DU gives me a headache. What has Kerry ever done to some people?

A thread in GDP is using Kerry as the reason we must win in 08: so that he does not run in 2012.

:banghead:

Well, not for JK unless he reads DU, but for us. :(

But I seriously doubt Kerry would run in 2012! He's got bigger fish to fry for the people of MA and for the U.S. in the United States Senate

The poster has one thing right: We must win in 2008.

Like to throw spit balls and taunt, anonymously. Welcome to our current and future acitivists. Keepers of America's flame.

Depressing.

and these are supposed to be the "good people". Unfortunately, narrow-mindedness and silliness goes across the political spectrum. I can only hope that most of these people are under 15...

Kerry wasn't running to be the leader we all know he can be on Iraq, and not have to worry about the political chains of Presidential politics. I said he sees this war morphing into a lot of the things he came home to with Vietnam, and is frustrated with the direction--wants to stand up to bring it to an end.

The posters response? Are you saying Kerry wouldn't have ran for President if he was leading the polls? SHEESH.

:banghead:

Missing the point OR WHAT?!?!?

The fact is that in all the interviews in lat Nov and early Dec, while he or course wouldn't say yes or not, there was reason to think it was still yes. After he went to the middle east, he still didn't answer the 2008 question , but his smile was less real. So, that would suggest you were right.

The other thing is the poll numbers were slightly recovering in January. His donors were also still with him. (The other possible thing was what Tay Tay posted - if he ran, Non and Dec showed him it would be nastier than 2004 and it would hit his family and people, like his swiftboat crew who went though a lot for him in 2004. (in a fair world, 2004 would have been a cool exciting experience for them.)

if he was leading in the polls, most probably he WOULD have run. I do nto have time to elaborate, maybe some other time....

it would make others in the Senate more likely to stand behind him on Iraq and other issues. With many, they want to be on the side that's winning. This strength would make up for the fact that he has less time to work these issues in the Senate. This doesn't imply that what he said was not 100% truth as to his reasons. Had that been the case, it would have been true that by running for President, he could better clean things up in the world.

I think this is why the attacks in October and November happened. Imagine they hadn't, Kerry was leading on most Democratic issues and we took both houses. As MSNBC and a Boston Globe article indicated, he was the leader on the most important issues with the positions the voting Democrats favored and he had done a phenomenal job helping others in 2006. He had the wonderful Faneuil Hall speeches. This had to be exactly where the Kerry people wanted him to be.

He would have been in a greatly strengthened position and could have pushed the legislation he is now pushing (without Presidential aspirations). By being seen as suceeding either through his 2006 work or legislation, he could have picked up people as concern increased that Clinton wasn't leading and the other two were too green. That increase would have given him more power in the Senate. (continue the cycle)

The real cost of those attacks was it completely derailed the hard won momentum and made more apparent the hard fact that, in spite of all he did, he would not be defended when unfairly hit, and worse, Democrats felt free to kick him when he was down. (The "heyjohn" thing was clearer as Kerry's actions here were as meritous as his VN service was - this was a genuine case of swiftboating, barely seen by people not on the blogosphere.)

But Kerry's positions on the issues are suddenly popular.

may have been partly based on the the fact that the others would pick up his positions and that the forces against him were too great - it was shaping into less of a fair fight than the 2004 general election.

The popularity of his real positions also explains why the media didn't cover him and (as in the Des Moines Register - the top Iowa paper, blatantly misstated his position on Iraq - to make him the most pro-war.) Look at how the media handled Edwards cavillier "I was wrong" and Kerry's painful acceptance that his name is associated with a war he was against from day 1 of the discussions on it and which he considers immoral. Would an impartial observer ever ignore Kerry's and accept Edwards'?

great analysis, but very disheartening

I can't stand the cruelty, okay I'm not naive, but at least the shortsightedness of constantly dissing your best and brightest. All because Bill3 has mesmorized people into thinking only he can run, win, get elected.

Kerry's reputation is largely what the Dem competition and RW talking points have been permitted to create.

ASSHOLES

I would like the meddling of the Dem Party in the IWR, the recount, Heyjohn and pronoungate, and so much more about standing down during the campaign, sitting it out, all of it to become public. I don't like Kerry taking the blame for not being the messiah. Although we think he's close.

I wish we could prove who was behind all those things.

So that he doesn't run in 2012?? Are these propagandists people mental? Oh, wait...

From the DU rules:

Do not use the DU Groups to "rally the troops" to go participate in discussion threads elsewhere on our website, or to likewise encourage members to vote in polls or recommend threads or alert on posts.

unhappycamper
DU Moderator