Skip to main content

There's a little kerfuffle inside the Democratic Senate caucus over John Kerry's insistance in being part of the official party response to Bush's hilarious "plan" in Iraq. Reid originally had designated Sen. Jack Reed to provide the official response. Reed did the "prebuttal" yesterday and had a press conference set up for today.

However, John Kerry stomped over Reed by deciding he was going to hold a press conference this morning as well in a naked bid to steal the limelight. Eventually, Reid was forced to combine the two press conferences to try and maintain a unified Senate Democrat response, but Kerry's antics have generated some ill will.

Much ado about nothing? Perhaps. But several DC Democrats I've spoken to today were not happy with Kerry's antics. And given 1) Kerry's continued inability to clearly articulate a coherent position on the war (as Feldman notes), and 2) the fact that Kerry voted for it (while Reed did not), it's not hard to see why.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:32 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  kerry blew it (3.81)
    when he crumbled post election day.  he disappointed a lot of folks (me included) who went out on a limb to vote for him just to maintain unity in the party.  his picking this opportunity to once again test the waters of support was a mistake.

    imho,f

    •  Message to Kerry: (3.87)
      You're not in charge.  Be a team player, or STFU.

      ModestNeeds.org Response For Hurricane Evacuees

      by socal on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:28:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Agree (3.80)
        Kerry's been taking lessons in obfuscation from another Senator Wanna-Be, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.

        Give him a long, tall glass of STHU,PLEASE

        "Corruption is the disease; Accountability is the cure."

        by The Truth on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:46:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  SF is saying no thank you to Ford Fundraiser (3.75)
          http://www.ebar.com/...

          Ford Fundraiser is collapsing as Democrats in SF realize Ford positions on many issues. Mya be cancelled.

          Gavin and many others urge him to pull it.

          LGBTs urge boycott of Ford fundraiser

          Congressman Harold Ford Jr.
              Print this Page
              Send to a Friend

             email:

          LGBT activists are turning up the heat on a brewing controversy over a fundraising gala planned for December 3 in San Francisco for Congressman Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tennessee). Ford was among a minority of House Democrats who voted in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would have enshrined into the U.S. Constitution a prohibition of same-sex marriage and may have endangered civil union and do

          mestic partner benefits.

          Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

          by AustinSF on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:01:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (none)
            Problem is, he still wants to come to my town and schill for cash, knowing damned well he's got a voting record that pretty much tells gays and lesbians to kiss his ass.

            Learned it from Kerry, I tell ya.

            "Corruption is the disease; Accountability is the cure."

            by The Truth on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 03:45:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Worst Possible Choice (3.77)
        Kerry was the worst possible choice for the Democrats in 2004 (I am actually wondering of those Diebold machines were put to a nefarious purpose in the Democratic primaries) and he keeps on showing that he has no ideas, no political savvy, and the WORST timimg in the world.  I cannot fathom why he even wants to be president.

        The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.

        by aj12754 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:20:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  can't blame Diebold for Caucus results (3.75)
          The villain in the 2004 is the state of Iowa. The Iowa Caucus picked Kerry, and due to the frontloaded primary schedule (with a week or less between primaries, instead of the longer breaks during previous years), no other state had a chance to second guess that decision.

          You can also blame New Hampshire,  but Kerry was pretty much the local guy and frankly it really shouldn't have counted in the horse race.  In the last 20  years, Massachussetts Democrats have dominated the NH primary in the last 20 years (Dukakis, Tsongas, Kerry), clearly NH are going to be biased in favor of New England candidates.   So yeah, I blame Iowa, they had no parochial excuse to pick this loser.

          •  ugh sorry for the double post! n/t (none)
          •  Blaming Iowa for the Democratic Party's Fuck-Up (1.62)
            A poorly informed jackass says:"The villain in the 2004 is the state of Iowa."

            Listen...you want to blame someone for Kerry/Edwards?  Look no farther than Terry McAwful and the National Democratic Party.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

             McAuliffe lavished praise on Kerry himself. "John Kerry ran a great race," he said. "We had every player on the field. We had more money. We had the largest field operation. We got close. We got to the 1-yard line. But we didn't win. John Kerry gave it all he had."

            BULLSHIT!

            Then came the criticism. "Should we have responded to the Swift boats [veterans' attacks on Kerry]? No question," he said. And he was clearly rankled by the Kerry campaign's decision not to attack President Bush at the Democratic National Convention in Boston last summer.

            NICE HINDSIGHT ASSHOLE

            "I think, to be honest with you, it was ridiculous," McAuliffe said. When he received the final approved draft of his convention speech, he recalled, "I just threw it in the air and said, 'Why don't we just say George Bush is a great guy? We can do better.' . . . Meanwhile, they [Republicans] go to New York and spend four days ripping our face off and they go up 10 points in the polls."

            AND YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, DID YOU TERRY?

            Listen, you want to blame those of us in Iowa for kick starting Kerry's campaign?  You want to scapegoat us?  Let me tell you a few things...

            First, I joined the Democratic party so I could vote in the caucuses.  I supported Kucinich, but when he was no longer viable in our caucus I moved to Dean.

            However, at the end of the campaign, on that day in November, I held my nose and voted for Kerry/Edwards, the fucking "Dream Team" that was giving every Democratic Party leader multiple orgasms.

            And Kerry took 60% in my county (Des Moines).  Once again we held our nose and voted for Kerry/Edwards.  

            Now, you prick, if you want to place some blame, place it at the feet of that jackass McAwful, that weak-kneed bastard Kerry, and the rest of the party leadership who insisted that Kerry/Edwards was the perfect combination to beat Bush.

            Then, before you trot out the Hawkeye state as a whipping boy again, think about this.  Look at the election results from Iowa...in 2000.

            2000 - Nader - 29,374 votes

            2004 - Nader + Cobb - 7114 votes

            22,000 of those who voted for Nader and the Greens in 2000 crossed over to support another party in 2004.  Any guess who they supported?

            So go ahead and blame Iowa for the loss.  Go ahead.  And then try to ram some lame-ass moderated down our throats in 2008.  You'll see where those 22,000 votes will go.

            Richard L. Johnson
            State Party Secretary - Iowa Green Party - 2001-2003
            Current registration - Independent

            •  no one is blaming you personally (4.00)
              but the open caucus system in your state is a mess and shouldn't be the first vote in the primary unless they go to a closed primary at the very least.  Your state politicians heavily favored Kerry and were active in the "Stop Dean" nonsense.
              •  State party doing the will of the national party (4.00)
                The word came down from Washington Democratic HQ...stop Dean.  Pure and simple, and the Democratic leadership here did their level best.

                Kerry was the handpicked candidate of the national party.  Kerry/Edwards was the marriage made by McAwful.

                Face it...the national party wanted Dean as much as they wanted Bush.  They were afraid of the Deaniacs.  He was a rule-breaker, and that is something that you didn't do in the Democratic party of 2004.

                But, once again...keep blaming Iowa at the party's peril.  In looking to blame Iowa you are overlooking the fact that Kerry & McAwful blew the election.

                Until the Democratic party admits that, without any "buts" attached, they will remain a minority party.

                The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.  The desire to be "moderate" has cost the party control of both houses of Congress and the last two Presidential elections.

                What will it cost the party in 2006 and 2008?

                •  probably not a whole lot (none)
                  I think Dean called it, Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

                  What he didn't say is "basically regardless of who's running", what I saw tonight is somebody who'd do even worse than generic Democrat against the ghost of George Bush, who's going to head the ticket in 2008 regardless of who the GOP nomineee is. Even Hillary would be better, at least she's coherent even when she isn't making sense. Though I think "generic Democrat" would probably do better than her in the polls, too.

                  I'm more concerned about 2010 and 2012. The Democrats are going to own the US government with a mandate to fix what's broken with the resources Bush didn't manage to piss away.

                  The most important reason why America is in the shape is the actions of what passes for America's business leadership... unrestrained and if anything, encouraged by both the GOP AND DLC Democrats in both houses of Congress.

                  Offshoring, "free" trade, asset-based inflation financed out of China... weakening of CAFE standards that's now placing the US auto industry in mortal peril... well, that's a start. A complete description would literally fill a book.

                  There are times when the Feds are supposed to say no to Fortune 500 CEOs for the good of their companies and the economy as a whole... and that's an area where the government has done worst, in supervising the marketplace.

                  Anybody think that a DLC House / Senate / White House is going to bite the Fortune 500 hands that give them campaign contributions?

                  If the Democrats don't provide the change the American people are going to elect them to provide in a way that impacts their lives. . . what happens in 2010? 2012?

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 12:18:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is their spin? (none)
                    There are times when the Feds are supposed to say no to Fortune 500 CEOs for the good of their companies and the economy as a whole... and that's an area where the government has done worst, in supervising the marketplace.

                    How do they sell the outsourcing of America? Is it supposed to keep costs down for the consumer -- and they just neglect to mention that the next generation of consumers won't have jobs?  Do they play on a fear of looking racist?  The slightest hint of 'protect our borders and our jobs' sends people on a rant about our responsibility to help every member of the human race.  Personally, I don't think you can spread the United States across the world like brie on a cracker -- we have to be strong, here, before we can use that strength on behalf of others.

                    Do our leaders who kowtow to big business even bother to pretend any more?  

                    •  you are (none)
                      asking the right questions.

                      Perhaps you should look to Hillary (who has historically been out-front in favor of offshoring) and the DLC website for some answers. Not that a sane person would believe any of them.

                      Though to save you some time, the wikipedia article on neoliberalism summarizes the pro-offshoring and other rationales for upward transfer of weath benefiting "everyone" pretty well... and then demolishes them.

                      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                      by alizard on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 08:12:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I can think of several states (none)
                  where what happened in Iowa would not have taken place,  VT for one.

                  You're just on an anti-party kick and that is fine, but that's no excuse to ignore what's wrong in Iowa.

                  •  Not an anti-party kick... (none)
                    ...just an anti centrist kick.  If you want to remain a centrist loser, be my guest.  But don't blame the progressives who leave in droves when your centrist candidate loses in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

                    By then the centrist Democratic party will have fallen by the wayside like the Whigs.  

                    BTW...I know where you can get a great deal on powered wigs.

                    •  asdf (none)
                      I know it's probably just a typo, but the devil in me has to ask an official from the Iowa Green Party:

                      BTW...I know where you can get a great deal on powered wigs.

                      How are these wigs powered? Solar? Or Wind?

                      BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                      by wystler on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:07:13 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Hindsight? (none)
              Are you fucking kidding me?  I, along with 95% of all Kossacks, was howling in protest when Kerry was chosen as the nominee by the media and Iowans.  Many of us predicted disaster if that spineless twit were elected - including Kos himself.  

              One does not need hindsight to see that Kerry is an awful nominee.  He'd probably make a lame president, too, since he's got to conduct polls before saying anything in public.

              -7.38, -5.90 | "When...in the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

              by Subterranean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:24:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kossacks predicted Kerry's defeat (none)
                Too bad the Party leadership didn't listen to you folks.  Party "analysts" were on the tube talking down Dean's positions and saying that his nomination would move the party too far to the left to be able to take on Bush.

                Iowa party leadership did EXACTLY what the national party leadership wanted them to do.  Today, Dean is in the catbird seat with the party, and still the centrists want to crank up Kerry and Gore.

                Centrism is a losing strategy.  If 12+ years of losing seats in Congress isn't enough evidence of that, I don't know what is.

            •  Exactly (none)
              Terry along with the media were coronating Kerry as the nominee the night of the NH primary.
              It become more clear that the DNC run by MCAwful wanted Kerry to have the nomination. I think there was a lot of arm twisting to get key Democrats to endorse Kerry immediately after Iowa.

              America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

              by wishingwell on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:52:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Chosen One (none)
                It was clear that Kerry was the Chosen One of the party leadership well before the Iowa caucuses.  For example this article has the following bit of info:

                ---
                "A week before the Iowa caucus, a liberal, very senior Democratic U.S. congressman from northern California was speculating to friends that Dean might well be "McGoverned," referring to the way the Democratic Party leadership in 1972 pulled the rug out from under the South Dakotan for being far too liberal and antiwar. This senior Democrat recounted how Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd had snarled in one private party conclave that Dean "should step aside and let the adults take over."

                "Aside from being vociferously against Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq, Dean's threat in Democratic National Committee (DNC) eyes is that he has been raising money independent of the Party's control. Dean spent $3 million of his campaign money in Iowa.

                "These days, the Iowa caucuses are rigged to favor candidates in good odor with the DNC, which is part of the reason why Dean did badly. It could be that Dean never was the front-runner in Iowa that brought such panic to the Clinton establishment marshaled by Terry McAuliffe at the Democratic National Committee. The press played him up, as did Karl Rove. But if you believe exit polls, 58 percent of caucus attenders had made up their minds more than a week ago, and of that number, 33 percent voted for Kerry, and only 26 percent for Dean. Edwards was the choice of 19 percent of those early deciders and got 35 percent of those who made their pick within the last week.

                ---

                Sp please, no more shit about how Iowa messed this up.  Iowa did EXACTLY what the DNC wanted us to do...give Kerry the start they wanted him to have.

        •  In Fairness (I Was a Dean Delegate) (none)
          the first vote was the Iowa caucuses not a primary. I think everyone accepts that Kerry won with a far superior ground game. Then the way the season was structured, if you lost Iowa it would be very difficult to come back.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:04:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder though ... (4.00)
            Was is a "superior ground game" by Kerry or all those vicious things that Boston-based Democrats and D.C.-based cocktail party media types did to Dean? Remember those midnight to 4 a.m. recorded phone calls made to Dean supporters and people leaning towards Dean? How many were made? How many of these caucus votes did it cost Dean do you think? Remember all those accusations about the Dean campaign planning to commit vote fraud at the caucuses, by allegedly bringing in tons of "new voters" who didn't live in the state? How much do you think that cost him? How about all the Torricelli money which paid for all those stupid anti-Dean ads? Then, there was the nastiness between Dean and Gephardt, and the reported Gephardt/Kerry alliance. Dean was going to win it and then slowly but surely, the poll numbers started dropping. Of course, Dean's arrogance didn't help anything and neither did all of his fans on Kos saying stupid things like "Everyone else should just drop out" or "Trippi is Jedi" and other silly things.

            But add it up: Dean collapsed before Kerry surged. Kerry became the second choice of many people in both Iowa and NH after Dean collapsed. But many of us were warning people that Kerry would be a flawed candidate. He is a soulless yuppie that only cares about himself ... as Kos so correctly notes in this post.

            A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music, the media and modern times: Politizine

            by politizine2 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:32:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you forgot ... (none)
              ... Joe Lieberman, who wasn't entered in Iowa, standing in the Iowa debates as an attack-dog prosecutor targeting the front-runner ...

              BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

              by wystler on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 08:59:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •   Gephardt (none)
              Really went after Dean and he ran a very negative campaign. You may have a point there though about Kerry that I had not thought of.

              I figured that Gephardt went after Dean and did all those calls as that is what some Iowans had been saying. And then Kerry and Edwards surged to the front as Dean and Gephardt went down. But you do have a good point about Kerry going up directly in relation to Dean going down.
              The media would have you think Dean and Gephardt shot each other in the foot and Kerry and Edwards went ahead.

              I do not blame Edwards in any of this though. He ran a very clean campaign..in fact, too clean for the General Election in that VP nominee slot.
              But he stayed clear of the fray and people who did not want Kerry, seemed to respond to Edwards' positive, upbeat message and his optimism.

              America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

              by wishingwell on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:58:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  can't blame Diebold for Caucus results (none)
          The villain in  2004 was the state of Iowa. The Iowa Caucus picked Kerry, and due to the frontloaded primary schedule (with a week or less between primaries, instead of the longer breaks during previous years), no other state had a chance to second guess that decision.

          You can also blame New Hampshire,  but Kerry was pretty much the local guy and frankly it really shouldn't have counted in the horse race.  In the last 20  years, Massachussetts Democrats have dominated the NH primary in the last 20 years (Dukakis, Tsongas, Kerry), clearly NH are going to be biased in favor of New England candidates.   So yeah, I blame Iowa, they had no parochial excuse to pick this loser.

          •  Aye (4.00)
            That night was one of the hardest nights in my life. I've said this many a times since then but the caucus system is a crock of sh*t. I should know, I was there.

            If there had not been shenanigans and people that showed up to support who they wanted could in a primary one person one vote system, it wouldn't of been Kerry in the lead. I would of voted Dean but Edwards probably would of been in front with Kerry/Dean tied for 2nd and Clark behind with Gephart pulling up the near rear with Kucinich a little farther back.

            But the caucus system destroys the ability for each voice to be heard. Mine was nearly silenced when there was an attempt to break the rules. We ended up with 80 some Kucinich supporters at our meeting who ended up having no say in what happened.

            So the clark groups were mostly absorbed into the Kerry groups, or sometimes Edwards/Kucinich in order to shut down Dean via the real ground game. Kucinich groups went to Edwards and boosted him there as well. And of course there were the group of Republicans who I knew were big bush supporters who decided it would be fun to screw with the system...

            I'll likely tell this thing a billion times more, but until there is no more caucus system as perpetuated in the Iowa system, then I will not be silent.

            Superior Military, Fair Taxes, Good Values-Democratic Mantra "But I won't be frustrated by the fire in your eyes as you're staring at the sun"

            by Izixs on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:17:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great post (none)
              Thanks for writing about your experience.  I wouldn't mind Iowa always getting pole position if it was a normal primary election, but the Caucus system is such a violation of the secret ballot that every other election we vote in has.

              What part of Iowa are you from?  I used to spend a lot of time in West Des Moines for business.  Fortunately, only in the warm weather months. :o)

            •  I don't know (none)
              I really liked my caucus.  I helped Dean get an extra delegate by convincing almost all the undecideds and a bunch of the Kucinich people (who wasn't viable) to join us.  The atmosphere of a caucus is really exciting.

              The viability system is designed specifically to boot marginal candidates.  Kucinich was marginal.  If you had 80 Kucinich supporters and still weren't viable, that means that you had at least 534 people at your caucus.  If you or your team had made a better case to undecideds or other non-viable candidates, maybe you could have gotten the numbers you needed.

              •  Yeah (none)
                I suppose my problem with the caucus system is that it rewards the candidate who's best organized to win a caucus.  It's a different skill set than the best guy to win in the secret ballot in November.

                I don't mean to pick on Iowa.  The politicians are honest and the people are friendly.  I guess I'd have less problem with Iowa being first if it was a primary.  What it does have going for it is a swing state.

                If I was king for a day, I'd make the order of primary states the states that had the closest margin for the previous presidential election.

                •  so its a different skill set (none)
                  Sure, winning a primary or a caucus in a small state after a year of retail politics is a different skill than winning the national election.  But it offers lesser-known candidates a chance to go up against the big money establishment names.  

                  If they win in the first small states, then they need to show they can make the leap to win a very different campaign in larger state primaries with an expensive media.

                  Our alternative is to start with large media dominated primaries, which means only those with loads of money can run.  So the real first primary will be amoung the big donors and fundraisers.  

                  I prefer starting out with a few small states and retail politics.

        •  reason is obvious (none)
          >>I cannot fathom why he even wants to be president.<<

          Same reasons bush wanted it: lust for power, desire to be on TV a lot, access to more money.

        •  you've got to be kidding (4.00)
          kerry the worst? in a field that included both joementum and gephart? kerry was not the best candidate, but gephart was less charismatic than a pile of fir mulch.

          crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

          by wu ming on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:43:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gephardt would have beat Bush easily. (3.00)
            Gephardt would have won Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio, easily. It would have been no contest at all. Gephardt would have campaigned at closed factory after closed factory. The gay marriage thing in Ohio wouldn't have made a difference. Gephardt would have beat Bush easily.

            A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music, the media and modern times: Politizine

            by politizine2 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:33:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Geppy was loser matter (none)
              I'm with Wu Ming - Geppy was about the least charismatic politician I've ever seen, and to top it off he has no eyebrows.

              But what did it for me was the shot of Geppy proudly standing behind his fearless leader while Dubya read a warmongering speech to push the IWR.  Geppy was right there for Bush at every twist and turn, helping to ram through the IWR.  Of all the democrats, Geppy was the worst Bush enabler of them all.

              Maybe we could try Geppy for war crimes someday, right next to his hero, GW Bush.

              -7.38, -5.90 | "When...in the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

              by Subterranean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:34:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with your point (none)
                about the war vote.

                But Kerry voted for the war too, not unlike Gephardt; he helped build the false case for invasion too, not unlike Gephardt. I assume you voted for Kerry ... so, you would have voted for Gephardt in the final election too. To rework your quote: "Maybe we can try Kerry for war crimes someday, right next to his hero, G.W. Bush ..." Eh?

                But my point was about the final election and who could've actually won it. Kerry was never going to win it because of his trade votes, his well-documented flip-flopping, arrogance and aloofness, and other bad things he has supported over the year; Gephardt would have been able to get those populist, lunch-bucket Reagan Democrats who voted against their interests in supporting Bush. While our men and women in uniform would still be mired in Iraq right now if either Kerry or Gephardt won, the nation would probably be on a better path had Gephardt been the nominee because Bush would no longer be in office.

                A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music, the media and modern times: Politizine

                by politizine2 on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 05:37:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Gep was my man (none)
            Gephardt wasn't the most charasmatic guy out there, but he was a union backer.

            Michigan wouldn't have even been a fight, and I think Gephardt's union support would have given him Ohio, Iowa, and West Virginia.

            Outsourcing was a big issue, and Gephardt had the credibility to destroy Bush with it.
             

            Russ Feingold in 2008

            by John Lane on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:18:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying he was a good choice (none)
          But who are you saying should have gotten the nomination? Just curious, because while he clearly wasn't a good choice (he lost to the worst sitting president in history, after all) there's a strong case to be made that at least a few of the other candidates were significantly worse.
        •  Iowans (none)
          Well, let's give credit where credit is due:  the corporate media told Iowans that Dean was a loose cannon, an unstable radical of the loony left, and that the only chance for defeating Bush was the eminently electable Kerry.  

          Like good farm animals, Iowans obediently voted for the electable candidate.  But in all fairness, that's what Americans do - they vote for whoever the media portrays in the most positive light.  

          I won't be surprised if Kerry gets the nod again.  After all he's got that there "electability," and that's a rare thing among politicians these days!

          -7.38, -5.90 | "When...in the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

          by Subterranean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:20:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The excerpt they played on the (none)
        evening news was embarrassing.  You'd think after all those years on the campaign trail he would have learned to talk in simple sentences.

        Forget "GOD, GUNS, GAYS, GIRLS & GETS"

        by hannah on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 03:10:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not good... (3.90)
      I saw Kerry's comments on CNN and my first thought was "why is this guy taking the lead?"  His moment is over, move aside.  It gave the whole response a 'campaign' look that I despise when it comes from the other side.  Is he trying to imply 'don't you wish you had voted for me?'
    •  YES, KERRY DISAPPOINTS (3.70)
      I agree with you. He's blown more than this one.  He doesn't speak for those who want to hear a clear, firm voice that doesn't meld into the same ole DLC.
      Why can't they see we need a change, not a Repub. lite that caters to Corporations at the expense of the people who need sustaining jobs. I am not for Hillary, definitely not Lieberman, and the only voice I've been excited about recently is Feingold!
        •  Aaaaaal Gooooooooore! (3.71)
          is the man in 2008. Campaign slogan: I'm the President you should have had.

          Kerry...he's a pathetic figure. He should definitely STFU!

          "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."

          by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:04:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how is Al Gore better than Kerry? (3.50)
            Now Keep in mind Al Gore is my MAN for 08. All the way, drag him to the nomination kicking and screaming, but lets not forget that Kerry, (unlike Gore) went right back to work after the election. All I'm saying is lets not demonize Kerry
            •  let's not demonize Kerry, (none)
              ...but he was awful today.
            •  And a '4' just because. (none)
              Al Gore would make a great president. We've had 5 or so years now to forgive him his imperfections, so we can consider him again. Apparently, he's had his "enjoy before" date reset.

              John Kerry would be a splendid president. In five years (N.B. not in three years, when it would actually matter), we'll consider him a viable candidate again.

              I guess we as a party need to worship somebody. Our candidate must be more than a liberal, a dedicated public servant, a combat veteran, and a legal scholar -- our candidate must be more than an accomplished human. He/she must be perfect.

              Remember five years ago when Al Gore was a surrender monkey?

              Try to look forward to five years from now. The tall, geeky guy looks very, very good. Too bad we hadn't reset his "enjoy before" date yet.

              Patriotic American Liberal since 1962

              by mxwing on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:59:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Is this the best you can do? (2.66)
              Recycling Al Gore?  Why not just raise the white flag and give the election up now.  Save the country (and the party) a few billion dollars and just let them crown whoever the Repugs put up.

              Gore couldn't carry his own home state or the home state of the sitting Democratic president in 2000.  

              Gods, you folks have as short a memory as the Repugs.

              •  i think he is truly (none)
                a different man and a different candidate. i think the word someone used was "liberated." i dont think we can afford to look at this in 2 dimensional terms of "he lost/getta new guy" And i think the party absolutely HAS to go with a heavyweight for the nomination. and yes, that means a clinton, gore, kerry, ect.
                 the clinton presidency would provide a good counter argument to that, but bill was shooed in by the perot candidacy and turmoil in the republican party. we don't have that working in our favor this time, and i think we have to strive a bit harder for party unity.
                •  The party has to go with a heavyweight? (4.00)
                  Clinton, Gore or Kerry?  Heavyweights?

                  In terms of raising money...perhaps.  In terms of stroking the big cash cows of the party...perhaps.  In terms of keeping the status quo...definitely.

                  If Clinton or Kerry want the nomination, they need to come clean on their vote for the war.  None of this "we didn't vote for this, we voted for something else."  None of this "we didn't have access to the intelligence that the President had."

                  It's simple.  Here's a rough draft.

                  "Hi.  I'm {insert name here}.  I voted to support President Bush when he went to war in Iraq.  I fucked up.  I didn't pay attention to the VOLUMES of PUBLISHED information that contradicted what the President was saying.  I didn't pay attention to the SCORES of PEOPLE who were saying that Powell, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were not being honest with the intelligence they were giving out.  Yes, I ignored people who had been on site in the country, who had done the inspections for nearly a decade, and who told us that the administration's story was wrong.

                  "I didn't listen to them.  It was a mistake I will carry with me for the rest of my life, and nothing I can do can make amends for it.  I failed my country, my fellow citizens, and most of all myself.

                  "I believed our President.  I followed blindly, thinking that he had our best interests at heart.  I was wrong.

                  There...that's a start.  Rough, but I'm sure that some wordsmiths could work it out.  And given that over 60% of the country believes that the President was wrong, it will be hard for the Repugs to counter it without alienating most of the electorate.

                  •  you make a really good argument for that stance (none)
                    i gotta respect that. and i hate appeasing the middle, or watering down what needs to be said as much as anyone, i really do, i just think that realistically, for the party's frontrunners, such a stance would weaken them considerably. and when i say heavyweights, i dont mean financially (god no, otherwise i'd have never signed dean petitions for the chairmanship), i mean heavyweights as far as recognition and power among the senate and the electorate. i mean "electability". i for one supported dean during the primaries, and was a little less than thrilled about kerry getting the nomination. however, upon thinking about it twice, i can see some of the wisdom in choosing kerry for the nod. while it is undoubtedly good form for some (such as murtha) to make that public stand on the vote for war being a mistake, how will our party be considered if we have a mass exodus of "coming to jesus"? it is a little impractical if you think about it.
                    •  Is electability your standard? (none)
                      If so, consider this:

                      2000 - Gore lost
                      2004 - Kerry lost

                      Electability means capable of winning elections, right?  If so, these two fail the test.

                      •  Uhh, no, Gore won in 2000. And we know that (4.00)
                        there were huge problems with the 2004 vote.  We're still battling over machines where no one can prove the results.
                        •  Gore won? (none)
                          Hmmm...then I guess the party has quit blaming the Greens for the outcome.  

                          If you know he won, why didn't some of those eunuchs in the Senate stand up and say it when it counted?

                          •  because they have no balls. Remember the (none)
                            media pressure, "It's time to move on"?  Well the Dems respected the decision of the SCOTUS and decided that insurrection wouldn't do.

                            What would you have done?

                          •  What would I have done? (none)
                            Exactly what Barbara Boxer did when the Ohio vote came up this time around?  Sure, it did nothing other than force the Congress into 2 hours of meetings, and then the vote was certified.  But at least it put SOMEONE on record in both Houses of Congress that there was a problem here.

                            Now if John Kerry has such a strong, fearless ability to lead, why didn't he join the folks from the House and stand up for his principles that day?  If the Democrats REALLY believe the election was stolen (and every day makes it look more and more like it was) then they should have fallen over each other to get to the mike to join in objecting to the certification.

                            Their silence puts lie to the asserting that the election was stolen.  And folks who insist on blaming someone for that debacle need look no further than the Senate Democrats of that session.

                    •  Honesty and humility weakening candidates? (none)
                      Why don't you ask Murtha and Dean if honesty or admitting mistakes is a weakness?  

                      Murtha may not be of Presidential timbre, but I respect the hell out of him for having the balls to admit he made a mistake and then going about trying to set it right.  And the GOP got burned real bad when they tried to use it against him.

                      Maybe those of us out in the boonies are ready to listen to a candidate who is man enough (or woman enough) to admit a mistake.

                  •  fixed a bit of your statement (none)
                    I didn't listen to them.  It was a mistake I will carry with me for the rest of my life, and nothing I can do can make amends for it. I pledge do my utmost to never fail the American people the way that I, and many of my fellow elected representatives, did that day.  I failed my country, my fellow citizens, and most of all myself. Never again!

                    Meanwhile, let's avoid a revisit to litany of Ralph Nader's failures that have let down the liberals and progressives of the United States.

                    BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                    by wystler on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 10:19:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Go ahead and beat on Nader all you want... (none)
                      ...but while you are at it, you might want to fix the leak the Democrats have in Congress.  

                      Nader was an imperfect candidate in 2000.  I would have much rather supported a good progressive candidate in the Democratic column.  There wasn't one.

                      The Democrats have spent a lot of wind placing the blame for their losses.  When are they going to pony up and take responsiblity for their own failures?

                      The centrist play of the DLC has resulted in a net loss of 2 seats since the debacle of 1994.  Once the wonderful personality of Clinton was out of the picture, not only did the Democratic candidate not win the election, he had absolutely NO coattails, save for the 1 seat gain when Gore "won".

                      So yeah, go ahead and beat up on Nader.  But do take note of the fact that when Nader ran in 2000 the Democrats gained a seat in the House.

              •  thanks for the combined Nader/repuke (none)
                talking points.  Gore could carry his own state, but the election fraud there was as bad as in florida.
                Sure it was close in TN, it's a very conservative state.  
                •  Gore in Tennessee (none)
                  Why didn't Gore invite Clinton to campaign for him in Arkansas and Tennessee?  

                  Terrible tactical error on his part.  Could have moved the race in either state to Gore, and as a result turned the election.

                  And you can whine about election fraud all you want.  Go ahead and complain about what happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.  But don't forget what happened in Chicago and Texas in 1960 and 1940.

                  Sure, the last two elections were stolen.  I'll give Gore credit for fighting it.  Kerry didn't have the balls to do that much.  Nor did he have the balls to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus and refuse to certify the vote from Florida when it was presented to the joint session.

                  •  come on....Clinton was a stone weight (none)
                    around Gore's neck here in Pa much less in TN.

                    Besides this nothion that VP candidates for President campaign with the outgoing President is nonsense.  It doesn't happen.  Gore was running for president not sidekick.  So put that bit of nonsense to bed already.

                    As to standing with the CBC....it would have done no good and pro-longed the agony.  The democratic party  in particular the DLC was not behind him.  They stabbed him in the back for over a month while he fought for a recount.

                    •  The real problem with the Democratic Party (none)
                      "As to standing with the CBC....it would have done no good and pro-longed the agony.  The democratic party  in particular the DLC was not behind him.  They stabbed him in the back for over a month while he fought for a recount."

                      BINGO...tell me, how many seats in Congress has the party gained since everyone started listening to the campaign logic of the DLC?  How have we done in the South?  How have we done in the Rust Belt?  How have we done in the West?

                      The kool aid of the DLC is killing the party.  Since 1992 the Dems have been bleeding seats in both houses of Congress.  Yet the party leaders keep listening to the DLC, and keep offering up weak centrists instead of candidates who actually stand for something.

                      The DLC is the best thing that ever happend to the GOP far right wing.

                •  Fuck you and the horse you rode in on (3.50)
                  Go ahead...pull out the old line about Nader and anything that goes against the "moderation" approach of Clinton being a Repug talking point.

                  But when you do that, be sure you kiss the ass of Perot.  Because without him in 96 and 98 Clinton would never have been able to get his oval office BJs.

                •  Can you document this so-called (none)
                  election fraud in Tennessee? Bush won the state by 80,000 votes or 3 percent. Please document if you can.

                  A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music, the media and modern times: Politizine

                  by politizine2 on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 05:39:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  How is Gore better than Kerry? (none)
              To begin with, Gore has a set.

              Gore opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, back when Kerry was busy analysing poll data and jerking off his fearless leader.

              Gore stands firm against ALL of the nefarious policies of Bushco, while Kerry only stands somewhat against the policies that poll in his favor.

              Gore can give a real smokin' speech.  Kerry gives mealy-mouthed mush that is too wordy and says nothing.

              "Reporting for duty, sir."  Enough said.

              Gore is genuinely funny, while Kerry comes off as a smarmy frat boy.

              Gore has written a very good book about global warming.  Kerry has analyzed poll data on global warming.

              Last, but not least:  

              GORE ACTUALLY DID BEAT GEORGE DUBYA BUSH!!!

              -7.38, -5.90 | "When...in the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

              by Subterranean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:41:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  trollish 1s ratings abuse-a 4 to compensate (none)
      •  And where is Clark? (3.71)
        Wes - it's time to back Murtha...
      •  Wingnuts are loving Lieberman's latest (none)

        Support the Troops - Impeach Bush and Cheney!

        by annefrank on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:41:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry and Lieberman should grab a canoe (none)
        and row off together down the Connecticut river or anywhere-out to sea.

        They are both an embarrassment. Kerry blew it in '04. What good is a high IQ if you can't crush a dunce? And Joe, imo he's a GOP in dem overalls.

        btw, atrios points us to Imus pummelling Joe over his Iraq fluff in yesterday's WSJ. Video at C&L here
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/...

        Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

        by idredit on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:54:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no one is forcing anyone to like (3.33)
          kerry's plan to bring 20k troops home by christmas.

          i just haven't seen any of that kind of thing from lieberman yet.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:04:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  20K troops home for Xmas? Sounds arbitrary (3.66)
            to me...why not 22K troops?  or 120K troops?  A partial pull-out is meaningless, when you consider that we have 20,000 'contractors' working in Iraq (bringing our actual number of troops up to 180,000)...we need a real plan. I don't think Kerry can deliver that, because he's too worried about public opinion.  We need a president who will do the right thing, and take the chance that the public may not understand it at first.

            Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

            by darthstar on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:11:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (none)
              12/31/06 looks a little arbitrary to me too.

              i don't think he's worried about public opinion.  someone who worries about public opinion would have offered a timeline the day after the polls became consistently negative on iraq.

              was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

              by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:20:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  True...but troop withdrawal should be (none)
                balanced by replacement with Arab troops (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria(yes), Jordan, etc.) to act as peacekeepers while the Iraqi army rebuilds.  The US honestly has ZERO right to be there.  We announce that we're pulling out militarily (but still footing the bill financially, as it's our pot--we broke it), and the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will work out a compromise faster than you can say 'Jack Robinson.'  Or the whole place will go to shit even faster...but it's going to shit with us trying to run it, so why not let the Iraqis take responsibility, as I believe they want to.

                Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

                by darthstar on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:25:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ouch. (none)
                  First off, Turks are not Arabs (and yes, it is an important distinction).

                  Secondly, you seem to have pretty much every neighbor of Iraq's spilling over into the country in a sort of free-for-all.  You left out Kuwait and Iran -- was that just an oversight?

                  Finally, Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis?  Compromise?  Like "OK, first the Shi'ites will kill the Kurds, and then the Kurds kill the Sunnis!  Everybody OK with that?"

                  George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

                  by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:02:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  except: in troop withdrawal replacement (none)
                   "balanced replacement with Arab troops (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc)"

                  Under the CPA, after disbanding the Iraq army, one of the first rules put in place was not to have any neighboring countries contribute to peacekeeping.

                  Agree, we have no right to be there. Staying the course is not a plan.

                  Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

                  by idredit on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:03:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Not arbitrary. 20K troops is the number that were (none)
              added, ostensibly to "secure" the elections.

              As I understand it, Kerry is saying, "don't you dare leave those 20K there after they have done what they were sent there for."

              Of course the reasonable thing to do would be to pull not the actual 20K soldiers who were sent recently, but the 20K most due for rotation.

              Since BushCo won't be implementing ANY Democrat's plan, it really doesn't matter anyway.

              BUT that is where the 20,000 comes from. Not arbitrary.

        •  I was thinking more like both of them could (none)
          head off to Brokeback Mountain.
        •  But the question is.... (none)
          Can Joe stop to pick up Zell on his way out to sea. He may have to go down to the Coast of Georgia, stop for his buddy Zell and then sail out to sea.

          America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

          by wishingwell on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 10:13:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Kos nails it... (3.85)
        Kos: "Kerry's continued inability to clearly articulate a coherent position on the war..."

        Nuff said.

        And, yes, Feingold nails it too. Here's his statement from his website.

        •  Ya know he started out well - and his biggest (none)
          problem is that he doesn't know when to stop talking.  He has the ability to offer up a few good sound bites, but he just doesn't stop explaining and by the time he is done with his explaning ones mind is numbed to the droning of his blather.  You'd think that as a career politician and a trained lawyer he would have learned by now when to shut up.  

          Ultimately, he really pissed me off when he said that Bush was "sincere".  If he thinks that he is not only a poor orator, but also a complete idiot.  He learned nothing from his campaign.

    •  agreed (3.83)
      I was disappointed in (and really bewildered by)John Kerry when he didn't fight after election day (Am I alone in thinking that Bush didn't really win Ohio?).  As a soldier, I don't want to kick or insult Senator Kerry or any other veteran (like some Republicans are kicking military veterans like Jack Murtha).  I want to choose my words carefully so I can express disagreement without being insulting or uncivilized.  I read Senator Clinton's comments about the Iraq war, too:
      http://www.villagevoice.com/...
      I don't know if I can (in good conscience) vote for any politician who supported HJ Res 114 (to authorize the use of force in Iraq):
      http://www.kerrysenate.com/...
      I feel that any politician who supported this resolution is somehow "tainted" and we need some very fresh and new leadership.  I am hoping that the Democrats will run someone in 2008 who did not have any part of supporting HJ Res 114.  I am weary of the same, tired group of folks, their reactionary backpeddaling, their lack of imagination, their worn-out ideas, and the general sense of malaise (a nod to Jimmy Carter's infamous malaise speech here).  I like John Kerry (I like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, too), but I don't want him (or them) to run for president in 2008.  This speech by Kerry seemed like a campaign speech.  Senator Clinton's statement on the war seemed like she is positioning herself for a presidential run and less like a forthright discussion of U.S. foreign policy.
      •  can i respectfully ask if you think (none)
        is murtha tainted??

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:58:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  re: is Murtha tainted (4.00)
          Rep. Murtha isn't running for re-election in my congressional district and he isn't running for president.  I do admire Jack Murtha for his candor on the Iraq issue as opposed to the vague posturing we see other folks doing.  Jack Murtha was a field grade officer in the Marine Corps when Dick Cheney was a shiftless loser working on getting his second DUI (unfortunately, the MSM never went into a thorough comparison of the career trajectories of Murtha and Cheney).  Americans are generally very forgiving of public officials who admit to mistakes or regrets (a trait Mr. Bush can't seem to embrace).  John Edwards recently admitted he regretted voting in favor of HJ Res 114.  I deeply admire Edwards for that.  That said, I still would not vote for Jack Murtha or any candidate who voted for HJ Res 114.  I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back late in 2004 (I am still in the military).  I had friends killed and maimed there.  I saw immense suffering in the civlian population there.  I cannot vote for anyone for president who supported HJ Res 114. When I used the word "tainted," I was asserting that any individual who voted to support HJ Res 114 (the authorization for force in Iraq) has some moral baggage I --personally-- can't and won't support if they seek reelection as a member of Congress or the office of president.  This doesn't mean I hate or disrespect these politicians (I have affection for many of our friends in the Democratic Party).  It simply means that I (because I experienced first-hand the futility, the waste, the senseless violence, and the evil consequences of HJ Res 114) cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who said "yes" to this resolution.  I refuse to accept a narrow field of "business as usual" or "Republican lite" Democrats as a presidential candidates in the 2008 primaries.  If the Democrats run one of the "usual suspects" in 2008, I will not even choose the lesser of two evils by supporting the DEM instead of the GOP candidate.  I will vote for a third party, progressive, anti-war candidate (who will, no doubt, fail).  We all (probably) have certain trigger points or limits in our psyche.  My personal limit or litmus test is HJ Res 114 (I am not going to lie and say I don't have a "litmus test").  If a candidate supported that, I can't support them.  Again, I have no malice or ill will towards these folks -- I just can't support anyone who voted for HJ Res 114.  In that sense, many member of Congress are, indeed, tainted (as far as I am concerned).    
          •  that mostly sounds like "yes" (none)
            i guess.

            i guess i have to add, incidentally, and respectfully that a lot of people think voting for a third party in 2000 helped bush get elected in the first place.

            a gore presidency, even with the most repug-lite of god awful dems ever as VP, never would have had an HR Res 114 for anyone to vote on.

            in the first place.

            i would respectfully urge one to consider that no matter who gets nominated in 2008.  a lot of things can change between now and then... so who knows.

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:35:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, that's a "yes" (4.00)
              I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and he won by 500,000 votes in 2000.  I really can't accept Bush as a legitimate president.  I never have and never will.  I respect people for voting in accordance with their consciences.  I am not certain that third-party voters can be held accountable for the Bush/Supreme Court/Florida coup d'etat mess in 2000.  Third-party voters seem to be better informed about issues than many of the traditional DEM and GOP voters who may vote out of a vague sense of "brand loyalty."  I wish the Democratic Party would stop marginalizing progressive and liberal voters.  

              I am 41 and I was a Democrat from the time I registered to vote at age 18 until November 2004 (I am "Independent" now) when John Kerry gave up without even a struggle.  I am not wealthy, but I contributed the maximum $2,000 to Kerry (even though I backed Wesley Clark in the primary).  I gave money to moveon.org and to the Democractic party.  I volunteered many hours with the Democratic Party in my community throughout adulthood.  The Democratic Party will continue to lose people like me (and our financial and volunteer support) if the party doesn't stop trying to be a party of moderate Republicans.  After what I saw in Iraq, I am desperate for positive political change in America.  I don't see this change as possible with an "insider" presidential candidate from the usual short list.  

              I absolutely refuse to embrace the idea that our only choices for a winning progressive presidential candidate are limited only to people who were members of Congress in Oct 2002 (when Congress voted on HJ Res 114).  There are Democratic governors, retired military, former diplomats, and other folks the Democrats should look at.  

              At this point in my life, I'd rather be able to sleep well at night and accept political defeat as opposed to voting --again-- for the lesser of two evils.

              In terms of the USA repairing our very strained international friendships, I think it is important that we have a presidential candidate who has a totally clean break from Bush's foreign policy.

              I think the GOP will move more and more in the Pat-Buchanan-Culture-Wars direction and they will frighten off GOP moderates (who quietly like having reproductive choice and don't hate their lesbian or gay family members).  I really think the 2008 White House is the Democrats to lose.  Howard Dean, if you're out there find us a candidate we can feel enthusiastic about supporting!

              biminicat, thanks for your questions, responses, and your civility!  

              •  i don't know if i can respect (2.50)
                I'd rather be able to sleep well at night and accept political defeat

                your priorities.

                even if it was lieberman vs. mccain there are some issues that lieberman would support that mccain wouldn't that would help those lives.

                if sleeping easier is more important, that's cool.

                was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:16:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  when your government (none)
                  sends you somewhere and you are --daily-- forced to kill and fear being killed (for dubious reasons), being able to live with yourself (in the moral sense) becomes important.  That is what I meant by "being able to sleep at night."  I am not telling anyone else how to vote.  I am just sharing my own feelings and perspectives in this forum where we exchange ideas.  

                  What is wrong with wanting a better world and wanting a radical shift in U.S. foreign policy (away from deceitful and malicious business as usual).  What is wrong with making an informed moral choice when I vote as opposed to going along with old partisan loyalties? I think my desire for positive change is a good priority.  

                  I really want a clean house and a fresh start in terms of our government.  I think the majority of our elected officials (of both parties) have failed us.  We need a new generation of leaders.

                  •  there is nothing wrong with wanting (none)
                    a better world and wanting a radical shift.

                    i'm just talking about available choices and one being better, even if it's only slightly better, it's still better and that can mean something to someone somewhere.

                    although that might not mean a thing to you or me.

                    was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                    by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:48:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So choose... (none)
                      Allawi vs. Chalabi
                      •  i'm serious (none)
                        if i absolutely had to choose one of the two, i would choose the one that i thought would be best for the people of iraq.

                        imagine a football field... on the right end of the field in the end zone is a decent candidate.  and on the left end is one dude on the 1 yard line and one dude on the 2nd yard line.

                        if i absolutely have to choose, i choose the guy on the second yard line.  he's better.

                        i'm not happy, but i choose better.

                        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:38:17 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  In 2000, I just could not understand (3.66)
                      the Nader people who said they didn't see any real difference between Gore and Bush.  I just could not fathom where they were coming from (and their profound disillusionment with the Democratic party).

                      In 2005, I now understand where the Nader people were coming from in 2000.

                      I am hoping that the Democrats will offer us a candidate who is totally separated from the failed U.S. foreign policy in Iraq.  

                      •  How many Nader people (none)
                        actually said they couldn't see any difference between Gore and Bush? If the Democratic Party made an effort to understand the view of the Nader voters, it might help the Democratic Party to get some of those votes ... and maybe attract the MILLIONS of disillusioned people who do not vote at all.

                        I like Al Gore and I think he would have been a great president. I liked him in 2000. But GOD DAMN I sure hated the way he ran the campaign and I hated the choice of Lieberman as v.p. What I really hate is the limitations of two-party politics. I voted for Nader in 2000. (So blame me for Bush being president, not the compliant media, not the Bush voters, not the rampant voter fraud, not Gore's shitty campaign, not the Supreme Court. Blame the Nader voters because that solves everything and makes it all better.)

                        I can't speak for all Nader voters, but I know I voted the way I did because I felt that there wasn't a big enough difference between the Republicans and Democrats. It wasn't the candidate, it was the party. I feel differently now, but I certainly understand the people who still feel that way, and I fail to see how unrelenting hostility is supposed to attract third-party voters.

                        If the Democratic Party wants the Nader votes, then it should do SOMETHING to attract Nader voters. It is WAY too easy to see why many Americans feel there is no difference between the two major parties.

                        America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

                        by Tony Seybert on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:52:17 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I Still Don't Understand (none)
                        Dime's worth ...?

                        .
                        .
                        .

                        ... unless, perhaps, you're suggesting that these backers of St. Ralph couldn't see the difference between a dime and currency featuring Benjamin Franklin. "... their profound disillusionment ..." seems to me to be their inability to recognize alternatives and take adult responsibility for their action (and lack of action).

                        I, too, would really welcome a Democratic candidate who represented an evolutionary jump from the kind of foreign and domestic policy that has been espoused by mainstream beltway folks. Perhaps Chairman Dean, folks like Franken and Rhodes and Schultz, and a re-energized activist base might serve as many agents for the change that is needed to sufficiently evolve the popular (and especially media) culture.

                        The real truth, though, has been that the ballot box has at least partially served as a moderating force in American society. Voters have near always reacted negatively to words like "reform".

                        "Chicago's not ready for reform ..."

                        Paddy Bauler was right about Chicago then, and what he said was likely right about the general public now. The task of communicating/educating the voting public sufficiently about just how far from perfect policy the current American political parties stray is beyond daunting.

                        I'm not ready to settle for Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Ms. Clinton in 2008. But if that's what comes as result of the Democratic Party's primaries and convention, I cannot begin to imagine the chosen candidate would do near the havoc to the nation and world that another four years of GOP policy would cost.

                        Bush v. Kerry was a choice between hamburger and pig slop (if you're a vegan, please accept my apology). Seems to me that Nader voters were insisting on lobster, and wound up with mush. At worst case, the choice in 2008 will be the same. Me? I'd much prefer a prime t-bone, but if I must, I'll gladly take my burger with ketchup.

                        BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                        by wystler on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 10:07:48 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Kerry is running for anything right now either. (none)
            He's not up for re-election until '08 and you can speculate all you want about Kerry running for presidnet again in '08 but until the man says that he is you don't know jack!

            http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

            by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:09:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, you even link to a right-wing site. (none)
        And I ain't talkin bout the Village Voice link.

        Interesting.

        (btw you more productively link to the dkosopedia entry on the IWR. Unless you specifically like to link to sites that wanted Kerry to lose the 2004 election.)

        •  ouch (none)
          that's pretty damn pathetic.

          i don't know if i can be respectful about that.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:37:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Busted! (none)
          You busted him.

          I believe in personal redemption, so I am not going to take a position that every person who voted to authorize the use of force is 'tainted' beyond redemption.

          But...

          I am not supporting a clown like Lieberthing or the other laughably mis-named 'Security Dems' who want to go down in flames holding the rear-guard for the Bushiter.

          That said an artful 'Ooops' and an aggressive effort to bring our kids home... ALL of them... would not disqualify somebody to me. However, I still favor somebody who was smart enough to know the Bushiter was lying back then. Somebody like Dean or Feingold.

          LL

          "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

          by LeftyLimblog on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:52:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  everyone (4.00)
        who voted to authorize force should be excluded for a couple of reasons:

        1. Congress does not have the power, on Constitutional grounds, to transfer its war-making power to the President - and for very good reasons (now manifestly proven).  Those who voted for that resolution voted against the Constitution.

        2. Anyone fooled into voting against the Constitution, thinking that GWB was not going to make use of the power granted to him, is too credulous to hold office anywhere outside of FantasyLand.

        Those who voted for that resolution were either willfully complicit in the unconstitutional launching of this disasterous war, or are otherwise too dim-witted to be entrusted with such power.  There are, of course, mixtures of these two flaws; but by no possible mixture are these two wrongs turned into a right.

        If you want to continue having a powerless, complicit Left in this country, then by all means continue to support those who voted to authorize the President to use force.  

        •  Senators Gruening and Morse (4.00)
          were the only two senators to vote against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  They were scorned at the time and were thought to be "soft on Communism" and "unpatriotic."  Now many people (after we lost 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam) view their very principled "No" votes as heroic.  

          I have never said anyone is tainted "beyond redemption."  As a soldier who went to Iraq (and a voter), I personally can't and won't vote for someone who voted "yes" for HJ Res 114.  I believe I have earned the right to make this very personal choice.  I have seen enough killing and death to last a lifetime and I want a clean, political break with the people who authorized and assented to this war.  

          I do think that members of Congress have totally abrogated their responsibility in terms of the War Powers Act of 1973.  Shame on them all!

          If you read the text of HJ Res 114, it says absolutely nothing about nation building, a constitution in Iraq, free elections in Iraq, etc.  It deals narrowly with the alleged threat of WMDs from Iraq and the use of force in defense of America.  If you ask any GOP politician about the war in Iraq you'll hear a ton of patriotic verbage about "progress" in Iraq that has nothing to do with HJ Res 114.  Promoting democracy is noble!  But HJ Res 114 doesn't mandate that Americans pour $1.5 billion a week into the black hole of Iraq.  It doesn't make the US the good cops who have to chase down the bad guys (and get killed or maimed doing it).  It doesn't specify that we "spread freedom and democracy," "create a constitution," or "hold free elections."  This resolution deals with a specific (non-existent) threat.  If Congress wants to do all of these things in Iraq, then they need to pass another, more honest resolution or pull out of troops immediately.  HJ Res 114 is a fuzzy legal cover for shifting justifications for the wrong war at the wrong time.  I don't understand why more Americans aren't outraged.        

        •  Well, there goes the Minority Leader then (none)
          Why does no one bring up that he voted for it too.

          "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

          by Kerrycrat on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 02:37:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Is John F Kerry working on (none)
      a "Skulls and Bones" mission to depreciate Bush's depreciators?
    •  All this Kerry-bashing is making me angry (4.00)
      I love DailyKos and being part of this community -- I have relied on this site for years to keep my sanity in the face of the Wingnuts and the failed corporate media. But I have to say the constant barrage of vitriole spewed on this site against John Kerry is making me question if this site is for me anymore.

      Was Kerry a great candidate? No. Otherwise he'd have won. Was he a good candidate? Hell yes -- because he took on a fear-mongering president during the middle of a war, while 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds, and he almost won, putting up a hell of a fight that (I say this at my own peril) folks like Gephardt and Howard Dean, who I greatly admire, would never have been able to wage. You think Dean, with no real military experience and no foreign policy credentials, would have stood a chance against Bush in '04? Sorry, but he just wouldn't have. He'd have been slaughtered.

      Did anyone watch the debates? Kerry slayed Bush minute after minute, time after time. Did anyone see the vote totals? Kerry got 59 million -- 10 million more than Gore and by far the highest total of any candidate in history except, sadly, for Bush this time. Did anyone look at the electoral vote? It was the closest win for an incumbent since the 1800s.

      Yes, we lost, and I am still angry and devastated over it. But we Democrats are way too eager to eat our young and move on, thinking this is somehow healthy. I don't think Kerry should run in 2008 -- but I DO think he was the best choice in the Dems' field to take on Bush in 2004, and I think we ought to show him a modicum of respect for that, if nothing else.

      There ... flame away.

      •  The question is... (none)
        Should Kerry continue acting as the spokesman for our party?  I think his poor speaking style and incoherent position on the war should disqualify him from this very important position.

        The bitterness on this site stems from the fact that most who supported Kerry for the nomination did not justify that support based on Kerry's ideals or stances, but rather on a specious argument that he was "electable."  Now that the election has demolished that argument, many of us of wish Kerry would go back to just being a respected Senator, and not trying to speak for the party as a whole.

  •  Reed (3.80)
    did a stand-up job tonight on The News Hour.  He's one of those senators that you think could be a Republican when you look at him, so in a way, it's a twofer to use him.

    I'm sorry to hear that Kerry was pushy.  He's not our best spokesperson on this issue, to be sure.

    When the world was born, it was born on fire, and I'm watching it burn.--RealWest

    by hillaryk on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:27:16 PM PST

    •  I agree (4.00)
      Reed was very good on The News Hours.  He and John Warner were very respectful of each other.  As for Kerry, guess he recalled how it worked for John Edwards at the Democratic Unity Dinner to throw himself into "the money shot." Personally, I didn't think it was a good move on Edwards part then and it wasn't a good move to push in front of Reed.  

      Winning without Delay.

      by ljm on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:37:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sunshine Boy (3.00)
        I don't know. He did get picked for VP candidate after that stunt. I thought I was the only one embarrassed for him on that one...

        Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.

        by Dave B on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:13:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the angle taken by Sen. Warner on the News Hour (none)
        was gross, indeed. In the wake of the president's speech in Annapolis, he spoke on the joint interview with Sen. Reed as if dubya was Eisenhower, or FDR incarnate. Warner's motive clearly was ideolgical, in glossing over the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq. He was sugar-coating the militarist-patriotic theme that Bush was using to help shore about some support for staying the course. Reed's responses, conversely, were thoughtful and based on the facts as he and other's on the armed services committee know them.
    •  Definitely NOT Our Best Spokesman (3.90)
      He's never seen a pithy 11 word answer that cuts to the heart of the matter that he can't turn into a meandering, 273 word prevaricating statement that leave people scratching their head trying to figure out what the hell he just said.

      For instance, today the blurb I heard on both NPR and PBS ended with him saying something like "the president continues to not deal with the reality of the insurgency."  What the hell does that mean?  Instead of building toward a firm conclusion, where he states the implication of his position, he ends with an open-ended and somewhat obscure statement that requires one to decode it for his meaning.

      Classic John Kerry; take a clear message, and drain all force and music out of the statement, leaving people with nothing clarity and substance.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:45:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry Enough (none)
        Even his snip that all the networks keep playing, he sounds like a waffler.

        Lead. Follow. Or get the hell out of the way.

      •  The beauty of DK (none)
        is that we get to be experts in areas we aren't -- so while the only qualification I have in the areas of rhetoric and diction is an English degree - let me just say that John Kerry needs to spend a month at diction camp.

        He's got no rhythm, a fondness for 3 words where 1 will do, and makes mazes out of split infinitives and needless prepositions.

        I'm sure Kerry is a very intelligent man with a great grasp of the English language, but I don't think I've ever heard a politician that has "lost his voice" to a greater degree than Kerry.

        It's as if he's trying to tread this imaginary line between "the wise sage" and the "populist" -- and neither is really a good fit.

        I know - in the grand scheme - these are awfully petty complaints against Kerry.... but like it or not, image, rhetoric, and sound bites are the best weapons at our disposal in this political struggle.

    •  disagree (3.75)
      Reed practically fell all over himself agreeing with Sen. Warner and in disagreeing with Murtha's proposal.  Yes, Reed voted against the war, but he is hardly a forceful spokesperson for the democratic party.

      I saw part of Kerry's response and, while long-winded and filled with self-important rhetorical questions, at least he had some fire to him.

      •  Lets not hobble our Party leaders (3.62)
        this is the same shrill language I hear about all of our party's leaders, Hillary, Kerry, Gore, ect. What is the use in stating that the only reason to vote for Kerry was because he wasn't Bush? Furthermore why demonize Kerry for losing? I too wish that he had really swung back hard at the swift boat bastards, but I gotta ask where was the rest of the party? Why wasn't anyone else raising hell about it? Like it or not, Kerry IS one of our party's biggest leaders. I can agree with Kos that there is definitely a time and a place to take a backseat, and today may have been that time. However, we're the party that thinks and acts independantly of hard line party discipline. Maybe a message from a wide range of people in the party would be more affective. And who's to say that John Kerry can't hold a press conference and say whatever the hell he wants to because he lost the election? Just a reminder, the party lost the election, we lost the election. Quit kicking Kerry.

        And about the war votes, yeah voting for the war was a shitty thing to do, but that's all part of life in the big city, unfortunately. John Kerry DID after all serve in the military, and DID work to end the war when he got back. If anybody's got the right to vote for it, I'd say Kerry did. I also agree that he needs to come out with a firmer statement against the war, and against the administration's conduct, but i'm sure we can all understand why he is in a poor position to do that. I do not think that because of that, that he needs to stay silent about it.

        Lets not be the party that eats our own young. If you're riding in a car and it breaks down, which is more productive? to piss and moan about what a shitty car it is, and how you should have taken the OTHER car, or to get your ass out of the car and start pushing?
         quit pissing and moaning everybody, and get out and push

        •  And you give me a 1 rating for my comment? (none)
          I gave money to the guy and I have the right to be disappointed and say so.  I don't give 1's to comments I don't like or disagree with.  I don't know what your beef is with my comment, and frankly don't care.  

          Fact is Kerry did NOT close on the election and he will pay the price, as many comments note, with no more support.  He was dumb to salute and say reporting for duty to begin with and then showed "no guts" when he did not take the swiftboaters on.  Had he fought back, he'd have won the election.  He showed a lack of leadership, plus he couldn't manage to keep his face from turning orange, his back from showing yellow, and couldn't convince his wife to just clam up.  She seems like a smart lady, I personally liked her, but her smart-mouth comments like "shove it" hurt as well.

          Kerry  is NOT one of the party's biggest leaders.  And if he were, we be in deep poop!

        •  A "Party" without Balls (4.00)
          Will DIE.

          When will they ... "our party's leaders, Hillary, Kerry, Gore" take a stand???

          Even when the HAWK among then (Murtha) gave them the ticket they look the other way and mumbo jumbo about 'can't set a timetable'  Biden, Lieberman, Kerry  ... FUCK THEM!
          Tell them to take their corporate $$ and go away.

          Nancy Pelosi  is the lone voice in this wilderness ...

          IF the Democratics don't take a stand soon there will be NO Democratic party there will be a NEW Progressive Party.

          End of story

          PS
          billydanielus thanks for the 1

        •  What Party leaders? (4.00)
          I am not a Democrat any more.  I am a liberal who feels betrayed by most Democrats.  Is the a Democrats-only forum with no room for progressive independents?
          •  I'm about ready to join you (none)
            I've been a Democrat since I was 21 years old and first registered to vote. That was in 1966. I joined the Democrats since my dad was a Democrat and Democrats were for the working man.

            I'm about ready to declare myself an independent since I see democrats straying from their working class roots.

            John Kerry won my vote by default last time, but my vote is no longer a given anymore. Candidates have to earn it. I will not vote for a corporate whore. The economy here is in the shitter, and the union busting I'm seeing is the worst in my entire lifetime. NOBODY has done anything about it.

            Feingold has earned my vote in 2008. I can count on him being principled.

            Russ Feingold in 2008

            by John Lane on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:40:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Get out and push? (none)
          When Gore won the nomination and ran against Bush, the Democratic party said "quit bitching and get out and push."

          When Kerry won the nomination and ran against Bush, the Democratic party said "quit bitching and get out and push."

          Sooner or later you have to address the fact that if you need to keep pushing the car, it's time to get a new car.

          Only an idiot will keep pushing the old clunker.

          •  good point (none)
            but i think that up until recently, the state of the nation was such that a lot of people (Flinstone folk yes, but Americans nonetheless) were still on board for the whole Repug revolution. while the Right's control of the country was still a fairly new thing, a large portion of the public was still wanting to "really give it its shot". in other words, they still had momentum. i think we're seeing the apex of that parabola now, and gravity's a real bitch as Harry Reid has shown as of late. but i will admit, i can't realistically blame "fate" or "momentum" for the dems losses to date. we just weren't used to being out of power, we were still (i will admit) too concerned with playing to the middle, and just dodging the punches instead of throwing our own. however the right has HAD their shot, and they've failed. that doesn't mean that there isn't something to learn about the populist message that they've been able to hijack. people were tired of the tax system, the right was able to spin the common man's frustration in such a way as to get the mob to work against their own interests. that's just one example, but what it points out, is that rather than rush just as fast and just as hard in the opposite direction, maybe we should take a look at how these issues fall into under our party's values. i think that we have to be able to answer those types of questions and frustrations that the public has, just as effectively as the Right has been able to(albeit with emotional rhetoric and scapegoating.) I'm just saying, i don't think a hard jog to the far left is necessarily the best course of action. and i don't think that makes someone who doesn't want to run in that direction necessarily "republican lite". im sure i've rambled, its late and im just thinking out loud on these differences. i just dont see how some of the candates from the far left (who i very very much admire and respect) will be able to get elected. and where will that leave us? no forests, more wars, more class division, ect., ect. hell, maybe you're right, maybe we shouldn't nominate a centrist, or take a real lefty and dress them up like a centrist. maybe we should just shove em out on stage and odds be damned. i'd be willing to listen to any thoughts on how someone with really far left views is going to get elected.  
            •  Define "far left" (none)
              "i just dont see how some of the candates from the far left (who i very very much admire and respect) will be able to get elected. and where will that leave us? no forests, more wars, more class division, ect., ect. hell, maybe you're right, maybe we shouldn't nominate a centrist, or take a real lefty and dress them up like a centrist. maybe we should just shove em out on stage and odds be damned. i'd be willing to listen to any thoughts on how someone with really far left views is going to get elected."

              Is it now a far left position in the party to have said that the war was wrong from the beginning?  Is it now a far left position in the party to oppose, up front, those who would endanger the health of women by limiting choice?  Is it now a far left position in the party to suggest that corporate interests are not necessarily the best interests for this country?  Is it now a far left position in the party to suggest that free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) do more harm for the worker than good?

              Hell...is it now a far left position in the party to be in favor of same-sex civil unions or marriage?

              If so, then you begin to see what the problem is with the Democratic party.  And you also begin to see what is the problem with the "heavyweights" like Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

              A lot of folks who voted for Nader in 2000 came back to the fold and voted for Kerry because the Democratic leadership challenged them on the "there's no real difference" position.  When Kerry refused to support gay marriage, refused to renounce his vote on Iraq (even after it was shown that the critics at the time were CORRECT), and refused to stand up to Bush in Ohio and declare war against the machine, he gave support to the stance that there is really no difference between the Democratic party and the Repugs.

              If a person (like myself) wants a candidate who stands for the worker instead of the corporation, who can admit that it was wrong to go to war in Iraq without equivocation, who can stand on the line for civil rights for ALL people (gays, lesbians, and American citizens held without charge in prison for several years), where are they to go now?  Kerry doesn't measure up.  Clinton doesn't measure up.  Gore doesn't measure up.

              The fact that the mainstream in the Democratic party now sees these positions as being in the "far left" of the spectrum speaks LOUDLY to what is wrong with the Democratic party.

              •  That's not far left. It's mainstream (none)
                Is it now a far left position in the party to have said that the war was wrong from the beginning?

                No

                Is it now a far left position in the party to oppose, up front, those who would endanger the health of women by limiting choice?

                No

                <quote<Is it now a far left position in the party to suggest that corporate interests are not necessarily the best interests for this country?</blockquote>

                HELL NO

                Is it now a far left position in the party to suggest that free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) do more harm for the worker than good?

                HELL NO, and even most rightwingers I know despite NAFTA and CAFTA.

                Russ Feingold in 2008

                by John Lane on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:44:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  i second that. frankly, kos, i am sick to death (none)
          of seeing your cherrypick info that is detrimental to dems and put it on here. hell, lately i am beginning to feel that i am on powerline. i remind, kos, that it is the progressives who want to win and frankly, sir, putting crap like this on here doesn't help.
    •  Reed an Army Ranger... (4.00)
      ...Grad of W.Point and a Viet Nam Vet. The fact that he was against the War is important. Kerry needs to understand that he's had his shot and it's time to assume a role as a support player:he's no longer the party's go-to-guy.
  •  He was awful today (none)
    Just terrible...
    •  Kerry... (3.71)
      ...thinks that he need to somehow reconcile his past positions through longwinded rationals.

      Nobody cares!

      Nobody cares about you John, or you Hillary.

      We have a big mess on our hands.

      Bush and the Republicans may be the real bad guys here, but you let them screw up America. Move aside.

      Nobody who voted for the war resolution and does not now stand with Murtha should be given any stature. It was a terrible terrible mistake, and you should have come out against it a long time ago. Get with the program.

      •  .......hmmm (3.50)
        .

        I for one think, anybody who support quick end to Iraq debacle should be fully supported. No need to enlarge minor flap.

        .

        Big deal.

        We should tell Kerry, good move standing in front. But don't forget the other guys...

        .

        So yay everybody who step forwards against Bush debacle.

      •  i guess Murtha stands with Murtha (2.75)
        so that doesn't include Murtha.

        it's funny though, nobody cared about murtha's stature until he spoke out.

        a warhawk centrist dem.  who also voted "for the war."

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:07:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We've discussed this before.... (none)
          Murtha was terrific on Hardball today.

          He has the spirit of the confessed sinner looking for restitution. He knows that he can never make up for the evil that he has been a party to, but he will go to his grave trying.

          He deserves a chance at redemption...

          •  interesting characterization (none)
            he was certainly terrific.

            all it means to me is that a good person, who truly cares about the lives of soldiers, and who has access to just about everyone at the pentagon had good reason to think an invasion of iraq would be a good idea if not completely mishandled.

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:22:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  A Democrat's vote on the war must be (3.00)
        part of the litmus test.

        If ya voted for it, ya gotta go. Makes no difference if yer ReThug or Dem. The nation needs smarter folks than you have demonstrated yourself to be.

        I mean, come on! Anybody who believed Bush is too stupid to be leading us.

        "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."

        by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:09:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe true (3.50)
          But since a lot of the voting public made the same mistake, I don't think disqualifying every Dem who voted for the IWR is a great election strategy.

          Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

          by litigatormom on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:17:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I get so concerned (4.00)
        when I see Kerry doing this sort of thing. We have the best opportunity in a long time to take advantage of Bush's weakness, and I cannot abide the idea of Kerry, or Hillary for that matter, sabotaging it.
  •  Someone PLEASE tell Kerry (3.45)
    It's over.

    you had your chance and blew it.

  •  Can a Dem bogart the cameras ? (3.33)
    I would be interested in whether the Washington media hothouse allows particular people to 'speak for the party' on their own volition -- more interested than in the Kerry kerfluffle, since I saw Reed not Kerry on News Hour.

    So more broadly: Is it possible for Reid, Pelosi, and Dean to jointly tell the talk shows (for example): these particular people don't represent the Democratic Party -- you need a deeper bench?

    I've got blisters on my fingers!

    by Elwood Dowd on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:29:26 PM PST

    •  At Least Two Answers (3.75)
      One, the way a caucus works is that certain members--whether they're the most capable of delivering message--are given/share the lead on the issues that pertain to their committe work.  Thus, Lieberman and Waxman are taking the lead on the Katrina stuff, since they're the ranking members of the committees that do government oversight.  Part of leading a caucus involves parceling out the opportunities to speak on behalf of the caucus, or at least be a prominent Democratic voice on your particular issue.

      The other thing is that Pelosi, Reid, etc aren't going to be available to be in DC every Sunday.  So who does the media go to?  They don't go to Sarbanes and Mikulski, because they're not quotable, even though they're nearby.  But what about a guy who's always quotable, and lives close enough that he takes the train into DC daily?  Hence, Biden's ubiquity.  As mundane as it is, part of what determines who gets face time on TV is who's close to DC.  Thus, those who live in DC or are always close-by tend to get more opportunities.  The bookers and the producers get who they know will be good TV, and they call back those who typically say yes, because it's the path of least resistance.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:54:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you mean Sarbane and Mikulski (3.00)
        are not quoteable. If they say something I usually understand every single word's meaning, which says something ...
        •  But They're Not Notable Soundbites (none)
          They seldom speak an 8 second line that gets talked about.  That's one of the key things producers and bookers are looking for, someone who gers quoted, and with the quote being "Democrat Joe Biden, Speaking on News Network XYZ's Babblefest show, said..."

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:26:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  several members of the CBC (4.00)
            and the progressive caucus are great succinct speakers, but i don't see them on the talk shows all that often. access doesn't appear to be random.

            crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

            by wu ming on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:51:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But Few Are Ranking Members... (none)
              ...of committees, and only one is a Senator.  

              I see Rangel quite a bit; he's one of the most visable members of the House Dem caucus.  Conyers isn't on very often, but he gets a decent amount of attention.  But they're both ranking members of important committees, so that goes a long way toward explaining their ubiquity.  Add in that when Rangel isn't in DC he's in the world's media capital, AND he's very good on television--I think he's one of the very best in either Dem caucus--and that explains why you see him so often, and so much more than other good members who may be progressive and good in the medium but aren't the big names, at least not until they amass more seniority or prominance.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 05:50:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  a deeper bench? (none)
      hell, we need just one guy (male or female)to stand up and lead us.  The Dems are bereft of a leader. The leaders are paralyzed.  The Viet Nam infection rages unabated after 25 years! We can't shed the "defeatist. cut & run",peace at any price label that is so effectively hurled at us until somebody finds the balls to tell the truth around here.  For example, Iraq is about the oil.  Iraq is a permanent base to protect the oil. Iraq is a frontline protection for Israel.  Iraq is a continuing "contract" for Haliburton. Iraq was a huge boondoggle perpetrated on a frightened America More?
  •  Reed (4.00)
    Reed needs to sit Kerry down and make it clear that there is no I in team. Kerry has been positioning himself for another run since the day after the last election.

    Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.

    by Dave B on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:29:35 PM PST

    •  Kerry blew it (none)
      Kerry blew it last year (I'm STILL pissed about the $15m he held back at the end of the campaign) and I won't support Kerry in '08. I agree that someone needs to sit his ass down and tell him its over.
  •  I voted for Kerry by default (3.25)
    like many of my friends. The more he talks the more he loses support. What a shame. If he thinks he is going to win the nomination he better think again. Especially, when he ran to Iraq when we needed him to fight and to make sure that all the votes were counted in Ohio.
  •  Olberman (none)
    Keith Olberman showed the Reed (not Reid) speech as a lead-off for Kerry.  I got pretty confused.  He did not, that I saw, show Reid's comments.

    Oh well, Feingold's stuff was apparently the best.  Still haven't seen that except in posts.

    Keep your constitution close my friends, and read it daily.

    by smokeymonkey on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:30:06 PM PST

  •  If I remember right (none)
    Reed was a Marine (not a retired Marine like Rep Murtha, but he did make Captain at least IIRC).  That may have been part of the calculation...

    Republicans - For Saddam until they were against him.

    by calipygian on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:31:45 PM PST

  •  Kerry needs to step back... (4.00)
    ...while he still has some dignity left.  It is so sad to see a basically good but flawed guy embarrassing himself and his party like this.  He should have been this agressive about bogarting the media when they started swiftboating him.  
    •  This is the moment Kerry lost me (3.87)
      I don't have the antipathy towards Kerry that a lot of people have. I enthusiastically supported him as the Democratic candidate. I feel like he was the second Democrat to have his presidential victory stolen.

      Even as Kos expressed his scorching opinion of Kerry I thought Kerry was still a Democrat and a good contributing part of the party. But today I agree with Kos, Kerry's moment is gone. Kerry just can not express a position clearly. It's the disease of all old-school Senate democrats like Kennedy and Daschle. He undercuts his own message when he speaks. There is no room for nuanced opinions in today's sound-bite politics. I expect an intelligent person who considers all angles of issues, but when you talk to the public you need to connect with the public.

      John Kerry needs to embrace his role in the Senate and give up any higher aspirations.

      GOP: Party before Country
      Puppethead

      by puppethead on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:46:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually Kennedy's been pretty clear lately (4.00)
        I heard him on Ed Schultz's show today.  He was pretty articulate.
      •  I have to agree with you (4.00)
        I liked Kerry. I would have loved him as a President. I wasn't just anti-Bush, I was pro-Kerry.

        But the guy just isn't cut out for a modern campaign. Not to say that it was his job to cut through the media bullshit, but he needs to respect that he can't just explain his positions and expect people to be converted by the truth of his words.

        I've been trying to learn that one myself.

        ronald reagan is the devil. proof: his names all have 6 letters. Ronald Wilson Reagan = 6 6 6.

        by danthrax on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:35:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry Lost His Race Twice (none)
        Once when AWOL during the Swiftboating, then in surrendering Ohio.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:53:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, (none)
        I have to agree.  I supported Kerry with everything I had.  I was on his legal team for monitoring the polls.  I went to New Mexico. And I've remained sympathetic to his Swift-Boating debacle.  But they guy just can't say it clearly.  His Tevye stle, on the one hand...on the other hand, just does not get through to a public who pays too little attention to the details, hence he is just too friggin' hard to understand.
  •  the most dangerous place in washington (none)
    is to be between a TV camera and John Kerry...they used to say that about Chuck Shumer, but now he has his act under control.
  •  Cause of course, we have to believe you on your (3.66)
    word.

    Too bad, because Reed was all over the place on PBS saying that this was a progress, and Kerry was the one making the criticism of Bush.  Except of course, if the message is that Bush is not that bad:  I guess this will be fine for Hillary and Lieberman, but probably not even for Reed.

    •  Not how I saw it (none)
      Warner was supportive of Bush.  Reed didn't contradict him.  Reed was trying to make his points about what should happen in Iraq now, speaking as a senator who graduated from West Point.  

      Winning without Delay.

      by ljm on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:46:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  he's not doing himself any favors... (none)
    desperately jockying for the spotlight just makes him look like an ass.
  •  what frustrates me (3.87)
    What frustrates me is not necessarily that Kerry is speaking (though it is in poor taste to steamroll party leadership). Rather, I'm frustrated by his insistence on giving a muddled, unclear message over and over again. If he had stood up and said, "I was wrong to have supported the war. Let's fix this mess," I would respect him. He didn't do that.  It's like the man has delusions of grandeur or something. His aspirations for a 2008 presidential run are going nowhere fast.
    •  This is how you do it, Sen. Kerry (3.94)
      Dear John, this is how you admit a mistake:

      "I made in a mistake in not speaking out earlier." (John Murtha, "Hardball," 11/30/05)

      The man forthrightly states a mistake in judgment, understanding that this enhances his credibility rather than detracts from it.  

      How...startlingly refreshing.  Like stepping into an airconditioned room and having a nice glass of frozen lemonade after being out in the sun in a 100 degree desert.

      Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

      by litigatormom on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:41:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  given what he's trying to accomplish (3.33)
        that is correct.

        it had occured to me to ask "well if you knew it was wrong for so long why did it take you so long to speak up?"

        "i don't know.  it was a mistake."

        is that the answer??

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:47:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Murtha - 11/30; Kerry - 10/26 (4.00)
        Whatever.

        ...knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration's duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not.

        I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can't rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, `enough blame to go around,' and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

        But you wouldn't have heard it here at dailykos.

        •  But what does that even mean??? (3.60)
          It's another long rambling blather. What does that mean "I accept my share of the responsibility?" Was the vote authorizing war a mistake? An inconvenience? Should he have voted against it before he voted for it? What is his "share," his "responsibility" and what does it mean to "accept" it?

          Nothing. It's all more free-floating double talk. If it weren't, he'd have given a straight answer, as John Edwards did. No scratching your head on HIS mea culpa. And nothing preventing Kerry from being just as clear.

          undercaffeinated

          by odum on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:03:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it means (none)
            i would not vote on IWR knowing what i know now.

            what does murtha's shorter answer mean??

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:29:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  doesnt the fact... (none)
              ....that we're going back and forth on this make the point for me? At best, he just can't be clear and concise when its called for. At worst, he deliberately couches statements in so much stuff that he leaves mixed impressions and enough wiggle room to go anywhere with it if he chooses to at a later time.

              Do I think it's that deliberate? I don't know, really, but the effect is still so damn maddening

              undercaffeinated

              by odum on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:07:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh! I know!! Pick me! (4.00)
              >>it means, i would not vote on IWR knowing what i know now.

              what does murtha's shorter answer mean??<<

              Murtha's answer means he knows how to say something clearly enough that the listener can understand it without consulting a lawyer.

        •  classic kerry (none)
          2 paragraphs, when 27 words would do ...

          BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

          by wystler on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:08:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (3.80)
          Bush got elected in 2000 -- okay okay, he was selected, but he got close enough to get selected -- because he said things simply, in little sound bytes that could be understood easily by Joe Six Pack, as opposed to Gore, who said all the right things that should have matter to Joe Six Pack, but in a style that was perceived by Joe Six Pack as pretentious and ponderous.  Stupid, unfair, but sadly predictable.

          John Kerry suffered from the same thing last year.  People ignored the substance and focused on the style.  Stupid, unfair, but sadly predictable.

          The beauty of Murtha's mea culpa on the war last week, and his mea culpa on not speaking out sooner this evening, it is that is crystal clear.  No qualifiers.  No backpedaling. And it has resonated across America.  

          This clarity, NOT triangulation, is what America yearns for.  Say what you mean.  Mean what you say.  Make it as simple as you possibly can without saying something untrue or misleading.

          Please.

          Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

          by litigatormom on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:13:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Absofricklutely (4.00)
           It doesn't even matter what we here say about how to apologize or take responsibility, the VOTERS are the ones you have to sell it to. It's gotta be clear, simple and soon. None of that parsed crap is ever gonna cut it with the voters. Mr. Kerry you almost won because you weren't a freakin' maniac like Bush, not because you can outramble anybody! Like she said...
          I also liked how Edwards did it, but someone upthread didn't. Might they explain to poor me?

        Neocon plan for Iraq : Chaos and Corruption.

        by KenBee on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:05:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry is part of the problem (4.00)
    Kerry, like Mrs. Clinton needs to step out of the way and let a younger less compromised person take over.  

    I have decided I will not support the democratic party with monetary contributions if they put someone like these two up for office.

    Dean or Gore would be great.  Dean has guts, is honest and smart.  But not "lurch."  He lost for us.  

    Excuse me.  Enough retreads without integrity!

  •  I listened to some of Kerry's response (3.87)
    this morning.  It was okay but ... tedious.  So tedious.  Where's the outrage?  Where's the passion?  Where's the pulse?

    As a Senator, he's entitled to comment on whatever crap Bush is dishing out on any particular day, but I agree, someone's got to slap him out of his delusion that he's the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination.

    Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

    by litigatormom on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:37:20 PM PST

  •  what does Kos have in common with George Will? (none)
    ....he made me look up a word

    ty kos for introducing me to "kerfuffle"

    •  In common with Will, lets see... I know! (none)
      Uses the term: "voted for it".
      I am absolutely in accord with Kos, in his disgust with Kerry. But I can't believe his use of that utterly disingenuous, "Repug-talking-point" phrase.

      "We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams 1764

      by greeseyparrot on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:05:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And what's worse (2.66)
    the dumb idiot used the word Vietnam in his remarks.  

    I could swear I saw a bulls-eye flash for a split-second over Kerry's face!  And I could almost hear the swiftboaters say "start your engines"!

    I'm with the other posters I've read here ... I voted for Kerry; he didn't fight the good fight against the swiftboaters; I feel "let down"; and there's no way in hell I'll vote for him again.  

    Someone needs to show Kerry the obese woman singing to the top of her lungs!

  •  Kerry is one of the last poeple who should be the (3.40)
    Dem voice on Iraq. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt he is terrible in presenting a clear, concise, legitimate view on the issue.

    Go back to digging into international banking scandals John, you were good at that.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:41:12 PM PST

  •  Mr. Kerry, Please sit down. (4.00)
    I voted for you, but you let the GOP and George Bush turn your tremendous record of accomplishment and service into an albatross of your campaign.

    I can't recall what made me feel worse- their Swiftboat attacks or your failure to respond.

    Please do the right thing and go back to being a team player- your time at bat has passed.

  •  I've been one of Kerry's defenders here (4.00)
    However, if he did bully his way into this, he should know better. The guy should know that the size of his email list does not represent those who will vote for him in the 2008 primary - like me, for example.
    •  Has anyone posted a link to a credible source yet? (3.33)
      If not, I hope you will keep your wits about you and consider the source.
      •  I recognize that there's no source (3.00)
        However, I don't think Kos would post BS just for the sake of it - and I'm well aware of Kos' distinct anti-Kerry bias.
        •  I do (3.40)
          think he would post BS, because he's done it before. He lied and said that Kerry used to support gay marriage and then flip-flopped (Kerry has never supported gay marriage, but he's been a staunch defender of civil union rights, even when he could conceivably have benefitted politically from ditching that stance). Kos has repeatedly picked up other people's slurs of Kerry and repeated them as if they had some grounding in something Kerry said -- e.g., he took the Boston Globe's little fantasy about how Kerry was trying to present himself as "an outsider" and worded it so most readers would think Kerry had actually said he was an outsider.

          Sure, Kos might've heard some gossip somewhere. But I wouldn't for an instant say that Kos wouldn't have taken half-baked gossip from some low-level intern who hates Kerry and tried to turn it into a major news scoop. In all honesty, Kos has played so fast and loose with facts when it comes to Kerry that I think "bias" isn't strong enough. He's just not a trustworthy source.

          •  Jim Crow (1.50)
            Kerry has never supported mixed race marriages, he supports separate but unequal laws for mixed race couples.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

            by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:10:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  WTF? (2.50)
              Where the hell do you get that from?!
              •  It's a joke (none)
                I think he's sarcastically commenting on Kerry's lackluster support of gays and lesbians, which was a major sting during the last presidential election.
                •  Lackluster? (none)
                  He voted against DOMA because it did not include a provision for civil unions with fully equivalent privileges to marriage, even though he has always been against gay marriage.

                  When Clinton said he should come out in support of the gay marriage bans on the ballots in many states, he said no way.

                  Kerry has always been against gay "marriage" but for equivalent rights.

                  Guess people wanted him to change his position to support gay marriage, but he stuck with his long-held belief.

                  So people like kos say he is "pandering" when in fact what he did is the opposite of pandering.

                  Sheesh.

                  •  but: (none)
                    Kerry has always been against gay "marriage" but for equivalent rights.

                    ...which is why the poster above referred to that as "Jim Crow."  No civil unions package - not even the most comprehensive in the country - provide the benefits that marriage does.  

                    The pandering issue, you have to take up with people who accuse him of pandering.

            •  Why the 1s and 2s...? (none)
              Don't like the accurate analogy about Kerry's postion vis-á-vis equal rights for nn-heteorseuxals?

              Typical.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

              by Lestatdelc on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:14:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well, he's done it before, sorry to say. (3.25)
          Given his previously demonstrated extreme bias, all the more reason he needs to provide a credible source.

          I really can't take the time to search out the previous stories (I am supposed to be doing homework), but yeah, kos has manufactured smears against Kerry before, by twisting some actual occurrence into an unrecognizable contortion of misrepresentation.  At least in those cases that I remember, there was a link provided so that an intelligent person had a shot at determining what really happened. Interesting that he didn't even bother with that this time.

          It's really a shame that this site is going down the path of trashing a leading Democrat - and solid liberal -like Kerry.

  •  Bleh (none)
    it'll figure.

    (i'll await an open thread to mention the 29 Republicans who were in Congress for NAFTA/CAFTA and voted Nay on NAFTA. 22 of them voted aye on CAFTA, including Rick Santorum and Richard Pombo)

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:41:43 PM PST

  •  Say what you want about Kerry (3.66)
    I still have a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker on my car as an act of defiance.  And, here in Northern Virginia, you see more of them than those encursed "Dubyas".  They have seemingly disappeared for the most part...

    Republicans - For Saddam until they were against him.

    by calipygian on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:42:28 PM PST

    •  kos thinks (none)
      kerry's at war with gay people.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:44:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not speaking for kos (none)
        but Kerry isn't at war with non-heteorsexuals, he just likes Jim Crow laws for them because it might upset the bigots.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:53:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i seem to remember the title (none)
          of the diary being pretty clear.

          well.  there's always kaine and his cowardly campaign to be proud of.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:55:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good for you (none)
            your remember diary titles.

            How about this one "Kerry likes Jim Crow laws for non-heterosexuals"...?

            Work for you?

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

            by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:11:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that would be dishonest as well (4.00)
              not as bad as kos's little fibs, but it's basically the same.

              here's how the logic goes:

              if kerry is supporting jim crow laws for gays by saying gay marriage should not be a part of dem platform in his state...

              then dean is supporting overturning roe vs. wade for saying we should reach out to pro-life dems in the south.

              it's not very cool logic.  in both cases.  cause in both cases... one is saying we should not isolate ourselves away from pro-life dems.  and the other is saying we should not isolate ourselves away from people who think gay marriage is a sin.

              it is a highly debatable and very controversial point that we're constantly struggling with.  but dean thinks we do need to reach out to pro-life dems in the south.  and he'll alter our message accordingly.  kerry does think we need to retain some support from some intolerant people worried about gay marriage.  

              drawing irrational conclusions about them being at war with democrats because of this issue is unproductive.  i wouldn't say dean is selling out NARAL for worrying about pro-life dems.  i wouldn't say kerry is selling out gay people for worrying about other dems who have a wild hair up their ass about gay marriage.

              was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

              by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:42:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I may get downrated for this, (none)
                but I think this worry about the potentially intolerant is precisely one of our problems.  What defines a leader?  Is it a concern for poll numbers, or a strength of character?  I have no doubt that the first Dem presidential candidate who puts his foot down on the gay marriage issue will gain a lot more support than he loses... Not because he'll convert people to the cause, but because that kind of leadership will.

                Just my two cents.

              •  for your example to be accurate (none)
                dean would have to be counseling democrats in public not to pass a law permanently protecting abortion rights in a pro-choice state. and if he did that, yes, i would be giving him no end of hell, and rightfully so. but that's not what dean did. another false equivalency.

                kerry was not talking in private about mississippi or kansas.

                crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

                by wu ming on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:57:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  do you have that link (none)
                  i missed that.

                  he said, dems should not make it part of the dem platform.  the claim that he was telling people what to do or how to vote or legislate in his state .... as far as i know.  that's never been confirmed.

                  it's the right equivalency, cause it's the same worry....  pro-choice is in the mainstream, but pro-abortion will never be, and pro-gay marriage isn't there yet.

                  was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

                  by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:34:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You still don't get it (none)
                    It is about equal civil rights for all. Kerry (and Dean) are fucking wrong on this issue. Civil unions is a partial (and therefor misleading and false option) which is, separate and unequal, hence the Jim Crow analogy. And speaking out that equal rights for everyone should not be a part of the Dem platform is on moral ethical grounds, simply wrong no matter what the illusory near-term political calculus of it is. It is analogous to saying that we should not have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because as Johnson predicted, it would lose us the south for a generation, which Nixon went on to make reality.

                    cheers,

                    Mitch Gore

                    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                    by Lestatdelc on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:12:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Not dishonest at all... Kerry (none)
                is supporting Jim Crow laws for non-heterosexuals because giving support to civil unions over full marriage is just that. And this is also one issue where I disagree entirely with Dean on as well. Very few elected Dems on the Federal level got it right on this one, though some do, even candidates in Texas like the fighting Dem David Harris which was front paged the other day.

                cheers,

                Mitch Gore

                Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

                by Lestatdelc on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:08:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Good for you... (none)
      ...seriously, let it stay on your bumper until we have a new nominee in 08 or until it falls off.  I am disappointed with Kerry and will never vote for him again, but I always have a nice thought for those who keep displaying their Kerry Edwards stickers.  It is a form of defiance; if I had a car instead of using public transport, I'd still have a Gore sticker too.  
  •  I have no interest... (none)
    in voting Kerry again. I'm in a safe "blue" state....if he wins the nomination, he will not get my vote.

    "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

    by Jonathan4Dean on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:42:31 PM PST

    •  Not the way to go (4.00)
      Every vote counts - the bigger the majority, the more of a 'mandate' we can claim.
      •  Bingo (3.50)
        We need to keep the big picture in mind at all times, from now through the 2010 mid-terms, at a bare minimum.
        •  But that's the problem, isn't it? (none)
          We keep convincing ourselves to compromise our beliefs to gain a victory that the national party keeps letting escape from its fingers.

          I'm tired of it. I'm tired of sacrificing the things this party should stand for at the altar of electability. Thankfully, Kerry can't claim he's the electable candidate now, at least. We can argue all day whether Dean or Clark or Edwards would have waged a better campaign at the head of the ticket than Kerry, but there's no doubt any of those three would have acted like they actually wanted to be president. Kerry never really did, IMO.

          "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. You've got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight." --Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous

          by AustinCynic on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:13:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (none)
            If you make idle threats, then politicians will continue to get more verbose and ethically worse.

            I'm a "Blue State Democrats Against Kerry". I plan on actually following through.

            Perhaps if others did the same, we might actually prevent a bad candidate from making a second run.

            "Don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34

            by Jonathan4Dean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 05:05:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  meh (3.50)
    my insiders say it's completely different.

    kerry was asked by reed to join in cause everyone else was back home during recess.

    was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

    by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:43:34 PM PST

  •  Boyfriend got a call from (4.00)
    the Kerry Campaign today asking for $$$.

    Boyfriend asked, "What for?  How is the money going to be used?"

    She said to get his (Kerry's) message regarding his plan for troops withdrawal out via thousands of billboards across the country.

    Boyfriend said, " I donated to John, I campaigned for John.  John and I don't see eye to eye on the Iraq war."

    She said, "Well, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with this.  Thanks.  Goodbye."

    Boyfriend is much nicer than girlfriend.

    You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

    by Joon on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:44:10 PM PST

    •  I got a call tonight from Kerry's people also (4.00)
      asking me to donate money to help get his message on Iraq out to the public.  I told the person that I was way out in front of John Kerry on this issue and that I had been in the streets protesting over it every week since last spring.  I told him that once again Kerry's message was muddled and that Russ Feingold was much clearer about what needed to be done.  I told him that my money will go to the people who have been fighting this battle all along.  I also told him that John Kerry should have spoken out about this last year when he was running for president.

      Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

      by Susan S on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:00:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  U GO Girl! (none)
        [I got a witness, heh]

        You go to war with the indictments you can prove, not the ones you'd like to prove. -Billmon

        by Joon on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:55:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, he should have (none)
        I saw part of his press conference, not knowing there was any disjunct between him & the other Senate Dems on the timing of it..

        What struck me is that every time Kerry says "let me be clear," it doesn't mean he's being clear at all, it means he's heard a lot of people tell him he's not being clear.  But he's not really listening.  He's - consciously or unconsciously - responding by saying things like "let me be clear" a lot.  That doesn't solve the problem.

        "What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs. Then this becomes a different town." - Grover Norquist, 1995

        by daria g on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 09:46:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yep, Kerry still wants to be President (4.00)
    and his ego got in the way today.

    But Reid and Reed handled it perfectly considering how pushy Kerry got about being involved from what Kos said, and although Kerry may or may not be anyones favorite Democratic Presidential nominee right now I choose to focus on the positive in today. Democrats being lead by a weakling isn't the backstory on the AP and other wire services, its Democrats not being impressed with the President's latest stay the course blather. As it should be. I didn't hear about this sort of thing going on today until right now.

    Harry Reid, once again, has proven what a change has occured since Tommy Dash lost his office and was replaced as Senate leader by the Senator from Nevada. Reid got the job done, he doesn't look weak as leader, and the news stories aren't all about the Democratic response being a trainwreck because Reid isn't in control, while Kerry looks like a jerk to people paying attention.

    And I sigh in relief.  

    "What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs. Then this becomes a different town," Scumbag Grover Norquist, 1995.

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:44:18 PM PST

  •  Shame (3.25)
    The man had his chance against an opponent who was a deserter, an inarticulate booby and undoubtedly the worst president ever.  Kerry's failure to win against Bush is an inexplicable shame.  The damage that will result to the citizenry and the nation is incalculable.

    But what does need to be explained to Kerry, is that he is not a hero of the 21st century, but an embarrassment.  He should be searching for the shadows to hide his failure, not strutting before the cameras like a Bush.

  •  Do you have a SOURCE for this (4.00)
    "kerfluffle" crap?

    Or is it just more Kerry-bashing nonsense?

    I saw the cspan conference. Kerry did fine. So did Reed.

    I kind of thought it was nice that they were working together. Now you tell me that they weren't working together at all, that the Democratic Party is just as fucked up as ever.

    Sigh.

    (btw did Reed come out with his own exit strategy before 10/26, when Kerry did? If not and the shoes were reversed, would you be hounding Reed for taking the spotlight of the guy who stepped up first? Oh wait what am I thinking, if that guy is Kerry than NOTHING matters except that he must be bashed.)

  •  What is Kerry's POINT??? (none)

      He elbows his way into a position of high visibility...just to deliver another random, unfocused muddle of a message?

     What, exactly, was he trying to accomplish?

     I don't dislike John Kerry. But I just don't get what he was after here.

    Republicans oppose abortion -- it happens eighteen years too early.

    by Buzzer on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:46:52 PM PST

    •  it really actually sounds like (3.33)
      you dislike kerry.

      cause if you liked him, you wouldn't assume the worst.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:48:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Kerry had had a strong, punchy message... (none)

          ...then maybe I'd have understood.

          But it was more of the same circular, "nuanced" equivocating that destroyed his campaign.

          The Dems have made some recent progress in getting rid of that "stand for nothing" meme the GOP spreads. But this episode was unhelpful towards that end.

        Republicans oppose abortion -- it happens eighteen years too early.

        by Buzzer on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:53:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i totally disagree (3.75)
          i have heard the "the troops belong to americans, the troops are americans" thing today a number of times.

          it was good when i first heard it.

          it still was good when i just heard it on countdown.

          and i'm glad you only think the "stand for nothing" meme is just a meme.

          cause that's all it is.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:59:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, yeah! (none)
            >>i have heard the "the troops belong to americans, the troops are americans" thing today a number of times.

            it was good when i first heard it.<<

            I heard that sound bite, too! WTF does it mean? Is he saying the troops should be home (in America), not in Iraq? Does it mean they should serve Americans' intrests rather than Iraqis'? WTF does it mean?

            I'm just asking.

  •  yeah... (none)
    I thought it was odd too.  He is not the fresh face we need from the Democratic party these days.

    Welcome to Bizarro World.

    by starkness on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:47:24 PM PST

  •  It is my intention (4.00)
    to work against Kerry when (not if) he runs again in Iowa for the primary.

    As others above have noted, he had his shot.  He blew it big-time.  This is not an overall put-down; he is fine as a senator.  He should stay in the Senate.

    But he will waste our time in the next primary.  He's already indicated he wants to run again, and he has shown up in Iowa a few times lately.  In fact last month I went to a Democratic meeting for the sole purpose of seeing some friends.  As soon as Kerry showed up, I left.  Not interested.

    He may think it's fun for the ego to run again, but he isn't suffering.  He's a millionarie on his own, and of course his wife has a half-billion.  But those of us who gave hard-earned money to the campaign were really pissed off when he failed to defend himself against the swiftboaters and when he caved so quickly even knowing the voting troubles in Ohio.  He wasted our money.

    •  Kerry hasn't said (4.00)
      he's going to run again. People may reasonably think it's likely -- I certainly do -- but please don't say he's "indicated" that he will when he's said flat-out, repeatedly, that he hasn't decided.

      I gave lots of money that I couldn't afford, too. Believe me, on my budget, it hurt. And I can't wait to vote for Kerry in the 2008 primary (I voted for Dean last time). Don't pretend you speak for everyone who donated money they couldn't afford.

      •  Not pretending (none)
        I used the plural only because I know damn well I'm not the only one feeling that way.

        As for indicating his intentions, visits to Iowa definitely indicate that.  He has also stated rather recently that he would still love to be president.  Another indication.

        Yes, we Democrats all gave a lot of money, as well as time and effort.  If Kerry once again becomes the nominee, I would do as I did in fall 2004 - work for the campaign and vote for him.  Because it's too important not to.

        But first I'm going to make damn sure someone else wins Iowa.

  •  He's just secondhand news (3.00)
    I don't know what's more absurd - his petulance or his delusion that he could actually get nominated in 2008.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:47:48 PM PST

  •  Fuc&ing Kerry !! (4.00)
    Why is it the two most seen democrats in the past week have been Kerry and Lieberman, both losers. They should stay the hell back and let
    Reid, Dean, or Reed have there face on camera.

    http://www.dumpjoe.com

    Don't complain about the media, BE IT

    by terhuxtim on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:48:05 PM PST

    •  murtha and pelosi (4.00)
      were highly visible today.  murtha for 20 mins on hardball.  pelosi did her press conference.

      lieberman got his ass handed to him by imus.

      doubt he'll be out front center anytime again soon.

      i think it's been a good day for dems.  all dems.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:52:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (none)
    We need people with back bones to represent us.  Kerry, Clinton, Lieberbush and the rest of the republican lights need to step aside.  I know we are supposed to support all Democrats but it is getting difficult when we have such wimps elbowing their way into the limelight.  I would rather have Dean or Hackett, even with their missteps - at least they are passionate and you really feel they believe what they are saying.  Kerry sounds like a robot.  Blah.
  •  Another thing (none)
    I guess in the scheme of things, it's fortunate that I only voted for Kerry once (I voted for Edwards in the primary)

    "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right" - Carl Schurz

    by RBH on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:49:16 PM PST

  •  Why should we believe this? (3.40)
    This is coming from the same Kos who flat-out lied when he said that Kerry once supported gay marriage and then flip-flopped. The same Kos who called Kerry's statement (in an interview) that he wasn't in favor of putting gay marriage in the MA Dem platform but that he had no intention of lobbying against it, "Kerry taking on the gays." The same Kos who picked up the Boston Globe's charge that Kerry was trying to position himself as an "outsider" and presented it so that most reasonable readers would think the claims of outsider-hood came straight from Kerry himself.

    Why should we believe that Kos has the inside scoop on anything involving Kerry, or that he would give it to us spin-free if he did?

    It made sense to me that Kerry was involved in the response today -- he's the Dem who's proposed the most detailed plan on Iraq, so far as I'm aware, and he's been speaking out on it non-stop for weeks now (though you might not know that from reading stuff on this site). But if other Dems thought Kerry was pushing too hard, well, I'd be surprised if Kos heard a range of perspectives on how it went over, and I'd be even more surprised if he made an effort to present what he got objectively.

    •  Jim Crow (2.50)
      Kerry wasn't in favor of putting ending racial discrimiantion and allowing mixed race marriages in the MA Dem platform but that he had no intention of lobbying against it.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:02:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, no shit (none)
        I live in Massachuesetts, and believe me, Kerry was no supporter. "Taking on the gays" might be a little strong - "selling them up the river" would probably be about right.

        And this from a guy who likes Kerry.

        Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

        by MonkeyDog102 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:19:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What's the matter... (none)
        ...MH in PA and eremos?

        Don't like the accurate analogy about Kerry?

        Color me shocked that people can't see or stand having the moral and ethical indefensibility of their "leaders" and their views about equal rights for non-heterosexuals thrown in their faces.

        Fucking pathetic.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

        by Lestatdelc on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:17:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Gee! (thinks Kerry) if only!" (4.00)

    John you had the chance to go for the jugular about 1,479,284,093,872 times agains the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, and you still lost!

    Stop trying to re-capture the "magic" that you never had.  Sure, we campaigned our asses off for you and we knew that you (or a little spot of pus from a busted blister for that matter) would make a much better President than the Idiot playing the President right now.  But you blew it.  

    So, work hard, vote for 'the little guy', don't give an inch against the wingnuts and, you know what, many, many Americans will respect you.  But act like a pompous, pushy, "if only . . ." limelight-thief, to the detriment of party unity, and we'll turn on you -- but quick.

    BenGoshi
    _________________

     

    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:52:56 PM PST

    •  Well, he did have magic (3.50)
      He had the whole freakin' left side of the political spectrum on his side. Unless we come up against another Bush, I doubt we will ever see that kind of unity again.

      That's what makes Kerry's loss in 2004 somewhat disheartening - he was the candidate (albeit, not one most of us wanted) of all liberals and Democrats, and he still lost.

  •  A Senator NEVER gives the Democratic response (3.50)
    alone.  Not even Reid. Give us a break.
  •  asdf (4.00)
    Did you actually listen to Kerry?  If you didn't fall asleep half way through, it didn't matter, since they cut him off anyway because even the news channels were bored out of their minds.  The guy is a dud.  If Kerry is the best the Democrats can do it is no wonder the Republicans are in charge.
  •  We will make sure every vote is counted! (none)
    hmpf.

    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. [George Orwell]

    by Krush on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:55:30 PM PST

    •  are there any votes (4.00)
      that weren't counted??

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:11:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh. (none)
        good one. The entire US was red last election. I forgot.

        If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. [George Orwell]

        by Krush on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:39:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not at all (none)
          the really cool election maps take up too much bandwidth.

          v. purple indeed.

          and shifting blue ever since.

          was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

          by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:41:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And that every vote *counts* (none)
        The counting was not in fact finished until more than a month after Election Day - yet he conceded anyway.

        And of course, if they were not counted when they could have made a difference in perceptions, they could not have possibly counted for much of anything, could they?

        No matter how many Kerry apologists there are who now are finally trying to spin his direct promise every which way but Sunday (after notably failing to even try for many months, an honesty through utter silence which I wish they'd get back to since the current "oh he didn't really mean it quite like that being fundamentally dishonest and a direct slap in the face, IMO, to African-Americans who he begged to mobilize for him - and who answered that call in record numbers because of that promise), Kerry made no caveats or exceptions about his "every vote to be counted, and every vote to count" promise and repeated it several times after it was first made at the NAACP convention.  Many of his own supporters and certainly many party leaders - not to mention his own running mate - reminded him of the non-caveated/spun nature of that promise on Election Night.  And Kerry showed exactly who he was and what mattered to him when he ran and hid before the absentee ballots were even counted in Ohio just because he personally couldn't benefit from it.  And took his cowardly ass out of the country when he could have at least salvaged some pretense of good faith, through his sudden conclusion that visiting Iraq on a fact-finding mission was far more important than standing up on the floor of the Senate in January and calling out the brutalization of largely poor and Black voters in Ohio.  

        It's for this reason more than any other that I am not the only person who has committed to actively work against Kerry if he places himself in contention ever again for the Presidency (and I'm proud to say unlike him I'm one of those people because I keep my promises and don't let folks try to spin me out of them once they are no longer convenient for my personal goals).  Others can focus on his lackluster campaign and all that.  For me, it is the utter lack of character and loyalty he demonstrated towards those who stood out for sometimes close to a full day in response to his call, just because he could no longer be President.

        My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

        by shanikka on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 08:09:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Every thing I see Kerry do.... (4.00)
    ...reminds me why I supported Howard Dean and reinforces the wisdom of that choice.

    Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

    by PAprogressive on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:56:24 PM PST

  •  One word (none)
    PATHETIC!
    PEACE!
  •  And the moral of the story (4.00)
    Is this: In 2008, the Democrats cannot nominate someone who voted "yes" on the Iraq resolution, or it will be deja vu all over again.

    That means no Bayh, no Biden, no Clinton, no Kerry, and no Edwards.

    Given the party's extremely thin bench--the result of decades of neglect by inside-the-Beltway party "leadership"--this quintet's decision to vote "yes" makes a bad situation all the worse.

  •  People!! (3.83)
    You need far more facts here! I'm no Kerry fan, though we all hoped someone would do battle with the known evils last year. He let me down too, but I still think he would have been at least O.K. as President.

    But really! Did he butt in and try to take center stage? I didn't see that in any of the extensive coverage I looked at today. Was he "nuanced" and Kerry? Yes. Do he and the likes of Clinton type dems need serious looking at from we voters? Of course. These types of dems are dangerously close to the corporate interests of the right wing.

    Slow down. This is going to take time to turn around. But getting all worked up over whether Kerry speaking out today was ill advised or not is nothing more than a distraction.

    I doubt very much he caused any harm to the party and if at all, only to himself.

    "If you're going through hell, keep going". -Winston Churchill

    by One bite at a time on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:07:23 PM PST

  •  ok, I'll be the one (none)
    I don't trust John Kerry any more.  I mean I really, really don't trust him.

    I spent a full year telling everyone I knew how he was the perfect person to be President in 2004.  I talked numerous green friends into him.  Through all of that, I never got around to sticking in the DVD of him speaking to the Senate back in the day- the famous "last man to die for a mistake" line.  I was shocked to find that, to me, the whole thing looked eerily like it was, well, staged.

    Today my trust sunk still futher.  I just can't get it out of my head that Skull & Bones was chartered to recruit young men for espionage.

    •  the manchurian kerry (none)
      coulda been a good movie.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:16:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (none)
      I know it's tin-foily, but damn I can't get that out of my mind either.  Bush and Kerry: Skull and Bones alumni.   Both implicitly dedicated to, if not sworn to, the manifest destiny of the wealthy American "Christian" elite to preside over a New World Order.  

      Skull and Bones is some major weird shit.  Too substantively weird, beyond reasonable doubt, to not believe there is something more sinister at work in how Kerry seems to have trouble clearly articulating opposition to Bush's policies of Empire and Pax Americana.  This despite being a very intelligent man.  Instead of him simply being a hapless flip flopping waffler, how about this hypothesis: he simply AGREES with it and supports these objectives, but can't come out and fucking say it for obvious political reasons!

      The S & B commonality suggests a conspiracy of sorts, possibly derived from shared beliefs in the divine right of their class to rule over America and the world?

  •  Yeah, fuck Kerry (3.75)
    He's one of those guys from the sanctimonious "women's studies" set.  They hang around with the longhair hippie anti-war types.  

    Fuck him.  He's a miserable failure.  I mean, he only got more votes than Ronnie Reagan in his landslide.  

    And he uses long words that nobody can figure out.  What a douche!

    Let's spend all our energy stabbing our own guys in the back.  That'll be helpful in 2006!

    New Orleans will never die

    by hrh on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:07:56 PM PST

  •  Bogart even as a verb (1.50)
    shoudln't be used in the same sentence with Kerry. Bogart in his movies was either an out and out bad guy or a jaded cynic with a heart of gold. He never played anyone weak, morally ambiguous, confused or petty like our real life swift boat hypocrite Kerry.

    What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail? unknown

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:09:50 PM PST

  •  Kerry/Reed press conference - scheduled yesterday (4.00)
    It would be great if you guys provided some facts to prove that Kerry usurped Reed, but there aren't any - except these:

    The Kerry/Reed press conference was scheduled yesterday by Kerry's press office. The following media advisory was recieved at 2:30 pm, pst.

    Media Advisory *

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                  
    November 29, 2005                                                                                        
    John Kerry, Jack Reed to Hold Press Conference on Iraq

    Senator John Kerry and Senator Jack Reed will hold a press conference on Wednesday, November 30, on Iraq.    

    Earlier this month, Kerry introduced his Strategy for Success in Iraq Act - a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and redeploy the vast majority of American combat troops as specific benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis are met, beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December.  

    The goal of Kerry's plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the military draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.  If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.  

    Who:    Senator John Kerry
                    Senator Jack Reed

    What:   Press conference on Iraq

    When:   Wednesday, November 30  
                    11:00 - 11:30 a.m.

    Where:  Mansfield Room
                    U.S. Capitol, S-207

    # # #

    A version of this was posted here - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/...

    Furthermore the audio and trascript for the press conference are here - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/...

    Kerry isn't going away. He's a viable leader in the Democratic Party and he has the largest email list of any member of the party. You can complain all you like, but Kerry is here to stay.

    http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

    by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:10:34 PM PST

    •  And here's how a friend on Kerry's (3.50)
      mailing list responded just the other day:

      "I won't unsubscribe from your list, but I find it interesting that currentevents such as the "switftboating" of Jack Murtha become an
      opportunity for johnkerry.com to raise contributions. Would these be devoted to
      another presidential run? Kerry had chance after chance to prove himself in 04, and blew it. I canvassed for him twice in PA, and I feel he betrayed me by conceding the election a day later. I won't give Kerry another chance. Sorry to be impolite, but this is the truth: shove your contributions."

      Message to Kerry:  You are a good man.  But you will never be President. Deal with it.

      •  feel sorry for you and your friend (4.00)
        because your both in the minority and not well informed at all.

        http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

        by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:25:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the interest of full disclosure (none)
          do you work for Kerry's campaign or office in some way?  Again, I like Kerry as a senator - and I'm not trashing you for working for him if it's true - but a review of your diaries indicates that you might have a professional interest in this discussion.
          •  people have wondered (none)
            if markos had a professional interests in who his favorite dems are.

            i thought that approach was kind of offensive.

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:10:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Everything I do is gratis - (4.00)
            always has been.

            I respect Senator Kerry and honestly feel that some in the blogosphere are now and always have been unfair to him.

            No one helps the democratic party when they misrepresent his statements and positions, or any other democratic leaders statements and positions for that matter.

            This post here is a prime example. Reed was obviously thrilled to be giving the press conference with Kerry today and vice versa. It was obvious to anyone who watched.

            Kerry was the first in the Senate to strongly speak out and have the media listen. As Gary Hart noted today Kerry jump started the debate last month with his speech at Georgetown. Why is it so hard for some to accept that?

            http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

            by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:54:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  ..OK.. (none)
          ..in the minority where?  Just curious as to what numbers you're using from where?
        •  gosh, that's a good way to win a convert (none)

          Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

          by MonkeyDog102 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:43:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Do you not see (none)
        That it might be possable that Kerry is talking to all Dem across America about what the Dem's will be doing the next #3 years befor 2008

        It isn't enough to expose a lie. It is necrssary to propagate the truth. That is the duty of a free press and a free people.

        by Luetta on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:33:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  well i guess that settles that (3.00)
      thanks for the info.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:17:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  about that email list.... (none)
      I get Kerry's emails all the time. They annoy the hell out of me - and he's my Senator. I signed up for them to be a part of the campaign - not to be part of some sort of mythical Kerry Community.

      How many active supporters do you really think he has on that list?

      Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

      by MonkeyDog102 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:29:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And? (none)
      How does that contradict Markos? Go reread the post. He didn't claim Kerry scheduled his presser this morning (only that he scheduled it for this morning, but not when the scheduling took place). Markos' claim is that Reid had set up an event with Reed in response to Shrub's speech before Kerry came along and ursurped it. You got any evidence contradicting Markos' claim, you put it on the table.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:51:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I provided evidence that Kerry/Reed was scheduled (4.00)
        yesterday. Where's Kos evidence that it was supposed to be otherwise? If he had it he should have linked to it. Don't you think?

        http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

        by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:58:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair enough (none)
          Markos is obviously citing gossip, nothing linkable-toable. And as we know from past experience (I'm referring specifically to that regrettable Donna-Brazile-Sista-Soulja post nearly a year ago), citing gossip isn't necessarily "good (blogging) politics". I'm not going to defend that.

          Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

          by brainwave on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:29:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Is there anyway I can give this (none)
      20 "4"s
  •  Lieberman on Hannity tonight (3.00)
    We have to get rid of this guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.dumpjoe.com

    Don't complain about the media, BE IT

    by terhuxtim on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:15:19 PM PST

  •  Kerry didn't vote for the war (4.00)
    Kos, please don't repeat that Republican talking point. We all know Kerry's vote to give Bush the authority to act was not a vote to go to war. In retrospect that was its consequence, but we didn't know that at the time. It was a poor decision by those Dems to put any trust whatsoever in Bush's judgement. But it wasn't a vote for the war. It just annoyed me to see that talking point so often parroted by the mainstream media during the election, and it's doubly frustrating to see it here now on dkos. Kerry's jumping into the limelight today may be inappropriate, but that's no reason to start speaking Republican about him all of a sudden.
    •  Sorry (4.00)
      but that's crap. We all knew what that vote meant when it happened. It meant we were going to war.

      I remember the day he announced how he was going to vote. My friend turned to me and said "He just burned his base. He'll never win."

      Yep.

      Come get lost in our world: www.politicsandletters.com

      by MonkeyDog102 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:31:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was there along with (none)
      Maybe 300 million other Americans in October of 2002.  And a vote for the resolution was implicitly a vote for war.  You can kid yourself but the whole atmosphere leading up to that vote was a huge drumbeat.  I followed the debate fanatically and will always remember who was present and accounted for and who knifed this country in the back and why.  Don't fucking kid me.

      "I'm an insect who dreamed he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over..." - Charles E. Pogue, "The Fly".

      by edsdet on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:33:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I assume you realize (none)
      that by your logic, nobody voted for the war.

      Gawddammit, I can't begin to tell you just how fucking tired I am of these pathetic attempts at shirking responsibility. Pathetic, just truly pathetic.

      Face it: every single Senator who voted for the IWR carries a portion of the responsibility for this fucked up and disastrous war.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:41:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a portion is what they should hold themselves (none)
        accountable for....

        this...

        rangel asked "sean who do you think started this war, john kerry??"

        and hannity said "yes."

        is every bit as pathetic.  nah.  it's just hysterically ludicrous.

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:03:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure - so what? (none)
          The Senate's responsibility for this mess comes nowhere near Bush's responsibility. But this is about that part of the responsibility that they do have. Do you think it makes a lot of sense to folks out there - or is good politics, for that matter - to say it's not my fault, I'm just a little Senator, how could I have known that Bush is an evil moron, don't blame me, I just got myself elected to give very important long-winded speeches on the Senate floor, I don't really have any influence on how the country is run? There was a defining moment during the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, I think (it may have also been post-Iowa). The question to Kerry and Edwards (and Lieberman?) was, you enabled the war, do you assume responsility for the soldiers dying in Iraq now. Kerry spoke for several minutes, throwing the usual smoke. Nobody had much of a clue what he was saying, but he sure as hell didn't say he thought he should assume any responsibility. Then Edwards just loughed in his face and said sure, of course I assume full responsibility for the consequences of my vote. I'm not at all an Edwards fan, but he scored huge points then.

          Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

          by brainwave on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:46:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  kerry has taken responsibility (none)
            for his vote.  people handle these things in different ways.  i don't think murtha is walking around with a hairshirt on.

            so, incidentally, why didn't murtha know that bush is an evil moron??

            and every time someone on dkos tells me kerry didn't say something, i go find the transcript and sure enough, it was wedged in there in amongst a lot of words, but sure enough there it is.

            so you'll forgive if i don't completely trust your depiction of the primary debate.  i'm sure there's some truth to it.  but i'm sure there's lots of your opinion about kerry there too.

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:57:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  that's true (4.00)
      i'll sometimes tune into hannity and colmes to see if any dems are on, and over and over and over...

      "dems voted for this war."

      "dems voted for this war."

      it's on the scroll at the bottom of the screen....  

      "dems voted for this war."

      rangel was on once, and he asked "sean who do you think started this war, john kerry??"

      and hannity said "yes."

      i get annoyed, and go to dkos for a breath of fresh air.

      and ... well... it's THE republican talking point.  and we buy it.  hook.  line.  sinker.

      was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

      by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:58:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mary Pitt on Kerry (none)
    Pitt speaks for me in her Scoop article yesterday entitled Howard Dean's Fund Raising Woes -

    When Dr. Dean was running for the presidential nomination, there were many of us "small people" who were willing to dig into our very shallow pockets to donate whatever we could spare to assist in the changes which he and other progressive Democrats hoped to effect. Throughout the primary campaign, the field seemed to consist of Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, and Gephardt with a smaller amount of support for Braun and Sharpton. With the assistance of the media, the "establishment Democrats" weighed in and John Kerry swept in and took home all the marbles. We witnessed a campaign in which Sen Kerry, a true war hero in his own right was instantly put on the defensive and the same media which promoted his candidacy turned against him and gave us a Bush re-run, right down to another election scandal which went largely unreported until it was too late to correct it.

    The progressives among us became understandably gun-shy. We are holding our fire and keeping our little bits of money in our pockets until we are sure that it will be used on behalf of those policies which we espouse. The Democratic Party as a national organization, as well as the media, is looking no further than those politicians whom we regularly see on the Sunday morning news shows, mouthpieces for the party line, Republican-lites, and stay-the-course advocates, willing to play nice at the game of "politics -as-usual". They cannot see beyond the huge profiles of Clinton, Biden, Kerry, and Gore while the media likes to hype an all-female field headed by Hillary on one side and Condi Rice on the other. With a contest like that, most of us who truly care about our country and its well-being may just stay home in bed and cover up our heads.

  •  kos is wrong (4.00)
    1. We can't exclude politicians who voted for the war from the discussion just like we can exclude Americans who supported the war AT ONE TIME from the debate. Kerry did not vote for the war Bush waged. I suggest people go and read his statement before the war. He made it clear it was not a vote for war.

    2. Whether Kos likes it or not Kerry is a prominent Dem in a way Jack Reed is not. Kerry did a good job rebutting Bush's speech.
    •  ..so.. (none)
      ..is he saying he stands by his vote? Why did it take him a year after the election to come up with his Murtha-lite Iraq plan?
      •  his plan (4.00)
        is actually more aggressive than feingold's is at this point.

        and who knows why people do things when they do it.  why did murtha wait a year??

        (sheese, now that i think of it... if murtha spoke out last year, we actually may have kerry in the white house right now.  which... i guess  that would be bad... so scratch that thought.)

        well.  we know this:

        kerry and feingold are potential candidates in '08.
        murtha is not.

        was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

        by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:07:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ..kay. (none)
          ..so we have this from the press release above: "Earlier this month, Kerry introduced his Strategy for Success in Iraq Act - a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and redeploy the vast majority of American combat troops as specific benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis are met, beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December.  

          The goal of Kerry's plan is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing a political settlement and the military draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.  If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months."

          Not sure I can join you in calling this aggressive.  Sounds like if we can only kinda move a little this way and then hopefully get some things like this to happen we can then start to consider taking these few and move them a little over there and specifically thinking about responsibly meeting objectives designed to draw down a bit the majority of troops responsbibly, specifically linked to a settlement of some political things.

          •  sounds to me like (none)
            because we can't solve the situation at the end of a gun, we need to start getting troops out of there and focus on pursuing a political settlement.

            was it a millionaire who said "imagine no possessions."?/a poor little schoolboy who said "we don't need no lessons."? -- macmanus

            by BiminiCat on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:28:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Try this (4.00)
            Kerry's plan calls for:

            • The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark -the successful completion of the December elections - is met.

            • The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

            • The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

            • The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

            • The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

            • The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

            • The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

            • The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq's neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

            • Iraq's Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process.

            • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America's diplomatic efforts.

            • The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

            • The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

            http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/...

            http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

            by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:02:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ..fine. (none)
              ..and all mostly the obvious things.  Here's what I'm talking about:

              "..phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met."

              How about losing the last 8 words?  The only responsible plan that is devoid of wishful thinking is to begin withdrawing on an aggressive timetable no matter what.

              Here's a good "benchmark":  In 1991 we crossed the border into Iraq in Feb, wrapped up ops in March and redeployed 500,000 troops in the region by April.  We can do it in 3 months.  The Israelis have redeployed in their wars in practically hours.  What historical "benchmark" is Kerry's plan founded on?

  •  If Kerry hypothetically (none)
    won the primaries. I would vote for him.
  •  thanks kerry - in case I need a reminder of (1.50)
    what an UNelectable piece of crap candidate you were, are, and will be.  

    I know that the standard of performance in the Dem party is:

    NOT as crooked as bushco, (ethical)
    NOT as selfish as bushco, (selfless)
    NOT as mean as bushco, (noble)

    BUT

    my standard of performance is winning AND, more importantly, winning so we can improve our global village of 6 billion people.

    fuck kerry, he is a failure.

    rmm.

    Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by rmdSeaBos on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:32:25 PM PST

  •  "wiseR" Kerry - no wiser (none)
    Most Democrats in American do not know this.

    Kerry "finally" allowed his military record to be released. Remember how he wouldn't last summer when the GOP was kickin his ass over his military record? This past spring (it was only in the news for barely a day) Kerry finally allowed the military to release his records. And guess what? It was this stellar/glowing file with many accommodations and letters of excellence. Even ( and most importantly) letters and remarks on his performance from those that were part of the SWIFT BOAT ILK. Yes - the Swift Boat fuckers - repeat there were letters of accommodation from the very folks that were attacking him. Why oh why didn't Kerry release the record last summer during the all the controversy? Major MISTAKE. It is beyond me and most of us here. Being principled and reserved and thinking staying above this was  "presidential" just let the Repugs beat the hell out him and got the Democrats nowhere.

    The difference in being wise and being foolish are very much displayed here in the way Kerry responded to the Swift Boat Attacks. Kerry and his miserable staff didn't even fight back. Releasing his military records right then and there would have been squashed that whole thing. In this case it was unwise - ah follish for him to not to release these transcripts.

    So now the "wiseR" Kerry speaks out day after day this year. Great...

    Speaking out and acting like he had some balls then would have prevented a whole 2004 summer of Swift Boat shit. It cost him and Democrats the election. If he had only done this we would most likely be calling him President Kerry now.

    It is very likely that Kerry is joining the race in 2008. If today is any evidence. It is. A it's a race that is shaping up to be a mean food fight compared to the picnic it was in 2004. No more Mr. or Ms. nice Guy/Gal will be the theme of the day.

    Same from me.

    When Kerry speaks - and when someone posts on him I am going to remind everyone of the "wiseR" Kerry we have now.

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:45:19 PM PST

  •  Kerry is a national leader (none)
    he may not have been the leader we want, but he is still someone American's know, and when he speaks, the media has to give it some attention.  Maybe he doesn't say what we want, or say it exactly as we would like, but it isn't up to us.  He's earned the right to do what he thinks is right.  Come 2008, no one is going to force us to vote for him.  

    "...the vice president seems to have a tendency to want to embellish the facts, to make up facts to try to make a point." Dick Cheney 10/10/00

    by gobacktotexas on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:55:40 PM PST

  •  John Kerry Took My Shoe! (n/t) (4.00)

    .08 Acres
    .0000016% of Massachusetts political commentary

    by sco08 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 06:55:51 PM PST

  •  well... (none)
    Well, if true, this might make it harder for him to get establishment Dem support for another 08 bid, so you could count this as a positive if you don't want him in 08.

    Visit my blog Penndit. Media, politics, campaigns, and political communications.

    by Newsie8200 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:00:25 PM PST

    •  well.... (none)
      what in Sam Hill would make you think it's true?

      (okay, maybe you don't, and are just being more diplomatic than I can find it in me to be.)

      There is no credible source for kos' allegation. Kos has a history of Kerry-bashing.

      Of course, as you point out, if true the Kerry-haters should be jumping for joy because that kind of behavior will hurt Kerry in any 2008 run.

      Seems to me an indicator of the opposite. The more positive media attention Kerry gets, the more he gets bashed at dailykos. Hmmm.....

      •  Kerry's had a reputation for (none)
        this sort of thing in the past, which would make it more believable than if we were talking about Sen. Bingaman or someone else.

        Kos may or may not have alterior motives, and some DC Dems may or may not have alterior motives... but this isn't the first time I've heard or read something similar about Kerry.

        Visit my blog Penndit. Media, politics, campaigns, and political communications.

        by Newsie8200 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:14:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry has earned the right to speak ... (4.00)
    on Iraq or any other subject. He's earned that right on the battlefield, in the Vietnam peace movement, in the Senate, and on the campaign trail. No Senate majority leader, DNC chair, pundit, blogger, or regular Democrat should ever question Kerry's right to speak on national matters any time he chooses. Criticize the content, but never the right to speak freely, especially with someone like Kerry who has served America with such distinction for so many decades.
    •  And I got the right to pick my ass (2.75)
      but I don't do it as a rapid response to a "major" Bush speech.

      Holyfuckin dogshit, I heard him live on my SIRIUS and I couldn't understand what the fuck he was talking about at all.

      Get to the point already Hermann.

      --Liberate your radio--

      by Sam Loomis on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:08:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's no wonder ... (4.00)
        ... the public doesn't take our party and its candidates seriously. Look at what we do to them. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a Democrat because of the way we act toward our nominees, especially if they don't win. We practically ignored Jimmy Carter until recent years, and we kicked Al Gore around for months after 2000, and we're doing the same with Kerry. Whatever your feelings about our past candidates, I think it's clear we get better than we are, by and large.
        •  Rooseveldt Was a GREAT Democrat (none)
          But these Washington Dems don't hold a candle to him in any case. Right now we have the specticle of the Dem Senate 'Leadership' scrambling to get on the caboose of the last train out of Iraq.  

          There are literally still people driving around with 'Vietnam Vet Against Kerry' bumper stickers in my town. I think they are Republicans... so I am not one of them. But I'd bet they just would come in their bib overalls at a second Kerry nomination.

          And Napa county went heavily for Kerry, but the rest of California... not so much. With all the Diebold DRE equipment going in, I don't want to take a chance on another Kerry run.

          Kerry is all washed up as a Presidential candidate within the party, so imagine how he would do in 2008 with another few hundred million spent re-inforcing the successful 'Swift-Boating' and 'Purple Heart' bandaids of 2004.

          LL

          "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

          by LeftyLimblog on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:36:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Jesus Fucking Christ (1.20)
    Learn to SPEAK you dick.

    --Liberate your radio--

    by Sam Loomis on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:06:28 PM PST

  •  Kos lies again (4.00)
    In case people missed the import of KerryGoddess's statement above, let me spell it out:

    Kos is 100%, flat-out wrong. It could be an honest mistake, but given Kos's "It's OK to make shit up, so long as the target is Kerry" standard of ethics, I doubt it. So I'm calling it a lie. If the disinformation gets retracted, I'll retract my statement.

    I didn't connect the dots before, but in fact all of us Kerrycrats knew yesterday that Kerry would have a press conference today. The news was widely circulated. So Kos's claim that Kerry called a press conference this morning and had to be shoehorned into one that had been set up yesterday for Reed is flat-out, 100%, unadulterated manure.

    •  Glad You Put That Out There for Us (none)
      But I still don't want Kerry to run for President in 2008.

      A sample of the weekly tiresome Kerry2008 thread:

      Yes
        No!
          Yes!
            No...
            No!
      Yes!
        No?
        No!
        NO!
          Yes
            No-No-No
            Nooooooo
      NO!
        No Goddamnit!
        No Can't you take a hint?
        NO, can we move on now?  

      There I saved us all a buncha time.

      I don't care if Kos got it wrong about appointment setting and such.

      Watch the 'Daily Show' clip on Kerry tonight.

      I don't want Kerry2008!  

      EVAH!

      LL

      "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

      by LeftyLimblog on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:59:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So then (none)
        the truth is irrelevant to you when it comes to Kerry?

        That pretty much sums up all the Kerry bashers on this site, especially Kos. You look for an angle, an excuse to bash Kerry in a different way so you don't post the same repetitive, redundant arguements. Because it is all about the same issues (no charisma, longwinded he lost, didn't contest results), all common knowledge. He is the goat of 2004 and like a bunch of petty sports fans (you all know the type I am referring to) whose team lost the world series, you want to feel better about yourselves but flaming Kerry, like you did Gore, and all the other "losers" in the past. Not because it achieves any worthwile objective, but because you enjoy it. It makes you feel better.

        And that is ALL it accomplishes, and we all know it (Kerry bashers and defenders alike).
         

  •  Kos lies again (4.00)
    In case people missed the import of KerryGoddess's statement above, let me spell it out:

    Kos is 100%, flat-out wrong. It could be an honest mistake, but given Kos's "It's OK to make shit up, so long as the target is Kerry" standard of ethics, I doubt it. So I'm calling it a lie. If the disinformation gets retracted, I'll retract my statement.

    I didn't connect the dots before, but in fact all of us Kerrycrats knew yesterday that Kerry would have a press conference today. The news was widely circulated. So Kos's claim that Kerry called a press conference this morning and had to be shoehorned into one that had been set up yesterday for Reed is flat-out, 100%, unadulterated manure.

  •  ..eremos.. (none)
    ..is giving out lots of 3's tonight.  
  •  ..eremos.. (none)
    ..is giving out lots of 3's tonight.  
  •  This is so COOL! (4.00)
    Bush gives a "major speech" which is completely bogus, and kos and his pals spend all this energy trashing....

    Kerry.

    dKos, where progressive energy goes to die...

    •  You said it! (4.00)
      Somehow the hot topic isn't what Reed said or what Kerry said. Once again, the hot newsflash of the night is, "Kos still hates Kerry!"

      And Francisco Franco is still dead.

      •  Lots of people like to trash a party (none)
        I did listen to Kerry and couldn't understand exactly what his proposals were and the line about soldiers being Americans flew right by me.  I must not be a Yale graduate or something.

        I don't know for a fact whether Kerry was pushy today or not.  But when I have heard him speak, it has not encouraged me to believe the dems are leading, but discouraged me.  Just my reaction.

        I guess some dems just like his way of speaking.  That's o.k. too.  For myself, I would like a fighter.  Kerry was a fighter once, but not so much now.  

        •  No, I really don't (none)
          like his style of speaking, but I ACCEPT that as one of his flaws.

          Look if Kos simply limited the criticism to that area and the flaws in the speech, that's fine. But no he had to throw in accusations without backing them up (which he never does when it comes to other politicians, even Bush). I really think the Kos just wants to bash Kerry without sounding like alot of the other Bloggers he criticizes, so he tries to come up with fresh excuses to bash Kerry, but really, its the same reason it always, Kerry's the loser of 04 and thats all that matters.

    •  I respectfully disagree (none)
      W's bogus speech has been well trashed from what I can see.  

      Beyond that, now what is wrong with trashing that which should be trashed?  Why give cancers, like Joementum and Kerry, as pass?  They suck life-energy from the progressive cause and give aid and comfort to the enemy (Joe explicitly so, but Kerry does so implicitly with triangulated nuances when brass-knuckled punches are called for).  

      I say those who are truly standing in the way should be called out!  They don't deserve special treatment because there is a (D) at the end of their name.  Loyalty cuts BOTH ways.

  •  Fair (4.00)
    Kerry lost and a lot of people who put sincere energy, money, time into it, felt let down.

    They are both sad/angry at the loss in general because of Bush, but separately, feel that Kerry and Washington Dems, sliced one way or another, have been hired by the people to deal with the political situation, and simply win, and they did not.

    So, there is a level of anger that exists at Kerry about being let down, completely separate from any other specific issue.

    Fortunately or unfortunately, accurately or not, this particular anger is expressed by attempting to sum up why Kerry lost, in the form of some core deficiency he has and putting all the anger (at least part of which does not have to do with that issue) on that issue.

    This goes on.

    Yet, I think it's completely unrealistic to assume that a person who receives that particular portion of anger directed at them, translated into some particular specific criticism, will not respond vociferously and repeatedly in an attempt to either improve their stances, plans and actions on the particular issue mentioned, or attempt to show the flaws in the argument.

    Politicians, after all, are hired to represent the people.  
    As long as they have the job, it would be realistic to assume they will not in some fashion indeed attempt to change so as to mirror what the people want.  
    If what the people want is not entirely clear, the politician will attempt to forge a view, plan, ideas, etc, obviously.

    It's human and it's in the nature of the job they are doing.  We need to deal with that.

    Today's problem is that Kerry's way of dealing with the laying of all blame for the election at the feet of his war stance, is going to be to explain or evolve his war stance.  
    But that's what we all implicitly asked for when we complained about it, isn't it, like it or not? Especially as the war is still going on and people are dying?  

    If the anger is not about his war stance, then why continue to talk about it?  What is it about?
    What do you want him to do?

    Perhaps it's about how he talks.  Of course, the catch 22 is he will then work on his talking and you will then continue to hear him talk.

    If you make his loss about X, he will attempt to address X.
    If you make it about the fact he's a politician, he'll probably just check to see if that's still legal and if he meets the basic requirements and if this ongoing politicking is in fact what pols do, and he'll continue.

    If you make it about any thing, that thing will get addressed, over and over ... until somebody no longer cares.  
    But Kerry will always care, of that I can assure you.  
    He's alive and he will be who he is.  

    Any feedback, especially angry feedback from his own party, who he cares about, will simply be incorporated into his growth spiral as a person and politician, in some way.
    Until he retires and even then he'll most likely write books, give lectures, be a mentor or whatever.

    He doesn't necessarily deserve any more of a leading role than any other similarly experienced Dem leader.  
    He did release a plan a few weeks back, more detailed than most others have done, and he's not just dropping it, he's promoting it, as one would expect, right?  
    That's what pols do.

    Maybe the easiest thing would be to just say what war stance or speaking style specifically, literally you WOULD like to hear from him (other than silence) and then perhaps you might even get just that!

    :)

    •  Don't interpret this as (4.00)
      an endorsement of Kerry 08, it's not
      I think we need a different kind of candidate

      But I accept that Kerry exists, he's passionate and he will not give up ... whether he's perceived as a slow or flawed learner by some; and whether his passion is effectively conveyed to the people in general or to certain demographics, or not; or any other deficiency

      I actually like that, just on principle, the spirit

      The dKos community has that spirit obviously, along with other qualities, which is why we're winning

      But some others, though their style is different, also may have that fundamental sense of not giving up
      I think partly why it doesn't register between people that this exists in both, is they each are assessing the situation subjectively, and coming up with a different view on what is doable, appropriate ... and anybody can be wrong, very wrong, and blind, as we've seen w/ Bush

      But actually that sense of basic willingness to go on is good, overall, imho

    •  Did he really lose? (none)
      Or did Bush steal it again?

      I bet sometimes you say Bush stole. I bet many of the Kerry naysayers here do including Kos.

      http://www.thedemocraticdaily.com

      by kerrygoddess on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:22:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which was it? (4.00)
        Let's see.  So far tonight I've heard apologists for the status quo offer the following reasons that Kerry finished 2nd behind Bush:

        1 - Iowa did it
        2 - Ohio did it
        3 - Nader did it
        4 - Bush stole it
        5 - Diebold stole it

        How about this one: Kerry lost.  He ran a poor campaign.  He blew it on the Swiftboaters.  He blew it on Iraq.  He blew it on the economy.  He blew it on religion.  He blew it.

        And when the hell is Kerry going to grow balls and admit his own mistakes?

        If the Democrats want a candidate who can win, that candidate will need to have the spirit of Dean, the honesty of Murtha, the morality of Feingold, and the salesmanship of Clinton.

        That cuts out a lot of people...most of the "heavyweights".

  •  Automated Kerry Response (none)
    "Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam Iraq someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to dies so that President Nixon Bush won't be, and these are his my words, 'the first second President to lose a war.'

    "We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to dies in Vietnam Iraq? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

    "But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says, and says clearly: But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism terrorism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the communists radicals or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.

    "But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism radicals all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

    Until Kerry can answer the question:

    "How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
    I have no patience for him.

    The Dem who best answers that question will win in 2008.

  •  john-i quit-kerry? (none)
    i lost all respect for him the day he quit. the ohio election was a fraud and everyone knew it but he said -i quit, i`m going home. i had kids on my soccer teams that had more guts than kerry....go away john you are no longer a creditable voice of the future of the democratic party
  •  The point is not (none)
    that Kerry grabbed the limelight, or may have strong-armed his way onto the podium...

    The point is not that Kerry maintains ambitions to higher political office...

    These are all to be expected, and in many cases applauded.

    The POINT is that Kerry (again) failed to seize the moment, failed to deliver, and failed to hit that fat slow-ball in the middle of the plate (otherwise known as Bush's stupid "speech") out of the park.

    WHERE is the Kerry who hammered those debates last year?

    WHERE is the Kerry who hammered BCCI and Iran Contra into dust?

    WHERE is the Kerry who hammered Nixon and the Swiftboaters into goo back in the 1970's?

    The dissection of Bush's lies is being done by numerous diarists and other prominent bloggers...

    The FACT is that Kerry is failing to articulate, communicate, and hammer home the basic facts and the crucial message.

    If he is going to grab the mic (as is to be expected) he better fucking USE it!

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:47:43 PM PST

    •  Interesting Point (none)
      Watch the Daily Show clip about Kerry tonight and even Jon Stewart skewers him on a night that House Minority Leader Pelosi is the guest.

      Upthread, somebody said we should tell Kerry what to do... OK!

      Kerry should stay in the Senate, announce it loud and clear now.

      And he can wait for the 'Draft Kerry' movement to get above 13 people, and the adoring but confused crowds find their way to carry him out of the Senate chamber on their shoulders.

      I guess I should also say, "Don't hold your breath, John", too.

      LL

      "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

      by LeftyLimblog on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:43:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  kerry (none)
    again with the kerry bashing. such a good site kos, but i am so tired of this bullshit. maybe i am just coming around to groking the intra party nonsense of the democratic party but is kos a nest of deani ack, ack, acks?? not that there's anything wrong with that...
  •  kerry should never again be let near a camera (3.00)
    and he was a fucking pathetic candidate in 2004, but standards are standards, markos, and allegations like this need to be backed with either links or sources. the insider whisper game sucks when the media big boys do it, and it sucks when bloggers do it. i wouldn't be surprised if this were in fact true, but without more than a knowing wink, i'm not prepared to take it any more seriously than your gossip about donna brazile.

    it cuts both ways.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 08:12:02 PM PST

  •  Oh dear sweet God (4.00)
    please stop with the Kerry bashing.  What, exactly, is the point of all this???  Move on, people.  If you want Kerry to move into irrelevance, then he can do that all by himself.  But please at least acknowledge that he put himself directly in the path of a machine formidable enough to elect an idiot.  Is it really necessary to engage in your own version of swiftboating?  Really, Kos, love you but this is beneath you.
  •  Kerry's passion is self promotion (none)
    He uses issues of great importance to our nation as mere tools for self-agrandizement.  His ego has always gotten in his way and now it's gotten in the way of the Democrat's strategic response to Bush's speech.  Maybe those home movies he had taken of himself in Vietnam for all posterity to see should have been our first warning.
  •  There is no limelight to Bogart. (4.00)
    Sorry, but there can't be too many people speaking out against the injustice that is the war in Iraq.
  •  well... (none)
    ok... him and Lou Dobbs...
  •  Not again (none)
    Kos, this non-stop harping on Kerry is getting repetitive.

    Admittedly, if this is true, this doesn't speak well of Kerry. But being a politician trying to hog the limelight isn't a sin exclusive to Kerry. Why aren't you revealing anonymous dirt on other senators or congresspersons?

    If you have some genuine dirt, show sources. But seriously, what's the point? I'm not asking you to go all-out praising Kerry to the sky, but I'm just baffled by this post - what's the point? It doesn't seem there is a purpose to this post other than knocking John Kerry.

    I like John Kerry, but I sometimes wish he would go away - not because I have anything against him, but his presence provokes some of the most intractible flamewars both on this site and on DU. Frankly, I don't find myself aligning with EITHER the pro or anti-Kerry factions on the site, b/c I believe...

    a) Kerry is a fundamentally decent and intelligent public servant who has some flaws including a lack of charisma and verbosity.

    b) Kerry would have made an excellent President.

    c) Kerry may or may not have been the best candidate in '04. It's possible that someone like Wes Clark or John Edwards or Dick Gephardt could have done better, but we simply don't know. And given that there's never a perfect candidate - all of those mentioned had flaws - it's certainly not an open-shut case that one of them would have done better. It's certainly possible they would have done worse.

    d) Kerry ran a good but not great campaign. Very strident from Sept-Oct 2004 and great debate performances, but the convention was in hindsight a missed opportunity and August was blown by the SBVT and his war-vote-statement gaffe.

    e) All-in-all Kerry did a decent job. We delude ourselves when we rewrite history and say Bush was the most vulnerable incumbent in 50 years - he wasn't. His approval ratings never dipped below 45 and were consistently from 47 to 50. His final approval rating before the election was measured at 51% - exactly what he got in the popular vote. Plus, given the climate, the "don't-change-horses-midstream" was a powerful factor for many voters. ANY candidate would have run up against this sentiment and I doubt even a winning Democratic campaign would have topped 52%.

    f) Kerry did not clearly articulate an overarching critique of the Bush administration and did not make a clear case for where he wanted to take the country. That proved to be a major mistake.

    g) Ultimately, Kerry probably DID lose. He was right to concede when he did. I fully support verifiable voting and various election reforms, but nobody has any hard evidence of fraud. All we have is conjecture and mathematical models that suggest clear irregularities, along with evidence of voter suppression. Nothing to count, however. And any candidate in Kerry's position - down by 160,000 in Ohio and down by 3 mil votes nationwide - would have conceded. If not within 8 hours, perhaps 12. Fact is, most of the time concessions occur within the hour. Kerry and his team waited for hours. The numbers were NOT there. He conceded and rightly so.

    h) He has very little chance of getting the '08 nomination and while he has a right to contest it he's being awfully obvious about it and aside from a dedicated core, most people have moved on. If he wants to run, he's entitled to do so, but he shouldn't expect he's going to win.

  •  I see why we lost with him..... (none)
    ...it was apparent. Bush delivered a straightforward speech full of lies, and Kerry responded like a bagpipe, notes blaring all over the place in an unpleasant drone.

    His grammar was strange and stilted. At one point he said the "Democrat" plan was x and the Republican plan was Y but neither "sought to seek" and immediate withdrawal blah blah blah.

    John Kerry: You are a great citizen and patriot, but if you couldn't hit that softball (Bush's speech) you don't belong at the plate. Let someone else have a turn now. You have given it your best shot. It wasn't good enough.

    All you had to say was: Today we heard the same old thing from a President who is disconnected from reality. The reality is we need those troops home to rebuilt the Gulf Coast, not to destroy and then rebuild Iraq. What part of bring them home now don't you understand? Not one more mother's son. We have lost our last man. Bring them home now.

    "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

    by Bensdad on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:53:19 PM PST

    •  Wow, an ounce of perception... (none)
      I really had the exact opposite impression.  I thought his response made perfect sense and totally crushed Bush's platitudes with directness and detail.  
      •  It was the detail that did him in. (none)
        I am not saying he was wrong on the details. But he tends to dither in a most distressing way.  I saw him while I was getting dressed for work, as did millions of others in my state, who was not already at work. When I am putting on my shoes, please, get to the point.

        Kerry misapprehends the medium of television. You must punch back, swiftly, clearly and directly. Today, he was not capable of doing so and it hurt our cause.

        I like him very much and wish he were President. But he needs...more...punch.

        "What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

        by Bensdad on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 11:42:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  kos, why bother with this? (none)
    Really?

    So what?  This is even too "inside baseball" for this site.

    Sounds like something out of one of the rag columns in The New York Post.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 09:53:24 PM PST

  •  Um... (none)
    I've gotta be honest.  I heard Kerry's rebuttal and thought it was a thousand times more gutsy than anything he's ever said before against this war.  I also started aching for a President that could think and speak at the same time.  I don't know about the internal battles, but it played really well to me.  He made a thousand times more sense than Bush and was frankly a lot more direct than some of the other Democrats I've seen speak in the past few days about this war.  Not a huge fan of Kerry, but was damned glad to hear what he had to say today.
  •  Stop the Kerry bashing. (none)
    There are two types of negatives in the Democratic Party.

    1= we always bash our last nominee, no matter what happens.

    2= we always attack each other, more so than the GOP. Yes the GOP is huber-negative to us....but so are we.

    Stop bashing John Kerry! If he wishes to speak out he deserves the right to be heard.

    "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

    by alnc on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 10:05:50 PM PST

    •  Sure, Kerry has the right to be heard... (none)
      and if he wants to put up johnkerry.blogspot.com to share his opinions about issues of the day, I have no trouble with that. I doubt I'd ever waste any online time in going there, but you can if you feel like it.

      For him to claim that he represents the Democratic Party, essentially force his way into a Party press conference, and put his foot in his mouth really doesn't deserve support.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:27:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  kerry klusterfuck (4.00)
    you people are such looooooooooooosers! the negativity and immaturity that is rampant at this site is all the evidence anybody needs to explain what happened in the '04 election. sometimes i think it's a front for turd blossom! he couldn't ask for better!
    don't you get it? '04 is soooo last year! if you don't stop looking backwards even '06 will not be what everyone is now hoping for and expecting.

    i voted for kerry last year. i gave him some money. we lost. case closed. get on with your lives! don't like kerry? (i don't either.)so start working FOR somebody else. put your energy and comments THERE.

    i have a special disdain for those that are eliminating potential candidates because they voted for the '02 resolution, or didn't speak up about the war sooner. i have the most disdain for the ones that say "if ___ is the nominee I'm NOT VOTING!" for those i plan to kick your dribbly ass to canada or baja california, whichever is closer. you don't belong in the american political process. people like you are the reason bush got elected in the first place. your infantile idealism plays right into the hands of the enemy. it gets you nothing, and the whole country saddled with the likes of george w. bush.

    i do agree with all who've said that kerry is really difficult to understand. he needs a speechwriter and a handler almost as much as bush does! his heart may be in the right place but he is a bumbler on television. let the process sort him out. work for the person you want to be the candidate.

    as for kerry's take on what to do in iraq, it's better than some and worse than others. the problem with iraq is: there is no good answer. if we stay there, we're screwed. if we get out soon, we're screwed. god bless the troops. they're the ones who ought to be deciding whether or not to stay.  

    •  You Are Conflating (none)
      Immaturity with idealism.

      These are entirely separate issues and in fact do not seem to coexist very often.

      As to telling me who to vote for, try it and I'll kick your ass to antarctica. I agree with some of what you said but you have participated fully in what you are decrying. And now I have too, sigh....

      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

      by NewDirection on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:42:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry - what a spineless twit (none)
    This guy just has no shame.  He polishes Dubya's rod until the polls show Americans wanting to get out of Iraq, then rushes to call for a plan in Iraq.  I listened to most of Kerry's comments, and he basically said nothing.  Contrast this with Murtha's statements, and the difference between leader and panderer is clear as daylight.    

    I'm starting to think it was a blessing in disguise for Kerry to lose in '04.  It is very likely that Kerry would have been a failed president, since he would have been chasing polls where real leadership was needed.  Then all of Bush's fuckups would have come crashing down on Kerry, and the public would have blamed Kerry ("oh, if only we had Bush's bold, confident, and decisive leadership").  

    Maybe Kerry's loss in '04 is paving the way for a true democrat to win in '08.  One with "Bad Motherfucker" on his wallet.  

    -7.38, -5.90 | "When...in the course of all these thousands of years has man ever acted in accordance with his own interests?" - Fyodor Dostoevsky

    by Subterranean on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 01:16:25 AM PST

    •  Get real (none)
      Have you forgotten the debates?  That was "polishing Bush's rod"?  

      "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" is polishing Bush's rod?

      And what was John Murtha saying about Iraq at that time?

  •  Excuse me but.... (none)
    Kerry is a duly elected rep for the state of Massachusetts and doesnt need his party's permission to say anything.
    •  No But He Needs (none)
      Kos' permission.

      This wouldn't drive me so batty if Kos didn't defend Hillary Clinton, then attack Garrison Keillor, etcetera.

      I can completely understand people who don't think Kerry's style is the most winning one, and those who think we have better options for 2008. What I can't understand is an utter lack of rhyme and reason to who gets attacked, who gets defended, etc. Seriously, just because Republicans call us collectively dysfunctional, doesn't mean we aren't.

      9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

      by NewDirection on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:38:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your Kerry whining is getting old fast (none)
    It's pitiful to hear Dean supporters griping about John Kerry. Dean was, and still is, a self-serving blowhard who only makes himself look more foolish every time he gets on Meet the Press. You want to talk about a lack of a plan?

    How about Dean telling Russert with a straight face that the plan was "forthcoming". Then why the hell show up at all?

    I'm sick of hearing you ninnies who say that Kerry "voted for the war". He didn't. he voted to give the authority to use force. That's a big difference.

    And those of you who weren't psyched after Kerry took Bush down in the first debate should remember your history. You were convinced. Stop calling him a souless yuppie. Like Dean and Kucinich aren't from the same establishment and social class? That's like calling Coke out and saying that Pepsi is a small, family owned-business because the taste agrees with you much more. It's still cola.

  •  Double standard (none)
    When John Murtha, who voted for the Iraq resolution and supported the invasion both enthusiastically, speaks out against Bush policies he gets celebrated.

    When John Kerry, who voted for the resolution while warning against many of the dangers the Bushies ignored and said inspectors should have been given more time before the invasion, speaks out against Bush policies he gets ripped.

    It's time to stop refighting 2003 and move on.  We are where we are.

    •  so true (none)
      I can understand someone disliking Kerry personally, but they seem to play so much into the GOP bullet points (no plan, voted "for the war") Now that Murtha comes into the spotlight, he's the greatest guy ever! Get a grip, there's room enough for everybody. Kerry had many salient points. Those of you who want things "made easy"  could always vote in the Bush camp of "he says it like it is", which is utter nonsense. If you want simplicity, again, Bush is your man.
  •  Kerry again (none)
    I voted for John Kerry and would again, but he is not the man to be the public face of the Democratic Party.

    He was again getting valuable face time on the Today Show... giving another somnolent presentation. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean... someone with passion to present the views of the party, which happen to be the views of most Americans.

    How about Al Gore, our last president. Some call him wooden, but the man has a passion and can speak from the heart.

    Someone get the hook and yank Kerry off the stage.

  •  Jon Stewart (none)
    on last night's Daily show nailed it. "What, the sad clown wasn't available?"

    "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" - Monty Python

    by MadRuth on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:15:49 AM PST

  •  Kerry and Murtha (none)
    comparing kerry and murtha would be a worthwhile thing to do for democrats. i'm not a rhetoritician but i know who i like:

                   murtha.

    he is clear, concise and shows conviction. on rhetoric he wins, hands down. he speaks with the voice of the people. he walks the walk.

    that said, maybe in his heart of hearts kerry is just as honorable or deserving but, try as he might he just doesn't come off that way.
    which one would win a national election is, very possibly, another matter. in a long campaign maybe murtha would be picked apart. on a wide range of issues maybe he isn't so appealing. i'm not up on his overall worldview. this is all conjecture as, apparently, murtha is winding down his political career.
    john kerry had his shot at the democratic presidential candidacy. he didn't make it. i won't hold that against him as many of you do. i voted for him and gave money. it's over. fairly or unfairly, kerry has an image problem. he's not a crook or even an unsavory character but he's clumsy as a speaker and as a person. he's carrying around a lot of baggage. he's a "sad sack". he's not called lurch for nothing. at least that's his public image, and it's pretty well set. he has a loyal following but he's got a long string tied to his coattails with too many tin cans rattling on the street.

    i'm a "yellow dog democrat". (sorry, idealists). i'll vote for kerry or hillary, or edwards. i'd love to vote for kucinich or dean or richardson or feingold or obama, as unlikely as they might be to get the nomination. take your pick and start to work for them or anybody that i didn't list. work for them. stop fighting among yourselves and stop picking at scabs. stop being disfunctional. get a life. and live it!

    •  hmm (none)
      On one hand, you make exactly the point of why it was Kerry should not have been at the microphone yesterday.

      Then you turn around and criticize anyone who is critical of Kerry for pushing his way up to the microphone for fighting inside the party.

      Seems to be a bit contradictory inside the same post.

      My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is going to remain a constant loser until a lot of the deadwood that is currently in the leadership of the party is gone.  This leadership can either realize the train has passed them by and gracefully step aside, or they need to be pushed out of the way.

      Since Kerry refuses to gracefully step aside, and since he seems to have delusions about being the nominee again in 2008, then I think he needs a quick sharp shove to get him off the stage.

      Sorry if that seems like party infighting, but sometimes these things just have to be done.

      •  afoolishconsistencyisthehobgoblinofsmallminds (none)
        COBear: the jist of what i wrote is that we should get on with it. start working for the candidate that we want, the one or ones we believe in.

        i wrote about what i thought about kerry to make it clear where i stood. what is dismaying is all of the wasted energy, the animal house food fight that keeps popping up between the current kerry camp and the current dean believers. it just keeps the negativity going. what's the point of that?

        more to the point is: who are you for?

        it's time to decide and start to work.

  •  What a Nerve! (none)
    The guy wins 59 million votes, and here he has the nerve to think that he might be a leader of the party.  Where does he get off?  You're right, kos--we should all bend down and give homage to our leader, Harry Reid, who can't even keep the Caucus together for a vote against Roberts.  There's an effective guy!

    And it's much better if we put forward a Senator that nobody who doesn't frequent this site has ever heard of, rather than a critic of the war who might actually get some media attention for our party.  

    What gall that Kerry guy has!  Better to sit in your corner, Senator, and wait until kos says it's okay to come out.

    •  since (none)
      Since when is Kerry a critic of the war?

      His position during the campaign was that we should send MORE troops to Iraq.  And he voted for the war, and has never really said that he was wrong in doing so.  

      Although with Kerry, he flip-flops so badly and talks about positions all over the place so much, that its really hard to know if he has a position about anything.

      Shear incoherence and a complete inability to clearly either take a position on anything, as well asa  general inability to talk coherently to the American people, these are all very good reasons why Kerry shouldn't have been let anywhere near that microphone.

      As a test ... is Kerry's speach at the news conference creating any political stir today .. at all .. any.  If it wasn't for this post on Kos, I wouldn't have known he had spoken at all.  Given that he pushed his way up to the microphone, what did he say and what impact are his words having?  

      "Don't know" and "who cares" would be the general responses of the country to those questions.  That's why he shouldn't have been anywhere near that microphone.  Reid's political instincts appear to have been right on this one.

  •  Thank the Gods for the GAO (none)
    GAO doing what Kerry should have done

    OK...so we have determined that...

    a) Votes that were cast for Kerry were being counted for Bush
    b) The system was so unsecure that one person or a small group could enter a backdoor in one unit and access the entire network
    c) Diebold still refuses to open their software to scrutiny

    Why in the hell didn't the DLC idiots let Kerry fight this one?  Simple...because they really didn't want the Democrats to win.

    No other explanation possible.  Why else stand back and let suspicious results go unchallenged?

    And yet people STILL believe the tripe put out by the DLC????

  •  Give it up, John (none)
    You had your chance. You lost, and we are stuck with four more years of that idiot prick, Bush. You had a united democratic party behind you and STILL lost. Why are you still running for president?

    If you lost to the chimp, what makes you think you could beat McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Allen?

    Give it up and go home. Better yet, retire. Massachusetts should be able to elect a non-corporate whore.  

    Russ Feingold in 2008

    by John Lane on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:04:45 AM PST

    •  Sit down, you had your 15 min of fame (none)
      Sen. Kerry,

      Please sit down and shut up.  A few basic points here.

      You are not in any way the 'leader' of the Democratic Party.  Your fellow Democratic Senators haven't elected you leader of anything.

      And in case it the news hasn't filtered into your mansion yet, you lost the election.

      You lost an election where the incumbent should have had to defend a record of 4 years of war and recession.  You lost the election because you completely failed to talk to the American people in any coherent fashion about either war or recession.

      You had a massive megaphone to use to talk to the country as the Democratic nominee.  You completely failed to use it to really talk to the American people.

      You got that megaphone by pushing out of the way other people who were running for the nomination, and who seemed to have at least a clue that they wanted to really talk to the American people and that they had something to say.

      You had nothing to say.  But you used your money and your influence to take the megaphone away from those who did.

      And now you are doing it again.

      And you still have nothing coherent to say about this war.  Your message has changed a bit, but I suspect that's only because your pollsters are giving you new focus group results.

      Maybe if you could bring back the young John Kerry who came home from one illegal and immoral war and worked to oppose it, I think that John Kerry might have something real to say to the American people.  But it would appear that that John Kerry is long, long gone.

      And please, get a clue.  The Democrats are not going to nominate you to run for President again. You had your chance, and you blew it.  Blathering on in the same way you always blather on isn't going to change it.

      So let someone else speak.  They can't do worse than you in talking to the American people anyways.

      •  Kerry had his chance, its over (none)
        If he couldn't beat Bush, a drunkard, registered coward and life long failure after four years of turning properity into recession, surpluss into deficits, misleading and misdirection of war then quite simply Kerry is not suitable in politics.

        He let bush get away with saying "its hard work" after he set a record amount of time on vacation,

        He let Bush get away with say "what kind of message does that send..." without respond "A truthful message...

        He should have called Bush an unqualified deserter, when he was being swiftboated the response was simple "I served, he didn't, all he has is flimsy paper, in my mind he was a deserter."

        To every claim of "flip-Flopper" he should have responded with bush as a "slip-shod".

        He doesn't have the killer instinct to be in Politics, just the ego.

        Ergo, go away.

         

  •  hyenas (none)
    why are so many of you behaving like hyenas eating your own entrails.  You don't deserve to take back the reins of government.
  •  Transcript/analysis of Kerry/Reed speeches (none)
    A partial (but extensive) transcript of the Kerry/Reed performance, with analysis, can be found here at Left I on the News.
  •  I ain't buying what you're selling. (none)

    http://www.votepomboout.org/

    by coigue on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 09:38:38 AM PST

  •  Why does anyone listen to Kerry the Bore (none)
    Why anyone gives that guy the time of day, much less go to his stupid press conferences, is beyond me.

    He had his chance. He had more money, more support and more people coming out of the woodwork to defeat Bush and he screwed up so bad, not only did he lose, but we how have a Chief Justice trying to poke holes in Roe V Wade.

    Kerry is a droning, opportunistic bore, who is now trying to do what people told him to do over a year ago. And he's making it clear he only cares about himself, not the country, nor can he or Hillary admit they screwed up by voting for the war to give themselves political cover.

    Kerry's people probably don't read blogs so it's not like they'll read anything here, but it's good we're speaking out about what a jerk he really is.

    ____ http://www.schadelmann.com http://www.dewar.us

    by schadelmannII on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 12:41:09 PM PST

  •  Stop eating your own (none)
    John Kerry, and others, are trying to be a stronger opposition party. Now that we are getting a little attention, and the press is starting to wake up. There moments when we are heard, or not, like during the campaign.

    What we don't need is a refighting of the primaries, or the campaign, with the perception that it was an easy win with 55% of America liking Bush, the war, and 70% believed in the Iraq-911 linkage. It was difficult playing the margins with the media accounting for such ignorance about the war.

    The next election will still be difficult with corporate media liking the GOP, and the GOP organization counting the votes. There was nothing Kerry could have done differently in Ohio, so please get over it. The proof is not there or anywhere, definitively, without access to their machines, or a whistleblower.

    We need less infighting and eating of our own. Kos posts something like this, and the spin machine comes out. I would say Kos is swiftboating Kerry with made up rumor and misinformation, just as he did during the campaign. He was paid by Dean, and that accounts for some of the resentment.

    Kerry actually has a plan, some of which is included in Bush's plan, and Reed may actually have wanted him there. Few other Dems have plans, only apologies for their votes and vague notions of getting out.

     

  •  Kerry is geting pathetic (none)
    God, and I voted for him so proudly!

    He abdicated on November 3rd 2004. He quit. It was his moment to act and he didn't.

    And he didn't act in December 2004. Nor in January 2005. Barbara Boxer had more balls.

    Go home quitter!

    When everything seems like the movies
    Yeah you bleed BLOG just to know your alive

    by lawnorder on Thu Dec 01, 2005 at 07:17:39 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site