Kerry considering 2008 run:will decide before the year is out

FORMER Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said today he was seriously thinking about another White House bid in 2008 and will decide before the year is out. "I will make that decision toward the end of the year, but I'm thinking about it hard," Mr Kerry said in response to a question at the Latin Economic Forum at the United Nations.

"If you can help me find 60,000 votes in Ohio ...," he joked, referring to the close race in that state on which his 2004 loss to US President George W. Bush hinged. Mr Kerry, a US senator from Massachusetts, has criticised Mr Bush on a range of issues, particularly the war in Iraq.

Today, he focused on Latin America, saying Mr Bush lost interest in the region after the September 11 attacks.
"Relations between the United States and Latin America today are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War," Mr Kerry said.

Other Democrats seen as potentially seeking the nomination include US Senator Hillary Clinton, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Mr Kerry's former running mate, John Edwards.

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18879958-5001028,00.html

John Kerry in 2008? Could happen.

We could sure use an adult runing the show instead of an insane monkey.

...but I'd personally rather not let Mr. Wishy-Washy hand the presidency to yet ANOTHER Bush.


We can do a hell of a lot better than John Kerry. There would be no more sure-fire candidate to get me to vote Green.

calling him "wishy-washy."

I would expect if I did that, that the veteran would deck my ass.

And properly so.

If that was the case, I would never rag on that sniveling fascist stooge that's always hiding under Dumbya's skirts, John McCain.


I call Kerry wishy-washy because he was. He may be a gentleman and a scholar in his personal life, but he did a piss-poor job of staying on message. And it was that kind of mindless veteran-worship for its own sake that got a surefire loser like Kerry nominated in the first place.


And for a veteran, it sure did look awkward and forced (and contrived) when he saluted the democratic convention and said he was "reporting for duty."

And how did it look when Wes Clark saluted and asked for "permission to come aboard". Only awkward and forced to those who are embarrassed about military service and pride in their country.

...but his General's stars and many years of service carry a bit more weight for me than Kerry's brief Vietnam stint - not that this should be about comparing military credentials. Having served in the military is no guarantee of being a good civilian leader.

AND - if Clark was screwing up the way Kerry screwed up (repeatedly) I'd call him on it, too. SInce he hasn't, I haven't.

which is why it did poorly. Kerry's campaign wasn't perfect but he did a very good job in the face of a very biased media - that didn't even care if the President was wired in the first debate. Compare Clark and Kerry in NH, a state where Clark spent most of his time when Kerry was in Iowa (Kerry 38%, Clark 12%) - NH is a purple state that should have liked Clark, but it's next to Massachusetts. Well, the next set of contests - before Kerry was a shoo-in - included Missouri - a red state next to Clark's Arkansas (Kerry 51%, Clark 4%)

First off, Kerry earned the nomination. I don't begrudge him it in the slightest. Second, comparing Massachusetts and New Hampshire with Arkansas and Missouri, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. New Hampshire is a tiny state that is an extension of the Boston TV and Newspaper Market. Folks in NH virtually all watch MA media, which includes MA news, and John Kerry has been the Senator from MA for a pretty long time and had been through a number of Senate Campaigns, with media beamed into NH, prior to the 04 Race.

Clark was never a staple of the news in Arkansas for well over the decade preceding his 04 run, the way Kerry was in MA, so he sure as hell wasn't getting free media in Missouri out of it. Missouri is the big media state in that match up. Little Rock can't hold a candle to Saint Louis and Kansas City.

And of course Kerry campaigned in Iowa and Clark didn't, and the few weeks Clark was in NH when Kerry wasn't did not out weigh the massive momentum Kerry legitimately won from winning Iowa, and the massive media attention it gave him. Not to mention that Kerry had been campaigning in New Hampshire for a solid year prior to Clark even entering the race and first stepping foot into that state.

I am taking nothing away from Kerry here. He won the Democratic race for President going away.

YOU have no respect for the rest of Kerry's career, from prosecuting Mafia bosses, to uncovering IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning, writing the first book to warn about the international networks funding global terrorism?

None of that was important to you? To the historic record?

Clark not screwing up??? :rofl:

And here's to another one who gives himself the right to criticize Kerry, but obviously didn't pay any attention during the campaign. Clark endorsing Kerry was a huge moment, it even got air time on the teevee.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Kerry's salute, but then, I recall you criticize every little "huff and puff" Gore supposedly made too. Face it, you let the right wingers intimidate you with their bullshit. I bet you thought windsurfing was a grave error too.

The last time I looked, this was still nominally America, and everybody has that right. There's nothing presumptuous about using it.

And you recall incorrectly, as I have never criticized Gore for anything other than making a dreadfully poor choice in running mates. There were nitpicks one could make about Gore's campaign, but at least he WON his election, the theft of which was blatant, obvious and criminal.

I saw nothing wrong with the windsurfing, but Kerry did have a knack for wearing unflattering outfits like the "sperm suit" at NASA. Knowing that he was faced with a hostile media, he should have taken no chances by wearing silly getups or even tossing footballs. It's not worth the risk. It's not about being intimidated. It's just that I know who owns the media and how every misstep by the dem will be replayed over and over again, while Bush can eat the pavement falling off a dozen Segways and it will never get airtime. It's not a level playing field, but that's just the way it is.

And I was in the Navy for a couple of years, about 15 years ago, but I don't go around today saluting and wearing bell bottoms and pretending to be a sailor. I respect Kerry's service, but that salute looked like what it was - milking the distant past to try to paint himself as a hawk, which he SHOULD NOT have done. He should have voted no on the IWR and kept a CONSISTENT stand against unjust wars as he did in '71. Or at least he could have said during the campaign that he regretted giving Bush the blank check to go to war. By that point in time, Iraq had already become an obvious failure.

Sure, all for that. All you've got so far is Rovian blather pushed by the media. The salute, the NASA tour. You don't know about the things that required real attention, like Clark's endorsement. If he'd done absolutely nothing, you'd be criticizing him for that too. It's an obsession with some people, they hate him for no reason in particular, I totally get that. It's not even the IWR vote because nobody else is held to the same standard on that vote as Kerry is. He made a speech calling on Bush to get serious about diplomacy before Dean did, funny nobody ever remembers that. He regretted that Bush went to war when it wasn't a last resort, and he said so. That's all Bush was authorized to do, it's too bad the guy who started the war doesn't take near the heat for it as John Kerry does.

And I did a search, yeah you did criticize Gore for huffing and puffing in the debates. You may think all this objective analysis makes you clever, but truth is, it just makes you a right wing mouthpiece.

...but that's the rules of the game - it's a Rovian media, and a dem candidate can either realize that the playing field is slanted, and beat them at their own game, or simply run as though we had some semblance of a free press and lose as Kerry did.


Show me the post where I criticized Gore for "huffing and puffing in the debates". I did no such thing.

"He made a speech calling on Bush to get serious about diplomacy before Dean did, funny nobody ever remembers that. It's not even the IWR vote because nobody else is held to the same standard on that vote as Kerry is."

I remember that Dean was opposed to the IWR, but Kerry and Clinton voted for it. And yes, it is the IWR vote. That cowardly vote made it difficult for him to criticize the Iraq war once it turned into a morass, and it stood in contrast to his wonderful speeches of 3 decades ago. And as far as I'm concerned, every other dem who voted for that fraud should be taken to task, too. As a matter of fact, in a just world, every dem and repub who voted "Yes" would be in jail as an accessory to a war crime. The war was an OBVIOUS fabrication to anyone who was paying ANY attention in late 2002, and it is their JOB to pay such things CLOSE attention before sending out troops to DIE. There is no excuse for anyone of any stripe voting for that filthy resolution.

Which would have done the EXACT SAME FUCKING THING as IWR.

Fortunately for Dean, he didn't have to go on record for any vote, thus enabling people like you to lie through your teeth.

Beiden-Lugar would have at least delayed the war and narrowed the rationale for invasion.

And you forget to mention that Kerry supported that resolution, as well as the atrocity he voted for.

The only candidate who had an unblemished position on the war was Kucinich, and he unfortunately had no chance of winning even the nomination.

Anyone HONEST knows that. It certainly doesn't bother me that Dean supported B-L. It doesn't make him pro-war anymore than IWR made anyone pro-war. It just exposes the naked dishonesty and hypocrisy of your lies.

Why, any sensible democrat should have voted for it right? I suppose you called Kerry to ENCOURAGE him to vote for it, right?

I suppose I should commend you for not attacking those wild-eyed commie loons who had the nerve to vote against it, right?




The only person lying is anyone who tries to convince themselves that an IWR vote was anything other than a vote for a blank check to go to war.

Biden Lugar was different from the IWR, but I did not support it either. The only action that was necessary with Iraq was continued inspections, paired with massive aid to remedy the massive starvation and destruction caused by 12 years of attacks and murderous sanctions against Iraq.

Enough of this going in circles. I realize that Kerryites will go to any length to rationalize the actions of their knight in shining armor. The point is moot, since democrats will NOT give Kerry a second nomination. I noticed a Gore/Kerry poll here earlier which Gore won handliy...

Bush was going to war, and if you think the presence or absence of some Senate resolution actually INFLUENCED his decision to go to war, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

What I object to are those who seek to shift the blame for the Iraq War, 100% of the burden for which falls on Bush and his Administration. Period, end of sentence.

And since you're a Green, I don't think you're in a position to tell anyone what "Democrats" will or won't do. Fortunately, most of them aren't as myopic about Iraq as you are.

DU polls are about as relevant in the real world, and about as indicitive of the mood of Democrats in general, as are Fox News polls. Less so, in fact.

However, it hardly makes sense to be outraged at a snake for behaving like a snake. Democrats, on the other hand are SUPPOSED to be the good guys, so it comes as a much greater disappointment when they betray the ideals they're supposed to stand for.

And since a large group of republicans and democrats put their legal stamp of approval on the Iraq invasion via the IWR, they ARE partially responsible too. If large majorities in both houses had voted NO, Bush would have sent in troops at great peril to his own political well-being. Sure that scenario was unlikely, since there were republican scam in charge of both houses, but even a unanimous dem vote against the invasion would have made a much better statement, but we couldn't even manage that - even with 3 million of us on the streets screaming "NO!".

And there is nothing myopic about calling an unconscionable vote on an unconscionable invasion exactly what it was - criminal.

That's just a rule of the game to you? No big deal if Democrats help Republicans repeat their blather???

Like I said, Kerry criticized the war before it even started, so that whole line about him not being able to criticize the war, or criticizing the war, is just bullshit. It's spin the Deaniacs made up during the primaries and just never let go of. It wasn't true then just like it isn't true now. The vote isn't the war, the war is the war. The war is what should be criticized, and what Kerry has consistently criticized. Pretty simple really.

And you're right, I did get you mixed up with another poster about the "huff and puff". My sincere apologies. This is what you said about Gore, "He's still a bit long-winded, and sounds like the pastor on the Simpsons.."

And you should add - that was from a post I wrote PRAISING Gore.

I have been impressed with his conduct since his loss. I think he is a great man. But if he does run again, I hope he's able to keep his pedagogic tendencies in check.

Yeah, that's just the kind of half-ass "praise" that cynics consider clever. Make no mistake, when you repeat that garbage, you contribute to the right wing's caricature of the Democratic Party. So either praise a Democrat, criticize a specific policy based on facts, or use your "acerbic wit" to bash Republicans.

You say:



Yet Kerry gave this speech in January 2003 before the war started:















http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=189831


And criticized Bush during the debates:





And he's still on Bush's case.

Yollam never let NO STINKIN' FACTS get in the way of his frothing hatred of John Kerry and the Democratic Party.

with Kerry's. I believe John has been very very busy trying to bring a smidgeon of justice for many who need his help.

and none of them, not one, felt it was awkward. They understood the point being made in the national dialogue (Dubya's lack of service and "missing" records thereof).

We share a frustration about John McCain, but I bet we might more closely align with the fact that he's perceived as a sell-out on his basic and more originally-appealling traits. I thank him for his service, but I intend to continue questioning his support of an administration whose policies directly and negatively impact poor people in Arizona (and everywhere else, too).

I'm real sensitive about the Swiftboating of Sen. Kerry, Yollam, and mean you personally no ill will. But what was done by Rove-inspired Swiftboat lying to Sen. Kerry is shitwork, pure and simple. That's the source of my frustration, not you personally, and certainly not your ideas or ability to deliver them.

...about his military service. His salute was awkward because he was only in the military a short time, and it was 35 years ago. He does not carry himself with military bearing. That's not an insult - he's been a civilian for decades, he shouldn't run around acting like some lifer hawk when he was vehemently anti-war after he came back from Vietnam. That was only the first of his flip-flops. I agree that the swiftboat charges were crap. Unfortunately, the flip-flop charges held a bit more water.

When he finally did decide to stick to a position it was the wrong one. When asked if he would vote again for the IWR, he said YES - right before the election.


And *NOW* he says he regrets that vote, a year and a half too late! Sorry, but Kerry is an absolutely maddening man - in part because he consistently sabotages his own considerable potential.

near power. We have that now.

Complex people are not "flip-floppers" for their complexity. I think that's unfair. "Do I contradict myself," Walt Whitman asked. "Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large; I contain multitudes."

I see far more good in this Senator than bad, overwhelmingly slanted toward what would be good for our country. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but you must understand that others might perceive virtues in Kerry you do not perceive.

I wish I could recommend individual posts, because I'd recommend yours.

America HAS a leader who likes simplistic, good vs. evil imagery. One would think that six years of Bush and his messianic complex would make patriotic Americans hunger for a president who sees the world in all its magnificent complexity.

Kerry's is not a problem of being too nuanced. He didn't have a nuanced position on the Iraq war - he voted FOR it. And back in the 70's he vehemently OPPOSED that unjust war. Very hard to reconcile the two positions, when the Iraq war was such an obvious fraud from the very beginning.

You have made up your mind to hate him and troll and disrupt pro-Kerry posts in order to post your bilge, and you care to hear nothing but your own whinging. Kerry was NEVER for invasion, and there are a hundred speeches - his floor speech for the IWR, for one, a speech at Georgetown in January 2003 is another - in which he urged that Bush ACTUALLY FOLLOW the IWR, go to the UN, and build a case before invading - none of which Bush did. Kerry's position on WMDs, Saddam, and general pre-war strategy were no different from Edwards', Clark's, or Dean's. Joe Lieberman alone was pro-INVASION of Iraq. The other Democrats never wanted war. To continue to propogate that lie is to continue to shift the blame off of Bush, and frankly, it's a smear tactic Rove used. Seeing it on DU always makes me rather suspicious.

... because you supported a pro-war candidate, but that would be pretty sleazy - so why do YOU do it?

You're a partisan democrat, and that's fine, if you want to swallow all the pro-war, pro-corporate BS that goes along with accepting everything that any dem does. I personally can't do that. I made an EXCEPTION to vote for Kerry, because things were THAT BAD with Bush. Had this been a less deranged republican in office, I probably would have voted for the Green or for Nader.

Am I exclusively loyal to the democratic party? Hell no. When it becomes a party that stands for the people over corporate power, and war only as a last resort, I will call myself a democrat. Until then, I will vote for dems only when they are the significantly lesser or two evils.

You're a third party agitator who never really gave a shit about Democrats at all.

Calling Kerry pro-war OR pro-corporate is a bullshit lie, though, and the fact that you persist in doing it shows that it is YOU who is not interested in the truth, but rather in a disruptive agenda. Obviously, you want to damage any Democrat you feel is a threat. Only a fool would imply that Kerry isn't "liberal" - a fool or a liar. You decide which.

Since when is that incompatible with being pro-corporate or pro-war?

You're confusing classic liberalism with progressivism and radicalism.

Liberals from FDR on down to LBJ have been pro-war and pro-corporate. Liberalism is an inherently MODERATE and CENTRIST position. Who's falling for the Rovian nonsense now? I can't see any other reason anyone would equate liberalism with the political left.


BTW, I am still a registered democrat. I'm just saying that the party has done little to earn the kind of undying loyalty you seem to expect.

And the fact that you just called FDR "pro-corporate" made me bust a gut laughing.

The New Deal = "pro-corporate"? Wow... the view must really SUCK from the far left, eh buddy?

It's certainly your right to hold radical leftist views, but what you are NOT entitled to are your own facts. You are certainly entitled to support somehow more far left like Kucinich, but you are NOT entitled to spin and deceive in order to tear down other candidates.

Socialist parties were gaining fast in popularity and something had to be done, so FDR appropriated a lot of Socialist ideas into his programs and saved capitalism from itself, so even though the robber barons of the time were too short-sided to see it, the New Deal was in effect, pro-corporate in the long run.

The view doesn't suck from the left. Have you been anywhere else in the world, pal? What is called "centrist" here is right wing in most western democracies. Don't expect me to define what I believe in by the far-right tilted US spectrum.

Ask the 20 million who ended up in Stalin's gulags what a utopia communism is.

Since the Democratic party so evilly thwarted the Communist Party of America and all its "fellow travelers" who twisted in the wind blowing in from Moscow.

I'm going to bed... we are obviously never going to agree about communism vs. capitalism or left vs. liberal or much of anything else... good night.

And I'm not calling dems evil for stopping the ascendancy of socialists (the CPUSA was NOT a viable party at that time, but other socialist parties were)- they did what they had to do to win.

Good night. And please study up on the differences between Soviet-style "communism" and democratic socialism as it is practiced successfully in countries all around the world.

dismissive backhanding on one vote.

Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft. Should we vilify Feingold because we disagreed with his vote?

There is greatness in Kerry, even if you are too stingy to acknowledge it.

...as "complex". He did the right thing back in the '70's by opposing Vietnam, but then went and voted for a blatantly fraudulent war in 2002, because he tested the political winds and thought that voting that way would serve him best in the campaign.

I personally believe he might have won if he had stayed true to his conscience, but he sold out and paid the consequences. He didn't seem too bothered by losing, anyway...

Why don't you just say flip-flopper and put on a purple heart bandaid? It's what you really believe - the Rove lies - so at least be honest about it.

Did you sign Kerry's petition supporting his Senate resolution to withdraw soldiers from Iraq by May 15th? Someone so VERY concerned about the war as yourself ought to sign it posthaste. :eyes:

want them to.

I would ask you to seek a broader view of public life.

Democrats chose Kerry as their nominee. He almost won. His virtues are demonstrable and eclipse your begrudging him over one vote. Jesus. Look out the window for once.

"wishy washy" was a distant second. And there's nothing I like more than to see the repuke talking points on this board, as I see so often when Kerry's name comes up.

After reading a lot (but not all) of the posts, I just wonder why you feel a need to sabatoge this thread attacking John Kerry? It seems so odd to me. Ok, you don't like the guy, that's your decision. Why hijack a thread?

I like him, I saw, apparently, a whole different person and persona than you did. I think being able to change ones mind is a GOOD thing - thinking people do that. Our present "leader" doesn't. Or at least not on anything that matters.

I see in John Kerry a good, decent, intelligent, maybe even brilliant man, with class, and most of all, integrity. I saw him make a few small mistakes in his campaign a couple of years ago, and I think he learned from them. I've been paying attention to what he's done SINCE then. He's done quite a bit, and said quite a bit, that makes me think he learned a lot.

In my opinion, we could do a lot worse than have a fired-up and prepared John Kerry in the running. I mean, having an intelligent, articulate man in the WH again would take some getting used to, but I could do it.

he got his third Purple Heart. It was the RW media that spun his second tour when he went IN COUNTRY as if it was just a short stint, conveniently leaving out his first tour on ship outside of nam and the training for swift boat duty he did between tours.

So what does that say about what YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE? And WHY you choose to believe it?

corporate media controlled what YOU saw and what YOU believe.

Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Don't run Kerry!Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry! Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Don't run Kerry!Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry! Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Don't run Kerry!Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry! Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Don't run Kerry!Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry! Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Don't run Kerry!Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry! Don't run Kerry!
Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!Don't run Kerry!

the gist of your post.

and you say that Kerry would hand the presidency over to Jeb?

We don't have time for that mealy mouth nuance shit this time.

You should offer your position on such a question to advance the dialogue.

Hey! John! Over Here! We found them MONTHS AGO! In fact, we found far more than that!!

Ok, just had to get that out of the way. In any case, I'd love to see John run again. I respect the fuck out of that man and think he is as honorable as they come. President Kerry can speak for me anytime.

I think a case could be made that more people went to the polls to vote for him - but too many were unable to because of registration screw-ups, 4 plus hour lines in areas where many people work two jobs and some problems with not having enough people to instruct voters.

Just from the lines alone - what percent of people had to leave and not vote - it's not hard to conjecture that that made the difference.

What's disgusting is that it's KNOWN this happened and there is no recourse or re do when there are significant problems and no punishment for Harris or Blackwell. An interesting solution to Ohio or Florida problems is to have a bipartisan NATIONAL team that can call for a re-election in a messed up in a following week. States not wanting to incure the cost would take pains to run clean elections.

what happened to his 40,000 lawyers on the ground act?? huh?!!

which ticket carried the state and no matter how much exact proof there is (presently) of voter fraud, ballot-stuffing, and other trickery by the Blackwell-run state GOP voting oversight of the election and in Butler and Warren Counties, specifically.

The stench out of Butler and Warren Counties is formidable, but without smoking guns in hand, a case is tougher than it was in the Florida instance between Gore and Bush in 2000.

The 2004 vote total in Ohio was not "easily" won. Even now-conservative Christopher Hitchens acknowledges that there was skullduggery aplenty. But unless you have express evidence -- express evidence -- of wrong-doing, your 40,000 lawyers wouldn't get any farther than anybody else's.

Every precinct, every county. List the 60,000 votes that were actually cast on a ballot. After that, list each voting irregularity and the proof that it was intentional fraud, proof that can be taken to court.

I've never seen 60,000 votes to turn the election, let alone proof of fraud connected to them.

is one of the smartest damned people who ever represented Wisconsin. How could a case be made that he is not intelligent and brave to boot? In my opinion, it could not be persuasively made. He's a gem. He's going to do better in Iowa in 08 than anybody thinks right now, especially the hapless media.

But he voted to confirm John Ashcroft as Atty. Gen. Would it not be a total outrage for someone to lambast him for that, to reject him for that as if it represented the totality of his work or being? In other words, he has a long, long list of virtues which MUST override any one individual's objection to the Ashcroft confirmation vote.

I see a parallel with Kerry. He is not granted that list of virtues as a table-setting respect, but slammed repeatedly on these boards, often in language we ordinarily reserve for Dick Cheney.

You must grant me that point. If Feingold's virtues are demonstrable, so are Kerry's.

But some of us accept Churchill's adage that the further behind at the past one looks, the better one might see what lies ahead. For this to be manifest, an individual must be capable and then, separately, willing, to undertake this perspective.

Dubya's failure is that he is not willing and probably not capable.

Kerry certainly is capable and also willing, as any objective observer would concede.

Voters in Iowa awarded him first place in their caucus in 2004. Would you have us believe that these people are deluded morons? Would you discount their perceptions, or pronounce them less fit than you to vote in a constitutional republic?

Opinions differ. Yours allows you the range of voting for whichever candidate you support most. Give the rest of us the same allowance.

He had his chance.

If he can't beat * then how can he beat a real opponent?

rather live in George W. Bush's America, or John Kerry's.

George W. Bush's or Al Gore's.

Or John Edwards'.
Or Wes Clark's.
Howard Dean's.
Russ Feingold's.

--and so forth.

For Bush, you can substitute in any combination: George Allen, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, etc.

That's a very essential hinge.

We have to be citizens in one America or the other. Which would be the better choice?

It should've been a cake-walk. He should have made some pie-in-the-sky promises and then only deliver on a tiny part of them. That seems to work for the GOP. Apparently, millions of Americans actually believe that the GOP is somehow reducing their tax burden, when all they've ever done is consistently shift it DOWNWARD onto REGULAR people...

because they weren't real opponents?

that ran in the primaries but didn't win the nomination? That would mean that Clark, Edwards, and everyone else that lost should not attempt to run this time, since they had their chance.

I can't be excited by this. WES CLARK is the MAN in 08

If he wins the nomination, I will of course suppoort him, but I have a hard time seeing myself voting for him in the primaries.

if he wins the nomination, I would support him, as well. If the primaries were today, I would probably wind up supporting Feingold, if he decided to run.

For the sake of the party!

possibilities a nominee to carry the banner of its platform tenets into the public arena.

It is, in one aspect, an idea-delivery device.

Kerry is entirely qualified, constitutionally qualified, and battle-tested both in SE Asia among othe war veterans and in principled stands on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Of 300 million or so U.S. citizens, I believe a case could be made that he is among the most accomplished of our public servants. The Democratic party "bench" is deep. We have a line-up of qualified, even especially qualified, men and women.

And one of them, perhaps Kerry, stands a good chance to be the next president.

And proved that whatever he had in the jungles of Vietnam, he didn't have the fire in the belly to call out the crooks over what was obviously happening in Ohio.

He is eminently qualified to remain the junior senator from Massachusetts, but he should stay out of the presidential race.

If you, or I, or anybody else satisfies the Constitution's specific requisite qualifications for the people's office of the presidency, you, I, or they may seek that office. One may support other potential candidacies as one chooses, also a Constitutional perogative.

But I don't buy the slam on an accomplished citizen and public servant. It's unwarranted on its face and especially when the current climate in DC is so cynical and hostile to personal liberties and citizenship.

That's not the issue. Many people are competent to run. That's not the issue.

The party is an organization, however, that needs to think strategically about who is our best chance for actually winning the election and saving the country.

Whether fair or not, given what happened in 2004, it is clear that Kerry would be a poor strategic choice, and for the sake of the parties prospects should just stay out of the process.

The hundreds of thousands of voters who supported his candidacy from Iowa on ARE the participatory democrats/Democrats. They turned out, they voted. Kerry won the nomination.

If Dean had been the nominee, my guess is that a huge, huge percentage of those voters would still have supported the Democratic ticket. Same for John Edwards, or Dick Gephardt -- and so it would be for 2008, don't you feel? I don't have any expectations that my personal favorites are going to win a school board seat, a county commission race, the governor's chair, or the presidency, but once in a while, a genuinely intelligent and capable mind is offered for our consideration. My argument is that we have a very deep bench. Our primaries always have more candidates than the Republicans because we are a more representative party.

Kerry won the primaries. He was the nominee. If Bush/Cheney cheated, Kerry-Edwards won; if not, he came within a hair's breadth of upsetting an incumbent "war president."

That ain't so bad.

As for Kerry, just because he won the primaries and was the favorite among Democrats, including activists in 2004, doesn't mean that people would support him now. I think what you're not recognizing is that a lot of Democrats who were big fans of Kerry up to the Convention, were horrified by how he let the Rove machine run over him without the kind of fight back we expect from our political leaders -- from not answering Swiftboat liars to caving on Ohio the night after the election, after his campaign promised that every vote would be counted.

At least Gore fought it out all the way to the Supreme Court.

I never said Kerry wasn't a highly qualified person, but I think he proved he is just not cut out to be the standard bearer during these crucial times.

if someone slides a ballot to me with Kerry's name on it this evening, I have no problem ith him assuming the presidency, tomorrow morning at the latest.

For one thing, seemingly small but in my opinion huge, John Kerry, unlike the current incumbent, speaks English.

I yearn for someone with command of the language to speak to the nation. I feel of the thousands of failures of George W. Bush, this is among the most grievous.

The DNC was outorganized by the RNC machine. And the left pundits and objective media GOT THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM on a daily basis by the RW message machine.

The Republicans could lie more effectively day in and day out about their guy than the LEFT media could sputter the truth - most of which they barely KNEW and PROVED IT.

Ohio Dem party structure was a JOKE and had been since it was allowed to collapse in 1997. It is only NOW being strengthened. What MacAuliffe and Clinton were thinking when they allowed Ohio's Dem party to collapse and STAY collapsed is just beyond any reason.

If Senator Kerry runs in 2008, I won't make the mistake of giving him lukewarm support, and I hope the rest of the part won't, either.

Kerry is a strong candidate. One thing he will have to prove is that he learned from last time. That said he nearly won a race where everything was stacked against him.

In a nation where in most of our lifetimes Richard M. Nixon lost one race and roared back to win another, any slam on John Kerry is nasty work.

Kerry, FAR more than Nixon, is aligned with the spirit of liberty and historical heritage of our country. Far more aligned, far more deeply and sincerely aligned. And let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments, to rip off Shakespeare, whose birthday is this weekend.

Whether he runs for President, Senator, or any other office he wants!

:D

replay 2004 commercials

Don't you get it? The lies against Kerry have already been debunked. You don't think there's a way to swiftboat every single person with a D behind their name? If you don't think that, then you're hopelessly naive.

The Swiftboat liars were exposed for the frauds and jokes they are. Let them try their shit again - the only fools who will listen are the true fascist believers.

I'm curious if Kerry wins the nomination in '08 if he would pick Edwards again? Of would Edwards what the VP slot?

I think Russ would be a great running mate.

Kerry would never take the VP slot after running in 2004.

He was proven right on everything he said in 2004, he is a decent honorable man who nearly won in spite of attacks on his commendable life, family and wife. He would do an outstanding job in actually healing the world and winning back friends.

He's the most qualified to lead our country. We need a foreign policy expert, someone skilled in diplomacy to reclaim the respect we've lost in the world community. We also need someone who is committed to a strong energy and environmental policy. When I sit down and write a list of all the things we need as far as leadership goes, there is only one person I know of who can address all of them: John Kerry.

I hope he realizes how much we need him.

And to wait until after midterms is a smart idea too. The Congressional shift will be very telling for our Class of '08. I can't wait :)

It will be good to know one way or the other.

after Casey beats the crap out of Santorum this fall.

He's learned the lessons of '04. I'm kinda loving Kerry/Gore or Kerry/Clark, but I'll take

Kerry/Anyone '08

Gore's been VP and wouldn't do it again. Same w/ Gore/Kerry .... which should have been to ticket in 2000.

I adore John Kerry and will vote for him again in a heart beat.

I'll let the primarys run their course. I'll support our nominee in 2008 who ever he or she may be.

I really like Gore, but Lieberman, what was he thinking?

I was happy that La Liberman was jewish. But looking back it was not a good choice.

I pray that we'll have real leadership elected in 2006 and 2008. I miss the days of President Clinton and VP Gore.

I'll dance in the streets if Al Gore FINNALLY become our president.

First thing he should do is turn W on 1/20/09 and say .... "you've done enought damage ... now get your ass out of town ... I have work to do!"

Why I will always support him, he always does exactly what he says he would do. I'm glad somebody is representing us at the UN, we can't afford for the world to think there's nothing to us but Bolton and Bush and Rummy and Rice. And in two days, his Faniuel Hall speech. He's a hard guy to keep up with!

That Kerry is choosing to make it on the 35th anniversary of his own speaking truth to power in a building where many calls to dissent have been made is awesome. (It's a very cool bulding to hear a speech in.)

past nominees who lost, isn't too great, as I recall. I like Sen Kerry but I thought he did a mediocre job campaigning. He's a good man and a good Senator, but I can't work up much enthusiasm for his running again.

Richard Nixon lost to Kennedy and later won.

Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford in the primaries, and came back to win.

George H. W. Bush lost to Ronald Reagan in the primaries and later became President.

John McCain lost to George W. Bush in the primaries, and is now considered the front runner.

Republicans seem to win the White House quite often in recent years by turning to "losers." It's not that Kerry (and Gore, and Dukakis) necessarily did a medicore job campaigning, but that the Republican Noise Machine knows how to give that appearance. We make it easy for them by throwing out the old candidate and putting up someone new without the experience to take them on.

Taking advantage of Kerry's experinece is our best shot at winning in 2008.

I specified nominees, not people who failed in the primaries.

I disagree about Kerry being out best shot- strongly. I'll work against him in the primaries, just as I did in 2004, and vote for him if he wins. He hardly stirs up much enthusiasm among voters. He didn't last time, I see no reason to believe that will change.

That's a rather arbitrary distinction you're making to exclude everyone but Nixon.

If anything, there's a stronger case to make for those who won the nomination but lost the general election than those who couldn't even win the nomination.

Coming back to win after a loss is common in politics. Presidential elections take more than a brief run from time of a primary win to the general election to get the message out (over the right wing noise machine) and stir up enough enthusiasm. Republlcans know that--which is why they win Presidential elections and Democrats lose so often.

In the last 50 years - there were two, and that's if you count Stevenson who has one election outside the range. Stevenson lost against an incumbent President, Nixon won when no incumbent was winning.

So if we want to play statistics - the only person to run twice when there was an open seat won. Now, I really don't know what bothers me more making inferences where the sample size is one or two or putting the honorable Senator in a category with Nixon.

And then there's Grover Cleveland, who won the presidency, lost to his challenger, then came back four years later to beat the man.

2004 is 2004. 2008 will be a whole new ballgame. You don't think Kerry would have learned many valuable lessons from 2004? Why not benefit from the fruit of that experience and wisdom? You should support whoever appeals most to you, but it is silly to discount Kerry because he ran - against a popular war incumbent with the media and all the cards stacked against him - and lost by a mere 60,000 votes.

act, besides Kerry actuakky said on msnbc that he bekieved the Bin laden tape released days before the election is what did him in.

-->like election fraud was the figment of imagination for countless millions, Kerry never got it!

since he's not running against another skull & Boneman he may check into election fraud should this occur again?

Are you deliberately trying to look like a fool?

to a large crowd. The Goo Goo Dolls warmed us up (they were outstanding, even dazzling), and after many local and state luminaries spoke, Senator Kerry took the stage.

If you had heard him that night, and on many other nights I and others have heard him speak, you would not say Kerry "never got it."

That would definitely not be a persuasvie argument.

Those are two of his favorite activities. Are you asking him to be inauthentic?

it was an act. What does that say about you?

And please name your likely Democratic candidate who IS WORKING ON MACHINE FRAUD now, or sounded the alarm on machine fraud BEFORE November 2004.

Personally I firmly believe Kerry easily won and that Bush's team pulled off a fine election fraud scheme that worked.

Especially one that easily won. Election fraud? What other Democratic contender has brought up election fraud?

in 04 election?

then what's the problem with Kerry??? He won!!!

Kerry before the election assured us our votes would ALL be counted and this clearly wasn't the case -- Kerry stated on MSNBC was that he believed the Bin Laden video released days before the election is what; "did him in" (?)

Yeah, he'll play real well in the gulf coast region. :wtf:

I think that was one of the campaingn's biggest mistakes. They should have never conceded an entire region. Glad the DNC is focusing on all 50 states.

All the Democrats are pushing the message and it seems to be resonating.

Conceding an entire region was goofy, and the 50 state strategy is inspiring.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a Gore/Mary Landrieu ticket to clinch it.

the strategy they took was very likely correct. If the local Ohio party wasn't broken - Kerry would have been elected and people would praise the strategy. How much of Kerry's time would you have allocated to the south where there was little chance to win? (I agree the Missouri and VA looked like they were possible for a while.)

There were only so many places Kerry could appear - would a flight to Alaska ever be justified?

I think it makes sense for the DNC to strengthen all the local parties - but as long as there is an electoral college, there will be a strategy on where to compete.

At the time it seemed as though smear ads were running pretty consistently and without any challenge what-so-ever. The complete disregard shown at the time I simply think is something which can so easily come back to bite him on the ass. I can see the attack ads, scenes from the hurricanes, cut to Kerry: "I don't need the south," rinse, repeat ad nauseum. Some semi-starved child in a raggedy dress says "John Kerry didn't need us; where was HE when we needed him?" This paid advertisement brought to you by Halliburton.

Maybe I'm wrong, it's been known to happen with disturbing frequency.

-fl

showing Kerry sending supplies to New Orleans -- though since he did a lot of that very quietly, without fanfare, he might prefer not to make a fuss over it. Maybe they could talk about the major efforts he's made to get serious help for small businesses hurt by Hurricane Katrina.

I would expect an "ALLARD" type action refuting it - Kerry did everything he could and as President would have taken care of everyone - not needing the south in the elctoral college is a fact - and no Democrat in a narrow election gets the south - how many southern states did Gore, from Tennessee get. In fact such an attack might beexactly what Kerry would need to push him to graphically contrast what Bush (the Republicans) did and what he did.

That won't play too well with most folks I know. I feel for her and of course, for her constituents, but her voting record is still abysmal.

I'm thinking more in terms of demographics. Gore got hurt by losing the NRA back in '00. With Landrieu, you've got a shot at the women, you've got a shot at the south, and you've got someone who, at least superficially, mitigates Gore's hardline on the NRA. No way in hell would I want her actually making decisions!

I'm just glad Dr. Dean is working to make us more competitive in those states. I'm not sure there was even the organization down there to support Sen. Kerry's bid.

S.AMDT.1695 to H.R.2862 To strengthen the loan, procurement assistance, and management education programs of the Small Business Administration in order to help small businesses and home owners hurt by Hurricane Katrina meet their existing obligations, finance their businesses, and maintain and create jobs, thereby providing stability to the national economy.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 9/13/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 9/15/2005 Proposed amendment SA 1695 withdrawn in Senate.

04/03/2006

Kerry Calls on Justice Department to Protect Voting Rights for Victims of Katrina

Current election plan will deny voting rights for tens of thousands of Louisiana residents

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and John Tanner, Chief of the Voting Section at the Department of Justice, urging them to immediately reconsider approval of a voting plan that will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in the upcoming Louisiana elections.


10/13/2005

Senator John Kerry on Small Business Administration's Role in Hurricane Reconstruction:

"It's time for the SBA to start doing their job instead of just talking about it."

Below is a statement released today by Senator John Kerry, ranking Democrat on the Senate Small Business Committee. "It's time for the SBA to start doing their job instead of just talking about it. When fewer than 50 business loans have been made seven weeks and nearly 10,500 applications after Katrina hit, the SBA isn't doing its job. When local small businesses are losing out on contracts to big businesses outside the Gulf, the SBA isn't doing its job. "The SBA is indispensable to helping businesses and homeowners recover. Senators from both sides of the aisle have offered every assistance to make sure the SBA can do its job, but the Bush Administration and a few Republicans are blocking our efforts. This is rank mismanagement. How can the Administration claim to support small businesses and then offer $62 billion for relief efforts without designating a dime for small businesses? Instead of learning from Hurricane Katrina, the Administration is still responding slowly and ineffectively to reconstruction and is simply making excuses instead of fixing what's not working. "SBA Administrator Hector Barreto should not leave the Gulf Coast until these problems are fixed. That means making real loans and real assistance available to help small businesses and the thousands they employ get back on their feet. It's a win-win because it helps rebuild the Gulf Coast while helping the very engines of our economy."
###

09/13/2005

John Kerry Statement on President Bush’s Failure to Respond to Hurricane’s Devastation

Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on President Bush accepting responsibility for the federal government’s failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

“This Administration still hasn’t figured out the difference between spin and leadership. The President has done the obvious, only after it was clear he couldn’t get away with the inexcusable. President Bush has accepted Michael Brown’s resignation and admitted the buck stops in the Oval Office. But there are a lot of survivors who want to know whether this will change anything. Does the White House even understand the problem? The Administration had four years after September 11th to get this right, and they were caught unforgivably unprepared to deal with a major emergency here at home. Do they now understand that our government’s efforts and resources have been going to the wrong priorities? What are they doing to make sure this never happens again other than talking tough talk?”


09/09/2005

John Kerry Offers Major Package of Legislation to Help Small Businesses, Others Devastated by Hurricane Katrina



WASHINGTON - With estimates that more than 400,000 jobs will be lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) today unveiled a package of emergency economic aid and federal assistance for small businesses and others reeling from the destruction in the Gulf Coast.
“It is clear that our government failed the people of the Gulf Coast. In time, those responsible will be held accountable for what has gone right and what has gone wrong. Right now, we need to make up for lost time and help any way we can, and that means targeting the fastest relief possible,” said Senator Kerry. “Every small business we can help will help a hard-working family start to put the pieces of their lives back together. We should help small businesses rebuild themselves and these communities.”

Senator Kerry is the Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee. He will offer this small business-related relief package today with his colleague Mary Landrieu (D-La.) as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill currently pending in the Senate. A vote on the measure is expected next week. Kerry authored a similar assistance package to small businesses recovering in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

One of the most far-reaching pieces of the Kerry relief package will give small businesses across the country access to low-interest disaster loans to cope with the increased costs of oil and gas. This will especially benefit farmers, truck drivers and others whose livelihood relies heavily on the price of gas.

In addition, the Kerry relief package also provides small businesses in the Gulf Region: · Access to short-term loans that will be rapidly approved to help businesses that are waiting for SBA loan approval begin rebuilding immediately

· A two-year assumption of payments and interest on loans provided through the Small Business Administration (SBA) for working capital and fixed asset loans, known as 7(a) and 504 loans, to help small businesses that are unable to make payments with their existing loans

· A two-year deferral on the interest and payments for SBA disaster loans · Access to 30 percent of all federal contracts and 40 percent of subcontracting dollars · Expanded Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) status, which gives small businesses in the area a preference when bidding on federal contracts

· Increased counseling and business assistance provided through the SBA’s entrepreneurial development centers, including Small Business Development Centers, SCORE, Women’s Business Centers, and Veterans Business Outreach Centers

· Greater opportunities for small construction companies to receive SBA bonding assistance, which is a type of financial loss insurance on the contract

· The ability to refinance existing disaster loans and existing business debt with low-interest disaster loans

Kerry is offering additional hurricane-response legislation, including:

Improve Coordination, Planning, and Execution of Disaster Plans: Senator Kerry is offering legislation to improve several steps, including formalizing the National Guard’s role in the homeland security mission, by creating a Standing Joint Task Force commanded by a National Guard officer responsible for coordinating preparedness and response between the national, state and local governments involved. Given the National Guard's unique responsibilities to both federal and state governments, it is well-positioned to coordinate the planning and execution of disaster contingencies whether caused by an act of nature or an act of terrorism. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security currently lacks a deliberative planning process, like that used in the Department of Defense, which is essential for disaster response.

FEMA Regional Emergency Evacuation and Preparedness Centers: The response to Hurricane Katrina has revealed serious shortcomings in planning and infrastructure for disaster preparedness and relief. Thousands of displaced Americans are living in sports arenas and National Guard armories. Instead of relying on ad hoc solutions and improvisation, the federal government should establish regional facilities to help prepare the federal response and assist the citizens affected by disasters - whether natural or man-made. In the event of disaster, these facilities will provide temporary or, if necessary, long-term shelter for displaced persons. Medical supplies and facilities at each site can treat people in need of care. Functional spaces, including the capacity for plug-and-play data and communications networks will facilitate the provision of all types of disaster relief services.

Helping Deployed National Guard and Reserve Troops: Tens of thousands of troops have been called up for service in Afghanistan, Iraq and now the Gulf Coast. Many of these troops are in the National Guard and Reserves, and when they’re called to active duty, they and their employers struggle financially. Senator Kerry’s proposal would provide tax credits to small businesses employers of National Guard and Reserve members called up to help lessen the burden on small businesses, our troops and their families.

Help Youth Rebuild Their Communities: YouthBuild is a federal program that helps disadvantaged young people learn responsibility, leadership and a skill by working with their peers to build homes in their communities. YouthBuild is an ideal program to help the young people of the Gulf Coast, who will need employment and whose community has been severely damaged. Senator Kerry strongly believes the recovery effort in the Gulf Coast could be dramatically helped by an expansion of the YouthBuild program in the region, and his legislation expands the program as part of the long-term response and recovery effort.

Providing Housing as Part of Long-Term Recovery: Senator Kerry believes that the federal government should take an active role in the rebuilding of the thousands of homes and apartments destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Two housing production proposals he has authored are ideally designed to help those in the Gulf region who have lost their homes. First, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act will create an affordable housing production program for those who most need assistance. Second, the Community Development Homeownership Tax Credit Act will encourage the construction and substantial rehabilitation of approximately 500,000 homes for low- and moderate-income families in economically distressed areas over the next 10 years. Both bills can provide critically needed housing and help the long-term recovery of the region.



09/15/2005

Senate Passes Kerry Legislation to Provide Tax Relief, Help Guard and Reserve Troops Hurt By Katrina



WASHINGTON - Today the Senate passed legislation proposed by Senator John Kerry (D - Mass.) that will provide financial support to National Guard and Reservists through immediate tax relief to their employers affected by Hurricane Katrina.
The provision is a modified version of a key part of Kerry’s Military Family Bill of Rights and was included in the tax package that passed the Senate today. It provides a tax credit to employers in the Gulf Coast impacted by Katrina who pay reservists that are called to duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf Coast or elsewhere.

“Many reservists face a pay cut when called to active duty, and that can put a terrible financial strain on them and their families. Some employers have elected to do the right thing by easing that burden. I want more employers to make that patriotic effort, and this bill will help that” Senator Kerry said. “Where ever our reservists are serving, we should go the extra mile to help them and their families. This bill will help businesses in the Gulf Coast, who’ve been hard hit by Katrina, do just that.” “It is imperative that the House of Representatives does the right thing by including this provision in their bill, so we can quickly make this a reality for our military families.”

More than 190,000 reservists and guardsmen have been called up for active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf Coast and other duty. Over 20,000 of these troops are from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Kerry’s provision will provide relief to these military reservists and National Guard members by providing an employee retention credit which provides a 40 percent tax credit for wages paid up to $6,000 after August 28, 2005 and before December 31, 2005. This credit will help employers in the Gulf Coast who pay employees that are not able to work because the business was either damaged or destroyed and pay reservists and guardsmen that worked for them right up to the time before they were deployed.

Kerry has worked over the past two years with Senator Landrieu on legislation to provide assistance to businesses that employ reservists who have been called up to active duty. That legislation will provide tax credits to employers who pay reservists wages that are above their military pay and to help with the costs of hiring temporary workers.


09/19/2005

John Kerry Addresses the Lessons of Katrina

"This horrifying disaster has shown Americans at their best -- and their government at its worst."

Providence, Rhode Island -- In remarks today at Brown University, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) will address not just the government's response to the Katrina disaster, but fundamental questions of truth, competence, and accountability in government today, and a long overdue debate over governing philosophy -- the choice between a philosophy of "every man for himself" rather than shared sacrifice for the common good.
Senator Kerry's remarks as prepared for delivery follow.

Remarks of Senator John Kerry (As prepared for delivery) Brown University September 19, 2005

Thank you for what the Brown community has done to help and comfort the many victims of Hurricane Katrina. This horrifying disaster has shown Americans at their best -- and their government at its worst.

And that's what I've come to talk with you about today. The incompetence of Katrina's response is not reserved to a hurricane. There's an enormous gap between Americans' daily expectations and government's daily performance. And the gap is growing between the enduring strength of the American people -- their values, their spirit, their imagination, their ingenuity, and their willingness to serve and sacrifice -- and the shocking weakness of the American government in contending with our country's urgent challenges. On the Gulf Coast during the last two weeks, the depth and breadth of that gap has been exposed for all to see and we have to address it now before it’s obscured again by hurricane force spin and deception.

Katrina stripped away any image of competence and exposed to all the true heart and nature of this administration. The truth is that for four and a half years, real life choices have been replaced by ideological agenda, substance replaced by spin, governance second place always to politics. Yes, they can run a good campaign -- I can attest to that -- but America needs more than a campaign. If 12 year-old Boy Scouts can be prepared, Americans have a right to expect the same from their 59 year-old President of the United States.

Katrina reminds us that too often the political contests of our time have been described like football games with color commentary: one team of consultants against another, red states against blue states, Democratic money against Republican money; a contest of height versus hair - sometimes. But the truth is democracy is not a game; we are living precious time each day in a different America than the one we can inhabit if we make different choices.

Today, more than ever, when the path taken last year and four years earlier takes us into a wilderness of missed opportunities -- we need to keep defining the critical choices over and over, offering a direction not taken but still open in the future.

I know the President went on national television last week and accepted responsibility for Washington's poor response to Katrina. That's admirable. And it's a first. As they say, the first step towards recovery is to get out of denial. But don't hold your breath hoping acceptance of responsibility will become a habit for this administration. On the other hand, if they are up to another "accountability moment" they ought to start by admitting one or two of the countless mistakes in conceiving, "selling", planning and executing their war of choice in Iraq.

I obviously don't expect that to happen. And indeed, there's every reason to believe the President finally acted on Katrina and admitted a mistake only because he was held accountable by the press, cornered by events, and compelled by the outrage of the American people, who with their own eyes could see a failure of leadership and its consequences.

Natural and human calamity stripped away the spin machine, creating a rare accountability moment, not just for the Bush administration, but for all of us to take stock of the direction of our country and do what we can to reverse it. That's our job -- to turn this moment from a frenzied expression of guilt into a national reversal of direction. Some try to minimize the moment by labeling it a "blame game" -- but as I’ve said - this is no game and what is at stake is much larger than the incompetent and negligent response to Katrina.

This is about the broader pattern of incompetence and negligence that Katrina exposed, and beyond that, a truly systemic effort to distort and disable the people's government, and devote it instead to the interests of the privileged and the powerful. It is about the betrayal of trust and abuse of power. And in all the often horrible and sometimes ennobling sights and sounds we've all witnessed over the last two weeks, there's another sound just under the surface: the steady clucking of Administration chickens coming home to roost.

We wouldn't be hearing that sound if the people in Washington running our government had cared to listen in the past. They didn't listen to the Army Corps of Engineers when they insisted the levees be reinforced.

They didn't listen to the countless experts who warned this exact disaster scenario would happen. They didn't listen to years of urgent pleading by Louisianans about the consequences of wetlands erosion in the region, which exposed New Orleans and surrounding parishes to ever-greater wind damage and flooding in a hurricane.

They didn't listen when a disaster simulation just last year showed that hundreds of thousands of people would be trapped and have no way to evacuate New Orleans.

They didn't listen to those of us who have long argued that our insane dependence on oil as our principle energy source, and our refusal to invest in more efficient engines, left us one big supply disruption away from skyrocketing gas prices that would ravage family pocketbooks, stall our economy, bankrupt airlines, and leave us even more dependent on foreign countries with deep pockets of petroleum.

They didn't listen when Katrina approached the Gulf and every newspaper in America warned this could be "The Big One" that Louisianans had long dreaded. They didn't even abandon their vacations.

For an Administration that wants to teach intelligent design in our schools, maybe they should start by getting a little intelligent design at FEMA.

And the rush now to camouflage their misjudgments and inaction with money doesn’t mean they are suddenly listening. It's still politics as usual. The plan they’re designing for the Gulf Coast turns the region into a vast laboratory for right wing ideological experiments. They’re already talking about private school vouchers, abandonment of environmental regulations, abolition of wage standards, subsidies for big industries - and believe it or not yet another big round of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us!

The administration is recycling all their failed policies and shipping them to Louisiana. After four years of ideological excess, these Washington Republicans have a bad hangover -- and they can't think of anything to offer the Gulf Coast but the hair of the dog that bit them.

And amazingly -- or perhaps not given who we’re dealing with -- this massive reconstruction project will be overseen not by a team of experienced city planners or developers, but according to the New York Times, by the Chief of Politics in the White House and Republican Party, none other than Karl Rove -- barring of course that he is indicted for "outing" an undercover CIA intelligence officer.

Katrina is a symbol of all this administration does and doesn't do. Michael Brown -- or Brownie as the President so famously thanked him for doing a heck of a job - Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq; what George Tenet is to slam dunk intelligence; what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad; what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy; what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning; what Tom Delay is to ethics; and what George Bush is to “Mission Accomplished” and “Wanted Dead or Alive.” The bottom line is simple: The "we'll do whatever it takes" administration doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

This is the Katrina administration. It has consistently squandered time, tax dollars, political capital, and even risked American lives on sideshow adventures: A war of choice in Iraq against someone who had nothing to do with 9/11; a full scale presidential assault on Social Security when everyone knows the real crisis is in health care - Medicare and Medicaid. And that's before you even get to willful denial on global warming; avoidance on competitiveness; complicity in the loss and refusal of health care to millions.

Americans can and will help compensate for government's incompetence with millions of acts of individual enterprise and charity, as Katrina has shown. But that’s not enough. We must ask tough questions: Will this generosity and compassion last in the absence of strong leadership? Will this Administration only ask for sacrifice in this time of crisis? Has dishonesty in politics degraded our national character to the point that we feel our dues have been paid as citizens with a one-time donation to the Red Cross?

Today, let’s you and I acknowledge what’s really going on in this country. The truth is that this week, as a result of Katrina, many children languishing in shelters are getting vaccinations for the first time. Thousands of adults are seeing a doctor after going without a check-up for years. Illnesses lingering long before Katrina will be treated by a healthcare system that just weeks ago was indifferent, and will soon be indifferent again.

For the rest of the year this nation silently tolerates the injustice of 11 million children and over 30 million adults in desperate need of healthcare. We tolerate a chasm of race and class some would rather pretend does not exist. And ironically, right in the middle of this crisis the Administration quietly admitted that since they took office, six million of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty. That’s over five times the evacuated population of New Orleans. Their plight is no less tragic - no less worthy of our compassion and attention. We must demand something simple and humane: healthcare for all those in need - in all years at all times.

This is the real test of Katrina. Will we be satisfied to only do the immediate: care for the victims and rebuild the city? Or will we be inspired to tackle the incompetence that left us so unprepared, and the societal injustice that left so many of the least fortunate waiting and praying on those rooftops?

That’s the unmet challenge we have to face together. Katrina is the background of a new picture we must paint of America. For five years our nation's leaders have painted a picture of America where ignoring the poor has no consequences; no nations are catching up to us; and no pensions are destroyed. Every criticism is rendered unpatriotic. And if you say “War on Terror” enough times, Katrina never happens.

Well, Katrina did happen, and it washed away that coat of paint and revealed the true canvas of America with all its imperfections. Now, we must stop this Administration from again whitewashing the true state of our challenges. We have to paint our own picture - an honest picture with all the optimism we deserve - one that gives people a vision where no one is excluded or ignored. Where leaders are honest about the challenges we face as a nation, and never reserve compassion only for disasters.

Rarely has there been a moment more urgent for Americans to step up and define ourselves again. On the line is a fundamental choice. A choice between a view that says “you’re on your own,” “go it alone,” or “every man for himself.” Or a different view - a different philosophy - a different conviction of governance - a belief that says our great American challenge is one of shared endeavor and shared sacrifice.

Over the next weeks I will address these choices in detail - choices about national security, the war in Iraq, making our nation more competitive and committing to energy independence. But it boils down to this. I still believe America’s destiny is to become a living testament to what free human beings can accomplish by acting in unity. That’s easy to dismiss by those who seem to have forgotten we can do more together than just waging war.

But for those who still believe in the great tradition of Americans doing great things together, it’s time we started acting like it. We can never compete with the go-it-alone crowd in appeals to selfishness. We can’t afford to be pale imitations of the other side in playing the ‘what’s in it for me’ game. One thing we know: the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party.

Instead, it’s time we put our appeals where our hearts are - asking the American people to make our country as strong, prosperous, and big-hearted as we know we can be - every day. It’s time we framed every question - every issue -- not in terms of what’s in it for ‘me,’ but what’s in it for all of us?

And when you ask that simple question - what’s in it for all of us? - the direction not taken in America could not be more clear or compelling.

Instead of allowing a few oil companies to drill their way to windfall profits, it means an America that understands we can’t drill our way to energy independence, we have to invent our way there together.

Instead of making a mockery of the words No Child Left Behind when China and India are graduating tens of thousands more engineers and PhDs than we are, it means an America where college education is affordable and accessible for every child willing to work for it.

Instead of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it means an America that makes smart investments in your future like funding the science and research and development that will assure American technological leadership.

Instead of allowing lobbyists to rewrite our environmental laws to take us backwards, it means an America where lakes and rivers and streams are clean enough that when a family takes the kids fishing, it’s actually safe to eat the fish they catch.

Instead of letting a few ideologues get in the way of progress that can make us a stronger and healthier society, it means an America where the biology students here today will do the groundbreaking stem cell research tomorrow.

And instead of stubbornly disregarding intelligence, using force prematurely and shoving our allies aside, it means an America that restores its leadership in the world. An America that meets its responsibility of creating a world where the plagues of our time and future times - from terror to disease to poverty to weapons of mass destruction to the unknown - are overcome by allies united in common cause, and proud to follow American leadership.

That is the direction not taken but still open to us in the future if we answer that simple question - ‘what’s in it for all of us?’ It comes down to the fact that the job of government is to prepare for your future - not ignore it. It should prepare to solve problems - not create them.

This Administration and the Republicans who control Congress give in to special interests and rob future generations. Real leadership stands up to special interests and sets the course for future generations. And unless we change course now, my generation risks failing its obligation of assuring you inherit a safer, stronger America. To turn this around, the greatest challenges must be the starting point. I hope Katrina gives us the courage to face them and the sense of urgency to beat them.

That’s why the next few months are such a critical time. You’ll read about the Katrina investigations and fact-finding missions. You’ll get constant updates on the progress rebuilding New Orleans and new funding for FEMA. Washington becomes a very efficient town once voters start paying attention.

But we can’t let political maneuvering around the current crisis distract people from the gathering, hidden crises that present the greatest threats to our nation’s competitiveness and character. The effort to rebuild New Orleans cannot obscure the need to also rebuild our country.

So realistically, I’m sure you’re wondering: How do I change all this? What can I do? The answer is simple: you have to make your issues the voting issues of this nation. You’re not the first generation to face this challenge.

I remember when you couldn’t even mention environmental issues without a snicker. But then in the 70’s people got tired of seeing the Cuyahoga River catch on fire from all the chemicals. So one day millions of Americans marched. Politicians had no choice but to take notice. Twelve Congressman were dubbed the Dirty Dozen, and soon after seven were kicked out of office. The floodgates were opened. We got the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water. We created the EPA. The quality of life improved because concerned citizens made their issues matter in elections.

You have the chance to do that now. Moments like Katrina are difficult - but they help you define your service to your fellow citizens. I’ll never forget as a teenager standing in a field in October of 1957 watching the first man made spacecraft streak across the night sky. The conquest, of course, was Soviet - and while not everyone got to see the unmanned craft pass overhead at 18,000 miles per hour that night - before long every American knew the name Sputnik. We knew we had been caught unprepared.

In the uncertain years thereafter, President Kennedy challenged Americans to act on that instinct. He said, "This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country...the question we have to decide as Americans," he said, is "are we doing enough today?"

Today, every American knows the name Katrina -- and once again we know our government was undeniably unprepared, even as Americans have shown their willingness to sacrifice to make up for it.

But in these uncertain weeks of Katrina's aftermath, we must ask ourselves not just whether a great country can be made greater -- the sacrifice and generosity of Americans these last weeks answered that question with a resounding yes.

No, our challenge is greater. It’s to speak out so loudly that Washington has no choice but to make choices worthy of this great country - choices worthy of the sacrifice of our neighbors in the Gulf Coast and our troops all around the world.

What's in it for all of us? Nothing less than the character of our country - and your future.


http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/home.cfm






Excuse the length of the post, I had to include the Brown speech in full, cause it was rockin'.

Kudos to Kerry on that. You may be right, and he'd be well received in the region.

Days after Katrina, John and Teresa called him and asked what was needed. He suggested some pressing needs - they asked where they could land a plane. Lott told him and Lott's staff worked out how to distribute the stuff. The Kerrys did this privately and said nothing. The only reason it is known is that Lott very emotionally thanked him.

Kerry also worked on what could be done for small businesses. He and his staff worked hard to put together what was needed. It was then combined with Olympia Snowe's stuff - but Kerry was listed as the author and went to the floor as Kerry/Snowe. As the voting went on the name was changed to Snowe. It then passed with a nearly overwhelming vote. Kerry also worked with Massachusetts companies to fly needed materials down and assisted a MA town that wanted to be paired with a gulf city to help it.

Kerry has been akey person on environmental bills that were designed to protect fragile wetlands in areas like LA for years. These areas will cease to exist if this basic work is not done. (In LA part of the problem is that without the silt from the normal overflows the area is sinking.)

So, in 2004 if they had voted for the man who would have been best for them, they would have voted Kerry. The above is what he did with his personal and Senatorial powers. I definately don't think he would have ignored things like Bush did,

That said NO DEMOCRAT is likely to carry AL, or MS.

great audiences.

Same goes for elections.

The burden of making critical distinctions belongs also to the voters. I believe the Gulf Coast red states have quite a bit to answer for. Not the blue voter minorities, but the red majority who supported Bush One, Bush Two, Reagan, Nixon, etc.

Let's put it where it goes.

Enjoyed FIELD OF DREAMS very much.

Enjoy Whitman's poetry and honor his biography.

That'll really bring out the crowds! Oooh, I know Mark roll-over Pryor, how about him? Or Oil-well Mary, another winner! We need to build a Democratic presence in the south, but it's going to be a long time before the south votes for anything near a real Democrat in the national election.

:rofl:

we're going to have to stop taking potshots like yours, avoid being so dismissive of the subject, and give some serious thought as to why exactly are so many people willing to put Christian morality, family values and a wide array of intangible priorities ahead of their own best interests. And, moreover, why the two are perceived as incompatible.

I'd hate to lose that.

Born Senator.

King of the Senate.

We can't lose him to the Presidency. :cry:

Six more years! Six more years!

but there may be a couple of other good Democrats in Massachusetts who could fill that seat if need be.

:)

I want him to set the record for most consecutive years as a Senator. And the awards ceremony to be held in 2024.

know all kerry offers, he sold me in 2004 adn want him as pres

Kerry and Hillary are our WEAKEST CANDIDATES. Rove is just licking his chops in expectation that either of these two will run in 2008.

J

:D

And while you're formulating a reason, check this out:

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

Kerry already had his chance and fucked it up. Sorry, you aren't going to convince me otherwise, but I would be happy to lay a wager that if he becomes the 2008 candidate he will lose again.

J

Gots to keep our primary props straight doncha know, else how will people know what to wave when the time comes.

That's how I'm laying the odds for a 2008 Dem. winner after the primary.

J

Left out a couple

J

Rove might be in jail by the 2008 campaign.

Shouldn't you first tell the truth about the outcome of the 2004 election before you ask for our trust again?

And urge you to aim your pistol at the Swiftboat liars.

It's not clear that anyone knows the "truth" about the 2004 outcome. There is no proof, so the only reasonable thing to do is what he did,

List the 60,000 votes, by precinct and county, that would have turned the election. Then, list the evidence that proves they were fraudulently given to Bush, and who did it and how.

if you are calling John Kerry a liar, SHAME ON YOU, if you have any conscience or smarts at all, ask yourself, Would our country be in this mess had JK been inaugurated instead of the horses ass that calls himself the pResident?? Bite your tongue, and engage your brain before inserting foot in mouth!!:grr:

Ma, get the troll spray, another one came out of the cracks!

around Boston and engaging in a dialogue/conversation/a swap of observations on ideas -- whether specific to the current political arena or just about anything else -- I would suggest that your notion of him as a human and as a public servant would be different, perhaps dramatically different.

Were you to grocery list his virtues, even before such a weekend of dialogue, don't you feel charitable enough to admit that the list in Kerry's case would be long and notable? Of our 100 senators, don't you believe he is among the most impressive? Would you not choose him over just about any Republican imaginable? And many Democrats, perhaps?

We were emotionally depressed over the Kerry-Edwards loss to a duo of oil monsters. Our sense of fairness and citizenship -- both of these, actually -- was insulted and subverted. Many of us worked like dogs to win in 00 and 04 and we've been turned back by circumstances beyond our immediate, individual control. I believe we should not force Kerry to bear the blame of our disappointment. The loss is not solely the candidates' loss, but a blow to all of us.

An announcement by an outstanding U.S. Senator that he might re-seek the presidency should be met with the respect it deserves.

When Kerry lost, it played out exactly as I expected, except he lost by a narrower margin than I thought. Just as I expected, he conceded quickly. It was all completely in keeping with the lackluster way he ran his campaign. It never seemed like he REALLY wanted it.

with his "40,000 lawyers on the ground"

Ohio vote, would you?

Because that would be factually baseless.

and I believe he did nothing to stop him.

would have been an appropriate response, that is, in and above what the campaign already had undertaken at that point.

Share your distinct insight as to the strategy that was overlooked.

He wanted it badly. He may yet want it badly.

Do you know the guy, Yollam? What basis do you have for questioning the intent of someone you don't know?

Again, because you seem to require repeated expressions of the point, others perceive things differently than you do. If you can move from that point forward, I believe you might concede that Senator Kerry is possessed of greater virtues than you have heretofore acknowledged.

other than Gore took longer. The numbers weren't there. If you watched the concession speech and thought this was a man who didn't care you have no perceptiveness at all. What I saw was a very proud, disciplined man reaching out to his supporters knowing that they were as devastated as he was. It was the most emotional concession speech I ever heard, including Gore's dignified, magnanimus speech.

of countless millions imagination.

Kerry clearly didn't think it was imaginary.




http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf



Conyers' report highlighted the problem: no evidence!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=981193&mesg_id=987736

paternal protector for the wound of his supporters, to offer uplift.

You saw a man layers deep that day, as opposed to Bush, whose presidency has never risen beyond the point of some smirking monkey with 2 or 3 or 4 pairs of socks stuffed into the crotch of a flightsuit prancing around an aircraft carrier, babbling in mangled English about "bringing democracy to the Middle East."

a few weeks ago when he was on, I hope he gracefully decides not to. I don't believe he learned a thing from his last try.

The concise four point plan?

:eyes:

enough for me - Skull & Bones members take an oath not to EVER turn against one another.

ages ago. That is college stuff for a lot of folks.

but then...well, you know what I'd have to do.
;-)

It sure seemed like Kerry fought pretty hard to find the truth on the Contra drug running and BCCI - which Bush 1 was behind,

How ludicrous can you get?

Have fun never being taken seriously by anyone with an iota of intellect.

revelation? I'm sure they could fit you in between UFO reports.

Dean has never answered whether he is a member of Skull & Bones. He refused to comment when asked. Why didn't he say no.

way! :)

Were our votes counted accurately? I don't know. But the final tally in 04 was "supposedly" approx. 51-49%. If even half of that 51% knows what's good for them, they won't be voting repug.

English of John Kerry to the shitbabble of George W. Bush any day of the week.

You were the right man in 2004 and that hasn't changed. America desperately needs someone with your integrity, courage, and honor to lead us back to sanity. Kerry 2008! :kick:

standard bearer until the next primaries.

2008 is not very relevant right now.

and besides, you can only hear so much of that swiftboat bullshit, they would probably use the same commercials!!

and a raucous primary. Kerry has supporters, money and the will to run again. So, run and let the chips fall where they may.

Good luck. Have at it, after the 06 races are completed. (Oh and raise boatloads of money for the '06 races, it is desperately needed. We have to win back Congress this year. Then '08 can take care of itself in it's own time.)

Let them all run and let the voters sort it out. That's usually called Democracy.

the primaries, although I'm sure his enthusiastic supporters on DU will claim otherwise.

After the dreadful campaign of 2004, Al Sharpton stands a better chance of getting the Democratic nod in '08 than Kerry.

Denial - not just a river in Egypt.

No one can deny how he totally fizzed out during the campaign, with the exception of a couple strong debates.

Sorry, but Kerry will be a longshot to get the nod.

And someone who campaigned so horribly would never have been within 60,000 votes of the presidency. You are entitled to prefer someone you think is more "electable" for 2008, but your assessment of campaign 2004 is your opinion, not ironclad fact, so you shouldn't be so shocked when people disagree.

is that it should never have been that close. Kerry or anyone should've mopped up with Bush, but the best he could do was keep it close. That campaign was hurting real bad.

Bush was NOT as unpopular with the general population as he is among the left-wing anti-war Democratic crowd. It was an uphill climb and would have been for any candidate - not to mention the entire media functioned as an arm of the Bush campaign. That would have been the same regardless of our candidate. 2004 was anything but a cakewalk, and I'm still not convinced Kerry didn't win.

the nod. Anywhere else, and they don't see him faring well at all, at least from any previous polls I've seen in MSM. Yes, it was going to be hard for anyone to beat an incumbent wartime president, but someone with the credentials of John Kerry SHOULD have done it decisively, especially given the fact that he was going up against an imbecile whose first term had already proven to be atrocious.

Only if you could magically convince me that Kerry would run a totally different kind of campaign, would I have an ounce of confidence that he could win the next election. Right now, I just can't see him making it past the primaries, but there's still a lot of time to go. If anything's in his favor right now, it's time.

political investments of time and organization outside New York City. He's magnificent there -- it's his home field advantage, so to say.

Kerry's connections are more widespread. He was counted dead and gone two months before he finished first in Iowa with 38% of the vote in 04. Edwards second at 32%, Dean at 16-17% and Gephardt fourth at 11%.

seriously, even though he's more apt to lay it all on the line than any of them. He's probably been right on the money as often as anyone. Do I really think Sharpton stands a chance? No, hell no, but he probably stands about as good a chance as Kerry for the nomination, which is close to nil.

I do hope Al runs just for the laughs we'll get again.

sense of humor but even more important is his willingness to answer reporters' questions.

I usually have the sense that they regard him as a clown, and they are usually swiftly disavowed of that notion. He is extraordinarily smart, and media-savvy, too. I've admired him for his direct answers to media interviewers for some time. The NYC media appreciates his skills that way, but every once in a while, a national media type will get trapdoored by Al Sharpton on live tv.

but would rather not see him run in 2008. Gore or Feingold (or Gore/Feingold) would be great.

he never gets another one of my votes- EVER. for no fucking reason whatsoever.

and there are at least 3 democrats i can name who will cause me to abstain from voting for president, if their name appears on the ballot:

Kerry, Clinton, Edwards.

there are others, to be sure- but those are the three of the likliest ones, whom i just cannot support, for any reason.