'Fired Up' Kerry Returning to Senate

[Khephra]

'Fired Up' Kerry Returning to Senate
Aides Say He Wants to Act as Counter to Bush, and Possibly Run in 2008
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A02


Democrat John F. Kerry plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008, friends and aides said yesterday.

Kerry will attend a post-election lame-duck Senate session that begins next week and has said he is "fired up" to play a highly visible role, the friends and aides said.

Aides said Kerry is relishing the prospect of renewed combat with President Bush, fighting such measures as the president's proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Kerry has spent the better part of the past two years on the campaign trail, meaning that his return to Capitol Hill will be something of a reintroduction to colleagues.

Kerry's plans contrast starkly with the approach taken by former vice president Al Gore, who all but disappeared from the political scene after losing to Bush in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35224-2004Nov8.html

[JohnKleeb]

1. damnit I wanted to work for him

too bad someone got first gibs.

[roguevalley]

2. if he can't work for us now, then what makes me believe he will

do it again? I don't believe him. If he lets this float, and it sounds like he will, he's irrelevant. Good by, Kerry. I hardly knew ya. Obviously. ANd its too bad.

[LisaL]

4. Yep. You sure had a lot more courage when you were young.

Too bad, really.

[Wind Dancer]

157. Yes, what happened?

It's a real shame, not the same man that testified before congress.

[eleonora]

5. you don't get it

the electoral fraud problem can go on without him.

[LisaL]

11. No. Only losing candidate can request a recount.

Nader tried in New Hampshire, but didn't send a check.
Bandarik will not request any recounts because of money.
Kerry is the one who could have requested recounts, but didn't.
Without recounts, how are you going to prove anything?
So, please don't say electoral fraud problem can just go on without him.

[eleonora]

12. it's not about winning 2004 anymore, it's about proving the machines are

unreliable for 2008

[peacebuzzard]

127. Agreed on that one. So, far BBV is the lone ranger.

Kerry sooner or later, (hopefully sooner) needs to validate the discrepancies in Ohio and FL in order to keep a percentage of his supporters satisfied.

[hedda_foil]

24. Nader will get his NH recount and Badnarik will get the money.

This is a DU/BBV/NBIP (National Ballot Integrity Project) effort ... it's bottom up, not top down. The money will come from US! We are well along in working out the details of the Nader recount. He's not running it, we are, with the research that's been posted here.

[dweller]

40. going to court soon?

i think that's next and then the $$ fee for recount becomes moot, recount starts?

any details?

dp

ps. please don't change your name :)

[Joylaughter]

88. I ain't got no money

and Kerry promised us that every vote would count and every vote would be counted. WORD IS BOND.

[TheIdiot]

137. BRAVO! Now, THAT'S where we need...

to put our energy and our donations!

[BernieBear]

95. How much is needed? How much should Nader's check have been?

Can't we raise it?

[Pallas180]

155. I thought it was like $85.00...

/

[Zorra]

164. Could be $80,000, according to this article.

Anyone who loses by more than 1 percent of the vote has to pay for a recount, he said, noting the cost statewide could be $80,000.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041106/NEWS02/111060040/-1/news

[eleonora]

3. Here we go, this is what I want to hear

So stop the Kerry bashing....he knows what he's doing. The voting scandal can go on without him. He won't be made fun of because of it and will gain a good record for 2008...So Go Kerry go!

[LisaL]

6. Please! I sure wouldn't vote for him in 2008.

:eyes:

[eleonora]

9. well then, nobody's forcing you to vote

[LisaL]

17. Actually, I have a right to vote.

Many people have fought very hard so I have a right to vote. All I want is to know that my vote was counted accurately. Is that too much to ask now days?
:spank:

[eleonora]

21. Ok, I should have said *vote for him*

[dweller]

43. still doesn't work

you push the button for Candidate A
but Candidate B gets the vote.

even tho you thought you had, are you sure???

dp

[Kimber Scott]

83. I would. For the same reason I did this time.

I don't understand how the guy can be the best man for the job one day and the worst the next. Republicans don't define my values - either in my life, or in my choice for President.

[Pallas180]

156. ditto....nor help the DNC - we need a new party and not Nader either.

New Democrati Liberals

Stop trying to hide that we are the caring concerned party..

[AwakeAtLast]

10. He is also showing his professionalism

by going back to work and doing what his constituants voted him into office to do.

[LisaL]

13. We have spend a lot of time on his campaign and he had promised

us all our votes were going to be counted. I guess we completely wasted our time.

[eleonora]

15. be real, we can't afford another Al Gore

[LisaL]

20. What exactly can we afford?

Didn't we lose senate, congress and the presidency?
:eyes:

[eleonora]

22. We can't be ridiculed like Al Gore was ridiculed.

We need to push the electoral fraud and if Kerry comes out the winner then he will unconcede. But I doubt we'll be able to prove shit.

[LittleClarkie]

107. Indeed

Circumstantial is compelling, but will hardly hold up in court.

God bless Gore, but I don't need a Gored candidate. I need someone who still has political muscles to flex at the BFEE.

[Pallas180]

160. Go along, to get along philosophy is always gutless and stinks.

.

[maryallen]

53. What does that mean?

Al Gore fought for 37 DAYS; Kerry for, what, 12 hours?

[eleonora]

66. yeah, and what did we get? Nothing

[mountainvue]

56. Al Gore would be our president

were it not for the Supreme Court. He never gave up.

[TheIdiot]

138. But let's not forget how that effected...

the 51%. According to Aaron Brown, they were "sickened" by the tought of another protracted re-count. The way to go NOW is through discrediting the BBV system before another election can be stolen! NO SNIVELING! JUST DO IT!

[Pallas180]

158. I disagree.We can afford to have a rotten system exposed-Gore should have

and didnt and now Kerry hasn't

We can't afford politicians who dont keep their promises to voters.

When did it become okay to lie - acceptable to say things, promises

you never intend to keep???

NEVER - sheeple have just accepted it.

WE cant afford politicians who want to be "members of the club"

and refuse to rock the boat...

That's ALL the major dems,. which is why I say we need A NEW PARTY

[eleonora]

14. that's what I think

He will use what experience he gained out of this and remain a forefront political figure against Bush. I won't complain.

[nolabels]

114. It is quite humorous to see that 1% fight among themselves for spoils

But rarely is it public.

I don't feel cheated, I voted electronically.

Most any political argument seems moot to me unless the integrity of the vote is guaranteed. I will not be fighting for anybody till that happens either. I still cant figure out why some people don't understand what the gravity of what this fraud means.

[Zhade]

121. I think maybe they don't believe there's fraud.

They couldn't be more wrong, if they knew a thing about BBV.

[MADem]

98. Your analysis is spot-on

He is a high road kinda guy...as the "anything to win" facts come out, he will look like someone who was wronged, and not just by Dems. He'll steal the 'moral' issue from the GOP, and he'll speak truth in complete sentences. And he won't get painted with that vicious Al Gore brush the GOP used--instead, they'll look like the lying cheaters that they are.

I'd support him again in 08. He's a smart guy, and Lord knows we could use one of those in charge.

[LittleClarkie]

109. I can see that happening now

There are Republicans now who gained a new admiration when he conceded, and at least one I know could admit that he'd make a good Minority Leader.

[LittleClarkie]

106. If I can find a way to let him know

I'd like to tell him I will have his back from now til 2008. Hell yeah, I want him to run again.

Until then, I'm glad to hear he's pissed off. A pissed-off Kerry is a wonder to behold. The opposition doesn't yet know the meaning of "Scary Kerry." They ain't seen nothin' yet.

Go, Johnny, Go! Mwah!

[still_one]

7. too late

he had the opportunity during the campaign, and didn't take it

He didn't even answer during the debates why he voted for the 87 billion and then against the 87 billion, even though their was a good answer

He had his chance, and missed it, we need someone with more passion!!!

[flaminbats]

28. Are we all anti-Kerry Democrats now?

Why are we writing off potential winners for 2008? Hello...but isn't it a little early to be choosing sides? :crazy:

[Clarkie1]

35. Kerry is not a "potential winner" for 08'

I have a hell of a lot of respect for him. He fought the good fight, but he has no chance.

Clark/Obama 08!

[flaminbats]

45. that's what they said about Reagan and Nixon..

neither could be elected President. Kerry is only more electable because of how close he came to defeating the incumbent.

[MADem]

101. I know you like the guy (Clark, that is)

...but I know him, on a workaday level. I admire the hard work he did after he was no longer a player in the presidential race, and I respect him more for it. He does have a future in public life, but NOT as President.

Clark has issues. Trust me, he is a good guy who is very thorough, but he does not always LISTEN when people who actually know what they are doing try to tell him things. He has a bad case of massive hubris, and it is the reason he left the military in rather undignified fashion (he was hustled out of his command, EARLY, and shoved into retirement). Also, he can be snappy and arrogant as all hell--he makes Bob Dole on his worst day look like Chuckles the Clown.

If you think the Swift Boat assholes, who were NOT EVEN IN THE BOAT, could do a job on Kerry, imagine a whole shitload of diehard GOP ex-military personnel coming out of the woodwork to crap all over Clark (and with some justification). And believe me, if he did become the nominee, I would hold my nose and vote for him, because any Dem is better than a Republican....but he is NOT Presidential timber.

[BootinUp]

120. Yeah

You KNOW him, LOL.

But all you have for evidence is twisting stuff that was either on tv, or talked about by those that opposed Clark here at DU in the primaries and would say anything to thwart his campaign. Whatever happens in the future will be a result of his intelligence, leadership ability and record of achievement. Your efforts to smear him are sad and of no consequence. See ya.

[Jai4WKC08]

132. So you know Clark and he's an asshole, eh?

And all the people who supported his run, people who had worked closely with him in the military, of all ranks, those people were lying? People, I might add, who were willing to give their names and resumes, so there's no doubt that they do in fact know him personally?

You don't get to be a 4-star without making enemies. But that's also true of a senator, or a governor, or a business CEO. Or anyone who has ever actually accomplished something in life.

Would the Repubs bring them out of the woodwork to shoot down a Clark candidacy? Probably.

Kerry has a dozen or so "brothers in arms" who served in combat with him and attested to his leadership. The Repubs found ONE from his boat who didn't like him, a handful of others who knew him in 'Nam, and a couple a hundred who were in country at some point, all of whom were willing to lie their asses off.

You think the Repubs couldn't find a couple hundred, maybe several thousand Vermonters to tell us what a lousy, crooked governor Dean was? Or maybe a load of lawyers and judges to smear Edwards? We already know where they'd go with Clinton--most of the "hard work" against her has already been done.

Pick any potential '08 candidate you choose, no matter how obscure now, and I guaran-damn-tee ya, they'll find the people who "know" that person and will attest to past crimes.

Here's an idea... let's just let the Repubs pick our candidates for us.

Or we Democrats could just stop eating our own and devote our energies to slapping down the Republican pricks who will tell any lie that suits their purposes. And taking back the media so they don't get the platform.

[MADem]

151. Look, I am not trying to flame or piss people off

Don't forget, a DEMOCRAT fired the guy--a Democrat who was his friend, from his home state, a guy named Bill Clinton. He didn't want to do it, but he had to...the guy had pissed off not just his subordinates and his equivalent operational commanders, but he was making life difficult with our allies as well. He is hard headed and did not 'excercise diplomacy' when he should have, or could have.

I did not work directly for him, but I was "in the room" when a number of decisions were made, as I worked for someone who had to deal with him on a regular basis. He is a DIFFICULT guy. I'll admit I do judge people on the way that they treat others. He did not impress me in this regard.

I don't suggest that we permit the GOP to pick our candidates. I don't suggest either that Clark does not have a future in the Senate or as a Cabinet official in a future Dem administration. I'm just giving you my honest opinion, that he is not Presidential timber, and there are plenty--I mean it, PLENTY--of people who will have some very negative input if he ever makes it past a primary. All you have to do is look at the job Rove did on Kerry with the Swifties--and that happened half a lifetime ago.

If anyone asked me to give my opinion in an effort to sandbag the guy, I would tell them to pound sand, because even a flawed Democrat is better than what we suffer under now. I'd even bite my tongue and support him as best I could if he ever made the cut. But all I am saying is that there are more than a few people who have been on the receiving end of his short temper that would be DELIGHTED to so do.

I realize you do not share my level of regard for the guy, and I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. But I am telling you, honestly, my impression of him.

[Jai4WKC08]

162. NO! A Repub fired Clark

Never forget that.

Bill Cohen, Secretary of Defense and former REPUB senator from Maine fired General Clark, aided and abetted by Edwards' buddy Shelton. Cohen didn't even have the balls to tell Clark to his face and made himself unavailable to Clark by phone or any other means. That last is outrageous in itself, given that Clark was both a direct subordinate and still commander of a war zone.

Clinton didn't know what Cohen was up to until it was too late for him to do anything about it. Which is precisely how Cohen engineered it, with malice aforethought.

Gee, if you don't know that much, it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously. But I'll give it a shot.

Let's start with, what "equivalent operational commanders"? There were none in Europe--there's a reason it's called "SUPREME Allied Commander." And if you mean the other CinCdoms, they don't count. Of course there's competition for resources and priorities--always has been, always will. People think political primaries get ugly? Hah.

Pissing off the allies? Yeah, that must be why they gave him all their highest awards, even knighthood. Maybe he did piss off a few underlings from time to time, even regularly. Maybe they deserved it. If Lt Gen Jackson is any indicator, I'd say so.

The proof is in the results. The war was won, the way Clark fought it. Couldn't have been done any other way, and they appreciated that.

As for the rest, I have been assigned to units that supported Clark's commands, and I've long known his reputation, the good and bad of it. And I have spoken personally to people who worked directly for him who would tell you that he's one of the most fair and decent commanders they've ever known. Sometimes quick tempered to be sure, and not one to suffer fools or incompetents--Bob Scales calls him "flinty." Well, gosh... not like we've never had good, even great, presidents who didn't match that description. It takes that to get a difficult job done. Finally, since we've both retired, I've met him on a half dozen occassions and I assure you, he epitomizes "presidential timber" in every respect.

Bottom line is, Rove called out the dogs during Clark's campaign this year. Very few were willing to take a shot and leave a name, and for every one that did, there were many who stood with him. Military officers, enlisted, and career diplomats as well.

I have no doubt Rove, or his counterpart in '08 (altho I suspect he'll be a GOP fixture for years to come), would find more if Clark were to run again.

But you have totally missed the lesson of John Kerry and the swiftboat vets. Which is simply this: no matter how exemplary our nominee's service, military or otherwise, the Repubs are gonna tear it apart any way they can, unconstrained by the most common decency.

It's also the lesson of the entire Clinton administration, for what it's worth. They just hadn't perfected the art in '92.

We either learn to expect it, to prepare for it, to smack it down hard and fast, to respond in kind and stay on the offense. Or we roll over and never win another presidential election.

[LandOLincoln]

163. Great rebuttal, Jai.

I'd simply add that Clinton told journalist Sydney Blumenthal he was so angry he "wanted to kill somebody" when he found out how Cohen had snookered him into signing what Clinton thought were routine retirement papers for Clark.

And then he awarded Clark the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Take that, Bill Cohen, you old bitch.



President Clinton, right, awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Gen. Wesley K. Clark, during ceremonies in the East Room of the White House Washington in this Aug. 9, 2000 photo. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

[MADem]

167. Plausible deniability...it comes in handy

...when you are interested in political survival. But the truth is that Clinton KNEW. And Blair asked him to take care of it.

[MADem]

166. If you want to believe that

...Clinton, easily the most politically savvy guy to serve in highest office for many, many years, somehow LAMELY allowed the very moderate, married-to-a-HyperDemocrat, more mainstream and liberal than most Southern Democrats, Bill Cohen to nefariously arrange the firing of Clark behind his back, go right ahead.

Tony Blair called Clinton and said, "This asshole has GOT to go." THAT is why Clark got fired. Then, Bill Clinton told Bill Cohen to do it, and the deal was done.

But if it makes you feel better to believe otherwise, so do.

Keep in mind that the BUCK STOPS AT THE PRESIDENT'S DESK. If we hold weecowboy to that standard, we have to hold Clinton to the very same standard. Otherwise, we look like the KoolAid drinkers on the right.

What you are saying is the "blame" lies exclusively with a Clinton subordinate--that is rather like saying Bush had nothing to do with the egregious behavior of Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.

Cannot have it both ways. Bill Clinton knew, Clark knew, and Clark would probably privately agree that he did not handle his waning time well. Enough people have weighed in and let him know that.

[Jai4WKC08]

170. Yeah uh-huh...

There's no question that Clinton's responsible. I never said he wasn't. Doesn't mean he did it. He's a clever guy, but it'd be pretty twisted to foresee the need to have to leak the info to the WaPo, so that it couldn't be undone and no one could blame him... for what? If he's the President, he can fire any general he chooses. Where's the gain?

To buy your story means that Clinton is lying (well, ok, I could believe that... he's a politician) and Clark is lying. Sorry, but the latter I don't accept. Certainly not on the word of some anonymous poster on DU.

I'll stick to the parsimonious explanation. It's well documented that Cohen hated Clark's guts. Well known that he undercut Clark's authority, said one thing and did another with respect to the Apaches, the Med Fleet, Pristina, etc, even attempted to humiliate Clark publicly. Would have fired him much sooner if he could have gotten away with it.

And he is a Republican.

Besides, if Blair wanted Clark gone, he'd have surely have wanted him gone much sooner. And then there's that British knighthood thing.

Sounds to me like you listen too much to hq scuttlebutt. Or maybe right-wing smears. Or make stuff up in your sleep. Hell, I don't know.

But it's interesting how your story gets more complex and vindictive with each telling. Perhaps you are one of those who had to face the alleged temper? One of those anxious to get a little vengence? Tell me honestly, if you can. Did you deserve it?

[MADem]

175. UNDERCUT Clark's authority??

No, that is not possible. The Constitution says so. Our government rests on a sturdy and steady principle of CIVILIAN oversight and control of the military. It is quite impossible for a senior civilian leader to undercut a serving military officer, especially when that officer is SUBORDINATE to the sitting SecDef. If Cohen says jump, you jump.

You cannot blame Cohen without also blaming Clinton. Clinton did not spend 44% of his time on vacation, he kept his eye on everything. Including the DoD.

I am not vindictive. You read into my assessment what you will.

Yes, I did see Clark go off on people. I was not personally on the receiving end of his abuse, because I was little more than a bag carrier, but I found it disconcerting and totally unnecessary, especially at his paygrade and level of authority. When you go out of your way to humiliate people, especially in a multi-national environment, it does not reflect well on a person's character. I've known many leaders who can get their point across very clearly and decisively without getting shirty. I also found that he unfairly excoriated those who were genuinely trying to look out for his best interests.

One more time--I don't hate the guy (I sense you might be happier if I did). I think he made a few mistakes, I think he has a good mind, but I think he has way too much of a hair trigger, and can get wrapped around the axle a bit. Clinton knew how to back away from an untenable situation, assess, and move forward. It is my opinion that Clark lacked that ability in his last active duty assignment. He got too invested in being right. I also think that Clark knows exactly why he was put out to pasture, and in retrospect, he understands the reasons and accepts them, which is why he retained his relationship with the Clinton crowd. You don't toss relationships that endure over many years because of one rather highly publicized blow-up. You reassess, and move forward with an eye toward what you can do in the future. I think that is what Clark did. His wagon was hitched, way back when, to the Arkansas star. Stupid to go down in flames for something that is over and done with, and can't be changed.

But that is not to say, yet again, that Clark would not be an effective Senator or Representative. I think he'd do well in that sort of a collegial, team-building environment. But as the head guy, no--that is just my opinion, you will not shake me from it, but you, of course, have EVERY right to disagree with me, as I do with you.

This is America, after all.

[Jai4WKC08]

177. Of course Cohen undercut Clark's authority

With Clark's subordinates. Don't be obtuse or play games.

Imagine if a batallion commander went around a company commander to consult directly with the platoon leaders and NCOs, without informing the intermediate leader. Suppose he denied requests for resources based on the assessments of those lower subordinates, forwarded up thru the command sergeant major. Suppose he held an IPR on a mission given to the commander and REFUSED to allow the commander to attend.

Those are but some of the ways Cohen undercut Clark. Was he within his legal right to do so? To a point. Except for two things.

One, the Secretary of Defense has a legal obligation to do EVERYthing he can to further the policy goals of the President. You may argue differently, but I would say that with respect to Kosovo Cohen did not do his legal (or moral) duty. My opinion, based on personal observation in the first year or so of Cohen's tenure, that he was far too interested in responding to his former Repub colleagues in Congress, who were almost uniformly opposed to intervention in Kosovo.

Two, as SACEUR, Clark was subordinate directly to the heads of state of every member nation, TO INCLUDE the US. That gave him the right, by law (remember, ratified treaties have the force of domestic law) to circumvent Cohen and go straight to Clinton if he thought it necessary and appropriate. I happen to believe Clark that he never played that card, but I also happen to believe Cohen either thought he did or was afraid he would, and it drove him crazy.

Fwiw, several of the other CinCs at the time felt that Cohen was far more concerned with his influence within the beltway than with supporting his commanders in the field. To my way of thinking, being that way toward a commander with troops in harm's way is nothing short of criminal.

Again, as I said above, I am not excusing Clinton. As President, he was responsible. If nothing else, he should never have appointed Cohen, or any Repub, to SecDef. I suppose after the fiasco with Bobby Ray Inman's appointment, Clinton wanted someone who would be accepted readily. But I do take great exception that Clinton knew everything going on within the DoD. The way Clinton related to the military was always just a little different than any other dept or agency. He pretty much took a hands-off approach (as the J3 once told me) to anything internal to DoD. And say what you like, he also had his hands full with impeachment procedings during much of Clark's time at NATO.

As for the rest... if you were just a "bag carrier" perhaps you just don't see the larger context. I can't help you there. But I do want to correct one misconception.

You wrote that Clark's "...wagon was hitched, way back when, to the Arkansas star."

No, it wasn't. This is a RW smear, meant to imply that Clark got his stars thru political connection. It's total BS. That you would repeat such nonsense is one more reason I don't find your reported observations very credible.

[MADem]

186. We'll just have to agree to disagree

It's clear that we are on opposing views IRT this issue. It's also clear that isn't going to change.

All I can say is that I know what I saw with my own two eyes, I understood the situation from the standpoint of someone on the ground, in the mix, dealing with both the effects and the after-effects, and my conclusions are very, very different from yours. Whether or not you personally find them credible is irrelevant. You do not have the experience I had, and I know nothing of your background or any personal knowledge you may have vis a vis this matter.

I am not trying to convince you of anything, simply imparting my perspective based on personal experience. I sense, by your accusing me of propagating 'right wing smears,'* that further discussion is pointless, and it's probably best to just let this go.

Nice talking to you.

* For the record, the President personally reviews and approves all three and four star nominations.

[incapsulated]

171. Christ almighty

You don't even know your history, let alone General Clark!

Tony Blair called Clinton and said, "This asshole has GOT to go"???

he was making life difficult with our allies???

Bwhahaha!

Blair was Clark's biggest ally when the Pentagon was giving him grief with Kosovo. Blair was Wes' champion in Washington.

In fact, one of the reasons Clark was distrusted by some in the Pentagon was because European allies like Blair loved Clark so much. They thought he had divided loyaltiies because as SACUER he represented all the NATO countries, not just the US. Far from "making life difficult" with our allies, he was considered way too friendly with them for people like Shelton.

Anyone who knows anything would know this history. Unfortunately you have exposed yourself through your embarrassing ignorance.

[MADem]

176. I rather think

That if you speak with GEN Sir Michael Jackson (the senior Brit in the region, not the child molester) of "I'm not going to start WWIII for you" fame, you'd find the British enthusiasm for Clark less than compelling.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind on this issue. That is not my goal, anyway. I simply offered my view, and I will not be shaken from mine, either.

You have every right to support Clark, as I have every right to believe he is not the best candidate for highest office. I tend to prefer Democrats who have been with the party for a longer period of time, and who haven't given speeches in support of the current pResident. But that's just me....

[AllyCat]

181. Since when do we give any slack to Tony Blair?

"Tony Blair called Clinton and said, "This asshole has GOT to go." THAT is why Clark got fired. Then, Bill Clinton told Bill Cohen to do it, and the deal was done."

So Clinton was also in bed with Blair, the guy who does everything for Shrub in his ridiculous Iraq War? We can slam Blair for all it's worth in reference to supporting Shrub, but when he orders Clinton to "fire" Clark, suddenly Blair is just the bee's knees?

If Clinton fired Clark because Blair freakin' told him to, Bill is an idiot and not a good leader for "bowing to the needs of a foreign dictator".

Yeah, Clark went into Eastern Europe and kicked a**, mostly for fighting it his way. Apparently, strength, honesty, leadership, and cajones are part of a SACEUR's profile. Then that means those same qualities are not part of "Presidential Timber" by your argument.

My feeling on all of this? Clark is too good a man to be POTUS and we need to find ourselves another weenie.

[Ice4Clark]

180. I strongly disagree with your assessment

If anyone HAS presidential material, it's Wes. I would think that if his personality is what you portray, that during the past year, someone, somewhere, would have witnessed such an outburst. Perhaps if he were snappy, if may have been that he was frustrated trying to get people to listen. If it were not for his persistence regarding the slaughter in Kosovo, nothing would have been done and the ethnic cleansing would have continued.

Wes was screwed alright, but by Shelton and Cohen. Wes never demands anything of anyone, that he himself would not expect from himself. As for Generals coming out against him, there were plenty that would come out FOR Wes. Shelton tried to smear him regarding character and integrity, however, because of the press coverage of Shelton's statements, Milosevic tried to use that against him in his own trial. The judge phoned Shelton stating if the allegations were true, Shelton would or should be called to testify on behalf of Milosevic. Shelton stated, nothing to his comments, as it was just politics. So, I say, let them come out. Wes will have plenty of cover.

[Sputnik]

147. Clarkie, that's the ticket!

Clark/Obama is what I'm hoping for too.

:toast:

[flaminbats]

154. I told you so, I Told You So, I TOLD YOU SO, I TOOOLD YOUuu SO..

but you flakes just didn't listen! Kerry was the loser, but Dean and Clark were winners..take that and shove it up your *ss!

I told you those electronic voting machines were programmed to elect Bush, I told you we needed to abolish the Electoral College, I told you Kerry was the underdog, I told you Al Gore, Bob Graham, or John McCain would make better running mates, I told you Kerry was too liberal on healthcare reform, I told you people would never elect another Senator from Taxachusshetttes, I told you Kerry could never win Ohio or Florida, I told you it would be wery wery close, I told you John Edwards shouldn't slap around Cheney's daughter, I told you those swift boat backstabbers would help Bush win, I told you it was all over after 9/11, I told you people don't like Kerry's personality, I told you Kerry should have taken Clinton's advice, I told you flip-flops are going out of style, I told you we would lose because of Kerry's windsurfing, I told you Kerry needed to win all the Gore states to be elected, I told you driving voters to the polls was another useless gesture..dammit, I told you so!!!

But nobody ever takes my advice! Noooo, don't listen to a psycho like Mr. bats...ohhh we're tooooooooo goooood to take your advice. sorwweee, but kicking losers like Kerry or Cleland around was always more fun than tin cans! :freak:

[Sputnik]

172. You weren't all alone

Look, I got behind John Kerry because the DNC crammed him down our throats and we had no other choice. I knew how the GOP would portray both Kerry and Theresa to America. I knew that both Kerry and the great state of Massachusetts would be denigrated. Though I believe John Kerry is a good man and would make a fine president, I feared that he wouldn't fight (for lack of a better word) "dirty" enough to win.

Yes, I believe both Dean's and Clark's supporters were the most fervent. I believe either of those men were better suited to take the fight right to George W. Bush, though Clark I thought would have more broad appeal across the nation. Just my opinion.

No, I don't have to "shove anything up MY ass. Sorry. I worked that same ass off for Wes Clark.

[flaminbats]

178. good for you..

we could spend the next century discussing every mistake made by Kerry which may or may not have cost us this election, but what difference would it make?

[TheIdiot]

139. If you'll remember...

there were several of us here who were anti-Kerry liberals BEFORE being an anti-Kerry liberal was cool. Can anybody say "GO HOWARD!"???

[knowbody0]

8. a haunting reintroduction

he is a duck hunter you know

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

25. I also heard that he served in VietNam... is that true?

Wow, a hero. Just what we need.


He will not burn me again.

[LittleClarkie]

110. I hear lame duck's good eatin'

Good huntin' mon ami.

[quiet.american]

16. Doesn't quite do it for me....

.... this whole thing reminds me of a roomful of people singing, "for he's a jolly good fellow" over and over, each time pausing and expecting the "jolly good fellow" to show up -- and he never does.

Granted, this is a bourbon-induced analogy, and only I may get it.

[janx]

42. I get it. And I've only had two glasses of chardonnay.

(It's almost my bed time.)

[quiet.american]

78. Cheers!

n/t

[VegasWolf]

18. Confession now that it is all over, I voted for Kerry, but my

heart fell out of this race when the "leadership" was
convinced that Dean was too extreme to elect. I think
Rove was rolling over with happiness when Kerry won.

[quiet.american]

19. Speaking of which....

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2003/11/03-11-13b.shtml

[Cha]

27. Kerry was suppose to be the electable

one. I was a Dean supporter and it took me a long time to warm up to Kerry..

I feel let down because I think it was stolen again and Kerry is "fired up" about being in the Senate again..if this article is true.

Fuck the Senate..I want him to be President. I know I'm dreaming..but it's hard to let go after four years of working and planning to get bush out and then a big DUD!

I really don't know what to think of the Dems now..I know I thought they would do it when I listened to them at the convention and out on the campaign trail..but now it's all about unity with fascists.

Or am I imagining things?

[Clarkie1]

33. No, Clark was

I still don't understand how so many democrats didn't get that.

Clark/Obama 08'!

[VegasWolf]

41. You're right, all this talk about appeasement and working with *

makes me sick, one thread talked about getting a
red state candidate next time. Fuck that, I want
a good liberal with balls to run. I we spread our
asscheeks any further apart for Rove, we might as well
kiss it goodbye.

[realcountrymusic]

50. The premise of your argument

is that Dean would have done better. I disagree. Rove would have destroyed him utterly with "terra." Dean would not have carried the midwestern states Kerry did, and probably not Oregon either.

That's my opinion. But I'm a Clarkie who decided Kerry was the best for the run.

Jeez, let's stop tearing each other and our candidates apart!

RCM

[Cha]

58. That Was Not The Premise of my argument..

no way no how! Read it again.

I'm not tearing anyone down..I want answers!

I said I thought Kerry won!!

And no way did I say I thought Dean would have won!

Are you really replying to me or another post?

[realcountrymusic]

100. mea maxima culpa

Indeed I was replying to another post, not yours. Sorry about that. At this point, I can't even remember which post it was, but the electability of Senor Howard was certainly not the premise of your post.

rcm

[Cha]

150. You're "mea maxima culpa"

is forgiven!

I went to bed after that and just back on my 'puter.

Somehow I thought it couldn't be.

[Lefty48197]

64. The facists won.

It wasn't because John Kerry was a poor candidate, or because WE failed to show up at the polls. It was because THEY really really wanted to impose more facism upon the country.

[Cha]

68. I don't think Kerry was a "poor candidate"..

au contraire! I just wanted him to fight the fascists until we won!

[MADem]

103. You know the old saying...

It does not matter who they vote for, it only matters who COUNTS the votes. We live in something akin to a dictatorship now. Ugh.

[LittleClarkie]

111. There's a t-shirt for that saying

I think it was Stalin.

[NVMojo]

113. am I the only one who remembers that page on the Kerry site

where you could contribute for the fight after the election?? What happened to the money? I sent that link around to my friends and we donated!!!! Where's the fight??

[Khephra]

123. Are you imagining things?

Not at all. You speak my thoughts and experience as well.

[BootinUp]

165. Not a flame

or attack on Kerry at all. But winning a primary is hardly good evidence of being electable in the GE. I really think Kerry was a good candidate, but I knew (felt strongly) 2 years ago that good wasn't going to be enough.

[janx]

36. Well. I'll be damned!

What historic irony, what justice should he run again!

[Clarkie1]

48. Dean would make a great DNC chairman

I think that's the role that suits him best.

He's a great man, and knows how to organize the grassroots. That's what we need in a DNC chairman. Merely inspiring the grassroots, however, isn't enough to win the presidency.

No more gentlemen with the "NE liberal" label, for president, please.

[eleonora]

23. I like Dean myself over Kerry

[Clarkie1]

34. Rove was rolling over with happiness when Clark dropped out

IMHO

Clark/Obama 08!

[Lefty48197]

62. I doubt it.

I mean, I like Howard Dean and all, but he is definately farther left than Kerry and several other primary candidates. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are the two most "conservative" Democrats we've nominated lately. Mondale, Dukakis, and maybe even Kerry are more "liberal" (and more like ME, I might ad).

[TheIdiot]

141. AMEN!!! Look back and LEARN!!! n/f

[blue agave]

26. He should challenge Reid for SML if he is serious.

.

[Clarkie1]

29. Time to move on

Clark/Obama 08!

[paulk]

47. we got that the first time

and the second

[juliagoolia]

30. This man is a leader and a giver.. he is a winner a dogged

determined man. I dont suppose you saw "going upriver?" If not, I suggest you do see it.

I can't imagine John Kerry giving up in a fight for people! I honestly think he is very committed to doing the right thing for America and Americans.

I personally hope he does run again. I was a ABB person but once I got to know John and learn about him, I was convinced he is the type of person to bring this nation back to its roots.

Hang in there folks, even good people lose and come back.

[Clarkie1]

38. No liberal NE senator can win in 08'

Thank you John Kerry for the fight you fought, but 08' isn't your fight anympre to win, it's ours (as in all of ours, including Kerry).

Clark/Obama 08!

[flaminbats]

54. sorry, but this election proved you wrong..

northeastern Democrats can win, even against incumbent southern Repukes.

[Clarkie1]

57. Perhaps they can, but the democratic party would be foolish to try again

Why make life so hard on yourself?

[flaminbats]

65. what party are you in?

only a Republican would equate democracy with foolishness

[Lefty48197]

67. There is a Senator from NE named Kerrey who could win

...if you ask me. P.S., he's a war hero.

[LauraT28]

59. sorry, you are delusional..His platfrom was too similar to Bush

Just like the rest of the Dem's.

[Voltaire99]

31. Yay, Kerry! Maybe he can still get those corporate tax breaks, after all!

But as for fighting for the rest of us, thanks anyway, pal. We've had all we can take.

People, be sure to read Thomas Frank's NY Times Op-ed piece from this week, "Why They Won." Commondreams.org has it. Frank lays out the hopelessness of any Democratic Party future that isn't based on economic populism.

[Upfront]

32. Ya Right

I am so excited, not!

[halobeam]

37. I'm so happy to hear this.

There are no perfect answers. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. There will be things he wishes he did differently and things he'll feel were correct and would do again. What makes him different than all the rest of us?

I believe he is genuine. He tries and is a good man. Thats a hell of a lot of good stuffin' for a politician/lawyer. lol

I like him lots, I hope the truth comes out and he's in the White house, I hope the machines are DESTROYED, and I hope the people in this admin. take a real HARD FALL.

I hope Kerry runs in 2008.... I'd back him up even ten times harder.

JMO

[Pastiche423]

39. Big Rah

:eyes:

He also said he would fight for us and and make sure every vote counted.

You had your chance at your life long dream, Kerry and you f'ing blew it.

[shawmut]

44. It would be really odd if Kerry and Edwards faced each other in the

primaries.

[Clarkie1]

46. Neither is an electable choice for 08'

America wants to move on. We need a fresh start.

Clark/Obama 08'!

[janx]

49. Does anyone else find this a bit strange?

Maybe it's because I didn't see the concession speech, etc., because I was on the way back from Europe, but didn't Kerry practically disappear after that?

And now we get the news that he's going to run again in 2008?

Weird. What is going on here?

[AngryLizard]

76. It was just a week ago

Can you really disappear for a week? I mean, I was heartbroken myself, but I wasn't the one with my ass on the line. The fact that he's even out there now shews that he's a gamer. Maybe someone mentioned to him that he got more votes than Clinton. That perked me up.

[NVMojo]

115. well, crap, he does need to go back to the Senate and...

what better way to come out fighting and scaring the shit out of Bush, the war against that piece of shit isn't over!!!!

[LauraT28]

51. He sucks...Same agenda as Bush just like the rest of em.

We need to take control of this party people or we're fucked.

[leesa]

52. Where are the lwyers counting every vote???

Who cares if he's fired up! It won't do a damn bit of good in a Republican controlled house. This is just a stupid game the rich Democrats in government play.

[Joylaughter]

89. Kerry should flip flop

and Un-concede and fight. Otherwise he's no better than *.

[Leilani]

55. Did anyone read Newsweek's account of the campaign?

It's really long, & I haven't finished yet, but Kerry ran a half-assed campaign.

One time around the track with Kerry is enough, thanks very much.

[DianeG5385]

60. This thread is shameful! He fought like crazy against the GOP

the media and apathy. Kerry wanted to win with dignity and in defeat look how fast the troops turn on ya'! Unlike many on this board, he is going to continue to fight for us in Congress while we sit in front of our computers and whine. The obstacles put in front of him were huge. An unfair media, vicious lies, unfair air time a well oiled GOP attack machine that worked the fears of the weak and supersticious, potential voter fraud and disenfranchisement...I think we did our best and he did his best but we LOST and I think the sniping at his character is deplorable. I think he showed great bravery by conceding for the good of the nation. Now if some major fraud is discovered, don't be surprized if he goes on the attack. I think in his heart he believes that this country would have a difficult time if there was pervasive fraud in ever trusting in the vote again. THAT is even more dangerous than conceding and letting the FOOL in chief clean up his own mess!!! I, for one am grateful for John Kerry's service and courage and if he chosses to run again, I will actively support him (Unless Wesley Clark runs!)

[Clarkie1]

61. I couldn't agree with you more, Diane. Kerry fought the good fight.

The only thing I would disagree with is that he should run again. It's nothing about Kerry's character, it's just political reality. I really don't think either he or Hillary would be a good choice. I honestly don't think either could win. Just my opinion.

[Pastiche423]

79. He fought like crazy?

Lordy, girl. Haven't seen many campaigns, have you?

[OutsourceBush]

81. How come he never pointed out that Bush is FAR FAR right wacko

when he had every opportunity. Bush kept saying he was to the left of Kennedy. That made Bush sound like he was in the center because Kerry never pointed out how far freaking right the Bush moonies are.

I also think he probably ignored Clinton's advise which was not helpful.

[Clarkie1]

63. A message from Wes Clark about Kerry, the campaign, us, and the future

A Message from Wes Clark
November 5, 2004


Dear Friend and Loyal Supporter,

I can’t thank you enough for all you've done. You worked so hard and cared so much. You gave me a voice, and you amplified it far beyond anything I could have expected. I am so grateful for all your support, contributions, letters, visits, emails, and continuing commitment. And for your determination to move our country forward.

We made a difference, and I think the country and the Democratic Party are better for all we did together. We moved the debate forward. We offered a powerful critique of the Bush-Cheney go-it-alone policy in Iraq. We laid out real solutions for waging a smarter war on terrorism. And we provided significant financial support to House and Senate candidates who share our views.

We didn't win on Tuesday, but we’re not giving up.

This is a difficult week for all who believe in our vision of America. Like so many of you, I worked hard for John Kerry. Like so many, I believed John Kerry would win. And I believed John would be a good president. Thank you for supporting him. I very much regret that he won't be there in the White House for us.

Much will be written about this election. People will analyze the nominees, their platforms, and the processes. There will be detailed looks at the electorate. I'm sure our party will look hard at itself -- its ideas, policies, and approaches.

We'll likely be very tough on ourselves and each other -- but I hope not too tough. We want to strengthen our party and our ability to compete in the next election and the one after that. So we need to show each other some appreciation, too, to keep it all in perspective. We did a lot of good, and we have to build on that.

I'll be listening to their views -- and to yours. It will take time, effort, and honesty to sort out the lessons. But I hope you'll be there as we do so. And participate. I look forward to reading your ideas and hearing from you in the coming days.

As for me, well, I'm continuing with efforts in the private sector. But I haven't lost my love for this country nor my concern for her welfare. So I’m not going anywhere. Through WesPAC, I'll continue to speak out and fight for the issues we care about and the values we stand for. We must bridge the partisan divide in America, but we’ve also got to keep fighting for what we know is right.

Thanks again for standing beside me over the many months. We may have lost the first battle in the fight for our nation’s future, but it’s far from the last one. We've got a lot left to do, and I promise to continue the effort to assure a safe and just nation.

Sincerely,


Wes Clark

[DianeG5385]

71. I hope Clark is actively organizing so I'm NOT changing my avatar

I know he says he is sticking to the private sector, but in my mind, he is the potential candidate best positioned and LEAST polarizing to help us regain the presidency in 08. I just don't know whether he has the intestinal fortitude for the fight and it depends on who the pubs put up in 08. I don't see alot of bright shining lights in the wings for the GOP. A smart move would be for Clark to run, and to pick Evan Bayh as VP. Clark has the experience and smarts to be prez while Bayh is an experienced legislator who would be a fabulous match. They are also from Arkansas and Ohio. One thing I loved about Clark is that he refused to concede patriotism and religion to the right. He didn't win because we weren't ready for him and Gert. In retrospect, we should have given him a harder look.

I hope he can build a network in preparation for a presidential move. He is well liked by all. Dean as DNC chair would fire up the troops and keep us mobilized. Also, we HAVE to make some inroads in the mid-terms in 06 so serious work must start on that.

By the way, there is NOTHING WRONG with our message, we just need to learn how to articulate it more succinctly!

[janx]

77. You're not trying to crank up your post count or anything,

are you? ;-)

[DianeG5385]

82. Hey! What you didn't like the arguments in my post???LOL

Truthfully, I was a big Clark supporter and donated to Clark, Dean and Kerry. I do think Kerry did a great job but was swamped by the GOP message machine. I don't know if any democrat could have beaten him this year, so I'm ready to move on.

I am very suspicious of the voting machines and think we need to have NON-PARTISAN election officials although I don't think it's possible. The problem I have with the voting is that the last two elections were determined by PARTISAN election officials who I believe abused their position. I think we must insist on verifiable audit trails on voting machines. This is in the best interests of both parties.

With these machines, we have injected a profit motive to our elections. That is disastrous! Our first initiative in congress must be to eliminate the profit motive and insist that there not be proprietary code. If the code can't be verified, by default, the machine is suspect. Someone on this board suggested a two part receipt, one which goes into the ballot box and one kept by the voter. This would help to minimize fraud.

Anyway,we deal with fraud if it is legitimate but we must insist that the voting mess be resolved by 2006. The GOP LOVES chaos. We can even have a quid pro quo which is we will give your judicial nominations a fair hearing (ie, no fillibuster) if the GOP gives us verifiable vote trails.

By the way, I'm getting close to 1000 so please respond!

[Psephos]

91. Smart post

DianeG5385 (now there's mnemonic, huh?) - I like your idea of a quid pro quo. That is pragmatic politics. :-)

[flaminbats]

99. Mus uni non fidit antro..

quod ignavius est. :scared:

[TheIdiot]

142. Just guessing...

Diane G, born in '53, married in '85.

Close?

[sendero]

174. I saw Clark ...

... in several TV interviews. Clark has the stuff no other Democrat presidential contender has IMHO.

He is wickedly intelligent, but he doesn't shove it down the audience's throat, he just uses it to hamstring idiots like Russert, and makes it look like a piece of cake.

His progressive rhetoric is the most concise and convincing of any of the candidates (including Dean , who I was in support of until I heard Clark).

I would LOVE to see Dean running the DNC and Clark as our nominee. I really see that as our best chance.

Running a Senator (any freaking Senator) would be a huge mistake IMHO.

[Democat]

69. Great news, we will need every fighter we've got in the Senate!

Give them hell, John!

[tokenlib]

70. I'll give Kerry a chance...

After 2000, I thought Gore should run again. Having second guessed himself perhaps as critically as some of us here--I thought he might have learned enough to be a more formidible candidate--after all he did win. But the powers that be in the party, let him know he would not be welcome in the race.

I was not an early Kerry supporter, but I have grown to really respect the man. He was not the DLC type I feared. If he were to run in the future--perhaps he would be a much stronger candidate, having learned from the experience.. Wait and see what he does with his experience. We have over two years to think about this.

In the next two years,we need opposition leaders in the Congress. If Kerry steps forward and makes his presence known in the battles ahead--who knows? It is going to be two years to watch and wait and to keep fighting for all of us. At this point, I'd hate to write in anyone or write off anyone for 2008.

[wildflower]

72. Well, I hope he's going to be fighting for...

standardized voting and paper trails.

-wildflower

[noamnety]

73. kerry 2008!

my list of demands:

- in the stealthy silence of noncampaigning we continue to push Going Upriver.
- he helps expose BushCo involvement in 9/11
- he hires me as a pundit. I know the talking points we need to win the votes and I know how to frame them.
- he puts me in charge of marketing materials.
- he gives long speeches on C-Span so I don't go through withdrawals.
- some of those speeches should be the alaska drilling filibuster, which should be framed in terms of values.

[flaminbats]

74. sorry mate...

these are my demands for Feingold 2008

[Zero Gravitas]

75. I want John Kerry To Speak For Us

I want to see John Kerry as a powerful force in the Senate. I want him to clearly lay out an Democratic alternative in the Senate. Whatever he proposes will not happen because they have control and no Dem bill make it to the floor, but he can still speak out and be a true Opposition leader for the next four years.

This doesn't mean he has to be out nominee in 2008, but I don't think he should be precluded from running again.

We need to start NOW to layout a clear alternative to the Republican agenda. In 2008 there must be no misunderstanding about we stand for.
John Kerry is a good man and even the Republican's attacks have not tarnished his image among most people, even many of those who did not vote for him, and, being a Senator, he is well positioned to be our spokesman until next campaign season, if not beyond.

[OutsourceBush]

80. Fuck that noise.. I have heard 'he voted for it before he voted against

it' one too many times!

We need a candidate with gonads next time. One who will call the Republicans far right religious fascists and educate the voters on these religious extremists and kick their asses back to the farm.

Frankly, Kerry appears to be a good man BUT he is no BILL CLINTON and neither is Hilary. We need another Bill Clinton type that will make them shake in their boots.

[saracat]

97. After what Clinton said this week, I never want to see any Clinton's

run for anything. They will never have my vote. They have always been too conservative, but Clinton trashing us and saying don't whine and praising Bush was too much. My support is gone. He was a great speaker but I no longer like him!

[NVMojo]

116. I am more pissed off at Clinton...

what a smart ass....

[NVMojo]

117. I am more pissed off at Clinton...

what a smart ass....

[AllyCat]

182. I missed it...

...what did he say?

[RyomaSakamoto]

183. The BEST republican Perez we ever had ;-?

he can go 'cheney' himself :evilgrin:

[genius]

84. If Kerry doesn't unconcede, he should resign from the Senate

I'll never trust him again. HE LIED TO ALL OF US. He promised he wouldn't quit if this happened and then he quit. One kid I know says he's now proved he's a flip-flopper on this issue.

His Senate seat can be filled by special election. I don't want someone who betrayed the voters that badly in the Senate - unless, he suddenly gets some integrity and courage and jumps back in the race.

[Democat]

86. We do not need to risk losing another seat, no matter how sure it seems

Let's stick with Kerry for now in the Senate. I think he made a number of mistakes in his campaign, but we need him in the Senate to try to help fight Bush.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

87. Also

We can't allow the Repukes to turn Kerry into another Dukakis. His best defense is to stay and fight!!!

[TheIdiot]

143. There is NO WAY a repug...

will ever take a Senate seat in MA... at least not in our political lifetime!

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

85. Whoo Hoo

John Kerry. . . :yourock:

[littleleaguemom]

92. This is a chance for him to show his superior leadership

...in the Senate.

[TheDonkey]

90. Oh man! I hope to GOD he keeps a high profile against *

[Nordic]

93. is he gonna deal with BBV? If not,he's wasting his time

and ours, and the country's

[psychopomp]

135. Wasting his time

agreed, that is what he has to do for the good of democracy in the U.S.

[TheDonkey]

94. Very good article! Everyone should read, hope JK sticks around

we need plenty of visibly leaders out there, including Dean, Clarck, Clinton, Edwards, and Gore.

Also liked Carville's ideas for a new Democratic narrative.

[flying_blind]

96. I'm gonna join the winning team. Losing sux.

Pardon the chilling subject line....

But let us not - to our estimable detriment - forget the Dumbass Vote.

Absent the ever present vote malfeasance, it is the deciding factor.

Like it or not.

[pa28]

102. I really think he should be minority leader.

In that role he could act as a shadow President. It would also be a gentle reminder to the public as our currency becomes worthless, the deficit explodes and our nineteen year-olds head off to battle.

[grasswire]

104. so that's why he folded

To preserve his future electability.

That's it.

That's why Gore folded, too.

If Kerry made a fuss, he would suffer thunderous attacks that would ruin him.

It's all about them and their careers. Always is.

[TheIdiot]

144. Of course...

it's the American way! Any better ideas?

[smirkymonkey]

159. And by not making a fuss, he loses his base.

Stupid move. I was a pretty much die-hard supporter of Kerry. Not anymore.

[JCMach1]

105. Kerry should be minority leader!

[flordehinojos]

108. at this point, quite frankly, kerry should put up or shut up.

if he is so fired up... he should demand a recount. and if the recount or voter fraud investigation shows him the winner he should kick @ss get himself seated in the white house.

[Kosmos Mariner]

112. The GOP Thanks You, DU!!

Let me preface my comments by saying I am a hard core Clarkie.

STOP BEING THE FOOT SOLDIERS FOR THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE! I am EXTREMELY disappointed in DU, with its circular firing squads and complete trashing of a very good man, John Kerry. Stop listening to the "moral values" drivel being pushed by the GOP through the corporate media. Evaluate your thoughts about Kerry right before the election! What were you feeling? I was pumped up because JK had proved himself to me, and I knew we had a great shot at winning.

We lost, it happens to the best politicians. What was the environment? Unfortunately, even though we know Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever, he is still personally popular with a good cross section of America. This campaign was never about the issues. It's 9/11 stupid! People are scared, and unfortunately George W. Bush is their security blanket.

We pushed a popular war president to the brink of embarrassing defeat! Remember W's face on election day! He was weary, worn, defeated. John Kerry fought an immense battle against one of the best funded, well oiled attack machines in political history. John Kerry made me proud to be a Democrat!

I suggest you all do some introspective soul searching, and not through the prism of GOP TV. We are right on the issues. We have the All-American platform. Do your homework, look at all the various polls about the issues. 55% of Americans believe Abortion should be legal, 60ish% believe that homosexuals should be able to marry or have civil unions. And those are our "divisive" issues! We have the right issues, and we had the right candidate. Stop the doubting, start believing again, organize, reach out in our language, mobilize, and FIGHT!

The last issue is Kerry's concession. There is a world of difference between Al Gore's situation and Kerry's. Gore had the popular vote and he was within a couple hundred votes in a state with widespread incompetence and fraud. Kerry had neither the popular vote nor the small margins. What did you want Kerry to do, take down the whole party for a generation so that he could dig up a few thousand votes. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that our currents voting methods are a threat to our democracy, but this was not the opportunity to address the situation. We need federal legislation, or aggressive activism in 50 states to enact a fair system.

So my fellow DU'ers, do you want to help the GOP and tear apart a very honorable and powerful candidate in 2008? Do you want to continue to swallow the moral values lies, become Republican lite, and run a bible thumper in '08? I say we should sit back and watch how Kerry performs in the Senate the next few years. Let's see if he wants it. Americans love comebacks, we love redemption. In the mean time let's get active, let's get our people in everywhere from dog catcher to the Senate. DON'T EVER GIVE UP!!!

Victory '06!
Victory '08!

:dem:

[saracat]

118. I still have faith in Kerry. I have no faith there will be an 06

or 08 election!

[BootinUp]

133. Good post once you get past the title

and, yes I too am concerned about DU.

[Bongo Prophet]

152. That's the Spirit! We must fight the Reich, not our own.

As I am too braindead to compose a coherent rant, I will just agree.
Regroup and fight the machines.
Divide the overreaching Theocons from the few remaining realists and libertarians.
Develop memes and propagate.
Freedom over Dogma.
out.

[annabanana]

119. this is good...... I'm taking a "wait & see" on it..

It's only been a week, and I see evidence of behind the scenes movement on the machine fraud. We can't expect the world to move at the speed we've become accustomed to here in the ether.

[orpupilofnature57]

122. I'd haunt that sycophant McCain,HE HAD A CHANCE TO

build a bi-partisan concept and chose to FALL in line,asshole.

[CWebster]

124. Really...

Wasn't he just telling us all we had to unite behind the criminal nitwit? Wasn't his immediate reaction to concede without question, tell us all to get past it and move on and unite rather than fight?

Seems to me Kerry was never willing to use the tools to cut Bush down and put false propriety above genuine outrage. Kerry was a far too compromised candidate who really didn't seem to have a total grasp on the clear and threatening danger. May history recall that no mention of Iraq was permitted at the '04 D convention while Kerry was busy proving what a soldier boy he was while an illegal invasion should have the world trying the US at the Hague.

Kerry was a loser from the start. He was compromised on the war and he couldn't connect with the common man due to the elitist affectations so dominant in his persona. For example-- turned out to go duck hunting in his expensive duds and having some subordinate carry his game for him. The man doesn't get it.

[HarrietBrown]

125. My friends and I waited in Copley Square till 2 AM for Kerry to come out

and inspire us at the end of a long, depressing night. When he didn't come out, I was mad, and I am struggling with my feelings about voter fraud and his inactivity over the past week.

But I also feel that no one on earth now knows better than Kerry what the repugs will do, and no one on earth has been as unfairly slimed as he has been. And no other dem has been traveling the country, meeting with people, and learning about us first hand, the way he and Edwards have.

I've been looking for an article like this for a week. We need a leader--and not one who can have whole new charges dragged out against him by the other side. We need a national, pissed off, strong, opposition leader who has been "vetted" and can work with us and with repug moderates and not cave (as Clinton asked him to do) on OUR "moral issues" like equality.

Gore did us a lot of good when he came out swinging this year--but I'd rather have Kerry come out swinging NOW. I stood for Kerry in 2004, and I will continue to stand for him. My friend from Houston and I spent last week bumming around CT eating in little diners and we heard lots of anger from surprising sources--old timers in small towns who are pissed about the war and furious about the economy.

Someone needs to focus that anger and it seems to me that we should focus it not on Bush but on the repugs' policies and the one to do that is Kerry because he can continue to fight with the policies and ideas that he has already started to lay out--but he needs to do it quickly. Kerry can lead now, not with himself as a candidate, but as a representative of us and our ideas and ideals--and that makes him stronger as a leader, I think. I guess my main thing is that I never believe anyone's promises during a race. What I look for is how a candidate thinks and acts--and I like the way Kerry does both.

Right now--whether we want Kerry as our leader or not--I think that we need to be angry enough to hold our local and national politicians' feet to the fire--to constantly remind them, the media, and US that this is not a mandate and that we count. I am sick to death of being marginalized and demonized because I live in the northeast.

Wow. Didn't mean to go on that long.

[TheIdiot]

145. If you think it's bad in New England...

try being a lib in a RED state! the definition of "tough" is when you're the only one in front of the grocery with a blue clipboard and all the customers' necks are RED.

[PATRICK]

148. The DU that came in from the Cold

That is more what I am feeling. Democracy as it stands today- in a grave-makes the Kerry support kind of moot. If he has new relevance to the STILL shoved aside loss of the elction system, STILL unstopped advance of more complete unnaccountabilty, I will be glad to listen.

It just does not signfiy that not even fighting to get the vote back is an argument for hope and relevancy. Of course I support the weakened and sinking actions of the media drowned and compromising Democratic Party. Bailing out a sinking lifeboat offers few choices. Lightening ballast by throwing out Kerry is not much of a solution in the long run either.

I am looking for relevant opposition to a lost Democracy still sinking under lies. Our upper crust(in general) Dem electees seem comfortable at the bottom of the lie pile. The GOP is definitely cozy at the top where they can move around for more.

I want a relevant party. The Democrats in this lie, this prone position, are not going to advance change or ultimately defend us. Just waiting for disaster or miracles or permission to exist is not my definition of leadership or party.

It is not betrayal of progressive values or energized campaign workers. It is utter, bloodless(in appearance and temporarily only) madness and despair. All this sidelong ignorance of this absurd dominant evil is comfortable at the top.

In the Kingdom of the blinded the one eyed man had better shut up and protect his eye? Or is it Bush?

The hour glass is running out on Kerry and it is set for the Ohio certification. Bush has made America AWOL. The King is the land. The land is the King.

[jdonaldball]

126. How do you "fire up" a wet bag of shit? Send Kerry to the glue factory.

[democracy eh]

128. Leader of the opposition

50 Million voters can't be wrong

rip'em a new one John!

[Hotler]

129. I hope he shows up with a bigger set of balls.

And may be bring a few extra sets for the rest of our senators.

[The Zanti Regent]

130. Well, Mr. Skull and Bones, you like that deal you made with Bush?

We don't.

Please wake me if he does anything.

[Laelth]

131. I can barely stand to read any of this.

Lots of Democrats in this thread should be ashamed for playing along with the freeper agitators (and I'm not naming any names).

Repeat after me:

We will not eat our own.

We will not turn on one another.

We love and admire John Kerry (who probably won--only time will tell).

And you can all forget about '08. If this election was stolen, and it probably was, then we have no chance of winning unless we expose the fraud and bring the BushCo. empire down, now.

just my two cents ...

:dem:

Kerry on!

-Laelth

[ohtransplant]

149. Agreed on all counts

Congress will be a rubber stamp without strong leadership for the minority. JK is the guy. Only by being smart and fighting the good fight in Congress will *'s right wing agenda be slowed, modified and/or stopped. That seems to be where the next battles will be fought.

John Kerry was nominated for the right reasons in '04. And btw, he's a true war hero, a true leader, no matter what a bunch of bitter (not so) swifties say.

It's not time to duck and run or eat our young. It's time for what was started here to turn it into a movement.

It's time to educate those who voted for what they thought was "right",those who thought they were voting for a christain, those didn't look at their choices very closely.

I'm still disappointed that JK conceded so quickly. I wanted the votes here in Ohio to be counted in the light of day. That said, I believe they had access to more and better information than I but it doesn't help the hurt...

As more information comes out about the results and from inside the campaign, I hope to understand better.

Keep the faith.

God bless America.

[Pallas180]

161. From a newbie, REALLY!!!"Democrats in this thread should be ashamed"

bulldoody

[asianjoanne]

134. Right on!

You go Senator Kerry! Make us all proud! Be even more stronger than you ever have been! :)

[4_Legs_Good]

136. GO KERRY!!! It's better to burn out than to fade away!!!!!

You fought well in the campaign, now get to work fighting for the Minority party.

If America sees us as sheep they'll treat us like sheep. If they see us as fighters, we'll be back in the game.

Kerry is tough and has shown us he can take on the most evil regime ever to hold US office. Get in there and FIGHT.

Rust never sleeps

david

[msgadget]

140. It's over,

there doesn't seem to be a surprise around the corner regarding the voting machines. Any investigations will be for the 'future'. I thought there was a promise...

[TheIdiot]

146. Yes, it's over...

but only in the sense that HISTORY is over today, until we re-make it TOMORROW. If we have ANY hope at all, it's in first protecting the veru system that MEASURES our democratic voice! To give up on rooting out the FRAUD is to give up on the future... which is really all any of us have.

[AusTexDem]

168. Advent

Advent

In the hour of darkness our worlds collide.
Assailed by a madness that has plagued our lives.
At the point of departure on the eve despair'
no recourse to reason seems to make any sense at all.

The light of hope shines in your eyes.
Dementia has gone,purged from inside.

Throughout our wanderings in a land of lies.
We fell from gods grace into a sea of storms.
In self renovation,celebration of love.
These both are virtues we seem to have left behind.

The light of hope shines in your eyes.
Dementia has gone purged from inside.

Lay down your heart.Induce the will of love.
To restore what little faith that you may have lost.
As morning brings rebirth a new day will dawn to ease our troubled minds.
Turn away on your side and dream of days to come.

dead can dance

[tedzbear]

153. Fuck Kerry!

He's a has-been now. He just thinks he's still in the race. Hillary is a has-been too.

Of course this is only my opinion and I am very left wing so take that into account.

:bounce:

[angrydemocrat]

169. Kerry fought like hell in this campaign and will...........

........continue to do so. Kerry knows what he is doing. I think Kerry also is keeping track of the voter fraud behind closed doors. Kerry knows that if he hadn't conceded when he did it would have give the repugs a opening to start covering their ass on some of fraud and intimidation. By him conceding and staying behind closed doors and letting some of his friends look into all of this the Repugs thaught they had gotten away with another one and didn't have to worry about. But if he would have not conceded when he did they would have done to him what they did to Gore in 2000 and they would have gotten in gear right away trying to cover their ass. We don't really know what the hell him or Edwards has going on. They don't want repugs to know what they are up to but think people both of these men were attorneys and have many friends in the business. One of them volunteering for black box voting could be someone that they asked to volunteer. We don't know. The real point is if there is anything that can prove to overturn the election he will unconcede. Right now there is not enough there to overturn the election. He doesn't have to make himself a target to fight the fraud. When they get done with the invesigations we will see charges brought against people for fraud and fighting for paper ballots ect. But if Kerry was out in the open instead of behind the scenes he wouldn't possilby be able to do as much damage to these assholes as he is going to be able to do by approaching it the way he is. And the damn repugs don't get to run another great democrat in the ground with all their loud mouth and spin like they did Gore. Cause face it everyone what they did to Gore was terrible and when they got done with him he was so damn devastated we didn't see him for a long time. All Kerry has done is approached things different from what Gore did. It's not that he is a quitter and don't have a spine. That is far from the truth all you have to do is look back at this mans history he has been a fighter all his life and will continue to be one! If you don't beleive me just sit back and watch him make Bush's next few years hell! And don't be suprised to see him work to get enough imformation and evidence against this asshole to have him impeached! Cheney's ass will be on the shit list to. I feel Edwards will keep helping with all this behind the scenes because he has already said he didn't want DNC job because he had to much work to get done but he would be back.

[NMDemDist2]

184. thanks and remember Kerry loves digging into archaic, esoteric

subjects. I am willing to bet he'll be an absolute expert on e-voting by spring.

I like Kerry, always have, and agree with your take all the way,

he may not be president this time, but he's in a great position to bring down a sitting president anyway

Kerry On! :kick:

[Gyre]

173. Who cares?

Unless he fights back on the election that was stolen from him, we're fucked. Screw the senate and the games those rich fucks play with our lives!

Unless he fights back, I'm going permanently Independent on 1/21/05.

Gyre

[killbotfactory]

179. He'll give the president a really stern talking to....

If he even thinks about starting another pointless war.

[Syd_]

185. Please excuse me

for going back to what I thought was the original topic. Or at least something reasonabley close to it. Kerry does an excellent job in the Senate, when he is there. If he doesn't realize that this was ABB and decides to mistakenly run again, he will be away from the Senate for the last year to two years of his remaining term. That would be a waste of his real talent as well as a waste of time. I feel as many of you do, that unless he is playing possum until sufficient evidence is gathered to discredit this election before retracting his concession, he has betrayed us by not following through on his promise to be certain that all the votes are counted.

[Dr Fate]

187. Kerry & Edwards campaigned their hearts out...

...they made some mistakes- & we lost(?) by a small margin.

It's awful how we turned on these guys-only a few days ago we were admiring & cheering these guys on-this animosity might be uncalled for...