Sen. Kerry on hardball he's still impressive he's got my vote over...

[bigdarryl]

Hillary if he runs in the primary of coarse my first choice would be Edwards.

[Punkingal]

1. I agree, he is impressive.

But then I always thought so.

[graywarrior]

2. Too bad intelligence doesn't get the vote.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Love Barnicle, too. He tells it like it is,

Always did think he was A-OK.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

4. I like Kerry, but he blew it in 2004

I knew he wasn't going to win, when after the convention he was asked if he had it to do over again would he vote for the Iraq war and without skipping a beat he said "yes." I was crushed.

[stillcool]

9. Didn't you know?

He won.

[w4rma]

11. Hillary blew it in 1994, imho. (nt)

[PresidentObama]

5. Amen Bigdaryl.

And I missed him on Hardball.

But wow, he's been all over the media. And overcoming the 'joke'.

[bigdarryl]

6. I don't have anything against Mrs. Clinton BUT i don't think she's...

Presidential material especially standing next to Senator Kerry.just my opinion

[blm]

7. That's why her camp has been out in force speaking against him the last 2 years.

And why she sided with Bush and scolded Kerry when she knew damn well Kerry accidently dropped a pronoun - and for all these years millions of Democrats defended Bill Clinton for purposely dropping his pants.

[mtnsnake]

16. Kerry is the last person Hillary's worried about. She's worried about Obama

Barack Obama is her main concern. You can waste all the time you want running down Clinton in your efforts to make Kerry look stronger, but it's all for naught. Kerry is a has-been. After such a pathetic showing in 2004, he's the last one Democrats will nominate.

Look out for Obama, though. Hillary is looking over her shoulder for him.

[TayTay]

17. This campaign is barely begun

It will revisit Monica, impeachment, triangulating the issues, the corporate money in the Democratic Party, the fundraising money that came in from Indonesia in '96 and a lot of other really heavy baggage that the name Clinton carries with it.

She may be yesterday's news that no one wants to hear about ever again. This race has barely begun. All these things will come out again.

Sen. Clinton is hardly a new face. She has extensive baggage and more yet to come out. We shall see what happens.

[mtnsnake]

18. That is very very true

None of us really know how the whole thing is going to play out yet, even though we're all armchair quarterbacks. That's what makes it so intriguing.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Self-delete...

I made a promise to myself that I'd be nice.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Kerry has one thing that Obama doesn't have. An organization

still in place. And also the ability to raise money nationally. I'm sure she's hoping he goes away. Obama's making some noise early, but hasn't actually moved to run yet really. Regardless of what you think of Kerry, he has a head start on Obama. And it remains to be seen what will happen.

This is all too early, though. So much could change. Kerry hasn't even committed yet. Few of them have.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Another thing Kerry has: crazy supporters like me

You have to admit we're devoted little minions, eh?

[demdiva]

76. I agree. One of the reasons I still "vote"

Kerry/Obama 2008. That and I think Obama on the ticket will mean TURNOUT like we've never seen before.

[politicasista]

81. I think so too n/t

[blm]

29. Baloney - Clinton camp never targets Obama do they? Kerry is an American patriot

and THAT is why he is undermined by the establishment in his own party - and that is who you seem to represent with little respect towards the anti-corruption Democrats.

Kerry got 10 million more votes than Gore did - and no one in the Democratic party and especially the DNC prepared themselves for that as no one ever even EXPECTED those high numbers in 2004. So peddle your revisionist spin elsewhere - you KNOW I don't buy revisionist media spin.

There are two camps who know full well that Kerry outperformed every expectation, BushInc who was forced to suppress votes and rig machine counts all over the country and the Clinton camp - Clinton NEVER increased his numbers from the previous vote totals to the degree Kerry did, even though he had a much more balanced media than Kerry faced.

[talk hard]

30. 2004 was all about ABB.

I don't know anybody that liked Kerry, they voted AGAINST Bush. That's why the increased turn-out. There are better choices for 2008. He won't get the nomination again.

[blm]

36. I don't TRUST the judgement of people who don't know enough about history that

they wouldn't like Kerry.

How does any HONEST Democrat dislike the man who risked his life and career more than any other lawmaker when he uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history?

[Mass]

40. You should diversify the people you know. I know a lot of people who like Kerry.

Do not support him, but do not tell us what we are thinking. Your opinion and the one of people around you are yours to have. Others may have different opinion.

[talk hard]

42. that's funny

Almost all polls show Democrats agree Kerry is finished. That is the opinion of many.
Maybe you should look into moving outside your bubble for a clue.

[blm]

45. Maybe you should try showing concern for corruption and closed government

that the coverup wing of the party seems to be in place for, while the anti-corruption, open government Dems are relentlessly slandered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2867222

[Blue_In_AK]

47. I am trying SO hard to bite my tongue....

I've liked Kerry for years. He's done more to uncover corruption and fight for Democratic principles that almost any other politician I can think of, and he deserves the gratitude of all of us, not this ceaseless tearing down that I see here so often. Whether or not he runs for president again, this constant sliming is uncalled for.

[talk hard]

49. an opinion is not sliming

Maybe you should keep biting your tongue until you understand that people can not like or support Kerry, that is an opinion, and that an opinion is not sliming. Talk about you're either with or against us mentality. Jeezus what is up with you people?

[Blue_In_AK]

51. I just found it hard to believe that you don't know ANYBODY

who likes Kerry, and wondering why, given his many years of outstanding service to the country. It just seemed a bit harsh to me, that's all. Perhaps sliming was too strong a word, but there are a few of you who can't seem to stop yourselves from making broad-brush negative comments about the good senator at every possible opportunity. Yours weren't as bad as some - I guess they're all starting to run together now.

Peace.

[Der Blaue Engel]

50. So you personally know the motivations of millions of voters

Well, I don't know anybody that DIDN'T like Kerry, except for one brainwashed Independent friend, and a couple of Greens who simply never trust any Democrats.

"2004 was all about ABB" is the same as "2006 wasn't an endorsement of Democrats, it was just a message to Republicans." People don't just come out in droves to "anti-" vote. These disparaging claims do our candidates and the American people a huge disservice.

[talk hard]

52. that's not what I said

I said that nobody I know liked Kerry in 2004 and that they voted AGAINST Bush. Almost everybody I know hoped for a better candidate and were disappointed with Kerry and the way he ran his campaign and just folded in the end. That is a reasonable opinion and trying to shut down other opinions by bullying people and being rude doesn't change that.

[Der Blaue Engel]

53. How on Earth am I bullying you or being rude?

I'm disagreeing with your opinion, as I find it unsupportable. You did not say, "among people I know personally, 2004 was all about ABB." You said "2004 was all about ABB."

You can backpeddle and cry "bully" all you like. Not having the fortitude to handle disagreement doesn't make you oppressed.

[talk hard]

54. By calling people "brainwashed" that didn't support Kerry

You were inferring that. I'm not stupid. I know a back-handed insult when I hear one. Also twisting my words to go off on me.

Let's just stop this crap right now. Bye.

[Der Blaue Engel]

62. I wasn't insinuating anything about you or anyone else

I mentioned my brainwashed Independent friend and the Greens to illustrate that I was aware of a few differing opinions in my personal experience, but not many. The Independent has been brainwashed by her Republican boyfriend into believing all of the Swift Boat nonsense. I'm sorry that you decided to apply that to yourself, because nothing could be further from my intention. Neither was I twisting your words or going off on you. I was objecting to your assertion that it was all about ABB, and I stand by that objection.

edited to amend subject line to make my position clearer

[seabeyond]

56. screwin around with my hubby.... i heard matthews say that on the news

learned from that moment, ALWAYS turn off news while messin with husband. that was so full of it then, and even more so two years later. a right wing media employed talking point.

i always respected kerry. my repug and first time democratic voting husband learned to truly respect the man after being disappointed his man edwards didnt make it. if you know NO ONE that liked the man, i wonder what world you live in

[talk hard]

57. since you asked

A progressive, activist town that supports people like Kucinich and Feingold and Conyers and McKinney. There really is a world outside the Kerry bubble here.

[seabeyond]

59. well f* i am only in the very red panhandle of texas. saw a kerry/edwards

sticker this morning and gave the gal a thumbs up.

[talk hard]

60. well that's pretty cool

Texas is a tough state to live in.

[seabeyond]

61. seeing how i am a calif, married to a texan who will never leave

it is rough. and hard. and maddening. lol lol lol. yup.

[mtnsnake]

33. "Kerry got 10 million more votes than Gore did"

From an Open Letter to John Kerry:

There was a vote and you lost. This is, perhaps, the most salient point in our argument. Despite the fact that half the nation didn’t want to vote for President Bush before the 2004 campaign was even underway, they wanted to vote for you even less. That is about as plain as the American people can make it. There was a vote and you lost.

http://www.goawayjohnkerry.com/

Man did they ever hit the nail on the head.

At least Gore got more votes than Bush did, but the Supreme Court wrongfully awarded the election to Bush. Kerry, OTOH, managed to find a way to lose an election that was there just for the taking. How he could lose to a total imbecile like Bush, after Bush had already doctored the worst Presidential term in history, is beyond comprehension. It's no small wonder that the American people never will consider Kerry as their choice to run again.

[blm]

37. Gore and Clinton didn't have the last Dem president supporting Bush for 4yrs the way

Kerry had to watch Clinton supporting Bush2 on every crucial policy decision Bush made on terror and Iraq.

Would YOU prefer Clinton run in 1992 with NO John Kerry involved the 5 years prior uncovering IranContra and BCCI and the illegal wars in Central America?

Would you want to run with Kerry's burden of a DNC that gave up after 9-11-2001, and the LAST Dem President supporting your opponent PUBLICALLY on crucial issues like Tora Bora, Rumsfeld, and Iraq war, while you were attacking him on all three issues?

[talk hard]

43. so it's Clinton's fault Kerry is a failure?

hahaha

[blm]

44. Did Kerry's 5 yrs of efforts against Bush1 help Clinton in 1992?

And did Clinton's 4 yrs of standing in support of both Bushes help Kerry in 2004?

You think helping should be a oneway street?

Ever read Clinton's book?

[talk hard]

58. So why did Kerry stop talking about Iran-Contra?

Not a peep about it in his 2004 campaign or debates. If he is so instrumental in fighting corruption, why didn't he use the spotlight he had then? Why did he say he is going to vote for Gates even before the hearing?

Your claims aren't back up by facts.

[blm]

63. In 2004 he had to depend on Clinton's DNC and the infrastructure. There were no

spokesmen who would talk about IranContra or BCCI as Clinton had helped the coverup in the 90s. They were NOT going to screw over Clinton to discuss IranContra, BCCI or CIA drugrunning to help Kerry.

The only way Kerry could make it a major issue on his own is if he had the documents that only a president can access at this point.

He met with the Iraq Group last week and knew they were going to use Gates to implement a withdrawal plan. Withdrawing from Iraq IS Kerry's priority at this point, and almost all of us share that point. It's a greater good measure.

And I am surprised you aren't more aware of what went on in the 90s. Are you sure you're familiar with all that occurred reIranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning?

If you were, you would know that Kerry is the LAST person that anyone could blame. He worked his ass off with little to no help from the Dems and NONE AT ALL from the Dem powerstructure who wanted him to stop his investigations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2867222

BTW - you didn't answer the original question - Did Kerry's work exposing Poppy Bush's crimes help Clinton win in 1992?

[talk hard]

64. you sure do a lot of blaming

I am well versed on Iran-Contra and, no, Kerry had nothing to do with Clinton winning the presidency in 1992. Lee Hamilton chose to let Iran-Contra slide in the 1990s and there it has sat since then undisturbed.

And you still haven't answered my questions. Why didn't Kerry talk about this during his 2004 campaign and during the debates when he had the attention of the nation and the spotlight? Why isn't he talking about it now? Why did he say he would vote for Gates, a key player in Iran-Contra, even before the confirmation hearing?

Again, the facts don't back up your claims. I can only assume you have no answers to my questions so we'll call it a day. Bye.

[blm]

65. You think there's NO DIFFERENCE in a Congress that PUMMELED Bush1 for 4 yrs.

so his credibility was shot by 1992 election and the spectre of a Dem president PALLING AROUND and supporting the Bushes for 4years before the 2004 election?

That's absurd, and you completely ignored what I said about the Clinton DNC and the fact that no spokespeople from the DNC would back up Kerry on anything that had to do with corruption like IranContra, BCCI or CIA drugrunning because CLINTON is the one who covered it all up for Poppy during his term.

And the facts DO BACK UP the statement - CLINTON covered up for Poppy Bush and you want to pretend that isn't part of the entire issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2867222

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Kerry alreadyy stated that he spoke to the Iraq froup and knew they would be implementing a withdrawal plan even if they won't say so clearly in their written plan. The only way to get to his PRIORITY issue of withdrawal he has to deal with Gates as their man.

And I have said it in my posts above.

[karynnj]

73. Do you think it would have been clever to speak about

Iran Contra and the drug running the Reagan administration allowed - that the media NEVER made common knowledge - in the wake of Reagan's death?

Kerry did mention his BCCI work in his Philadelphia speech on how to deal with terrorism and in the NYT magazine article.

As to Gates, all but 2 Senators voted for him. He sounds more open to reason than most people that they would likely get. Bush makes the appointments.

[demdiva]

77. Gore was a sitting VP and Kerry ran against a sitting president

Like it or not, Americans want to trust the president that's in office, especially in wartime, so many of them trusted Bush for this reason. Gore didn't leverage his position like he should have or he would have won. Kerry made the most of his position.

[StClone]

8. Strongest Case against Kerry

There isn't any, only that the Swift Boating railroaded even DUers. Kerry is a presidential, period.

[demdiva]

79. I agree. It's amazing to me that after an entire presidential campaign

and two more years in the spotlight the worst thing anyone can say about Kerry is that the other side successfully attacked him. How many other presidential nominees can say that? If there was anything bad on Kerry it would be out there by now, rest assured.

[w4rma]

10. He **far and away** has my vote over Hillary, if it comes down to those two. (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I hope that Senator Kerry forces the other candidates to confront the drug war

I think his negatives are simply too high after to win after the media screwing time and again but I'd like to see him in the race to make the other candidates talk about things that they don't want to.

[blm]

38. I think that is exactly what WILL drive him to run.

He's certainly not a feint heart type who worries about media criticism - he's had power media against him for over 30 years - he's not much for backing down from hard attacks on him. Guess being in the line of heavy gunfire too often can make media wasps seem silly in your sphere of what worries you.

What Kerry needs is a team SURROUNDING him who do want to take the media battles on.

[wisteria]

13. Wasn't he great? To the point and getting it right.

I think he was to diplomatic when asked about Bush though, but that is what a leader does, uses diplomacy and leadership to make his points and get results.

[YvonneCa]

14. More than impressive...

...he's the President. :) And he's doing his job. Yes, he is...:patriot:

[zulchzulu]

15. Kerry doesn't need notes to prove his depth of knowledge on the issues

The man knows his stuff and proves it time and time again.

[bigdarryl]

19. When is the last time she conducted a hard interview ?

she comes on no one show to be interviewed that tells me a lot about her. she isn't open to criticism

[napi21]

22. Intelligence and knowledge doesn't win elections folks!

Personality does! I have nothing against Kerry, but the man has never learned to smile and really joke on camera. He may be just great personally, but that doesn't win elections either. How the hell do you think AH won against him? And don't start the stuff abouthe really won. Who's in the WH now?

Kerry doesn't stand a chance IMO. He had his shot and blew it. Sorry. He hasn't lost any of his intelligence or knowledge, but he still has the personality of an owl...smart, wise, but not very likeable.

[ginnyinWI]

23. I guess you never saw him on Imus, then.

Laughing and trading jokes with the I-man-- about a year ago, as a matter of fact, because it was right before his birthday Dec. 11th. We Kerry watchers know he's got a lot of personality.

I do believe there is a conservative bias on cable that refused to give him a fair look. They'd have two seconds of his speeches on '04 and then start talking over him about some drivel. Unless you were a Cspan watcher, you didn't get a clear picture of who Kerry was.

[napi21]

25. No Ididn't see him on Imus, bu one show doesn't matter.

Right or not,a candidate has to do that almost all the time. I supported Kerry and I voted for him but he was not my favorit candidate in the last election. The more I see him now, the more I realize he just doesn't have what it takes to really garner the majority of people to vote for him.

He's a great senator, but just not a good presidential candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

24. We shall see, if he runs, what happens in the primaries

That will tell the tale

[enough already]

32. If personality wins, Hillary is toast too

She has all the charisma of a shoe.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. Much less than Kerry, IMO. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. "And don't start the stuff abouthe really won. Who's in the WH now?"

That is plain cretinous. You've just made a terrible fool of yourself; but the impression you give with those few words is that it will not be anything new for you. To make SUCH a foolish comment - on DU of all places - beggars belief.

If you think that your fellow-countrymen are going to be looking for the person with the cutest smile and readiest wit, you need to grow up. You have a very poor and very immature opinion of your fellow countrymen.

They want a man who will stand up for them in terms of their jobs, their income and their health care, and who has a strong and lengthy record of bringing criminals in high places to heel. For crying out loud, just look at those photos of the receptions he got when he was touring the country before the election. But this time, with your eyes open.

[demdiva]

80. No a unified party with infrastructure does!

Bush's personality is really not all that great. The rest of the Republican Party unified behind him with a stronger (and corrupt) infrastructure. That's why Bush won.

[JI7]

27. he usually impresses when people can actually see him

his positives went up and his likable numbers were higher than BUsh after the debate.

it's the media that hates him though and refused to give him any credit for the debate. remember how they made a huge issue out of Gore's sighing. Bush did far worse in the debate against Kerry yet the media said nothing about it.

[BlueIris]

28. Wow! Check out this thread. So many productive comments!

In a Kerry thread on DU (outside the actual JK forum). 'Kay, now I've got my hopes up again.

[uberllama42]

31. I don't like either of them

I think my vote has to go to Obama, despite his lack of experience. Hillary and Kerry both supported the war, and that is unforgiveable. Capable as they both are, Kerry is a fatcat and out of touch with us peons, and Hillary has too many corporate ties.

[blm]

34. Being in touch isn't exactly what it appears at times -

do you want to submit that Clinton was in 'touch' while he was covering up Poppy Bush's CIA drugrunning that was devastating the inner cities during his term?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2867222&mesg_id=2867222

[uberllama42]

66. No, I don't mean to imply that Clinton was "in touch"

All I meant was that Obama seems to be more concerned with the real problems people deal with on a daily basis, although experience has taught me to be skeptical about everybody who gets into politics. Bill Clinton is one of the sources of my skepticism; he talked a lot about "I feel your pain," but as you pointed out he didn't look out for the little guy even most of the time.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. "Kerry is a fatcat'?! LOL!

Kerry is a fatcat like Jon Corzine and Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller are, and on and on.
Clue: Being rich doesn't stop you from being a good Democrat and looking out for the lower and middle class.

[uberllama42]

67. What has Kerry done to look out for the lower and middle classes?

What has anyone in our government done, really? Barack Obama made a good impression on me in '04, but I haven't really been impressed with his legislative achievements.

[Firespirit]

71. Until recently it's been all but impossible to get anything passed

Kerry voted against the bankruptcy bill.

He voted against CAFTA.

He has formulated a national single payer healthcare system.

He has supported Net Neutrality and will be on the Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, most likely as the chairman of it. This subcommittee will be dealing with the issue.

That's the tip of the iceberg, but it's some of the more recent stuff he's done.

[demdiva]

82. agreed nt

[wisteria]

39. Kerry's status actually reinforces his compassion and support of

the pion's. kerry did not actually vote for the war just as Obama didn't actually vote against it. No one can know for sure how he would of voted at the time as he wasn't a senator then. Therefore the argument over he did and he didn't is not valid. Senator Kerry voted for IWR. In his floor statement he clearly identified what he was voting for and one of those things was not an ill conceived,unpopular invasion of Iraq. He was mislead on intelligence information, he was assured nothing would happen without the support of a mighty coalition and the inspectors would be able to finish their work and report their finding before any undertaking. There is more, but just so you understand, the decision to go to war was not Kerry's.

As for Obama, maybe he is who he claims to be, a representative of the people,but we have nothing but a flimsy record in the senate and one great speech to go on. Maybe you feel comfortable choosing your Presidents with little by media hype to go on, but for me, I am a little more cautious. Voting for the media pushed candidate in the past has gotten us George Bush.

[uberllama42]

68. I agree that the IRW was misleading

but Kerry neglecting to point out that he supported an ill-conceived war does not change the fact that the war was ill-conceived and that he supported it. He only changed his position on the war because he thought it could win him votes, and even then he tried to straddle the issue ("I voted for the war before I voted against it"). When his view of the war in Iraq was violated, when Bush kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq, when it became clear that we had all been lied to by Bush and his people, why did he take so long to decide that the war was a mistake?

I didn't say I was in love with Obama. I know that there is more hype to him than substance. I'll probably vote Green in '08, unless he gets the nomination and makes a damn good showing to prove why he deserves to be president. But I prefer him over the other Democrats in the field right now.

[karynnj]

74. You are absolutely wrong on nearly every sentence in the first paragraph.

Kerry never said that he voted for the war before he voted against it - the quote you are looking for dealt with a $87 billion supplemnetal budget - Kerry voted for it when it was paid for by rolling back tax cuts on the top 2% and when it required congressional oversighe - and against it when it simply increased the deabt with no oversight - not over $9 billion in Iraq is not accounted for.

As to Kerry's position on the IWR and the war itself:

Here's part of the reason given by Kerry in voting for the IWR,
"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances"



In addition, Senator Kerry, as promised in the Senate speech warned President Bush NOT to rush to war in early 2003. The inspections and diplomacy were not exhausted - nor as Bush promised was war a last resort. Here is an example of one time where Senator Kerry spoke out. (Georgetown, January 23, 2003)

" have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war. "
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=189831

After the war started, Senator Kerry was nearly alone in speaking against the war in early 2003, calling for "regime change here." This makes it clear that in Kerry's case, the vote was NOT as suggested for many other Senators to help him if the war turned out popular. Had the war been popular, Senator Kerry's cautioning Bush not to rush to war and his comments that he should not have gone to war at the time of the invasion would have established Kerry as against the war at the time it happened.

Given this, the only conclusion is that Senator Kerry's vote was made for the reason he gave in the Senate and which he has repeated for 4 years now. Senator Kerry has always been an unusally honest man and there is no reason to doubt the one and only reason he has given for the vote. Over the last several years, the only difference he has made is that he now says thet his vote was wrong. That it was wrong to trust Bush to use the authority as he promised to.

I hope these excepts and explanations will incline you to reconsider your point of view on this and realize that within both the MSM and the blogs, in 2003, there was an intentional campaign to distort Senator Kerry's position. Here's a link to a Markos post from November 2002 that you may find interesting. Apparently in November 2002 - a month after the vote, he understood perfectly where Kerry stood - which was against Bush going to war.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=733

[uberllama42]

90. Your evidence is quite convincing

I have to concede that I allowed myself to be mislead. That floor statement proves that Kerry was in with those of us who knew from Day 1 that the war would be a disaster. I can't conceive of any reason why anyone in the MSM would want to make it seem like Kerry supported the war more than a year before the presidential election, but I have no doubts that they would do so if they were so motivated.

Thanks for enlightening me.

[ElizabethDC]

46. He was great on Hardball . . .

I think he's improved his speaking abilities a lot since '04 - his arguements are much more straightforward and he speaks with more conviction. I think a lot of people are underestimating the abilities that he will bring to the campaign trail.

[blm]

55. I think primaries were exhausting and the DNC wasn't strong enough for ANY nominee

to depend on the party infrastructure once it became apparent who it would be, making the general campaign an even harder situation.

Bush had it easy with a RNC set to lie, cheat and steal for him, and a RW message machine skilled sinece the early 90s in setting the storylines needed in the mainstream media. Left had nothing even remotely close set in place. I think we had just gotten Keith and AAR at that point.

[demdiva]

83. AGREED nt

It's easier for the Democratic Party to blame Kerry for EVERYTHING instead of realizing that the party was too weak to push him over the finish line. I'm happy to see the party moving in the right direction.

[AtomicKitten]

69. which gives one pause to wonder

why the allegedly only anti-corruption, open government Democrat who we have been assured will open the books on the BCCI and Iran-Contra folded like a cheap suit on the Gates' nomination.

[mtnsnake]

70. LOL! You nailed it!

[Firespirit]

72. "Folded."

Is the Gates vote the "new IWR" for the Kerry detractors?

Two points here.

If you think that Kerry won't be one of the first on it if Gates restarts his old activities, I have a bridge to sell you. And, importantly, we can actually DO something about it now.

The top priority for him is to effect change in Iraq. We were NOT going to get a Defense Secretary that supports our point of view, or one who has not been involved in some form of dodgy dealings. Gates was basically the least of many evils, and with a Defense shakeup it's at least possible that the department will consider other options now.

I am very tired of people who seem to want to use Iraq as a political punching bag. I think some people WANT to keep it alive for 2008, much in the same way that the Republicans need to keep abortion alive as an issue. This is a bit bigger than politics.

[LittleClarkie]

92. Some have said the Dems folded or caved on Gates

But that implies that there was resistance to Gates in the first place. If the Dems had let Bolton slide through after opposing him, they could be said to have caved. But you can't cave on something you weren't resisting in the first place. Whatever his past, the Dems felt they'd won a victory with Gates, or actually Rummy's resignation.

The only two people to vote against Gates were both Republicans. If the Gates vote is a litmus test, then all the Dems in the Senate failed. Eh. I'm not into litmus tests really. To much thinking doesn't happen when things are made to be that black and white.

[Mass]

78. As did every other Democratic senator.

So, do you hate them all or is it just Kerry? :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

84. that's adorable

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall boasting on DU about anyone else being the only anti-corruption, open government Democrat that will open the books on the BCCI and Iran-Contra.

I hope the leap from boasting "hero" to whining "victim" didn't give you whiplash.

[ProSense]

85. No you're right!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2870996&mesg_id=2870996">BCCI, Iran Contra relevance: UAE, Saudi, Pakistan, money and Bush family

KERRY: There are all kinds of things that the Senate can do. They can change the dynamics here very significantly, not the least of which, obviously, are serious accountability hearings.

Secondly, we have the ability in the Congress to pass one resolution or another or to put into law certain kinds of policies. I mean, you remember back in the days of the Contras in Central America, the Congress passed what was called the Boland Amendment and actually forbade certain activities from taking place.

So Congress has a certain power here. I think before we get into that, it would be so much better if we could sit down with the president, with Condoleezza Rice, and really talk through how we come together, both parties, take the politics out at the water's edge, and get a policy that works for America.

Still relevant!

[Mass]

86. Given that I have never boasted anything of the sort, I could not care less

what you think and my question stands. (neither has the OP). If you have a pb with some DUers, see that with them.

You are boring with your hatred of either (because it becomes difficult to see the difference)

1/ Kerry.

2/ Everybody who has something positive to say about Kerry, without any discrimination.

That makes you largely irrelevant on any subject that touches to Kerry, and it is too bad because on other issues, you are fairly interesting to read.

This said, bye.

[AtomicKitten]

87. all this has very little to do with Kerry

and is almost all about your team's over-the-top nonstop homage festivals and tag-team assault tactics against other DU'ers and other candidates.

In other words, you reap what you sow.

You and yours could easily correct this but that would require insight. No worries; we aren't holding our breath.

[Mass]

88. OK. Thanks anyway.

Continue to whine and insult people if you feel like it. I have no time to lose with you.

Happy holidays. Take a deep breath and have fun.

[AtomicKitten]

89. A secular progressive Happy Holidays to you too!!!

[blm]

91. Because Iraq withdrawal is his #1 priority right now - and he said so.

And he spoke with the ISG and they assured him they were working on withdrawal but will not PUBLICALLY set a timetable.

Since we have no choice but to get to that withdrawal, what would you prefer he do when he is still not in the oval office and CAN'T get near the documents that PRESIDENTS BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH chose to keep closed?

[demdiva]

75. He was very impressive on Hardball

Going to be on Anderson Cooper today too (4pm I think). Don't miss it!