Kerry: "it's gut check time for Democrats"

[welshTerrier2]

just as we battle here between left and center, or between right and center if you prefer a different model, it looks like the "grown-ups" are confronted with the same issues ...

some have done an admirable job keeping track of "which Dems are supporting Ned" ... but the real measure isn't just a "yeah, ok, he's a Democrat so i guess i'll support him" ... the real measure is the quality of that support ... before the primary, Dems picked sides or didn't pick sides based on positions, party considerations, friendships and loyalties or whatever ...

for some of us, the issue NOW is pure politics ... Lamont's the Democrat; we expect all Dems to support him ... NO EXCUSES!!

for others, the issue is plain and simple: it's the war, stupid ... Lamont's against it; we're against it; Lieberman isn't ... we expect our reps to not just support our war position, not just support Lamont, but to REPRESENT US as a new and powerful force within the party ...

so we arrive in support of Lamont from a variety of different views and different paths ...

such may or may not be the case with the "grown ups" ... some of them are mired in confusion ... what is being asked of them today is to make a choice ... you are either with the Democrat or you are not! there is no fuzzy center ... there is no triangulation ... there is no equivocation and no tap dancing ... you pays your money and you makes your choice ...

and that leaves the party's most prominent triangulators in a very awkward position ... the choices go beyond their mere candidacies in the future ... the party itself, just as we do on DU, has come to a fork in the road ... one path leads to a divisive future ... it does not seek compromise or negotiation ... it digs in the anti-warriors against the triangulators ... frankly, if this path is chosen, especially if Lieberman wins, i do not think serious conflict can be avoided ... the other path leads to at least some degree of unity by compromising around the only Dem in the race ... it does not require players like Hillary to back Lamont because of his war position ... it does not endorse "the left" ... in fact, it does not even abandon the whole idea of triangulation ... what it does is bring peace NOW by going all out for Lamont solely because he is running as the Democratic nominee ...

this is where Bill and Hill and who knows who need to get to ... they are clearly NOT there yet ... and we are all watching them hoping they choose a path to party unity ... half-measures and equivocation will not suffice ...

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/when-hillary-meets-ned_b_27797.html

Hillary Clinton is meeting with Ned Lamont in the next few days on her home turf in Chappaqua in what may well be a more important meeting for her future than for Lamont's. Their get-together is coming at a crossroads moment for both Hillary and the Democratic Party. <skip>

So where is the Democratic Party's presumptive 2008 standard-bearer? Precariously balancing on the tip of a triangulation strategy. As usual.

Sure, Hillary's offered Lamont her perfunctory "following the will of the people" support and a check for 5 grand, but her actions seem to validate the behind-the-scenes rumblings I'm hearing that she'd much rather see Lieberman win. Could it be that she thinks a Lieberman win will diffuse the hits she'll inevitably take in 2008 for having, like Joe, been a bellicose backer of the war in Iraq? It's as if she's wishing that she could put the war repudiation genie back in the bottle. She's not raising money for Lamont and she's not yet scheduled any campaign appearances with him either. It's not by accident that their meeting is in Chappaqua, not Connecticut. The mountain/Mohammad casting is clear. Compare her actions with those of John Kerry and John Edwards who are doing all they can to help Lamont.

As Kerry put it, "it's gut check time for Democrats." And not just in Connecticut. The Lamont/Lieberman showdown is about a lot more than a single Senate seat. It's about the future direction of the Democratic Party -- which is why the GOP is doing all it can to stop Lamont and to ensure a Lieberman victory. <skip>

Of course, there are some Democratic power players who are supporting Lieberman outright. They are the ones wearing the uniform of the old guard, the ones who see their hold on the reigns of party power slipping away, the ones who want to pretend the seismic shift that Lamont's ascendancy represents is an aberration and not a harbinger of things to come -- the ones with the sweat on their lips. <skip>

Which is why Hillary needs to come out of her meeting with Lamont and hit the campaign trail on his behalf. Hard and often. Not only is this the right thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do to improve her chances for '08. Ned Lamont represents the future of the Democratic Party; Lieberman its past. So, will Hillary embrace a dynamo or stick with a dinosaur?

[3121guitarist]

1. I got my eye on the so called mavericks.

I just hope Mr. Kerry has more guts then he did when the election was stolen and he was a mute.

[welshTerrier2]

2. mavericks?

welcome to DU, 3121guitarist ...

not sure which "mavericks" you're referring to ...

[karynnj]

20. There was no solid proof then or now that Kerry

actually got more of the votes CAST in Ohio. Even the RfK article counts an estimate of votes lost due to long lines. With no proof all Kerry could do was speak against the legal way they stold Ohio by suppressing the vote with too few machines in Democratic cities.

As to guts, Did you:
- earn a silver star and a broze star with valour?
- speak out as the leader of an anti-war movement and end up an eneamy of Nixon?
- Investigate Contra drug running when no one else would?
- Stand alone against both parties fighting a terrorist bank?

Kerry did - he has guts and stands up for what's right.

[blm]

36. You mean when election was stolen and he didn't have any LEGAL evidence to

continue in court?

And when the same election legal team of Dem election lawyers who advised Gore that he had the evidence and the math to continue told Kerry he did NOT have the evidence OR the math to continue in court?

Please tell us how YOU would have gone to court and with what LEGAL evidence?

[MercutioATC]

3. So Kerry's decided to grow testicles?

I think I'll hold off on evaluating this statement until he proves they're actually functioning testes.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Kerry really isn't the issue here ...

the point i was trying to make was that what's at issue with the Lamont candidacy is the future of the Democratic Party ... even Huffington's post, that focusses on Hillary, really sees the issue reaching out beyond personalities ... i only included the Kerry quote because it focussed so specifically on the issue ...

[MercutioATC]

5. I agree that a Lamont win has the potential to be a catalyst for change.

...that's why, although I live in Ohio, I still sent him money.

I just don't believe that Kerry (or many others) have a role in that change.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Oh, well then, should he cancel his trip to Connecticut, since

after all, he has no role in this?

Any politician who's actively promoting Lamont and not promoting Lieberman has a role in the change. I believe that WT2 is looking for more than lip service from Dems however. So Edwards has been in Connecticut. So he a part of the change. Kerry said on DailyKos he'd be going soon, and he's been fundraising for Lamont. So he's part of the change. Anyone who sends money or sets foot in Connecticut to stand next to Lamont has a piece of the action.

[MercutioATC]

8. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Kerry has a role as long as that role is to hand the torch to the next generation of Democrats.

As much he's willing to do that, I'm happy to support his efforts.

[LittleClarkie]

9. I don't think he's retiring anytime soon.

[MercutioATC]

11. He's a decent enough placeholder, I suppose.

Ideally, I'd like better...but he'll do.

[blm]

26. Absurd considering the man's actual record - I'd be impressed if you

prove to me that your preferred leaders take on the tough battles that REALLY go on in this country and have made a difference to its historic record.

[whometense]

35. I'm sure he'll be gratified

to know he has your permission to do that much. :sarcasm:

[welshTerrier2]

12. "more than lip service from Dems"

that's correct ...

and it's more than just supporting Lamont or being against the war as well ...

what this campaign symbolizes is where we are headed as a party ... either we will be a house or we will be a house divided ... and this time, because of Lamonts "insurgent" candidacy from "that other wing", the ballot is on the other foot ... this time, the triangulators have to turn away from one of their own ... or not ...

[blm]

7. I'd say that's a narrow read. When did Lieberman's poll numbers begin

their sharpest decline? After Kerry resubmitted his withdrawal plan last June, and when Lieberman went to the floor of the senate to speak against it on the REPUBLICAN'S TIME.

The news networks played it repeatedly in their effort to make the case against Kerry's bill, the Dem party and those Dems divided by war, but what it actually ended up doing was making Lamont's case against Lieberman and his loyalties.

[MercutioATC]

10. blm, you and I have always had a different read on this issue.

I believe the survival of our party and, by extension, our country, is based on a redefinition of the political process. I don't support playing the current system, I believe in creating a new paradigm.

...and I believe that creating that new paradigm is our best (if not only) chance for prosperity.



In my opinion, relying on the scraps that "established Democrats" choose to cast is a losing strategy. I'm happy for the support that the Dem establishment occasionally throws to the new guard, but we're eventually going to have to kick them out (since they don't seem ready to move along of their own will).

Kerry is a dinosaur. He's simply too much of a politician to be of use. If he chooses to throw a kind word to the new generation of Dems, that's great. I don't think he deserves any special recognition for that, though.

...he certainly doesn't deserve credit for catalyzing a new Democratic party with some balls...

[sendero]

13. Yes..

... yes, you are on to it.

What this IMHO really is about is the growing anger over the Democrats' role in the debacle we find ourselves in. The old "they had no power" excuse is bullshit, and people know it. Joe Lieberman is the poster boy for that Democratic role, but he is by no means the end of it. He's just the first to get what's coming to him.

Now, we're not going to settle for just winning, we want some new blood and some old blood in the streets to atone.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Ageism

There's nothing magic about new.

I swear, it's like being caught in the middle of Logan's Run sometimes. Are you waiting for the old Dems to "renew"?

[sendero]

15. Oh..

... so Lamont is substantially younger than Lieberman? Maybe so, but you are probably a lot younger than I am.

"New" means "having not been in Washington so long that you've forgotten who you are working for" - has nothing to do with age.

[LittleClarkie]

16. I'm 42, gramps. How old are you?

And I don't see that in Kerry, personally. He's a decent enough fellow.

[sendero]

17. I'm in my..

... 50s. For reasons of privacy I prefer not to give the exact number.

Kerry is getting better, but there is a reason the electorate has not promoted a senator to president since JFK. Americans understand how corrupt the beltway system is. They understand the back room deals and going along to get along. They understand the K street money and the quid pro quo. And they know that the longer anyone works in that environment, the more likely to be co-opted they become.

And they are getting tired of a government that is worse than ineffective.

[wisteria]

19. Kerry is not like that, for his whole time in the senate, he has

taking a higher road. This wasn't and still isn't anything at all dishonest about Senator Kerry. He has always stood up and defending what he believes in.

[sendero]

21. You know..

.. I don't think John Kerry is a "corrupt politician" and I didn't mean to sound like I do. But what I DO think is that if you work in a sewer for 20 years, you will get shit on you.

[wisteria]

29. That may just make you tougher and more willing to fight for what

you believe in.

[blm]

24. So you are in effect saying the public would be right to consider Kerry as

just another corrupt senator because that's how DC works?

My - that is incredibly WRONGHEADED to the max.

Let's ignore the man's ACTUAL, LIFETIME RECORD of investigating and exposing the corrupt in government policies and actions because it enables you to spout your heavily biased conclusions.

[MercutioATC]

27. No, but he's a career inside-the-beltway guy.

...and those are the guys who have made our party as ineffectual as it is.

[blm]

31. That proves you know nothing about the last twenty years in DC.

Kerry was OSTRACIZED for most of his time in DC because he pursued investigations that caught up so many in power, including establishment Dems and most of the real powerbrokers in DC.

After all this time, you STILL never really examined what happened in BCCI, did you, Merc?

And the establishment wasn't too pleased with Kerry's public financing of campaigns bill, either, to get corporate money OUT of politics altogether.

[MercutioATC]

33. No, it proves our views differ.

I believe we need a fundamental change in leadership.

[blm]

34. Yes, but using Kerry as the tarfet is just plain wrong - you should want

MORE ethical Dems in office instead of targeting the ones who actually effected this nation's real history in the most positive ways, and even against the wishes of his own party whosided with the establishment and DC powerbrokers OVER their fellow senator.

[blm]

25. HAHAH - - NAME your generational Dems who have taken on the dangerous

and tough battles that exemplify their ownership of the immense "testes' that Kerry doesn't have?

Please provide us with a list and add their battles and accomplishments. You wouldn't mind educating us all on that would you?

I mean, it should be EASY for you, considering that you sound so absolutely certain that Kerry, the senator with no "testes" in your view, needs to step aside so these dependable battlers you know, can take over.

[MercutioATC]

28. That's the point...we need NEW blood.

The old guard has outlived its usefulness. The culture of not offending "the distinguished gentleman from Alabama" (or wherever) should end. We need people who are less concerned with decorum than results. We need people who are less concerned with making deals than passing meaningful legislation. We need people who inspire voters by making noise.

[blm]

32. So your answer is to kick out the ones with the BEST records of pursuing

government corruption, just so someone with a record of using hotter rhetoric can take their place?

[wisteria]

18. I agree with you, It may be one senate race,but it represents a needed

change. If we don't redefine ourselves as a party now,if we don't stand and back our candidates we will remain stagnant as a party and continue to be a second rate.

This is very well written. Also, thank you for crediting Senator Kerry for his support of Lamont.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. This is a good place to post Clark's letters to Lieberman campaign

It speaks directly to your point WT2. Clark not only sees the importance of honoring the will of CT's Democratic voters, he sees the seeds by which Joe Lieberman is attempting to divide the Democratic Party into so called "Good Democrats" like him who believe in keeping America safe, and "Bad Democrats" like Lamont who, if one were to believe Lieberman, is supposedly giving aid and comfort to our enemies by not backing our Commander in Chief the way that Lieberman is.

Quoting in part from General Clark:

"You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November.

Stand with Connecticut Democrats. Send a message to Joe Lieberman to end his Independent campaign for CT Senate."

Here is the link to Wes Clark's full statement regarding Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1314

Here is the direct link to the letter writing campaign:
http://ga4.org/campaign/joelieberman/

[IndianaGreen]

23. Edwards checked his gut, and he passed with flying colors

Edwards campaigned with Lamont. Kerry has raised money for Lamont. Hillary is AWOL (a trait she shares with Bush).

[paulk]

30. Is it normal for a candidate involved in their own race

to campaign in someone else's race? I can understand Kerry and Edwards campaigning for Lamont, since neither is involved in a campaign this election cycle - but Clinton is, so I'm not convinced that this is a valid criticism from Ms. Huffington. Does anyone know if this is normal for a candidate to campaign in someone else's race? I really would be interested to know.


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


One other point - that relates to Ms Huffington - as far as I know, she's not even registered in the Democratic Party. She didn't run as a Democrat in the CA governor's race.... she did rescind her party affiliation with the Republicans, but I'm not sure why the Democratic Party, or it's members, should listen to her when it comes to campaign strategy.

[PresidentWar]

37. Writing's on the wall, kids.

The longer the Democratic leadership ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the living room called Anti-War Sentiment, the more they seek to seal another string of election losses. LIEberman's loss was a clear mandate on the power of the anti-war movement. Facts are, the majority in America are sick and tired of this stupid war. This is the moment of truth - will we grab the hold of the public sentiment and win, or once more be beaten back into a "oh yeah I AM a patriot!" position the Rethugs seem to do routinely?

As promising as Nov. looks for us, I wouldn't leave anything to chance. Get ahold of your local Democrats and urge them to take a stand against this stupid, immoral and illegal war.