Things I am concentrating on

I think John Kerry deserves to be re-elected to the US Senate. He has been an excellent advocate for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts there and has been a wonderful advocate for national programs and causes that are good for the country. Kerry has been a good Democrat and will continue to support and work for good Democratic candidates across the country and will, I am sure, be a tireless advocate for the Democratic nominee in 2008, whomever that person may be. (Let the process unfold.)

Sen Kerry is involved in the national debate and still has a presence on the national political scene. However, that presence has changed because he is no longer seeking the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. His role nationally now is as an advocate for the causes that he believes in and as an experienced presence in the Senate that can genuinely affect the debate there on things he has expertise in, like foreign policy. When I talk about the Senator in national political blogs it is with that in mind. I don't need to advocate for Kerry as a national candidate, he is not running nationally. I need to advocate for his message. That message needs to be heard in the Democratic Party and in the coming primary season. I am writing about the message.

There are still a lot of detractors on the blogs when it comes to Kerry. Unless they live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and can vote here, I don't care about them. They don't matter. That is the upside of not running nationally. You don't have to listen to the bullshit anymore because it is irrelevant, it will not affect the Senator's re-election plans in the Massachusetts.

It would be nice to just be able to skip over some of the snarky comments. Some people dislike Kerry. So what? They are not able to affect the race for the Senator in '08, affect his fund-raising or affect his ability to speak out on core Democratic issues. I am going to try not to be hypercritical and let some of the snarky comments just fall by the wayside. I can do this because they are irrelevant. Senator Kerry is not running for national political office. (So the snark doesn't matter.)

John Kerry is a lifelong Democrat. He may have policy differences with other Democrats who are running for the Democratic nomination. I think that the Senator will deal with this by putting forth his own ideas on how to go forward on the issues, as he has on the issue of the war in Iraq. He will do his job as a US Senator and formulate legislation and do oversight in the Senate committees. That is where the debate is now for him. In 2008, when the Democrats have a nominee, Senator Kerry will probably do everything he can to put that nominee in the White House, no matter past differences. That is how it works. That is how it is going to work, guaranteed. It is better to let the snarky posts on DU roll off you. They don't matter. Really, they don't. Concentrate on the message and let some of the snark just go, don't reply to it. It serves no purpose. (This is about the personal snark, not attacks on the message. There is a big difference.)

John Kerry will always have my support for everything he's done for the nation, and the kind of leadership he's shown in his life. Truth be told, President Kerry sounds rather nice to me. But it's not time to look back, but forward. I often overanalyze everything, and for so many years I just looked back at 2004 and wondered what went wrong, I wondered what happened. How could this good, honest, and noble man be thrown under the bus and dragged through the mud?

Looking back, John Kerry answered his call to service in 2004. He did his duty to his country, as he always has, and ran for President to better America. And he came up short (or so history says.) The fact of the matter is Kerry did his best to capture the White House and bring about real change for this country. He didn't have any obligation to run again, it was his choice. And it came down to showing real leadership and focusing on ending this war in Iraq and serving the great people of MA or running for President again with political chains attached and worrying about what you say and what you do. He made the right choice, and we all should be proud of his decision to put people before politics and address issues now instead of campaign promises to address them later.

He's in a great place now! He will show the country life after running for the Presidency is possible, and being a great leader without being President is more then possible. I'm very proud of John, and I think about all he's accomplished. He deserves to be re-elected, and I look forward to watching him lead the charge for many more years in the United States Senate bringing about real change in Washington!!

The future is very important, and we must answer Senator Kerry's charge to work as hard as we can to get people on board with "Set A Deadline" so that the future holds a real change of course in Iraq and so we've got a plan to bring our brave troops home responsibly and safely. As stubborn of a person I've been here on DU, yesterday I washed my hands of letting others bother me and I put someone on ignore for the first time. It's time to focus on getting the message out loud and clear, and worrying less about the business as usual B.S. of a minority of posters here at DU!!

It seems as though this is a national movement he wants to start. Am I wrong to think this? That in itself will draw criticism and perhaps more recognition outside Mass. If this is they kind of recognition he wants then he will still need to be defended. The repubs and other candidates are not going to roll over and let JK dictate ideas and plans on Iraq or take some of their fame away. This might even again, upset those inside the party. Although, I doubt it would jeopardize his reputation in Mass. I have to ask though, he is a shoe in in Mass so what is to work on? He has plenty of that money left from the 04 campaign and I am sure he can raise extra. He is well liked and people seem to be genuinely happy that he decided not to run for President again.

I agree to a point about ignoring the negative personal comments here. AK and MS get their jollies by trying to tick us off. I think everything has been said about the 04 campaign that can be said. But, for those of us who have been defending him for years it isn't easy to just stop doing this. Some personal attacks are in need of defending as are policy issues. But not here at DU, out in the general media, where the negatives have the most impact. We could move on also, perhaps for the best, but that would mean abandoning everything JK. Maybe we should move on and let the Mass people have their senator back. I just don't know if this is what he wants entirely, that is why I question what the set a deadline really is. Is it a movement or is it a small effort from a senator to try and get Iraq right and bring our troops home?

It's his vision of what we need to do in Iraq to end this bloody and tragic war. With or without Set a Deadline, it's clear he'll win re-election. But the tone of his re-election campaign seems to be so far tested leadership with the courage to stand up for big issues and not back down. From running for President to calling for a deadline to end this war. I don't know if that answers your question, but I think by getting people on board nationally with Set a Deadline he's showing the kind of leadership America needs right now. And proving to MA he's still on there side, and dealing with the big problems and issues America faces.

I think it is a movement from the Senator to try and get Iraq right, and bring our troops home. It's his "moral obligation" as he puts it.

there will still be a need to defend him-if he can draw more support for this position. Tay said that she feels we should ignore the personal attacks that deal with the past, since he is now only a Mass Senator re-running for that seat.
I am trying to say, I don't understand where the goal other than the obvious, of Set a deadline is then, is it to be a national movement or is it to be an effort and no more than a bill put forth by just a senator from Mass.
I think we are being told, he will be a representitive of Mass in the context of being a senator and the party. So in the end, he will support whomever the candidate may be and perhaps, if we can not promote just the positions of the sentor from Mass, then we should move on. His time on the national stage has ended.
I think he needs to explain what his intention is than with Set a deadline.com as I said in the other post.

He's John Kerry. He's expected to lead on this issue.
And I plan to support him and his effort to stop this war.

...But I think he'll be re-elected. And so I think his thought process in this is yes, I'll be focused on re-election. But I have to show the people of Mass. these past few years I've been focusing on national politics aren't wasteful on an empty quest to be President. He's got to show the people of Mass. what they have in their Senator is a strong leader who is seen as a huge Democratic party leader--on issues such as Iraq. And he's trying to show leadership by rallying people all around the country to force the President to set a deadline for bringing our troops home responsibly.

I don't know, I guess thats the best possible answer I could supply. Maybe the others can add to that.

:shrug:

That changes things. I see no purpose in getting into fights with people who are defending candidates for the '08 nomination at this point. That is an 'apples and oranges' debate.

I do not want to push anyone away. (Dear Lord no. Nor, I venture to guess, would Sen. Kerry. I mean, ahm, we saw him in Dec. He was very, very appreciative of those good and incredible people who traveled so far to wish him well. I saw that and so did you.)

There will always be people who snark about what happened in '04. There will always be people who snark about Kerry in personal remarks. There is not a damn thing you can do about that. That race is over now and if others want to keep bringing it up, then that is their problem. My focus going forward is on the ideas and issues that I think are important for the country. That is where help is needed, wanted and greatly and deeply appreciated.

It's not, in a sense, about John Kerry anymore. It's about what he believes in. He has been, in a sense, freed to pursue that. He doesn't have to justify his existence as a national politician anymore. That is now for the Hillary's, Obama's and others to do. He can concentrate on the issues and on running again in Massachusetts. That's what I want to defend. The message and the issues. I don't want to bait anyone into more discussions about the personal stuff. That's over. (It is. These are dying remnants that we are seeing. Nobody will care about that stuff soon enough.)

Wisteria, you are most dearly needed. But for the right reasons. For myself, I can simply skip the snarky posts that infer that 'Kerry didn't fight hard enough, talk well enough, count enough votes, or whatever' comments because I don't need to respond to them. They are personal and not relevant anymore. I can concentrate on the issues nationally. That is what Kerry will be doing nationally. Working to change the national debate, affect change and implement a better Democratic agenda. That is something I can get behind wholeheartedly. Some of that has to happen in Massachusetts, cuz that's where Kerry is from and that's where he has to stand for re-election. But the other piece of that is national. (Hey, I get mail from Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy and others. They are not running for President either. But they need my help on the national agenda. )

I am sorry if I offended anyone, and especially you Wisteria with these comments. I in no way wanted to push anyone away. But we do have to acknowledge the change in emphasis. It is real and it has to be dealt with in a real way. (Seriously, it can also be less stressful. This is a chance to cut away all that crap that so bothers everyone. Don't feed the naysayers. They will go and find someone else to snack on. Honest.)

they may ask for you to sign a petition for introduction of a bill and of course some money, but in this case with Set a Deadline, there is a difference, I don't understand what is to happen with this- other than achievement of the goal. If this is to be promoted nationally, then that brings him recognition outside Mass along with criticism that goes along with national recognition.
I don't mean to be frustrating, but he seems to have to decide what he wants. He seems to want to be the Senator from Mass, but he still also wants to maintain a national image. He can introduce a bill without our help as long as he has the support of enough fellow senators. We can encourage our senators to go along, but there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on this and more on keeping his supporters engaged and still following him.
I intend to continue to promote the idea of bringing our troops home, it is something I personally believe needs to happen and I like the ideas Kerry has put forth. But as you said, it is more the issue that needs to be pushed so why do we need the Senator involved in Set a Dead line at all- other than to introduce the bill?

You are effectively a cosponsor of the bill JK will introduce. This bill is special; it will have citizen cosponsors to show the president that we, the people, want the war to end. John Kerry is giving you a voice.
In order for this bill to be as effective as possible, it needs as many cosponsors as possible; here is your first task; promote the bill; lead people to setadeadline.com to be a cosponsor.
And keep in mind that this is only a beginning. So try to switch gears from REactive to PROactive.
Tay said itright; this isn't so much about John Kerry anymore than it is about an issue that is close to his heart, and that he wants to resolve. He needs all the help he can get; including yours!

a personal one, I don't know if I can switch gears. And, I don't know if I want to leave the past behind just yet.

It's really hard to let go of 'what could have been' - to quote a friend of ours. Switching gears means precisely that, though - letting go and looking forward. Think of moving forward as building another piece of John Kerry's legacy. Do we want that to be a legacy of changing the country for the better, no matter what position it was achieved from?
Also, look at it this way; Why do you care about John Kerry? Is it his honesty, integrity, and caring for people? I suspect it is. Giving up his dream of running for the presidency to put his country and the people first is the action of the man we have come to love and respect. Hold on to that when you feel sad, and remember the promise we made; that we would have his back, always.

And in my more lucid moments that's the way I do look at it.

But I also feel some of the same the bitterness wisteria feels. What happened to him was wrong. I know politics ain't beanbag - but honestly at this point I'm not ready to be wholehearted about anything political except for getting his back.

Even though he's still going to be my senator, I still have a sense of loss that will stay with me as long as it stays. I'm not rushing it away. I've been chugging along on the John Kerry for President track for 4 years now, and I can't switch gears that fast. I can support his current efforts - and do. I will work for his re-election.

But I feel the same way a number of people here do. There is no one I'm excited about - even if Obama gives a great speech, that doesn't mean to me that he's ready to be president. I remain skeptical. I was watching some of the Tavis Smiley State of the Black Union 2007 Morning Session on c-span today. There was a lot of thoughtful discussion going on there, and I didn't hear anything that suggested a stampede towards Obama. Or towards anyone else, either.

Apart from my disappointment and disillusionment in the political process, I feel like I'm being stampeded to jump on someone's bandwagon. And that makes me dig my heels in. No one rushes me, and no one should rush you, either. At some point you - and I - will make a choice - when it's time for each of us. And I think that's okay. In the meanwhile I'll continue to support JK and blog against anyone who pisses me off. Right now that includes ALL the republicans, but especially Romney and McCain, and Clinton as well. Even though Edwards raises all my caution flags, I'm not talking against him. Yet. I may feel differently next week, but that's my right. After all, I'm not running, and I don't give a good goddamn if anyone accuses me of flipflopping.

And I noticed the same things you did. In a way it felt like Tavis got upstaged by the Obama announcement, but it was still pretty good. It was thoughtful in some areas, but some parts seemed more like a church revival.

I am with you and wisteria, some days I have trouble letting go of what happened in 2004 because it still makes me angry about the things that happened and how people think 08 is a cakewalk now that Bush won't be running again.

And I am not the only one that feels like some of the opinions in this article.

My priorities are not his, and I've had to do a real soul-search in recent days to discover that. To put it bluntly, I don't care about Iraq anymore. Maybe this is my problem, and other people are able to care deeply about more than one issue. More power to them, but that's not me, and I cannot work up outrage over Iraq when there is a horrible situation two hours from my "home" that is being completely ignored even by the new Congress.

It's hard to let go and leave the past behind, but I can't change what is important to me. If that means a break with this man, so be it. I'll support him for as long as I am in a place where I am supposed to do that. Then it's time to move on.

It's hard because of the long past, but we have to do what's necessary.

What happened "two hours from your home" is a horrible thing and the response to it is a blight on our national record. It is beyond disgraceful that Sen. Lieberman decided not to do oversight hearings on everything that went wrong in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The fact that a year and a half after that hurricane hit and the response is still so far from what is needed is horrible.

We do need people from across the country to partner with legislators and elected officials in the affected States to make things beter and to deliver real relief to those affected. Sen. Kerry did this to very little fanfare or media attention in the Small Business Committee in the 109th Congress and in sponsoring legislation in this new Congress. I think he is on board with helping to heal that part of our country that has been so sorely neglected in it's hours of need.

I also understand how you can have different priorities and a conflict over what to do about that. That's a matter to be resolved in your own heart and in your own conscience. I think that you are a wonderfully gifted person and I know that you will resolve this by taking the action that you know you need to. I will fully support whatever you decide to do. Dedication to a goal is a most worthy thing that should be honored and appreciated. Too many people coast through life without having any wider view of the world or how they wish to impact that world. Hold to your own beliefs and go do what it is in your heart to do. I know that the world will be a little bit better place because you will have the courage to do that. That is, in my book, everything.

Wizard of Oz: As for you, my galvanized friend, you want a heart. You don't know how lucky you are not to have one. Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable.
Tin Woodsman: But I still want one.

The world needs your energy and spirit. Take time, feel the pain and hurt, and anger, let it do its work, which is to deepen your capacity for soul. I say this not at all as a teacher, but from experience. @;-)

Marjorie G is one of the handful of people who can begin to testify to my feelings about John and Teresa, who they are, what they are still capable of becoming, their unique and developed (through pain) qualities of integrity and compassion. The other only pols who comes close, in my opinion, are RFK and in the last few years, Mr. Gore.

The pain of losing 2000 nearly did me in. The pain of not being able to stop Bush's Folly in Iraq numbed me beyond grief. The loss in 2004 sent me right into a place I really never want to experience again. What to do? Crawl out, rest, find soul, hold on with whatever strength is left. Someone or something or some poem or music or soy chai tea (from Marjorie!) will start the healing and soon that place will be stronger for the wound. Not scar tissue, not hardened, but still flexible- and I think this is key- still able to feel.

We are stronger than we think. I still love RFK. Last night on dkos, there was a diary and a few of us were talking about him. I can't type without being overcome with emotion when his name is mentioned. I think that's a good thing, no matter how much it hurts.

This is the work of our lifetime. We aren't guarenteed any wins, but we are needed for the long-haul.

You know, sometimes while driving, I hold these imaginary conversations in my head with my 'winger brother-in-law (I love him dearly) and in about five seconds I'm using the most foul language you can imagine talking about the war and Bush and the "elections" and then five seconds later I'm shocked at how much anger is still inside.... how banked that fire is... and then I realize it's passion, and it's up to me to figure out how next to channel the energy. The exterior is calm, because that opens doors and conversations, but the passion is alive and well and no one, no one, no one! can take that away.

:-)


edited to add: And, sad to say, I'm proud of myself for losing it completely in a Wal-Mart in rural red while 'discussing' Katrina. Really. It was one of my finer moments. The entire deli section was treated to the event and my husband got a really good chuckle out of seeing his wife tell off a farmer three times her size. Not that I'm recommending anger, of course. ;-) Just that yeah, sometimes, once in blue moon, let 'er rip. Katrina was worth it, times a million. Defending Kerry's integrity, ah hell, what's the point? Those that get it- get it- those that don't *might* in the future, but until then, hey... it's their loss.

I am taking a couple days away from it all to clear my head and perhaps exorcise the anger. I know one thing, I can not go on feeling like this. It isn't healthy or productive.
Your words have given me something more to consider and I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Tay has also given me somethings to consider also.
Peace.

you know that. :-)

than his person.

I do not think that TayTay meant that he was going to hide in Massachusetts and only care about Massachusetts. It would not be Kerry anyway.

However, it is no more about promoting his person. It is about promoting what he stands for.

Actually, it is a lot better and it is too bad that presidential politics start so early in the cycle. For the next two years, good people like Obama, Dodd, Edwards, ... will be stuck promoting and defending themselves rather than promoting and defending what they stood for. This cult of personality is a problem when it comes to solve problems. Imagine any of the presidential candidates endorsing an idea that another one has had as a good idea. No, it is all about them, and this is not only because they are selfish. It is because it is the way the system works.

I admire really Kerry and Gore because they have decided to put their values before their person. They will continue their fight, using their name recognition of course, but not necessarily searching for a personal profit. Enjoy it, but remember that we need to promote ideas, not people.

(just my humble opinion, at least).

Iraq is both a national issue and an issue that affects individual people. You need to see this from both ends of the telescope. The war in Iraq affects military personnel and their families living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The endless deployments, the type of care that wounded veterans receive and the way in which the war affects families and family finances are worthy subjects of a Senator's attention on a personal level. This is the retail end of politics. It is seeing the war by the way in which is affects the people who live in your state. Sen. Kerry is wonderful on this. People here can say that they know their Senator is working to help them out on this issue. It's his job.

The other end of the telescope is the Washington end of being a Senator. Kerry wants to work to affect change on the national level by working to get the top level people involved in running the war to change the way they are doing things. He can discuss high-level problems with the command, the way the military is formulating and implementing policy and work on getting the Bush Admin to see reality. (And work on getting the diplomacy right, arranging for a regional summit, working toward a withdrawal and so forth.)

Both ends of the telescope are important. As a US Senator, Kerry needs to be responsive to the needs of the people of Massachusetts who are directly affected by this war. That is his job, as he is their direct representative in the Senate. He also needs to work nationally on the 'big picture' on Iraq and that involves other Senators and in bringing the debate to a national level.

He can do both. He has to do both. That's the job. Yes, the Senator needs help on this. The pressure exerted by people outside of Massachusetts helps Kerry to keep this issue in the public discourse and can bring pressure to bear on other Senators and Reps to confront the realities of Iraq.

Both need to be done. Both. It's just that we have been discussing one side. The other side, the retail end, will also have to come into play. (Cuz he is running for re-election as a US Senator.) I don't want anyone to go away. At the same time, Kerry doesn't have to be defended as if he is running for national office. He doesn't have to be defended like that. His ideas and message have to be defended. That is the difference. (Does that make sense?)

Though I don't live in MA, I too think that Senator Kerry deserves to be re-elected. He is one of the few strongest Dem voices left. I still would have enjoyed calling him President Kerry, but I understand and respect his decision.

I know this may be off topic (hope not offensive), but I was wondering (and hoping that) how history would treat Kerry. Would they remember a candidate that couldn't defeat "the worst president ever?" Or the candidate that came close to beating an incumbent in wartime and fought a hard battle?

Would they remember a candidate "didn't fight back" against the vicious, nastiest smearing machine in history, though the facts prove the opposite? Or remember a candidate that defended himself, while his party sat on the sidelines?

Would they remember a candidate that got more votes than any other president al candidate in history? Or people griping about "didn't connect or motivating the base", "holding their noses," proclaiming to be ABB (Anyone But Bush) and just voting against Bush?

Would they remember a person that left out one word in a joke about a draft-dodging buffoon that was perceived as an insult to the troops, when the bills/legislation show that this person has done a lot to help veterans and military families, yet members of his own party decided to pile on rather than defend their own.

In the end, it shouldn't be about all this. It should be about putting country first ahead of ambitions, showing leadership, and speaking and fighting to end a tragic, illegal war, and making the wrong be right, and keeping it right.

I do hope the Senator gets good press on the setadeadline.com bill, though I still think that those in the party and the media that still want to undermine him at every turn. There are also some that are still brainwashed by the corporate media. I also would like to see this bill and the book with Momma T promoted across the community in diverse communities also.

As far as DU goes, the nasty stuff and the constant recycling of 04 to present, the hide thread and ignore lists have been very useful. I don't go into other candidates'or 08 threads, unless I have something positive to say or make a point, but it makes me sad that the next Democratic nominee will have support from the party, and that people defended Bill, but they couldn't get on TV and defend a war hero.

I also always have to remember that DU is only a small percent of the real world and not representative of the American electorate.

And again, hope the post doesn't come across, as attacking Kerry, which I am not. It's just tiring to to see a good man and good Dem smeared with RW talking points over and over again. It makes you want to ask when will they stop hurting him? Like you all, I just want him to keep speaking out and getting the credit/respect he deserves.

Hope history will be kind. :patriot:

It is possible, that like Gore, he will have accomplishments after his run that establish him for who he is. But, even based on his career to this point, he has done many important things and he has acted with dignity and integrity.

Senator Kerry has taken pains to put many things in the Senate record - that record is a permanent record available to scholars trying to understand this confusing time period. The fact is that even now, Kerry's 1971 words are repeated for the truth they were. The debates still will exist - and will make people question how people could have voted as they did.

When they look, they will see that the media kept alive charges on a war hero offered with no proof long after they were discredited and they will be able to see footage of CSPAN rallies vs media coverage. Remember all the cool stories in the Kerry blog - that blog was saved as a historical record. Even just looking at the Butler book of photos shows that Kerry was not the "social loner" of the NYT articles - not to mention could a real loner win Teresa's heart. There are way too many stories that show Kerry to be a kind, caring person - and many to show Bush did not progress much from the kid who blew up frogs.

History will go to primary sources - and history will look at this. The impact of media on politics is too fascinating a topic and that election too interesting a case for it not to be done in a scholarly fashion at a time when passions are less inflamed. I think that as more and more genuine evil comes out on Bush, the degree to which the media was intimidated and covered for him will be more the story.

I didn't post when I first saw this because I disagreed 100%- which I almost never do with anything that Tay Tay said. So, I decided to first go away and think. Your comments reflected some of my concerns when I disagreed. The thought was that fighting these issues and trying to make them not conventional wisdom was my reason for disagreeing.

I now see that when Kerry was running, this was important. What people thought next year in terms of his ability to fight back or be electable was important. Those are the main issues we fought - and they really don't affect Kerry now. History will not look to what was said nth hand on DU, it will go to primary sources, because that is what it does.

It is very hard to shift gears and it is appalling that we uniquely have people who enjoy taunting us - not Kerry - us. But we do more when we communicate Kerry's ideas.

Kerry has chosen the path that is likely to make him a distinguished statesman of the party in the future - and it is independent of who is President. As an ally, advisor or the person holding a President to a higher standard, he will be a force.

I intend to mostly comment positively on Kerry's initiatives and to comment on other candidates without bringing up Kerry - saying what I think is right. Also, I don't think attacking Hillary for her nasty Kerry comment helps - and I don't think her comment was the key - it was that neither the media or the party as a whole were willing to give a guy working his heart out for 2006 much coverage. (In fact, I thionk they piled on when the daily polls showed it wasn't hurting, not to hurt Kerry, but to keep the story that was hurting the Republicans going.)

With Hillary, some of the hardball they played was likely as much an effort by Bill Clinton to improve his ultimate legacy - and in a way, though more eloquent and honest, Kerry including the Clinton years in the "years the locust ate" was a direct shot at them.

Contrasting Hillary on issue to 2008 candidates will be more effective - ie where are Hillary and Obama on ethics reform, which was the second most important issue.

So, Thank you, Tay Tay for making me think - rather than act emotionally. Kerry's place in history will be based on the good he has done. His life will also be filled by the people close to him who love him because of who he is. I'm positive that the respect and love he gets from Teresa, Vanessa and Alex is more important than whatever AK or a snake think. You've told us a million times that he is a very strong person and he knows who he is.

It feels like a long process. I like this quote.



That's how I see it too. You are right about Momma T and his family. History should be kind to him.


:patriot:

There is a saying that when one door closes in life it often means that another door has opened. I truly do think this is the case here. However, this process of closing the books on 2004 has to take place first. That is one thing that will happen because Sen. Kerry is not running for the Presidency again. So all that stuff that was bad about that run and we all hated, including the snide remarks and so forth from 2004 can start to go away. They are not relevant.

However, and this is a big however, it will not happen all at once. Running Presidential races is sort of like bringing up teenagers, the candidates often time distinguish themselves from those who have gone before by rebelling loudly and openly against everything the other person did. This is happening. These candidates, unfairly in my opinion, have to distinguish themselves as 'not the same as the last race.' This happens after every Presidential election, when the Dems don't win. This is partly because of extreme stupidity on the part of Dems who think that the race is won or lost at the top of the ticket and think that if only the "Democratic Messiah" will come, then all will be well. Ah, no, you still have to work for it, get everyone on board, build and organization, play the media game and so forth. Dems keep having to relearn the same lessons.

The stuff about Massachusetts Senator is just reality. If the Senator doesn't get re-elected then he doesn't get to affect any policy or issues going forward. That's just the way it is. So, he has to concentrate on some stuff that is really local and boring, like aide for re-building bridges in Middlesex County and filing for FEMA funding after floods and trying to figure out what to do about the other little problems that a Senator is also elected to take care of. I will try not to trouble people with that stuff. (Cuz, while it's vital, it's also zzzzzzzzzz material.) This is not glamourous or particularly fascinating but it is completely necessary. It's what Senators do. This is what I think of as the Massachusetts stuff. (Oh, I hope I didn't make that too exciting, LOL! Hey, that's also in the job description.)

About those other doors opening. Presidents get the lion's share of the oxygen, especially now when we have this weirdly early primary race. (I think part of that is just people wanting to think beyond this President and imagine an America without him.) Jimmy Carter had 2/3rd majorities in both the House and the Senate when he took office in 1977. Yet, he is viewed as a failed President who did not really get much done. He was unable to motivate Congress to pass any lasting legislation and he was unable to work with Democrats in Congress to pass a lot of social programs.

Presidents need to work with Congress. Those who understand this also understand that there are key legislators who are smart, capable people who are willing to put in the time and effort to do valuable things for the people of this country. These Reps and Senators are vitally needed to drive the agenda. This is how real programs and policies get passed. (Lyndon Johnson was President in the turbulent 60's when a lot of social legislation was passed. He could not have done that without real leadership in the Congress working with him on those enormously difficult fights.) I think I know someone who can be a pivotal player in those fights to come.

Also, ahm, these new Democrats coming into the Congress are not push-overs for any Exeuctive program. Sen. Jim Webb is his own man and will not be a rubber-stamp for whomever gets elected in 2008. Those are the types of very strong willed people that the Dems are recruiting for office. Even if a Democrat gets elected in 2008 to the White House, ahm, they need the Congress and they need strong people in the Congress to work with them to get good programs passed for the country. Without these people in the Congress, nothing will happen. Failed Presidencies result from an inability to work with the Congress. Democrats are not Republicans. They don't march in lockstep with the President. I seriously doubt that Congressional Democrats would automatically rubber stamp anything that a new President would send up. (It's just not the Dem way of doing things.) A new President would need strong allies in the Congress, people with the national standing and reputation to speak out on issues and bring in the respect and good will needed to get things done. Those people are respected because they matter, work hard and have the 'good idears' that propel the debate. They are vital players in the process. They affect history.

Yes, doors close. But doors also open. Help will be needed to get things done and put pressure on others to 'do the right thing' and promote good things for our country. Everyone is needed for that. Everyone. (Just not needed to talk about grants to dredge the Merrimack River in Mass. Ah, I think that one I can keep to myself. Necessary, but very Mass specific stuff.)

Your statement and Tay's were written while I was making soy chai.

After he processed, forgave, and learned, he probably saw a more positive way ahead. Maybe even unburdened by not having to run for president. The journey isn't what it once was.

The record will be written more fairly one day, I think, despite my current doubts. I, too, have been told just how strong and comfortable with who he is, which annoyed me so about the media creation of someone weak. Always wrote about the strong EQ as well as IQ, as why the most prepared and suited to be president in my lifetime. Media didn't go along with that opinion.

Karen, I always use the killing of frogs as pivotal of who Bush was, and still is, as well as enforcer for his dad. I forget the word Kerry used on NPR last week, referring to Bush's concern for himself, rather than what is best for the soldiers and country. An understatement, but good phrase. Really breathtaking to continue the war, with these conditions.

The media, the DNC, Clinton and all the candidate wannabees are re-writing the campaign, and that's after the hate machine deconstructed the man and his record to something unrecognizable as the force he had been. Running again was a chance to correct the opinion, which we know would never have happened. Competition what it is.

Being able to speak without the same distortion, or in the context of running, on causes he believes in, allowing him the freedom, as Tay says, must be mighty appealing. This is the best way to be the strong advocate for causes he believes in, and regain the reputation he had before all the manuevering by the Democrats positioning.

Getting out of the way of Bill's grab for power he thinks he's owed. Biggest challenge and reward would have been to neutralize in 2004 some of Bill's svengali hold that he is the only party leader.

Think, too, of the wonderful oppotunities with Teresa and both their causes, and their purposeful lives together. He must have made peace with the job well done, albeit with some errors, but not nearly as bad considering the Dems doing a worse job of securing the presidency and rallying around the candidate. Going up against the party this time, despite his help with mid-term wins, would not have been easy.

Ending the war, and speaking with the voice denied him on the trail, is what he needs to do. I am glad to aupport him on this and on climate change, on his re-election and anything else. Let's hope others see the benefits of all this.

of the party.

Since Clintons were siding with Bush on Iraq more than Kerry throughout that time, it was amazing that Kerry performed so well.

Which is think analyse formulate motivate articulate and then work his ass off to get things done.

What has always stuck me about Kerry (and there are other Senators too who do this too) is that he is able to make strong statements about the overall direction of the country while at the same time achieving great things for his home state. All you have to do is scan his press page on the senate site -- he's fighting for Massachusetts, he's fighting for the rest of us all at the same time.

Unlike many of you I was very ambivalent about an '08 run. I did not want to see him put thru the shit of being attacked by both the right wing lie machine and the Democratic "analyst" class, both who appear to have a strong desire to destroy him.

So I agree that he is right where he needs to be, where he can keep pushing.

I just finished Tour of Duty for the first time. The parallels between then and now are so very strong. We are not quite at the tipping point -- that is, where the majority of Republicans finally decide that they should what is right for the country rather than protecting Nixon Bush. We need voices like Kerry, Finegold, Boxer, etc to keep pushing, pushing, pushing on Iraq as well as all of the issues where Bush and his Republican allies have harmed the country.

I had some reservations about that too. I ws not insincere when I told the paper after that bloggers meeting in Dec that I would support Sen. Kerry in whatever he did. I meant that.

If you saw that interview today on This Week on ABC then you saw that Kerry is easier in his speaking about Iraq. He interrupted Snuffie several times in order to complete his thoughts on an aspect of his plan for what to do in Iraq and how it differs from the NIE and other plans. Kerry can be Kerry, he can explain those thoughtful decisions, not be prodded into saying something he doesn't want to say and can be completely strong about pressing his points. (Yes, he did this before, but everything was viewed through the 'is it real or is it politicking for '08' lens. This feels different.)

I think it takes a strong person to go through what Sen. Kerry and decide to still stay in the game. It takes an even stronger person to do that and not let bitterness rule them. (Watch the difference going forward between what Lieberman does and says and what Kerry does and says. Ah, I submit that there is a noticeable difference. Maybe in viewing that, you can understand the point being made here. Kerry has elected to stay in the game. Wholely. That is a wonderful thing. It is about what needs to be done now and about moving forward. I want that to happen very much.)

Yes, indeed, it takes a strong person to go through the s__ that Kerry has had to endure, and to emerge with purpose and energy not only intact, but even more fiercely committed, and focused. And to emerge without bitterness (at least not in public): well, I just have towering admiration for his strength, and his all-around class act.

Over and over Senator Kerry has proved he is a man of character who is driven to do what is right for the country. No matter how hard he gets hit, he gets right up and keeps fighting for what he believes. He doesn't have time for bitterness -- the stakes are too high.

He really was as strong as I have ever heard him - on why Iran needs to be dealt with with diplomacy, why we need to make changes for climate control, and in what we have to do on Iraq. The consistent thing over all these things was that he spoke unflinchingly on how serious each problem was. As he said, he recommended nothing different than he did when he was running.

There was a difference though - he defended his Iraq plan - as he always has - but there was no "it's a plan for success". Kerry was always honest - in that he said you needed to redefine success - but now he doesn't have to play that game - which makes the description of the problem and the solution seem more honest. He was also was more forceful in refusing to let Snuffy shut off a full answer. (In the past, he simply spoke over the talking head - which he could do with his deep, strong, alpha male voice. Here, like on the Senate committees, he sternly, but politely quieted Snuffy. He doesn't have to play with the host.)

I don't think you can run in the United States saying that things are as bad as they are. What is clear in Kerry's speeches that he intended to campaign on is that he was defining the problems as they were and balancing it with pragmatic well thought out plans to correct the problems. People want an instant, painless solution and will vote for someone promising that. Kerry (and Gore) are too honest to minimize the reality of what we face. Kerry will join Gore in defining how bad things are, while working in the Senate on solutions based on reality, not politics. There are never too many voices telling the unadulterated truth.

We all miss the dream of having him as President and Teresa as first lady, but this seems a very honest decision on his part that being an elder statesman fighting for his ideas and a fifth term Senator from Massachusetts is better than being in the zoo that is Presidental politics for another year and a half. We have seen that the same people, like Tweety and Blitzer, who mocked him continuously were eager to let him intelligently speak on each world crisis that occurred. His history and his position in the Senate plus Teresa's work, influence and voice through her control of the Heinz foundation, make them powerful people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/162648/323#c86

That's Lowell's diary which touted JK's interview on blog radio, but where he also mentioned that Kerry sounded better now than 2004.

The diary is simply overflowing with comments bashing his 2004 campaign. That's, I suppose, a "personal" attack, but it's also about history, and I think a lot of it is BS. So, I defended some, then thought about what you wrote, and said basically "hey --guys, this is off topic. It's 2007, and we have a war to end -- sign the petition". Problem I have is the truth is the truth, and when people say Kerry didn't speak out against the Iraq War in '04 that's a lie, and it's hard for me to sit by and let a lie be posted unanswered. But I suppose maybe the idea should be to gently correct with the facts and then put it back to the topic at hand -- setadeadline.com.

Thing is, it is apparent that with Bush plunging lower and lower, it seems the anger leveled at Kerry increases among Democrats. The outraged lib Dems screaming "How COULD you LOSE to that terrible president?". And I feel like there is nothing we can do about those emotions, other than to politely correct flagrant errors (lies) and then guide it back to the issue at hand.

not to answer things that were subjective. I did answer a few things where facts were (I thought) wrong. I was more likely to ignore positive now/negative then comments, than wrong ones.

I'm still transitioning - and am still too quick to respond. My guess - if Kerry keeps this up, we will hear less of the Grand Canyon - as it both sinks in that he is not running and they become happier with him. I think many of the negative people (not including a few well known DU pests) may be negatively commenting as reflexively as we defend. I think the GC comment hurt him more for 2008 than 2004.

Why so much vitriol aimed at a such a good man who came within 59,000 votes of unseating a wartime President? Why the intensity of anger and the rewriting of history to pretend that George Bush didn't have a 90% approval rating in his term? Why did KErry get the back of so many people's hands?

Sigh! Because he made people care. In some ways, coming close and not winning is much, much worse than getting blown out. That race was close enough for people to taste the victory. Kerry, much as people don't want to admit it now, did connect or else he would not have gotten the vote count that he did or attract crowds of 100,000+ in the closing days of that race.

People cared. Deeply. They gave money they didn't have, worked hours they really couldn't spare and put their heart and soul into that win because it meant so much. You get that, right? And it really looked like he would win. It really did. It was that close.

No one, absolutely no one, wants to admit in this cynical age that they cared. It is not fashionable or, in some instances, permissable to be that way. The liberal blogs go out of their way to be 'hard-bitten and realistic' about politics, ever searching for those things that distance them from their own hearts. The revisionist view obscures the part that cares, that part that believes, the part that wanted this so bad. (See, it's better to never care, because then you don't get hurt. That pain was real. It was also not John Kerry's fault. However, pain that bad demands a scapegoat. That is not logical, not fair, not earned and entirely human.)

So, we get a lot of comments about the process. Kerry made mistakes. (Of course he did. All candidates make mistakes.) The loss must be distanced, set aside from the self, put off onto the other. (Cuz it hurt. No one in their right mind wants to feel hurt. Better to get it away from us by distancing it onto someone else. You made me feel this way, but then you didn't carry through. Again, not fair, not earned and utterly human.)

This has to stop. And it will, but in time. It stops when other things come in and fill up that space. It stops when we hear stories like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=188430&mesg_id=191608 and we get a chance to reflect back and admit that it was okay to be hopeful and okay to believe and that this really was/is a good man with America's best interests at heart. That takes time.

You won't change a single mind about Kerry when you cite straight facts at this point. The facts are, to a large degree, irrelevant. See, 'he lost and he made us care and if he was a better candidate and a perfect man then none of that would have happened and we would have the White House and this torture of having Bush in office wouldn't have happened' and all that stuff.

See this, for just a second, with your heart. This argument can't be won with facts. It can be diminished by saying the equivalent of, yes, it hurt me too. Cuz that is the truth.

That's what I got from that dailykos thread, too -- anger and pain. You're right about just interpreting it all from the heart. Next time, I'll keep that in mind -- like Karynnj said, this is a period of transition and I'm trying to find a way of letting go of the need to fight on matters that are over and can never be changed. I also think the way Lowell wrote the diary, it was opening up the wounds which led people to lash out at Kerry again. That's why I don't write diaries comparing him today to 2004.

And that link was found my Rox63 in the thread '...I love John Kerry,' that Kerry2008 put up.

There are endless variations of the 'wow, I wish he sounded like that in 2004.' There is no way to convince those folks that he did. (You had to be there, I guess.) That is a subjective argument, the counter to it is another subjective argument. (Sigh!) (When someone tells you that they saw and felt something, how can you tell them they didn't see and feel what they say they did? We all know that such feelings bend to current opinion and the zeitgeist that is going around, but still, there are few counter arguments that work against the 'I felt this' point. The person doing this is not arguing or even pretending to argue from logic. They are stating feelings.)

These wounds are not healed yet. But they are starting to heal. That is a good thing.

BTW, I can and will defend setadeadline.com. I can and will defend what Sen. Kerry did in 2005 with the Downing Street Memos letter. (OMG, everything that is coming out in the Libby trial validated the need to investigate the DSM.) I can and will defend on Alito, on the Kerry/Feingold amendment from 6/06. And on so much more and on the new stuff that is coming out every day.

But a lot of these arguments are not arguments. They are personal statements. You can't argue and present logic and show a position paper and so forth on a personal statement. It just doesn't work. You can let the venom come out and dissipate. That process, btw, sucks for me too.

http://www.poetry-archive.com/s/the_fools_prayer.html

http://www.emule.com/poetry/?page=poem&poem=4106