions. Obviously, in addition to campaigning for the general election in MA (where polls show him getting 63% of the vote before the weaknesses of the Republicans are seen), he will likely be a top Obama surrogate and a top supporter of Democrats running for other positions.

The spin in this RW paper also turns "asking for the support of convention goers" to "stopping O'Reilly". The silliest comment is that he never did this before. Yet, they also say this is the first Democratic challenge he has had. That kind of explains why he didn't call for support.

All I know is that if Bill and HRC do not call off their spiteful dogs in this completely worthless effort, I will think even less of them.

in Ohio were sabotaged just to protect Hillary2008.

You think Obama's national political network sprung up overnight? Kerry used his national network, minus the Clinton saboteurs, for Obama and did so LONG before he endorsed him publicly. So did Daschle - the grip of the Clintons on the Democratic party HAD to end.

Too bad you are too devoted to the Bushprotecting Clintons to care about your party or the nation.

You wanted to REWARD Clintons for undermining Gore and backstabbing Kerry campaigns.
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Well, some of us know that Clintons have been BAD for the country and our party for far longer than this election.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"What goes around comes around.
This I've learned with time - -
What you give, you always get back;
What you sow, you reap in kind.
Always be helpful to others
And give what you can spare;
For by being kind to strangers,
We help angels unaware."

and this will hardly "bite him on the ass". The worst that will happen is a primary challenge where Kerry will completely destroy this guy. Do you think that MA would prefer a 5th term Senator, recently said to be the twelveth most influential who is a top Democrat on National Security, foreign policy, Iraq, global warming, small businesses and healthcare or a person who couldn't complete a term on the school board?

interview from the very criticisms of his terrorism and Iraq war decisions that Kerry was leveling at Bush at the time.

You AGREED with all the backstabbing Clintons did then? You agreed with Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night?


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


You side with Clintons protection of BushInc throughout the 90s?
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

You are loyal to THOSE ACTS?

He did this out of a heart felt belief that it was wrong to open the rift that he and others worked hard to heal. Here is a link to the comments that he said in 1992. The quote is from the Senate record:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/18

Imagine instead that at that point, Kerry opted to side with Kerrey. There was concern about Clinton's character because of various things like Genefer Flowers. Imagine that the eloquent Kerry, instead made the same case that it was wrong to say people against the Vietnam War were not patriotic, but then fired a Kerryesqe skewering at Clinton for his less than gracious letter to the ROTC commander. That letter showed Clinton's character. He sought the guy's help, got it, and when he no longer needed it rudely threw him under the bus. I don't think that he should have gone to Vietnam, but the letter is needlessly rude.

Would Clinton have wanted the discussion of character to be discussed in the primaries? I don't think so. In fact, in retrospect, I wish people of integrity like Kerry and Gore would have not covered for him.

swiftboated himself this time, didn't he?

lost? HAHAHAHA. Kerry was one of the key Dems behind Obama long before his public endorsement.


He accessed his national team for Obama and they outperformed and outorganized the Clinton team from day one.

Your loyalty to the Bushprotecting Clinton wing of the party has no admirable quality to it, at all.

THIS is who the Clintons are -


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

This is your wing of the party - they serve the fascist agenda of BushInc - always have and always will.

Never did.

Voted for him by default in 2004.

No more default votes from me....

But you can be certain the CLINTONS will never forget how he used his national network against them as they used theirs to undermine all Dems who opposed Bush from 2000-2007, and especially against Kerry.

Anyone who sides with what they did to protect Bush all those years and now wants their deceits rewarded deserves to suffer their loss along with them.

He was a loser on 2004. And he can lose again.

No matter to me.

The fact is that the question is whether his opponent can get 15%, even if made up primarily from people wanting to hit Kerry for some perceived failing. There is no way he will beat Kerry in a primary and Kerry is at about 63% against the Republicans - and that is before any of their (major real) weaknesses are known.

There is a world of difference between the tough 2004 race and this - just as there will be when HRC goes for re-election as a third term Senator. The comments here that she will have a problem are as silly as this - even though Kerry has the more distinguished Senate record.

1) He did nothing wrong in endorsing Obama - in fact, the Clintons fought to get his endorsement. How can one endorsement be right the other wrong? Also, look at how the Clintons treated him post 2004, starting with a whisper campaign that he was doing something wrong thinking he was one of the Democratic leaders to vilifying him over Kerry/Feingold - which in principle became the Democratic postion after Nov 2006 to stabbing him in the back. Then they had the chutzpah to think they were entitled to his endorsement?

I always though that unlikely. If you contrast the Clintons' position that having a real plan on Iraq before the 2006 election with Kerry's comment "that as a Senator in good standing he could not fail to speak out when he thought the plan was wrong". Listen to Kerry's dissent speech - his motivation was to push what was good for the country, the world and the troops, there's to figure out the est political position for themselves and the Democrats. Ask yourself, if in April 2006, a genie came to both Kerry or the Clintons and gave them this offer - "Here is a plan that would work, get us out of Iraq and start to move the country in the right direction - but the only way it could work is to behind the scenes give it to Bush and know that he would get credit for it." Do you think either would take the offer? I bet far more people might say Kerry would than Clinton.

2)How is this swiftboating and how will it hurt him?

get a grip, please.

isn't it? I guess many were never taught how to accept disappointment in their lives.

Just pretend he doesn't exist.

what he is doing is personally calling at least some convention goers and asking for their vote. It is very true this could lead to a completely weak challenger being left off the ballot for failing to get 15%. Consider what the BH would say if Kerry did not make these calls. I suspect it would be said that he is so conceited that he thinks he doesn't need to even ask. What is wrong with Kerry calling his constituents. (The only thing that would get me mad is if he told people "they would be dead to him" if they didn't back him - but that's the Clintons circa late 2007 and early 2008.)

As it is, many of these people were helped in the past by Kerry, who has raised money and helped elect many Democrats in MA (as has Ted Kennedy).

Sounds vaguely familiar....

It is perfectly legal to challenge an opponent's signatures and it is incumbent on the candidate to insure they have enough. It was not Obama's rule - but Illinois law.

Here, you have even less to complain about. Kerry is calling people who are convention delegates and personally asking for their votes. What is wrong with that? If O'Reilly can't get 15% of the convention delegates to vote for him - he won't get on the ballot. This will save Kerry money, time and energy. If he can't get 15%, which is likely to include many who ultimately will vote for Kerry, MA law says he's not on the ballot. He also has the right to call and ask for support - which he likely has done. Kerry is doing the same thing. I also see nothing here similar to the Clinton threads that people would be "dead to them" if they don't support him.

is always right. Right?

Just because there is a possibility that over 85% of the convention goers may feel their 4 term Senator is more deserving than a guy who has found little support in the blogosphere or in real life doesn't make it wrong for Kerry to make friendly calls making his case. Nothing here says he is doing anything else. As a candidate, isn't this what he is suppose to do?

I say this as a life-long MA resident. I don't think O'Reilly will even make it onto the ballot. O'Reilly is an inexperienced know-nothing, whose only political experience was on the Gloucester School Board.

He has major baggage as well from things said on the MA blogs.

voter and supporter but I like this guy's positions from what I've read so far. Of course I wouldn't want to vote for someone who is a phony so I'm interested in what the deal is with him.

Read Masshole's comment and see what a hypocrite O'Reilly is.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showComment.do?commentId=98655

Also, check out this kos diary about Ed giving the swiftboat liars credence:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/21/18020/496

He really has destroyed himself on some of the liberal blogs.

It seems that his platform is some very generic progressive stuff, but with no experience behind any of them. He has placed himself to the Senator's left for things that will not happen on the federal level.

For instance, he is for single payer health insurance, but that has little support and is DOA in the Senate. But, Obama took Kerry's concept of catastrophic re-insurance, where a single pool will pay amounts above $50,000. This helps small business afford health insurance - without it many are subject to exorbitant rates once an employee has a high cost medical problem. This prevent them from continuing to offer it. It also leads to a total decrease in the cost of insurance. Why? Because the catastrophic pool is a single payer plan. Now consider that Obama gets that as part of his plan and it really works to drive down costs, what do you think might be a next step? Lowering the threshold. This is in addition to the fact that Kerry was involved with Kennedy, Hatch and Dodd on S-CHIP which is the biggest increase in insurance since the 1960s.

O'Reilly also says that he wants to do more on global warming. But, he has no history of ever working on this. Kerry was an activist since the 1970s. Kerry was the Congressional delegation to Bali. Though the media gave little attention to this - Kerry was praised in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the Bush administration for the work he did there. The President’s chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, spoke before the SFRC hearing chaired by Senator Menendez. Mr. Connaughton was part of the President’s delegation who attended the second week of the Bali Conference. Because of the Senate schedule, Senator Kerry flew 40 hours round trip to spend 36 hours as the sole US Congressional representative to the conference. At a SFRC hearing earlier this year, Mr. Connaughton, who represented President Bush said:
“I would particularly also want to call out thanks to Senator Kerry for coming to Bali. I would note that the remarks he gave in Bali were very constructive in helping to educate the international community on the needs, what it would take for America to move forward together in a bi-partisan way. I thought those remarks were very well received. Senator Kerry, thank you for that.”
Listening to the hearing, the Senator is praised for his leadership on this issue by both Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080124p.html

Here was even stronger praise from an earth day SFRC hearing: Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat (around 4 minutes in) said:

"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty."

http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defense_of_treehuggers.html#comments . (I was surprised to see this on Kerryvision because I had heard nothing on this and it was the same day Kerry did an amazing job on the Future of the Internet hearing.

On Iraq, O'Reily speaks mostly of the IWR - ignoring that Kerry was one of the few who spoke out when Bush began to misuse the authority given and was attacked by the right for doing it. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6207784#6213383 )
The current Democratic position is derived from Kerry/Finegold and the ISG was highly influenced by Kerry. On the diplomatic side, Kerry was instumental as well. Though there is a tendency of Senators to lavish false praise on the Senate floor and that Biden would have loved Kerry's endorsement, Biden's comments after Kerry signed as a co-sponsor to Biden's Iraq bill were specific and rang true. It also seemed lost on the media that Kerry did not sign on and Biden did not get a majority of support until he did what Kerry spoke of the year before. That change - charging the Iraqis to draw the lines on the map and define the functions of the states vs the national government were very important - without them, the proposal had echoes of the British actions of unilaterally defining country and government for the colonies. It was also interesting that Senator Warner, on the cusp of Biden's victory on this, took to the floor after Kerry spoke to point out that there already was a Kerry written sense of the Senate resolution for a regional conference. Here's a link: http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/biden_gives_props_to_senator_k.html

While you read O'Reilly's words, you may want to relook at your Senator, even if you don't like him. He has made many contributions that he gets almost no credit for. (ie You remember the coverage the BG gave him for the Bali conference? There was almost nothing. Did you ever hear of the Housing Trust Fund bill that he (in parallel to Barney Franks ) has pushed since 2000 - it passed the Banking committee 19-2. Again, little press for the home state Senator. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x148851

Ignore the framing and consider the facts of what he is doing. He has a challenger for the first time and he is calling convention goers ,many that he has known and helped for decades, to ask for their support. The only way this can be stopping his opponent is if more than 85% of the conference goers decide to support Kerry over his opponent. What would the story be with no such calls? That Kerry is taking their support for granted. (I think it goes to an old story that I think was Tip O'Neill's where he was in a narrow race and found a friend or neighbor hadn't bothered to vote for him, asked why he was told that "he was never asked".

If they are not playing with supporting O'Reilly, it is an attack on the Clinton people. Thanks for suggesting that because you are right that it does show them, not Kerry, in the worst light. If they are playing with it, they are not only "vengeance obsessed assholes" but dumb ones, because they aren't going to defeat him in the primary.

i support clintons decision to support anyone they want to

i however doubt they care much about MA primaries.

What makes him think nobody has a right to challenge his job? That attitude is not very
democratic or becoming of him.

Let the people decide.

All this says he is doing is calling and asking for support - O'Reilly is likely doing the same. If O'Reilly convinces 15% of the people then he will be on the ballot. Kerry certainly has the right to call people and ask for their support.

Kerry won. RNC stole 2004 for Bush and Clinton loyalist McAuliffe made sure during his four year stewardship of the DNC that they'd have all the room necessary to pull off another stolen election.

Keep blaming the Clintons, blm, for everything that went wrong with Kerry's pathetic campaign and how he blew it to an imbecile when anyone else would have won in a landslide. Thanks, Senator Kerry, for giving us 4 more years of George W Bush!!

continue to do so.

YOU side with those who sabotaged Ohio Dem voters and want them rewarded - why?


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

You side with those Dems who did the most to protect BushInc in the 90s so Bush2 could get into the WH in 20001. Why do you side with deceit?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Kerry had a dynamic personality, Kerry never made any gaffes, Clintons sleep with the Bushes...blah blah blah...Robert Parry says Clintons are crooked, so does the Pope, Clinton pardoned the Mafia...blah blah blah blah blah.

Bush and war were popular. Choices clearer this year, and we shouldn't lose because Clitnons don't know when to leave the stage.

,

:wtf:

20 points up for two years before the primaries in a year widely thought to be a gimme for the Democrats - and she lost and did it in a way that exposed a very dark side of both her and Bill. Sure Kerry lost a tough race - but even if there were political errors there were no scandals or no character flaws that led to losing a tough race.

a terrorized nation that emotionally responded by clinging to Bush in response to raised terror warnings and an extremely biased media. No Democrat,, including your Goddess of Peace, could have won - which is why she opted not to run. At the point a decision needed to be made Bush was at 60% - Kerry as much as anyone brought that number down - but ultimately not enough.

Kerry polls winning 63% of the vote against either Republican and no one has bothered to poll the primary.

George Bush had already proven himself to be the worst president in history by the time 2004 came around. Everyone at the time said that there is no way that any Democrat could possibly lose to Junior, but John Kerry proved them all wrong by running the most DISASTROUS campaign EVER.

Most DISASTROUS campaign ever. YEA FUCKING RIGHT. Your ignorance is shocking.

Nice try JACKASS

Bill sure loves Bush's ugly face - and that of his father's. And that of Jackson Stephens' memory, and that of Dubai and Saudi royals, and Marc Rich's face....and loved them so much he protected them throughout the 90s.

THANK YOU, BILL!!

and just so I don't leave anyone out...Thank you, Senator Kerry, for giving us FOUR MORE YEARS OF GEORGE W BUSH!

You need to have more diverse friends. The facts are that in Dec 2003, Dean polled 20 points behind Bush and "generic" Democrat 12 points. By late February, Kerry was competitive with Bush as people saw him winning primaries.

Kerry's convention, fall rallies (which broke Clinton records), and debates were outstanding. I remember the comments the week before the election when pundits thought Kerry had pulled it off - they were astonished that it was the case.

:rofl:

Kerry is beyond safe here in Mass. Get a clue people. They're free, grab more than one while you at it.

And they always have a violent and thuggish aversion to actual real-life liberals.

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/2008-01-31-09-15-31-campaigns.php

Interesting. Is he an asshole? I've never heard of him before.

O'Reilly would piss his pants by the end of the first round if he ever had to debate Kerry.

all about change, right? Maybe it IS time for some change. My husband's a firefighter, I'm intrigued by that and some of O'Reilly's positions - if you can point me to something, anything that tells me this guy is not what he appears to be - I'm open.

in Florida. He IS an asshole.

He got a lot of troll ratings on DailyKos - because he went far over the top.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6239373&mesg_id=6242137

He is a jerk. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6239373&mesg_id=6242137

:rofl:
:rofl:

I live in Boston and have seen a couple of ads about this. Basically interviewed people in rural eating places and asking them when was the last time they saw John Kerry around their town. Kind of fell flat if you ask me. Kerry's senate seat is nowhere near in jeopardy.

"If O’Reilly gets on the ballot, he would be Kerry’s first primary opponent since 1984."


:woohoo::applause::bounce::applause::woohoo:...:D

just a habit, eh?

to smear Kerry because he didn't endorse the inevitable one. Yawn :boring:

I am one of his constituents, and I like both of my Senators very much. Go deal with your own elected representatives, please.

Kerry, I know PLENTY of my fellow of Dems who will be voting for O'Reilly because of Kerry's endorsement of Obama

This is no joke.... it is very clear that O'reilly could easily get the 15% to get on the ballot

Trust me when I say we are FAR, FAR, from unified in the Bay State.....Clinton supporters are bitter and Obama supporters are mystified regarding why their guy doesn't have more support in MA from the rank and file.

I write this as someone who supported John Edwards....It is beyond weird to attend a Party function and because people knew of my support for Edwards would come up to me and say"He was ALWAYS my second choice.....I don't know how I can vote for O or C( depending on person) if I had to in the Fall"

I remember sitting at my table at a function in March where Kerry was the guest speaker and a Clinton person came around asking if I would put on one of her stick on buttons and I said I was an Edwards supporter and unless they could give me an Obama sticker too or show me where I could get an Obama sticker I won't take it because it was all about unity at that point..... I got a dirty look for my "effort" at unity.

I am not optimistic at this point and I am hoping every Dem I know in MA who voted for HC will be doing a gut check as the leaves turn cause if it were today... I think we'd lose MA

Last I saw ( a couple weeks back) Obama was ahead by 19% and Hillary was ahead by 23% or 24%. Mass is not going Republican.

Democrats tell me that they may vote for McSame or stay home, I don't know about you, but I get nervous. Granted, it is anecdotal evidence but it is worrisome.

I stand by what I wrote:if the election were today I think McSame would win simply because of the bitterness that exists.... we Democrats need this time period to simmer down and unify.

has to be checked and tapped down before it gets so far.

Some people are not in the political game for the good of the nation. They just like the game and take the GAME more seriously than they do the governance. That is Bush and Rove's thing. Horrifying to see it from any Dems.

who were key to Obama's victory over the Clinton machine.

Guess who was the only Dem to have a national political network to tap into and who used it for Obama to effectively hit the ground running against the overhyped and longtoothed Clinton machine? See....Kerry was helping Obama long before he publicly endorsed him and Clintons know it.

John Kerry is five times the man as this lowlife, RNC-enabling piece of garbage.

:)