How does Hillary compare to John Kerry?

[jcrew2001]

How will Hillary do in the primary and general election compared to John Kerry.

John Kerry and Hillary have some similarities and some differences.

Kerry served in Vietnam and has 20 years of Senate experience. He won the primary against Dean, Edwards, and Gephardt by championing his national security experience - although that same national security wasn't enough to win over Republicans and moderates compared to Bush.

Hillary has served 6 plus years in the Senate and 8 years as First Lady, but besides the Health Care initiative, I'm not sure what else she did in the White House. Obviously, there were some things she didn't do, for Bill. She has more Senate experience than both Obama and a little more than Edwards.

In the general election, she will get the Female vote, but can she win over the male Republicans and moderates, that Kerry failed to?

Will Northeast Liberals ever have a chance in the General Election?

[journalist3072]

1. Here's the main difference I see in them

Hillary Clinton believes in responding when attacked. In Arkansas, Bill Clinton used to believe that when your political opponents attacked you with a bunch of lies, you didn't have to respond. He believed people would know the truth.

Hillary taught him otherwise; she explained that when you are attacked, you have to respond. Otherwise, if you don't respond, believe will believe what your detractors are saying.

I don't think she would have waited like John Kerry did to respond to the Swift Boaters. She would have been right on it, debunking them.

[blm]

14. How did they do on the Clintons trashed the WH storyline? Clinton to blame for 9-11?

The Clintons couldn't gain any traction for themselves or their staff when those lies were being spread.

The big difference is that Kerry DEFENDED Bill when he was attacked on DRAFTDODGING charges in 1992 and Clinton didn't RECIPROCATE when Kerry was attacked in 2004.

[journalist3072]

23. Let's revisit the record here

Did you see the verbal beat-down Clinton gave Chris Wallace of Faux News when questioned about what he did before 9/11?? Wallace had it served to him by Clinton b/c Clinton came with the facts.

And are you forgetting how all three Clintons (Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) campaigned for John Kerry. And Clinton campaigned for him just weeks after having quadruple by-pass.

So I really don't think your comments are accurate or fair, with all due respect.

[blm]

27. EIGHT books came out between 9-11 and 2005 that fed that movie's storyline.

Those books were marketed all over the news channels for those four years after 9-11.

Clinton came out in Sept 2006 to defend himself a week before the movie.

And the Clintons campaigned a bit for Kerry on the SURFACE - but McAuliffe never bothered to secure the election process in 2002 or 2004, and never countered the GOPs tactics of vote suppression and vote stealing in the four his Office of Voter Integrity was charged with doing so.

And Bill PUBLICALLY supported Bushboy's military strategy at every PUBLIC opportunity in 2003 and 2004.

And Carville??????

There is a whole other underbelly in DC that you don't SEE on TV, y'know.




This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[politicasista]

28. But were they on TV defending the candidate when it mattered?

As far as I remember, only few Dems backed up Kerry when the Smear Boat fools made their rounds.

I know Bubba had heart surgery, but I don't remember seeing Hillary or other big name Dems or left leaning pundits on TV during August or September of 04.

[paulk]

2. I think the biggest difference has nothing to do with Kerry

or Clinton.

The country is in a different place now than it was in 2004 - people are fed up with Republican failures and will vote accordingly, no matter who our candidate is...

[saltpoint]

3. Kerry's taller and has a lower voice.

[rinsd]

4. .

:spray:

[Tejanocrat]

6. Kerry's also a much better windsurfer.

[saltpoint]

8. I go windsurfing with John and Hillary ALL the time.

Let me tell ya -- they're both EXCELLENT windsurfers.

[Tejanocrat]

12. There you go again, blatantly spinning the facts to support your political agenda. Here's Kerry:

Here's HRC wishing she could windsurf:



These facts are irrefutable (I saw them on the Drudge Report and they were later confirmed by O'Reilly) so admit that HRC lied about being a champion windsurfer.

[saltpoint]

13. Now hold on. You should see all our candidates surfing out there in

the blue waves.

A huge blue wave, at that.

Bigger than 2006.

A huge, huge blue wave for 2008.

And we're all there together.

The blue team.

[TayTay]

29. I wanna go windsurfing

Except that I am, ahm, not in shape for that sport. (It's really hard. You ever try windsurfing? It's not for those who are workout-optional in their daily lives.)

Ahm, how about bowling? Anybody good at bowling?

[saltpoint]

32. Don't go putting yourself down at windsurfing. I positively

suck at both windsurfing AND bowling.

Hiya, good person. I hope all's well your way tonight.

[TayTay]

33. It is. I am a happy soul lately.

And it's good to hear from you too!

[Clark2008]

73. Tweety and Osama do!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

17. Both are decidedly capable of running the country, IMO.

If I prefer one to the other, it is not to say I feel the other could not lead.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

20. Not my point.

You have a gripe against Senator Clinton? Don't vote for her.

[blm]

22. Of course, but I consider preserving an honest historic record more than a gripe.

You think we'd be having this media liefest about Ronald Reagan going on today if the real historic record was pursued and opened to the public in 1993 at the first opportunity Dems had to access those long needed documents?


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

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.
>>>>>

Parry allows DU to repost the article in its entirety, but, I'll be mindful of bandwidth. The entire article is a must read to understand the importance of accountability and prosecuting crimes of office. Democracy demands it and needs it to continue in any healthy form.

[saltpoint]

24. I'm in a practical zone, blm. One of maybe 6 or 7 people, Senator

Clinton among them, will be the next president.

You can grocery list your objections, and many will agree, and many will not, but we're left with the same half-dozen or so, list or no list.

No matter how expansive or thoughtful your gripe, or objection, or call it what you will, may be against Senator Clinton, if she is our nominee, she has my vote.

I prefer other candidates, and at this point in the strategic game, I predict a fourth place finish for her in Iowa.

And I'm not interested in being shamed for supporting the Democratic nominee. That's dead-end bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Save for maybe Zell Miller, or someone as astrocious as Footsie Britt, if Footsie Britt is even still alive, I'm voting the ticket.

[blm]

25. No one's shaming - if she's the nominee, I will vote for her. But, I'm not going to pretend

it's for anything more than a smiley, slowed version of fascism policies, and a few social policies that they conveniently volley back and forth between them to keep the frothing masses in step.

[saltpoint]

26. Got it.

[sandnsea]

5. There's more women than men

So if she gets all the women, and the minority vote - she doesn't need men so who cares about them anyway.

Why do white men think their vote counts for more than women and minorities?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. As if HRC is going to win 100% of women and 100% of the minority vote

No Democrat can win without appealing to all segments of the population.

[sandnsea]

11. The implication of the OP

is that it takes the white male vote in order to have a credibly elected candidate. I've heard that so many times - xyz Democrat wouldn't have won without xyz minority, and is consequently marginalized as a credible politician.

Democrats get lots of white male voters. It's just as valid a strategy to say Hillary can win more women and make up the difference for the white male voter who will never vote for a Democrat.

[jcrew2001]

15. I know some repub housewives who hate Hillary

but I think they are just brainwashed.

[sandnsea]

19. I don't like Hillary

I'll vote for her in the GE obviously. I just don't like this sexist notion that we have to be obsessed with the white male vote, when 60-70% of them never vote for Democrats anyway. The idea that Democrats aren't as credible because we aren't the party of white males just gets on my last nerve. They've decided everybody except them are second class citizens.

[jcrew2001]

21. Its always about the money and White Males have all the money

so there is an automatic advantage to any republican candidate. There are many Women who are housewives, but they aren't earning a salary. These housewives will vote the way their Husbands vote because there living is tied to their husbands salary.

If the Democrats want to rely on Women voters, how come there aren't more women Democrat politicians. While women outnumber men, I just don't think more women are politically interested in voting, as most white men are. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a guy, but I know a few women who don't really care at all about politics or elections. I could be wrong, but thats just from my experience.

[Clark2008]

78. I think it's because more white males vote than any other

segment of society, sandnsea. I don't think the OP means to make it out that their vote is more worthy.

[Big Pappa]

35. What?

"Why do white men think their vote counts for more than women and minorities?" Who said their vote counts more? This is about the 10th thread with a reference to "white men". Besides Senator Clinton will not get "all" the women and minority vote, so she damn sure better care about "white men".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. All things being equal, Kerry is a much stronger general election candidate

The only thing HRC will have going for her in the general election is a strong Democratic tide but she is the one major Dem candidate who is so polarizing, so weak among crucial swing voters that she may manage to pull defeat from the jaws of victory if we nominate her. Kerry would easily win if he were the nominee in 2008. He almost beat Bush "in a time of war" in 2004.

[jcrew2001]

40. I think they are equally weak in the GE

because they are both Northeast Liberals. But Kerry almost won Ohio, so I will give him that.

[blm]

46. Hillary WOULDN'T run in 2004 - most Dems expected Bush to win and wouldn't rock

that boat. Already looking to 2008. And the DNC acted like it, too, and would not lift a finger to organize appropriately or secure the election process for 2002 and 2004.


Did anyone think that the Dem candidate in 2004 would get 10 million MORE votes than Gore did in 2000? And probably had 5 million more that were stolen?

[MasonJar]

10. We have incredible candidates and the pugs have a bunch of duds

not to mention an albatross named W squarely centered around their neck. In addition, the pugs yesterday chose not to put America and her troops and the welfare of Iraqi children and its dismembered and dislocated citizenry before PUG politics. The facts are there in the Congressional vote in black and white. The years of non-oversight and unstudied support of an obvious "moran" have left the GOPers with a mountain to mount and they are too full of noisome WH fumes to survive much less levitate. I know the above is obvious verbosity and wishful thinking, but I know the population is ripe to rid the country of these losers. The pendulum is indeed swinging and we must do our part to keep it going left.

[Mass]

30. I'll vote Hillary over Edwards, if this is the point you make, but not over Obama.

[jcrew2001]

39. But can Hillary carry any red states?

is the big question.

[zulchzulu]

31. There is NO comparison imho...

First of all, Kerry did actually win in 2004 (if you count what really happened).

I find Kerry to be a much stronger leader, a more refined and intelligent statesman than anyone else running in the last few election cycles. My opinion, but that's what I think... I've met him personally and can also attest that he's funny, witty and can easily understand the real issues of the World today and talk about it for hours...

[wisteria]

34. He doesn't he is better in every way! n/t

[Forkboy]

36. How does constipation compare to diarrhea?

:yoiks:

[jcrew2001]

38. Diarrhea is better because it cleanses the system, imo

i heard that enemas prevent cancer.

[Forkboy]

41. I should have tried them enemas then.

:(

[AtomicKitten]

37. Kerry is taller.

And Hillary doesn't take crap from the GOP Wrecking Machine.

[blm]

47. She JOINS the GOP wrecking crew when needed - with Dem friends like these, who needs GOPs?

This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[AtomicKitten]

49. I prefer to support our presidential nominees,

... especially our strongest contenders.

But you go right on ahead and continue your campaign of personal destruction.

It's a damn shame the reams of material you post here over and over again doesn't fit into your sig line.

[blm]

55. You can support the nominee with the integrity TeamClinton showed Kerry c2002-2004

I will support Dems without sabotaging them at every turn.

[AtomicKitten]

56. unless their name is Clinton, of course

I realize you probably have to square your nonstop attacks on the Clintons with your exaggerated sense of history, but I'm wondering if you will continue to carry this bitter baggage all the way through the next election.

[illinoisprogressive]

42. Who said she won? She still has to beat all those other candidates

If she won, she would galvanize the right wing to come out full force to vote against her and half the left won't vote for her.
this is why the right is praying she gets the nomination.

Plus all those things to bring up to remember the exhaustion we all felt at the end of 2000. If gore won, alot of us would have helped the Clinton's pack up.

People forget how much they were ready for the clintons to leave and end the 90s and thought it would be a well earned rest.

[mtnsnake]

43. They're both blondes except for Kerry

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

44. Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War

5/3/2007

From the Senate: Hillary Statement on Deauthorizing the War

Washington, DC -- In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

"The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him," said Senator Clinton on the Senate floor.

The following is a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks on the Senate floor:

SENATOR CLINTON: Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, to announce our intention to introduce legislation which proposes that October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

As Senator Byrd pointed out, the October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course, and it is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, President Bush vetoed legislation reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people that would have provided needed funding for our troops while also changing course in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home.

I believe this fall is the time to review the Iraq war authorization and to have a full national debate so the people can be heard. I supported the Byrd amendment on October 10, 2002, which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue. This bill would require the president to do just that.

The American people have called for change, the facts on the ground demand change, the Congress has passed legislation to require change. It is time to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq. If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me in supporting this effort to require a new authorization resolution, or to refuse to do so, for these new times and these new conditions that we and our troops are facing every single day. Madam President, I yield the floor.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1525

...I think her new Bill may be the solution of getting the troops home! I'm glad the angels are whispering in her ear to help us end this war.

[PresidentObama]

45. Both would make fine Presidents. n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. Kerry more or less won the general election in 2004

after blowing through the primaries, the beginning of which saw him all but left for dead amidst the Dean hysteria.
Hillary will have a similar hard time but later win the primary and be our nominee.
She will win the general election over whoever the GOP puts up, doing slightly better than Kerry.

But I am still hoping for Chris Dodd.

[Tellurian]

52. Hillary will fight for us to the end...

if the Republicans try to steal the next election..

Big Difference from John Kerrys campaign!

[blm]

53. You mean Dean is using HIS 4 yrs to SECURE THE ELECTION PROCESS that McAuliffe wouldn't

lift a finger to protect for the four years he and his Office of Voter Integrity promised they would in 2001.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Dean is building on the solvent, modernized Democratic Party

McAullife left him. Both men have done a fine job.

"Serving as chairman of the party when you don't have the White House, and you don't have the House, and you don't have the Senate, is the toughest job in the country," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) told The Washington Post. "Thanks to Terry McAuliffe, we are ready to lead this country, we're ready to change this nation and I thank him for his leadership."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14038-2004Jul25.html

[Tellurian]

62. AK, you are sooo right..!! (eom)

[blm]

65. Kerry - always civil and will never stab a Dem in the back - unlike McAuliffe, Carville, Clinton

.

[w4rma]

50. Kerry more or less won the general election in 2004

after blowing through the primaries, the beginning of which saw him all but left for dead amidst the Dean hysteria.
Hillary, if she wins the primary, will lose the general election worse than Dukakis to a northeastern Republican
She won't even win her own state of New York.

She has 52% disapproval among Americans. She's toast and almost everyone knows it except the true believers.

[AtomicKitten]

51. do tell

[NewYorkerfromMass]

54. Oh cut it out. Hill is well regarded here in NY

not winning the state is nonsense.
She will redeem her image in the debates. People are working off of faulty press and memories from the RW noise machine.

[w4rma]

58. So? Ghouliani is well regarded in NY too. She spent massive amounts of money in her most recent

reelection campaign against a couple of no-name contenders. I don't even think she can beat "America's Mayor" in New York without throwing massive amounts of money at a state that should be a shoe in.

[jcrew2001]

59. Quinipiac shows Hillary losing PA and NJ to Rudy

which is sad for her.

[karynnj]

60. Quinipiac does awful polling in NJ

They showed Kean often ahead in 2006 - when the Eagleton poll showed Menendez

In 2005, they showed Corzine and Forester neck and neck in the last weekend - I think Corzine won by 12 points.

In 2004, they showed the Kerry/ Bush race close - when Kerry easily won.

Unless a Democrat really blew it, NJ is blue.

[Tellurian]

61. Hillary is more popular than John Kerry in their home States....Thats a BIG difference

The latest Survey has Senator Clinton's Approval in NY at:

64% Approval
32% Disapproval
3% Not sure

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6b365a07-b504-4835-a402-bb130ea97050

The Latest Survey has Senator Kerry's Approval in MA at:

54% Approval
41% Disapproval
6% Not sure

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5954b748-8e5e-4c46-b7f6-b91b874c02b7

...must be Karma from all the hate generated against Hillary by the Kerry camp. psssssha!

[Tellurian]

63. Just wondering if John Kerry is jealous of Hillary's popularity..

[JI7]

64. i think he is jealous Bill Clinton loves Pappy Bush instead of him

[Tellurian]

66. If he starts now, he can try again in 2016...

[zulchzulu]

69. Kerry is probably wondering why Clinton hired Jiminy Le Turncoat Carville...

With assmunches like Carville, who needs enemies...

[karynnj]

67. In his last MA election he got 81% of the vote

Hillary got 69%. Kerry will easilly win again, much to your dislike.

Kerry was a LCV environmental hero, Hillary received "guidance" on earning money trading cattle futures from a Tyson lawyer, as Clinton appointed a "task Force" that did nothing to look in to the evironment pollution caused by Tyson chicken.

Kerry was designated the "most honest man in politics" by Time magazine in 1996 - Hillary was not designated as the most honest woman.

Kerry was a war hero and came back to provide moderate leadership to the angry Vietnam vets, Hillary married someone who said he "loathed the millitary to an officer who helped him avoided being drafted.

Kerry wanted Marc Rich investigated, not pardoned.

Kerry was against the supporting the Contras who were quilty of atrocities in Central America including killing priests and nuns, the Clinton were in support of the Contras.

Kerry was for stronger Senate ethic laws (the first bill voted on this year), Hillary voted against the amendment that had the stronger Pelosi rules.

Kerry said in April 2006 that we were in the middle of civil war in Iraq and thought it was immoral not to push to change the policy, Hillary and others thought it was better not to speak of Iraq.

Kerry spoke out before the war started saying that it was NOT a war of last resort, Hillary was silent.

Hillary was on the WallMart board of directors, Kerry was NOT

Hillary took PAC money, Kerry is the only one to run for 4 Senate terms without doing so.

Sometimes doing the right thing does not lead to being popular. In fact, when I saw Wicked recently, at the point where Glinda decides to gain popularity by not countering people swiftboating Elfie as the wicked witch of the west, my husband turned and said, "Kind of reminds you of Hillary"

[zulchzulu]

68. Will you stop it with the facts already! I was just adjusting my blinders when you had to...

:sarcasm:

Wanna buy an Edsel? Um...no thanks...

[Tellurian]

74. So what? The poll I posted is 3 days old..

Kerry's got likability problems. His negatives are higher than Hillarys- and he's not running for anything!

Please don't bother with anecdotal stories we've heard the same slip slop a million times before-

And isn't it within the realm of possibility that this your blind allegiance contributes to and mirrors that of Bush supporters?

The simple fact is, the MA residents do not care for his brand of politics. He's a turn-off especially to white males and Blacks.

[karynnj]

75. Kerry is running for Senate

I listed votes, positions and who they are they are not "anecdotal stories". Kerry will do just fine in MA. His negatives are high because he has been smeared for three years WITHOUT A GOOD PLATFORM TO RESPOND FROM.

My allegiance is anything but blind - my eyes are wide open - I support Kerry because I support what he stands for. You don't which is fine. Hillary is not the candidate - and at least at Democratic events I've gone to the strongest thing she has going for her is the preception that she will win the nomination. The biggest negative is the perceived sleasiness and corruption. If she loses the lead or there are any scandals, her lead here will fade fast. (They did not think Kerry could win, but in general admired him a good person.)

Seeing that you are not a MA resident, I think it strange that you say that a man who has been elected to state wide office 5 times somehow has politics that they do not care for. He would never have won the elections that he did if he appealed to only white women. (By the way, when we saw Kerry in Boston, there were plenty of white males and blacks - not there for the event - who looked excited and happy to see their Senator.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[politicasista]

80. So it's ok to smear Kerry just to promote Hillary?

Sorry, but you are NOT going to make me vote for Hillary by tearing Kerry, or any fellow Dem candidate like Obama, Edwards down just to promote her. It only turns people against her.

[windy252]

70. I'm jumping into a briar patch here,

but I'm not entirely sure she can get the female vote. Every woman in my family seems to intensely dislike her. If she wins the nomination, I sure hope the Clinton supporters are right about her being able to convince people she's not as bad as they are currently convinced she is.Maybe someone can address this, but one thing that concerns me is that McAuliffe is involved in her campaign, and he was also heavily involved in the Kerry campaign and I can't help but wonder if he'll "forget" to secure the election process again. I also don't trust Carville, who was also involved in the Kerry campaign, apparently.

[karynnj]

71. Kerry did not let Carville on his team

However, the Clinton people on his team leaked constantly to Carville.

[windy252]

72. Thanks for correcting n/t

[iconocrastic]

77. Did Kerry serve in Viet Nam?

[TayTay]

81. Yes, but only according to reputable sources

and people like Sen. John Warner who served in the Department of the Navy and oversaw the awards of the Silver and Bronze Star to Lt. Kerry for bravery in combat.

[iconocrastic]

85. Maybe those facts deserve wider dissemination

Has Kerry mentioned it publicly?

[karynnj]

88. Yes he and others did

In fact, Bill Clinton attacked Kerry (in a New Yorker article last year) for speaking of it too often.

[TayTay]

82. I'm not sure, but on some days, in some ways,

I think he has better hair.

Then again, she looked lovely today, so I take it all back.

[MethuenProgressive]

83. OP calls Hillary a "liberal" - OPer ain't been paying attention. And, btw:

Kerry's qualifications had nothing to do with his loss, either.
He lost because of a weak running mate and poor response to the negative attacks of his opponent.
Hillary's qualifications will have little to do with her winning or losing the nomination/Presidential election next year. Her ability to rise above the hate mongers and propagandists will decide that.

[politicasista]

84. And a fear-minded public, Osama and wartime incumbent

The 08 candiates have it made compared to 2004.

[Awsi Dooger]

86. Basic handicapping

Kerry picked the much less favorable cycle to run, in '04. That was always an uphill battle against an incumbent with his party in power only one term. Plus against an incumbent it's vital to have charisma, which Kerry obviously lacked. He would have fit much better in an open race in '08.

Hillary has found the one cycle she has a legit chance, an open race and one with the generic edges severely in our favor. It's not unlike her husband, who ran against the GOP when they had held power for three straight terms. He had no idea Bush 41 would become and remain so unpopular throughout '92, but the situation in general was favorable.

I always appreciate it when people make the correct basic choices. That generally means they will exceed expectations as the situation progresses. Hillary is not my choice for the nomination but I'm hardly going to concede or shout doom and gloom should she prevail.

[karynnj]

87. Kerry knew 2004 would be tough - he also knew

it was critical for someone to win and change the course. He is more of a public servant/statesman while the Clintons are politicians.

Kerry actually has plenty of charisma - as had been noted since the 1970s. Had the media showed move of Kerry's campaigning, he would have won. (Remember in 1992, that the media covered the ever larger Clinton crowds and their hopeful enthusiasm. Kerry's crowds in October broke those attendance records by large amounts - and they were not covered that way. Instead a narrow angle was used to avoid showing the crowd and few of Kerry's words were heard. Instead you had the anchors. I saw the CSPAN coverage and Kerry was incredible especially in those last two months.

Years ago, my youngest daugther and my husband and I had the chance to see one of the "American Idol Junior" shows filmed. The difference in what was shown on the show and what we saw were night and day. There were two sisters in the show - and the older of the two won being put into the winning group as the first pick over her sister who was the family star. The younger girl reacted badly with a pout and seemed a complete spoiled brat. After the "show", they redid reaction shots, telling the girl to smile and hug her sister - which she did - and that is what was seen on TV. Meanwhile, another older girl could be seen helping the younger kids when the camera was not on her. In the TV show the only time, other than her performance was a moment when she looked annoyed at something. If you saw the TV show, both of these children were completely distorted.

Now, think of 2004.