Kerry supporters need to understand that many of us voted against Bush

[Q]

We were all disappointed that Kerry didn't win. His 'loss' meant the most horrible thing for our country and party: four more years of the most corrupt White House in US history.

But Kerry fans must understand and accept the reality that many Democrats didn't vote FOR him...they voted AGAINST Bush. That we supported and voted for Kerry in 2008 doesn't in any way imply that we'll automatically support him in 2008...even if he turns out to be the nominee...again. As Will Pitt said about Gore after the 2000 election theft: "we don't own him anything".

I think it's great that faithful Kerry supporters start thread after thread about his policy initiatives and what he ate for breakfast. But as they have the right to promote Kerry and his somewhat premature campaign for 2008...those who don't support him have the right to offer criticism and judge his performance during and after the last election.

Calling criticism of Kerry 'bashing' only serves to chill a free and open discussion about the future and direction of the Democratic party. We should be able to agree that Kerry fans have every right to support and promote him. But part of that agreement should include the right for those who don't support him to express their opinions without his fans implying that they're 'Greens', 'FReepers' or 'working for Rove'.

Kerry fans will simply have to accept the criticism and remember that they always have the option of not participating in threads where it exists.

[LostInAnomie]

1. Clean slate in '08

No way Kerry should take the candidacy for granted.

[marcologico]

2. Thanks for clearing that up.

How about a thread explaining that the earth is round?

[Q]

3. It's not as 'clear' as you claim...

...and sarcasm isn't exactly a great substitute for critical thinking.

What's clear is that some posters can't accept any kind of criticism about Kerry. Worse...they can't seem to accept that the 'strong support' they claim he has from the party's base doesn't exist.

We don't want to see a repeat of the 2004 primaries where a candidate is shoved down our throats as the Chosen One. We would like to see an even playing field where every candidate is given a fair chance to become the nominee.

[bowens43]

9. Sour grapes.

Kerry EASILY won the primaries. He wasn't shoved down anyones throat. He had overwhelming support of the base.

That being said, Kerry had his shot and he blew it. Instead of running on the issues he had to play soldier boy . The second he gave his little salute and said reporting for duty, it was over. Any one stupid enough to make a bone head mistake like that doesn't deserve our support in 2008.

[CWebster]

12. dirty politics got that losers ball rolling

too bad they didn't use the array of legitimate dirty stuff to go after Bush in the general.

[marcologico]

13. Lighten up guys,

So Kerry didn't go into a coma like you hoped. Surprise, maybe he's got guts.

Anyway isn't Dean about to win something for a change? So why the accusations?

[CWebster]

16. I beg to differ

that he awoke from his coma.

[Chelsea Patriot]

23. Yes, Why was Kerry so cut-throat in the Primary with Dean....

and then so milquetoast in the general with Bush?

The Osama Bin-Laden/Dean smear...

Feeding Murdoch disinformation about the VP choice...

Why wasn't Kerry this ruthless against Bush?

[emulatorloo]

28. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.

I don't care how many times something gets repeated on DU.

[Larkspur]

40. I agree. It was disgusting watching Democrats like Kerry and Gephardt

tear apart Dean in the Primaries and attack Nader during the GE and play lapdog to Bush. Kerry and the Dems deserved to lose to Bush with that strategy.

At least Dean is looking strong in the race for the DNC Chair. The winds of change are happening and no one can stop it. Dean is a transformational leader and the Party will become a strong opposition Party to Bush and the fascists running the Repub Party and it will be Dean's leadership that will derail Bush and the fascist takeover of this country.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Oh sniff, they attacked Nader...a guy who has done more to UNDO

everything he ever did in life than anyone else.

[NYCGirl]

54. That's not the point, but good distraction.

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

119. Ain't that the sad, sad, truth.

I can no longer respect I man I once considered a role model.

[LittleClarkie]

121. Ain't that the damn truth

What the hell happened, Ralph. You were a good guy. When did you go insane?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Larkspur]

73. Nope, I don't drink kool-aid. I live that for the Kerry and Clark

supporters.

Oh, and please tell me you lies about Dean attacking Kerry and Gephardt. I need a good laugh.

[Q]

15. There are no 'grapes'...sour or otherwise...

...these are simply the facts. I'm saying that you have every right to support Kerry and his campaigning for 2008. But many of us won't go there again. We want a different kind of leadership. One that represents Democratic principles AND directly confronts the deceit and corruption that has enveloped our government.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. When he gave his salute and said "reporting for duty" it was over

or should have been for Bush- except that the swiftvets had their little smear game ready to go- and then, Dan Rather was set-up and suddenly Bush's AWOL stint and his not reporting for duty in 1972 was no longer an issue. Add to this a complicit press set up to tilt the course against Kerry and for Bush and it is clear Kerry had to be beyond perfect to win.
It is amazing Kerry did so well.

[Blue Wally]

Kerry should have heeded the old adage

Never try to lead a charge if you think you might look silly on a horse. "Reporting for Duty" made his Vietnam record an issue and opened the door for the Swiftys.

[lojasmo]

30. The earth isn't round.

It's a bumpy sphere.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Unfortunately, undecided sensed no solid agenda, took cover under

A Shrub, why because it looked familiar, normal.

[emulatorloo]

52. TERRA TERRA TERRA won and "John Kerry won't Keep You Safe" won

JK had a strong agenda, but they were afraid to switch presidents during a "Time of War. . ."

[TayTay]

5. Interesting post

The problem with criticism is that everybody knows how to give it, but so few know how to accept it. 'Tis a pity.

Voting against someone with a great fiery passion is one of the oldest things in politics. I have a Rethug Gov in my home state that I despise. I have no idea who is going to wind up opposing him in '06, but whoever that person is will have my vote. Deep feelings of disdain and dislike have always been a motivating force in politics and always will be. I have no problem believing that the anti-* feelings were stronger for some folks than any pro-Kerry feelings. That's just human nature.

We are still going through the circular firing squad stage of the post-election process. I liked Kerry and I liked his campaign. I believe he made mistakes and that the campaign was flawed. I have tried to take a look at what went right, what went wrong and see if there is anything that can be taken from it and used to make better campaign next time. That seems like a wise thing to do, as long as you are not learning the wrong lessons.

Kerry is still in the Senate and still has a seat of power. Mr. Gore was not still an active participant in national policy after his loss. It is just different as the last nominee is still on stage, still proposing legislation and still good for a soundbite to the media. We have not had this for awhile ('72, I think?) There are also people who were clearly not inspired by Kerry and were left cold. (The opposite is also true.) These things need time to play out. I, for one, am interested to see what will happen. It's kind of new and I want to see where it goes.

[Q]

11. It's not a 'circular firing squad'...

...it's an ongoing debate about the future of the party.

Kerry represents the wing of the party that thinks 'centrism' should be the guiding principle. Their 'vision' is to support many of Bush's policies...like the invasion and occupation in Iraq...while taking the party's base for granted and promoting ideas that alienate them.

It's not that Kerry didn't stand for anything. It's that he stood for the wrong things at the wrong time in history.

[TayTay]

22. The ongoing debate is the classic circular firing squad

That's how Dems do it. It's a long time honored tradition that drives people crazy and is unavoidable. We are a noisy, opinionated, smart and mouthy bunch of people. Actually, had Kerry won, we still would have had a version of this, as some folks would have had buyers remorse. That's how Dems are and how we resolve or fail to resolve our differences in a coaliton party. I think this is more difficult for Dems as we have such a wide range of opinions in the tent. It doesn't bother me that much. I like strong opinions. If my opinions can't take an occasional challenge, then maybe I have based my support on false premises.

I rather doubt that Kerry represents centrism. His 20 year record in the Senate is pretty liberal. He has gored a lot of Dems cherished oxes over the years and pissed off a lot of people. We will probably have to agree to disagree on this, but I think his stance now on not getting out of Iraq immediately is sound. (My actual opinion is that there are no good options in Iraq. The initial decision to go to war was wrong and based on lies. The *ies have screwed it up so bad that all options are terrible now. We leave, Iraq dissolves in chaoes. We stay, Iraq dissolves in chaos. Can we do anything to help Iraq avoid the blood shed of a civil war? Perhaps, but I don't have a lot of faith in the shrubbies approach. And so it goes, I am unresolved about it.) I have had my differences with Kerry over the years, particularly on Nafta and trade issues, but I have found him to be a reliably liberal voice.

I also think that this is a 'moment' for the Dems. It is possible that enough people have become sick of the way the Party works that we are getting to the critical mass needed for real change. It would be a shame if the perceived differences between us (that are small compared to differences we have with the real enemies, the Rethugs) did anything to hamper that change. I do sense that enough people, a tipping point perhaps, want a clean sweep and a refocus on grassroots. This would be great. Dean, with Trippi started this. Kerry picked up on it and used a tiny bit of it. Now the Party must develop this. I would rather work with Dems on this, than battle them on lesser things. So, I still like Kerry and believe there is a place for him at the Dem's table. I also recognize that this is a big table with lots of place settings. That's fine with me.

[Q]

31. I would say that those who don't want a real debate...

...would call it a circular firing squad. In reality it's democracy in action. It would be detrimental to our party to allow the discussion to be swayed in one direction...to accept the status quo of falling in line to vote against our own interests.

Kerry campaigned for himself and the interests of the DLC. He ignored the base of the party and simply expected them to vote Anyone But Bush. That will not happen again in 2008. We will vote for the candidate that best represents the ideals of our party and country.

[TayTay]

34. The very debate you are having defies your point

Why post if we have an undeniable frontrunner? What would be the point? We do not have a frontrunner. We will and should have a debate over the future direction of the party.

I'm not sure there is much of a difference between us. I want more grassroots involvement and I rather like Gov. Dean. I think it would be great fun to have him as Chairman. He obviously energized a huge group of voters. I would love to see him as Chair and I pray that his energy and enthusiasm brings more people into the Dem Party and that his work to redo the party structure works. That would be nice.

I am also the base of the party. I have been a contributing Dem for almost 30 years. I have given time, energy, money and effort to trying to get Dems elected. Does my support as Joe-average Dem count less than yours? Am I any less of the base than any supporter of any other candidate? Do I count at all to the reformers?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Sorry, you're wrong.

It's absolutely a circular firing squad.

Anytime you start out with blame and "we don't owe you anything", you're absolutely not being positive and you're not being constructive at all.

[Q]

91. I was actually quoting another DUer...

...but what I was trying to say is that we don't 'owe' him anything in 2008. He will be considered equal with all the other candidates and will have to run on the merits of his campaign and agenda.

I didn't start this thread to be 'positive' or 'constructive'. This is about giving notice to Kerry and his supporters that...even though he's obviously already campaining for 2008...many Democrats will be seeking a different kind of leadership than what he offers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

97. well no shit. thanks for informing everyone that differing opinions exist

As if we didn't learn that during the primaries. :eyes:

[CWebster]

6. Kerry lost against the worst "president" in history

Anyone who would endorse him for the future is risking more than Kerry's personal fantasy to be JFK.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Endorsing him for the future and continuing to pointless bash him

are very different things.

2004 is over. Leave the man alone.

[bowens43]

7. So you're saying that if a republican other the bush had run

you would have considered him over Kerry? Are you sure that you're a Democrat?

[CWebster]

8. He is saying that the rallying call to Kerry was ABB

It wasn't an endorsement of Kerry and Kerry and his supporters, should understand that. It is less likely to get a repeat performance.

[bowens43]

10. Kerry EASILY won the primaries.

This 'Kerry didn't have the support of the base' nonsense is ridiculous. If he didn't have the support of the base he would not have been the candidate.

[Q]

17. Kerry indeed had the support of most Democrats...

...for the 2004 election. We had no choice but to vote for the nominee in the hope of removing Bush from office. Bush simply had to go for the sake of our country.

But all bets are off now. The 'Anyone But Bush' strategy was a one time only. Kerry can't and shouldn't expect Democrats forced to vote for him against Bush to see the same kind of support in 2008.

[LittleClarkie]

122. Unless he earns it

I'm hoping he earns it between then and now.

But, for the moment, I don't care if we plan to nominate Mickey Mouse in 2008. I have some tricky 2006 races to deal with first. One Dem senator, and our Dem Governor are up for re-election. The Guv ain't perfect, but the popular asshat the Republicans are fielding is worse. At least I know our Guv won't try to suppress the vote.

As for 2008, may the best person win. I will work for whoever it is, I'm sure, unless we field Satan or something.

I'm hoping also that we don't need an ABB level of support for the Dem candidate. I'm hoping the Repub candidate won't be so repulsive as to make that a needed thing. But it would be nice if all the political newbies from this time stayed active in the process. I don't want to lose their activity, even if the Dems won't necessarily have their vote.

[sendero]

124. IMHO..

.... Kerry had his chance to "earn" it in the 4 weeks following the election. I was not happy he lost, but I was still a supporter.

When he refused to do anything meaningful about Ohio, he lost my vote forever. It is really that simple. There is no explanation I can think of for his inaction other than he was already thinking about 2008. Well, fuck that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. Yeah right.

I could "easily win" the Indy 500 in a 1973 Pinto, provided the DLC and the mediawhores sabotage every other fucking car on the track.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

19. He knows what I'm saying...

...it's just that they're trying to establish Kerry as the 'frontrunner' and foregone conclusion way in advance of the next primaries.

It's an insult to our intelligence and independent thought. I personally don't like the herd mentality.

[TayTay]

25. Oh, that's silly

There are no frontrunners right now. The election is too far away and anything can happen between now and any rational decision time.

I would hope that Kerry uses his position and media spotlight to speak about things that Dems care about. If he does that, then all this other stuff will fall into place at it's appropriate time. (Or not. It's very, very early. There simply are no frontrunners yet, only pundits blathering on about them.)

Dems need to concentrate on the '06 races. If we win those, then we can look at '08. No cart before the horse moments. It's a inverse list of priorities.

[ginnyinWI]

85. I don't take that for granted,

although I'd like it to be true. But Kerry will have to get in line with everyone else next time, it's simply the reality of the situation.

[Q]

14. Are you sure you're being sincere?

This is the kind of nastiness I'm talking about. Why not address the issue instead of implying that I would have voted for a Republican or that I'm not really a Democrat?

But thanks...this is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate with this thread. The sooner that you and others realize that Kerry's support is a mile wide and an inch deep....the sooner we can have a debate about changing the direction of our party with a new kind of leadership that isn't afraid to tell the whole truth about Bush and the state of the union.

[zulchzulu]

18. It's when people lie about Kerry or use false GOP talking points...

...that I would always try to at least stop the myths or outright lies.

I've seen people say Kerry stands for "nothing", is a "flip-flopper", was "for the war", did "nothing after the election" and other clueless favorites. Those are LIES and MYTHS.

If you don't like Kerry for REAL reasons and want to engage in a civil dialogue, I'm all for it.

[Q]

21. Kerry stood for many things...

...and wasn't the kind of 'flip-flopper' the Bushies would have had people believe. But one could truthfully say that he didn't stand firmly for some very important principles.

Can you honestly say that Kerry wasn't FOR the war? That has been his and the DLC's position from the very beginning. In fact...this is where he got into deep trouble with voters. He was clearly FOR the 'war' but against the way Bush was running it.

And it's very clear that the PERCEPTION of the voters was that he did little or nothing after the election to bring to light the widespread and ongoing election fraud of the Bush Republicans.

This isn't about 'liking' or disliking Kerry. It's about his poor leadership skills and the need to confront the Bush corruption, lies and fraud. We need courage...not triangulation.

[zulchzulu]

111. Not to have to say this for the 10,000,000,000th time, but...

...Kerry was not "for the war". That is utterly a very simplsitic thing to say.

I could dredge up all the statements he made about his IWR vote, but it gets boiled down to this statement. He was "for the UN".

[robbedvoter]

20. Some of us are disappointed he didn't fight for his WIN

Saying "I lost because 911" is an insult to me on so many levels, I lost the count.
Also, since this addresses you. and you bring up concepts such as "loyalty" and "fair wather" - may I remind you most pf us were dragged kicking and screaming to vote for someone that stood against what we held dear .
ABB won - but thanks to Kerry, there won't be a progressive coalition in the future. Which is fine, as with anual census made by BFEE most of us will cease to exist politically anyway.

[Q]

27. Look...Bush is burning America to the ground...

...and using nationalism to keep our country fighting perpetual wars against faceless enemies. That Kerry mostly ignored these facts and avoided directly confronting Bush on these issues demonstrates that he's not the kind of leader our party needs in this time of peril.

Kerry and many other Dems ALLOWED Bush to use 9-11 for political gain. They had many opportunies to confront him on his lies and deceptions but chose to let it slide for the sake of political expediency. Kerry actually GAVE Bush the advantage on these issues by being among those who didn't have the courage to make him accountable.

[ginnyinWI]

89. it is easy to rewrite history

I read a lot of things on this board similar to what you posted, but I have tapes of speeches and rallies saved, and what I see on them doesn't jive with what you are saying.
It is your opinion, not established fact, that Kerry didn't confront Bush on his lies. It is my opinion that he did. It is also my opinion that he didn't get fair exposure in the media for his side of the issues. If people weren't watching C-span, they got maybe 10% Kerry, 90% Bush.

[TomClash]

24. Kerry would agree that you should have the right to criticize him

but that should apply to all candidates, including Dean, Clark and others whose surrogates promote their views here.

That said, some of the criticism is pretty dubious and some smacks of Monday moring quarterbacking by people who never worked on a campaign.

The 2008 comment is silly. Obviously, the nomination is open for 2008 and Kerry's going to have a tough time getting it, assuming he wants it. There are many possible candidates, including the usual suspects: Hillary, Gore, Edwards, Dean, plus newbies like Warner and Blagojevich. He's not a shoe-in by any means.

But he didn't exactly hurt himself on MTP last Sunday.

[robbedvoter]

29. Yup. Kerry has as much right to run in 2008 as Gore had in 2004.

And to understand that, you should go back to party machinations that kicked Gore out of the race "because it was Kerry's turn" - Barney Frank.
So, when dropping out, Gore said: "I was willing and able to do it, but some in the party said this should not be about the past so..."
So, Kerry should have the same rights.

[TomClash]

47. Who cares what Barney Frank said?

Gore walked away after he lost. You can't walk away and expect to get nominated again.

[Q]

130. The DLCers and the party bosses like Clinton...

...would like all Democrats to believe that Gore actually had a choice whether to run again or walk away. It wasn't just Frank who was pushing Gore not to run again...nearly everyone in the leadership of the party said he 'didn't have a chance' and that he shouldn't run.

But if you read between the lines...Gore was shoved into exile because he was campaigning as a populist for 2004. The party bosses wouldn't have that because they were determined to run a CENTRIST campaign. They wanted someone like Kerry who would heed the advice of those actually running the party: the DLC.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. gladly accepted

:7

[emulatorloo]

32. So attack Bush then instead of Attacking Kerry 24/7

2008 is a long time a way. There will be lots of candidates. Check back w me in 2006.

Analyse all you want about the election, but Terra Terra Terra/War President/Can't Change Presidents in the Middle of A War won. Plus there was that whole Blackwell/Jeb Bush thing.

[QC]

33. Are we allowed to attack Bush here?

From the looks of things lately, one could easily get the impression that we can only say nasty things about fellow Democrats.

[CWebster]

36. You know what we want?

Democrats who STAND UP and attack Bush!

[emulatorloo]

42. Just because you don't hear them attack Bush doesn't mean they don't

Spend some time on CSPAN2 you might be surprised.

CNN doesn't report what Dems say and do. . .

[CWebster]

44. Hey, I am just kicking the donkey until it kicks enough

that no one will miss it.

[Blue Wally]

93. Saying nasty things about Bush is non-productive

DU hates George Bush. Every one here knows that. Rants about how horrible Bush is are just letting off steam. We need to debate the future of the party and not just bloviate about Bush. Would it be wise to recycle Kerry for 08?? Would Hillary bring back the Clinton years? Teddy or one of the next generation Kennedys to return us to Camelot? General Clark?? Dean?? A new face. Leftist, centrist?? What should our platform be?? If someone startsd an "I hate Bush" thread, it can go on and on. Any rational discussion of the party future falls into accusations and fingerpointing.

[rockymountaindem]

35. Criticism is one thing

Criticism can be constructive and lead to constructive debate. However, a lot of the "criticism" is recycled GOP talking points or hit-and-run underhanded attacks that shouldn't be respected. If people have a civil, intelligent way to voice their concerns or complaints, that's fine. OTOH, "Kerry is a fucking loser" is not "criticism" and Kerry supporters have no obligation to respect someone who expresses themselves in that way.

[CWebster]

38. too bad

he is.

[emulatorloo]

53. Please! If Kerry had won Ohio, he would be President

Please tell me you don't really believe the "Bush Mandate" BS pumped up by Rove and the corporate media.

Bush *******************************************barely******************************** won, and he only won because he exploited his Terra Terra Terra show. And then there was that Blackwell and Jeb Bush thing

[CWebster]

55. It should've been a landslide

They fucking beat him on his own damn calling card as soldier boy.

(Can you tell that I am especially pissed today?)

[emulatorloo]

56. Bottom Line - Kerry lost because he wasn't perceived as HAWKISH enough

Bush ran a campaign on Kerry Liberals Weak Won't Protect You
Voters Bought It.

[CWebster]

58. No, they tried to triangulate on hawkishness

instead of challenging the validity of the Invasion.

The Democrats had EVERYTHING to hang Bush with--from domestic to foreign policy--but they listened to repub-lite advice and shot their own messengers.

[LittleClarkie]

81. And they did :D

Karen Hughes was right!

Electoral landslide, bay-bee.

Yes, I'm on the fraud train. I assume you are not?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hippiechick]

39. Thank you, Q

We have disagreed often in the past, but this post - I think - is right on the mark.

While we here at DU claim 'dissention is the highest form of patriotism' - apparently it does not apply when one chooses to criticize Kerry.

We all 'got in line' after the primaries and supported, worked for, and voted for Kerry as the Democratic nominee, despite any individual misgivings. But now that the election, the Inauguration, and indeed the first SOTU of the Bush Presidency Part 2 has occurred, Kerry is fair game and should be called on his actions/lack thereof just as any other senator would be.

[karynnj]

43. Kerry as Bush Antagonist

The issue of whether Kerry even runs in the 2008 primary is not important at this point in time. Even if that is his goal, he will have difficulty unless over the next 2 and a half to 3 years he has managed to do something incredible for the Democrats. As he is not "new", he will actually have a higher bar to jump to get significant support. That being said, the Democrats need to use anyone who can either create and push a Democratic agenda or stall or stop the Bush agenda.

Kerry's history shows he can be a determined, persistent, articulate and successful critic to administrations that he opposes. In many of the 2004 interviews, Kerry (and his siblings) often used the phase political activist. His attempt to try to use his email list and web site to create a grassroots effort - that Reid has copied, is the logical expansion on the ideas that Dean used. Kerry still has the visibility to get at least some media time to use to differentiate the Republicans and the Democrats and to blast Bush policies that need to be blasted. He did a good job on MTP, pretty much controlling the show. Over the last few days, the cable shows have spent a lot of time trying to spin the performance as "out of tune" etc. The extent of this effort suggests they still view him as at least somewhat of the threat. Also, it's notable that he positively referenced Hillary and Dean.

He has a strong position in the Senate and is on some key committees. Watching any of the televised hearings of these committees it is obvious that he is well respected even by many of the Republicans. The good thing is that at this point, safe votes will not help him. Being a leader in the Senate (not easy while in the minority) is the best thing he can do whether or not he runs in 2008 and is consistent with his life time goal of serving his country.

By 2007/2008, it will be come clear who is running on the Democratic side. Each of these candidates will have some strengths and some weaknesses. We can not know for sure what the issues will be in 2008 - which will help some candidates and hurt others. It will probably be obvious at this time whether there are many people pulling for Kerry to run. Also, Kerry, who had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at his wife and him, might be reluctant to put his family through another campaign. His saying now that he won't rule anything out is smart - if he did he would lose a lot of his power. Given his experience with the press over the last 20 + years, there is no worry that they will push him drowning out attractive alternatives.

In conclusion, the Democrats should use Kerry and any other Democrat as effectively as they can. Doing this does not mean the party owes him anything. Kerry's sadness at losing seems to be not just that he wanted to be President, but that he really cares for this country and is very concerned where it is going. The energy he has shown in the last few months deserves respect. If he has a plan you like, supporting it can help the Democratic agenda and the more support the better. He doesn't deserve knee jerk support (that Pre Nov 2, he had) but it makes no sense to not support something that sounds good because his name is attached to it.

Kerry's legacy may well be what he has done to try to hold America to the values we learned in history books and the constitution through his Vietnam anti-war stance, his efforts against American involvement with the Contras, Noriega et al in Central America, and his efforts that led to busting BCCI. If he retired tomorrow, he could be proud of his accomplishments. For years, pundits have said that the majority of Americans if polled would reject the provisions of the bill of rights. Last November they did, led by cable talking heads who should have been discredited years before (G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan)

[CWebster]

48. "Kerry legacy"

are not what he champions, unfortunately.

"John Kerry. reporting for duty" made a mockery of all that.

[karynnj]

67. Entire Campaign was not just reporting for duty

I do agree that his book "Call to Service" which looked at a life of service was a way better theme. The hero visuals ended up dominating the theme.

I doubt that anyone could win an election based on exposing the un- American nature of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush agenda's (Nixon included only due to his paranoia, enemies list etc.) Kerry did mention BCCI and the anti-war protests - Going Up River really highlighted the protests and explained Kerry's early work for veterans. With Reagan's death and sanctification, emphasizing Iran /Contra would be political suicide. The re-writing of history here is worrisome.

The point I was making, was not related to the campaign, but saying that Kerry's contribution to this country might be more as a critic, activist and investigator of corruption. (I would have loved for him to be President and I think he could have been a great President, but to do that he needed to get elected and he didn't.)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. SO WHAT?

But let me ask you this. When Kerry powerfully takes on Bush, must those that voted AGAINST Bush immediately BASH him? I don't care so much that you don't like him or that you thought someone else was better...but when he CONTRASTS what SHOULD be done with what Bush is doing...must you immediately attack?

What's the point?

[CWebster]

51. You mean, like he would execute the war better?

C'mon NSMA

[Q]

129. The point is that we don't want another candidate...

...like Kerry pushed on us through a primary process that's prejudicial against anyone on the so-called 'left'.

Everyone knows by now that the 'process' automatically weeds progressives and liberals out of the running. The accepted mentality is that no one on the left can win an election....even if they have the popular support of a majority of rank and file Democrats.

There needs to be an even playing field where ALL candidates are fairly considered...not just those with the stamp of approval from the DLC.

[GRLMGC]

57. Oh Ok, I needed you to tell me that

I'm not a moron. I know most people on DU don't support Kerry. I'm also not assuming that he's going to run for 08 and I know he's not going to have an easy time at it if he does. However, at least he's trying to do something productive unlike most people here. He could just fade away and do nothing. I know that would make people here happy but he's a senator and he has a job to regardless of whether it pisses DUers off or not. People here can obviously criticize him. I don't respond to those criticisms because they very well may be fair. Most criticism is fair. I do respond to "Fuck Kerry" threads because those are not productive. Aren't you advocating productivity? Okay then.

[CWebster]

59. He doesn't have to worry about poverty after retirement either

as if we will ever be able to retire now.

[GRLMGC]

61. What the fuck are you talking about?

This is about criticism of Kerry. And if you're referring to Social Security, no Democrat is going to go for Bush's plan.

[CWebster]

63. Then he can do his job

and when he does, I will praise him-- instead of this ridiculous prattle about kids healthcare when Bush is threating to cut over 100 programs and Social Security is first.

Get with the damn priorities NOW!!!

[GRLMGC]

64. Wedge issue

We need our own goddamn wedge issues. This is a good way to do it. Make Repugs who vote against kids look bad. But yeah, who gives a fuck about kids? Anyway, they are working on social security. I'm sorry they're not loud enough for you.

[CWebster]

70. Just like they "worked" on the Invasion of Iraq?

Howz about a little bandaid on a gaping wound?

[karynnj]

71. Soc Sec

Kerry's explanation of the problems of Bush's soc sec changes on MTP was the clearest I've ever heard. He's on the Finance committee, which I think is the right committee so he will be involved in this. Why criticize him in advance for not doing his job, when he almost surely will do whatever he can.

[CWebster]

74. Anytime he wants to make a big stink

Don't wait to long...you know what I mean?

[cindyw]

60. Would you feel the same if all of us began criticizing Dean on a regular

basis? I'm guessing not. There are those of us who have serious problems with Dean, but for the sake of harmony have decided to let all of you post 50 times a day about the newest group of people to say they like Dean and narry a peep about concerns on Dean. I find it strange that you would defend to the end the need to criticize Kerry for his good acts. You may have a problem with what he did after the vote. It think it has been fought to no end here, but it is so weird how Kerry does something good and inevitable a large group of people have to criticize him for it. It's weird. All I am asking for is the recognition that those of us who have problems with Dean have let up. When will you or are you looking for a reciprocal fight? Or are you naive enough to think that our considerate attitude is a sign that everyone loves Dean?

[CWebster]

62. That's ridiculous

Dean supporters were driven off in droves. Dean was\is still the most popular attack target. And hey, we voted for Kerry.

[cindyw]

66. You weren't driven off or you and 50% of the people on DU wouldn't be here

Honestly I never see attacks on Dean here. Some criticism yes, but no attacks. I think you confuse what you perceive to be attacks on Dean outside DU with the people here. Not that anything I say will convince you. You are in the top 10 of Kerry attackers from the beginning. Thanks for not supporting Bush by the way, really appreciated.

[CWebster]

69. Oh, c'mon

But you're right. I don't hesitate to attack Kerry, but I voted for him--what more do you want?--He didn't deserve that much.

[bgb217]

72. re Kerry

This isn't 100 percent on top, but I the only thing that really gets me is this: I was just listening to Air America this morning and someone mentioned something like 'We all know Kerry wasn't the right guy..' Why do so many people lay the blame on Kerry? Now, I know even if you didn't totall support him (voting against Bush rather than 'for' him), but how can some justify saying it was his fault. The race was unbelivably close; he got the second highest number of votes in US history... I just think that we do have to accept we were just beaten on some level, and that it's wrong to say Kerry 'was the wrong guy', because we came so close to winning.

[cindyw]

75. Don't even bother arguing the point with people who hate Kerry.

Just like Repubs would vote for Bush over Jesus himself, people who hated Kerry blame him for not winning 70% 30%. The truth is they think their candidate would have blown Bush out of the water and they think Kerry messed up what should have been easy. It is funny that those who recognize the Repubs are crooks and probably cheated, think Kerry is till at fault. We know he isn't and have to be okay with that. So just keep supporting Kerry's positive actions and let them go on falsely thinking their candidate would have avoided the cheating in some miracle.

[Q]

76. We could probably do without the words 'blame or fault'...

...and discuss why he was the wrong candidate to run against Bush. Those arguing that Kerry ran a good campaign against Bush don't seem to be taking into account that the campaign that he needed to run was against a virtual despot....not just a 'bad' president.

Bush has literally wrecked this nation's social infrastructure, looted our treasury, ruined our environment and waged illegal, aggressive war against a nation that was long ago proven not to be a threat.

Yet Kerry ran a campaign of the Politics as Usual. He didn't even bother to bring a knife to a gunfight...he brought a squirtgun.

Kerry was able to 'come close' because of the Anyone But Bush vote. He shouldn't expect these results a second time around.

[LittleClarkie]

80. No. He will have to earn them

If he chooses to run in 2008, he will have a fairly clean slate, perhaps colored by how he conducts himself until then.

But he will have to duke it out against everyone else, just like this time. And depending on who is running on the other side, the AB whoever vote may not be needed.

I hope not, but then again I don't want to lose the newbies who are only just now paying attention. I hope they stay involved.

I appreciate what you are saying in this thread and the mature way in which you are conducting yourself in it. I see you defending against unfair comments as well as criticizing what you see as Kerry's failings. We may disagree on many things, but I just want you to know I am noticing this, and it is indeed appreciated.

[tishaLA]

117. I still love that pic of Kerry and Edwards in your sig

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. He was a lousy candidate on a lousy platform.

I held my nose and voted against Bush, by punching the tab for Kerry, but it was with no enthusiasm and little hope that he'd pull it off with his tepid campaign of not being a liberal.

[Q]

78. But Kerry seems to be a good and caring man...

...who had the misfortune of not fulling understanding what he and the party was up against for the last four years. He didn't fully comprehend that Bush & Company had no intention of losing no matter which candidates the Democrats ran for office. And everyone knew that they had no intention of playing fair or honest.

That's how Kerry and the DLCers let us down the most. They didn't prepare for the fight and seemed practically unarmed against the anticipated onslaught of dirty tricks, bought off 'journalists' and rigged elections.

I don't know who would be best to lead the Democratic party. But I DO know that it's not Kerry...or any of the DLC sellouts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. His disgusting IWR vote convinced me otherwise.

"Good and caring" men don't vote for war to further their political careers.

I beg to differ about Kerry and the DLC. They DID prepare for the fight. Unfortunately, it was to pander to the right in hopes of following Clinton's "triangulation" theory of politics.

As for the "dirty tricks", "rigged elections", bought journalists, I see those as excuses for a weak campaign that offered little more than a watered down version of Republican policies.

And, they are continuing it to this day.

[Q]

94. Well...even good and caring men can lose their way...

...and become political opportunists. Like Gore...Kerry took the advice of political operatives that had more in common with the Bush Republicans than with the Democratic party.

Look...I'm trying to give Kerry the benefit of doubt here. It was obvious to many of us what the Democratic party was up against and we were shocked at the lack of fight from our leadership. But many more Democrats are still unaware that our party has been taken over by the DLC and they don't yet fully understand the ramifications.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Some things I appreciate about your post, and some things I don't

Thank you for saying many and not a majority. I'm thinking about half and half as far as who was voting for Kerry and who was voting against Bush. It may have started out differently, as it did for me too, but in the end several people who were ABB were happily plunking down votes FOR Kerry. Until I see actual evidence that isn't antecdotal to change that opinion, that is what I think.

So, I do realize the fact that many on our side were not voting FOR Kerry. But often on the board, when we bring up anything to do with the man, it is the ones who did not vote FOR Kerry who call it "campaigning for 2008."

Standing at a grave = campaigning for 2008
Going to Iraq = campaigning for 2008
Pushing health care = campaigning for 2008
Voting against Condi = campaigning for 2008

Well, I say right now 2008 can be damned. We are fighting a fight right now, and if Kerry is any part of that fight, I am going to promote what he is doing.

No we don't need "eating for breakfast" posts, but truly I haven't seen any of those. And the "help in the health care initiative" posts should not be trivialized by being lumped in with them.

I will support any Dem who is taking positive action right now, regardless of who I will support in 2008. I get supremely annoyed at those who suggest that supporting the action is supporting the man in 2008.

Please GOD we're not going to start the primary battles for 2008 so soon, are we? It's divisive. It's distorting of what these people are trying to do NOW. I will support them NOW, and sometime in 2006 worry about who I support in 2008. It will be a clearer picture then.

You obviously have every right to criticize. But I have my right to rebutt that criticism if I think it unfair. If such criticism is presented in a reasonable tone, I will strive to match it. If it is presented in a childish tone, though I strive NOT to match it, I often do anyway. Human nature, I suppose.

Criticism is one thing. Bashing is another. Criticism is for debate. Bashing needs to be called out, at least by me. One is constructive, the other destructive. So I will not ignore bashing. I will not play "Smear Vets of August" and wait. I learned that lesson from the campaign. Unfair criticism need to be answered. Sorry if you find that chilling, but that's how I feel and how I will respond.

Actually you'd be surprised at how often I restrain myself, just so I don't kick up some of the more vile threads.

And I am on Democratic Party Back Watch at the very least. We need to appreciate and support good and positive action. Even from the guy you don't support in 2008.

[Q]

82. I believe we're very lucky to have Kerry as a Democratic Senator...

...but that's about as far as I can go in my praise. During the campaign...I started several threads to discuss what I thought was his well-framed arguments on several issues. His answers about religion...about not wanting to legislate his own values...were among them.

I would never ask you or anyone else to refrain from responding to what YOU feel is Kerry 'bashing'. I'm simply pointing out that in many cases the criticism is well-founded and that some Kerry supporters go too far when they imply or outright state that those who criticize him 'must not be Democrats' or are working for Rove.

If not for Bush being an insane tyrant that had to be removed...I would have voted for someone other than Kerry in 2004. It's not that he wouldn't have made a good president. It was his involvement with the DLC's sellout politics that made him unappealing to many of us.

[ginnyinWI]

83. I am a Kerry supporter:

I have no objection to constructive criticism of Kerry or anyone else. It's the angry venting that I object to--to paint a person as all bad and totally useless is not only unhelpful to the Democratic party and its unity, but it is also not correct. Hardly anyone is 100% bad or useless, and it hurts to see this type of thread aimed at any Democrat. Save your anger for the real opposition!

Also: it is fair game to criticize someone's actions or words, but nobody should attack someone's motivations, because they just can't know them. To those who seem to know all about John Kerry's true motivations, I'd like to ask them to provide the evidence.

[Q]

84. Agreed. I can't say WHY Kerry voted for the Iraq...

...invasion and occupation...but I can object to it and use it as a basis to judge his overall character.

[MsTryska]

115. Kerry himself explained why he voted "for the invasion".

in the speech he gave before his vote.


and quite eloquently i might add.


you should look it up and read it.

[FreedomAngel82]

87. Even though I'm a hard core Kerry supporter

I know that not everybody really liked him and just liked him better than Bush in policies and everything. I'm not offended if people are critical of him but I guess I just don't like it when people plain out bash him for stuff. :Shrug:

[Q]

90. Once again...it's not really a matter of 'liking' him...

...and in fact I like the guy. But you can't use this as a basis to choose leadership. A leader must lead by example. Tough talk about 'killing terrorists' and 'reporting for duty' was symbolism over substance.

What we need from the Democratic leadership right now is substance over symbolism. That is...tough talk is not enough when Bush is getting away with destroying our party, country and the middle east.

Kerry should concentrate on being the best Senator he can be, go after Bush and push for legislation that benefits the people. He will never become president. He should get used to that idea and help the party move forward in other ways.

[goodhue]

88. What does it matter?

Certainly you are correct that many voted against Bush, not for Kerry. Also, there is plenty to criticize about the Kerry campaign. But why do faithful Kerry supporters necessarily need to understand that? Some do, some don't; some will; some won't. What does it matter?

[Q]

92. It matters because...

...some supporters can't seem to be able to just disagree with those who don't support him. They're going to the next level and demonizing those who don't want him to run again or have complaints about his lack of leadership skills.

And it seems that they don't fully comprehend just HOW MANY Democrats voted against Bush and not necessarily for Kerry. In my opinion...Kerry doesn't enjoy the kind of rank and file support his supporters presume he has because he came 'close' to winning. In other words...they're mischaracterizing the ABB vote for support that will still be around in 2008.

[jswordy]

95. Kerry in '08 is moot...DOA!

There is no way he'll ever be the Democratic nominee again. He had his shot at it. It does little good to keep the old wounds open. Let's move on.

[jdots]

96. excuse me boys and girls this isn't a ball game

It is the democracy game and it is the game we here hopefully want to play.Some times we get mad and bad mouth a player's performance,we get to chose who goes to bat and all of aren't going to agree,it kind of stinks that we get only chose one candidate and then the game is fixed because some people who aren't even republicans can fix it. This is why this country is so pissed off.These neocons are messing the game up.Please back off on each other,i think that was the gist of this thread,yup our team the democrats has some lousy players and some great ones.The nice about being a democrat is we get to be more than spectators and be part of this game of democracy.Alot of you went out and worked your butts off for democracy and didn't get paid for it because you know that is something that money can't buy.Alot of you work for peace in a world where there seems to be no money in that.We are not just playing against republicans or conservatives,freepers,fundys,homophobes,racists,facists and you know the list,we are playing agaist a new team that have sprung up with the aid of technology and money made by human suffering that don't play by rules.This new team is the bad sci plot where the corporations rule a world that is falling apart.
If we want to progress and win against this new team of very rich and powerfull neocons or neo what ever they really are we have to play as a team.
thus ends today's pep talk ( sorry it sucked) NOW PLAY BALL !

[amjucsc]

98. The Dems won't back Kerry in '08

Let's face it, this campaign was Kerry's to lose, and he lost it. This isn't entirely his fault--his campaign strategists couldn't sell air conditioners in Death Valley-- but that dosen't excuse his numerious flaws from a political point of view. He has almost no appeal in middle America, he's now rabidly hated by a good number of Republicans, and he couldn't produce a simple, concise soundbite if his life depended on it. We can do better--and we should have done better last year.

[kerrygoddess]

110. Really? You Think?

WATCH!

[amjucsc]

118. Ok...

Why should the Dems back Kerry again?

[Q]

131. This is exactly the problem...

...we have posters like 'Kerry Goddess' assuming that it's a done deal already. This is insulting to many of us because the election is just a few months old and he's already trying to assume the mantle of frontrunner. Or at least trying to give that impression.

This is the stuff of Republicans...not Democrats. Kerry will have to start over (even though he kept money from the last race) and compete with every other candidate.

[dandrhesse]

99. I understand the against bush vote, but we need to stick together

The one thing we need to remember is that there is strength in numbers. I would think that is why Kerry would continue to send out petitions, and action items, as well as Boxer and Harry Reid. They are trying to get a feel of how many of us are really committed to keeping the pressure on. Right after the election there were tons of letters and phone calls, they are checking the pulse to see if this is a dying animal or if it is getting healthier and bulking up. If we continue to support them when they are working on something beneficial, and we are strong in numbers then they will be able to fight like we have never seen them do. If they know they have to answer to us and that we will support them when they fight for us, its a win-win situation. So like you said, lots of people didn't vote for Kerry but did vote against bush. Well for now at least, we share the same vision and we need to stick together. If some of the Kerry comments are soppy, try to be tolerant as well, many of us poured our blood sweat and tears into the campaign and it is tough going considering all the questions surrounding the legitimacy of the vote.

[Lexingtonian]

100. No, we don't have to accept your criticism

No one says you owe Kerry anything in particular in the way of loyalty. And no, he didn't make much effort to kiss butt of certain subsets of Democrat. To boot, Kerry has about an 8-10% hard core support base among Democrats...which is a little higher than Clark or Dean or Edwards.

That being said-

You can look at the election results and the argument on DU and see two theories. 1) Kerry is part of the solution, internal factors within the Party the major problem, or 2) The Party is fine, but Kerry is characteristic of the problem.

Looking over DU with a cold eye, acuity, and real generosity...after a while 1) so overwhelms 2) as an explanation for me that it's hard for me even to see why it's a contest. Well, let me rephrase that. I can see what it is about the Kerry criticism that drives it, but what drives it seems to me indefensible, superficial, and bad politics at bottom- and exactly the set of flaws of the Party that Kerry could not persuade voters to ignore.

One such characteristic flaw is the (self)righteous presumptuousness that so permeates the OP. Where is the warrant for it? You have all these judgments to pronounce, but haven't bothered to make your case or attain something of a jury verdict- and no, echo chambers do not count. Neurotic frustration is an explanation, not an excuse, and certainly not a constructive contribution.

Let me point out that what Kerry is giving whatever he is doing a humble start, he isn't making excuses or blaming anyone in particular, he isn't being (self)righteous, when he asserts his being right he gives convincing proofs, and his primary motive is a sense of duty (which he is selfconscious of and feels a need to blur it in public). His vocal critics around here pretend to the like qualities but don't convince- there is such a persistent sense of entitlement, of claiming the higher moral ground, of the defensive claim to superiority that marks people who feel terribly weak and inferior.

As I see it, the 'debate' here is between people who want the Democratic Party to be reactionary and stuck in a permanent minority mentality, to continue to represent their entitlement claims and defensive claim to superiority and righteousness, and those who are willing to raze that rickety structure and build up the solid political and compelling moral argument from the foundations we do have.

Kerry will make the case for himself, or he won't, and only fools will mistake his present effort as a campaign to promote himself. The only logical purpose of it is to undermine the Republican hold there is on swing voters, all you genius political analysts.

[cidliz2004]

102. How True! Most EVERYBODY I know that voted for Kerry

voted for him because he was the ABB candidate and the most likely to win. Many I know voted for Kerry while holding their noses!

[Borgnine]

103. Agreed.

Kerry's not a bad guy, but he ran a terrible campaign. Remember the meme (oh, I hate that word) that he was a strong closer? "Don't worry, he's playing a game of chess. He's a strong closer. A master tactician." Uh huh.

I'd also like to add that I do believe he barely won the election, but then he failed yet again in not fighting the fraud. He took off and ran, after he kept promising us in fundraising letters and e-mails that he would fight to the end with a team of lawyers.

Kerry proved to me that he's just a politician, and a veteran one at that. I think in the end, that was his undoing. He was even more handled and nuanced than Gore was.

[Generator]

104. I call it Kerry Karma

The need to piss all over Kerry because they never liked him in the first place. Booyah for you. (Soros, Moore come to mind and any other media pundit that needs to write a column)

I sleep just fine. I supported a decent man that for whatever reason didn't win. I don't blame myself for this country's descent into fascism and I don't blame Kerry. I blame Bush, voter suppresion (fraud very possibly) and most importantly I blame those that voted FOR Bush. Whether it was fear or ignorance, it hardly needs to be said Kerry was the superior choice. There is no real excuse for voting for Bush.

I don't feel the need to mock him (something I noticed even the saintly Jon Stewart is doing these days). He is what he is. I like him immensely. I can't think about 2008-I think most of us are standing around in shock and awe just trying to believe what is happening to us RIGHT NOW and doing whatever we can to fight it.

If I want to defend Kerry I will. And you do whatever you must if it makes you feel better.

[politicasista]

105. Well, everybody here got their wish. To set Kerry up so that

_______________ who is Anti-War, not afraid of the media, cool, stir-the -masses type can run in 2008. I am glad I wasn't stupid to play into Smirky's hands. He knew we were all bitching and moaning about Kerry so he Dougboy's advertising worked. Never mind the fact of how lousy a candidate Kerry was, we were just too lazy and grouchy to think about what kind of president he would have been if we had just shut up and voted Smirky out. :mad: :grr: :cry:

[NYCGirl]

107. You want to run that by us again in English?

:wtf:

[kerrygoddess]

108. If you don't get it

then you better keep looking for the answer... because it's pretty damn clear to a lot of people!

[politicasista]

109. We played right into Smirky's hands

with that "I don't like Kerry." "I wish we would have nominated someone else," etc. I guess we were spoiled by Clinton (who is the best pres in my book). Let's nominate the PERFECT candidate in 2008.

[NYCGirl]

112. Perhaps you hadn't heard during the election that the Democrats were

remarkably united, more than we ever had been. We all shut up, we all worked for the candidate, and we all voted for him. So you are wrong on that; now that the election is over, we can be freer, I hope.

[Q]

127. How many times have we heard this?

That the 'left' wants 'purity' and the 'perfect' candidate? That mantra is used to dismiss valid criticism of candidates that only represent a small segment of the Democratic rank and file.

Kerry would have been a much better candidate if he hadn't of taken the advice of the infamous losers...the DLC.

[BlueInRed]

106. Count me in the ABB category

I voted for Kerry for the good of the country. That doesn't mean I ever liked Kerry or thought he was best. And I know plenty of people who were ABB, not pro-Kerry. So when Kerry supporters talk about how popular Kerry was, I think it is an illusion, because I personally know many ABB voters who did not love Kerry.

What I find is strange is it *SEEMS* many of the people who are arguing about Kerry's popularity didn't have any problem arguing against Gore's popularity in 2000. It's entirely possible I'm wrong about that, but it's just my impression. To me this is replay of 2000, except substitute the name Kerry for Gore. Probably this debate goes on for every presidential candidate who failed to get the brass ring (or failed to prove to the courts that he got the brass ring).

I do understand the other side of the coin. I liked Gore and thought he got a bum rap. But, I also accepted the fact many Democrats voted for him only because he was the Democrat on the ticket, not because they loved him.

[rniel]

113. I voted for Kerry

But he's not the hero I was looking for. Really turned out to be such a lame duck.

[MsTryska]

114. why can't y'all just let it go?

kerry's a good guy. dean's a good guy, <insert any but a neocon here> and he/she is a good guy too.


give it a rest.


appluad the little victories no matter who they come from, and maybe one day we'll have some sort of unified party, that wants the best for our kind.

[LittleClarkie]

120. Indeed, that's all I ask really, If I post something positive

that Kerry is doing, it would be nice it wasn't reframed, as Q has done somewhat in the first post, as us promoting him for 2008. His/her point seems to be that in posting something about Kerry's activities, thereby promoting him for 08 in his/her eyes, we are then opening the door to a critique of the election and the man's merits for the next election.

I'd just like to live in the "in between" for awhile before we start a new round of "who's it gonna be in 2008."

I am still paying attention to Kerry, and as he asks for positive action, I will report and promote that initiative. I am not campaigning for 2008. I've just got the man's back.

I've also got Dean's back at the moment. I have the back of any Dem who is fighting the Bush Co.

I will admit, however, that there is a special place in my heart of the Kerrymeister. He was this political virgin's "first" so to speak. So he's the one I'm paying the most attention to. I'm still flying somewhere around "band of brothers/Kerry Krishna" level. So sue me.

It occurs to me that there have only been a report or two out that Kerry wants to run again. He hasn't said it, and indeed says what y'all say, which is that it's too early. Why assume everything he does is campaigning. And unless I show up with a petition or something labelled "Kerry in 2008", why assume that's all I'm doing too? It's too freakin' early.

Right now, if I can help some kids get health care, I will feel like I'm helping the country in a way that I was apparently unable to do during the campaign. If I can help the Dems fight SSI reform, and we win, I will feel like I did something. If we can fight for election reform with Conyers and that gang, I will feel like I did something. Maybe I won't feel like crying so much then.

Can we try to put the political battles aside for a while and just work. Please?

[Q]

126. In the larger scheme of things...it's not about Kerry or Dean...

...or anyone else. It's about the Democratic party pushing candidates on us that fit the DLC mold instead of what the people need in a representative in a time of corrupt presidents and governments.

And it's not about 'unity'. Democrats shouldn't be expected to united behind someone spouting a message and agenda that leaves out the 'lower classes' and the disenfranchised.

[MsTryska]

133. yes.

those people wouldn't be supporting out democratic ideals, ergo they get no support.



so lieberman - not a good guy.


but what does all this have to do with kerry?

[flpoljunkie]

116. You need to understand that the need to get rid of Bush overrode all!

Kerry was not a perfect candidate, but he was the best we had to offer. The media, as usual, did not do their job, to bring us he truth about the Bush administration and Iraq. Instead, they cheerled the nation to war for ratings and profits!

Most Americans have no idea what is going on in this country. If they did, Bush would have lost in a landslide. John Kerry is an honorable, thoughtful, intelligent and courageous man who ran an honorable campaign, beat the crap out of Dubya in the debates--yet it wasn't enough as the Rethugs were able to bring enough greed head, gay marriage bashing prolifers and the clueless out to vote to win yet another questionable election.

Lay off John Kerry.

[Q]

125. It wasn't the opinion of many Democrats that Kerry was the best 'we' had..

...to offer. Because of the primary process...he was the only choice given to the voters.

And please...stop blaming the media for Kerry not presenting a message of substance. If anything...Kerry played into the corporate media's hands by watering down the Dem message and not offering the kind of distinction he needed to offer against King George.

Don't ever tell me or anyone else on this board what to think or write about Kerry or any PUBLIC SERVANT.

[mandyky]

123. It would have been about as bad

if Kerry had won. In real life I knew of Kucinich, Dean and Clark supporters during the primaries. Once again we let the party sell us a lemon, I think. I often wondered if Kerry was even trying during the general election.

I will not vote for Kerry in 08. I think Vilsack or Bayh are passable. Richardson would be good, too. Anyone Carville backs, won't get my backing.

[foreverdem]

128. Doesn't matter

If Kerry had been Jesus Christ personified, he still would have lost. Shrub had the election in the bag from day one with all the fraud he had set up just waiting to happen. And unless we get that fixed, the repukes will win again in 2008, not matter what candidate the dems put out there. That is not John Kerry's fault.

[Q]

132. Very true...

...and isn't it strange that the Democratic leadership (including Kerry) isn't making election fraud a front burner issue? Shouldn't this be a priority considering that it literally means the end of democracy if the credibility of our elections are in doubt?