I still love Kerry. What makes anyone else more viable?

[babylonsister]

Yeah, Clark is adorable but he hasn't been fighting the fight. He's pretty much an unknown.
Of course, that could be said for anyone trying to do something with this media.

Gore is working it now-good. I will vote for anyone who gets the vote. But to me, Gore was wooden and
I don't know if he can escape that. I loved his passion with his speech earlier this year.

Feingold? I love his stances, but the truth will out.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

Who did I forget? Who is your favorite?

[mdmc]

1. Ted Kennedy

The Senior Senator from MA. Surely you won't trash the right honorable senators viability.

[babylonsister]

3. He's not running for anything, but I have deep respect for him! nt

[mdmc]

4. kerry got my vote in 2004, after voting green in 96 & 2000

peace and low stress

[tavalon]

22. I wouldn't

but the smear machine with Chappaquiddick as it's handle would. Probably, the only reason Ted Kennedy is still alive is because they were able to trash his reputation enough that he would never be able to run for President.

He is a good man, a righteous man but sadly, an unelectable (as President) man.

[mdmc]

32. I also think that Chappaquiddick has kept Kennedy alive

the cia would have done him in a long time ago, if needed.

[LoZoccolo]

41. He almost never looks healthy.

People want a president who looks healthy.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Gore's my favorite...

at least he tried to fight to get the votes counted.
(Kerry really pissed me off when he caved so fast.)

Feingold or Edwards as his running mate. :thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

5. My point? Kerry has been all over every issue, working it,

trying to make changes. Do we think we were disappointed? I'm sure he was, but he
keeps on keeping on, and I have lots of respect for that approach.
That's how I feel, tremendously! He's working for us, and has never given up!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. He's a great Senator, don't get me wrong...

I'm just still raw from the election. :(

Gore is fired up now, the wooden-ness is gone. The thought of him actually being President (like he should have been) gives me goosebumps.

Kerry can run in '16, I'd be good with that. :D

[longship]

8. Bing!!!

We've got a winnah!!

[tavalon]

19. Wow

I'm so on the same page with you. On everything you've said on this thread.

[beachmom]

52. Actually the wooden-ness sometimes rears its boring head

I was listening to Radio Open Source (NPR) maybe a week or two ago, and the whole program was devoted to Gore. Lots of nice things said. Then, they played a speech by Gore made RECENTLY at a college. He spoke veerryy sslloowwllyy. At this point I thought the announcer was playing a great speech by him (there was no set up), and I found my mind wandering, thinking when is he getting to the point. Then the announcer came back on, commenting that this was not the fiery Gore we were hearing about.

If you listen to Gore and Kerry in speeches, Kerry is easily a more charismatic speaker. The problem was the MSM reduced his speeches to 2 second soundbites that took away from the momentum of his speeches. C-SPAN is the only way to watch anybody speak, but with that unfiltered view, Gore is still more wooden, even now (although better than before).

[blm]

138. What Democrat HAS taken on the issue of the machine fraud? If you're still

raw about that then the only one who should be supported is the one who works to expose machine fraud BEFORE the election.

BTW - there is no way to expose the fraud afterwards - rigged machines are set up for one time use and then erase all traces. Kerry HAD no fight on the machhines he could win - it was up to the Dem PARTY to have secured the machines BEFORE the voting - after is too late.

And Gore would NOT have challenged the vote if he had been PERCEIVED as being 3million votes behind in the popular vote. Why would anyone even see the two situations as the same?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Any changes in the Deibolt situation? n/t

[tavalon]

18. He is,

and it's helping tremendously with my healing process. That said, I want him to remain in the Senate as the Democrats become the majority again. He has so much clout there and can do great things. He will never lose his Senate seat. If he throws his hat into the ring for President again, it's a crap shoot and I don't think the odds are good enough for me.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Clark has been fighting the fight....although he's fought mainly in

reference to humanity as it relates to war and peace as opposed to fighting Republicans in the halls for congress, to be sure. But for me, "Fighting the Fight" is relative...

Drawing up a plan for intervention in Rwanda and trying to get us to intervene back when it matters was "fighting the Fight"....to me anyways. Black folks whether there are here like me in America, or over in Africa need folks fighting for them as well. 800,000 of them died who didn't have to. Clark was on the right side on that one.

Fighting to prevent Genocide of Albanian Muslims was fighting a fight worth fighting. It might not seem like much....as Kosovo was successful in stopping Genocide, and since only about 10,000 were killed by Melosovic (not counting the raped and starved, but certainly not a heap of 300,000+ bodies or anything), it may not have been "fighting the fight" to you....but I'm sure that those who were able to return to their homes (if it was still standing) cared.

He wanted ground troups and low flying helicopters in Kosovo as opposed to high altitude bombers. He fought for them, although he did'nt win that fight.....however, his threats to Molovic that he would use ground troops is what cause Molovic to finally back down. He certainly paid for that fight... with his career; because it was his insistence on fighting in a way to minimize civilian casualties that got him retired early, as we went up against the pentagon Sec. of Defense and his henchmen. He was recognized later though....and was awarded the Medal of Freedom for fighting that fight.

Negotiating to draw up a peace treaty to stop the fighting in Bosnia, where 200,000 had already been killed, in my view, was a job that needed to be done. Wes Clark was heavily involved in that...and in doing the job there.....for me, he did something that was worth many lives.

Wes Clark has also fought in other ways....whether with Kerry fighting for the Gays in the military, or by doing what he could do in reference to affirmative action, or by taking up for those who some thought should have not voice when it mattered, or rappeling down cliffs in attempts to rescue those burning in exploding jeeps.

So Clark has been there on the front lines...fighting the fight most of his life....maybe not always directly helping Democrats or Americans....but certainly Human lives have got to be worth something at some point. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong...I won't put down any other Democrat for what each might have done and accomplished in their own way. Kerry is a Senator, and it is his job to "fight"....just as it was for Clark to do a Job as a soldier. However, I don't think that Kerry is somehow "more" viable because he fought. He did vote for the IWR...so I don't know when the "fighting" occurred on that one. And that's one we are still fighting.

So I don't think that "being Adorable" is what I'd say Clark's life amounts to. Ironically weird if it does to you.

[CarolNYC]

28. adorable

"Adorable" is a bizarre way to characterize Clark's experience and accomplishments, isn't it?

As for fighting the fight, I first noticed Clark when he was fighting against us going into Iraq in the first place. It almost made me cry to see this 4 Star General saying the things that it seemed no one else was brave enough, or whatever it took, to say. I was so frustrated with my Sneators and everyone else in office and the media who seemed so afraid to criticize Bush or speak out against the war for fear of looking soft on terror or unpatriotic. I also noticed him fighting for the right to dissent when he stood up for Micheal Moore when no one else would...again, when it looked like everyone feared saying anything for fear of being branded unpatriotic. That was driving me crazy with frustration and anger....how everyone was so silenced by that "unpatriotic" label that the Repugs were throwing around. Wes' words and stances were like a light at the end of a very long tunnel for me.

And now he's out there fighting as best he knows how to keep us from making the same mistake with Iran.....

Those are good fights to my eyes.

But, hey, with all of these Gore adoration and "Is Kerry still viable?" threads, has everyone forgotten that 2006 is not over yet?? These upcoming elections, this year, are SO important...yet the boards are full of Gore or Kerry in 2008 threads....:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

9. viability

i think we have come to very dangerous times in this country ... we are at war with the world ... our empire may be on the verge of collapsing ... our national debt is staggering ... our manufacturing base is gone and many other industries are porting jobs overseas ... we're in a bitter class war ... our retirement security system, our health care system and our educational system are all at risk ...

perhaps most of all, our national priorities are being controlled by a narrow band of wealthy, powerful interests and it's not clear either of the two major parties is willing to confront them head on ...

so, while political viability can never be ignored, i think we have to first find a champion of the vision we have ... until we can identify or convince someone that our vision of what needs to be done is the correct vision, i'm not comfortable focusing on candidates ... i'm aware that some feel they have identified the right candidate; i don't feel that way at all ... too many Americans feel either unrepresented or under-represented ...

my view is to define the platform first and then find someone who's viable to fight for it ... this doesn't rule anyone out at this time; it just doesn't rule anyone in either ...

[FrenchieCat]

10. With this, I agree......

define the platform first and then find someone who's viable to fight for it

[Placebo]

11. The fact that they're not Kerry.

:)

[BlueIris]

12. As you all know, I don't find anyone "more" viable, but...I love Al, too.

As much as my beloved JK? Not quite. Enough that if he goes out for it I am going to be VERY conflicted? You know it. This is actually getting kind of uncomfortable for me, just thinking about have to choose between two presidents I adore, both of whom would do an excellent job, both of whom can boast global credibility, devotion to sane government and the ability to beat the last of the neo-cons dead. I do not know what I would do if the race came down to a competition between Kerry and Gore.

[FujiZ1]

13. How is Kerry so viable?

First of all he lost, which paints him as a loser. Second the swift boat stuff will carry, as well as the skiing and wind surfing shit he pulled. Finally, how is this guy any less wooden than Al Gore? Seriously no offense to anyone, I must not get something because I don't see Kerry as electable. I honestly believe the best chance is with someone who hasn't tried yet, or Gore with a beard(a "new" Gore).

[Whoa_Nelly]

15. Feel the same as you do re: Kerry

I like Gore. I like Edwards.

[tavalon]

20. He's here

My question is if he throws his hat in, will he be handled into woodeness again. Will he allow that? If yes, I don't want it. If no, I will campaign for him and give my full spirit to him.

If Kerry runs and gets nominated, I will vote for him because I must, not because I'm on fire for him. I'm on fire for the new Gore, the one who came after he healed and had nothing left to lose. I'll admit, I've never liked Tipper, but nowadays, for the new Gore, I will overlook that.

[ProSense]

24. Skiing and wind surfing? RW TP have nothing to do with viability. n/t

[emulatorloo]

27. and it is weird - I know both Dems and Republicans who ski and wind surf

So I just don't understand why this IDIOTIC Karl Rove Talking Point resonates so well w some DU'ers.

I know Dems and Repugs who ice boat and play golf too. I guess I need a list of SPORTS that we aren't allowed to play.

[FujiZ1]

45. Why would you?

That's rather insulting saying it affects me personally. I don't give a shit if Kerry drives a car made of fucking gold and hires male strippers to have sex with his wife so long as he supports my issues legislatively.

It does however affect a lot of America, and during the election it was used as a smear campaign against Kerry. It will be used again, and unfortunately it will probably be effective again.

I'm not saying why I don't like him, I'm saying why I don't believe he is electable anymore. Being from South Dakota, that is similar to me wanting Tom Daschle to run against Thune when he can again. Do I want him to? Yes. Will he? No. He lost. He's done politically (not in my mind, but in the voters).

[seabeyond]

63. and... you think the next candidate... isnt going to have all new things

to be smeard with. this is one of the reasons i like kerry to run again. it has all been done. so many are seeing beyond the smear tactics of the repugs and saying foolish me i bought into it, (the windsurfing stuff is bullshit, i dont htink that was a good smear). but ..... no information gathering on kerry it is all out there. kerry isnt going to have to spend all his time putting out flame after flame after flame, that they will do with the new person. so much time wasted going after all the smears they put out.

[FujiZ1]

130. No the wind surfing and skiing smear was brilliant.

No one should be stupid enough to partake in activities that label them as rich and snobby, especially if the election depends states like Ohio.

[karynnj]

133. Does it occur to you that GOLF is just as expensive?

I never thought of windsurfing as snobby - first off it's way too athletic to be casually done. Snobby to me is joining the "right" country club for golf. Polo is pretty snobby too. JFK and Bush 1 had yachts they were photographed on. Reagan's horse was more expensive to maintain than Kerry's equipment in both sports.

The kids in our Jr high and high school have reasonably priced trips (through their ski club) to the near by Poconos. I guess they're all snobs and should be disqualified now from ever running for President - just like all the people we met on VT vacations.

Does it occur to you that the reason it was used was that ALL they really had on Kerry was that he protested honorably and in a very moderate, respectable way (especially as viewed against the time). He has been in the public eye for 35 years - and for 35 years the RW would have loved to discredit him for some scandal or moral failing. He's lived an honest, clean life.

So, they made people thing that participating in sports, which used to be as all American as you could get, as bad. Seriously, as one who nearly failed gym in college for being beyond awful in tennis (thank God for the written test), if being an athlete is the worst thing the man ever did, we don't have a problem. He spent part of 2 days wind surfing in 2004 and about the same amount of time skiing. I don't remember any one having a problem with JFK's boating.

[Skittles]

140. you mean like bush

taking month-long vacations when America was under threat of attack?

[blm]

150. I'm from Ohio and ALOT of us raised poor got to ski every now and then.

And why shouldn't Kerry be HIMSELF? You wanted him to pretend he didn't do sports he loves? He's skiied and windsurfed for decades - if we had an honest media every American would know that and also know that Bush never cleared brush in his LIFE before they set up that fake ranch for him in 2000.

[mtnsnake]

170. "Bush never cleared brush in his LIFE". Reminds me of my neocon neighbor

That lazy bastard would hire one of his part time yard workers to pick up a gum wrapper before he'd bend over to pick it up himself. The yard guy even told me how he had to put my neighbor's magnetic ribbons on his car for him because he didn't know how to do it himself.

[mtnsnake]

168. Windsurfing makes him snobby? Are you serious? It's the opposite!

I've got plenty of gripes about his campaign, but saying that windsurfing labels Kerry as being snobby is flat out ridiculous. Windsurfing is the most environmentally friendly water sport going, and it doesn't cost a cent other than the initial investment of the gear. No gas to run your watercraft, no noise, no pollution, nothing but skimming across water with the help of Mother Nature. If you wanna see snobby, stick him on one of those annoyingly obnoxious, noisy, gas-guzzling jet-skis where so many inconsiderate idiots speed round and round in circles too close to shore, stirring up the shoreline and ruining the nesting sites of shoreline waterfowl in so many instances. Seeing someone on a sailboard epitomizes someone who cares about the environment, not someone who's snobby. Geesh.

[bluedog]

37. feel the same way...he really didn't fight

hard enough against all the swift boating.ect........and he didn't fight for the people who voted for him.I didn't see any challenges with the votes in states that closed due to over crowding.the lines....
no Kerry will not get my vote.....I'll vote for either Clark or Clinton

[blm]

39. Did Bush fight the TRUE awol charges or did his RW media do that FOR him?

.

[bluedog]

40. we are speaking about Kerry not *..........

I'm stating that Kerry let us down......

[blm]

43. You didn't see the point? The point is that Kerry DID counter the swifts

in a proportionate way, himself, in his speech to the Firefighters Convention, but NO MEDIA showed up to cover it. The speech is part of a thread in the Research Forum here at DU. Read it, and all the other swiftliar counters that occurred. It becomes OBVIOUS that the media downplayed every counter to the charges.

The left and objective media were ineffective against the RW message machine.

Bush had the media declaring the Rather documents to be forged - he didn't have to say one word in his own defense against TRUE charges, as Kerry had to against FALSE CHARGES.

Kerry had a weak-ass team of Dem spokjespeople he was stuck with - and the lame-ass left media figures were pretty dim, too. Most of them didn't even KNOW about the Firefighters Convention speech, either.

[ProSense]

42. He did fight!

http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/stephanie_miller_john_kerry-051706.mp3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

[mtnsnake]

46. Good post

I don't believe he's electable either, despite his nice track record as a senator. You don't believe Kerry's less wooden than Gore? Me either.

Kerry just doesn't connect well with average American people. In 2008 he'll be unelectable again, but next time it will be because someone else will have beaten him in the primaries, hopefully someone like General Clark, although Hillary is running a strong showing according to the polls.

[blm]

51. How can the swiftboat stuff carry? You think the DNC and left media won't

be strong enough to handle their weight by then?

And alot of people have been wanting John Kerry to be president for decades - we're the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

[beachmom]

57. Have you seen Kerry's Dissent speech from Boston?

My Mom, who is as skeptical as you are about another run by Kerry, said she had "goose bumps" listening to it, and from then on, described Kerry's Passion. Here's the link, in case you haven't watched it:

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=john+kerry&image1.x=30&image1.y=6

It's the first video "Iraq and the Vietnam War".

I admire Al Gore's service in Vietnam as a journalist for the Army, but from what I heard at the time, he wasn't in the kind of firefights and danger that Kerry was. I don't know if Al Gore lost any close friends to the war like Kerry did, nor did Gore play any large role (or any role?) in the anti-war movement (once again, people, correct me if I am wrong on any of these points). There is NO way Gore can talk about Iraq the way Kerry can, and that IWR vote (for which neither Clark nor Gore HAD to cast as elected officials) is another source of pain, as Kerry has said it was the biggest, most profound mistake he has made in the Senate. Don't forget that Murtha ALSO voted yes on the IWR.

In regards to Clark, he is great on Sunday shows and was excellent on Bill Maher; but, he still has a lot to prove in the politician department. He seemed pretty green in the '04 primaries, making mistakes like rebuffing Drew Barrymore who was filming for MTV, when this could have helped him with the young people.

I admire Al Gore and Wes Clark very much, and am thrilled if they're the "Democrat" in a debate setting, but John Kerry has it all, and he's my guy in '08.

[karynnj]

73. None of what you said is real

After the election, when the media could afford to be honest, they have said the SBVT have no credibility. The skiing and windsurfing - Kerry skied once in 2004 (in a short break after winning the primaries - less than a week and likely significant hours of planning). Kerry windsurfed 2 times in 2004 and 2 times in 2003 - that's it. He has always said that both help him clear his head and concentrate better. The day he wind surfed, he also started preparing for the first debate. If windsufing helped make that debate what it was, it was time wellspent.

Kerry NEVER was wooden - I saw both of them (though Kerry, I only saw after the election). Kerry was not the least bit wooden - he was quick witted, funny and an eloquent speaker. Gore was wooden and spoke as if to a fourth grader.

I seriously don't think you would have found Kerry better if he disappeared for 18 months and returned with a beard.

[Skittles]

139. LOL

it is very apparent the corporate media propaganda worked on YOU

[_dynamicdems]

16. I'm with you on this. Kerry is the man.

Al Gore is a good environmentalist, but Kerry has as equally impressive track record.

Wes Clark doesn't have the broad expertise in as many areas as John Kerry.

Feingold has been out there on some important issues LATELY, but Kerry's record is better.

Nobody has the complete package of experience and knowledge that Senator Kerry has. Nobody.

Hillary Clinton has a name recognition but little else. Her ideas leave a lot to be desired and I'm not fond of the way she panders to the right.

Just a quick A-Z rundown of just a few of John Kerry's qualifications:

ANWR: strongest opponent of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
Budget: opposed Bush's budget cuts in Medicare and social services tooth & nail - called it immoral
Civil rights: long history fighting for civil rights for all Americans. Pro-civil unions.
Duke Cunningham bill: doesn't think we should have to pay for this crook's pension
Environmentalist: instrumental in starting first earth day & many other environmental stances
Filibuster of Alito
Genocide: called Darfur genocide & called for action before way before MSM took serious interest
Health care: proponent of health care for all Americans
Iran-Contra: instrumental in exposing the Iran-Contra scandal
Jobs: fighting for small business and new technology incentives for the auto & other industries
Katrina Administration: called for investigation & proposed legislation to help Katrina victims
Legal expertise and prosecutorial background with strong investigative skills - see Iran-Contra
Money: raising unbelievable amounts of money for Democrats
Nominations: opposed Bolton, Gonzales, Rice & will vote against Hayden
Oil companies: fighting to eliminate the subsidies and tax breaks for big oil companies
Pro-science and stem-cell research - fighting for this nationally & at state level in MA
Questioned: Dubai deal, Katrina Administration, Bush-Cheney Doctrine, Halliburton
Rumsfeld: repeatedly called for Rummy's resignation, before it was in vogue
Social security: opposed the privatizing Social Security & predicted Bush's would try this in '04
Taxes: repeal the tax cuts for the rich & implement breaks/incentives for mid-income &sm. business
Unions: pro-union with strong union support
Vietnam veteran: served, fought, protested, helped normalize relations, fights for Vets benefits
Women's rights: pro-choice, pro-women in business
Xenophobic free: a diplomat with foreign policy expertise & great relationships w/heads of state
Years of dedicated service to his country
Zero tolerance for a President who thinks he's above the law

[tavalon]

17. Please watch and read everything Gore has done since he ditched

his handlers and no longer had anything to lose. He has consistently been a firebrand and very loose and comfortable. Reminds me of our DNC Chairman.

If he decides to come back in, but gets the same or similar handlers or gets stage fright at the bigness of it (I think that contributed to the wooden stature) then we are fucked and I don't want him to run. If we get the Al Gore who traveled through the wilderness of political pain and loss and gained the fire and "the devil may care, but I'm gonna do the right thing" attitude, then we cannot lose. We absolutely cannot lose, even with Diebold in our way.

If Al Gore pulls in John Edwards or Feingold to run with him, all the better. One better than that would be Chairman Dean, though, honestly, that man is doing such wonderful things in the DNC (as best he can, fighting a beast much larger than he is) I'm not sure I want him to be pulled away from that.

No to Kerry. The public remembers that he lost (I know he didn't but that doesn't matter here. Hell, Gore won too) and that he pontificated too much. Sadly, the public doesn't remember the fiery woman who stands by his side. On a more personal note, I've gotten a long way toward forgiving him for what he did the day after and I will finish that process but I'm not sure I'll ever really forget those moments and how I felt. It would be hard for me to pull the lever for him (I would, but with bile still trying to come up).

No matter how I feel about Hillary Clinton and John Conyers, I am enough of a pragmatist to know that the middle of the roaders and the rednecks and most of the South won't vote in a woman or a black man (or woman). That makes me sick to my stomach. I hate it but I know it to be true - it's one of those things that I feel ashamed about as an American, that many of my fellow Americans are so shallow and bigoted in that way.

That said, after I move (two weeks!), I will be devoting all of my time to the midterms so this discussion is just fun because I have a few minutes of down time but it really is of no consequence right now.

[tavalon]

21. I just thought of something really cool!

How about Gore/Conyers? I know I said in another comment that too many of our bigoted fellow countrymen wouldn't vote for a woman or a black person for President, but I wonder if they would blockade a black person for the VP spot?

[sandnsea]

23. Gore chickened out in 2004

If he had really gained some sort of conviction and really understood the desperate situation the country was in, he would have ran. Either he didn't get it or didn't care enough to put himself out there. I don't see how he's changed since 2004 when he had the opportunity to step up and didn't. He's passionate about global warming and we need that. Otherwise, pshfft.

(Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread, don't ya think?)

[NYCGirl]

35. Actually, he wanted to run in 04, but the Democratic Party (DNC) told him

he would not have the party's backing because "it would be all about 2000."

[sandnsea]

62. And so he was chicken bawk bawk

Then where's all this supposed courage and what's he learned about the insiders if he supposedly folded in front of them. Same old chicken hearted Al.

At least, that's what you might think if you believe deciding who to support for President amounts to getting the masses to follow shiny obects to the voting booth. Which is pretty much the logic used in this thread. I swear some people seem more like 5 year olds choosing between a clown and a magician at their birthday party. If the clown wears those big shoes, I don't want him. The magician pulled doves out of a hat, no not a rabbit - doves!! That's never been done before!!! The whole thread is ridiculous.

[NYCGirl]

65. Al Gore respects the Democratic Party, which is more than I can say for

some people. And they abandoned him even before he fought for 6 weeks, all the way up to the Supreme Court — can you name anyone else who did that?

Edited to add: What are you, an eight-year old?

[sandnsea]

66. Oh puhleeze

So he's supposed to be praised for respecting the Democratic Party then, and praised for not respecting the Party now. That's the exact kind of kooky thinking I'm talking about.

*I* don't have any criticisms of Gore and the election, or even him choosing not to run in 2004. I'm just making a point about wacky arguments that have no bearing on reality. Like the one you just made. There were court cases in 2004, there are STILL court cases. Gore gets attacked for not fighting in 2000 when he did, Kerry gets attacked for not fighting in 2004 when he did and still is. Big steaming piles of bullshit all the way around.

Whoever waves the shiny object is the hero of the day and everybody else is dung. It's ridiculous.

[NYCGirl]

67. He STILL respects the Democratic Party, or he would have left it a long

time ago. When Howard Dean was thinking of leaving the Democratic party at the end of the 2004 primaries, Al Gore is the one who told him to stay with it.

Edited to add: Al Gore was recently in Florida campaigning for Nelson — does that say that he doesn't respect the party? I guess you didn't hear about that.

[sandnsea]

69. Is Al in this thread???

I didn't see him post here, did you?? I'm referring to people who are all a titter because the "new Gore" is railing against the establishment Dems, or some such nonsense. Of course he respects the Democratic Party, I never said otherwise.

[NYCGirl]

72. What you said was:

So he's supposed to be praised for respecting the Democratic Party then, and praised for not respecting the Party now.

NO ONE, even us Gore fans, is praising him for "not respecting the Party now" because he's never stopped respecting the Party.

[sandnsea]

77. I know what I said

and I never said *I* thought Gore didn't respect the party, and I didn't say that in the quote you posted either.

"Gore fans" don't praise him for not respecting the party?? Really?? This is just one.

"..since he ditched his handlers and no longer had anything to lose."

I see posts every day praising Gore for going against the party. You can pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, you can pretend it hasn't happened, you can pretend this isn't what people mean when they talk about the "new Gore"; but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

[janx]

78. Can you provide an example of this?

How does Gore go against the party, or how do people interpret anything he does as going against the party?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

100. Ask the people thrilled about it

Because *I* never said it. I provided a quote from this thread where other people say that. The "new Gore" who is going against the beltway Dems and consultants and strategists. People are really going to deny this is what's being said???

[janx]

103. Well I'm thrilled.

We should all welcome his running should he decide to do so. And I think you may be confusing something. Gore will go against too much handling on the part of consultants and strategists because it was disastrous when he ran in 2000. But I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Gore was going against the Dem party. He has spent his life standing up for it. As for the beltway Dems--he IS a beltway Dem, or has been for most of his life. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

108. What I love about DU

I start off making a complete joke, and people take it out of context to launch some sort of partisan attack by denying the very thing they were previously most excited about. It's kind of like back in 2003 when one day Dean was the great liberal savior; and the next nobody ever said he was a liberal, gah; and the next he was just pretending to be a centrist "wink wink".

I like Al Gore. He's always been a good guy. I've liked him since he ran in the 80's. I don't agree with him on everything, I don't agree with anybody on everything. I also know if he chooses to run in 2008, he'll use consultants and strategists because one person can't possibly know everything. I also know he'll make new mistakes because that's life, you can't live an entire year under a microscope and not make a mistake. That's why I think the entire thread is ridiculous which is why I made the Gore chicken joke in the first place.

[janx]

114. We all make mistakes, yes.

And sometimes posts can be misunderstood. But it is true that Dean is/was a centrist and never claimed to be a liberal.

The "evil liberal" persona was created for him by those who didn't want him to succeed. But it all turned out well, didn't it? He's where he needs to be and he's doing a fine job.

Threads like this get ridiculous only when people start behaving rudely.

[sandnsea]

118. lol

Thanks for making my point because Dean is still hailed as the great liberal alternative to the centrists Bayh, Warner and Kerry. Or are you saying Dean is a centrist like Bayh and Warner??

This was a ridiculous thread from the start, I'm fairly sure the OP wasn't intended to be taken seriously but rather to shine a light on some of the lame bashing that goes on around here.

[janx]

93. Could you...would you be so kind as to give

an illustration of what you mean?

[karynnj]

79. He was assumed to be the candidate

for almost 2 years and had Hillary type numbers. Lieberman, who no one was asking to run, put out a statement that he would not run if Gore did. This was likely not noble -I would say the reason the Clinton wing (DLC) conceded the 2004 nomination to him in this time frame - was Bush looked unbeatable. Also, Gore in 1988 was the first candidate the DLC ever pushed - after Nunn wouldn't run.

Gore was equivical on whether he would run throughout that time. Even in August 2003, the media was asking the candidates who said they were running in 2004 what they would do if either Gore or Hillary Clinton ran. (CSPAN has a Kerry August 2003 video where he is asked this question and about Dean.) The point was it would be about 2000.

[janx]

105. It was probably too soon for Gore to run again.

Has there ever been a candidate who "lost" a general election and who came back to be nominated again just four years later?

[NYCGirl]

120. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and then 1956. He lost by a wider margin the

second time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson

[janx]

131. It was probably too soon for Gore to run again.

;-)

[blm]

157. Historic precedent went out the window when the GOP bought up control of

the broadcast media.


They can create any reality they want and sell it to the people.

[LWolf]

25. I don't understand this:

"but the truth will out." What truth? Is there some sort of truth about Feingold that I'm not seeing, that makes him a poor candidate? Are his stances not based on truth?

Who is my favorite?

Without doubt, there is a Democrat who stands well above and beyond the rest : Dennis Kucinich.

Included in a secondary list of Democrats I appreciate and would cast an enthusiastic vote for:

Feingold, Boxer, McKinney, Conyers, Waters, Jim McGovern

[CarolNYC]

29. I don't understand that either

What does that "truth will out" statement mean?

[sendero]

26. Anybody but Kerry or Hillary..

... Kerry beccause he blew a chance that should have been a cakewalk, Hillary on general principles - she stands for nothing but Hillary.

Neither of them because a sitting senator has not been promoted to president for a long time, and for good reason - that being that America does not trust the "in the beltway" crowd, again for good reason.

Gore was blindsided by election theft, Kerry had every warning and let it happen anyway.

Both Gore and Kerry were served poorly by their handlers, but Gore has shown the most independence since.

Anybody who still thinks Shrum or Brazile have anything to offer the Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves.

[beachmom]

60. More "independence"?

Where was Gore? He would pull out a speech or two from time to time, but in reality he's been doing his own thing. He's been independent from . . . politics, whereas Kerry has been doing his job in the Senate, starting two weeks after the election loss. At this point, Gore has not run or held any office since 2000, so he's free to say or do what he wants. He is now THINKING about running in '08, but has made no decision.

Look, I'm looking forward to seeing his film, but it just feels like Gore is now "fashionable" -- I'm not sure how long this will last. It all depends on him. "Recovering politician" is right. If he dives back in, will he fall back into his old ways? That is the question.

[sendero]

61. He got very fashionable..

.. with me when he made a speech in January. One that few contenders, much less Kerry, would have even a hope of matching.

[beachmom]

64. Do you have a link to that speech?

Because there is no way in hell Gore could have made Kerry's Dissent speech. Help me out please -- did Gore participate in the anti-war movement against Vietnam? I don't recall hearing anything in '00, so I'm assuming not. I'm not trying to put Gore down here, but to act like he is somehow "braver" than Kerry, when he holds no office nor was he on the radar scale at the time for seeking office anymore, strikes me as disingenuous.

But you know, I really like Gore so I don't want your Kerry put-downs to sour me to the good things Gore is doing now.

[NYCGirl]

68. I'm not the poster, but I'd be pleased to post a link to the transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html

And the video is still up on C-Span. You'll have to do a search to pull it up. Here's the listing:

Fmr. Vice Pres. Gore Speech on Executive Powers
The American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition host a speech by Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore at the DAR Hall in Washington. Gore speaks about the limits of executive power, the issue of monitoring domestic communications and the authorization of the use of torture in the war against terrorism.
1/16/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 5 min.

[beachmom]

75. Thanks, NYCGirl. I love to see a great political speech.

I know how happy I was to see Clark strike Bill Maher down about how the "Dems don't have a plan" BS, so I'm looking forward to seeing this Gore speech. We can all haggle over who's the best candidate, but really, I am thrilled at how deep our bench will be in '08 as compared to the Republicans.

[karynnj]

80. I heard the speech, I heard Kerry's at Faneuil, AU and Grinnell

Kerry is far more inspiring. There is no way Gore comes close. As to "much less Kerry", Kerry is the only one of the current contenders who has a speech remembered decades later.

[janx]

83. That is your opinion, of course.

Kerry puts me to sleep. I like what he says, but I have a hard time hearing it because I get so sleepy.

[beachmom]

89. Did you watch the Dissent speech?

I'm going to check out the Gore speech mentioned here, and go into it with an open mind. How about you? 'Cause there is NO WAY you would fall asleep with that Dissent speech. Especially with the Revival like feel from the Liberal Mass. crowd. Take the challenge, my dear friend.

Just enter John Kerry into the C-SPAN video search. It's titled "Iraq and the Vietnam War".

[janx]

91. I'll do so later on my daughter's laptop.

The audio on mine is fried. But I promise to do so.

[karynnj]

125. I doubt anyone would fall asleep during any of the last 3 speeches

I saw NO ONE sleeping at Faneuil Hall, the response at Grinnel and American University sound great. These are great speeches. Have you listened or seen them. Here's a link:

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/

[sendero]

95. I guess we..

... are inspired by different things.

[janx]

74. Fashionable?

Hardly.

He's respected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. If you care about 2006, Clark is one of the leaders in that fight

What fights are you concerned about anyway? I suppose it isn't the fight for single payer health insurance, because Clark is fighting for that - See his Real State of the Union Speech for Reference: http://securingamerica.com/node/560

I suppose you aren't concerned about the fight to get to the bottom of what is really going on with the NSA domestic surveillance, because Clark is calling for a full Congressional Investigation of that: "Investigate phone spying, Clark says" http://securingamerica.com/node/969

I suppose it isn't the fight to stop the United States from rushing into a war with Iran. See this DU Thread for reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2631356&mesg_id=2631356

Or maybe you think that only Al Gore is fighting against Global Warming? Gore is indeed leading that fight, but he isn't alone. You might look at the three podcasts that Wes Clark has done on Global Warming. You can start with this "how to page" regarding all of Clark's podcasts: http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22 Or you might want to start with the first one he did on Global Warming (but be sure to see the one he did interviewing Barbara Boxer on that subject also): http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5463
And while you are at it Check out the series of reports on Global Warming being written and published on the Clark Community Network. Here is the link to the third installment, links to the first two installments can be found at the end of this one:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/6020

Maybe you don't care that the United States under President Bush has run away from the Geneva Conventions, but General Clark is fighting mad about that. You might even want to sign Clark's petition: http://ga4.org/campaign/prisonerabuse?qp_source=gac%5fpa

But we really should talk about 2006, because some of us think that 2006 comes before 2008, and Clark happens to be one of them. So let's talk about the fight to retake Congress from the Republicans in 2006. You can start with this DU Thread "Kerry, Clark and Gore lead the pack for '06 work/$$": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2617166

If you want to see where Clark has been campaigning personally, let me take you back to his web sites front page. In the right hand column is a feature called "On the Road with Wes Clark". It has a map of the United States, and if you click on a blue colored state you will get reports from the Road of the work Wes Clark is doing on behalf of Democrats. Notice also while you are there that Clark always prominently features one or more Democrats running for office in 2006 on his web site's front page, today it is Mike Weaver in Kentucky:
http://www.securingamerica.com/

[janx]

92. He certainly has been working hard. By the way, I answered

your message in the New Mexico group about Patsy Madrid. I live in Wilson's district, and most of us here appreciate any help we can get.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Thanx janx. Now that we have some folks attention...

...can I invite you to go say a few more words about her? This sounds like a race more of us should be keying into. Maybe a link to a website where folks can read more and contribute money would bring her some new support!

[lwcon]

31. Gore / Feingold ticket is the winner

Is it unreasonable that Gore would get an even bigger plurality / majority of the votes if those swing voters could get a mulligan on the 2000 election?

Not to mention that Gore is clearly energized (with alternative fuel, of course) and no longer muffled by the handlers, and the Clinton years are now a source of nostalgia instead of Starr-report aftershock.

If you haven't watched the unaired Gore campaign video by Spike Jonze, it'll show you the warmer side of Gore that I expect will be on display this time around: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29385328971143264&q=al+gore

And paired with Feingold, you'll have a ticket that won't have to explain why "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[JNelson6563]

169. Amen!

Gore/Feingold! Whooo-hoo!!!!

[bdamomma]

33. Kerry would be such a good

Secretary of State, he is so diplomatic. I still like Kerry.
I would like some new blood in the WH. We cannot take or the world for that matter 2 more years of bush.

[_dynamicdems]

48. New blood sounds good but what does that really mean?

We need someone with experience. There is a lot of fixing that needs to be done. Kerry is more than diplomatic, he's qualified. New blood means you are basically getting a pig in a poke. Just looking new and sleek and interesting isn't the same as being a workhorse. We need someone who can get the job done.

Most of the new blood I'm seeing would be torn to shreds in a national election. There simply isn't anyone who is going to withstand the heat or possibly the scrutiny. Not a one of the "flavors of the month" have a prayer in hell of getting the nomination.

The way I see it: the power brokers in the Democratic Party have determined that Hillary should be the nominee and they know the rest of us will split in so many directions looking for new blood that she will cake walk into the nomination. And frankly, Hillary hasn't got much more than good name recognition if you ask me. She capitulates and any original ideas she has come up with have all been pretty bad.

What choice have we? Who can take on Hillary? I think the ONLY one who can is John Kerry. If Gore gets into the mix, he'll probably be her Ralph Nader. In that case, John Kerry (IF he does run - and that is NOT a forgone conclusion) would be better positioned to take the nomination. The way I see it: Gore can help Kerry take the nomination from Hillary.

It should be interesting to see who does what. Personally, I love Al Gore but don't think politics agrees with him. He seems so much more centered and happier doing what he is doing now.

Kerry's my man though. I think he's seen the enemy and lived to tell the tale. Unlike Gore, he didn't retreat, he just got up and kept firing. And I think he's ready for them this time.

[TayTay]

58. No, Attorney General.

Way, way, way, way, way better qualified for AG.

Well, I would like it if he were President. But if that doesn't work out, then hire the man to do what God put him on this earth to do, investigate the hell out of the government. Lift every friggin rock and see what kind of oozy slime crawls out. Investigate, without restrictions, all the things about drug-running, arms dealing and bribery that came out of the BCCI investigations. Dive into the world of hazy international terrorism and 'go get them bastards.'

Yeah, like that will ever happen. (It won't just be a cold day in hell if that happens, they'll be holding the Winter Olympics there and Satan will be figure-skating.)

[Adelante]

34. Clark hasn't been fighting the fight

Now I've fucking heard everything. :crazy:

[bdamomma]

36. Clark has been out there and so has Edwards

these guys (Clark and Edwards)have not shrivelelled up, they are out there.

[blm]

38. Clark hasn't been fighting legislatively but he's not stopped working for

Democrats since 2003, I just remarked the other day that I don't think he or Kerry ever stopped after 2004 and continued going around the country and working their butts off because, as most of the other Dem candidates from that field, they KNOW how important it is to keep pressure on BushInc, and their work is helping to build the Dem infrastructure that they saw for themselves needed strengthening all over the country.

Gore is concentrating on a couple issues of serious concerns and doing what HE loves, so it's easy for him to be passionate about it.

Feingold has chosen a couple areas to concentrate on, and he's holding his own. He has good people to work with in the senate, and I hope he sees the benefit of working WITH them as much as he touts his teaming with McCain.

Kerry is the utility player who covers ALL areas,and manages to excel in most. He's so busy he doesn't take enough time to promote his work in front of a camera. I wish he had Biden's airtime.

There's ALOT of work to be done. I'm glad they're all doing what they can, even if the media chooses to ignore their efforts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. On the matter of "viability" in a 2008 Democratic Presidential Campaign

No matter what we all might think about how the 2000 and 2004 Elections were stolen, it is NOT a good thing to be viewed by the public as a former loser trying once again. That's simply a problem right out of the box, and it can't be wished or whitewashed away. If either Kerry or Gore is our 2008 nominee (or Mondale or Dukakis for that matter) I will be right there giving it my best shot making the case why America needs Kerry or Gore now, and how America was mistaken before. I'm a good thinker and a good writer, I know how to make that case, but it is NOT a good thing for that case to have to be made at all. Both Kerry and Gore underwhelmed the public last time around. We can blame it on the media, we can blame it on "their handlers", we can blame it on those men personally, and/or we can spend a lot of time fighting among ourselves over who to blame it on, but the bottom line remains the same.

When you take this show off the internet and outside of Democratic activist circles, both Kerry and Gore are viewed foremost as the guys who failed to stop George W. Bush from occupying the White House for two terms. They "failed" after each man had the Democratic Party united behind them in their efforts. It's not that both men don't have millions of people who like them very much, they do. It's not that both men don't have thoughtful and positive visions for America, they do. It's not that neither man has a reasonable chance of getting elected in 2008, they do. But if you look at the overall approval numbers both of these men now receive in current national polls, they are still ranked very low with the general public in that crucial indicator. Can that be changed? Of course it can be, almost anything is possible, and both Kerry and Gore are skilled and intelligent men.

But in the case of John Kerry and Al Gore, their low general public approval ratings are NOT the result of neither man having had ample opportunity to make their case directly to the American public for why they should be trusted. Even with MSM bias and manipulation, no National Democrat in America gets more of an opportunity to appeal directly to the public than a Democratic Presidential candidate does. So in both Kerry and Gore's case, both men now have to reintroduce themselves positively to the American public, which is a more difficult undertaking to achieve than introducing themselves positively in the first place.

For many Americans electing either John Kerry or Al Gore in 2008 would require them to put aside their first mediocre impressions of each man (fair or unfair as they might be), and in all likelihood also put aside their second impressions also, because candidates in a Presidential Campaign get more than one opportunity to define themselves to the public. That is certainly possible for Kerry or Gore to do, but there is a reason why "fresh faces" are always being looked for in politics, even if we don't always like that reason.

[welshTerrier2]

49. i think this overstates the negatives for Gore and Kerry

the case is especially weak with regard to Gore ... i think it's very important in evaluating the "yeah but he lost" argument to remember one critically relevant detail ...

am i going to tell you now that he, and Kerry, really won? no, i'm not ... why? because whether true or not, that is NOT the public perception ...

however, what is real is that Gore won the popular vote ... that's a hugely important point ... while speculative, once this point is highlighted during a campaign, i think many Americans might take the view that he earned a chance to be President ... and even if they don't, i think the argument effectively neutralizes the "loser" label ...

as for Kerry, to the extent polls about anything are relevant at this time, polls now show Kerry is favored over bush ... while it's true bush is incredibly unpopular, it still shows that voters are not just writing Kerry off because he lost in '04 ... i think Kerry was a very poor candidate ... i also think he learned from his mistakes ...

and of course, none of this addresses the issues or the current mood of the country or the themes that either Gore or Kerry would be running on ...

bottom line: all candidates will have their positives and their negatives ... i don't think we should put much weight on last season's batting average ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Because I agree the "negatives" shouldn't be overstated

I won't argue with a thing you said, though we probably do differ around the margins about the significance of "last year's batting averages". When I say that Gore and Kerry are among those I could gladly throw my support behind, those aren't hollow words at all. I know full well that anything can happen in a Primary Season, and that Clark and/or Feingold, who are my first two choices, may get knocked out of the running. When I look at the entire field of who I might be asked to support, both Gore and Kerry rise above everyone else for me right now. Given my druthers, I would prefer either to Edwards or Richardson, and I prefer those men to Clinton, Biden, Vilsak and Bayh, and most likely to Warner also, who now probably tops my tier three.

All candidates have negatives and positives, and all will need to address their negatives while building on their positives. I think your comments provided a nice counter point to mine, it's good to read your spin on this point also.

[janx]

76. Gore would win a general election easily, Tom.

There's absolutely no doubt about that. He has the experience, the brains, the heart, and the stamina.

All that most of us are wondering is if he has the will to do so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. With all respect janx

I am far from convinced of that. I do like Gore, and it is only 2006. I don't want to get deeply into this debate now. I only post comments of this sort on threads that essentially are asking for feedback on this question. Nowhere in my post did I say that Gore could not win in 2006, and nowhere in my post did I suggest that Gore would not be an excellent President. But it is impossible to rationally look at Gore's overall favorability numbers with the General Public today, and then say that there is absolutely no doubt that Gore would win a general election easily.

The last time I said there was absolutely no doubt that a Democrat would easily win a Presidential Election was in 2000, and even if that Democrat won, it damn well wasn't easily, and I don't think anyone can argue that it wasn't in doubt.

[janx]

86. I agree with most of what you say,

except for your point about Gore's favorability rating with the general public today--Gore has been working behind the scenes and has not been in the media much at all. Only the political junkies like you and me watched his speeches in the last few years.

That is about to change (and may be in the process of changing even as we type).

He's BAAAACK...! And he will not be "handled" this time, thank God.

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. That is why I won't say he can't win

Gore will be reintroduced to the General Public, and it is possible they will embrace him warmly now when they did not before. But Gore has not been completely absent, he has gotten coverage for some of his major speeches, and of course those who are out to get him gave him bad coverage. We know the meme, "wild, waving arms, sweating, veins bulging, gave comfort to our enemies", that sort of negative coverage. They found a new negative caricature of Gore to replace the old wooden one, and some poor (distorted) coverage that resulted also is a part of Gore's current low approval numbers.

Does that mean we should just give up because the media will try to take apart any strong Democrat? Hell No! Do I think Gore should tone it down? Hell No! I still think it's highly conceivable that Al Gore can break through directly to the public and turn them around with his current message. But I don't know that with certainty janx, I really don't. There is the message and there is the messenger and there are images involved, it gets complex. The baggage Gore has is real at this point, because it is all part of Gore's life story, at least as commonly recited.

It CAN change, Gore is only now reemerging, but we haven't seen it change much yet outside of our activist world, so I am not CERTAIN that it will change sufficiently. We will have to see how well Gore connects now with that larger circle beyond the political junkies like you and me. We will have to see him campaign again, and duel with hostile media live, and respond to hit ads, and sum up his vision for America to crowds of relatively non political Americans that will gather to hear him talk, and then compare his talk to the talks that other men and women who are also running for office give to them. Gore has another opportunity now, and we all have a stake in how well he does with it whether or not he runs or wins the nomination. Gore is one of our key messengers now. I welcome his voice. And to be honest, I really want to hear Al Gore speak out NOW on the issue of Iran. Now is the time to stop a preprogrammed drift to war. Have you heard Gore speak on this yet?

If I accept that the future for Gore is not bound by a disappointment from his past, and I do, you should also accept the the future for Gore in not yet assured, based on a positive assumption of how his new message will be heard by those who have not yet heard it. There is legitimate uncertainty about how Gore will fare outside of circles like this one.

[janx]

98. Agreed.

It should be interesting. Time will tell.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Yep. It will, and it will, n/t

[mtnsnake]

47. Clark hasn't been fighting the fight? hahaha, that's pretty funny!

Considering he's not a senator like your favorite man, Kerry, is, General Clark is doing a pretty good job of staying in the public's eye. With Kerry, it's still hard to know where the heck he stands on most everything, but at least with Clark he's direct, clear, and to the point. Clark connects. Kerry confuses.

I don't think Kerry himself knows where he stands on half the things he talks about. Even last week in one of the threads, some people were wondering if Kerry is DLC or not. Someone said he is, someone said he isn't, and then the Kerryites come on and say something like Kerry is no longer very much DLC because he's not supported by the DLC like he used to be. I guess that means he's kinda DLC but kinda not.

[wiggs]

50. Kerry is a magnificent American, but he has so far not shown that

he can communicate with and connect to much of middle America...

Having said that I believe that except for election tampering, he is president right now. Should not have been close, though, against what was even then the demonstrably worst administration ever.

[beachmom]

82. Only because the media SAID he couldn't connect.

Everytime I saw him on C-SPAN, I see a politician who stays and listens to EVERY voter. I watched him closely and see someone as gifted as Clinton in discerning and understanding average people's concerns. Things like people who don't have health coverage. I distinctly remember seeing him in NH talking to an elderly lady who didn't have coverage for dental and took her own tooth out. The first time I viewed this I couldn't hear what the woman said, but saw this pained look on Kerry's face. Then I rewound and realized what the woman had described. Kerry asked her questions. He wanted to understand. Every day he goes to work to fight for people like that woman. I cannot pretend to know what to do about this media problem. They have to know they're lying, if the editor of Newsweek has prostrate cancer and mentions on Imus that Kerry had called him twice to make sure he was doing alright. That is who Kerry is.

[wiggs]

121. No Beachmom...that's my opinion entirely

And I've seen more footage of Kerry than I care to admit to, not just soundbites. I agree that he cares, that he's thoughtful, that he personable one-on-one. That's not my point. He and some other democrats just don't speak the language of a significant block of voters. He would be a good president, but he's a flawed candidate (which should go without saying...after all, come on....Bush Cheney did get re-elected)

The Kerry I would support is the one that said (off the record) that this administration is the biggest bunch of lying crooks he's ever seen. I'm not thrilled with the one who backpedaled on that and explained in many different ways how he didn't mean it.

I look at it as much more of an indictment of the American public than of Kerry, BTW. If there weren't so many lazy, shallow, misguided voters who are easily convinced that party is more important than country then Kerry would do much better.

I'm sure you'll allow me my own observations and opinions...I don't take my cues from the media.

[beachmom]

122. Are you "middle america"?

Because I don't think you know whether he connects with other people, just yourself. And I live here in a red state, and I really connect with him, and that was before REALLY watching him on C-SPAN, after the election. I ONLY saw him through the MSM (I didn't discover blogs until 10/04), and knew he was the right man for the job. That may be your opinion that YOU don't connect with JK, but I think most people in "middle America" never even got to see the man. Those who did (in person) overwhelmingly have said that he connected VERY well with the crowds.

[blm]

135. Kerry had 13 miilion more votes than Clinton - and 10million more than

Gore in 2000.

The "didn't connect" lie was created by a media desperate to protect BushInc and the lie that he won.

No way did Bush find 11 million more votes than he got in 2000 - no way. All he got was 24/7 protection from the corporate media that insisted Bush was a man of integrity and a stoic leader on the war. That's it. He sure as hell didn't keep every vote from 2000 and ADDED 11 million more.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. We don't know yet.

There's still time for Kerry to be exposed as a baby-eating demon-worshipped Martian invader here to convert America to Cthulu-worship, or for somebody else to make a case for the presidency better than his.

At present, Kerry is certainly one of the frontrunners for 08, but it's far too soon to say.

[Senator]

54. Honesty (since you asked)

(Note: I generally stay out of the distracting '08 horserace drivel because joining the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy's OCD on it plays right into the hands of Rove and the neofascists. However, this was a direct question and this note is as useful as all the threads about '08. So please, read this note twice and pass it on. We're being rolled again.)

Kerry needs to account for his failure to stand up as Senator Boxer did on January 6th, 2005.

And for his failure to stand up against the unlawful Florida electors on January 6th, 2001.

And for his appearance on Meet the Press on January 7th, 2001; when Russert asked him why he didn't join with the Cong. Black Caucus to object and he responded: "Nobody Asked Us."

Unless and until he acknowledges the stolen elections and his failure to stand on principle to stop them, he remains complicit with those acts of treason.

Like Gore, Hillary, and the rest Kerry asks us to go forward with him in dishonesty and complicity.

We go there at our own moral and patriotic peril.

---
www.january6th.org

[Senator]

55. BTW, here's an example of what happens

Robert Parry:

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

---

[ProSense]

59. Kerry is one of the few who took

action:

Statement
Senator Kerry
Commerce Committee
Hearing on Election Reform
March 7, 2001
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0307ker.pdf

http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings01.htm



Federal Election Day Act of 2001 (Introduced in Senate)
SJ 21 IS

107th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 21
Designating November 5, 2002, and November 2, 2004, as `Federal Election Day' and making such day a legal public holiday, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
August 1, 2001

Mr. KERRY introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


http://www.kerrysupport.com/media/stephanie_miller_john_kerry-051706.mp3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710


All Congressional Democrats need to make this an issue.

[Senator]

111. Uh, no -- this shows him as just one of the many, many who ...

... have prattled on about reform ... yada, yada.

Literally every Dem has their name attached to some legislation. They have "made it an issue."

And the election thieves continue to chuckle: "Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."

In the Senate only Boxer acted. She stood to object and more importantly acknowledged her failure to do so 4 years earlier.

The others remain complicit with the unlawful bush regime. Full stop.

I'm sorry this makes people unhappy, but if we continue to lie to ourselves we get what we deserve.

--
www.january6th.org

[ProSense]

116. Every Democrat in the Senate is complicit with Bush?

Insanity. Full stop.

[Senator]

134. Yes, the silent complicity is insanity -- and needs to be stopped

Not ignored. Or denied. Or worse, rewarded.

Each of us must make our own moral decision about coming to terms with the truth of the stolen elections.

Rationalization is simply not a long-term solution to anything.

--

[Pirate Smile]

70. I'm surprised people are going so negative, so early.

Oh, well.

[janx]

71. So am I.

:shrug:

What brought this on? Gore?

[Pirate Smile]

84. I believe so.

[janx]

87. You think so too?

:rofl:

[Pirate Smile]

88. LOL. I was replying to the "Gore?" part. I think that's it.

:D

edit to add - OK, I know that's it.

[janx]

90. I know!

:rofl:

People are freaking out! :rofl:

[Pirate Smile]

94. I know. I hate when we spend so much energy turning good Dems

into the bad guy, then we wonder why people don't just fall in line and love with the eventual nominee.

[janx]

97. The freepers have taken notice as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632049/posts

[Pirate Smile]

99. OK, that is flippen' freaky. They liked it and thought he looked good.

:crazy:


Who is that and what did they do with the freepers?
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[janx]

101. The following post indicates the only reason they care about how

he looks:

To: Hildy

I flipped by and saw him on the News.

I had to look at the cable guide to make sure it was new. He looked the best I've seen him look in years.

He's running.

19 posted on 05/14/2006 8:51:03 AM PDT by Howlin

[Pirate Smile]

102. Well, here is the one we seem to be seeing right now:

To: Howlin
Good morning.
"He's running."

Absolutely.

It's going to be fun watching him and john kerry eviscerate each other in the primaries.

Michael Frazier

[janx]

106. ...

:rofl: !!!

Truthfully, though, should both decide to run (and that's a big IF), I'm sure they'll handle themselves with dignity and aplomb. They're both statesmen of long duration, and they're excellent men.

It's their "supporters" I worry about...:rofl:

The last primaries were brutal around here.

[Pirate Smile]

115. I didn't find DU until Iowa and New Hampshire were over and Kerry

was the presumptive nominee.

I'm kinda glad I missed it.

I did see how entrenched people had gotten and how hard it was to let the primary battles go. When you make someone into a bad guy, it's hard to just drop it.

I'm a bit of a wus when it comes to Dems beating each other up. I just don't like it especially when I like them individually, which I do most Democrats. I think I'll be avoiding the flame wars.

[sandnsea]

109. Are you kidding?

It's been a Kerry bash fest in here since Nov 3. And Hillary and Biden and Bayh and Warner and anybody except the flavor of the day. Gore, Clark or Feingold. Bash anybody else you want. You gonna deny that too??

[janx]

112. Has Pirate Smile been a basher of Kerry?

?

[sandnsea]

119. Gosh, did I say that?

Please show me where I said Pirate Smile bashed Kerry or anybody else.

[Cha]

85. The Nation had a good

article on "The New Kerry" by Ari Berman..states all his work since the election(?) but Al Gore has been making tremendous strides too.

I really don't think it's fair to say "wooden" in conjunction with Al Gore because that was a corporate media invention and I say, "FUCK THE MEDIAWHORES!!"

[Vektor]

107. I love Big John too.

Brains, courage, determination - always clear, always succinct, and oh, that sultry baritone voice.

He's my favorite mountain of man.

[janx]

113. That sounds pretty sexual to me.

Are you sure you're into this for the politics? :rofl:

All that licking of chops and stuff...and the penis envy tagline...?

[Vektor]

117. Ah well, you know what they say...

Sex and politics go hand in hand. ;-)

Seriously, I'm VERY in it for the politics, and yes, I'm a wonk through and through, but if my fave candidate also happens to be a tall, blue eyed mountain of intellectual eye-candy, then all the better, right?

What better way to spice up a Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing on C-SPAN? Kerry is "Ranking Member" ya know...

:rofl:

[blm]

136. heheh...you caught her. Actually some of us know a thing or two about

Kerry that is rarely addressed cuz he's too classy to have to deal with the blowback.

But, back when he was newly single in the late 80s, he had relationships with some west coast ladies. One was from a circle of mine at the time, and she told us that *it* is quite impressive. Not James Woods' dimensions (obscenely huge) - but not far off. Let's say he had no problem getting dates.

And THAT'S the 411 on that. ;)

[kitticup]

146. Hmmm, that might explain the NY Times coverage

Kerry used to date the now wife of the executive editor of The New York Times (Bill Keller). Guess Keller is afraid he doesn't measure up.

[blm]

148. oooh....I forgot about that. Unfortunately, Keller probably hasn't. ;)

.

[pamela]

126. Damn Vektor...

I haven't been in the Kerry forum in a while because my star expired and I couldn't post but I need to drop back in soon for the photos. Whew!

[Vektor]

129. OMG!

I haven't seen you in ages!

[_dynamicdems]

171. And he has something else nobody has...TERESA!

Every one of the Dems has their strong points. They are all honorable and intelligent. The reason I choose Kerry over Clark and Dean or even Feingold or Gore is because Kerry is more correct and more experienced on more of the issues facing our country. I love Al Gore for his work on the environment. I love Dean for his passion and loyalty. I love Russ Feingold because he's been fighting for our liberties. I love General Clark because he's intelligent and a patriot.

I will vote for Kerry because he has what it takes to handle the ENTIRE country, not just one aspect of it. He's working diligently for Veterans, Unions, women's rights, manufacturing, agriculture, auto-workers, small business, health care for children, the environment, tax reform, medicare, social security, prescription drugs plans and the list goes on and on. You name an issue and Kerry has a concrete plan. That and the fact that he's an experienced and well-respected diplomat. He'd bring our country out of the downward spiral we're in.

Kerry is simply the best all-around, most qualified and most correct on more of the issues that affect our country. He's shown us that he can take a lot of direct hits, pick himself and keep on coming. He didn't waste a second crying in his beer. He didn't run away and sulk. He's been hitting back and hitting back and calling the Republicans and the Bush Administration to account every, single day since the election.

Nobody else can handle the job the way Kerry can. He's the whole package. Too many one-issue candidates out there. I look at Kerry's voting record and he's the most consistent on all the issues that matter to liberals. Too many conservatives are being held up as shinning examples lately because they oppose the war. Well, what about issues like abortion or capital punishment? I'm surprised to find progressives latching onto the next "new flavor" without actually studying their entire record.

And for those of you who say Kerry's had his shot and you want new blood. Fair enough, IF you are also willing to say that EVERYONE Kerry beat out to get the nomination in 2004 also had their shot. I mean, he kicked their asses, but he's the loser of the bunch? No logic there. If you say Kerry is a loser because he lost to Bush, well consider all those Dems who lost to Kerry.




And then there is Teresa. We need someone like her for First Lady. She speaks how many languages? She is someone who would bring us the respect in the international community because she has a global perspective. She would be a wonderful representative of our country. She wouldn't just sit there like a bump on a "Pickles." Teresa Heinz Kerry is renouned for the good works she does and is always being recognized with awards for her environmental and philanthropic endeavors. She's been awarded several more awards since the election. We need someone like her in the White House.

John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry belong in the White House. We need them there. Our country needs them there. The world needs them there.

[mwooldri]

123. George Clooney. If only he were to get political.

Name recognition. Charisma and good looks. And he speaks common sense. Oh, and he isn't in with the present politicos so he can have that freshness look to him.

Now this would be an actor-turning-politican that I think pretty much anybody could vote for.

Mark.

[laureloak]

124. Please, not Kerry. Too much baggage. n/t

[blm]

137. That "baggage" was a pile of lies. Now those lies have been vetted and are

not going to be as easy to swallow. What are they gonna do about Gore or Kerry? Make up NEW lies as if they didn't find them before?

Gore and Kerry ARE the two safest as far as being completely vetted. It's the liars who need to do the worrying. Either man will be well=prepared at this point, to a degree that is unique to them.

[laureloak]

142. Won't work. Sorry.

The voters that hate Kerry still hate Kerry whether it's justified or not.

He had his run and was a good one but he didn't win the race. Now it's time to retire that horse.

[blm]

143. He won 10 MILLION MORE VOTES than Gore did. People don't even KNOW Kerry

enough to hate him. They finally learned that media has been lying to them about Bush's characteristics.

Not as many voters HATE Kerry as you want to believe. His unfavorables aren't that high, and people aren't falling for GOP spin as much as they did before Katrina.

[pamela]

127. I still love Kerry!

He is tied with Elizabeth Edwards for first place on my list of favorite Democrats. Clark, Gore and John Edwards make the list, too, in no particular order.

[Maven]

128. "The truth will out?" Please, enlighten us.

I guess it's about that time for another thread like this.

But why exactly do you find it necessary to make vague insinuations about Sen. Feingold?

[hippiechick]

160. That caught my eye too ...

... funny but the OP hasn't provided anything to back up their statement yet ... <yawn>


Gore/Feingold: '08 and beyond !! :applause:

[Apollo11]

132. Kerry will make a good Secretary of State

in the Gore Administration :)

Wes Clark can be Secretary of Defense.

John Edwards - Attorney General

Hillary - Senate Majority Leader

Vice-President? - A woman ... but not Hillary.

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org :)

[TayTay]

141. I prefer Kerry as President.

If any other Dem gets elected, Kerry as Attorney General. He is an investigator. I don't think Sec of State is a good use of his talents.

I am not impressed with Gore all that much. I don't get what DUers see in him all of a sudden. I was very ABB in 2000 and only supported him because he was the Dem nominee but I was never all that fond of Gore. (I think he's a moderate to conservative Dem. That was his record in the Senate and as VP. I don't see what has changed about that.)

What has changed about Gore?

[tinrobot]

144. Gore is not wooden

Don't buy into the stereotype.

Watch his film... he's terrific in it. He's really relaxed into his own skin over the past few years.

[NastyDiaper]

145. Gore, Feingold, Clark, Kerry. I like the all.

If the Senate goes blue and kicks some ass, Kerry and Feingold have a much better shot.

[mim]

147. Who says, once you've lost, you're through?

That attitude shows the complete triumph of entertainment values. It wasn't true even in 1968, and it certainly wasn't true when Grover Cleveland ran a third time and became the only president to serve two terms not in succession.

And with Kerry and Gore, even their "losses" are not what they seem. Gore won the popular vote, and might even have won the electoral vote had a full count been allowed. Kerry lost only because of massive interference with the electoral process, coupled with an inadequate response to the Swift Boat smear.

I like both, but I like Gore more. And there seems to be enough buyer's remorse to give at least one of them a chance, if the MSM will let it happen. If people now are rethinking that "once a loser, always a loser" nonsense, so much the better for democracy.

[NVMojo]

149. I love John Kerry, a vet, a protestor, a free speech advocate, unafraid

to come back immediately and be in the face of lying neocons everywhere ...

[IndianaGreen]

151. Let's delete the word "viable" from our lexicon, shall we?

We know how badly we were served by people that used that word to push for their candidate in 2004. Instead, let's use "polarizing" to describe a candidate that will bring disunity to the party, for example, a candidate that supports Bush's wars and his infringement of civil liberties would be considered polarizing in this scenario.

[Kenergy]

152. The truth will out????

Is there something we don't know about Russ? Please explain.

[Telly Savalas]

153. The fact that the best attack that can be launched against Feingold

is that cryptic remark is a solid argument in favor of his candidacy.

[Kenergy]

154. Thanks Telly for the reply...

If there's something we don't know about Russ, we need to know it now.
But so far, I don't see anything wrong with Russ. Imo, he's what we need to kick
these neo-clowns asses.
He's smart, knows what he's talking about, and doesn't just smile and take the neo-clowns
shit like the other Dems... he stands up to them and tells them where to get off.
Unless he has some major skeleton in the closet, I'll be voting for him.
He was right about the Patriot Act, right about Iraq, right about saying (in so many words)
that the Bush administration is a bunch of corrupt ass-clowns.
I'm no rocket scientist, and I'm not always right about any given issue, but I firmly believe
Russ is who we need in the WH.
And if he does make it there, I would like to see Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Hillary, Kucinnich,
Kennedy, and others be key cabinet members.
<sigh> so much for my dreams. Thanks for reading this.

[politicasista]

155. He needs to jump on board and sign the DSM

and sponsor other crucial bills in addition to censure.

[blm]

159. That's interesting. I always considered Feingold as pretty quiet

throughout most of his senate years. But, it seems plenty of DUers believe he has been a great voice fighting against the GOP onslaught. Can you list all the battles he led or fought alongside others over the last 13 years?

[blm]

158. I'd get more specific - He's been in the senate since 93, list the battles

he chose to lead on or fought for alongside others. Not just quietly voted, but FOUGHT. Those who feel he's the toughest fighter should have no problem proving it using his 13 year record.

[Kenergy]

161. Keep an eye on him between now and '08...

I believe he's finding his voice and will be a contender.

From his website:

Voted against the Patriot Act to protect our civil liberties
Returns his pay raise to the Treasury every year
Votes against unfair trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, etc...)
Demands the citizens of the US have the same quality healthcare as he does
Has held open listening sessions in every county in Wisconsin for 12 years
He has a broad appeal and has received many votes from both parties
He has one of the best environmental records in the Senate
A strong commitment to our Veterans with a record to prove it
Works to cut wasteful spending and has received many endorsements to show it
He supports a woman's right to choose
He demands fairness in campaigning and fights to block 'corporate bribes'
He has consistently worked to end the death penalty
Works to helps Police Departments and was honored by the Nation Association of Police Organizations as the Senator of the year.
He opposed No Child Left Behind
Worked with students to increase Pell Grants
Voted against the Iraq War Resolution and in favor of funding to support our troops.

From izixs:

He opposes the appointment of extremist judges

He supports a senate that performs its duties in providing a check to the presidency, as desired by the founding fathers
From Calipendence:

He was one of only 5 Senators to oppose the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with Leahy, Wellstone, Simon, and McCain.

[blm]

162. I know his votes, but what BATTLES did he stick his neck out on?

Fights aren't only supposed to be for election cycles. Surely he could have found important battles to fight alongside other Democrats and not just the ones he chose with McCain.

He's being touted as a a great fighter - I'd just like to see how people have come to that conclusion, and where was he in 2004? Didn't we need all our best battling Dems front and center then? Bush didn't take on any battles himself - he had Giuliani, McCain and Dole doing it for him on a daily basis.

[Kenergy]

164. See my previous post n/t

[blm]

165. See my previous post - quiet voting is not LEADING serious confrontations

and I do not believe election cycle actions trump YEARS of serious battling.

[Tom Rinaldo]

166. This year at least Feingold has been leading on several issues

The Bush Censure motion, Fighting against the original Patriot Act extension, and the warrantless domestic "phone tapping" matter, all come to mind as issues Feingold has been out in front on (which doesn't always mean that he has been alone out in front, but not just another participant/voter.) I am less knowledgeable on leadership Feingold has shown in the Senate in prior years. Feingold is not my first choice for 2008, but he is in the handful of Democrats who I would be very happy to support as our nominee.

[blm]

167. That's my point - Feingold only chose this past year to use his voice to

lead a battle. Did he think it wouldn't be useful in previous years for so many other battles?

Others have stuck their necks out repeatedly on serious issues and took their kicks in the face for doing so. Russ didn't choose to lend a hand, yet he's being touted as such a great fighter - all they have to do is show me what part of the congressional record I've been missing all these years.

[Clarkie1]

156. Clark has been working his ass off for Democrats in 06'.

Next time try posting factual statements we can all discuss.

[wisteria]

163. I too still think Kerry would make a wonderful President and would vote

for him again over all others.

[Mass]

172. Don't know about viability, but he is definitively one of my strong

favorite for his stands since 04, as is Gore. They are the two only ones who have both national name recognition AND the breadth of experience that makes them credible as president.

My ideal (and unlikely) ticket: Kerry/Gore or Gore/Kerry.

[saltpoint]

173. Putting both the people Bush cheated on the same ticket would

be powerful.

My best guess is that Kerry, Gore, or Edwards will be our nominee -- 3 of the 4 people on the last two tickets which fell victim to Bush's junk-souled cheating in Florida, Ohio, and likely elsewhere.

I omit Lieberman because I think he will leave the party in the next few weeks to run as an Independent in Connecticut. Then I think he loses to Ned Lamont in the general in November and will never be heard from again.

Al, John, or John in the White House in 08.

[wisteria]

174. I respect Senator kerry and his judgment more than any other politician.

Our country would be in much better shape if he would of had the opportunity to take over and run it properly. I can think of no one I would like to see run and win more that Senator Kerry. No offense to the others, is is just that they aren't as qualified, well rounded or in some cases as appealing as Kerry.