Skip to main content

Once again, John Kerry gives us a no-holds barred vision of what must immediately be done to resolve the incendiary situation in Iraq.

In his appearance on NBC's Meet The Press this morning, Senator Kerry (D-MA) continued to passionately press his case for holding Iraqis accountable and responsible for their own government.

In discussing his plan for successfully ending the US presence in Iraq, released earlier this week in an op-ed in The New York Times, Kerry continued to be the strong and leading voice in America on getting tough with Iraq's leaders.

Two deadlines and a date.

Fareed Zakaria, in lending his support to Kerry this morning, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, said we've hidden behind idea that we'll hold elections, but that doesn't get you beyond the central question of power distribution between the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiias.  If U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad cannot get them to come together, Zakaria says, "it's worth it to listen to guys like John Kerry and Jack Murtha because we are not going to baby-sit a civil war."

In listening to Senator Kerry last week on the Senate floor, and today on Meet The Press, I was reminded of the Senator Kerry who first came to Washington 35 years ago to bring courage and character to the debate over a failed war and a failed foreign policy.  He was passionate, truthful, and representative of the growing national consciousness about the immorality of the war in Iraq.

Kerry was short, sweet and to the point with Russert this morning.  Two deadlines and a date.

What else does he want?

"I have a pretty short message, Tim.  Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq."

Amen to that Senator Kerry.

Cross posted at The Democracy Cell Project.

Originally posted to jibsail on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:07 AM PDT.

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

    •  Twice now (92+ / 0-)

      Why do our Presidential Candidates, twice in a row now, become the men we want them to be AFTER THEY LOSE???

      I'm extremely happy that Kerry is standing up and fighting back a bit, I wish all the Dems would do so, but had he been like this in 2004 and late 2003, he'd have a little more power to change things methinks.

      "Murrow had a child. The damn thing went wild." -- Fleetwood Mac
      (-8.63), (-7.03)

      by Perdition on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:39:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the advisors (24+ / 0-)

        specifically the advisor....Bob Shrum!  The guy is the Chicago Cubs when it comes to elections (no offense Cubs' fans).  Why anyone would listen to a perennial loser is beyond me.

        •  The 'Prevent' Defense that Doesn't (23+ / 0-)

          Ever watch a football team shift from what worked to a "prevent" defense (letting their opponents have lots of small successes in the name of preventing a "big play) - only to lose in the last few minutes?

          Endless times over the years political "consultants" for the Democratic party have lost elections for candidates by having them "play it safe" and "avoid controversy."  When the advisor's idiot ideas fail - the losing candidate gets blamed while the losing advisor goes on to damage other candidates.  

          It seems Democratic candidates hire political consultants the way Bush hires FEMA officials - solely by their connections without regard for their abilities.  This is why Kerry's campaign ended up like post-Katrina New Orleans.

          We need to start a chart of which political advisors have winning records versus those that have great DNC connections and/or losing records.  Post the chart, and start linking donations to campaigns that stay away from the loser advisors.

          •  I agree. Poor advisors are a problem but there is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FyodorFish, beachmom, greeseyparrot

            another problem with many of the Democratic advisors: they are in it for their own careers. Rove, as rotten an apple as he is, is staunchly loyal to his man. I don't think Kerry's advisors were as loyal as their Republican counterparts. Some were loyal and some were good, but few were both loyal and good. Loyalty can't be overlooked because it is the Achilles Heel of the Democratic Party. Sure list the incompetents, but also keep an eye on the ambitious who will sell you out for a byline.

            Quite a few Democrats were looking ahead to 2008 during the 2004 campaign. They were in it for themselves first and foremost. There were bad advisors in the Kerry campaign, but there were also bad advisors outside of the Kerry campaign: top Dems with only one thought for the future and it wasn’t a Kerry Administration.

            "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

            by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:05:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He also Said very Clearly Which I appreciate (8+ / 0-)

              " It was my Campaign I made mistakes and I take responsibility for them"

              Crisp and clear he stood up and took his pill like a big boy if he runs him and feeingold are the 2 I am choosing between that is for sure..Oh and FUCK YOU BIDEN..though anyone else find it kinda fiunny Russert used a quote from bill mahr...

              We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

              by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:37:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Rove (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, Pam from Calif

              Rove worked well for Bush as he was almost his ONLY advisor for many, many, years.  Remember the relationship that exists between them, Bush is a lazy frat boy who doesn't like to work, think, or read, he needed a bully boy like Rove who was extremely loyal - only to Bush, and who would not leave him once the electing job was over.  How many other senior campaign advisors actually followed the candidate into high office?  (maybe someone has a better memory than I)

              Also, Rove is willing to do Bush's dirty work, or order it done through the GOP and their mouthpieces, how many advisors would do that for their bosses?  Rove may very well be looking at jail time.  

              OTOH, Carville was a loser until Clinton was elected, but he may have just been in the right place at the right time.  Carville is now about as radioactive as Bush.  

              But then, who needs advisors when voter fraud works better and costs less?

              •  Carville was a loser? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jkfp2004, TexDem

                This is totally wrong. Carville and Begala were the hot campaign management team in 1992, getting them to run his campaign was a coup for Clinton. They ran winning statewide camapigns for Bob Caset, Harris Wofford, and Zell Miller.

                Visit My Left Nutmeg, the open Soapbox blog for Connecticut Democrats.

                by Matthew Gertz on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:14:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  When did James Carville... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mildewmaximilian, vcmvo2

                  marry Mary Matalin?

                  After this many losses, I do not trust him.  Sure, he still talks the talk, but where is the evidence that he walks the walk?

                  I keep feeling like I am watching a fixed baseball game with Carville and Matalin as the crooked coaches.

                  •  You can thank Carville... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3goldens

                    for the disasterous elections in Bolivia.  Thanks to him, we have to deal with morales for the foreseeable future.

                    Is Carville a loser?  Yeah, Carville is a loser and a charletan, along with Begala.  I hope no one buys their book, because they tried to copy Markos and Jerome's ideas as their own, and then get their book out there firs, because they had the pull with Editors and publishers on the inside.

                    Pisses me off, since they both poo poo the netroots and don't understand the first fucking thing about them.

                •  You got troll rated because (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MH in PA, vcmvo2

                  flip-flopped is a comment that is usually made by trolls.  Generally speaking, we only credit trolls with that kind of thinking, namely that one's worl'd view should remain the same over a span of say, four years, when events CLEARLY have not.

                  Further, if you want to talk about flip flopping, and believe that sort of crap as being valid reasoning, I am sure someone around here could post for you a list of about a THOUSAND purely political based flip-flops of the White House resident, the most recent of which would be, "I will fire anyone who leaks.  Uh oh, I leaked myself.  I guess I don't have to fire me.  heh heh heh"

                  THAT is likely why you got troll rated.  Flip flop is an asinine way of looking at things.  Not saying that you are asinine, or an ass.  Just that you have been sold a bit of goods that you might want to apply across the realm of your own existence and experience in order to debunk.

          •  Amen to that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            L0kI, vcmvo2

            Candidates seem to do best in two situations

            1. All they say is the memorized points, and never vary from them no matter what the question.
            1. They say what they feel, trying to be tactful, but above all, being clear and strong in what they said, and NOT trying to condition it so that they don't piss anybody off.

            IOW, either they stick to the script, or they speak from the heart, with passion when called for.

            Our guys are smart, it's really hard for them to stick to a script, especially if they don't really believe it. They need to stop doing that, and stick to speaking from their gut.

            Yes, they will piss some people off. But not as many as you suspect. And for God's sake, if they don't know something, or haven't heard of something, just f***ing say so. Nobody expects them to know everything.

        •  Shrum is not the only advisor (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nehark, Sophie Blue, Monkey In Chief

          Google "Steve Elmendorf Jack Oliver".

          If I've misspelled Elmendorf's name, I'm sure you can find him by looking up Oliver's business partners.

          Oliver was Abramoff's bag man to the GOP in Congress.

          Elmendorf was an advisor on the Kerry campaign.  Advised against responding to the Swift Boating.  He is highly regarded....by the Dem big money donors....

        •  Our candidate in 08 better know this, too. (0+ / 0-)

          "I am the pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." G W Bush

          by irate on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:44:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it's the candidate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rep Brad Miller, edgery

          The candidate picks who to hire, who to fire, and who to listen to.  Advisors are merely convenient whipping boys.

          •  but big money donors dictate the consultant hires (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Monkey In Chief

            C'mon Matt, you know that to be taken seriously by the big money donors as a candidate, especially in the Presidential stakes, you need to have the Right Advisors on board.

            It's what keeps losers like Shrum and Elmendorf being rehired over and over.

            •  not really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, edgery

              The candidate makes choices, and while there are constraints, the choice of who to hire and who to listen to is up to the candidate.

              •  Matt, that simply isn't accurate... (0+ / 0-)

                while I agree that the Captain is responsible for the ship going down, it simply isn't accurate to say that he got good advice, or that, like a ship's captain, the guy apying for the boat and the crew, doesn't have any say in the matter.

                It's just not accurate.

                Furthermore,  a campaign is a bubble, and when your news is getting reported through the filter that was and is the corporate whore media, well, that had a huge impact on the election.

                Matt, I admire your work tremendously, but I disagree on this point.  It is simply not an accurate or fully fleashed out view of how a presidential campaign works.

              •  So for example what about Feingold's advisor? (0+ / 0-)

                I forgot where I read this recently, maybe it was an excerpt from CTG....  Feingold was a dark horse candidate when he first won in Wisconsin, with a lot of help from his non-DC-insider campaign advisor and the ads they ran.....but he has since been pressured to drop that guy and use a DC insider in order to get support from the DC war chests....

                The whole system stinks, and there is no correction mechanism.....  Serially incompetent consultants just shrug and move on to the next gig......

            •  The big money donors follow the polls (0+ / 0-)

              and they'll give money to whoever they think the winner is going to be.

              They don't care if you have a cat as your advisor, as long as they think you'll win.

        •  He is not the Cubs (0+ / 0-)

          i think he is more the Devil Rays of  Poltics...

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:35:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good point: Schrum sux (0+ / 0-)

          Schrum is death to anyone who hires that guy.

          "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

          by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:01:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's his name, silly (0+ / 0-)

          Bob.......Shrum

          Just wreaks of victory doesn't it???!!

          ....and that FACE and TIE!!!

          Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

          Both attributes of a counselor to power-brokers!


          Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:09:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It won't be three in a row. (12+ / 0-)

        But. But. As much as I appreciate Kerry's newfound balls, it MUST be communicated to him that this cannot be out of any Presidential aspirations he might have. Ditto Feingold. Ditto Dean. Ditto Hillary. No, make that a double for her -- she might as well be Mrs. Lieberman.

        We can't afford to front damaged or radical goods for the White House, no matter how much we might like what they're saying. They need to keep up the work, but they serve best as the front guard for someone who's already been elected once, and who has completely reinvented himself to be even better.

        •  For someone who is supposedly doing this out of (19+ / 0-)

          Presidential aspirations he's sure giving a lot of his money away to other Dems instead of hoarding it like some folks.
          http://www.dynamicdems.com/...

          Senator John Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC - $$$ for 2006 Dems!

          Here's what KAP http://www.keepingamericaspromise.org/ earned in 2005 and what is being done with the money. See who is putting their money where their mouth is

          The following information is from Bloomberg.com.
          http://www.bloomberg.com/...

          In reference to 2005's top 25 PACs...

          "Hagel, 59, donated 13 percent of the money he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, topping Clinton's 8.3 percent. Only Kerry, 62, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004, beat the average among the 25. Kerry's Keeping America's Promise PAC gave away 29 percent of the $2.2 million he raised last year to federal candidates and committees, his filing shows."

          ``He thinks that it's the most important thing that he can do after the 2004 elections,'' said Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman for Kerry's PAC."

          And that was just how much he gave in 2005! This is the big year for Democrats. The money Kerry brings in for Dems this year could make the difference in quite a few campiagns. He's fighting as hard as he can FOR 2006.

          Not only that, Senator Kerry raised over 300k for the fighting Dems in about 48 hours.

          Sure, I'd love to see him run in 2008, but that's not as important as having a country left by 2008. We have to work for 2006 to take back Congress. Hell if we can't even get a freaking bill passed with all this Republican obstructionism, how the Hell does anyone expect to get an impeachment going?

          AFTER we TAKE BACK CONGRESS in NOVEMBER, HOWEVER...

          Then we can pretty much call the shots. I WANT to see that. I WANT to see BUSH sitting there on his throne knowing that he's absolutely frigging POWERLESS.  

          "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

          by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Like Ensign and Thune? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chantedor

          Aren't we lucky the Republicans ran damaged merchandise for the Senate like Ensign in 2000 (who lost in 1998) and Thune in 2004 (who lost in 2002)?

        •  uh... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chantedor

          i think that is what the primaries are for. It's not what you think that matters, it's what the overall-clad farmers in Iowa think.

          All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

          by SeanF on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:26:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nah. . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Grahamdubya

            It's what the folks toiling in the cubicles at the insurance companies in Des Moines think, or what the well-educated folk of Iowa City think, or the folks at the meat-packing plants in Dubuque think.

            According to the Iowa Data Center, there are only about 120,000 "farm operators" in Iowa, and 1/3 of those do not list farming as their principal occupation. The population of Iowa is close to 3 million people, of whom 61% live in "urban" areas. Even considering those under 18, and those whose work may be farm-related, the "farm vote" is not what it once was.

            When only the government lacks virtue, there remains a resource in the people's virtue; but when the people itself is corrupted, liberty is already lost.

            by Robespierrette on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:51:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  'overall clad farmers' (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AlienCode

            Generalize about the Midwest much?

            Just a hint: painting entire states/regions with broad brushstrokes is generally a way to make them resent you.  

        •  Mrs. Hillary Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

          That is quite funny.  

        •  Bears repeating (0+ / 0-)

          We can't afford to front damaged or radical goods for the White House, no matter how much we might like what they're saying. They need to keep up the work, but they serve best as the front guard for someone who's already been elected once, and who has completely reinvented himself to be even better.

          ------------------

          How true, the message may sound good, but I think that their past is more important than today's sound bites.  They have gotten awfully bold AFTER Bush's ship is sinking and the rats are swimming away.  

          Measure them by their total packages, not by soundbites that are conveniently delivered.

          How I really feel is that our party has been run into the ground by weanies for years and I am not about to let a few harsh words of criticisms of Bush sway me now.  

          The election in 2008 will be defined by 2006.  Let's see how these retreads perform this fall.  

        •  Al Gore has actually been elected 3 times (5+ / 0-)

          On a national level. Twice as VP, once as President. Oh, how I wish he would run.

          We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop (620 - 560 BC)

          by AWhitneyBrown on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:46:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think it is because they were too insulated (6+ / 0-)

        and getting very bad advice. I think both have experienced a liberation to some extent--Al Gore even more so than Kerry. A self-possessed man who is intelligent, rational, wise and passionate is a very attracting.

      •  Thrice, in a sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chantedor, mjd in florida

        We all love Jimmy Carter, too, and (as someone who was there & guilty in 1980) we turned our backs on him at the time of his re-election.

        •  I walked the most dangerous precinct (0+ / 0-)

          in town for Carter in 1980, after supporting Kennedy in the primary. Won the first, lost the second. Oh well.

          Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

          by MarkInSanFran on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ya but lets not Forget (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MRL

          He ran a real shithole of a campaign. Teddy was an asshole for running against him sure back it was a lackluster campaign that capped off a really shitty presidency. Great man Not a good president

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:40:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Amen (0+ / 0-)

            As we wax nostalgic for Jimmy Cater, tainted by the perception of a truly great man, great humanitarian, and great force for peace, remember this -- despite the fact that not ALL his woes were his own making -- he was a truly awful president.

            It's a "partial repeal of the First Amendment" not a "flag burning" amendment.

            by MRL on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:59:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  human rights, energy conservation, saved military (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              beachmom, vcmvo2

              Brought back the military from the post-Vietnam abyss.....Brought human rights to US foreign policy.....Instrumental in bringing about peace between Egypt and Israel (Sadat: "This is Jimmy's show!")....Tried to educate Americans about energy conservation.....

              Besides the Soviets and the second oil crisis, he had to endure the Democratic Congress that tried to eat him alive.....Like they'll try to do in 08 if any Dem wins the Presidency....

              •  Agreed. Great President... disastrous Presidency (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                celticshel

                He was not the right person for those times -- Arab oil embargo, Iran revolution, economy lurching through the deferred costs of Vietnam -- but who WOULD have been?

                No way to make those years feel good, except through lies, deficit spending, and empty symbols. Hence Reagan.

          •  Personally, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beachmom, FindingMyVoice, Magnifico

            I think he was a great President--and one that most Americans didn't understand.  I think in some ways we like being lied to, if it makes life easier for us.  And Carter was neither a liar nor an actor.  He was a leader, a hard worker, and a common-sense kind of guy who did a lot of good for this country.  The fact that gas shortages, Three Mile Island, and American hostages in Iran happened during his presidency doesn't make him a bad president.  It makes him a guy who did his best against hugely uneven odds.

            He was far too down-to-earth and honest to be a good campaigner when up against ol' Mr. Hollywood.  There are few people who could really go up against Reagan and win.  Reagan had charisma.  Carter had brains, and courage, and dedication.  I'm not sure it says anything good about the American voting public that we elected Reagan instead of re-electing Carter.

            Welcome to the U.S.A.E.

            by celticshel on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Quit whining and get with the program! (7+ / 0-)

        Our soldiers need to be removed from Iraq and the missing Bushco corporate infrastucture repairs in Iraq/Afghanistan need to be fully investigated and we need to find our missing tax-payer money!  Our soldiers need us to support Murtha, Kerry and Finegold right now! Quit whining about the corrupt 2004 election!

      •  Answer: no more consultants. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Perdition, Naniboujou

        They go off in search of another gravy train, and the ex-candidate becomes a real person again.

        I'm glad I'm not George W. Bush, because George W. Bush is going to hell

        by Alna Dem on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:02:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Could it be (0+ / 0-)

        that Kerry was overconfident, it looked to many like he couldn't lose. We all had such high hopes, and when he "lost" he still had hopes that things would not get worse, that he could work on change from congress. But now that things are SO much worse, he has found the urgency, lost the optomistic nature, and I don't think anyone will say "hope is on the way" until it actually arrives this time,

      •  boo hoo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Gryffin, Wary

        oh well, get over it.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:05:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And twice now... (14+ / 0-)

        Democrats have started shouting, "He had his chance!" when these more experienced, wiser politicians start muttering about maybe taking another run at the presidency.

        We don't have to throw these men onto the ash-heap of political history.

        Sorry to be so emphatic, but aren't we supposed to be smarter than that? We acknowledge that they're now saying and doing the things we want them to say and do. There's no law that says we can't elect one of these men to the presidency!

        What the hell is this?

        Taking American history personally since... well, since I started paying attention.

        by mxwing on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're saying and doing NOW (0+ / 0-)

          they're not up for reelection, and the primaries are almost 2 yrs away.

          Let's see how they act next year.

          •  I think it's not so much that they're not up for (0+ / 0-)

            relection and the primaries are almost two years away.

            Or maybe it's that I'd rather think that they're finding newfound courage to say what they believe rather than what they believe people want to hear.  Certainly, both are intelligent enough to learn from their mistakes.  But you're right.  Time will tell whether their new courage and insight will stand the test of public and political pressure.

            Welcome to the U.S.A.E.

            by celticshel on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:51:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  How many times did Reagan lose before winning? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mxwing, beachmom, Magnifico



          I agree that we have to stop this "he had his chance" nonsense and simply field the strongest candidate that we have -- whether it is someone new or someone who may have ran before.

          Ronald Reagan was a hapless candidate going nowehere in 1968 and then lost again to Gerald Ford (which itself is pretty embarassing) in 1976.   There was much glee then when Reagan emerged as the candidate in 1980 because he was viewed as both way too radical and damaged goods.  Carter actually won the debates on content - but lost the debate on charm, personality, and one-liners (which stole the show).   The only reason Reagan won was because he understood the political theatre better (acting background).  The point is though -- Carter would have prevailed against any "right-winger" at that time in the Country  -- aside from such a polished presenter like Reagan.   This is the reason why Reagan is so worshipped by the right-wing.  The Neo-Cons, Vietnam-War-Hawks, and CIA-Ratpackers were politically dead after Watergate, the Church Committee, Nixon's deminse, and the failed Vietnam War by the mid 1970s.  America was a liberal Country again as it has been during FDRs time.  Smoking pot was no big deal, Rock music & disco were mainstream along with the sexual expression they embodied, War advocates where nowhere to be found anymore. Reagan reversed that course not by logic or policy -- but simply by winning votes through appearing "charming".  America has been on the Neo-Con path every since - slowed only slightly & temporarily by the Clinton presidency.

          Both Al Gore & John Kerry are great people and smart people.  Either one would make terrific Presidents assuming they could get their initiatives passed in Congress. If either do run again, we should hear them out and judge them fairly on if they are the best overall candidate.  Either one would be far, far better than Hillary Clinton or Evan Bayhe or Joe Biden or the standard "DLC" milieu.

          They may have also have learned now to distrust Democratic consultants and now understand the potency and power of just being yourself.

          Sometimes it takes a second campaign to learn that lesson.  

      •  If Hill gets the nomination... (3+ / 0-)

        I can guarantee you a trifecta.

        •  what kind of trifecta? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mildewmaximilian
          and while i think hillary is very swag and faboo, i do see her as kind of "mama lieberman"

          not what we need as a leader in our nation atm

          I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

          by Tamifah on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:43:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bushido (0+ / 0-)

        A principle of the Bushido, the Samurai "way of the warrior", is to assume you're dead when you enter a battle--you literally have nothing else to lose.

        This is why I think Gore will run and win in 2008: They've killed him once, so he's now free to be a fearless, non-triangulating warrior guided by his beliefs.

      •  i guess it takes a public (0+ / 0-)

        flogging to get religion (diebold aside)

        Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson

        by sedrunsic on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:49:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Atrios said something along the lines... (0+ / 0-)
        ...that the trauma of a nationwide presidential campaign shocked Gore into sanity.  And now he doesn't have the requisite level of insanity to want to run for president again.

        I don't know about Kerry.  He still has what, 10 million dollars left over from his presidential bid?  Somehow I don't think he's going to give that money to the poor.

        Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

        by DawnG on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:11:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Schweitzer too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mildewmaximilian

        I remember seeing an interview with Governor Schweitzer where he said that what he learned from his narrow defeat against Conrad Burns (for the Senate in 2000) was not to listen to the consultants.  I think this was in a 60 Minutes interview.  Governor Schweitzer said that in 2000 his consultants told to him to focus on issues he polled well on in his ads which turned out to a losing strategy.  In 2004, his ads focused on who he was (ranching background, etc) and won.

        DC consultants are a disaster for the party.  Ultimately though, the candidates are at fault for hiring and listening to idiots like Bob Schrum.

      •  I think Feingold made him grow a length of spine (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mildewmaximilian, Superpole

        ...but I think his time is OVAH.  He can be an illustrious warrior like Ted Kennedy, another one who blew it.

        I just think Kerry has too much baggage, like Gore.  No stones when it counted.

        (...and yeah, I am prejudiced for Russ, but at least he only has marital incompatibility going for him.  He is, however, better wedded to the struggle.)

        An untypical Negro...since 1954.

        by blksista on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:29:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to disagree with that (4+ / 0-)

          Kerry is on the Foreign Relations Committee, he is very interested in international affairs, has spoken often about Iraq, and that is not to mention his own experience in the Vietnam War and protesting it afterwards.

          There is NO way, he's sitting around trying to one up Feingold in regards to a WAR.  No way.  It's too important to him.  He studies the facts, talks to the experts, and listens to his own conscience.  Only then, does he make such a momentous decision.  What you are suggesting is in complete contrast to his own character of honor and integrity, and tells me you do not understand the man at all.

        •  I may have to disagree too... (4+ / 0-)

          Kerry is definitely NOT lacking in "stones" as it were, and it's common knowledge that he has never lacked in length, anywhere.

          No, Kerry's parts, all large and intact, are all his own, and Feingold had nothing to do with it. No disrespect to Feingold, whom I like, but Kerry's time has just begun.

          And the "excess baggage" you mentioned?

          It's scrotal. :-)

          P.S. Ok, he IS missing a prostate, but he's compensating in other areas just fine.

    •  My opinion (27+ / 0-)

      is that Kerry wanted to but his managers (cough * Shrum * cough) restrained him.  From reports I've read during the campaign about behind-the-scenes, Kerry would be really energetic yelling "Why am I losing to this idiot?" and things like that, but these idiot managers kept him muted.


      I hope Democrats learn their lessons this time around,  not just by firing that inept ass Shrum, but by being STRONG.  The Democrats usually don't try to risk offending a radical right subset that would never vote for them anyway, and only turn off the people in the middle.  The rethugs, on the other hand, have no problem publically pissing off the left, and their base eats this up bigtime.  And that makes joe sixpack in the middle think repugs are good fighters, while dems appear weak.


      I think Dems, if they hold together, might be able to outshine rethugs on their best area (in which their record is pretty damn poor) - national security!  Hoping 2006 we can take back the country, and get back  to sanity!

      Get your Free Mac Mini, you know you want one.

      by Bush B Gone on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:28:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because (5+ / 0-)

      In 2004 it was too soon to draw conclusions.  It wasn't clear whether it was going to be possible to turn this around or not.  To come out against this then would have been rather presumptuous.  Now it's clear that the outlook is getting quite bleak and now is the time for Murtha, Kerry, and others to stand up and point that out, and they are.

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:03:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biden on Maher's show was disgusting (13+ / 0-)

      Biden announced (again?) that he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in '08. He then proceeded to bellow about Iraq, much to the delight of Maher, who seemed genuinely impressed by Biden's grasp of "realpolitik." It's complicated, he said, and this is no doubt true. But he's grandstanding, in my opinion, at the expense of team unity. He should be on the same page with Kerry insofar as the message should be simple and direct, just as Kerry's was this morning on the tube. And Biden should be laying it all at the feet of BushCo. As many downthread have lamented, if only Kerry had been this concise and passionate last year, maybe the busloads of evangelists brought to the polls in Ohio and elsewhere by the Republicans wouldn't have mattered.

      The Moe Sizlak Experience, featuring Homer Simpson.

      by lepermessiah on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:10:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, when I watched Biden announce (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karenc, irate

        I thought, here we go again.  Another round of repub, "7 dwarves jokes" about our candidates.

        •  No dwarves jokes for us this time. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          perro amarillo

          Like or dislike them, most of the announced/semi-announced candidates are either big names on the national scene (Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Feingold, and for god's sake certainly Hillary) or have impressive political/career acheivements (Warner and Clark). It's a very deep bench and one of our strengths for 2008. The Republican bench has only one candidate with national stature - McCain, although admittedly he's very strong. (Guiliani has not yet indicated a meaningful interest). If he got sick, they'd be the ones with the seven dwarves.  

          •  Giuiliani is interested, you betcha (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chantedor, AaronBa, Sophie Blue, Do Tell

            anyone who's a strong #2 in the polls, as he is, is interested. And he's starting to act interested too. But I wouldn't get too concerned about it, because the chance of a twice-divorced, gay-rights-defending and occasionally cross-dressing New Yorker winning the nomination of this Republican party is about equal to, say, Howard Dean's.

            -8.25,-8.36 The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

            by sidnora on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:10:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Biden schmoozes with Chris Matthews as well. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, 3goldens, Sophie Blue

        You get the feeling they go out to dinner together and pretend they are important. They are like the kids who are dying to get into the cool group and are just allowed into the margins. (Of course, the cool group is imploding as we speak.)

        For the last few years, Biden has been in the one-down position (don't talk to me about the visuals!) and wants the exposure that Tweety can give him, so he sucks up mightily. Tweety himself has been undermined lately due to his own obsequious fawning toward the medicated Tom Delay, publicized in Harry Shearer's video feed.

    •  Because, (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bramish, semiot, KathleenM1, sagamore, rjo

      the political "winds" were not right then. Now that it is "CW" that we are losing he has judged that the time is right. What is worse, I read somewhere here last week that there was a meeting of Dems before the Iraq vote, in which Kerry made an impassioned plee against backing the President. He lost and decided to go alone w/the general consensus. I am sorry folks, it is nice that he is standing strong now that it is safe to do so, but it is too late for over 2300 American service people and countless Iraqis. Give me Dean, Gore, or Fiengold, who had the courage of thier convictions when thier principled opposition could make a difference. That's what leaders do, they lead.

    •  Biden on Maher (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diplomatic, chantedor, dkmich

      I've never been much of a Biden fan- but he was pretty damn good on Real Time the other night.  That was almost as a big a shock at how articulate and informed one Ben Affleck was..

      •  Biden is an an actor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MRL

        who plays to his audiences.  I have seen him flip flopping around depending on whom he is with.  

        I don't have a great deal of respect for the man, he voted for the war and then claimed he had no idea that Bush would fuck it up as badly as he did.  Biden remembers the Viet Nam war, and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were known quantities.  Biden's current stand is as disingenous as his hair plugs and his plagiarism.  

        •  Like I said (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not a Biden fan, and for the same reasons you site for the most part, which is why I was surprised.  RE the  "I voted for the war but didn't know Bush would fuck it up so bad" comment, practically every dem has said the same thing in one way or another over the last three years.  (Whatever happened to the "I didn't vote for the war, I voted to authorize him to use war as a last resort" defense?)

          Now, with Bush's numbers in the toilet and the American public against the war, the dems are freely admitting they were wrong to follow this knucklehead.  The Animal House defense.  "You fucked up kid.  You trusted us"...  

          •  good point (0+ / 0-)

            I don't fault anyone who was bamboozled by Bush's lies, but the way that they phrase their defense can be quite telling.  

            I have heard Kerry state (and I am paraphrasing) that he voted for the resolution but wouldn't have voted for it had he known the extent of Bush's lies.  That is the only way a dem should explain their vote, tying together always with the phrase that Bush lied.  

            The weanie defense that I have heard Biden and others use is simply a way to have it both ways, without specifically calling Bush a liar, Biden doesn't have the soft on terrorism moniker pinned on him.  That is the true reason they voted for the war, so as to be able to say that they are tough on terrorism.  In the run up to the war, it was pretty obvious that it was going to be a disaster.  

      •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

        As someone who really only started following politics after the horror of seeing Bush reelected, I never heard Biden speak until the recent Maher show, and I was expecting the worst after all the stuff I've read here about him. But I was surprised to find that for the most part, he came across pretty well. Most of what he said sounded rational and well thought out. Much better than I had anticipated, given all the criticism leveled against him on dkos.

        Ben Affleck was a surprise too, although his train of thought jumped around a bit and sometimes I had a hard time following him.

        •  You are in for a surprise (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MRL, karenc

          Perhaps the next time you see Biden, you will be infuriated with his comments.  He will toe the party line for the most part, and then you will see him on C-Span and he is pandering to the right.  I have seen him in the past praising Bush and I just have to say WTF?  

        •  Affleck (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MRL

          The thing that drives me crazy about the celebs Maher puts on that panel is that so many of them make the wrong arguments and jump around like crazy.  They may be funny and get their digs in, but the lack of knowledge and inexperience in holding a political argument drives me insane.  (Erica Jong made some really stupid, amateurish arguments last week for example)

          Affleck is no Fareed Zakaria, but he's better at this than he is at acting...

          •  Jong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerbbils

            I agree that Erica Jong was pretty bad--so bad that I started to cringe every time she opened her mouth to say something else. On the other hand, I thought Gloria Steinem, who was on a few weeks ago, was brilliant. I was really impressed with both her intelligence and her demeanor. It's a real mixed bag with his guests!

            •  That's weird (0+ / 0-)

              I posted about that on someone's diary recounting the show back then.  Not only would I say Steinem was brilliant, she was probably the single best panelist ever on that show.  Wish she was on TV more often.  She could nicely make mince-meat of just about any pundit or ignorant host out there.

      •  did you find it hypocritical though (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerbbils

        how he held forth about "working class America" when he was one of the strong forces behind the bill that 1) prevents them from being able to declare bankruptcy, and 2) getting full disclosure from credit card companies about the interest rates being charged?

        I so badly wanted Maher to bring that up.

        Q:"You've called Bush a loser." A:"And a liar." Q:"You apologized for the loser comment." A:"But never for the liar, have I?" - Rolling Stone with Harry Reid

        by alivingston on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:02:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What? Did we watch the same show? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karenc, A Patriot for Kerry

        Biden was godawful when it came to Iraq.  EVERYTHING he said you could learn about by reading the NY Times, the New Yorker, and the Atlantic.  He said nothing new.  But what he did do was to strike down Kerry, by saying that when the troops left Iraq, the region would descend into chaos and oil would cost $150/barrel.  He blew off the fact that Kerry had a whole piece in his op-ed about setting up a Dayton like summit with all Iraq parties present, the Arab League, allies, the U.N. -- in short, EVERYONE.  AND, Kerry (who has credited Murtha) has called for troops to stay over the horizon for security and emergency response to the Doomsday prospect Biden spoke of.  But Biden lied about Kerry's plan by omitting these very important pieces.  

        The fact that Bill Maher and Ben Affleck sat there in awe and gratitude that he "explained it all" to them, makes me question why I watch that show anymore.  I mean, for crying out loud -- why doesn't Bill Maher know these details about Iraq?

        I was very heartened to hear Kerry respond to Biden's bulls*** on MTP, pointing this out.  Kerry could easily out-debate Biden with his superior intellect.  Any day of the week.

        •  Don't get me wrong (0+ / 0-)

          I prefer Kerry and am not inclined to go to the mat for Biden - or Maher for that matter.  I suffer through that show as well.  I am used to already knowing 90% of what the people say on these shows- having already read it in the NYT, or here.  Hearing them articulate it clearly is rarer than it should be.

          But for the record, I thought Kerry should have been much more articulate on MTP about the "Over the horizon" bit.  Russert was getting all hot under the collar that the world would fall apart if we left and Kerry didn't explain what he meant clearly enough to convince any securitymoms out there...

          "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." - Joseph Goebbels

          by gerbbils on Mon Apr 10, 2006 at 09:34:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What is it you like about Biden? (0+ / 0-)

      The hairplugs or the "unlimited" charge card?

      "I am the pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." G W Bush

      by irate on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:43:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did you see him on Bill Maher? (0+ / 0-)

      He "declared" is running for President.  He thinks he's got all the answers.  Left is nuts. Right is nuts.  The only thing I saw in his that I never saw before was that he was actually listening to the "lefties".  Not that he would take them at face value.  He would listen and then interpret their opinions to fit his point of view.  

      Don't think - just vote!

      by dkmich on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:16:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He didn't say it because... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Do Tell
      he's a nuanced opportunist w/little history of standing on visionary principle.  AFAIC, he always plays from within whatever box he's been put.    

      Howard Dean, FeinGold, (and now) Gore on the other hand...

      FWIW, I don't buy this "Iraqi leaders have to get their act together or big daddy US is gon'na quit doing you all these favors" crap.

      Only way this will ever get straightened out is if...
      - US crimes/motives under CPA are fully exposed, admitted and corrected.  EG. a true Iraqi liberation, rather than another neo-con moniquer ("Clear Skies", "Healthy Forests" etc.) disguising massive non-Iraqi corp takings.
      - same with torture/indiscriminate arrests, imprisonment and collateral damage.  GWB & co. have to answer the questions, under oath, w/no safety net.    
      - US and/or respected internatial judiciary tries those guilty of these atrocities for all the world to see, w/appropriate punishment.
      - Competant people, in openly transparent fashion, start from square 1 to re-do this thing right aka the Marshall plan.  Our "efforts" there have fooled nobody.  

      Clean it all up... clean the whole fucking miserable GWB spoiled child thing up, frog march the perpetrators to appropriate justice, and start from scratch with no hidden motives.  

      We leave now, there's going to be festering desire for recriminations that sooner or later... just like Khomeni showed up 30+ years after injustice that brought him to power, will come home to roost.  

      "My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted." -- Steven Wright

      by jdmckay on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:02:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And Tell Him To Go Home (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AWhitneyBrown, Do Tell

      How many terms does this mealy mouthed, unaccomplished cure for insomnia need to have in the Senate before he actually does something worth raising all those tens of millions of dollars he's pimped for his campaigns?

      Joe has been just as effective stopping this immoral war and fighting the Bush Regime as Joe Liberman has.

      They're too past their primes members of the establishment who we need to dump in favor of Democrats who don't fold like a cheap umbrella when their number is called.

      Biden doesn't have the balls to back Feingold's censure and he doesn't have the balls to point to any positive or relevant difference he has made in the last two decades.

      Get a clue Joe - we think you'd suck as President.

      "The Buddhist was pissed... and it wasn't the first time."

      by The Angry Buddhist on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm just ignoring these all talk no action Dems (0+ / 0-)

      I can't say what makes me more sick. Hearing the things  the Republican extremists are doing or hearing how strong some Democrat in Congress is talking.

      These people have lost all credibility in my eyes.

      Actions speak louder than words.

    •  ARRGH indeed!! GET OVER '04 people!!!!! (7+ / 0-)

      PuhLEEZ - people wanting to go over old news such as Kerry's campaign mistakes in '04 over and over again - start a revolving diary devoted to THAT, OK, instead of muddying up discussions of current events.

      What I would WISH to see is for Dems to FORGET about maneuvering their faves for the President in '08 right now and use their brains to think about the best way for the Dems as a GROUP to either neuteralize GWB and the neocons or get him/them OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

      If Bush finds a reason to suspend elections in '08 - all this talk about who would be the best Dem candidate will be moot anyway.

      •  Absolutely! (0+ / 0-)

        Dems have nothing to learn from the GOP except one thing - party unity and discipline.  Can't argue with their success in that department:  It gave them three branches of government.

        "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

        by fishhead on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:42:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm confused (0+ / 0-)

      what does Biden have to do with this post or what John Kerry said on MTP? Thanks for the Bank of America buyout of MBNA though. Was that a major crisis or scandal since it was announced a couple of years ago?

    •  Problem is Those Damn Consultants (0+ / 0-)

      It seems that Gore, and now Kerry both found their voices (and their balls and spines) after they got out from under the influence of campaign consultants. Hmmm I wonder, do you think the next candidate for our party should IGNORE THOSE CORPORATE, HIRED, MUTHAF*CKERS so we can finally win the White House back?

      Simple minds really, REALLY want to know.

      When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice all is lost. Therefore you must not give up.

      by EmilyD on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:08:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah (10+ / 0-)

    It was a dream to have a president who could string three words together without tripping over his tongue.

  •  damn straight (7+ / 0-)

    he didn't have the right to selectively declassify information for the sole purpose of building his false case for war.

    he violated the law!!

  •  Frankly a little dissapointed : IMPEACH BUSH ! (23+ / 0-)

    Frankly, I was bit dissapointed with the interview in that Mr. Kerry would not even talk about the Impeachment of Bush when being asked his opinion he basically used the tire and old excuse that people were tired of politics.  Don't get me wrong I do like Mr. Kerry but sometimes he can be his own worst enemy.
    Thanks,
    Leonard CLark
    the Damned Liberal,
    Desert Storm/Iraq War III Vet,
    and
    Candidate for the
    U.S. Senate
    in Arizona

    •  Amen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elveta

      I was writing my comment below while you were writing and then posting yours.

      •  any Senator can count (6+ / 0-)

        and supporting impeachment efforts right now in public is a waste of time.  Impeachment will be THE issue come November 06.

        I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

        by route66 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:28:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But don't deride the issue... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bramish, elveta, joanneleon, Andy30tx, BB10

          that's all I'm saying.

          Don't have to be Mr. Let's-Impeach-Right-Now, but don't dismiss it.

          Say: "This is a very grave issue that must be addressed when we get the full picture of how this Administration misled this congress and this country into war." Something that doesn't just brush the issue away.

          Even better, maybe Senators could take a lesson or two from MSOC.

          •  Disagree, actually. (22+ / 0-)

            Support for impeachment needs to be a groundswell of popular opinion, not something that could instead be categorized as "a few Senators seeking the Presidency trying to suck their base for votes".

            Why let the Conservative mainstream media have such an easy one?

            Why not let articulate, presentable members of the public nudge the impeachment idea along, which is basically the same thing as Senators being informed by their constituents that they want impeachment?

            I prefer more of a stealth attack on this, I really do.  All the stuff that is thrown at the Left by the corporate media, we all know it's just chaff, but why let them have even that chaff to throw at Democratic Senators?  Why not have them blow all their chaff on members of the public and bloggers, to the point where Senators eventually talking about impeachment can realistically say "I'm responding to the wishes of my constituents" in response to charges that they are merely setting up their own Presidential runs?

            It just doesn't make sense, to me, to give the MSM material to work with when we can withhold access to that material simply by portioning out different parts of our message to different messengers.  I don't think it's the right time for someone with John Kerry's gravitas and seniority to be leading the charge for impeachment when impeachment is an impossible dream before November at the very earliest.  Let US build the groundswell of public opinion regarding impeachment in the months leading up to the election, and let our candidates capitalize on our efforts on election day.

            We all have our roles.  Sometimes I think in our excitement we try to do everything, and expect our leaders to do everything too.  That's not how an effective fighting force is run.  You portion out the workload sensibly, giving everyone a task that he or she has the specific training or aptitude for, and keeping people away from things they're not good at, or things that other people will do better.

            We do the impeachment talk better than the elected Dems at the moment.  They are right to leave it to us to build a movement of public opinion at this time.  They must be ready to take over from us immediately before the election, and allow themselves to be carried forward by our momentum in the direction we have shown we want to go.

            This is not "keeping our powder dry," which I, like many a Kosopotamian, am heartily sick of viz a viz Roberts and ScAlito.  But this is not the same thing.  This is not keeping our powder dry, it's "not blowing our wad five months too early".  The important date for impeachment is Tuesday November 7th, not Sunday April 9th.

            •  I like your thinking on this... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              celticshel, joanneleon, curtadams

              again my main point is that Kerry should not have dismissed Impeachment in this way that makes it just seem ridiculous. I don't know exactly what he should have said ... I was trying to come up with an example that would have allowed him to register the fact that it is not a risible claim, while not having to say "Yes, I'm for impeachment."

              I'm all for unconscious networking. And I completely agree that the more people hear about Impeachment as a serious idea from both regular folk and then elected officials, the better the idea will take root.

              •  The impeachment question is an opportunity (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, Overseas

                for sitting Dems to bring up the no-account, rubber-stamp Republican Congress, that couldn't investigate its way out of a garbage bag.

                The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

                by semiot on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:40:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The other day there was a candidates breakfast (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Loquatrix, Overseas

              When our United States Representative repeatedly asked the delegates if they had "had enough", the responses included "YES", "HELL YES" and "IMPEACH"!!!.

              Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH

              by rktect on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:54:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There were two diaries today (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jibsail

              asking people to support Feingold, Harkin and censure by signing a petition.  Neither was highly read or made recommended to a concerted effort to garner signatures could be made.   If you haven't already done so, sign the petition.

              Don't think - just vote!

              by dkmich on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:27:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  THANK YOU. (22+ / 0-)

          Why is this so friggin' hard to understand?

          The republicans are killing themselves on the issues. Impeachment talk - and that is all it could be right now - would just change the conversation to a discussion of whether Dems were just out for revenge, and oh yeah let's replay a few clips of Clinton saying "I did not...." and talk about the meaning of "is."

          Yeah, that would help us.

          The conversation now is about the crux of the issues which may indeed be impeachable. (clarification: "may" in the minds of average people; I have no doubt that they are.)  Let's keep it there until a large portion of the American people know what Bush has done and want him impeached. Let knowledge work itself into the public consciousness until it is out of reach of the repub spinmeisters - then it will be time for Kerry et al to talk about impeachment - and then it may be able to even happen.

          Talking about something that can't happen is just talk. I want action. And right now the action is to make the people understand what was done that deserves impeachment.

          •  I agree (15+ / 0-)

            This is exactly what the gop wants. They want the dems to be screaming for impeachment to get the facts that will eventually lead to impeachment off the table.

            Keep the issues alive and impeachment will become a reality when we take back the house.

            I also liked his stand on censure. He made it pretty clear the pResident should be censured.

          •  Impeachment Talk in the House and Senate (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cambridgemac, joanneleon

            could be an umbrella under which to discuss all the lies and the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

            Impeachment is a remedy.  Impeachment is a vote of no confidence.  It is a tool, not a weapon.

            The GOP is going to scream about what the Democrats are doing whatever they do, anyway.  Look at them now.  The Democrats are doing NOTHING and the GOP villianizes them.

            I wish Democrats would stop being reactive to what they think the GOP is going to do to them.  It belies internal strength to do so.

          •  Impeachment, Hillary and 2008 (8+ / 0-)

            are all diversionary tactics for the GOP.  Kerry is onto that.  This is what Rove wants Democrats to talk about.  The more time they spend talking about those issues, which Rove feels will bring some benefit to his side, the less time dems have to talk about the issues that we want to be front and center.

            I'm convinced this is Kerry's attitude, having now seen him in interviews a number of times, deflecting the same issues.  He gets an annoyed look and a dismissive tone, and he gets right back on message as soon as he can.

            Watch the interviewers try to pull him back again and again about whether he's running in 2008, what he thinks of Hillary, and now impeachment.  He acts the same way each time and gives the same answers.

            On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

            by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:48:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  DAMMIT, IT DID THIS TO ME AGAIN... (3+ / 0-)

                What I was GOING to say, was that, all you really need to do to figure out what Republicans think they can win on is read their fundraising letters.

                What do they say?  They say Impeachment, Hillary and gays.

                It's too early in the fundraising cycle to be a patsy for fundraising stunts like Impeachment Hillary and Gays.  

                Let's not swallow the bait.

            •  You know, with Bush as bad as he is (0+ / 0-)

              If the rethugs start to bring up 'they'll nominate HILARY!!!' the correct answer is 'and how exactly would this be worse than Bush???'

              My bet is they'll have no answer. She'll do something about healthcare? I don't think most people would have a huge problem with that. She'll hurt the military? And Bush hasn't? She'll give marriage to gays? Allow abortions? This would hurt you how?? And given what Bush has done, would gay marriage and choice be such a bad tradeoff, if we get out of Iraq and get healthcare?

              That's the one point about Bush and what's happened so far - there isn't ANYTHING any Democrat could do that wouldn't be BETTER than Bush.

              •  That is all absolutely true (0+ / 0-)

                but when it comes to Hillary, just as it was with Bill, there is no rationalizing with the right wing.  Their feelings about Clintons aren't logical or rational.

                On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

                by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:30:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Impeachment, no (0+ / 0-)

            Not yet.

            But investigation, oh yes.  That's a huge reason the country needs to vote in a Dem Congress, to finally get some truth.  And also, to prevent more lying:  As long as they know they can hide the truth, they'll keep on lying

    •  Yes. Censure won't set the stage for impeachment (0+ / 0-)

      Suppose hypothetically that back when Plamegate issue surfaced, Sen. Feingold proposed a censure of Bush and Cheney --arguing that the CIA officer was outed by someone in the whitehouse, hence they broke the law, hence they should be "condemned"-- and Sen. Kerry got onboard saying he supported censure and not impeachment.

      Then Fitzgerald's special-counsel investigation on the Plame case would almost certainly not have materialized, because the debate would have been diverted and distracted by the talk of censure.

      Fitz' investigations offer our best hope as of now to pull the plug on Bush, Cheney and Neocons.

      We need to do the same on NSA wiretapping.

      When both the investigations (plamegate, wiretapping) are completed, we could have all the evidence needed for the public support for impeachment to rise, and help kick the bums out.

      We should demand special-counsel investigation, not censure, into NSA wiretapping now! Please see here how.

      Please call your senators and representatives, and ask them to demand AG Gonzalez to appoint a special-counsel to be appointed to investigate NSA wiretapping.

    •  Too early (0+ / 0-)

      That's why.  ALL OF US are talking impeachment, but we need more of the MSM world and the heartland to talk about it, too to reach a critical mass.  Don't worry, thedamnliberal, have patience, it will come.

  •  Impeachment (10+ / 0-)

    Why did Kerry have to be so dismissive about the idea of impeachment? He believes PrezNit broke the law and he said he'd vote to censure, so why did he have to trivialize/mininize the impeachment question? Dems need to come together even over differences of opinion, respectfully disagreeing but keeping our eyes on the prize--taking back our contry from criminal incompetents. Even if Kerry doesn't want to clearly articulate a pro-impeachment position, he should not be so derisive about it.

    •  Why? (32+ / 0-)

      because if the Dems openly talk of impeachment now - and remember a snowball has a better chance in hell, then of any impeachment actually succeeding at this time - it will be spun as "Democrats just want revenge. This is all about politics!"

      I work in an office with people who aren't tied into politics like I am, and believe me what I just said is true, and impeachment talk would work to derail the discussion from the real malfeasance that is going on.

      Give people like my coworkers time to understand and become truly appalled at how criminal this administration is - they aren't there yet. I know it seems amazing, but they just aren't there yet.

      ALSO - there is nothing in Kerry's words which preclude talking about it in the future. When enough Americans really understand, he will probably have a more favorable answer.

      Final point - child psychology. People don't want to be pushed or pulled into things - they want to come up with it themselves. They want to come up with a different answer, on their own, cuz they're just as smart as that suit on the tv screen. Kerry's answer is perfect if it sets up thinking people to say - like you did - why the fuck NOT impeachment?  And when enough people make it clear they want it, believe me, he'll be there.

    •  Oh for crying out loud... (25+ / 0-)

      Who has a pro-impeachment position in the Senate?

      He supported Feingold's censure, which is one HELL of a lot more than his fellow senators have done.

      Can you please come back to REALITY for five minutes on how you accomplish goals?  The issue of impeachment is absurd, in the face of 1.)a republican controlled congress, and 2.) a congress that will only be in session  for about another 45 days this year.  A congress that hasn't passed a budget.  A congress that hasn't passed the rest of spending bills.  And you think that KERRY is being dismissive of impeachment?

      Please, I know you mean well, but three comments complaining that Kerry didn't commit political suicide on Meet The PRess this morning is more than enough.

      If you think Kerry was dismissive, just wait until you see what happens to the person that talks about impeachment.

      Step one, get out of Iraq.  Step two, regain control of the house and the senate.  Step three and only after you accomplish the first two, can you possibly discuss impeachment.

      But moreover, I would ask you, what exactly is it about the "Good morning, President Cheney.." that you LIKE?  Or PResident Hastert?  President Rice?  Or President Rumsfeld?  

      Do I really need to go on here?  I am making MYSELF ill...

    •  Why Not Respond to Impeachment Questions... (10+ / 0-)

      ...much the way we do-by saying there's no way the Republican Congress would do it.

      We need to keep repeating the phrase "Republican Congress", throw in some "rubber stamp" from time to time.

      Point out that the Republican Congress has yet to produce even one bill that the President felt the need to veto, and that the Republican Congress has done no real oversight of the incompetent Bush administration, so any impeachment talk is just a parlor game. Chain the Republican Congress to the incompetent President and throw away the keys.

      Ted Hitler on bloggers: They have no credibility, all they have is facts.

      by EastFallowfield on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:15:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I wrote elsewhere (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elveta, joanneleon, curtadams

        in this thread, I understand the pragmatic concern about not being painted as a rabid Impeacher. If you read my post, the point is that he should not deride impeachment. Say that it is a very grave issue that will have to be approached once the full story of this Administration's misleading of the country into war has come out.

        I feel like you pragmatists just see the word IMPEACHMENT and have an auto-response, when I feel like I was trying to say I understand the pragmatism, but am talking about the rhetorical importance of not deriding the notion of impeachment. That rhetorical approach lays the unconscious groundwork for impeachment in the future.

      •  Kerry and the Impeachment question (8+ / 0-)

        The posts on this diary so far illustrate exactly why Kerry shouldn't get into the impeachment debate - the vast majority of posts here are about impeachment... but the vast majority of Kerry's MTP appearance was about troop withdrawal. If candidates focus on impeachment then some real life-and-death issues are going to be bypassed/ignored/drowned-out.

        And, like Kerry, I believe censure is the right step for now.

        •  But in this setting (0+ / 0-)

          I think that's OK, because we do need to talk amongst ourselves about the necessary task of impeachment and how best to preserve its possibility.

          I still think there was a way for Kerry to move away from the topic without dissing it.

          •  Not sure I agree he 'dissed' it (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            diplomatic, etherapy, Wary

            Rather, I think he was defusing Russert's sophomoric attempt to steer the conversaton towards impeachment and away from Kerry's real message about standing down US troops.

            •  I think this is a diss .. (0+ / 0-)

              From the transcript:

              SEN. KERRY: He violated the law, in my judgment.

              MR. RUSSERT: Is that impeachable?

              SEN. KERRY: Well, I think this impeachment talk is a waste of time. I don’t want to go down that road.

              •  Your sin of omission (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                flatford39

                You left out the rest of his quote - which illustrates my previous comment - that Kerry wants to talk about specific issues and Nantucket Tim wants to talk about impeachment.

                SEN. KERRY: Well, I think this impeachment talk is a waste of time. I don’t want to go down that road. What I want to do is get to the things that really matter to Americans. You know, all this, this politics is driving people nuts. Now a censure for inappropriate behavior is appropriate, but you know what they really want us to do? They want us to get something done for America.

                •  My point is perhaps minor, but... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dannyinla

                  Look, I completely agree that he shouldn't let MSM distract him and drown out the crucially important topic of withdrawing from Iraq.  But my point is he could've pivoted without dissing! As it is, later when impeachment becomes more of a possibility, this dismissive type of language will be thrown back at him.

              •  I also think ol' Timmy (4+ / 0-)

                and his ilk are trying to goad Kerry into saying something they can turn into a smear against him. If he came out on his own and demanded impeachment at this stage in the game, I can see the Rovian headlines that would ensue...

                "Crazy, Irrational, John Kerry, In A Fit Of Sour Grapes, Singlehandedly Vows To Impeach Bush All By Himself, Then Flip-Flops and Goes Windsurfing After Getting a $175 Haircut And Buying An Extra Large Jockstrap With a Camera Crew In Tow."

                I think what he was actually saying is "I'm not going to discuss that until we have a viable method with which to do it." With a Repuke controlled congress (and media) chimpeachment is a longshot. (Hahaha, I originally typoed that as "longshit")

                But, with all the campaigning and fundraising Kerry has been doing to get more Dems in congress, I think he is acting to be the change he wants to see - and thus setting the wheels in motion to take back congress and make removal of Lil' Lord Fauntleroy a real possibility.

                He's using actions, not words to get the job done. When the tables turn in 2006 - I predict impeachment will no longer be a word ANYONE hesitates to use.

              •  I don't think we should impeach him either (0+ / 0-)

                The Republicans poisoned that well by impeaching Clinton for no valid reason.  If we impeach Bush it'll let the Republicans accuse us of the same, regardless of what I consider several "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the person who currently sits in the Oval Office.

                Secondly, he's screwed the country up enough that at this point I'd rather a Democratic Congress spend most of their time trying to fix what's messed up.  Impeachment isn't necessary for that, and would be a distraction.

                George Bush won't need our help to find his way into the garbage can of history, and by showing restraint maybe we can do something to heal some of the social division that he's caused.

                It's not a sacrifice to pay more in taxes so our brave boys have what they need, it's a privilege. FDR

                by mississippi scott on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:25:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlienCode, dannyinla

          Impeachment tdiscussion falls right into the Rovian Plan of distraction and division, and most importantly it takes the focus off those central core issues of the DNC Plans,  which Kerry has been articulating very well, I must add.

          Kerry kept referencing Murtha today, that was good, he's bringing together those two plans into one, and most importantly when moderators showed him clips of what he said about Iraq in 2004 in an attempt to 'bait' him into that 'flip flop' ad, he simply said, things have changed on the ground so the policy has to change along with it.  Nice one!

      •  This is (0+ / 0-)

        a very good strategy. I have seen Dean use it but not many others. Reid and Pelosi are doing it and at times Durbin. I wish my Jr Senator Obama would wake up already. But that's a whole nother thread now iisn't it.

    •  Interesting point (6+ / 0-)

      In a comment above, I was explaining why Kerry avoids this issue - because I think it's one of three issues the GOP wants the press to burn time on when they are interviewing Democrats.  I've watched Kerry try to get off of the topic of 2008 (whether he is running,) Hillary and impeachment a number of times.  He goes on tv prepared with the message he wants to get across and they constantly try to divert him, so at this point he seems to get more and more annoyed at having to do it.

      But you have a valid point.  There is no need to trivialize it or minimize it.  (As I said earlier, I don't think he is really minimizing it - he's combatting the MSM constant barrages on Rove preferred topics.)  But as another commenter above, Patricia Taylor says, he could use the impeachment issue as an umbrella topic to point out all the reasons why people are calling for impeachment.

      He could be handling this issue in a much better way.  Let's make some suggestions on how he could handle it better, and hope that he, his wife of a staffer might just read our comments and consider it.  

      P.S. It could be a complete coincidence but during Kerry's interview today he mentioned that late last night he went for a walk to the wall - the Vietnam War Memorial, and he looked at the names of people killed after the time at which we knew we should have pulled them out of Vietnam.  There is a comment by vcmvo2 expressing that same sentiment in very similar words in the comments in a diary last night.  Another thing that struck me about this was - how many Senators do you think take walks along the Vietnam War Memorial late on Saturday nights?

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, he was there, definitely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, dynamicdems

        Didn't you read the story about how on his first date with Teresa, he took her there.  He goes there a lot.  He has friends' names on that wall.  I guess I took the commenting from last night and his pilgrimmage to the Wall at the same time as a cosmic coincidence.  Why would he lie?  He talked about the Wall in his Senate speech this week, and didn't mention the last time he went there.  Then, this morning he talked about visiting the Wall last night.  I think all of this has put Vietnam more in the forefront of his thoughts.  No doubt, he went there last night.

      •  Kerry's words also were very similar to the words (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        in the NYT op-ed he wrote, His speech in the Senate, and the second speech striking back at Allard. (especially the fact that 1/2 the names were after the leaders knew the plan ws wrong.

        As these 3 Kerry comments preceded the thread (which to be honest I didn't see), it may well be that they were influenced by him.

        His description of the wall is similar to other (Kerry) descriptions I have read. Kerry was especially emotional when he spoke of it in the Allard bash - it was very clearly personal.

    •  The answer of any Senator (7+ / 0-)

      to the impeachment question should be, "That's up to my colleagues in the House of Representatives.  Only the House has the power to impeach, not the Senate."

      Most Americans don't know this.  Time for a little civics lesson on the teevee.

      Just because we can, that doesn't mean we should.

      by Simplify on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:24:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perfect! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        This is exactly it, and also could supplement/pivot by using Patricia Taylor's strategy cited by joanneleon above:

        he could use the impeachment issue as an umbrella topic to point out all the reasons why people are calling for impeachment.

        •  I disagree about the Impeachment umbrella (0+ / 0-)

          He speaks of all those Republican abuses just fine without the more preferred Rovian buzz word of Impeachment. However, Censure could be a better call for those running for office.

          Craig Crawford says it best:

          Not enough voters want to go through another paralyzing impeachment mess, but polls show that enough are open to censure to make it a viable idea.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          I think the suggestion that it is up to the people to make Impeachment an issue is the best suggestion, and BTW that is just what several of the Representatives have suggested we do, WE should get the numbers up for Impeachment--that takes the wind out of Rove's sails if the people are calling for it, or are discussing it.

    •  The message Kerry wanted to get out was his Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom

      If Kerry said that he thought Bush deserved to be impeached - but it won't happen, what would the story be. The headline would be impeachment.

      The Republicans would love this. (If you look at all the things Kerry has said of Bush, it doesn't take a genius to guess which way he would vote.)

  •  One thing that Kerry has going for him (10+ / 0-)
    is that he has a great voice.  He always sounds respectful, never whiney or harsh.
  •  I thought he was impressive (22+ / 0-)

    And I hope the viewers of America agree. He was just so strikingly competent as compared with the jokers who are currently in charge. You could see sincere emotion when he talked about the troops and how they are being literally wasted over there.

    I think he said impeachment is a waste of time because it is--it wouldn't go anywhere and would take up time and energy that the Congress could be using to actually get something done for this country. Impeach Bush and you still have Cheney, after all your efforts. Impeach Cheney first, then Bush--by that time we'll be having another election anyway--because it takes that long. He's right on this issue.

  •  Kerry was good (26+ / 0-)

    and it really is a sad day for our nation when one looks back over the campaign in 2004.

    How in the hell a man who was AWOL was blessed by this nation over a man who actually fought for his country will never ever be explained fully to me.

  •  Isn't it interesting? (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PLS, Rat, elveta, The Walrus, rjo, Do Tell, eddienic

    I find it very interesting that right now, as we enter another election cycle, our spineless Democratic leaders are showing some spine. Where were they last year? Why didn't they show some courage post 9/11? Why do they have spine only when it's politically convenient to do so? This is why I don't trust politicians. I say hang 'em all and start all over. When the new batch of politicians start screwing up as they inevitably do, we simply take them into a private room and remind them of what we did to the last bunch of craven opportunists. And then when they screw up again, as you know they will, we hang 'em. Eventually we'll either run out of politicians (which would be a very, very good thing) or we end up with a Congress that knows its place.

    •  Sure (6+ / 0-)
      but I like that Gore and Kerry aren't giving up, and they do seem to try to learn from their mistakes.  Right now the dems are our only hope.  
      •  Since when has the office of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sphealey

        President called for on-the-job-training?  Kerry has learned from his mistakes?  That's nice.  How about next time we nominate someone whose "mistakes" don't cost us the election and the country.  Kerry was literally given his chance and he spectacularly blew it. And learning that his grades at Yale were lower than Bush's doesn't exactly reassure me either.  

    •  It's the advisors! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dynamicdems, blueoasis, BB10

      You think its just a coinsidence that Shrum ran both Gore's and Kerry's campaign and durring both of their campaigns, the Democrats could articulate a message or stand up and speak what they believe.  With shurm out of the way, I expect much better results for the Democratic party.

    •  Media largely to blame (9+ / 0-)

      I think many Democratic leaders (including Kerry) have been speaking out on the issues (pre-Katrina) but have not been heard because of the right-wing's control of the MSM.  It has only been since Katrina, when the bright light of incompetence was shown brightly on the Bush administration, that Democrats have been given the opportunity to share their ideas with the public in any meaningful way.  

      I don't think simply starting over from scratch would do much to solve the problem. What makes you think that new leaders (who according to your plan would replace Democratic leaders, not Republican leaders) would have any more of an opportunity to voice their opinions than our current leaders?

      •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

        The MSM has become something akin to the Great Wall of China that the neocons have erected to keep the Dems from reaching the American People.

        To echo the words of Ronald Reagan - "American People! Bring that wall down!"

      •  You're mistaken (0+ / 0-)

        My plan replaces all politicians, not just Democrats. I wrote, "This is why I don't trust politicians. I say hang 'em all and start all over." I didn't distinguish between Democrat and Republican. Or any other party affiliation, for that matter. They're all equally culpable, in my oh so humble opinion. Someone responded above that Democrats are our only hope. Unfortuntely for me, I agree. They are our temporary salvation. Eventually, after we clean house of all Republicans, the Democrats will have to be called to answer for their sins. Perhaps in time we can reform the Democratic Party enough to keep it. I fear it's far too late for Republicans. They must be eradicated once and for all.

        •  First things first (0+ / 0-)

          I frankly find your comments counter-productive.

          What with there being a good chance the Bushco will increasingly strengthen its authoritarian stranglehold on this nation -  what's the point of projecting about furture anti-neocon struggles beyond that?

          I would ask those with sentiment such as those you hold keep the 'throw all the bums out' talk at a minimum until Democracy itself is no longer under immediate threat.

          •  You're part of the problem (0+ / 0-)

            Playing nice and maintaining the status quo got us into this mess. Continuing the same old business as usual will kill the last semblances of democracy in America as surely as God made little green apples. If you don't have the nerve for what must be done, then step aside. There's work to be done and you're in the way.

            •  What do you think Democracy IS anyway? (0+ / 0-)

              The way I see it - Democracy is an agreement to abide by majority rule - and within a DEMOCRATIC framework - one tries to accomplish change by swaying the opinion of the majority to one's viewpoint.

              When you speak of having the 'nerve for what must be done' - you are speaking in the rhetoric of a revoutionary - and that being the case, I really would have to wonder where you see revolutionary action as EVER having been successful in swaying public opinion in America-as-a-Democracy.  If anything - violent acts usually ends up scaring the majority and driving them  into the 'protective arms' of tyrants as opposed to the other way around.

              A fairly recent example of that would, I think be the "Weathermen" from the 60's - whose reckless actions probably would have been a lot more harmful to the anti-war movement if the American people hadn't already started waking up to the horrific boondoggle the war was ANYWAY.

              It seems to me that in many ways - the anti-Bush revolutionaries and the radicals of Bushco BOTH seem to have come to the conclusion that Democracy is an inefficient and outmoded form of 'getting things done' - a viewpoint which I find uncalled for and reprehensible.

    •  If you keep one foot in the past (6+ / 0-)

      and one foot in the future

      you piss on the present.

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:48:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Someone welse made a comment that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadTexan, dynamicdems

      made sense to me. Rovian politics has taken some time to learn how to build a defence against it. The political wars are different that even 10 years ago. Rovian politics makes use of the Great Republican echo chamber. Democrats are just now building our own with netroots and things like Air America. We came to a gun fight armed with our fists. The playing level is evening up now wnd the only thing we have to worry about are the voting machines. I think the worm is turning

      "If standing up for the Constitution and rule of law is a "stunt," then I'll take it."

      by Jlukes on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:39:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you're right and I'm wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dynamicdems, Jlukes

        Man oh man, I can't stand another two years of a Republican Congress. I know that puts me solidly on the same footing as everyone who posts to Daily Kos, but it's still so incredibly frustrating. In the meantime, couldn't we hang just a few? Just to show them we're serious? Think of it as shooting a mad dog. We'd be doing society a great favor.

        Oh, by the way, for any lurking wingnutters, and especially for government agents: my comments about hanging politicians is hyperbole. I grieve for my nation that I feel compelled to write this disclaimer. Things have come to a sorry state indeed when a little angry hyperbole can land someone in prison. Unless, of course, you're a wingnutter writing about killing liberal officials. Then it's all in good fun.

        •  I think all of us here share your frustration. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          diplomatic, dynamicdems

          What impresses me is how Feingold, Dean, Murtha Kerry and a few others are dealing with the msm. They do not let themselves be sidetracked. They have a message and they hammer away. Russert tried at various times today to sidetrack Kerry(especially about impeachment) and every time Kerry somehow turned it off and got on message. The one who does it best is Dean, which is why they do not let him on. If you notice Gore is also never on. This is one of the the things that Democrats are learning. How to stay on message and not to let pimps such as Russert or Mathews switch them to the Republican meme. Dean should give workshops on how to do it. It is not as easy as it looks.

          "If standing up for the Constitution and rule of law is a "stunt," then I'll take it."

          by Jlukes on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:28:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because ... (0+ / 0-)

      In this society we don't make formal accusations without any proofs.  A lot of the truth is coming out right now but there wasn't any then.  Post 9/11 ?  Wasn't that when Americans gave Bush over 90% approval rating ?   What were the Dem politicians supposed to bitch about then ?

      Do you have any proofs that the Bush admin lie or was criminally incompetent in the previous years, pre-Katrina ?  If you had any proofs then you could call the Dem politicians spineless for not using those proofs to criticize Bush, otherwise, the government, in time of war, always has the benefit of the doubt and the country tends to unite behind the government's policy until it is proven unworkable.

      A politician, if he has solid proof, may go against the wishes of the people and prove them wrong.  Without any proof, then you shouldn't be calling them spineless just for going along with the wishes of the American people.  They can't behave like the rest of us who are free to make any statements we like any time.

      •  Remember the patriot act? (0+ / 0-)

        Remember how it was rammed through Congress before they even had a chance to read it? Remember how everyone was talking about how the act curtailed civil liberties? I knew the patriot act was a naked power grab and so did you. If the two of us knew it, then I'm sure our leaders in Congress knew it, too. I don't want leaders in Washington who reference approval ratings before they decide what their opinions are. I want people who will do what's right, whether or not the right thing is popular. Remember the buildup to the war in Iraq and how we all knew it was based on lies? I do. Remember how all our congressional leaders supported going to war? I remember that, too. We don't need leaders whose scruples swing in the breeze with the latest public opinion polls. Our nations wasn't founded by cowards, but it is now ruled by, and populated by, cowards.

    •  Us? (0+ / 0-)

      Is it just possible that perhaps we, down here in the grass roots, are actually making enough noise to be heard occasionally? I'm certainly not convinced just yet, but perhaps his few excursions on Kos and the amount of support Fiengold is getting from us, is starting to light the bulb over Kerry's head. Perhaps, just perhaps we are finally yelling loud enough that a few folks in Washington are hearing us.

  •  Good for Big John (4+ / 0-)

    He was solid on everything but one question (the one about Abu Ghraib at the end, when he lamely tried to claim that he made it a campaign issue when he clearly didn't).

    For some reason, in the last two cycles we've picked candidates who had to figure out what the American people wanted AFTER the election rather than before.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:43:04 AM PDT

  •  Kerry was good (15+ / 0-)

    Kerry was very good today on MTP.   He was direct.  He was honest.  He was intelligent. and of course he was right on the issues.    I think the best line of the day was regarding Iraq when he said :
    If they (the iraquis) can't reach an agreement when we give them a one month deadline and a threat of immediate withdrawal then they don't want an agreement and want civil war and all we can do is get out of the way and let them have at it.

    He did not flinch when asked if he regretted his Iraq war authorization vote.

    I still support Russ Feingold but if Kerry somehow manages to win the nomination I'll say more power to him.   I hope he decides instead to stay in the Senate for another 20 years to continue fighting for progressive values.

  •  John Kerry (7+ / 0-)

    You are right; he was on fire.  I had to choose between Kerry or Wilson since they were both on at the same time.  Kerry was unwavering on his stance to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

    "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country..." - Thomas Paine

    by elveta on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:45:34 AM PDT

  •  Well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mhtims, PLS

    he's only about a year late...

  •  Message to Democrats running for office: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bramish, jibsail, semiot, Wary

    "Tell the truth, fire the incompetents*, get out of the defensive."

    *Shrum, I'm lookin' at you.

    •  and provide evidence that... (0+ / 0-)

      Democrats will be competent and inclusive when they get into office... Do we have the depth in our leadership to govern well according to progressive principles?

      Dems have to make sure it's completely plain what they will do differently, how they will do it, and what principles will guide their actions.

      For instance, the Democrats' "new" Security Plan calls for more and better defense.  Do they propose to increase spending for the Defense Department? If not, how will they change allocations or what will they reduce? What principles will guide their decisions? How will they pay for more spending?

      More of the same doesn't cut it for me, I don't know about others.

      I want the security plan to say more about diplomacy, budget management, ending corruption, investments in education and science here and abroad, a full scale commitment to changing our energy mix, getting out ahead of global warming.

      We must have a national recommitment to fair, honest, and transparent elections. We must have a full national commitment to ending poverty and exclusion based on race and income. We must have universal health care now, a solid social security, and pension protection. How can we have a secure nation when college student volunteers on Spring Break are still finding unclaimed bodies in wrecked houses in our very own Gulf region?

      Furthermore, to heal our national spirit and to have real national security, we need more transparency about current and past government activities and national traumas, including declassification of all the historical materials about the Kennedy assasinations, MLK's assasination, the October surprise - we need an American Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  

      No more ostrich-like business as usual! Full disclosure would provide real security and re-engage our nation for our future.

      What can we do now to build toward the tipping point?

  •  No, he wasn't on fire (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wayneman, khaavren

    He wanted to sound like he was on fire, but he continues to bloviate himself into a cinder. I voted for him and I'd like to be able to vote for him again, but I heard nothing today to make me do it. A lot of it was gibberish, and when he refused to support impeachment after saying Bush broke the law, I gave up on him. He would lose the next election too. The man has to learn to keep the message simple, consistent and logical. It is not logical to say someone broke the law, but I only want to pat him on the behind.

    The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

    by Overseas on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

    •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Overseas, khaavren

      The guy's my Senator and I like him a lot but....

      He just meandered through the thing. As far as impeachment, I'd be willing to support him in his cautious tone. However, why didn't he take the chance to say something vicious and totally valid about accountability? About Gonzales not telling Congress the truth on wiretapping? What about "fire Rumsfeld"? That's a winner politically.  

      When Russert pulled up the old canard about voted for it before I voted against it, why didn't he say "I voted for the revenue neutral bill. I did not and will not support a blank check for an administration beyond the pale in accountability - EVER. They're irresponsible. The separation of powers doesn't exist in this gov't anymore because of the way Bush treats the Congress." No - instead he retreated and offered, "I may not talk about it the right way, but Bush isn't doing it the right way." Another missed opportunity.

      •  Kerry did excellent when (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diplomatic, dynamicdems

        When Russert brought up that I voted for before I voted against"--Kerry very maturely and correctly pointed out he has learned that he needs to speak a bit more directly, and he said, which I really liked, besides the mistake I made in my message then did not hurt or kill anyone--BINGO!!!

        Oh that Bush and the Repbs are good on MESSAGES full of lies but their actions hrut and kill people!--now those are my words Kerry didn't say that of course, but how often have I heard that Republicans have great 'messaging' but their actions and policies sure don't reflect their messages, I know people sure must have picked up on that one!

        •  I don't thin Kerry is really angry about anything (0+ / 0-)

          I mean really down in the heart and soul angry. If he were the words would come easily. He's just put together a message and delivering it. No passion.

          The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

          by Overseas on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:59:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  why should (0+ / 0-)

          people have to read between the lines? Why doesn't he come out and viciously attack from a position of strength. That's my point. We viewed the same tape and didn't see the smae thing. You think his inferences were startling, I think there shouldn't have been any inferences.

          I mean, he comes out and says May 15! Period! Then he doesn't go for the jugular on an incredibly weak political position. Don't get it.

    •  i agree (0+ / 0-)

      Kerry needs to learn how to answer a question. He needs to cut right to the answer, then fill in the supporting details. What he usually does is start with the supporting details and work up to the answer. He did this on MTP several times, most notably (to me) in his answer on the troop pullout. When Russert asked him about if his plan for leaving Iraq would leave Iraq open to invasion by neighboring nations, Kerry wandered through all the facets of his plan before arriving at the point that he's not calling for a total pullout, but rather some "over the horizon" capability that would leave us able to defend Iraq's borders but get us out of the chaos of the internal conflict. It was a weak and confusing way to answer the question, and he does that over and over again.

      He also needs to stop misnaming the special prosecutor Fitzpatrick.  The man's name is Fitzgerald. You could see him pause briefly while he tried to get it right, but he got it wrong anyway. Sigh.

      I'm glad he said he would vote FOR censure of the President. He gets some cred for that IMHO. And I think his response to the question of impeachment was the right one. As much as I'd like to see Bush be impeached, I think the call has to come from the people and not be advanced by Bush's political opposition.

      "Instead of asking what you could do, you ought to have been asking what needs to be done."

      by khaavren on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:42:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We need a better spokesman than Kerry for this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, John Driscoll

    While Sen. Kerry deserves kudos for his crisp, unequivocal language, we absolutely must find more credible individuals to make these arguments.

    Rightly or wrongly, John Kerry is perceived by most Americans as a flip-flopper with a grudge against the people who smeared him in his presidential election loss. He did, after all, vote for Bush's Iraq resolution.

    So even when Kerry says the right thing about Iraq, he's largely dismissed as a partisan looking for revenge and laying the groundwork for his next presidential bid. Hillary Clinton has a similar credibility problem, since she too voted for the war.

    Democrats have to be smarter and more rigorous about who we pur forth as our lead spokespeople on national security issues and Iraq, especially on wide-reach forums like the Sunday talk shows.

    You'll note that when Republicans decide to attack womens' rights, they deploy women to be their public face; when they attack affirmative action, they deploy the few African-Americans among their ranks; when they want to attack Democrats as weak on national security, they deploy a Democratic veteran like Zell Miller.

    We need to do a much better job of deploying as our spokespeople the wealth of Democratic veterans, Enlightened Republicans and individuals who have been consistently against the war from the get-go, like Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, Wes Clark, Eric Massa, John Corzine, Anthony Zinni, Merill McPeak, Jim Webb, Ron Paul, Daniel Inouye, Richard Clarke, Bob Graham, etc.

    Anyone who voted to give Bush a blank check for Iraq by definition lacks the requisite good judgement and credibility to be a leading war critic. Let's push to get folks in front of the cameras who cannot be so easily dismissed by the public for their lack of military knowledge and inconsistent positions.

      •  I've been a big Feingold critic... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrississippi, UniC, TheJohnny

        ...but I believe he has more credibility to represent Democrats as an Iraq war critic tahn folks like Hillary or Biden because he voted against giving Bush a blank check to invade Iraq in the first place. Why should anyone trust Hillary's, Biden's, Kerry's or Lieberman's judgement on Iraq when they couldn't figure out the right thing to do the first time around?

        •  Because it wasn't that clear (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scrutinizer, karenc, MH in PA, dynamicdems

          And it wasn't presented as a vote for war. The leverage worked, inspectors in, Blix and Kay appreciated the IWR getting them in. Most would rather blame Kerry than Bush, which I don't understand.

          The Foreign Relations took special responsibility for being certain on weapons, and what to do about the runaway train. Getting them to the UN. Gephardt and Daschle doing the end-run and making the IWR deal angered many, especially Kerry.

          All that fear.

          •  Yes and no (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scrutinizer, mftalbot, John Driscoll

            Correct, the resolution was not presented as a vote for war, but it clearly constituted a blank check for Bush to launch an invasion if he chose. If you review the Senate debate, Sen. Byrd made that very argument, noted that there were no checks on the president before he could decide to launch an invasion.

            I also believe that Sen. Kennedy --who, like Byrd voted against the reolution-- tried unsuccessfully to add a requirement that the President return to Congress before engaging in any large scale military action.

            Kerry is not as blameworthy as Bush, he's merely less credible as a war critic than the folks who demonstrated the good judgement to see the resolution for what it was: a one way ticket to quagmire.

            We ought to be championing those Democrats with proven good judgement on Iraq, just as we do Democrats who have been proven right on big issues like global warming, N. Korea, free trade, and tax cuts for the rich.

    •  Hum, didn't you forget someone? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mhtims, True North, pat208, Do Tell

      Wasn't Howard Dean the only national figure who put his chips on the table when it really counted? Including stating that we weren't any safer because Saddam had been captured?

      I agree strongly with your comment otherwise, I was just very suprised that you left Dean off your list (unless you count him as etc. which gives him far too little credit IMHO).

      •  Yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

        Now that Dean is DNC Chair, he's more easily spun as someone playing his prescribed partisan role.

        But it is an undeniable advantage to have the DNC Chair be someone like Dean who demonstrated the requisite good judgement to oppose the Iraq war in the first place. It would weaken the party to have such a prominent leader be someone who voted to ghive Bush a blank check for Iraq.

        For the record, most of the military officers I cited specifically and publicly opposed Bush's Iraq invasion plan. Several of them (McPeak, Clark, Shalikashvili, Hoar) endorsed Kerry.

    •  Who besides Murtha... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MH in PA, Do Tell

      has laid out a plan?

      I grant that all of these folks have stated positions, but where is their plan?

      •  Others had plans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        Kerry's current plan and his Oct 2005 plan were at least as detailed and thought out as Murtha's. Feingold's flexible target date plan was in Aug 2005. Biden had a 2 yr plan. Dean and many Democrats baked the Korb plan.

        •  They just have not got the coverage (0+ / 0-)

          They couldn't get their plans out Biden had all the cameras booked...

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:40:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I remembered Jk's earlier plan.. (0+ / 0-)

          but I have no recollection at all of Feingold's, but now that you bring it up, it definetly does ring a bell.

          I remember Biden's plan, but I don't think there was any hope of getting any traction at that time.

          I think the most hopeful thing is that with the Republican's in complete disarray now, and with so many generals speaking out against the war about twelve seconds after they retire, JK's plan has a better chance than I have yet seen.

          In any event, thanks for that correction and fact check. I had forgotten.

    •  And now (8+ / 0-)

      IN second place behind Hillary Clinton in the polls for the Democratic nomination, when a month ago, he was behind both Gore and Edwards.

      If anything, the MAJORITY of the American electorate, is going to remember that Kerry was correct ab out the War in Iraq, particularly his  "nuanced" view, and the guy he ran against in 2004 was wrong.

      Patriot Act and Use of Force Resolution not withstanding...

      The credibility of attacks on Kerry by Democrats has about as much substance as the efforts of the Bush White House to spin their "declassifacation" of the NIE.

      The average American voters is NOT going to care about this minutiae...

      all they are going to remember is that Kerry suggested diplomacy, rather than force, and sugested force not only upon absolute proof of WMD's, but absolute proof that Saddam intended to use tham against the U.S. and absolute proof that he had the means to do so...

      And the media is lending assiting in providing THAT view of Kerry to the electorate...

      They are NOT doing so for Feingold.

      The absolute WORSE democrats are those who keep harping on the BLANK check for war thing.

      The Democratic vote was not that.

      In fact, there is no WAR in Iraq that was EVER voted on.

      Lets get to the front to get rid of fool who spin the facts for their own political agenda in the same manner as the Administration in power.

      And MISEPRESENTATION of the fact regarding the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Act of 2002" as ablank check for war ,is a great a misrepresentation as the efforts on the part of the Administration to deceive the American public regarding the threat Iraq posed in the fall of 2002.

      To replace one set of people who attempt to misrepresent with another is a bad trade off. REGARDLESS of motivation.

      •  I wish it were true... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Bearse, John Driscoll

        ...but the reality is that voters will remember Kerry as the guy who voted against the Gulf War and for Bush's Iraq resolution.

        Go back and read Sen. Byrd's impassioned plea before the Senate vote. He argued it was a mistake to give Bush a "blank check" regarding Iraq.

        He was right, Kerry was wrong.

        The other two dozen Senators who voted with Byrd got it right, the majority who voted with Kerry got it wrong. That's what matters --who had the better judgement when it counted.

        We need to have the people with proven correct, consistent judgement on Iraq to be our leading critics, not those who got it wrong.

      •  Don't misinterpret me as wanting Kerry silenced (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        John Driscoll

        I absolutely encourage him to keep speaking out and applaud him sharpening his message.

        My point is that Sen. Kerry remains defined by his Iraq votes --which were the wrong votes-- and his subsequent explanations during the presidential campaign. The Republicans love having Democrats like Kerry, Hillary and Biden be the public face of Democratic war criticism because they are so easy to spin as flip-floppers, partisans, or in Kerry's case, someone with a score to settle.

        When Democrats like Corzine, Inouye, Byrd, Clark, Massa, or Webb say the exact same thing as Kerry about Iraq on Meet the Press, they cannot be so easily dismissed.

        •  Withouth the existance of the Iraq Resolution (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          karenc, dynamicdems

          Ther would be NO question of the LEGITIMACY of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

          International law regarding such is SO shop full of loopholes, having been written primarily by the  U.S. and the Soviet Union, that merely the calim of NATIONAL security has allowedd EVERY war since the end of World War II to occur without serious objection at the UNited NAtions.

          Domestic law allows the president to use troops and military force as he sees fit to protect national interest and national security.

          I am as tired of listening to anti-war morons who have almost NO understanding of both international or domestic law on this issue.

          And the SUPREME Court has fallen down on the side of the EXECUTIVE power to use force from the get go.

          They have REPEATEDLY stated that Congress has the power to declare  "WAR" but "WAR is NOT necessarily or meerly the use of military force. THIS as early as the FIRST SUPREME COURT of the UNited States.

          In afct the ONLY problem that the president currently has lies WITHIN the Authorzation legilslation which INTIMATELY ties the authorization with the the president providing PRROF of the EXISTANCE ot WMD's as well as PROOF of a threat to the U.S. by Iraq.

          There is one single group that GAVE George Bush the election in 2004

          They were better friends to George W. Bush than Grover Norquist, or the REligious right.

          And that was the anti-war ignorant.

          Kerry was the ONLY person who got it right.

          It was a nuanced issue.

          It was not the SIMPLE isse thatBush treid to lie his way into...

          Or the blank check for war that Howard Dean unscrupulously created in the media.

          Which constituted Bush's ENTIRE campaign against the democratic campaign. He simply regurgitwated Howard Deans entire campaign for nomination platform with a Texas Twang.

          I am afraid before this is over, like it or not, you are going to see John Kerry as the Democratic nominee in 2008.

          Argue all the bullshit and imaginary crap you want without the Iraq Resolution, the Iraq war would have had the same legitimacy as Bosnia, and Haiti under Clinton.

          Congress didnt like it, but without cutting funds, there was NO legal way of coralling it.

          So much so that the SUPREME COURT has refused  to rule on the constitutionality or  unconstitutionality of the "War Powers Resolution" for over 30 years, claiming that they do not have the power to remove a constitutional power from one ofthe other branches of government, suggesting that the COngress and the President come to some sort of AGREEMENT on this issue.

          It was the Iraq resolution that placed the idea of WMD's SQUARELY in the eye of the people who are now polling almost 70 percent against Bush. Without the terms in the RESOLUTION, there would be NO HUBUB about what the president did to get us into war in Iraq. At best FAR LESS.

          Why...not because the electorate UNDERSTANDS the NUANCES of war...

          but because they undersatnd that they were MISLED on WMD's and the threat Saddam posed...and it was the resolution that made a congtressional support for invasion of Iraq contingent on these two issues. THe ONLY other ontigency was that the U.S, retained its right to defend itself in cases of direct threat from another nation. As is stated in the WAr Powers Resolution as well.

          without the resolution WMD's were a side show, and would never have been such a tragic-comedy at the United Nations.

          Because Bush cited his right to use military forcce in the interests of National Security and given that Clinton used military force without congressional approval 37 times during his presidency with the full blessings of the courts if not Congress, arguing against Bush doing so in Iraq would have been jut as fruitless.

          By the way, there is NO magical number of troops after which it becomes necessary for a president to get a "DECLARED WAR" He doesnt have to go ask permission after 4,000, 5,000 999,999.

          He goes, he has the power and the authority to do so, and without the terms of the Iraq Resolution his position now as well as his poll numbers would be MUCH MORE SECURE.

          •  It's not the 'legitimacy' it's the judgement (0+ / 0-)

            The issue isn't the so-called "legitimacy" of the war.

            The issue is that Sen. Kerry --along with the majority of US Senators and Reps-- concluded that Bush could and should be trusted. They concluded that the evidence Bush & Co. presented sufficiently met their standards of credibility enough to vote for the Iraq resolution.

            This was not a univerally held view, either among Democrats or Republicans.

            Many Democrats and/or military experts and/or WMD experts and/or experienced diplomats concluded it would be wrong to vote for Bush's Iraq resolution because the resolution was flawed (read: a blank check) and and that there was insufficient proof to merit such a drastic measure.

            Now folks in the former group are claiming they got "burned" by Bush or made a mistake by trusting Bush would exhaust diplomacy, etc. Well, in my view they are either

            A) suckers
            B) triangulaters who were afraid of being called soft on terrorists
            C) both of the above

            Whatever the case, they possess less credibility than those colleagues who didn't get stampeded off the cliff.

            •  Again wrong... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              etherapy, karenc

              and you have Kerry's writings in the week before the vote on the resolution as well as op ed pieces in the month before the invasion that point out EXACTLY what the legislations purpose was....

              In fact if anything Bush violated the conditions set in the resolution giving him congressional support for war in onlya limited set of circumstances.

              SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

              (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

              (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

              (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

              (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

              (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

              (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

              http://usgovinfo.about.com/...

              This and this alone are the terms established by Congress for support of the possible invasion of Iraq.

              None of them EVER existed at any time..

              Saddam had no WMD's so issues of enforcement of relevant U.N. resolutions are moot.

              There were no United Nations resolutions violated, so there was NO failure on the part of the United Nations to enforce them.

              The legal language here is NOT either or...it is consecutive.

              The DEMOCRATIC take on this resolution:

              In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

              The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

              http://www.truthout.org/...

              Lets go back FURTHER...

              Kerry's op-ed in the New York Times, September 6th, 2002.

              We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
              Author: John F. Kerry

              September 6, 2002
              Foreign Affairs

              Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
              New York Times
              September 6, 2002

              WASHINGTON -- It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

              Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

              If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

              In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

              The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

              There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

              The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community -- institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

              For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

              http://www.cfr.org/...

              The most unscrupulous thing that led to the war in Iraq was the absolutely RUTHLESS efforts at OVERSIMPLIFICATION made on both the right and the LEFT.

              This had to do with the BUsh Administrations stance that American can procede in the international arena with total disregard for the world community, which has been the ideology of the far right and now the neo-cons,

              and Kerry's position and I will be so bold as to state Kerry's leadership position in the arena of INTERNATIONALISM.

              THat is to say if you are going to go to war, you must do so under terms set under international law.

              Again ONLY Kerry took, and UNDERSTOOD the complexities of the legal situation.

              Andfd the CONTENT of the resolution NOT only reflected that complexity, it is the PRIMARY content of that document.

              In fact the document had so much within it that was designed to CONSTRAIN the presidents actions that the ACT itself was made the basis of legal action on the part of Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson and others who opposed the war WITHOUT the required actions on the part of the administration in the international arena.

              Why was the case thrown out by the court...

              Because the judge who it was sent to NOTED that the President had YET to violate the terms of the legislation as he had NOT yet invaded, and was STILL negotiating with the United Nations.

              In order for the president to have been viewed in violation of the act, he would have had to abandon the diplomatic route AND the conditions that the act noted as being requisite would have to be found to NOT exist.

              For those who voted AGAINST the resolution to use it as the BASIS of legal actions to gain a stay of action against the President would not have occured had those Democrats ANY Democrats or constitutional law experts held the SUPPOSED position that you make above.

              •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

                And LEGAL JUDGEMENT of the court that heard the case was:

                Case law makes clear that Congress does not have the exclusive right to determinewhether or not the United States will engage in war. Congressional ratification for thecontinuation of undeclared war activity may be found even though there has not been a formaldeclaration of approval. The manner and form of ratification is up to Congress, and the courtshave no power to second guess the wisdom or form of such approval. The fact that Congress andthe President may appear to be at odds from day to day concerning the conduct of military affairsdoes not necessarily add up to resolute conflict between the political branches.

                Dispute, debate, and disagreement are the prerogative of the political branches. The controlling issue for determining this court’s jurisdiction, therefore, is whether such dispute anddisagreement has reached the point of clear and resolute conflict that would warrant judicialintervention.Relevant to that inquiry in this case is the October Congressional Resolution concerning

                Iraq. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution cannot be interpreted as congressional action giving the President the power to make war with Iraq. But, whatever the merits of that argument, it is clear that Congress has not acted to bind the President with respect to possible military activity in Iraq. And indeed, the President, for his part, has not irrevocably committed our armed forces to military conflict in Iraq. There is, therefore, a day to day fluidity in the situation that does not amount to resolute conflict between the branches—but that does argue against an uninformed judicial intervention.

                This memorandum is consistent with this court’s opinion thirty years ago in the case ofDrinan v. Nixon, 364 F.Supp. 854 (D. Mass. August 8, 1973) (Tauro, J.), which was cited withapproval by the Second Circuit in the case of Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 484 F.2d 1307, 1314 (2d.Cir. 1973).

                Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss isallowed. This memorandum will be attached to the order issued today. A formal opinion further memorializing that order will issue...

                Fact is that the ONLY court to hear a case on the Iraq War AND the legislation that is continually noted as a "Blank Check" for the war, was ruled to NOT authorize war at all, but merely do give the president some added degree of latitude in order to go to make his case for taking some sort of actions against Saddam in the INTERNATIONAL arena. Anything from SANCTIONS to use of varying degrees of military force.

                PERIOD.

              •  Uh, no... (0+ / 0-)

                In fact if anything Bush violated the conditions set in the resolution giving him congressional support for war in onlya limited set of circumstances

                Well, hello.

                By the time the Iraq resolution came up for a vote, Bush had:

                1. lied about dodging the draft
                1. lied about his budget numbers
                1. lied about the beneficiaries of his tax cuts
                1. lied about stem cell lines suitable for research
                1. lied about regulating CO2 as a pollutant
                1. lied about what he knew before 9/11
                1. lied about establishing a 9/11 commission
                1. lied about the health risks to 9/11 workers

                The day after the Kerry op-ed you cited was published (Sept. 7, 2002), Bush stood alongside Tony Blair and lied about a non-existant IAEA report, falsely claiming it determined Iraq was just 6 months away from developing nukes; at the same event, he showed photos that he falsely claimed were UN Satellite images of Iraqi nuke sites being rebuilt by Saddam and said, I don’t know what more evidence we need."

                Both of these claims were debunked by the IAEA within 24 hours. No such report existed, and the photos were commercial satellite images.

                So I ask you again: who but an an absolute sucker or triangulating politician would, after all this, trust Bush to stick by the terms of any conditions he signed on to?

                Clearly there were 23 Seanors who concluded that Bush could not be trusted, 21 Dem's, 1 Republican and 1 Independet/former Republican. They were correct.

                And John Kerry was not among them.

                At the time, Sen. Robert Byrd argued:

                This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again. Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

                Byrd was correct. He mounted a filibuster to block the Iraq resolution, and was joined by 24 other tough-minded, intellectually rigorous colleagues.

                John Kerry was not among them.

                So let me state again: any Democratic Senator who lacked the good judgement to vote against this resolution lacks the requisite credibility to be an effective critic for Democrats on Iraq, and lacks the requisite good judgement to be Commander-in-Chief.

                That goes for Hillary, Biden, Lieberman, Feingold and Bayh, too.

                Democrats better smarten-up and smarten-up fast about who they deploy as messengers for the most critical issues of our day. John Kerry's not terrible, nor do I think he ought to keep quiet. But he is not the most credible person to be Democrats' lead critic on the Sunday talk shows or other high-impact forums on the subject of Iraq.

                We need to get our other, more credible stars on the airwaves to make the case.

              •  Nor is it a legal issue (0+ / 0-)

                Let me be clear that my ciritique of Kerry's limits as a public spokesperson for Democrats on Iraq is not based upon the legal technicalities; as has been stated, the resolution he voted for was not a declaration of war.

                Bush's Iraq resolution was first and foremost a political statement of The Facts to be used for manipulating the American public and world opinion. It specifically framed the Iraq situation as one of imminent danger and near-emergency which would not allow for the President to return to Congress for authorization to use force after the UN diplomatic and inspections process ran their course.

                It was a public relations con, and the legal language was left purposely vague to avoid the kind of legal accountability you're talking about.

                The elected officials and military leaders who best performed their jobs and best served America's interests were those who rejected the resolution out of hand as a fraud.

                These included the likes of Byrd --who called it a fraud outright-- many of our top military commanders, diplomats, WMD experts, and foreign policy experts of both parties. They are on record stating that the situation did not call for anything close to the Bush hysteria embodied in the facts that underlie the resolution.

                Kerry (and most others) failed to expose the resolution for what it was; a minority of Democrats did and attemtped to stop both it and the subsequent invasion. The latter group of individuals are by definition more credible; they saw what was going on the first time and can be trusted more than their collegaues to assess the best course of action now.

                •  It is ALWAYS (0+ / 0-)

                  a legal issue

                  sorry, both the left and the right were caught up in a web of deceit...

                  deceit of the right, that Saddam constituted a grave danger to the U.S.

                  the left, that he constituted NO threat at all...

                  Bush manipulated facts to go to war..

                  the anti-war left manipulated facts AFTER the fact, to try cast judgement on those working through the only alternative...the diplomatic route RIGHT through the United Nations,.

                  Lets cut the hokey, idealistic BULLSHIT

                  we a nation of LAW, forst and foremost.

                  I will quote an old play:

                  Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

                  More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

                  Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

                  More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

                  Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

                  More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

                  Sorry, wou are simply WRONG.

                  the entire anti war left was and always shall be WRONG.
                  I worked at the center of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam period, and in retropect, they were TOTALLY wrong.

                  Not because the war was wrong, but becaue in their SIMPLISTIC moralizing, the result was the killing fields of Pol Pot, among other atrocities.

                  Only those who treat international laws OUTSIDE of the United States the way domestic law is treated WITHIN the United States have ANY legitimacy.

                  Those who rejected the legislation as a FRAUD to among them

                  Because it was NOT a fraud..
                  and had the rest of congress gone along with them, I guarantee that right now we would NOT only have a LEGAL war, but an ACTUAL WAR RESOLUTION would have been passed by Congress to give the war a TOTAL legitimacy, had it not been for the fact that the FIRST resolution required Bush to go to the United Nations to attempt to make the case for trhe war in Iraq.

                  It was there in OPEN forum for all the world to see that all of the "frauids" were openly exposed.

                  All but one, that Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed to be overthrown.

                  THAT would have been the basis of the legal Declaration of War, that would have resulted had Bush did what he SWORE he had the power to do and which the SUPREME COURT has upheld on NUMEROUS occasions.

                  and that is to use  military force WITHOUT the approval of CONGRESS OR THE UNITED NATIONS. Because the courts have repeatedly held this up as withing the contututioal power of the president.

                  ANd all this talk of IMPEACHMENT or CENSURE that is beeingdiscussed woud be even MORE useless..

                  Because EVERY aspect of such talk revolves not around violating the CONSTITUTION, but violating the Use of Military Force Resolution.Because without it, misleading the American Public About WMD's would not be a legal issue. Because it never would have come up as more than an aside, only at meeting of the CFR.

                  I daresay, none of the anti-war fools can recall the events of the Summer of 2002, or the administrations behavior.

                  The anti-war movement starts its history of these events at the signweing of the Iraq lagislation,and has selective amnesia of the months between September 11th, 2001 and October 6, 2002.

                  ONly in retrospec, do the NON-SIGNERS again twist their own reasoning for not signing.

                  SOme becaue they felt it did not go far enough and declare outright war.

                  Others becuae it didnt include SYRIA and Iran in the package...

                  So dont go mumbling about those who did not sign because they felt the act was a fraud.

                  Kucinich, KNEW that the act had teeth... HE used it himself to go to court.

                  Others like Bob Graham, wanted to include Syria in the mix...

                  Others, other equally daft reasons...
                  NOne becaue of thie prescience you atttribute them AFTER the fact.

                  lets discuesscthe FACTS...

                  Tha purpose of the RESOLUTION was to authorize the president to go to the UNITED NATIONS and make his case for doing SOMETHING about Saddam, up to and including the use of force.

                  That is the legal wording and INTENT of the act.

                  Except Bush could NOT make that case  in front of the UNited Nations.
                  The war as it existes was not only NOT authorized by the resolution, much of it was prohibited by the resolution.
                  It was the anti-war brigade who gave Bush his talking points..

                  they turned the resolution into a "BLANK CHECK FOR WAR" in the only place Bush needed it to be a "BLANK CHECK FOR WAR"

                  In the public's mind.

                  Just as Bush keeps INDIRECTLY linking Al Qaeda and terrorism to Saddam and Iraq, the anti-war left has given him his rallying cry of "THE DEMOCRATS VOTED ME THE RIGHT TO GO TO WAR"

                  Which is as big a lie as the repeated attempts to link Saddam and Bin Laden.

                  More tan half the fault that this war occured lies in the political advantage that the anti-war left gave to Bush in its total misrepresentation of the Act itself.

                  It gave Bush the time to mislead the American public, and the slogan to do it on.

                  From OCTOBER 2002, until a week of so before the invasion, EVERY poll showed that the America electorate supported invading Iraq ONLY with a U.N. Resolution to do so and ONLY with a United Nations co-alition.

                  The PERCENTAGES were strkingly similar, almoty exactly the SAME as the polls show the opposition to the war today.
                  As high as 68 percent of the Polled electorate OPPOSED going to war WITHOUT a United Nations resolution

                  The presentation of the vote for the RESOLUTION as this "Blank Check", as well as the anti-war protests in Front of the United NAtions virtually REVERSED these polling numbers and within DAYS, Bush had his PUBLIC support for the war, with polling numbers of 70 percent of the Public supporting the invasion WITHOUT the United Nations.
                  SOme con-incidence...

                  YOu are correct in one way, its not just about LEGAL.

                  Its about public opinion...

                  And the anti-war brigades gave Bush what he absolutely NEEDED to feel secure in invading.

                  70 percent of the public opinion in his favor in the polls.

                  •  P.P.P.S. (0+ / 0-)

                    In fact I will go so far to say that the Iraq Resolution trapped Bush in a way that INFURIATED HIM...

                    Which is why Colin Powell FELL shortly thereafter...

                    Bush wanted a resolution a simply WAR RESOLUTION from his MAJORITY in Congress, but he HAD to go to the United Nations and make that CASE OPENLY, PUBLICALLY in front of the Security Council who openly, rejected the Bush evidence and  so called intelligence thw whole way. The sections of the legislation put in to APPEASE DEmocrats had Bush like a deer in the headlights, and he wanted those lights pointed someplace else and he wanted to shut down Hans Blix, El Baradei and his boys before they could totally shoot down his "Fraud" just as openly.

                    The Anti-war Democrats gave him that opportunity. Rather than stay United in order to keep BUsh's feet to the fire, and keep him in Iraq, the anti war MINORITY created a media circus allowing moving the headlights away from Bush ,and directly towards the Democrats (which is what they are trying to do now, but the media aint buying it...trying  to move attention from Bush and Iraq towards  Russ Feingold's censure attempts, Cynthia Mc Kinney, anything to get those headlights off Bush and IRAQ)

                    BUsh knew that the LONGER he was stuck trying to make his case in FRONT of the Security Council and General Assembly, the more they would pick over the bones of his "Evidence" util it was picked clean...

                    He had to get out... Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, and the INTELLIGENT DEmocrats in Congress, more interested in Stopping the war than getting the NOMINATION, had Bush's feet in the fire, and were holding them there...

                    Until they heard the cry from the little candidates, the unscupulous ones, those who would DO anything to get the nomination. Those who had NO experience in Washington OR in international wranglings. Howard Dean, at the head of them...with the rallying cry "Blank Check for War"

                    Have you ever READ the entire act of authorization...

                    Do so... then go back and read the Act Authorizing the Gulf War.

                    ALmost Word for word the same, except for the histortical section at the beginning recounting Saddams behavrio AFTER the Gulf War.

                    The legislation was  written to create a war modeled after the GULF WAR.

                    Where the president was supposed to spend time at the United Nations making a case, and DEVELOPING A BROAD U.N. Backed Coalition.

                    Read there authorization sections, remove mention of Kuwait, and you have the SAME DOCUMENT.

                    Bush must have BLESSED the anti-war coalition for giving him his rapid polling switch, and his rallying cry...

                    •  And finally (0+ / 0-)

                      It is EVERYTHING that occured on the floor of the United Nations that HAUNTS the War in Iraq..

                      It is resolution 1441 that haunts the War in Iraq.

                      It is the IRAQ RESOLUTION that haunts the war in Iraq, because Bush, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz were of the "We dont need to go to the United Nations and we are not GOING TO GO TO THE UNITED NATION" point of view.

                      Up until SEPTEMBER 2002, Bush said he had NO intention of going to the United Nations at all. Claime all authorization to attack Saddam EXISTED in pre-existing United Nations resolutions.

                      But the POLLS didnt QUITE support him.

                      Check the LEGISLATIVE history of the resolution, read the ENTIRE record of it and the arguments for it on the floor of Congress.

                      It STARTED as SIMPLE DECLARATION OF WAR.
                      NO United Nations. Not even a "coalition of the willing"

                      Had the votes to pass that way, too.

                      But those polls...Said the American Public wanted more than America involed in this one...

                      SO Bush had to cut his deal with Democrats...and THEY wanted him to go to the United Nations, and the SAME kind of backing as Poppy Bush had for the Gulf War.

                      Thats why the 2002 "Authorization for the use of military force in Iraq of 2002" Looks remarkably like the "Authorization for the use of Force in Iraq Act" of 12 years earlier.

                      The act had the EXACT same intent and ONLY authorized war withut the U.N. for the same reasons the earlier act did.

                      A direct threat against the United States.

                      •  Not 'The Democrats' (0+ / 0-)

                        It wasn't "The Democrats" who invented some arbitrary need to go to the UN.

                        It was the concensus view of our top military experts and key allies, including Colin Powell and Tony Blair.

                        Every single credible military expert told the Bush-nits that you can't expect to succeed in Iraq without allies, without sufficient troops and without sufficient cost-sharing.

                        The US needed to invade through Turkey and wanted Japan, Gulf States, etc, to help foot the bill (just like in the Gulf War) and they weren't going to get the necessary support without going to the UN first. (In the Gulf War, Poppy Bush got the UN approval first and domestic support afterward.)

                        The Generals who run Turkey had more influence on the shape of the resolution and the course of action than Senate Democrats.

                        And guess what?

                        Even in the face of billions of dollars in aid and the risk of eternal ire from the Bushies, NATO ally Turkey still declined to support the UN resolution, and declined to even let US troops or equipment pass through its borders to invade Iraq.

                        Why?  

                        Because they knew any threat from Saddam was better handled through containment than the risks of a full-scale invasion and occupation. And because they didn't have to worry about being called "soft on terrorism" in the next election, they could vote on the facts and not the politics.

                        The Turks were right, the Brits were wrong.

                        Of course, the only way the Bushies could sway U.S. public opinion --which was strongly opposed to ending inspections to invade without allies-- was to do exactly what you're doing: reapeat a caricature that invasion opponents are exclusively a fringe "Left" and "peaceniks" who foolishly think Saddam posed "no threat at all." The did the same thing by repeating "Saddam" and "9/11" enought to confuse people into believing Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers.

                        •  Sorry again (0+ / 0-)

                          Bush absolutely REFUSED to go to the United Nations, while you very CLEVERLY rewrite the history of the events after the afct.

                          All that is necessary is to go to the nes papers and speeches of Powell, Rice, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsefeld, and others from July 2002 to September 2002 in places like the CFR.

                          ABSOLUTE rejection of any need to go to the UNited Nations...

                          Again, reead the act as it changed on the FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE from the date it was introduced to its FINAL form. As well as who offered changes and amendments.

                          Big changes and BIG differnces from the ORIGINAL presented for and BY the Bush controlled Republicans.

                          You are totally forgeting the power struggle between the State Department which INSISTED on a going back to the U.N. to build a coalition and get a U.N. Resolution, and the civilians at Defense, who totally rejected this insisting tha the authorization ALREADY existed in the resolution that ENDED the Gulf War.

                          EXAMPLES ABOUND:

                          March 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney drops by a Senate Republican policy lunch and instructs everyone that what he is about to say should not be repeated to anyone. He then explains that the question is no longer if the US will attack Iraq, but when. [Time, 6/5/2002]
                          People and organizations involved: Richard ("Dick") Cheney

                          Late March 2002 After Dick Cheney’s 10-day trip across the Middle East, during which he was told by several Middle East leaders that their respective governments would not support an invasion of Iraq, an official tells the Telegraph of London: “I don’t think it will change the administration’s thinking. We are quite determined on this account.” [Daily Telegraph, 4/24/2002]

                          April 4, 2002 In a televised interview, US President George Bush tells Sir Trevor McDonald of Britain’s ITV television network, “I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. That’s about all I’m willing to share with you.” [US President, 5/15/2002]
                          People and organizations involved: George W. Bush

                          May 5, 2002 Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Colin Powell says, “The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change.... US policy is that regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad.” [This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, 6/5/2002; BBC, 1/19/2003]
                          People and organizations involved: Colin Powell

                          Summer 2002 Reporter and author Ron Suskind meets with a unnamed senior adviser to Bush, who complains to Suskind about an article he recently wrote in Esquire magazine about Bush’s communications director, Karen Hughes. In spite of his displeasure, the senior advisor says, boastfully: Guys like you are “in what we call the reality-based community”—people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” [New York Times Magazine, 11/17/2004]
                          People and organizations involved: Karen Hughes, Ron Suskind

                          First week of July 2002 Richard Haass, the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department, meets with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. “I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues,” he later recalls in an interview with the New Yorker. “And she said, essentially, that that decision’s been made, don’t waste your breath.” [New York Times, 5/1/2003; Mirror, 10/22/2003]
                          People and organizations involved: Condoleezza Rice, Richard Haass

                          (8:00 p.m.) August 5, 2002 After dinner at the White House, Colin Powell speaks privately with George Bush and convinces him that international backing would be crucial for an invasion of Iraq and the inevitable occupation that would follow. Powell cites polls which indicate that a majority of Americans favor seeking a UN resolution. Bush reluctantly agrees. [Vanity Fair, 6/2004]
                          People and organizations involved: George W. Bush, Colin Powell

                          UNTIL THE LAST DATE

                          George Bush and the vast majority of his cabinet TOTALLY rejected the idea of even NEED to go to the United Nation.

                          Bush RELUCTANTLY agrees.

                          ANd still for the next six weeks, in many public speaking engagements ALL of the Bush Administration REPEATELY cite they they do not need or require United Nations support to change regimes in Iraq.

                          MORE?:

                          Three days after the speech, a State Department source tells CNN that Powell’s view clashes with that which was presented in Cheney’s speech, explaining that the secretary of state is opposed to any military action in which the US would “go it alone ... as if it doesn’t give a damn” what other nations think. The source also says that Powell and “others in the State Department were ‘blindsided’ by Cheney’s ‘time is running out’ speech ... and were just as surprised as everyone else,” CNN reports. [CNN, 9/30/2002 Sources: Unnamed source interviewed by CNN]
                          People and organizations involved: Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Colin Powell  Additional Info  

                          FActs arev that it took POWELL, and then Dick Gephardt, and THEN John Kerry to meet with Bush privately to insist on that Bush first go to the UNITED NATIONS to make the case for some action on Saddam, as well as to get ADDITIONAL RESOLUTIONS...

                          The POWELL DOCTRINE ONLY COMES INTO PLAY AT THIS POINT.

                          While the Bush Adminstration was ALWAYS prepared to go it alone. INsisted that it COMPLETLY had the authority to and THAT was mandated in the prior United NAtions resolution ending the Gulf War, which it claimed Saddam had broken.

                          THe policy until this point was that an invasion of Iraq was a RESUMTION of the Gulf War, not a new one.

                  •  You're repeating the right-wing spin (0+ / 0-)

                    sorry, both the left and the right were caught up in a web of deceit...

                    deceit of the right, that Saddam constituted a grave danger to the U.S.

                    the left, that he constituted NO threat at all...

                    This is utter BS, a virtual cut-and-past from Grover Norquist's Wednesday morning talking points.

                    Here is a partial list of some of the most prominent, outspoken opponents of an Iraq invasion before the resolution:

                    Adm. Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Gen. Merrill McPeak, Gen. John Hoar, Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. John Shalikashvili, Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanan, Gen. Eric Shinseki, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Jim Cirincione, Pope John Paul II, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Ambassador Joseph Wilson...

                    How many of these people are "the left" or "anti-war Democrats?"

                    Do you even have a clue who they are??

                    Can you cite me a single instance where any one of them said Saddam posed "NO threat at all?"

                    I didn't think so.

                    Zinni was Bush's own frickin' Middle East envoy who had endorsed Bush for president in 2000; McPeak was head of the Air Force during the Gulf War and a leader of Veterans for Bush in 2000; Gen. Hoar took over command of Iraq from Schwarzkopf after the Gulf War; Ritter is a Republican, former Marine, and top weapons inspector; Scowcroft was Poppy Bush's National Security Advisor during the Gulf War; Pat Buchanan is, well Pat friggin' Buchanan...

                    Do you think these people are anti-war peaceniks with no clue about the threat posed by Iraq and what it meant to launch an full-blown invasion and occupation?

                    Let's get serious here.

                    The people who opposed invading & occupying Iraq and who believed that Saddam should be contained were from the entire range of the political spectrum. They included our most knowledgable experts on Iraq and WMDs.

                    The view that we should not invade and occupy Iraq --least of all before inspections were complete and without sufficient troops and allies-- was a concensus view of our most respected military, WMD, and diplomatic experts, not the naive fantasy of Howard Dean and former 60's peaceniks.

                    It also happened to be the view shared by the overwhelming majority of world governments, including allies like Turkey who border Iraq.

                    The claim that some so-called "left" asserted that Saddam posed "no threat at all" is a canard. The "blank check" criticism was not invented by Howard Dean, it was widely shared by military and political leaders across the ideological spectrum.

                    Go back and read the press accounts and Armed Services Committe hearngs in the months before the war, and you'll see that even Republicans like Dick Armey didn't buy Bush's claim that there was an imminent threat meriting preparation for an invasion.

                    The fact is that when the moment of truth arrived there were only two groups of Senators & Reps: those who had the judgement to recognize Bush's Iraq resolution for the sham it was and who voted against it, and those who were suckered and/or made a political decision to vote for it.

                    Among the latter group were Republicans afraid of the consequences of breaking from their party, and Democrats afraid of being called "soft on terrorism" before the mid-term & presidential elections.

        •  You are framing Kerry's appearance as referendum (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stodghie, dynamicdems

          on who should be the Dem nominee for 08.

          I would suggest that Dems not get off-track by getting hung up on this issue.

          If Kerry provides a good clear voice against the President's policies - that should be good enough.

          •  Not his appearance, his judgement (0+ / 0-)

            There are only two types of politicians with respect to Iraq: those who got it right and those who got it wrong.

            Those who looked at all of Bush's WMD & al Qaeda claims, plus his track record for mendacity and concluded that they should vote against Bush's Iraq resolution were correct.

            Those who looked at the same evidence and concluded Bush should be trusted and concluded they should vote for Bush's Iraq resolution were wrong.

            Simply put, there was no more serious vote involving individual exercise of judgement than the Iraq resolution.

            Since John Kerry got it wrong, he by definition lacks the requisite good judgement to be either an effective critic for Democrats or Commander-and-Chief. This is equally true for other Democrats and Republicans, not just Kerry.

            Why on earth would anyone (or should anyone) trust people who have proven they can't tell the difference between a the correct decision and an obvious disaster --especially when there are plenty of other folks who got it right?

            •  My point was is to PUT ASIDE political jockeying (0+ / 0-)

              for '08 - and focus on getting rid of or neuteralizing Bushco!

              Really - is that too much to ask when there may not even BE elections at all the way things are going?!

              Really - I would have to question your or anybody ELSE'S judgement who harps on the wrong thing at the wrong time.

              •  Agreed, which is why I think we need better (0+ / 0-)

                spokespeople than John Kerry criticising Iraq on the most important public forums like the Sunday Talk Shows.

                You're operating under the false assumption that Kerry is a credible spokesman for Democrats to neutralize Bushco. I think that is an unacceptably low standard if we expect to win in '06 and '08 --and frankly, we won't win '08 if we don't win in '06.

                Kerry ain't even close. He sould continue to offer his critique just like any other Dem, but if the Sunday Talk shows have a space for Democrats when the topic is Iraq, then the Dem's should be savvy enough to send someone like Inouye, Corzine, Clark, Graham, Massa, McPeak or Webb instead of Hillary, Kerry, Biden, or Lieberman.

                •  MTP INVITED Kerry! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  karenc, dynamicdems

                  As far as I know - Kerry did not put a gun to the head of whomever chooses guests for MTP and demanded to be put on the air!!!

                  He said some outspoken things this week about Bush - MTP invited him on TV to discuss it and he DID!

                  What do you expect, that when invited on the show Kerry should have said "I'm sorry, but since Feingold is a more 'credible' politician than myself - I have to demand that you put him on your TV show in instead of me".

                  I mean REALLY - in context of the subject at hand, your comments are kind of ridiculous.

                  •  I expect the Dems to be as smart as the GOP (0+ / 0-)

                    First of all, I'm responding to a diary that is praising Kerry for something that IMHO is unremarkable. I offered the additional opinion that even when he says the right thing, Kerry is largely perceived by folks outside the Democratic faithful (and plenty inside) as a less-than-credible Iraq critic.

                    Secondly, my comments are intended to push people's thinking about our communications tactics as Democrats, and how much more strategic they can/should be than they are.

                    As I'm sure you know, the GOP is much more organized about who they put on the air to argue particular issues. No, they can't command-and-control every single individual's appearance on national TV, but --as an example-- they've been arranging the past 2 weeks to keep people like Tom Tancredo off the air as much as possible to discuss immigration, because they know he's too divisive (see Grover Norquist's recent comments on this).

                    Instead, they've tried to put on the airwaves Latinos like Bonilla and Martinez (the latter they picked to co-sponsor their Senate bill).

                    You'll remember, too, that the GOP dispatched Giuliani, McCain, the Gropenfurer and Zell Miller to keynote each night of their convention --men who did not even represent the Republican platform or agree with Bush's policies, but who had more credibility than Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum.  Hmmmm....

                    I don't blame Kerry --or anyone else-- for accepting an invite to be on MTP. Its' the party leadership's responsibility to get organized on this. If Kerry's appearance on MTP is what gets an ovation, I fear our expectations are way, way too low.

                    •  Um - MSM and neocons work in TANDEM (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      beachmom

                      Of COURSE the neocons can get whomever they want on the MSM because the MSM is taking MARCHING ORDERS from them!

                      I would like to see more of Feingold on the MSM - I would like to see more Randi Rhodes, who I think is excellent at presenting complex issues in a simple and emotional way...but no doubt at the behest of the neocons - the MSM limits the time strong liberal voices can get on the air.

                      Instead of bitching - you should WAKE UP be glad that ANY Dem critical of the Prez even got on network TV AT ALL! Heck, Hillary Clinton has a much WORSE track record on the war than Kerry- but f she was on TV today scoring points against Bush I would be ALL FOR IT.

                      I would ask you and all your fellow Kerry-slimers - forget about the past, forget about the distant future ('08) and look to getting rid of or neuturalizing Bushco TODAY.

                      Any Dem or even PUB who can add to that effort instead of detract from it is OK in my book for the time being.

    •  Who says 'Most People' (6+ / 0-)

      See Kerry as a 'filp flopper"?

      Most i know think that flip flopper image stupid, I'm sure the Repubs loved it, but---well, I think he changed that today with his answer to Russert--He has learned to tighten up his speaking and besides what he said didn't hurt or kill anyone--Right On!

    •  Correct me if I'm wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      UniC, dynamicdems

      But the Dems do not CHOOSE who to send on MSM news shows as their 'representatives' - but the shows themselves choose who to invite.

      All I can say is - Kerry is a heck of a lot better representative of the Dems than LIEBERMAN - so why not just leaeve it at that?

      As I said in a post above - I do not think it is in the best long-term interests of the Dems to be trying to maneuver their faves for the '08 Presidential run at this point. Just try and be happy with people who speak to the issues in ways that GENERALLY reflect a liberal viewpoint without mucking things up too badly.

      From my POV - Kerry is FINE - no, he is not the charmer Bill Clinton was, but who is?

  •  He could have done a better job (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rlteiken

    of explaining the difference between immediate withdrawl and cutting and running.  He made a vague point about our troops staying "just over the horizon" to keep Iraqs neighbors and al qaida from crossing the borders.  But that obviously means bases and he doesn't want to talk about that.  To win over the pro "war on terror" types he needs to state more clearly that his plan does not advocate immediate troop withdrawl from the region.

    He could have easily made the analogy that our troops are serving as nothing more than police in Iraq now- heavily armed military police that are now in the middle of a civil war.  The withdrawl threat is to remove that police protection from the cities without undermining stabilty in the region.

    The rest of his argument, especially about diplomacy, was pretty damn strong...  

  •  Mr. Kerry, why isn't your name on this list (9+ / 0-)

    if you're so on fire about saving our democracy?

    Russ Feingold, D-Wi;
    Patty Murray, D-Wash.;
    Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.;
    Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.;
    Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii;
    Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.;
    Tom Harkin, D-Iowa;
    Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.;
    Carl Levin, D-Mich.;
    Ron Wyden, D-Ore

    These are the Senators who voted against renewing the Patriot Act in 2006

    You talk a good game now but you dropped an election, not even bothering to challenge obvious election fraud and you've voted to support Bush as recently as this Patriot Act renewal. You can't have it both ways.

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

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:18:05 AM PDT

    •  Moe in the Moon... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MH in PA

      which part of the Patriot Act do you object to specifically?  

      And saying "all of it" isn't too helpful, since some form of this legislation was going to pass.

      What part did you want axed?

    •  And your point? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karenc, A Patriot for Kerry

      Where was kerry on the bankcruptcy bill?  

      Where was Kerry on Alito?

      Where was kerry on Bolton?

      Where was kerry on Rice?

      Where was kerry on Anwar?

      Where was Kerry on pork barrel spending?

      Where was Kerry on judicial nominiations?

      where was kerry on Gonzalez?

      Where was he when people attacked Murtha?

      Where was he when democrats were getting elected around the country?  (yes, he donates his time and money to them too.)'

      Sure..YOU talk a good game and think you have a grand slam but instead you just have a little bunt.  Where was he on that?  So what?  He apparently disagreed with you.  

      I'd say, he's been a doing a lot more good than you're one thing you disagreed with him about.  AND people ARE allowed to have differences in opionion in this Democracy?  Or are you more inclined for ruling the left like the neocons rule the right?  All one mind...one step together...

    •  His name is on the new amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom

      to fix the things that still need fixing - with Feingold, Kennedy, Durbin and several others.

      Kerry voted for it because there was far more that he thought was good in the bill than bad and it corrected many problems of the original. Passing it put a better bill in place. When they have the support they can fix the rest.

  •  Finally.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    ...good advisers.

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:23:51 AM PDT

    •  That's because he's listening to US and because (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stodghie, karenc, beachmom

      John Kerry has always been his own best advisor. He listens and then makes his decisions based on what he believes. When advisors get in he way of who John Kerry is they are not serving him at all. He speaks best when he speaks his own mind. He's written some powerful stuff over the years.

      When advisors get between us and John Kerry they are actually hampering him. John Kerry does best when he has his hand on the pulse of the people. He always has. He's one of those rare public servants who really feels a connection with the public. He wants to know us and to understand us. He listens and it doesn't go in one ear and out the other. That doesn't mean he's always going to do just what we want to him to do. On the contrary. He's got the knowledge and experience and in some cases he actually does know better than we do. (This might come as a shock to some people out there who think they know everything.)

      Above all, he shouldn't listen to anyone over his own heart. He's learned that. And he's not going to be muzzled anymore.

      "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

      by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:53:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  E-Mail Russert if you liked seeing Kerry (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MH in PA, joanneleon, dynamicdems, bee tzu

    I am glad that Kerry had a chance to speak before TV viewers this morning. How can Democrats be accused of not having any ideas when it is so hard for them to get on the TV?

    Email link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

  •  The question now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dynamicdems

    is Kerry an attack dog, or a candidate?

    In other words, is this sudden escalation of rhetoric and attack a push by The Dems to have a credible voice (since they have succeeded in discrediting Dean, to a certain extent) on full attack to flush out the repubs and get them on the defensive? Or is he speaking up loudly as preparation for 08?

    The RW will frame it as campaign grandstanding either way.

    But if it is a push to have the last candidate [cred] go on the attack to clear the way for the other voices to step up, without taking as much flack...with the 'policies', 'solutions', and 'ideas' to present without as much of a RW slime circus.

    It would be a very smart tactic to have Kerry out front  for a while. He can serve the party and get a little payback too

    You can't lick the system...but you can give it a damn good fondling!

    by buhdydharma on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:31:59 AM PDT

  •  Little Timmy was livid... (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    gbussey, dynamicdems, bee tzu
    Hidden by:
    letsfight

    he could not, simply could not believe, or comprehend how and why Kerry was taking this position, but to Kerry's credit, he did not launch into overly complex explanations, he simply said "Tim, that's just the way it is."

    Timmy just fell down the well, and Lassie is to much a bitch to really care either way!

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca

    by Ralfast on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:39:23 AM PDT

  •  Johnny come lately, its great yer speakin' up, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas

    but stay out of the DEM race for president, please, because you had your chance and blew it (you would invade Iraq even after WMD not found- LMFAO), and you folded yer cards too too early after an election that you know was stolen.

  •  Open Thread comment said Kerry was against (0+ / 0-)

    both censure and impeachment.

    I think he needs to support not only firing the incompetents and leaving Iraq, but also including the entire Bush Administration as well as the majority leaders of Congress under the auspices of "incompetents"...

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:48:49 AM PDT

  •  flip flop (1+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    pHatidic
    Hidden by:
    conchita, etherapy, MH in PA

    Kerry's biggest mistake was his flip flop. That's right he did flip flop. First he was against going to war and then later he supported it. The lesson here is to stand your ground and go with your gut and stick to it. Sometimes you must change your position depending on the circumstances. If this is the case, you must address why you changed your mind immediately.

    •  . (0+ / 0-)

      When Kerry first started campaigning for president, he spoke against going to war, but his vote was different from his initial stance. I call that a flip flop.
      http://www.slate.com/...
      "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

      I think Kerry is well intentioned but he makes a lousy candidate.

      •  No (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        karenc, beachmom, MH in PA

        Theres a huge difference between voting to give the President the authority to go to war and voting to go to war. Kerry said, in his speech immediately prior to the vote, that he felt it was important to give the President leverage against Hussein to press him to allow inspectors in.

        Thats actually a very responsible vote and, even if you disagree with it, a reasonable one.

        It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

        by js noble on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:41:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm game (0+ / 0-)

          OK, I'm game. I can agree that voting to go to war and the voting for the authority to go to war are different, but it made it easy for the pundits to spin. At that time, I felt that Bush was determined to go to war no matter what. Are you telling me that Kerry wasn't smart enough to see that too? Dean was right by not supporting the war and speaking out against giving the authority to go to war.

      •  Please... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MH in PA

        go get your facts straight and read that actual floor statement with that vote.

  •  netroots getting suckered? (3+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    pHatidic, Overseas, DoctorWho
    Hidden by:
    diplomatic, A Patriot for Kerry

    Look, Kerry might have been good on TV today, but have you forgotten his betrayal of all of us in 2004?  Have you forgotten how he lied and said he'd vote for the war, knowing what he knew now?  Have you forgotten his original vote for the war?  Have you forgotten his refusal to deal with the Swift Boat Veterans?  Have you forgotten that his first proposal after winning the nomination was a corporate tax cut?  Have you forgotten his abysmal campaign?  Is he out on censure yet, and I don't mean a weird convoluted statement?

    If we are going to win power, we have to stop fawning after people who have betrayed us just because they pose as tough progressives because that's what the polls say.  When the polls shift, those people will betray us again.

    •  Nope, you're wrong. (6+ / 0-)

      In so many ways. If I didn't have to run out right now I would lay it out for you.

      Kerry didn't betray us. We are being betrayed by those who want to keep stifling our best voices.

    •  Right now, he's not asking for my vote (9+ / 0-)

      He has not even declared his intentions for 2008.

      I support what he is saying right now, and the leadership he is showing for the Democratic party, which is in dire need of leadership.

      What he is saying now, and the ideas he is putting forth make a lot of sense.

      This is about today's issues and finding solutions to them and goddamn doing something!  If you don't want to vote for him later, then don't.  But today, do you think you can get behind a democrat who is putting forth good ideas and information?

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:22:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What does 2004 have to do with anything? (9+ / 0-)

      This is 2006, and Kerry's doing a great job. We need people like him to speak out and shake things up. What we don't need is to live in the past, crying into our beer.

      But as long as you've started this little trip down memory lane, I'd really like to clear a couple of things up. Kerry did not say he'd "vote for the war." In 2004, he said that he thought it was right to vote to give Bush the power to force Saddam Hussein to let the weapons inspectors back in. Since it's become clear that Bush was hell-bent on abusing that power, Kerry has since said -- repeatedly -- that he profoundly regrets that vote and wishes he could take it back.

      I also remember him repeatedly rebutting the Swift Boat Liars in speeches and in a video statement in August 2004 in which he challenged Bush to debate him one-on-one on their military records like a man. And I remember him campaigning his heart out, inspiring me and many people I know, and giving us back our patriotism and hope.

    •  Gee, Matt, a little bitter are you? (8+ / 0-)

      I see that in 35 years of fighting for Veteran's right, human rights, healthcare, women's rights, worker protections and the environment, this is the list you wish to care about?

      So be it.  But you sound like scorned wife, not a political professional.

      Who the fuck is fawning?  I don't think I have ever fawned in my life.  I'm a Yankee.  We're not really the fawning type.

      And he is out on censure and has been for quite some time now.  With a simple yes.  And if you had seen him on Meet the Press today, you would have known that.

      Interesting that you comment on the Meet The Press thread about what Kerry said, but that part of his appearance escaped you.

      And as far as following polls being a bad thing per se, I'd like to point out that there's only one politician I know of who says at every turn, "I don't follow the polls", and that's George Bush.

      Is that supposed to be our role model?

  •  Too bad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stodghie, joanneleon, dynamicdems

    This post will soon get the obligatory "We hate Kerry" whining that is pandemic to this website.

    Too bad.

    Peace

  •  Please stop blaming Kerry for 'losing' (14+ / 0-)

    Goddamnit, he who counts the votes wins. Remember the CEO of Diebold STATING EXPLICITLY in a fascist fundraising letter that he looked forward to delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush. What else do you need? Jesus H. Christ, Kerry was attacked by the press for every goddamn detail like the provenance of the fucking bottled water he drank, while Bush had already wrecked everything in sight but got a pass. "Heh, hum, he didn't do as bad in the debates as he could have. Er, he could have been drunk or something. Kerry didn't destroy him COMPLETELY, so Kerry would not be a great leader."

    I attended Kerry's very first rally in Boston, the first one after he announced his candidacy. He spoke in terms just like this. If THE PERCEPTION exists that he didn't speak forcefully, ask yourself why that perception exists. Yeah, yeah, Swift Boaters. The fascist press would have turned his response against him anyway (angry liberal, blah blah bullshit).

    Yeah, I'm a goddamn latte-drinking Massachusetts liberal. I love the truth, I love Boston, I actually love lattes, and I love my senators.

    Thank you, Senator Kerry.

    One of your constituents.

    •  Kerry failed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mildewmaximilian, DrReason

      Kerry didn't come out against the war, said none of the things he's saying now. I voted for him, but was unimpressed with his campaign and am now unimpressed with his failure to join the call for Bush's censure and impeachment, let alone bringing Bush to trial for war crimes and forcing Bush to contemplate the Tookie Williams treatment.

      Kerry is finally making a coherent statement on Iraq, but if he does not act to remove the war criminal long before his term ends, he's not being helpful.

      This is not the heroic 1971 Kerry, this is the poll-driven politician Kerry. We need better in 2008. Unless Kerry takes a strong stand on removing Bush, he should not be considered seriously as a candidate.

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:20:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Censure (7+ / 0-)

        He supports censure.  He expressed support for Feingold from the very start.

        You are passing on inaccurate information.

        On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

        by joanneleon on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:28:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I share many of your sentiments (0+ / 0-)
        1. Yes, we need this cabal out ASAP, censure and all.
        1. We do need better in 2008. We need a candidate who can appeal to such a cross-section of our society and be so ahead in the polls that the fascists can't possibly steal the presidency again. IMHO, the only person who can appeal to our intellects and their guts is Wesley Clark. Once we've saved the republic, we can restore fair elections and things will slowly fall into place thanks to an intelligent leader.

        Remember that one about Bush not being too smart but smart enough to recognize that and surround himself with smart people?

      •  You seem to want Kerry to fail in the FUTURE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        Really - it is so WEIRD how so many people in this thread sound like the Bush Royalist trolls I've battled on other websites who go ON AND ON AND ON about Bill Clinton and Monica.

        I will say to YOU what I said to THEM - stop living in the PAST. IF you want to go on rehashing the 2004 campaign - please take it to a thread that is about the past - not the present or the future.

        And if you want to campaign for your Dem of choice for what we can only HOPE will be the Prez election of '08 - please devote a thread to that and STOP hijacking a thread which is supposdly about Kerry's critisims of what Bush is doing right NOW.

      •  He's Not Really (0+ / 0-)

        making a coherent statement-- his resolution specifically mentions "garrisons" which is another way of saying military bases.

        see my entry farther downstream.

        "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

        by Superpole on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:28:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Me too ( in spirit) (6+ / 0-)

      >>Yeah, I'm a goddamn latte-drinking Massachusetts liberal. I love the truth, I love Boston, I actually love lattes, and I love my senators.

      Thank you, Senator Kerry.

      One of your constituents.>>

      I love it. Stand up for what you believe and proclaim it long and loud!

    •  Kerry should have fought after the election (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrReason

      That is the only way to shine light on the election theft. Conceding victory was wrong.

      an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

      by mightymouse on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:42:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it would have done a damn thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlienCode

        The Republicans are fantastic liars and cheaters. They own the Supreme Court and the elections (Blackwell, Diebold, Harris, you name it). I too would have like to see him fight, but I don't think it would have accomplished anything at all.

        Note that by no means do I advocate lying and cheating. I wouldn't want any part of a "democracy" based on counter-theft. We must restore honesty and decency.

    •  Remember how the MSM (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrReason

      chose to completely ignore the story which showed that W's fleece pullovers that he sold on his website were made in the sweatshops of Burma? This should be brought up everytime he name-drops Aung San Suu Kyi in his idiotic pro-democracy speeches.

  •  PS. My comment is in response to the comments... (0+ / 0-)

    ... in this diary and every other one about Kerry, not at the diarist.

  •  United we stand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MH in PA, dynamicdems, bee tzu

    A lot of past gripes and disagreements keep cropping up.

    There will always be that murky environment and information back then, to be able to say the IWR was NOT a vote for war, but was the need to get the inspectors, get to the UN. I suspect those most critical of Kerry really know all this, but would rather hold the grudge, for a war he couldn't stop or know was coming.

    Might I add that canonizing the very good Russ Feingold on the IWR, when he didn't need the Dem leadership for the presidency, to have to speak as a party, is misplaced sainthood.

    There will disagreements on every bit of legislation, but Kerry's votes far and away are good votes for all those willing to see.

    Why deny leadership now, when we so need to have a voice, especially on peace in Iraq. He could advance this, so I ask why thwart and be counter-productive?

    Let's support the plan, with Murtha's and others in the House.

    Deserving censure from Kerry's viewpoint is different than making the judgment before the country can be brought along to demand it, which so far they aren't. They think it's impeachment and a diversion from their needs.

    Let's get the power in 2006, by working together. Show we are better at governing. Let them be marginalized as the oppostion party, as they truly deserve.  

    •  Here here! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dynamicdems

      Well I finally got tired of replying to posts that are using this Kerry appearance as a means to flog for their favoriate Dem candidate for '08.

      I say - while I think it may be a good idea for different Dems to present a diversity of opinions (to an extent) as a means to see how various opinions 'play' to the public- I would hope that within the party they are unified and are working together to bring down these horrible people who are now mismanaging our country to such a catastrophic effect.

  •  too little, too late, too much of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, mildewmaximilian

    my time and money wasted

    time for someone with a clue, someone who didn't decide to wake up 1/8 yrs before the next presidential election.

    of course, you are all free so spend, invest and waste your time and money as you see fit.

    rmm.

    Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by rmdewey on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:12:59 AM PDT

    •  Then run yourself (5+ / 0-)

      With that much certainty the first time, knowing what to do about all the mixed opinion of different parts of the country, unaware, uninformed.

      Great armschair quarter-backing, though.

      •  he ran a WORSE campaign than Dukakis '88, (0+ / 0-)

        and - lets try a little math

        there are about 300 million people in the US.

        only 1 can be President, only 100 can be Senator.

        we also need teachers, cops, pothole fixers, cooks, nurses, landscapers, auto mechanics, ...

        so If all of us run for President, who keeps the rest of the country running?

        ummmmmmmmmmm ... wait - that is why people run to be THE President, AND

        THEY are SUPPOSED to be leaders !!

        imagine that?

        so, you try to be in charge of 300 million, you screw it up, and by YOU screwing it up the other 299+ million of us gotta live with a nut as President

        and that is my fault?

        stuff it.

        rmm.

        Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

        by rmdewey on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:56:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  worse campaign than Dukakis .. ??? lol (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scrutinizer

          wow .. that was just totally brilliant, sunshine.

          I like Mike Dukakis, I really do.

          But ..

          How many States did Mike win in 88? Ten?

          He lost in Maine .. he lost in Connecticut ... my God, he lost in ... Vermont and California
          .

          --------

          If you don't like Kerry, that is fine. Say so. Be concise in your reasoning, and someone might even care.

          "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

          by shpilk on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:25:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  'concise' ? hello! what is important is that (0+ / 0-)

            all the things he did wrong had been done wrong before, by Gore too - it is that simple and that complicated.

            he didn't fight back, for one. his people didn't control the media, for another.  

            a list of who won and lost which states REALLY misses what is important.

            Do I like him? umm ...

            well, because of his crappy campaign, we have bushco wingnuts with their finger on the trigger till Jan. 2009,

            Since I do NOT like political losers, I don't like him, and that and 50 cents will get the daily paper.

            If millions of people want to pour their hearts and souls into the "electable" lion for another run, go ahead !!

            here is an idea - when Karl Rove kicks Kerry's ass again, blame people like me, NOT yourselves for backing and promoting a proven loser.

            rmm.

            Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

            by rmdewey on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:02:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Right... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dynamicdems

          It's always the other guy's job.  You know, in addition to nurses cops, et cetera, we also need school boards, town councils, assembly members, state reps.

          When are you running?

          A worse campaign than Dukakis?

          Okay, we need comedians, too.

          •  Stupid comment only serves to (0+ / 0-)

            illustrate that this individual
            a) wasn't born yet when Dukakis ran

            and

            b) was probably picked up the name on a RW site

            "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

            by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:38:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NOT a cheerleader for DLC style Dems = (0+ / 0-)

              I'm a wingnut.

              yeah.  

              I lived in Boston in the 80's, and I really wish I had learned how to learn from my betters, how to get in step with the party conventional wisdom, how to follow my leaders slavishly -

              I guess I din't lrn the rite lessens when I was gettin educrated.

              rmm.

              Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

              by rmdewey on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:50:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Worse than Dukakis? LOL (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beachmom, AlienCode

          Kerry lost by 100,000 votes.  Dukakis got his ass kicked.

          It must be convenient to just pull bullshit out of your ass when you can't criticize him for something legitimate.

        •  This thread is about Kerry critisisms of Bush (0+ / 0-)

          What is it about the fact that he said unkind things about GWB merits your dragging the DUKAKIS campaign into the discussion?

  •  troll rating (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mhtims

    I'm new to this forum and just got my first "troll rating" by "MH of PA" because I said that Kerry flip flopped. That's my honest opinion. I'm a devoted Democrat and I'm also a realist. If you can't handle the truth so be it.

    •  Your opinion is your own, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stodghie, dynamicdems

      Can we concentrate on getting our soldiers out of Iraq and repairing our corrupt government now??

    •  Welcome (0+ / 0-)

      Ignore the troll rating, but also do some more research. You'll find that this place will challenge a lot of what you thought was conventional wisdom.

      The troll rating was wrong but so are you :-)

      It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

      by js noble on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:47:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well the thing is - (5+ / 0-)

      that's not really "the truth"- it's your opinion, and it's worded as an insult, not a constructive criticism. We do get a lot of trolls in here, and their favorite canned insult is "flip-flopper" which is a manufactured meme that Repukes have used against the Dems since the dawn of televised presidential debates, and likely long before. It gets regurgitated every election, and it never really has any basis in fact. It's the generic equivalent calling the busty girl in school "slut" or the handsome jock "gay" out of jealousy. It happens all the time, year after year, and the fact of the matter is, the insult usually is totally inaccurate, yet it keeps getting reused.

      In order to avoid troll ratings, maybe indicate where you thought Kerry was inconsistent and back up your assertion with facts - ya know, open up a discussion/debate. A well thought-out post is always appreciated, and rarely troll rated.

      Please be aware though, that those who enter the discussion armed with only an insult that is commonly used by the RW, is going to arouse suspicion on a liberal message board.

      •  My experience (0+ / 0-)

        I was really impressed with Kerry when he first started to campaign for president. Chis Matthews interviewed him and I was sold. Later, I heard about his vote, I felt that the vote contridicted what he had originally said. That's when I started supporting Dean, his message was clear.

        Voting for the war and voting for the authority to go to war may be different, but that's how I felt about it at the time, I'm sure others felt that way too.

        You're going to hear the term "Flip Flop" if Kerry runs again. So if people on this forum can't take it from me, they will really hate it coming from the republican party.

        •  It's not a matter of being able (3+ / 0-)

          to "take it" - it's just empty, canned, rhetoric and childish name calling. The only way in which most can't "take it" - is seriously.

          I think many just prefer to have a more substative discussion rather than repeat RW talking points, that's all.

          There probably are many who sadly bought the line that Kerry contradicted himself, but there are also a large number of people who saw clearly that he was consistent the entire time.

          This site:
          http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

          lays that out in pretty clear English.

          So, yes, as you said "Voting for the war and voting for the authority to go to war may be different..."

          And they are different. Just because some individuals decided not to accept that doesn't mean Kerry flip-flopped - it simply means they did not agree with something Kerry did for whatever reason. Which is fine, but using the archaic and nonsensical "flip-flopper" moniker is hardly appropriate, since Kerry did nothing of the sort.

    •  ok! how about you get off kerry's ass and get on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      applegal, dynamicdems

      with reality today. kerry bashing and whining is so dammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn old.

  •  I want to like Biden... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, adigal, dynamicdems, Do Tell

    but he makes it tough. Biden made some great strong points on Bill Maher but then he goes an voluntarily undercuts Kerry.

    It's not like Biden was on Meet the Press being hammered by Russert, he is on pretty friendly territory on an entertainment show and for no reason voluntarily says Kerry was wrong. Nobody even asked him to really comment on Kerry's position.

    Only the dissatisfied can make change

    by pharoah on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:15:48 AM PDT

  •  Biden - Is everybody happy? (0+ / 0-)

    I liked Biden before he started his presidential campaign. Then he started to position himself toward the middle. It's hard to make everybody happy.

  •  Politcal Discourse (7+ / 0-)

    I grew up in a family where political discussion was a typical subject at the dinner table and passionate discussion was encouraged even if everyone was not in agreement.

    I miss those days but I am glad to see people on this site feel passionate even if they do not always agree. This is a strength, not a weakness.

    While I do not generally see a benefit to endless re-hashing of events in  2004 (my opinion!), I think it is worthwhile to note that while Kerry did not run a perfect campaign, let's not forget Ohio, let's not forget the MSM in Bush's back pocket, let's not forget the Osama tape the weekend before the election.

    We now need to add the Liar-In-Cief's deliberate manipultaion and misuse of NIE info as part of a reelection strategy. If any of this had been revealed AND reported as it is now, the outcome would have been significantly different.

    I remember reading the posts leading up to and on election eve. We all knew Kerry was the right choice then. We can continue to argue about his imperfectness after the fact, however, there was more in play and had any of that been different, Kerry would have won by a wide margin.

    Disappointed in the past? Yep. Giving up now? Nope.

    Thanks for speaking up now John Kerry!!

  •  It was a good appearance on MTP today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    diplomatic, dynamicdems

    I thought it was a much better appearance than his last one last January. His answers were clearer and more concise. You know how Kerry usually stops in midsentence and begins to speak on a different topic? Well, he didn't do that this time. So kudos to him.

    I'm glad that Kerry rebutted the Biden charge that he had no plan after the May 15th deadline. One thing that Kerry has been consistent over the years is the multilateral approach that Biden discussed with Bill Maher on Friday. I don't think there's a difference b/w those 2 on engaging in more diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. I get the feeling that there's a HUGE rivalry developing b/w Kerry and Biden that's been festering since before Nov 2004 and it's just now rearing its ugly head. It'll be interesting as the primary season draws near to see how this rivalry will manifest itself. I know I'll enjoy it for the entertainment value more than anything.  

    Although I will not support JFK II in my state's primary in 2008, I do support the sentiment that he expressed today on MTP. I thought he represented the Democratic side of things very well and I appreciate the stance that he has taken on setting a fixed deadline recently. Hopefully, this stance will become the conventional wisdom for most if not all Democrats by at the very latest October right before the midterms. The cynical side of me says that we'll know when a fixed drawdown of the troops has become conventional wisdom among Democratic politicians when HRC comes out for it.

    Major props to John Kerry on his responses. I hope he keeps up the good work of preparing clear and concise answers to questions ahead of time. Whoever has been working with him on his media appearances lately should get a raise, if JFK II or someone from his staff is reading this. I see the improvements. Whatever you guys have been doing, keep doing it....  

  •  Gore's the one (0+ / 0-)

    I like Al Gore. He's brilliant, I think he would work for the people rather than the corporations.

    •  Get Over it (0+ / 0-)

      He is not running he will not go back in.

      We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

      by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Source (0+ / 0-)

        No, I will never "get over it". If he's not running fine, but how do you know that? What is your source?

        •  Gore (0+ / 0-)

          Hmm how about Gore himself here That is pretty clear also he has not laid any ground work for a run, either hired staff geared up and started courting precinct captains nothing. No run is coming his way so if you don't want to get over it fine  but do yourself a favor and at least start trying to be honest with yourself.

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:49:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Never say never (0+ / 0-)

            "Al Gore said Monday he's not planning to run for president in 2008 but hasn't ruled out a future in politics."
            Never say never. Your attitude stinks. If he recieved grass root support, I believe he would run. He would do much better than Hilary.

            •  Don't make him the Clark of this next election (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MH in PA, dynamicdems

              he hasn't got any of the groundwork started. The other potential candidates have Leadership PACS and have been buzzing around Iowa and New Hampshire. Gore hasn't done any of this.

              If he'd laid groundwork, but was saying no, I'd go with your assessment. But he hasn't. Not a lick. So I'll take him at his word. We might get him in some capacity, but not president. Not this time anyway. But he's still pretty young. Don't rule out 2012.

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

              by Kerrycrat on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:08:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No my attitude is realistic (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MH in PA

              Read any of my posts not once will find a pro Hillary statement. I will be crying like a baby if hillary made it through the primaries and they will not be of joy. BTW she may have the money advantage but I don't think for one second she can make it through the primaries. She is the favorite just the inside the bilt way favorite when it comes down to caucus Warner / Kerry / Feingold / Edwards are the peeps to watch.  

              Gore has had grass root support and did not come back in 04 he has a good gig going right now why ruin it?  "Grassroots" is not everything you still have to form an organzation and many of us had tried very painfully to point out that he has not DONE ANY OF IT. I am not against him running anymore than I am against Kerry though if he hires Brazile or Shrummy I will cry just as if Hillary had won a primary...

              We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

              by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:51:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  WTF difference does it make? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scrutinizer, applegal, dynamicdems

          Either his plan is right or it's not.

          Who gives a crap whether he is running IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW?  That's two friggin' years AWAY.

          We may not have a country left by then if President Nitwit nuke Iran.  So you better get off your wishlist and figure out if Kerry's plan is something you want, or if you'd rather stay with President Nitwit's plan of getting more people killed in Iraq ad infinitum.

          It's about that simple.

          And 2004 is OVER.  O-V-E-R.  Iraq is a completely different place an PUBLIC OPINION is completely different.  The President is weak, Tom DeLay is GONE, Frist is toast.  Without all of those things AND being the minority party, just what in hell do you think it was possible to do?

          Even if Kerry had been elected, the fact is that he would have been dealing with BOTH HOUSES of Congress against him.  What do you really think would have been possible?

          Wake up.  Time is running out, and having these "what if" conversations are pointless.  We need a solution to Iraq that we can implement in a reasoned and reasonable way.  Kerry is providing a clear path to resolution.

          What's your countersolution, because I am tired of the random bitching.  Either cough up a different plan or move your argument forward in a meaningful way.

          •  Calm down, you sound irrational (0+ / 0-)

            Calm down. What exactly would you like me to do? Run out and riot in the streets? Get arrested? Support Kerry's wish list? I never said I wouldn't support it in the first place. Now what?

            Kerry has no power, get real...None of the Democrats have any power right now! The only way to get power back is to get congress back....Vote.

            Your solution to the Iran situation is to support Kerry's plan/solution? Nice. By the way, you're bitching right along with the rest of us.

            •  Okay, so let me see if I have this right... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              A Patriot for Kerry

              Democrats don't have any power, but everything is Kerry's fault.

              You are a troll.  Only trolls bitch about "free speech" here.

              •  Too funny! Assumptions get you nowhere (0+ / 0-)

                That's the second time someone has said that to me today. I'm just a person that has a unique opinion and believes in free speech. Not making many friends so far but that's OK, I'm patient.

                This is my first day on this forum, not too inclusive here.

                •  Well, since it's yoru forist day here and all... (0+ / 0-)

                  you should look up the definition for troll in Dkosopedia.

                  It's you.

                  •  Rigid (0+ / 0-)

                    You should look up the definition for rigid, it's you.
                    Not everyone is going to agree with you so get over it!

                  •  backpeddling (0+ / 0-)

                    Here's a thread about Kerry http://www.dailykos.com/...
                    Although the language is not as harsh as mine, it's does insinuate that Kerry is backpeddling. Is this person also a troll?

                    •  First, your coding is wrong.... (0+ / 0-)

                      It leads back to your own comment. I am going to guess here that maybe it was Dole4pineapple's thread.

                      I made this comment below, but maybe it belong's here as well.

                      Dole4pineapple, though we disagree, clearly respects the other fellow's argument, stays on topic (in this case, referring to a comment made during Kerry's segment of MTP), and hold rational discussions and reasoned debate.

                      Though we may disagree on some things, it would never occur to me to troll rate dole4pineapple (and surprise, surprise, we both like Edwards!)

                      It's not disagreement that makes the troll, it's the behavior.  Disruptive, off-topic, divisive, discussion of the commentor, not the content of the comment, hanging around a thread to answer each and every comment when you are not the person who posted the thread...whatsa matter, redstate's server down?

                      Interesting that it would never occur to me to troll rate Dole, yet no less that five commentors here today have pointed you out as a troll.

                      I'm sure it's just a coincidence or something.

                      •  labeling me (0+ / 0-)

                        My coding is wrong? Are you referring to my link?
                        http://www.dailykos.com/...
                        It's not Dole4pineapple, It's JeremyL.

                        Because you assume that we don't have anything in common, you want to label me a troll. I've tried to have a decent conversation with you but apparently I cannot. I intend to continue to discuss and debate reasonable people on this forum so don't think you can get rid of me by labeling me a troll. Good-bye to you, I wish you the best of luck, I will not respond to you again because I would like to continue to post here and I see you as trouble.

    •  I like Gore (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dynamicdems

      But what does that have to do with Kerry's appearance on MTP?

      •  Sorry, veered from topic (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, I did veer from the topic. I just think Gore make a better candidate than Kerry.

        •  08 Dem candidate flogging COUNTERPRODUTIVE (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          whometense

          I give almost everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not trolls - but pushing for candidates at this point is I think SERIOUSLY dangerous to the kind of Dem unity necessary to neuteralize or get rid of Bushco.

          Which is to say - it would be to a neocons advantage to pretend to be a supporter of one candidate or another as a means to divide the liberals on this board

          Get it?

          •  What a shame. (0+ / 0-)

            Ahhh... Yes I get it....You think I'm a troll. I must say, I'm very dissapointed that you would assume that I'm a troll just because you don't agree with the wording in my post. Difference of opinion and freedom of speech are a good thing. You're paraniod and you're wrong, check out my sight, you will see that I'm not a troll!

            •  I said I assume you are not a troll (0+ / 0-)

              Look: let me state my position here:

              I think the greatest threat to our country today is the neocon's monolithic hold on power in DC.

              I think an important part of changing that is for the Dems to unite and fight the neocons as a team.

              Therefore - when I see a diary about Gore, Kerry, Feingold, Dean, Clinton, Murtha, or anyone else making a good and effective appearance in the MSM - I am glad  and sometimes post in a comment to say so.

              But I consider it a sort of hijacking of a thread like this when posters start to tear down someone like Kerry because they clearly wish to see someone ELSE get the nomination for Prez in '08.

              This diary was written about Kerry making an effective appearance today on the MSM. While for reasons stated above - I wish people would lay off campaigning for their fave 08 Dems all TOGETHER - if they feel they MUST make their opinions known about the subject- they should start a diary specifically devoted to the '08 race.

              For anyone wishing to start that kind of diary - may I suggest THIS title:

              "How might Kerry's Sunday appearance on MTP effect the Dem Nominee for Prez in '08?"

              •  Agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, I must admit that I did get off topic.

                I do agree with you that progressives need to be more united in decision making on Capitol Hill. We do have a dilemma though; progressives don't see things in black in white. That's what's so great about the Party, we can agree to disagree. It does have its drawbacks, the party can be unpredictable. On the other hand, look at the Republican Party today, all for one and one for all doesn't always work, what a mess!

                Back to topic, if Kerry is “the one” of course I will support him.

                •  I would not worry about 'the one' till '07 (0+ / 0-)

                  Indeed - I worry about there being any kind of election at ALL - think Bush is going to declare a state of emergency and call the 08 election off 'indefinately'.

                  But thank you for your respectful reply.

  •  rnc worried (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MH in PA, dynamicdems

    they already came out and said kerry wants to cut and run and is only worried about his political future.the freepers are living in a dream world about how the left needs us to lose in iraq to stay relevent.they don`t even pretend it`s going well anymore, just that when we lose it will be the democrats fault!

    •  Hee Hee (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MH in PA, mjd in florida, dynamicdems
      Here is their comment regarding Kerry's appearance on MTP.

      "In his never ending effort to remain relevant, John Kerry today put forward his trademark pessimism. From his calls for retreat and defeat in Iraq to censuring the President, the Senator is more consumed with his own political future than national security. Despite the Democrats' consummate defeatism, President Bush remains committed to winning the War on Terror and protecting Americans." -Tracey Schmitt, RNC press secretary

      Such a ridiculous statement.

      The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

      by NYC Sophia on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:57:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO NO NO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jibsail

      Man you have it all wrong it is the Presses fault we are losing...Come on now keep the talking points right : )...

      We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

      by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:27:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is what happens when good Americans... (5+ / 0-)

    fire bad consultants.

    Al Gore.  John Kerry.  Two people who should be President that were derailed by weak political consultants.

    The only thing keeping the Democrats from sweeping the upcoming election is balls.  If Kerry has realized this and is ready to lay it all on the line, I will go through hell for him.  Same for anyone who will protect this country from a theocratic totalitarian regime.

  •  TGIF (0+ / 0-)

    <font size="+1">T</font>ell the truth

    <font size="+1">G</font>et out of Iraq

    <font size="+1">I</font>mpeach the motherf#cker already

    <font size="+1">F</font>ire the rest of the incompetents.

    I had to work today, so I missed MTP, but I often see the middle of the night rebroadcast, so I'll try to tape it (I may have to break down and get a DVR to keep up with midterm election coverage).

    I'm glad Kerry did well.  We need his voice.  I'm excited to hear him talking like this.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. IMPEACH!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:13:03 PM PDT

    •  sorry about the html problem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      applegal, rolling thunder

      it worked fine in preview.

      I'm just learning how to do this stuff so I may have done something wrong.  Where's MSOC and other html experts when I need them?

      Tell the truth.

      Get out of Iraq.

      Impeach the motherf#cker already.

      Fire the rest of the incompetents.

      TGIF.  Easy to remember.  I hope it catches on!

      Again, I'm glad to hear Kerry has finally learned something about plain speaking.  What I wouldn't give for a time machine to send this Kerry back two years.  He's still not my candidate for other reasons but if he keeps on message and stays focused like this he will make a pretty good case for himself.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. IMPEACH!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:23:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bland acronyms are passe, try this... (0+ / 0-)

        Rearrange it a little and compare it to Newt's Contract on America:

            Get out of Irag

            Impeach the motherf*cker already.

            F the rest of the incompotents

            Tell the truth

        Which spells "gift", and hopefully, delivered to the American public.

        Newt's acronym for CoA went:

            Gut regulations designed to protect the public

            Rip out controls on spending

            Acquire as much personal wealth as possible

            F*ck the American public and make them like it

            Trash any good person who objects

        Which collectively spells "graft" which is all the CoA was.  One big engine of graft.

        Just some thoughts on your interesting comment.

        Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors. Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by rolling thunder on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:57:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fire the Incompetents? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dynamicdems

    So, Bush is going to fire himself?

    ...and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.

    by rlharry on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:16:31 PM PDT

  •  He still doesn't get it...$'s don't = victory (0+ / 0-)

    Catch the very last exchange on MTP today and you will see that JK is still thinking about elections in the wrong way.

    Asked why he lost he resorted to the same old "didn't have enough money / didn't spend money in the right place" excuse. Does anyone outside D.C. really think that Kerry's problem was that he couldn't get his message out?

    More money on more crappy TV adds lining the pockets of more corupt and worthless media consultants is NOT going to win elections.  

    •  Abso-fucking-loutely (0+ / 0-)

      He was referring to those odious swiftboat whores for truth. His failure to hit back and hit back hard immediately after their first ad was previewed on Fox allowed a very damaging meme to set into a lot of vets early on. By the time he tried to reputiate, it was too late.

    •  No, we don't WANT them to win elections, but the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dynamicdems

      fact is that right now in America, they do, and that's a big goddamn problem.

      I agree about the worthless consultants, tee vee ads, etc., but the fact is that something like (and i could google this information since the study was just discussed either here or TPM) over 90% of those candidates for offices spending more money won in the election cycle, a percentage that has steadily risen.

      Sad.  Truly.

    •  Yes that is very accurate (0+ / 0-)

      He did not spend money and rebute attacks strong enough they relied on the press to do thier job and people to think. Let us remember here his vote total is only below one person in history and that is Shrubby. He made mistakes and I think, no I hope we as a party will learn from them and with a better infastructure prevent them from gaining more traction next time around but it his campaign was not the worst in history. People make it sound like it was the Mondale campaign or something....

      We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

      by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:31:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Learning and Mistakes (11+ / 0-)

    What's your theory of learning? We learn, if we learn anything at all, by making mistakes. No mistakes, no learning.

    There is something naive and quite anti-democratic in the complaints of those who say that because Kerry did not do what they thought he should do in 2004, he is not entitled to take another whack at it in 2008. (Disclosure: I was the blogmaster for Kerry's campaign; but I think the general political argument here is independent of any candidacy.) Blog pundits are no different from mainstream press pundits: they are all entitled to their opinions. But in the end, pundits are pundits, and not the omniscient seers that they all too often come to take themselves to be. Too many pundits fail to recognize that their opinions are only their opinions, and that the voters may have other ideas entirely. It's in this sense that I use the phrase "anti-democratic."

    The glory of a working democracy is that we do not depend on pundits, or philosopher kings, to decide who we will trust with ruling us. The voters decide in a complex process that includes the candidates, the voters' understanding of history at that moment, and the twisted dialectical interplay between candidates in the primaries and the general elections. This process may appear to be a linear one, but it is actually quite chaotic, in a way that regularly confounds even the “wisest” pundits.

    By dismissing Kerry without seeing what he says and does in the coming months, pundits insult the intelligence of the voters and hint at their impatience with the electoral process itself. I believe that the voters are perfectly capable of listening to Kerry and anyone else who is thinking of running, and making up their own minds. In some ways, Kerry has a more formidable hurdle to face than he did the first time around, since he will have to deal with the anger and the disappointment that his loss engendered.

    But it is also possible that Kerry may have an advantage from having run. He might have learned something! He's a smart man, and he's been in a place that only a handful of Americans have ever been in over the last two hundred years: he's been a national party candidate in a presidential election.

    Is there any historical evidence that anyone ever learned anything from losing a presidential election?  The answer is yes, even in modern times. Richard Nixon failed in 1960, and appeared to be off the stage for good after his bitter remarks to the press in 1962, ("You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore")and yet he came back in 1968. (And Ronald Reagan barely lost the Republican nomination in 1976, and came back to win for good in 1980.)

    Given how rare the opportunity is to participate in a general election campaign, it should really not be surprising that candidates and their campaign teams can learn a lot in a failed effort. An old friend who worked for Gary Hart once told me that you could not anticipate what a presidential campaign was like if you'd never been part of one before: “It's like sticking your head out the window of a jet going 600 miles per hour; most people, it just whips their heads right back.”

    I have no idea what John Kerry's 2008 plans may be. Is it a good thing for the country that he's speaking out more forcefully? I think so. Should we worry about whether his speaking out now is part of a 2008 strategy? What difference does it make? We need to have many more Senators and Representatives moving in the direction that Feingold, Murtha, and Kerry have all been leading in. If elected officials want to come out for an end to war because they think it will help them win the presidency, more power to them. Bring'em on.

  •  Just watched it at MSNBC.com (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dynamicdems

    I am blown away.  Passionate.  Direct.  No flip-flopping.

    This man would have been President.  And I think he would have been a good one.

    •  Just a thought (5+ / 0-)

      Language is so important. When we use Repug terms like "flip flop" in ANY context, we help the other side. Each time a person hears it or reads it, it gets embedded deeper in their consciousness and they unconsciously make the connection with Kerry and Dems.

      Whnever we use negatives to describe Dems we do the same thing. So rather than, "no f....." use something like "extremely consistent," etc.

      You get the idea.

      I say this not as a criticism, just an observation, hoping that it is helpful deliver the kind of message we want.

      •  'extremely consistent' (0+ / 0-)

        Too many syllables..."Joe six-pack" would never use that phrase. We need to think in single or double syllable words if we want to appeal to the working class.

        I think John "Flip-flop" McCain works well; )

      •  The Republicans are the FLIP-FLOPPERS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        Bush has flipped and flopped more than the entire Democratic Party combined. We all need to get this out. The term more aptly applies to McCain, Romney and a host of other Repugs than it ever did to Senator Kerry. http://www.dynamicdems.com/...

        Here is the difference:

        John Kerry has a goal. He heads out in the direction of that goal. He sometimes has to go around an obstacle in the path, but he NEVER loses sight of his goal. And he always gets back on the path.

        Joe Republican has a goal. He heads out in the direction of that goal. He finds an obstacle in the path. He either stands there and idiotically states that he has arrived at his goal or he changes his goal and makes certain that all his comrades swear on their lives that this was Joe's goal all along and he pays off the media to go along with it.

        "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

        by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:19:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is Feingold tutoring Kerry? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mildewmaximilian

    :-)

    Finally, Kerry actually is starting to grow a back bone.   Took him long enought.

    This guy took a beating during the 2004 election campaign listening to his advisors tell him not to respond to the lying Swift Boaters.

    And because of that, you will always have to wonder which way Kerry is going to go: to the left where the public is, or to the right where his funders are.

    "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

    by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 12:59:07 PM PDT

  •  I think we need to lay off Kerry (9+ / 0-)

    I may get flamed for this, but I really think we need to stop the armchair quarterbacking and lay off Kerry.  Yeah, he lost.  Yeah, he was a bonehead for not standing up and fighting back against the Swift Boating that took place.  But he's a decent, honorable man - too honorable, perhaps, or he would've gotten down into the muck with the Rovian Repugs.  

    He did a good job today on MTP, batting off Timmy's tool-like barbs with a chuckle and a shake of the head.  It seems the Dems might just be getting the hang of contemptuous dismissal of their rivals.  I'll listen to him again should he decide to run; I just cannot trust Hillary, as much as I would love to (I worked for her husband's campaign twice, and count the day I met and spoke to him as one of the highlights of my life).  John Kerry is a true servant of the people, and I believe his only mistake in the '04 campaign was being too honorable.

    If you're going to be condemned for something, it might as well be that.

    "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty...We will not walk in fear, one of another..." EDWARD R. MURROW

    by Iwanna B French on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:10:10 PM PDT

  •  I like these brief, blunt, to the point (3+ / 0-)

    jabs he's been issuing lately. This is what we've all been suggesting, and it's working for him. He's been effectively communicating what he'd like to see done, using quick, sharp language, yet not compromising his air of intelligence one iota. Kerry's been spot on lately with his speeches and interviews. I like this "to the point" Kerry we're seeing.

  •  Kerry? Short & sweet? (0+ / 0-)

    That's a first!  But, hey.  I'm so glad to see him finally taking a stand.  And I'll be sure to watch MTP later this evening when it's rerun.  I like the plan - Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq.  DUH

    Now, he and Murtha should join forces on Murtha's 3 point redeployment plan that I just diaried.  It's the 3 R's: Redeploy, Reallocate, reengage.  It's a winner...

    We Need REGIME CHANGE

  •  Just started watching now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    applegal

    Am I a dork for thinking the Meet the Press opening music is REALLY FUCKING AWESOME?

    It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

    by js noble on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 01:51:51 PM PDT

  •  We need leadership (0+ / 0-)

    and we should be grateful when any Democrat steps forward and leads, as Kerry did today.

  •  Where was this kind of vision (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    A Patriot for Kerry
    Hidden by:
    etherapy

    in 2004? UGH!

    •  Stupid comment for an 06 congressional candidate (4+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      applegal, beachmom, vcmvo2, A Patriot for Kerry
      Hidden by:
      dynamicdems

      I mean really - what is your point in participating in this obsession with the past if you are expecting to lead your consituants into the future?

      •  No kidding! Betcha he isn't one of the ones who (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        got money from Kerry's PAC. Is a fighting Dem running against this guy, I wonder?

        "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

        by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:07:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't meaning this in a negative way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bee tzu

        the press is giving John Kerry more favorable coverage these days as opposed to in 2004. The mass media painted him in a negative way and never let him articulate his vision when being covered in the presidential run and it seems like he has found his grove as of late. It was frustrating because I was a Kerry supporter and still believe he can be a driving force in 2006 and beyond. I was a Veteran for Kerry here in Texas and served as a delegate to Boston. If they covered Kerry like they did on Meet the Press today in 2004, we wouldn't be in the terrible position our country now faces. That was my point - we need to learn from our past in order to make a difference in the future.

        •  OK - thank you for clarifying that (0+ / 0-)

          I admit after going through this thread the first time I got really annoyed by how so many people iare harping on Kerry's mistakes and PERCEIVED mistakes from the past - so I am sorry I misinterpreted your post and called it 'stupid'.

          I only hope that all Dems are successful in '06 and win back some power in DC.

  •  Get out of Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    Does Kerry say that getting out of Iraq includes shutting down the bases now being built as permanent with millions and millions of dollars? What does he propose: dismantle or abandon them? Or is it nevertheless the intention that the U.S. remain within the bases, letting the civil war go on around them while they are provisioned by air until a deal can be struck with the new strongman who floats to the top of the bloody mess? It all sounds so pretty, however something may be missing.

    •  Kerry has consistently spoke against (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom

      permanent bases. Most recently he grilled Dr Ric on this issue after he read US military generals sauying there would be no bases - Rice refused to state that was the policy.

      One of the main points of the Oct 2005 plan was to tell the Iraqis we weren't saying and that we did not want permanent bases - as art of how we get the "occupation" label off.

  •  What a great mantra (2+ / 0-)

    "Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq"

    Just imagine if Bush would wake up one morning with such an epiphany and do just what Kerry said?  Chimpy could turn everything around almost immediately, but he refuses to do so because he doesn't really care about the American people.

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:25:03 PM PDT

  •  Kerry's been 'on fire' so much lately (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whometense, TracieLynn, dynamicdems

    let's just start calling him Senator Kevlar.

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:30:40 PM PDT

  •  He's in contention for '08 in my book (4+ / 0-)

    He's showing the guts and decisiveness that deserted him in the closing days of '04.  People can change.  I think he's far preferable to a Lieberman-like middle-of-the-road Hillary Clinton.

    Give 'em hell, John!! And you, too, Ned Lamont!! We need both of you!

    •  I think you are in good company. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      etherapy, beachmom, bergerc84

      John Kerry has a lot of support and a lot of people who really want him to run in 2008. I've been collecting information about the support John Kerry has if he does decide to run in 2008. There are a lot of pro-Kerry sites out there. These aren't new sites: most have existed since 2004. Many sprang up right after the election. http://www.dynamicdems.com/...

      While I disagree that anything deserted him in the closing days of '04, I do think he is much better at getting his message out now. He did suffer from 20 years as a senator. He's learned the hard way that the American viewing public has the attention span of a gnat.

      Also, in Massachusetts, people want detailed positions. He was used to having to explain every single action with a dissertation. Being a Massachusetts politician is a particular tough cross to bear into a national campaig and to a certain extent it framed much of his campaign. What worked in MA didn't play well in Kansas. His advisors also got in the way of the senator's instincts. He does much better when he gets to interract more closely with the public, which is why he did so well in the primaries in Iowa and NH.

      "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

      by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:24:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Consultants = failure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dynamicdems

        I agree with a lot of what you wrote here.

        I think his big downfall was the team of consultants working for him.  As far as I'm concerned, the only thing a consultant should be doing is reminding the candidate to speak from the heart.  And really, the good candidates don't need to be reminded -- they just do it.

        I think if Kerry had been left alone in the message department, he could have run his own message campaign, and he would have been fine.  Too many people like Bob Shrum and Tad Devine get in there and screw it up.  They have the candidates thinking about everything BUT what they feel in their heart.

        If Kerry wants to run again, I think that's great.  I just hope he leaves Cahill, Shrum, Devine, and Carville behind.  Too many losing records in that bunch.

        "Democrats win when people think." -- Bill Clinton

        by bergerc84 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:13:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, he will! You bet he will. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beachmom

          And whoever he hires (if he runs again) he'll be saying, "You work for me. I don't work for you."

          "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

          by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:30:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your point is well taken (0+ / 0-)

        I suppose you're right about the "end of the campaign."  But he did let a lot of air out of his balloon when he said that, knowing what he did then about WMD's, he still would have voted for the use of force.  And his mixed message about Iraq being the "wrong war at the wrong time," at the same time that he was saying that "we're talking about winning" didn't blend well.

        But he's much more focused now.  And I like the fact that he's not a feather head like Bush.  I think the American people will be ready for a competent, intelligent president for a change after eight years of George Bush's "strategeries."

        I think the New Yorker put it well at the end of the campaign, when it said that we didn't like him much at first, but that Americans came to respect him.  I think they used the phrase: "he wears well."

  •  sheesh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whometense, etherapy

    just about every adjective in this diary feels constructed to rebut the picture that the gop painted of him.  It's transparent and labored and makes me feel like I don't trust the diarist.  Like it or not, Kerry's strengths have always been his statesmanship, nuance, fatherly demeanor, etc.  If people want to rehabilitate Kerry's image, they need to adopt the proactive strategy of selling his strengths, not the reactive (and fear-based) strategy of trying to cancel out the gop's description of his weaknesses.  Doing the latter just reinforces the gop's bullshit.

    Beatpaths: automatic graphical sports power rankings.

    by tunesmith on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

    •  How will flogging for Prez candidates in '08 (0+ / 0-)

      do ANYTHING to help get rid of or neuteralize Bushco?

      All these presidential asperants (sp?) need to put aside their OWN ambition and try to work together if they are going to have a hope to topple the neocon monolith that threatens to engulf the country.

      People such as Kerry, Dean, Clinton, Biden, Feingold, etc., should really hold a news conference or something and declare some sort of party unity.

      I really would ask any Dems out there to consider that there may not even BE a Presidential race in '08 if Bushco is not stowed down or stopped.

  •  He was great (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beachmom, vcmvo2, dynamicdems

    What's interesting is that Kerry is just being smart and logical about Iraq, which should be the correct way to look at the situation. But, in chimpy's bizarro world, Kerry's an unpatriotic moron who wants to cut-and-run.
    I fucking hate that term, btw. Pulling troops to the perimeter to guard the borders while Iraq troops stand up and fight insurgents is not cut-and-run, you fucking wingnuts.
    OK, I feel better now.

    •  What kills me about the 'cut and run' BS is that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom

      it's coming from a bunch of CHICKEN HAWKS who by definition have already themselves CUT AND RUN from serving their country!

      What business did Sen. Allard have in criticizing John Kerry, a veteran who knows what it is like to be shot at. All that vet(veterinarian, not veteran) Allard knows about shots is that he's given them in the asses of French poodles.

      "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

      by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:44:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what is it with these kerry on fire diaries? (1+ / 3-)

    kerry wouldn't catch on fire if you put a fucking blowtorch on him. and if he did by some chance actually catch on fire, well i don't give a shit. his time for glory is over. i don't want to listen to him after what he did to us.

    he can work within the democratic party to help get them on the right track, but he shouldn't try to be a national leader after abandoning us. there's enough hot air being blown around without kerry adding to it.

    "Might does not make right but it sure makes what is." -Edward Abbey

    by elkhunter on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:26:13 PM PDT

    •  How the hell would you know that? (5+ / 0-)

      Seriously, if you you are wondering, then why don't you watch him and before you disagree with the comments.

      You felt abandoned?  Poor thing.

      It's two years later, and I don't give a SHIT how people feel about the 2004 or the 2008 elections.  I give a shit about someone who is talking in a powerful and forceful and simple way about getting us out of Iraq.

      This thread was about Kerry's MTP appearance and what he said.  if you don't give a shit, then why bother commenting?

    •  Oh, of course. (7+ / 0-)

      You're so right. He should most definitely stop encouraging the withdrawal of our troops from iraq, and in fact, cease legislating altogether, because YOU don't like him.

      What a great idea.

      Sorry to say, but Kerry is ON FIRE and the fact that your feathers are a little singed by that fact hardly justifies Kerry ceasing to lead because you have an issue.

      BTW - Please refrain from the whole "Kerry did this to us" bit. If you somehow have convinced yourself to believe that Sen. Kerry personally fouled you, then you go right ahead and beat your head against the wall over it, but I, and many others here know damn well we are responsible for our own contentment and mental well being, and that John Kerry is not. You are choosing to be filled with rage and make statements like "I don't care if he catches on fire" - Kerry didn't do that to you. Feeling that way is your choice.

      I'm sorry you are so pissed off but John Kerry did not make you that way. He can't make you feel anything without your consent.

    •  Senator Kevlar (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beachmom

      he is on fire, yet does not burn.  you will just have to learn to accept that.

      If you don't want to listen to him after "what he did" to you, a good start would be not to open up diaries titled "Kerry on Fire"
      and move on to things that will make you happy.

      Hey, that wasn't very...

      by diplomatic on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:01:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't deserve a troll rating for that comment (0+ / 0-)

      The new CW on Daily Kos is that Kerry is back and next we'll be having a bunch of "run Kerry again" diaries. It's great when someone who used to be timid, like Gore or Kerry start standing up and fighting, but that doesn't mean they should run again. Many people must be suffering from amnesia, because his campaign was absolutely awful. He did well in the debates, but that was about it. He says his biggest mistake was accepting federal funding instead of not responding to attacks on his military record or saying "I voted for it before I voted against it." I have a bad feeling that all of this Kerry stuff is a prelude to another run in '08. Groan

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:44:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry is NOT timid (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom

        He has been fighting the Rethugs since the 70s.  If his party had backed him, a lot of the freaking neocons would be in prison right now or just getting paroled for their roles in Iran Contra. Oh by the way, the drug cartels weren't happy and Kerry needed bodyguards because of his work.  He went after Reagan without any support; he did get Abrams for perjury, which is probably why the REthugs don't swear anyone in anymore. He went after Bush for BCCI without any support, but still he got that bank shut down.  

      •  thanks dole4 (0+ / 0-)

        i was in a pissy mood and knew that comment would be troll-rated, so i didn't even bother to checking to see who did it until now. it's only my second troll-rating in two years so i guess that says something. seems the only people party democrats want to argue with are those who are on their side. it's so much easier than attacking republicans, y'know?

        i share your concerns about the democratic party pulling kerry of the bench for '08, and that was the reason for my comment.

        "Might does not make right but it sure makes what is." -Edward Abbey

        by elkhunter on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 03:25:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  another opportunity for the folks (4+ / 0-)

    at DKos to form yet one more of our reknown circular firing squads.

    Man, this is getting so old.

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:28:24 PM PDT

  •  Tough Talk........... (5+ / 0-)

    I've been hangin around this great ole DKOS for goin on three years now. I know...not quite a lifetime yet in BLOGTIME it seems like it.
    When I came here I was a steadfast supporter and campaign worker for the next President of the United States of America, Senator John Kerry.
    That relationship with Kerry started off the hard way. He had to earn it. I was already very pissed at the outcome of the 2000 election and how it was stolen. And I knew that IF the Democrats could field a damn great candidate that 2004 would be an easy take back from the Idiot ala King Kid Bush.

    So when the primary field was assembling I was studying the group closely. Kerry at the time was going through an operation in the hospital and I all but discounted him for no reason. I watched Gov. Dean with some interests but I wasn't totally in love with him. The rest were a bunch of wanna be's I just couldn't get serious about. I was pretty down and out figuring that without Al Gore running we didn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

    Then John Kerry came to speak locally at a small group and I was lucky to be in attendence. I hadn't given him a single thought nor a chance at the nomination but I decided what the hell.

    When he entered the room he made certain to seek out each and every person and even asked quite humbly if we'd share some time to help the Democrats win in 2004...he made it a point to say if not him then he expected any volunteers to back the chosen candidate.

    Most of what he said that night was about our loss in 2000 and how we were lied to to get into a war. He did discuss his flip-flp and his support to go yet he gave a very human reason and I'd expect we all can admit to a moment before the invasion that the case just may have been made for WMD's...I know not all think so but believe me the percentage of Americans who believed the WMD lie was in the high 80 percentile.

    He talked about job loss....minimum wage...insurance costs rising...economy stumbling and no bid funny stuff which was becoming a sickening reality to many of us who had worked with government agencies and knew that the system was once a tough nut to crack and you had to toe the line to deal with Uncle Sam. And I mean that in a good way. There was a fair system put in place especially after $900 hammers and $200 toilet seats. He spoke of education and the rebuilding of our primary school systems...he said that all Americans should have an opportunity for freely attending a college. He talked about making Social Security funded again. He spoke of a health care system which would be the envy of the entire globe and that the Insurance and Drug lobbies would be delt with when he was elected.

    He spoke about finding the root cause of hatred around the world and especially the hate targeted towards the US due to our policies that most Americans didn't even know about.

    I signed on....and followed. And found my way to a few more of his campaign appearances and he got better and better. By the time Ohio's primary came around he had it locked up. He was being groomed so well and his campaign was a site to see. Because of him we were able to sign up 5 times more new voters in our state than the GOP in 2004.

    The swiftboating began...the lies started....Karen Huges and Karl Rove were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. The Cheney's were out spittin lies and the whole cabinate was out reading from a plate of mis-imformation. The whole entire administration took on one John Kerry and he was holding them off very well...he could have taken out the swiftboat boats faster but that was his campaign managers fault.

    How soon we all forget how he whipped Bush's ass in not one but two debates and had us all filled with hope. And he did this with absolutely no help at all from the traditional media. None.......they bought every piece of crap shit that Karl Rove could fax them and aired it all.

    We lost some great people...Mike Wallace...we had Republicans jumping on board like Baird and Eisenhower and others. We had it....and it was stolen again.

    He was our candidate and we fielded the best of the best. He made us very proud...and he learned so much.

    In my opinion, it woould be a big mistake to choose another greenhorn to go through all of that shit again. John Kerry is seasoned and well capable of taking on the whatever they have to offer. Remember he was considering John McCain as his VP....I think I can keep that mental picture in my mind and make it part of a strategy in 2008. That McCain was actually being considered on the Democratic ticket...letting the GOP chew that one up. Their main candidate today was a step away from being a VP for a Democratic administration.

    If you watch Al Gore these days you listen to Al Gore these days then you understand John Kerry these days. Both of them got the shaft. I doubt if Al will get involved....Kerry is the best choice for America. We'll all come to see that in 2008.

    "It's Hard Work!" George Bush..."He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Bejamin Franklin

    by JellyPuddin on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 03:48:58 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for sharing that great story. (5+ / 0-)

      I know what you mean when you say you are transformed after seeing Kerry in person - the media's portrayal of him does him no justice at all.

      I'd make only two small corrections - that Kerry handed  Bush's incompetent ass to him in all three debates, and  that the rumor that he considered McCain as his VP was never substantiated. It's not known that he ever REALLY considered that, or if it was just thrown at him by others to see if it would stick.

      •  The McCain thing was cooked up (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beachmom, MH in PA, dynamicdems

        and was never a factoid of the campaign but makes for great BS when discussing McCain as their candiate in 2008.

        I did forget the third debate....somehow the whole thing became a blur...ya know

        Thanks

        "It's Hard Work!" George Bush..."He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Bejamin Franklin

        by JellyPuddin on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:09:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Haha - no problem! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beachmom, dynamicdems, JellyPuddin

          Thanks again for that great story. I always enjoy hearing about peoples' experiences, and how they came to feel the way they do about certain things.

        •  That was a mistake (0+ / 0-)

          Kerry kept mentioning McCain as his proof as bi partisianship and working across the isle. It actually gave dipshit one of his good lines in the debate "I am glad McCain was brought up he is supporting me in this campaign". I really wish he would have cut that talk off because it did help to strenghten McCain's image espeacailly when it became painfully clear he had horse traded his support for Bushy in 04 for bushy and Rove's support in 08.

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:45:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JellyPuddin

      up to where you say Kerry deserves another chance.

      I like John Kerry -- I think he's a likeable guy.  I admire the way he's started to speak out and be blunt about things.  But what I can't get out of my head is the fact that he's only really started to do this in the last year or so, when it's been chic to do so.

      Personally, I'm a John Edwards fan.  From day one, the man has talked about poverty -- something no other candidate would touch with a ten foot pole.  The fact that Edwards continues to rail against economic injustice, going against conventional wisdom, endears me to him.  It's prophetic in a sense.  Edwards knows most people don't want to hear about poverty, they don't want to acknowledge it exists.  But Edwards has the moral courage to discuss an issue that yields him no political advantage, at least that anyone can see.  The poor don't vote, they don't have access to the government, but John doesn't care about that.  He cares about poverty because it's morally disgusting.

      That deep-seated, tempered rage about the condition our nation is in and the determination to do something about it is what I'm looking for in my choice of Dems for 2008.  The one I've continued to come back to is John Edwards.  Again, I like Kerry, but I want to see proof that he's doing something because it's the right thing to do -- not because it's the trendy thing to do.

      "Democrats win when people think." -- Bill Clinton

      by bergerc84 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:03:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is interesting (0+ / 0-)

        My wife also a crazy Pinko like us really does not like Edwards. On this I agree I wish he would go run for govenor (I feel the same way about Clark) get some expereince and then burst back onto the scene. I don't think his PAC for the poor and chumming around with X QB's talking about Russia gets the expereince question out of the way. Also the VP debate against cheney just sticks out to me I did not think he had a strong appearence and let Vader and Shrubby off the ropes with his preformance...

        We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

        by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:56:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I too like John Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    and would be pleasantly happy to have him be my President. You see...we have some good candidates.
    We need to support them and not tear them to bits before 2008........

    Save all of that crap for the ones who want to keep the power and continue the shit...GOP

    "It's Hard Work!" George Bush..."He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Bejamin Franklin

    by JellyPuddin on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 04:11:50 PM PDT

  •  I do not watch the tee vee Sunday pundit heads (0+ / 0-)

    Did Kerry mention anything at all about the latest Sy Hersh article re Iran?

    Does he have any thoughts on this?  I have failed to find anything at all from Kerry re this issue of bombing Iran.

    This rather late coming "on fire" Kerry is exactly that,. Rather late in coming.

    How about that Iran thing, Senator?  Any thoughts? or is it still too early to make a comment. Better left until afterwards when the nukes have been deployed and children are infected with post radiation disease?

    How about it Kerry?  

    •  Sunday Punditheads (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, dynamicdems

      I don't normally watch them either but Kerry did mention about Iran.
      He opposes nuking them and using bunker busters, considers sanctions along with the cooperation of China and Russia a better resort but still something he hopes doesn't have to happen, and he deplores the "shoot from the hip" cowboy mentality that is making things more dangerous.

      That's a paraphrase but I was paying attention.

  •  May 15th (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    etherapy, vcmvo2

    I love the sound of May 15th!  

    Let's all say it together:  MAY 15th-US OUT OF IRAQ!

    After that date the American Military, in ALL it's machinations, comes home or at least leaves Iraq.

    This is music to me ears.

    Hope, Hope,

    You ARE with us.  The bloodshedists

    will have the rug pulled out from beneath them.

    Civility will then have an open bed to plant and root itself.

    We are a polutant.

    OUT NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    •  Problem is those Damned Consultants (0+ / 0-)

      It seems that Gore, and now Kerry both found their voices (and their balls and spines) after they got out from under the influence of campaign consultants. Hmmm I wonder, do you think the next candidate for our party should IGNORE THOSE CORPORATE, HIRED, MUTHAF*CKERS so we can finally win the White House back?

      Simple minds really, REALLY want to know.

      When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice all is lost. Therefore you must not give up.

      by EmilyD on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 05:11:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only... (0+ / 0-)

    If Kerry had talked like this and called out Bush on his lies to get us into Iraq during the 04 campaign, he'd be in the White House right now.

  •  Kerry on Imus the other day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dynamicdems

    John Kerry was on Imus the other morning.  He was great - warm, self deprecating and  articulate.  

    Imus said something like "Why couldn't you communicate like this during the campaign instead of being such a dork (my word there) You would be president today".

    Not that I put much stock in what Imus thinks, but ot's the world's loss.  Kerry would have made a great President.

  •  I am suspicious of your diary (2+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    FemiNazi, dougymi
    Hidden by:
    etherapy, wiscmass, A Patriot for Kerry

    I have to say I am suspicious of your diary.  Although I am glad Sen Kerry is speaking out, he is a dollar short and a day late.  

    I am happy for Kerry to be one of our democratic stalwarts--but presdential material, No thanks!

    Kerry is an old style democrat in the worst sense-  speaking and acting tough when it is expedient to do so, ducking and weaving when it is not.

    Kerry is fatally compromised as a principled presidential candidate because of his baggage-- and no amount of "praise" that sounds like campaign garbage will hide that.

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:01:24 PM PDT

    •  I am suspicious of your comment (6+ / 0-)

      It seems to me that there are only a certain few people who have vested interest in spreading ill will against any Democrat who is proposing solutions and consistently standing up against the GOP.  I can guess at their motives.

      •  No reason to troll rate just because someone (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't like your candidate. I'm for Edwards, but I don't go around troll rating posts that are critical of him (and there are many).

        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

        by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:57:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you. My Trolldar goes up at the (0+ / 0-)

        first sign of a GOP talking point. Notice how this thread differs from the other pro-Kerry threads from the past few days: the trolling more closely follows the right-wing attacks in both content and in timing.  

        WASHINGTON, April 9 U.S. Newswire -- RNC Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt responded to John Kerry's appearance on NBC's Meet The Press with the following statement:

        "In his never ending effort to remain relevant John Kerry today put forward his trademark pessimism. From his calls for retreat and defeat in Iraq to censuring the President, the Senator is more consumed with his own political future than national security.

        See what I mean?

        read article

        "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

        by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:28:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly, not that impressed... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej

    His response to the censure question summarized my whole feelings about the man.  He essentially said that he supports censure, but he doesn't want to make a big deal about it.  He pretty well put impeachment off the table.

    Censure is a compromise.  It's a lowest common denominator position.  It should be a no-brainer for any Dem (hell, for any MOC) who has ever bothered to read the Constitution and who has not been in a coma the last 3-6 mos.

    We already knew that W broke the law on FISA.  We now found out this week that he probably broke the law on the Plame outing as well.  At some point in time, the Dems in both houses have to openly and forthrightly state that our prez does not respect the law and that it's past time to hold him accountable for that fact.

    MSOC said it as well as it can be said on Friday when Gibson asked her about impeachment.  She simply said, he broke the law, end of story.  Beckel essentially acknowledged that fact Friday.  Kerry tacitly admitted it today.

    While impeachment is probably a fool's errand, censure should be a no-brainer.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:04:49 PM PDT

    •  Feingold stand alone? (0+ / 0-)

      Who supports censure besides Senator Feingold? I have a lot of respect for him. He's an independent thinker.

      •  Harkin and Boxer joined RF early... (0+ / 0-)

        Leahy and Kerry appear to be supporting it.  There may be another 1 or 2, but the number still hasn't reached double digits.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:51:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kerry said he would support it almost immediately (0+ / 0-)

        He said from his office he would vote for it and then never signed on. He also said today quickly with no hesitation he would vote for it but again his name is not there. In a later appearence on Wolfies show he slipped back a bit and tried to make a distinction (without being asked) on censure vs impeachment I am curious if that is why more Dems are not lining up for it. In talking to people and yes this is tragic in itself people do not understand what censure is and it is being morphed into censure=impeachment...

        We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

        by Jeremylreed on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:38:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's great Kerry's standing up and all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    but if it's because he still wants to be president, that train left the station a long time ago, and it's not coming back. The time for him to stand up was in 2004, when he was the Democratic presidential candidate. Now, he can use his position in the Senate to hold Bush accountable and fight for the American people. But he's had his shot running for president and it's time to let someone else have a shot at it.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:38:11 PM PDT

    •  careful (0+ / 0-)

      Be careful what you say here. I criticized Kerry and was referred to as a troll.

      •  Well you aren't a troll (0+ / 0-)

        Criticism of Kerry or any other politician is perfectly valid and ought to be encouraged for a lively debate. My candidate of choice is John Edwards, but I don't go around troll rating people who criticize him. If only some people on this thread would see that just because we're not as enamored of Kerry, we're not trolls. Don't feel afraid to say what you think.

        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

        by dole4pineapple on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen to that... (0+ / 0-)

          and thanks for the support! I'm a Gore fan myself but I've been told that there's no way that he will run.

        •  dole 4 pineapple is clearly NOT a troll (0+ / 0-)

          dole4pineapple, though we disagree, clearly respoects the other fellows argument, stays on topic (in this case, referring to a comment made during Kerry's segment of MTP), and hold rational discussions and reasoned debate.

          though we may disagree on some things, it would never occur to me to troll rate dole4pineapple (and surprise, surprise, we both like Edwards!)

          It's not disagreement that makes the troll, it's the behavior.  Disruptive, off-topic, divisive, discussion of the commentor, not the content of the comment, hanging around a thread to answer each and every comment when you are not the person who posted the thread...whatsa matter, redstate's server down?

          Interesting that it would never occur to me to troll rate Dole, yet no less that five commentors here today have pointed you out as a troll.

          I'm sure it's just a coincidence of something.

  •  Kerry was fabulous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beachmom, dynamicdems

    'Nuff said.

  •  NOM: Not One More casualty. (0+ / 0-)

    NOM: Not One More casualty, for the sake of a mistake.

    I think we need a closer look at Sen. Kerry's resolution.

    Kerry followed his op-ed by introducing a Senate Resolution revealingly entitled: "S. J. Res --. To provide for a strategy for successfully empowering a new unity government in Iraq." Whereas in his NYT piece, Kerry calls for two deadlines, the second to get "combat forces" out by year's end, the second deadline is missing in the resolution. Here are the relevant parts:

       "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
       of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

       That- .

       (2) United States forces shall be withdrawn from Iraq at the earliest practicable date if Iraqis fail to form a national unity government by May 15, 2006;

       (3) if Iraqis form a national unity government by May 15, 2006-

       (A) the United States should reach agreement as soon as possible with such government on a schedule for the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq, leaving only forces critical to completing the mission of standing up security forces of Iraq; and

       (B) the President shall-

       (i) consult with Congress on the schedule referred to in subparagraph

       (A); and

       (ii) present such withdrawal agreement to Congress immediately upon its completion; and

       (4) redeployment of United States forces to rear guard garrisoned status in Iraq for security back-up, training, and emergency response in Iraq should be accelerated."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/...

    leaving only forces critical to completing the mission of standing up security forces of Iraq;

    ???? I wonder just who decides the size of the garrisoned rear force?

    and, "garrisoned"? let's just call it what it is, folks.

    garrison(n.) A military post, especially one that is permanently established.

    this is weak. time to get out of the Hellhole, not establish permanent bases.

    http://www.birddoggingkerry.org/

    "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

    by Superpole on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:23:17 PM PDT

  •  I just watched John Kerry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dynamicdems

    on MTP. I want John Kerry for my President. I would be exceedling proud if he were.

    He was strong, articulate, refuted everything Timmy tried to throw at him, said he accepted responsibility for any campaign shortcomings, said he regretted his Iraq vote "profoundly," talked about the "cowboy, shoot from the hip attempt at diplomacy."

    He reminded Russert how he had spoken about the abuses at Abu Gareb, how he has consistently called for a summit of the Arab leaders and other stakeholders to deal with Iraq.

    Passionately, he described his nightime visit to the Viet Nam Memorial and how many people he saw there, described how you go, down, down and look up as the wall rises above you and the thousands of names that were there AFTER they knew the policy was flawed.  

    He said he has a moral responsibilty as a Senator not to let that happen with our kids who are now engaged in Iraq.

    He said absolutely the President should be censured. No doubt, and didn't want to deal with discussing impeachment with Russert because it detracts from the pressing issues at hand.  He's right.

    I don't know what more we could ask from any Senator right now. Good for you, John Kerry! Keep saying it, loud and long.

    I wrote in emails to him during the campaign that "we had his back."  Well, for all of us who also said that or thought it or belive it, now is the tme to show him what WE mean...and what we are willing to do to offer him support for the stands he is taking.

    Thank you, Senator Kerry. I will continue to do all that I can do visibly demonstrate my support for you.

    For whatever it's worth, I've got your back.

    •  You know, I just watched this again and there was (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      etherapy, beachmom

      a point when Kerry had Russert on the ropes. Russet looked like he had been physically slapped by Kerry.
      And for just the briefest of seconds, Senator Kerry had that amused, confident twinkle in his eye like a cat playing with a mouse. I didn't catch it on first view. You could almost feel Russert's humiliation. This was supposed to be a tough interview for Kerry, not Mr. Russert.

      "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

      by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:04:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He believed the US was fighting al Qaeda in Iraq? (0+ / 0-)

    While I agree that it was refreshing to see some fire in Kerry's eyes on MTP today, and that he was mostly articulate and on point, there was one thing he said that really bothered me:  

    See the transcript:

    SEN. KERRY: [...] And what I said back then was based on the fact that the presumption of everybody, Tim, was that we were fighting al-Qaeda principally and that we were looking at the, at the, at the war on terror. The fact is that 98 percent of the insurgency has now been transformed into Iraqis, into indigenous population of Iraq. There are probably less than 1,000 foreign jihadists there. And in my most recent trip to Iraq, it became very, very clear to me, as it has to others, that the Iraqis themselves will not tolerate the jihadists staying on their land.

    This strikes me as delusional in several respects.  Could anyone who was seriously looking at the situation in Iraq at that time seriously have believed that going to war there had anything to do with fighting al Qaeda specifically, or pursuing the "war on terror" in general?  Does he really believe that the civil war going on between religious groups has no component of "jihad", or was he only using the term in reference to foreign fighters? Can he really be convinced that once the US leaves, that religiously motivated violence there will come to an end?  Maybe there's some argument that foreign fighters might face some opposition, but I don't think it can be assumed they will be driven out.

    If he really believed all this even after the war started, then I just don't think he is smart enough about foreign affairs to be the best option the Democrats can muster as a candidate.

  •  You want to ATTACK John Kerry? I've got the place (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beachmom, A Patriot for Kerry

    for you. It is probably where you belong anyway. Note the similarity of talkin points.

    http://www.exposetheleft.com/...

    Thanks to the poster of this diary. I agree with you wholeheartedly: John Kerry is AWESOME. Too awesome to go unpunished apparently! Notice the GOP talking points they are using.

    EXPOSE THE RIGHT ON LIBERAL BLOGS!

    P.S. It might be fun to go there and post...drive them crazy like they are doing to us here.

    "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

    by dynamicdems on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:39:18 PM PDT

Alumbrados, MattK D1, molly bloom, PLS, Ron Chusid, whometense, tankej, Sally in SF, AlanR, gogol, Christin, MattBellamy, Kimberly Stone, lrhoke, finocchio68, Unstable Isotope, whataboutbob, Mullibok, emal, RunawayRose, Wintermute, wintersnowman, markd, Ralfast, Stein, jkfp2004, route66, blksista, frisco, Carnacki, FyodorFish, bethcf4p, exNYinTX, bookbear, memberofthejury, shermanesq, RubDMC, Cho, EvieCZ, rwsab, gerbbils, erhan04, daisy democrat, Doc Allen, mhale85, mxwing, muledriver, etherapy, allysonsta, Ignacio Magaloni, sgilman, L0kI, jalbert, PeteZerria, arkdem, Alna Dem, celticshel, menodoc, hopesprings, tyukc, TexDem, NYC Sophia, by foot, mad ramblings of a sane woman, GW Chimpzilla, jsmckay, susie dow, ademption, Caldonia, flatford39, Penny Century, dwahzon, btyarbro, beachmom, lecsmith, TheJohnny, dkmich, ChiGirl88, MH in PA, Noisy Democrat, seanleckey, Luftmensch, Kerrycrat, DrReason, Columbus Lee, HK, Grahamdubya, rockmoonwater, rapala, vcmvo2, jonathan94002, joanneleon, historys mysteries, Bluesee, 3goldens, bellevie, Lefty the playwright, LarisaW, LisaZ, mjd in florida, KnotIookin, Valtin, ChemBob, dynamicdems, Ranting Roland, Lepanto, Sophie Blue, boofdah, Pam from Calif, truebeliever, GreyHawk, Overseas, Skid, BobOak, libbie, sunbro, chasewho, Sharon Jumper, power model, Shotput8, wiscmass, serrano, FindingMyVoice, Silence is Complicity, Alvord, JanL, proudprogressiveCA, Blakbelt, xanthippe2, soyinkafan, fhcec, khaavren, JosephAZ, trashablanca, PoppyRocks, vigilant meerkat, VoicelessInDC, GinnyinWI, BlueInARedState, Magnifico, Wary, puredesighee, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, Rachel in Vista, imabluemerkin, edgery, mangusta, Andy30tx, TayTay, A Patriot for Kerry, Balzac, nolies32fouettes, OtterKnowBetter, lmd71, Snarcalita, Delta Overdue

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site