What the heck is wrong with this site? So everybody thinks invading Afghanistan was unjustified?

What a bunch of radical lefty freepers. We were attacked. The Taliban's Afghanistan protected al Qaeda and OBL. AQ & OBL needed to be eliminated. Some people are just in la la land. Very frustrating.

In fact, the entire liberal blogosphere has really gone down hill. DailyKos has become lefty freeper insular a lot of the times these days, too. Some guy ranted that Apple wouldn't accept his iPhone application (iSinglepayer), when it ends up they reject thousands of apps and don't do blatant political stuff (it has to be news). Okay, fine, but the diary made the Rec List, like Apple was part of a right wing conspiracy.

It's just madness out there.

This makes up appear as ignorant as many RW sites.

with your "lefty freeper" characterization. It's like people who do not know how to accept a present, metaphorically speaking of course. After being filled with righteous anger for so long, they now seem to feel at a loss now when, imperfect as they may be, things are SO MUCH better.

That's exactly how I see it. They didn't know how to accept JK in his presidential campaign and that was very much the ungraciousness and lack of perception of people who don't know how to "accept a present" or even how to behave in a civilized way or like mature, fully-developed adults, and it has continued into this time in which we have a real chance to make the kind of progress they say they want.

I do understand that their feeling is that they have to push for what they want, and that's not wrong. What's wrong is that they don't really understand what they want or when it is being offered to them.

that they cannot have the whole huge sundae, cherry and all, all at once.

So they dump the entire sundae into the trash!

Bringing up the IWR and so forth. But what amazes me is now saying he was for invading Afghanistan following 9/11 makes him some kind of sell out warmonger. I just don't get that kind of thinking.

The bashing also showed up on DailyKos, similar vein.

I followed the liveblogging on the finance committee markup. JK's comments were given their due, and they were indeed very good. There was the one obligatory "where was this Kerry in 2004?", but except that it was a pleasure to read and participate. Except for the final outcome, of course, not a surprise but very frustrating nevertheless.

That is how it always goes with John Kerry. Maybe they hate him because he is wealthy? I don't know, but it strikes me as quite irrational.

It might be that they are jealous in that he really does seem to have it all. This ignores that he did suffer in Vietnam and he didn't have the easiest personal life until he and Teresa fell in love. He also really did make his own way in politics rather than being pushed by a mentor. Maybe it is because he really is a better person that most of his peers.

Now, the Republicans are clearly jealous - as this has to be the stupidest attack ever. I guess they forgot that they had no problem with Heinz money when it went to Republicans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8676922 John Thune is the current chair of the republican policy committee.

The fact that Sen. Kerry won the Dem nomination, even though it looked as if he would finish out of the running as late as Nov of 03. Some will never forgive him for that.

Whatever.

it still gets on my nerves. I guess the predictability of the Right's endless attacks on JK is mirrored with the lefty freeper type's endless attacks on JK. The problem is the lefty freepers are traveling in the same neighborhood on the internet as us. At least we have a separation from the Right with the exception of newspaper comment sections.

probably silly, and seen somewhat through a personal prism, partial theory. Partial in the sense that there is definitely more. It may have something to do with the way he presents himself to the world, personality, looks, that kind of thing. He is unusual looking, my guess is that rather shy and reserved by nature, but very much "out there" in spite of that. But the combination can be perceived by some (many?) as arrogance and something that just does not go well with them, not necessarily unlikable in a rational way (I cannot stand that person because...) but something instinctive that that they then try to rationalize. Does this make any sense? The personal prism is that, the huge and obvious differences set aside for a moment, that's how I am. I am very tall, reasonably good looking or so I was told, at least when I was younger, reasonably smart, and very shy and introspective by nature. The shyness stopped being obvious to people that only know me superficially a long time ago, and is instead interpreted as aloofness, standoffishness, even nastiness. I am also a mostly caring and altogether nice (not to mention modest :-)... well, actually I am, but it's not always obvious) person, but again and again throughout my life I was surprised when I became aware of the reaction I trigger in some people. It's like they think they deal with an altogether different person, a person I don't know. It has caused me a lot of pain and disappointment, but eventually I came to accept it (mostly) as part of being me. Anyway... just some speculation, maybe a bit too personal :blush:, so I will hit the "post message" button before I change my mind.

And I respect your analysis of your own experience. I was very shy when I was growing up, though it was different because I was just trying to hide in a corner with a book. But even with my not trying to speak up or do anything noticeable, I was still shocked to find out that people considered me "stuck up"!

I do think that JK, even if he is gracious, charming, handsome, brilliant, etc., etc., will never have an easy popularity. He has some of the politician's schmoozing talents, but he is way too honest and earnest and he cares far too much about getting things done for the public good to be an expert at bonhomie. I wouldn't have it any other way -- he's an invaluable champion for the rights and well-being of every American, with a farsighted, essential perspective on the global scene, but it is frustrating to see him misunderstood and dissed at both extremes of the political spectrum!

could have described me :-).

And back to JK, the comparisons with Obama are unavoidable I think. I still think they have much in common, the important things. But that almost irresistable charm and charisma, the huge smile, and the so often pitch perfect delivery of a speech (not the content, which is also great, but so are so oftne Kerry's speeches as well), these are things that JK cannot match. To me these are almost in the same category as the color of your eyes or your height, things that you are born with, are part of who and how you are, and there is not much you can do about. And there are often not fair, these advantages or handicaps we are being dealt, but that's life. You either cope or you break down.

Anyway, glad to have Kerry out there. And he does seem to get better with age, looks included :-).

it was Obama who struck me as cool and standoffish and JK who struck me as warm and friendly. Frankly, it's all about the boob tube. The television (and the microphone) LOVES Barack Obama, but it doesn't like Kerry as much. But in person, up close and personal, I found Kerry to be more "real". Now part of this may be unfair. I saw Obama in the summer of '07, which we now know was a very unhappy time for him (in many accounts, he wondered if he really wanted to continue running for POTUS he was so miserable). Plus, he didn't *know* me the way JK knew us bloggers (well, knew of). Still, I found JK far more charming on a one to one basis, but Obama more witty when he was "on stage". It's all about the theater, and Obama is a master on stage.

to see either in person, I "know" them only through the tube, as do 99.99% of people. I think Obama is great in too many ways to have time now to even start to enumerate, but I still think that he does not have that quality of deep wisdom that I think JK possesses. Maybe he is till too young, maybe he had it too easy in a way, was too successful, I don't know. I love him and think he has the potential to be more than great. In a way, I am glad the health care fight has proven to be so tough and full of unanticipated traps (as long as the final outcome is a good one), it may have given him more of a sense of his own fallibility, which I think he needs. There is quite a lot of the arrogance of the brilliant in him, to a large extent fully justified because he IS brilliant and incredibly talented (and lucky), but still... it can too easily lead to hubris.

Why was the summer of 07 an unhappy time for Obama? I either never knew or forgot.

remained 30 points down from Hillary in the summer of 2007, was gaining seemingly no traction, missed his family, and had not adjusted well to the presidential campaign life. But he soldiered on, and had a breakthrough with his famous speech in Iowa in the fall. He didn't look back after that.

But when I saw him, it seemed like there was zero chance he would win the nomination. I certainly didn't think he would become POTUS when I saw him. I went to see him, because I liked him. I still do!! :)

I just like Kerry personally better. But the connection is much closer.

I remember the summer of 07 (a very bad time for me personally as well) with its aura of HRC inevitability... How things change!

Sorry I have been a bit scarce here. Ah, it is getting really busy here in MA and I have been, ah, busy on other stuff. ;) May be busy until January or so.

Elections are very hard on the candidates and their families.

Very hard indeed.

I wonder if a parallel universe JK, who avoided Vietnam, because Johnson made different decisions, would have been President. Even at Yale he was elected the head of the student union, in a majority Republican time there, for his Junior and senior year. He was already very interested in a political career.

Reading Icuna's description of Obama - I saw Kerry, who also has an easy ability to laugh and a huge smile that lights up his face - that is seen way less often than Obama's. Much would be lost in that Kerry's passion to right wrongs was at least greatly increased due to Vietnam, but there would be none of the scars that the war, the anti-war, and the hatred of the far right caused.

Both Kerry and Obama criticized the Iraq war as drawing needed support and resources away from the real battle in Afghanistan. Both criticized Bush for not finding and capturing OBL. No one but the most intransigent pacifist lefties had a problem with that. Now all of a sudden its trendy to treat Afghanistan exactly like Iraq and jump on the kool kid antiwar bandwagon?

Whatever. Lefty freepers are almost as stupid as real freepers. I say 'almost' because no one in real life could ever be as stupid as the racist town hall disrupting birther idiots.

How are you?

Kind of in limbo right now. Maybe thinking about law school for next fall. REALLY fed up with politics, on both the insane birther Glenn Beck and the loony "left" sides of the spectrum. I hope you're doing well.

That's fine, I respect that. Another percentage were against the invasion of Afghanistan at the time, believing you don't invade a sovereign nation to go after criminals. It would be like invading LA to get a gang member. These folks always believed these things.

The ones who drive me batty are the ones who opposed the Iraq War because we went after the wrong people, and now oppose Afghanistan even though they said that's the war we should be fighting just a few months ago. They also said Iran and North Korea were more dangerous than Saddam, but they're now Achmadinejad's best buddy. They're nuts and they make anybody left of Joe Lieberman look exactly the same. You'd think they could at least see their inconsistency.