So, do you think John Kerry or John Edwards will Rise UP

[leftylady]

out of all this muck?

Just because they are "decent."

I'm thinking John Edwards is going to be the one. Don't know why exactly. Just that people trust the guy to do what is right.

[BlueJac]

1. Clark will make a move...

[Clark2008]

18. Clark's already a part of James Lee Witt's operation.

His move will be easily assimilated.

Of course, the corporate media will never report it.

[H5N1]

2. They need to all rise up with us along side them

time grows short

[Nite Owl]

3. His "Two America's"

is certainly proved to be right. He's working on poverty which means he gets exactly what the problem is.

[Skwmom]

81. Proved to be right?

It didn't take Katrina to prove that we have a problem with poverty and a shrinking middle class. His "Two America's" speech was hardly original, it was a rehash of an earlier political speech.

[Darkhawk32]

4. Don't think any Dem will "rise up"... not immediately anyway. n/t

[LaurenG]

13. Only Howard Dean

The rest will just sit there with their hands folded while we Americans are battered by these horrible people until we all have PTSD. Thanks a bunch all of you Democrats, thanks for nothing. :mad:

[Clark2008]

19. Clark didn't sit on his hands.

He called the Bush cabal on this already - it's lack of leadership.

[LittleClarkie]

92. Neither Dean nor Clark are sitting on their hands

I support them both.

[Clark2008]

124. Exactly.

I wasn't putting down Dean, just also including Clark.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Somebody needs to stand up and demand that the Cabal be impeached.

Anything else is just bullshit.

[mmonk]

6. Edwards is

already talking about it on the news channels here. Also, his classes @ UNC. He is beginning to repush the "two Americas" themes with Katrina as a glaring example.

[cyn2]

7. Edwards certainly had the right pitch

Two Americas.....now the whole world has seen the "Other America" that is so blithly ignored by the press and goverment.

He also set up a Poverty Center at UNC.

[William769]

8. Why would they?

We saw how they rolled over on the election.

[rurallib]

9. Right now Dean is capturing the mood best

I think Pelosi is doing nicely also. Clark also capturing it well. I am really disappointed by our Senators. Haven't heard much from Boxer (media you know) but in the past she's been about the only one with any guts.

[leftylady]

11. We really need new senators

We need some people who are decent and have some backbone.

[SnoopDog]

10. Edwards yes, Kerry no....

[leftylady]

12. Yea - I just don't think Kerry would make it now.

I think he is good and smart. But he can do more in Congress.

[howmad1]

126. I fell asleep reading Kerrys' take on Katrina. Boooorrrring.

[redtapeblues]

14. No...

but someone will.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Edwards went missing when he was a candidate for Vice President.

Now that he is nothing at all, I don't see him actually doing anything.

[Vinca]

26. Edwards didn't go missing. MSM "disappeared" him.

He's a good and decent man, something we're sorely lacking.

[mountaindem]

43. totally agree

the media made him do a disappearing act, as well as the campaign.
He was sent to rural America and if you look at polling numbers the democratic party actually gained in those areas.

[Proud_Lefty]

59. I agree too

Edwards has been emailing his followers, me being one of them, and making appearances all over. The democrats are trying to speak out, but without being given the opportunity by our media, their hands are tied.

[0rganism]

72. Really? I saw him on CNN last night

talking about how the abject poverty, the classism and racism implicit in this country were made so explicit by the disaster non-response.

[blm]

16. What an absurd comparison. ALL Democratic lawmakers are working on this.

Are you only judging people on who makes it to a camera first or calls Bush an asshole?

There are real legislators who are crafting a way to alleviate the immediate and longterm concerns for the victims while preserving their human rights and liberties and you want to diminish the workhorses for not being showhorses?

I think your post is an absurdity that intends to alienate people not solve very real problems.

If Edwards was in the Senate right now, he'd be working on legislative solutions first before he got in front of a camera.

[sendero]

17. Exactly how many problems...

... are solved by a party in the entrenched minority (because they don't have the BALLS to tackle the Repugs bullshit) sitting cin committees, calling hearings, promising investigations.

Frankly, I consider that bullshit roughly equivalent to what Bush did about hurricane Katrina. Way too little, way too late.

Getting on TV now and hammering home the reality of this situation, BEFORE the Repugs have censored and spun it out of existence, is crucial.

Get back to me and let me know how that "behind the scenes" bullshit is working for ya, k?

[blm]

29. If you don't know how bills get worked on, then that's YOUR problem...YOU

want a loudmouthed showhorse, then the GOP is full of them. If you want people who CARE and concern themselves with good governance, then many Dems fill that requirement, even if there is no fanfare or tv cameras for them.

The irrational loathing for Kerry is just ignorant. Anyone who ever cared about the historic record of this nation and appreciated WHO carried the real burden of exposing government corruption, know Kerry as one of the few truly great heros of modern history.

[sendero]

30. Dear person....

.. the GOP is in power, ruining America at a pace unimaginable only a few years ago BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SHOWHORSE THAT CAN GET ELECTED.

My post was not specifically about Kerry, it is about most of the Dem senate who have the political instincts of a garden slug or the spine of a jellyfish - I really don't care which.

Get this thru your head - if Americans don't see it on TV IT DIDN:T FUCKING HAPPEN - a fact that is scant comfort to the Repugs since their biggest failure is now on the tube 24/7 and there isn't much they can do about it. And rather than take advantage of the fact that they are wobbling and about to fall, where the FUCK are OUR LEADERS?

Americans don't care about SPENDING BILLS, they don't care about COMMITTEES, they don't care about INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS or any of it because they KNOW it is all a big fucking show.

They are waiting for a MAN or a WOMAN to step up and say things that resonate with their feelings. They are waiting for someone in the "opposition" party to give them a reason to think this would not have happened on their watch. America is waiting..........

[blm]

102. The GOP controls most of the broadcast media. MANY times I saw Dems

speak out either live or on Cspan, but, their words are chopped up on a network and spun into another story.

The DNC needs to get to work exposing the corporate control of the media and the news that people hear.

The only way Dems get unfiltered is during a live debate...that's why Republicans don't like to have them.

The people SHOULD know why the Dems are more dependable. When the firefighters endorsed Kerry they had a great reason...they trusted him to understand the concerns of first responders and PROVIDE fully funded programs for them and their urgent needs.

Did you notice that the media was oddly absent on that day, and few even reported it as a news story, let alone a live event.

It's their racket, sendero....a GOP controlled racket...and the only way we'll get any traction will be AFTER they are exposed as clearly as Bush is exposed now.

[sendero]

110. I know..

... that what you say is *sometimes* true, but it is hard to edit a live interview show - and that is where Dem leaders (not just Dean) should be.

Yes, the GOP controls *some* of the media, but not yet all. Not yet - but if our party doesn't step up it won't be long until they really do and then where will we be?

[Skwmom]

106. So how many problems are solved by someone going around the

country giving a canned speech because he think it will boost his chances for 08?

[Skwmom]

20. I think Rove and his group would love Edwards to be the one

(and will do whatever they can to make this occur). They'd love to run against a Democratic candidate that they could easily portray as a phony populist.

[AmericanDream]

36. FYI: Newsweek reported that Edwards was the one Bushco feared the most!

[Skwmom]

73. Thanks for the laugh.

Let me think. The self proclaimed populist is a personal injury attorney who started out as a corporate attorney but then switched to personal injury once he won a multi-million dollar award, he sued doctors using very weak scientific evidence (no - all of his litigations weren't against the big bad corporations), he "channeled unborn children" in closing arguments, he bought several multi-million dollar homes with his amassed riches,he did zero pro bono work, charitable contributions (who knows because he wouldn't release his tax returns), etc. Plus let's not forget the famous "hair" video.

His PR team is trying to sell Edwards as the second coming of RFK and JFK. The Kennedys had the image AND substance. They've been trying to tear down the Kennedy image and legacy for years. Comparing someone like Edwards to the Kennedys only helps them in this endeavor.

Hillary Clinton would be a better candidate. The Rove machine will push hard for Edwards because he gives them a lot of bang for the buck. He'll ensure a Republican victory in 08 and he'll further damage the image of the Democratic Party.

[renie408]

98. Ok, now THAT is ironic

Talk about 'Thanks for the laugh'.

Hillary Clinton a better candidate for President in a delicate year than....ANYBODY?

If there is one person who could scare anybody who even remotely leans toward the GOP into voting AGAINST a Democrat, it is Hillary Clinton. Whether she earned it or not, she is the woman they most love to hate.

I honestly do not believe she can be elected, no matter what her credentials are. She is too hated. Again, I am not saying she earned it, it just is.

[Skwmom]

104. Hillary would be a lousy candidate but she's a step above Edwards.n/t

[Clark2008]

127. I don't think she was saying Hillary would be a great candidate

just better than Edwards.

With either of them, though, you get no foreign policy or national security experience, which is what we need in the candidate. Someone who won't be "swiftboated."

The VP can be all congressional wonk, if you like, because that's what VPs DO.

[renie408]

131. How much foreign policy and national security experience did Bush have?

WE NEED SOMEONE WHO CAN GET ELECTED.

And then we can go from there.

[Skwmom]

132. Bush had ZERO national security experience and look where we are now. n/t

[Mass]

135. The results are there, obviously\nt

[OregonBlue]

145. I agree with you. The fact that the Repugs keep trying to promote

her indicates they know they could beat her. Or is Rove such a genius that he's spreading the word to make us THINK they want her so that we won't want her and we'll choose someone else?}(

[Mass]

21. Kerry - because he is working on it to help people.

and has the decency not to be a political opportunist like Hillary.

[indie_voter]

22. No, but I think Clark will n/t

[Mountainman]

23. My feelings about Kerry is that he is doing more for himself now than he

did before and during the last election. Frankly I am tied of all the Kerry noise I get. I contributed to his campaign and now I get mail and email and phone calls from Kerry people and I don't respond.

I think he should have protected the votes and he said that all the votes would be counted. I thought he meant that they would be counted before the election was over not after.

No I don't want Kerry or Edwards to rise. Let us find someone who can really unite the country. Someone who is not polarizing. Someone who, when the right wing noise machine blasts them, it has no effect because the majority of voters like them and the media supports them. Not Kerry or Edwards because they are old news and have a history.

[LittleClarkie]

44. You can unsubscribe to his email list. Did you know that?

So if you're sick of getting them, you can get yourself off the list.

I've seen people complain about that before, and it never makes sense to me. Why complain about getting the emails when you can just have them stopped?

[Mass]

24. Just to say it, I found Edwards touting the two Americas disturbing

and very opportunistic.

He could have written as good a piece without touting his personnal merit. I found that very callous, but once again, I dont like Edwards and always found it was one of Kerry's major errors not to select Clark.

[mountaindem]

32. Clark

he can go Cheney himself.
He's nothing more than another military man turned politician that never got to first base.
Now, he's on Fox News.
So, which is he a democrat or a Republican?
We need someone to focus exclusively on the people in this country, not some foreign policy idiot.

Y'all are scared of terrorism, well you should be scared of free trade, the decline of labor unions protecting workers, the lack of a living wage, health care, etc.
We can have none of these things if we have an apologist like Wes Clark in office.

Wes Clark would force me to vote republican for the first time in my life.

Hopefully someone like Mark Warner emerges someone that is young, energetic and gets what the average person is going through, someone that can rally this country around hard work and the working man instead of corporations and the military.

[Mass]

33. I am not scared of terrorism -

I could have seen other people as VP, it is just an exemple.

Read what I said. It was not about Clark, it was about Edwards.

[mountaindem]

38. well...

it applies to you as well.

If one good thing comes out of Katrina it will be the exposure of just how bad this country is split, just how much there are "two Americas", whether the radical left wants to admit it or not, John Edwards was correct about 2 Americas.

He has the right ticket to the future of politics, positive campaigning based on solutions to problems, based not on mudslinging, but on ideas.

I see nothing wrong with that, maybe if y'all spent more time coming with better solutions than attacking Bush, we would have won more elections.

Katrina proves there are "Two Americas" in this country, one for the rich, and one for everyone else who has to work for a living, who struggles to get by living paycheck to paycheck.
Go ahead and keep ignoring that America, because it will come back to haunt you in the end.

[Mass]

46. Still not what I am saying

If you want speeched taht are not political speeches, but honest speeches about poverty, read Jackson's speech on the subject. Read Obama's speech. Read Kucinch's speech.

I just don't find Edwards honest, that's all. And his text was full of political opportunism. I just think he is as phony as possible.

If he was that sensible to these issues, why was he not overthere, helping, like Gore.

But I am going to stop here - I agree with TayTay that bashing Dems is not what we should be doing right now. Just a reaction to somebody posting two threads on the same subject.

[mountaindem]

52. not honest

Do you think he doesn't really care about poverty?
If that's the case, then why take a job at a center based on studying poverty?

Or, maybe it is because he was a one of those evil trial lawyers.
Funny thing is I work around plenty of trial lawyers, I've rarely seen any of them be dishonest or lie, I have seen them argue vigorously for their side though.

Edwards is someone who is on the side of the working man, you don't join picket lines, take jobs as heads of centers on poverty, if you didn't care.
Does it look good in case you plan on running for office? Yes!!!
But, that doesn't make you dishonest.

I'm sick of living in an America where the poor vote against their own economic interests because we support blacks, gays, etc.
I'm sick of seeing young people drive around in jacked up pick-up trucks with rebel flags, etc.
That's not the America I want to live in, where racism, bigotry and poverty exist and nothing is done about it.
I want to live in an America were the son of a mill worker has the same opportunity as the son of a president to become a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher or even a mill worker. Katrina only proves more and more that there are 2 americas and that some folks don't have the same opportunities because of the color of their skin, or the family they grew up in.

[Mass]

57. Funny how you attribute motives to people.

I said what I thought, and as far as I know, I have still the right to think.

[mountaindem]

61. yes, you do

but you base your thoughts on the emotional hatred for Edwards, not on logical reasoning.

Do you have proof that he is not honest?
Do you have proof he's just using it for political gain?

To be honest, he'd be crazy not to, but I don't think he has to do much to gain from this.
After all, mother nature helped remind folks that we are 2 Americas.
He didn't have to give a speech, he didn't have to open his mouth.
The truth is we can go back to when the economy started to tank and more and more corporations made more and more profit while outsourcing good jobs to see when poverty became so great again.
Mother nature just helped by showing us how blind to this problem we really are.
My best advice to anyone would be to go to your local criminal courts and get a good look at who is committing crimes and why, you'll see that poverty plays a big part in it.

[Mass]

64. I thought that was how it worked here.

I normally dont post something against other dems, but this thread got to me. If others post their feeling about a candidate, I certainly will. (and, BTW, I am not a Clark supporter, though he is high in my list).

[mountaindem]

67. Like I said

go to your local criminal court and get a good whiff of reality.

We need someone to step up and put the emphasis on the working man and teaching the poor that working is not a sin, but a way to gain respect and dignity.

I'm not so sure when people in this country turned against work and into this mentality that the government is going to do everything, that help is always on the way.
People need to step up and reform our welfare system and show people that hard work never killed anyone.
We need to show the poor, teach them what jobs they can get, how to save, etc.
We can beat this great american crisis of poverty, and in doing so lower crime rates, etc.
But, it will take people of great vision, people of great caring.
Not folks who want to look down on others who have less than them.

[Mass]

69. Not sure why you are telling me that.

Except if, in your opinion, Edwards is THE ONLY ONE that can do that.

Nothing more to tell you.

[Skwmom]

86. Why take a job at a center based on studying poverty?

Just a guess but - Maybe because he's hoping to use it as a launch for his 08 "populist" campaign. Maybe he's trying to use Rove's 04 strategy; however, instead of going after the evangelicals he's targeting the poor. The problem with this strategy is you have to be believable and cannot be easily portrayed as a phony populist by your opponent.

[Skwmom]

74. Do you think John Edwards came up with concept of Two Americas?

It's a rehash of an old political speech. People have been talking about the divide between the haves and the have-nots (and the divide growing bigger) for years.

[Skwmom]

34. That's okay. Plenty of Republicans will vote for Clark

if he is the Democratic nominee.

[Texas_Kat]

112. When I see such bald-faced untruths being posted

I'm always curious about motives. This isn't the first time you've done this, and for no apparent reason. So I noticed this post of yours:

".... my profession (the legal profession) then I'm out." (of the Democratic pary in WVa)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=185x1198#1203


Hmmmmm, ...... lawyer....

Now that puts it in perspective for me.....

[Skwmom]

133. The rich Mark Warner? Oh I'm sure he really gets what the

average person is going through.

[AmericanDream]

50. Opportunistic? Edwards spoke about it while the world was mum on the issue

Gimme a break. I see that when you are passionate about a candidate ... the way you are about Kerry and some others are about Clark, there is this urge to put down everyone else in order to make sure that your guy is illuminated enough.

But, please, stop with the nonsense of Edwards being opportunistic. He talked about Two Americas when he was being shouted down as starting class warfare and crap. The guy has guts to speak what he believes... when he wants. He wasn't waiting for Katrina to happen before pointing out that we live in a country riddled with socio-economic divides.

And what merit did he tout? All he said was, " During the campaign of 2004, I spoke often of the two Americas." and that was it. So, stop using the repub attack lines to kick one our own. I like Kerry but I don't support him for President. But that doesn't mean that I go around calling him names and bringing him down. We are all democrats, in case some have forgotten!

[Mass]

80. Yes some have forgotten-that is clear in this thread.

Surprising that the only post you objected was mine, given that this thread was made in order to provoke Kerry-bashing.

This forum is full of Kerry-bashing, Clark bashing, ... and the only post that drives your attention is mine. Please, give me a break, and ask yourself why this thread was made.

[Skwmom]

103. The world is mum on the issue?

This is just as ridiculous as people comparing Edwards to Mother Theresa.

[karynnj]

111. Although Edwards had his famous stump speech and delivered it well

Every Democratic candidate had some element of that issue. Gephart's whole career dealt with unions and blue collar people. Kerry's been involved with under privledged youth since he was a young Proscecutor. Clinton in his autobiography says ( when talking about why he wanted Kerry to beat Weld, who he liked) "He was one of the Senate's leading authorities on the environment and high technology.He had also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the problems of youth violence, an issue he had cared about since his days as a prosector. Caring about an issue in which there are no votes today but which will have a big impact on the future is a very good quality in a politician." Kerry also has been a proponent of Youthbuilt, a program that helps young people by teaching them a trade. Does over 25 years of active commitment count compared to a great stump speech?

[sarcasmo]

25. Neither will rise up. Wesley Clark is the MAN in 08.

Hillary for VP.

[mountaindem]

41. That's a good way

to get this die hard dem to switch to the GOP.
Moderates and electable people are elected president.
Hillary and Clark have too many radicals as fans to become president of the United States.
We need people who have lived the American Dream as candidates, not people who sucked on the public tit all their lives.

[Mass]

94. Clark has lived the American Dream as much as Edwards

Except that he did not become as rich. You dont get rich when serving the govt if you are honest.

Anyway, if Edwards runs on the American dream in 08, let's hope that Hagel is not the GOP nominee. Orphan at 16 may beat son of a mill-worker.

[CarolNYC]

140. This is true....

Clark did not come from anywhere near a privileged background....He just didn't talk about it at every turn. I only remember one interview in a magazine (can't remember which one) in which he spoke of how hard his mother and stepdad worked to get the family through. And, when he could have left the military and made a lot of money for himself, he instead chose to continuing serving his country (for many years on a very modest salary....you know the story of how he had to learn to rebuild a car because they couldn't afford a new one) until he was pushed out of the military by those who wouldn't forgive him for not just following the "company line" and speaking out when he believed we needed to be doing something to stop the genocide in Kosovo....one of whom is an advisor to Senator Edwards, I believe.

mountaindem, your opinions about Gen Clark are so uninformed I can only conclude that you know very little about him. Do some research. I can provide you with some sources if you need, OK?

Thanks!

[renie408]

101. Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Clinton, Feingold, Bullwinkle...

I will vote for whoever has the Democratic nomination. And during the primaries, I will not take shots at somebody else's candidate. The last time around WE gave Rove way too much ammunition. I am going to back the candidate that, to ME, has the best chance of defeating whoever they put on the ticket. But I am not going to throw stones at any Democrat between now and then. (And my friends, if McCain is on there anywhere, we are going to have one helluva fight on our hands.) I think Hillary would be a mistake because of the reputation they have smeared her with, but if she wins the nomination, I will vote for her. I don't think Bullwinkle is as smart as Rocky, but if gets the nomination, he's my man...moose....whatever.

[Texas_Kat]

143. Pick-up-your-marbles and go-home Democrats

aren't gonna do the party any good.

From your other posts here and elsewhere, you seem to threaten to "switch to the GOP" at the drop of a hat.

Not what I'd call a 'die hard' Dem......

Your kinds of attacks are much more suited to the party you keep threatening to join,

[CarolNYC]

144. Curious, isn't it? n/t

[rhett o rick]

27. John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq. He hasn't explained that.

I believe he (and others) did it for political reasons. They didn't want to buck popular opinion, even if it was wrong. Not good qualities for a President.

[paulk]

35. he explained his vote in his floor speech

which has been posted numerous times here at DU.

If you were motivated to do anything but trash Kerry, you could actually spend the time to go and read the thing.

That's asking a lot, I know.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Truthout has a good piece from Will Pitt as well

called the Trial of John Kerry.

The old adage "A conclusion is where a person got tired of thinking" would seem to apply here.

[rhett o rick]

58. I don't think that was necessary. Are you going to tell me that more

thinking will take back Kerry's vote to go to war? The Country needed the Democrats to protect us from the crazy Bushco. But they capitulated. I have heard different excuses, duped by George (how embarrassing), bad intelligence, etc. I believe he and others gave their support to Bush because of public opinion.

[LittleClarkie]

65. It was indeed necessary

if you say he hasn't explained his vote, and he has, repeatedly, then I can only conclude that you stopped listening at some point.

[rhett o rick]

108. Rhetoric doesn't count. nt

[LittleClarkie]

109. Have you seen this answer to your previous question yet? Not rhetorical.

This is from an evening when Kerry took on a bunch of reporters. They asked him to explain several things, his vote being one of them.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_121003A.shtml

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake. "

[rhett o rick]

118. He made a terrible mistake. He chose to believe George W. Bush.

I am sorry, i don't understand. Did he trust Bush? Didn't he know him?? He chose to believe him and gave him the power to go to war. That is one hell of a lot of trust. If it were me and the President abused my trust and went to war, I would have left no stone unturned to set it straight. An immediate press conference. Seek legal action. Call in all markers. But it wasn't even much of an issue during his campaign. Kerry is a good man. But if he could be fooled by someone as transparent as Bush, he shouldn't be President.

[Mr_King]

90. Let's see...

The IWR vote was

77-Yea
23-Nay

Now let's say Kerry and Edwards voted "Nay"

75-Yea
25-Nay

We'd still be in Iraq!

And let's not forget Bush & Co. lied to Congress and everybody else. Two more Nay votes would not have made a difference.

[LittleClarkie]

93. Indeed

and I have this as well that tells me what Kerry was thinking.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_121003A.shtml

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

[rhett o rick]

105. Bush lies, that is a matter of fact. If someone believes the lies, that is

sorry. Did Kerry and others believe Bush lies? Don't they know that you can tell when he lies by watching his mouth. When it moves, he lies. I don't belive for a minute that they believed his lies. What is your next argument. Another thing. what kind of rationalization is it that it is ok if he voted for the IWAR because it didn't matter anyway. With that reasoning, all Democrats might have just as well voted with the Republicans because their negitive votes don't matter because they were outnumbered. It is a matter of principle.

[karynnj]

114. Not only did Bush lie, but his father , Scowcroft, Powell, senior

Republicans (who Kerry and others found trust worthy in the past) and Democrats all either lied or repeated lies they were told by Bush. The DSM explains that they lied. An entire administration - some of whom had decent reputations - lied!

Kerry felt getting inspectors in and dealing with Saddam internationally was better than ignoring a threat (which if true could get much worse if sanctions were dropped -which was likely) or attacking without going to Congress or the UN, which was the original Bush intention. (he already had troops there.)

[LittleClarkie]

116. He thought Powell would have more influence, he was wrong

Bush had been hijacked.

[rhett o rick]

119. Ok LittleClarkie, I promise to reconsider Kerry. You must forgive my

bitterness. When Sen Dashiel gave all those great reasons not to go to war and then turn around and give the power to chimpy, i felt totally betrayed. I consider myself open minded. But i have a lot of bitterness re. the IWAR. Sorry.

[LittleClarkie]

122. S'okay. I have trouble giving Hillary the time of day

Mostly I just want people to keep their ears open and also apply the same standard to everyone.

You'll have to forgive me as well. In the year and a half since I was a sheeple, I'm like a general practicioner. I know alittle about alot. But the one thing I spend a bunch of time researching was John Kerry. I didn't think I could campaign for him properly unless I found a reason to like him.

I didn't actually in the beginning. I thought he had the personality of styrofoam.

If I'm more willing to give him slack, it's probably because
1. I didn't live through the history you did (I was unawares, anyway)
2. I'll probably always be sentimental toward "my first"
3. I've read alot about him, and I think I see his thought process, so even if I don't agree, I respect that he thought he was doing right at the time.

Some day, I may have to give Hillary a second look. But right now, my heart is quite closed to her. So I have some idea what you mean.

[Mr_King]

137. Well It Seems...

not everybody is as smart as you.

[rhett o rick]

49. How is telling the truth considered trashing. He supported GWB and that is

the bottom line. He wouldn't fight to stay out of Iraq, he wouldn't fight the SwiftBoaters, he wouldn't fight GWB in 2004. If this is trashing, i am sorry. Kerry is a decent guy. But he caved and supported Bush in the biggest mistake (before Katrina) in our recent history. This Country desperately needs someone willing to fight hard against the oppressive Bush regime. Kerry had a chance and failed. Kerry supporters are like Lucy telling the rest of us Charlie Browns to trust one more time. I am sorry. I like Kerry, but think we need to look elsewhere.

[Mass]

53. After what you write, I have trouble believing you like Kerry.

For the rest, there would be a lot to say about your claims, but frankly, not sure it is even worth it right now.

[mountaindem]

56. Kerry grew on me

I wasn't a Kerry supporter until he got the nomination, but he grew on me. The only disappointment I have with John Kerry is that he talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.
He didn't stand up and fight against the attacks against him, and he didn't go on the offensive enough against Bush.

[rhett o rick]

60. Believe what u like but i do like Kerry. But I can not support ANYONE that

gave Bush the power to go to war.

[mountaindem]

62. they can't take back those votes

would some of them like to? You bet they would, but hindsight is always 20/20, you can't go back and change the past.

I'd like to know what you think of Robert Byrd?
I'm willing to bet you think he's a great man, I do, but at the same time, he was a former member of the KKK.
Why be hypocritical about people who voted for the war, but then sing the praises of someone who has done wrong and has been forgiven.
You without sin cast the first stone.
No one should throw stones at those folks who voted for this war, they may have been wrong, but based on the information given to them at the time, that's how they voted.

[rhett o rick]

75. Has Kerry said he regrets his vote? Further more, candidates need to

be held accountable for their actions. He supported Bush and this terrible war. He had a chance during the campaign to correct his mistake but he failed. And this argument that they acted based on the information they had. So you're telling me that there was information so compelling that Democrats that were supposed to be suspicious of this mad man would throw in with him to attack Iraq? Ok, what information?? What was the information that compelled him to support this WAr? Another thing, if i was a Senator and some "information" that later turned out false, convinced me to go to war, I would stop at nothing to prosecute those responsible for the information. I don't believe there was any such information. The Democrats rolled over and gave Bush/Cheney/Rove the power to go to war. We need Democrat leaders that aren't afraid to stand up against the monster, before it is too late. If Kerry regrets his vote, let him say so.

[LittleClarkie]

87. "Has kerry said he regrets his vote?" Yes, yes he has. Here ya go.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_121003A.shtml

"This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That's what I voted for."

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time," continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

[Mr_King]

97. The question is...

would you be a Senator from a blue state or red state? When would you be up for re-election? Would your party be in the majority or the minority? What committes would you be part off? How long would your investigation last? How much money would it cost?

You have to take other things into account.

[Skwmom]

96. Byrd also hammered his fellow senators for giving Bush a blank check

to go to war. So we are supposed to reward them by electing them to the highest office in this land? That would be a great message to send to future Democratic elected officials.

[LittleClarkie]

70. Can you support someone who talked support

even if they didn't actually physically have to vote.

Otherwise, it's just a Senator and Congressman bash. They had to physically vote. But others were supporting the war at that time in exactly the same fashion. They just didn't have to vote.

[mountaindem]

71. yes

if they're the right candidate that cares about the people and doing what is right for the working man.

[LittleClarkie]

78. Groovy

I think that those who voted, and those who didn't have to vote but were talking a pretty good game at the time, must have their entire record looked at, as well as what their focus is now.

I like Edwards. I liked him better when I saw an old speech he gave when he came across as more sincere. Some media consultant got ahold of him, I reckon. I'm sure he's still sincere, but someone taught him to be too "aw shucks."

I support both these men. Plus Dean and Clark and anyone else whom I see doing positive things.

[rhett o rick]

84. I support Dean, Clark and Boxer. nt

[LittleClarkie]

89. Regardless of how they were talking at the start of the war?

If I, say, found quotes from them where they supported the war at it's beginning, that wouldn't be a problem?

[rhett o rick]

99. You ain't goin give me a break. That's ok. To be honest, it would affect

my vote. But the Senators that voted hold more responsibility. Do you think the Democratic Senators should be held accountable for voting to go to war? I felt betrayed. Then betrayed again in 2004 when Kerry wouldn't make an issue of the bad judgement to go to war.

[karynnj]

115. Dean was consideranly more pro-war than Kerry if you compare

comments from fall 2002 - March 2003 when the war started. Trippi advised Dean to reposition himself. In Feb 2003 - Kerry was demanding that Bush allow the inspectors (who were destroying missiles) to complete their job and not attack as war could be averted. Dean was standing tough, saying Bush should give the inspectors a deadline and if Iraq wasn't clean we could go in unilaterally.

[LittleClarkie]

117. The two of them are not that far away from each other re: the war

even now.

Both would have preferred the Biden/Lugar amendment. And both say that we can't fail in Iraq now. Sadly, I fear we will do just that. Because the person who could have done what was needed is not in the WH.

[LittleClarkie]

68. If I posted a thread on Reid, would you trash him in a similar fashion?

He voted for it too. But for some reason you'd think Kerry was the only one.

[rhett o rick]

79. Please don't put words in my mouth. I can not support ANYONE that

gave in to the thugs. They were supposed to save us from them. My anyone includes Reid and Hillary and the rest. And how is this trashing.

[Imagevision]

107. John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq based on Bush intel...

as did all other senators

[kansasblue]

28. too late, we need a new populist leader

[howmad1]

128. Damm right!

Wish we would all stop this bullshit. Imagine if we had a Gore/Clark or Clark/Gore ticket with the support of every democrat in the country? Talk about a landslide for the dems in 2008. Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Clinton, all great choices for cabinet positions. The rethuglicans love all this bullshit bickering and will never let us forget it.

[AmericanDream]

138. Sorry, but Clark is FAR FAR AWAY from being a populist *shrugs*

[LittleClarkie]

31. I'm not sure what you're getting at?

Rise up how? Out of the muck of Katrina? The muck of the party?

Decent as in "eh, okay" or decent as in "decent human beings"

The one what? The one for the party in 2008? Shit, I'm having trouble even thinking 2008 right now.

Could you expand on your question? Thanks.

[politicasista]

37. I don't want to think about 2008 either

I keep posting how we need to focus on helping the victims and 2006, but few listen. Interesting.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

39. The only John I seem to trust lately is

Jon Stewart. Doubt that he'd take the job, but I'd vote for him.

[Mass]

82. JOhn Conyers too.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

134. Now there is one class -A gentleman.

Jon and John, or John and Jon. However the bumpersticker reads, I will vote for it!

[TayTay]

40. Why can't the Dems just stick together and fight

We need all Dems on board. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Bayh, Clinton, et al. It's not like we have the majority in both houses and the Presidency here.

Why do we eat our own on this board so much? I want Dems all on board and working together for the benefit of the hurricane victims. I want Clark to speak up and call Rethugs on their bullshit and talk about how the military deploys. I want Dean to speak up as the head of the DNC and make sure that the Dem message gets out. I want Kerry to eventually get on a real investigative committee and use those excellent prosecutors skills to nail liars and the corrupt. I want Edwards to use his speaking skills and heart to reach out to all Americans to think about those who live those 'lives of quiet desperation.' And so forth and so on.

Damn it. It's not like we need less Dems. We need more. They each have separate skills. They should all be in the game, helping the cause.

[AmericanDream]

47. Agreed... 2008 is too far away, it's time for unity for 2006! Focus folks!

[Mass]

66. Agreed

[mountaindem]

63. no...

it'll never happen, and you can thank Clark supporters for that.

[Skwmom]

77. Because the Republicans won't wait until 06,07,or 08 to try

to get the Democrats to nominate a lousy candidate. They started the day after the 04 election.

[blm]

100. Exactly, but I think the OP has another intention.

*sniff*

[Mr_King]

139. Because...

Wesley Clark is God...or so I've been told around here.

No other Democrats past or present matters.

Look I like Clark but I'm not going to rip any other Democrat just because I like one over the other, "A house divided can not stand."

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. I'm not sure what your point is...

... but if you're trying to attract the whiny handwringers who pile onto every thread mentioning Kerry or Edwards' name and spew their anti-Democratic party bullshit, it looks like you've done a good job, because I see plenty of them.

[karynnj]

48. I trust Kerry and Edwards

What is there with these 2 nearly identical threads, designed to pit Edwards and Kerry people against each other.

I prefer Kerry because Edwards lacks Kerry's depth and experience. I do think Edwards articulated the poverty issue very well, although any Democrat you name likely has values that are consistent with Edwards on this. Edwards and his wife are great, but from the debate with Cheney and the primary debates, Edwards seemed less impressive than several other candidates.

Only time will tell who the best candidate will be for 2008. Will we still be in Iraq? Will there have been an economic disaster? Will there be another terrorist attack? Will things be calmer? I don't know. What seems important now is that we have to fix some structual problems at the local level that make us less competive than the Republicans.

Kerry is meeting with NJ Democratic volunteers in 5 cities this Saturday. He had previously used his email list to help get volunteers. We have an election (we will probably win) for Governor this year. Kerry's concern in NJ is to encourage people to form local grass roots that can help elect Democrats in 2005 and 2006. This is not about 2008 - Corzine will likely endorse Hillary - it's about strengthening the party at the local level. Think about it - with a healthy Ohio Democratic party that had the manpower to check everything, there might have been enough machines and Kerry would be President now.

I think Kerry is ambitious - if he wasn't he wouldn't have been the nominee or even a Senator, but much of what he has done this year is designed to strengthen the Democratic party. His efforts will be valuable whether Hillary, Clark, Edwards or Kerry,himself is the candidate.

Likewise, Edwards is raising the issue of poverty and is studying strtegies to deal with it. This is a key Democratic issue. Whether he is the candidate or not, his work is useful.

With all the candidates, it would be a good idea to applaud what they do right and knock what they do wrong. We also should volunteer to work to help our local parties so Democrats can win back something. There is no way that being mini-Roves trashing candidates who are not our favorites (which this OP did not do, but it happens on many threads), will hurt not help us in 2008.

[second edition]

51. Most people don't really remember Edward's .Kerry is more

well known.

[AmericanDream]

54. Edwards had the highest favorable rating after the election of all 4!

[Skwmom]

76. Let's do a focus group poll AFTER they learn more about

Edwards (the channeling of the unborn child in closing arguments, the litigation against doctors using very weak scientific evidence, the zero pro bono work, etc.)

[LittleClarkie]

83. Oh that. What do you mean after. That came up THIS time

If it didn't hurt him this time, why would it hurt him the next time. He's already beens somewhat pre-smeared.

[Skwmom]

88. You think these things are common knowledge? Give me a

break. They Republicans held back making these items common knowledge because they knew with their track record to date they'd probably have a pretty good shot of having him head up the Democratic ticket in 08.

[LittleClarkie]

95. Talk radio sure hammered the shit out of them when I was listening

Those who listen to that tripe know about it.

[Texas_Kat]

113. How many Democrats make a point of listening to RW talk radio?

Just a question.....

[karynnj]

121. many to see what they were saying

I've seen her posts since I started reading in late Nov/early Dec. If you're implying that she is not a legitamate Democrat you are wrong - and she has consistently defended all Democrats (except Zell Miller).

[Mass]

85. That is not an issue and I am no fan of Edwards

He was a lawyer and did use what he needed for his client.

[Skwmom]

91. Not an issue? They are political ad gold to the opposition. n/y

[politicasista]

55. I like Kerry and Edwards

Sometimes we lose sight of our priorites. Instead of putting our blame and anger where it should be, we find ourselves dreaming of the future (2008) instead of helping the Katrina victims and 2006.

[Dr Fate]

120. Edwards was very thoughtful on Aaron Brown last night.

He has already done it.

[HoosierClarkie]

123. CLARK CLARK CLARK!

oops sorry I was having a flashback!
:hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

125. *harunch* *harunch*

:popcorn:

[eridani]

129. I sure wish the hell there could be some kind of unified response

Like maybe a Contract to Promote the Public Good. Everyone has a piece of it. The Edwards infrastructure proposal looks good. Kerry got right on the estate tax repeal. Kucinich said several things of note. Dean spoke up. So why can't they all get together and give us a solid program that all of us can shout from the rooftops?

[Mass]

130. Great proposal, but I doubt it will happen, unfortunately.

Too bad.

[Time for change]

136. I think Edwards would be a great candidate

Clark too. And Boxer.

[CarolNYC]

141. I think that many Democrats...

will "rise up" in many different ways...some not so obvious or public as others....Hopefully, they all will do their part in one way or another but they all have different strengths and experience and they will contribute in differing ways, IMHO.

[ProudDad]

142. I still think Gore

is the best bet for '08. He can rise from the ashes like Nixon did. Actually, he wouldn't have to rise from the dead since he actually won in '00.