Why we need John Kerry

[karynnj]

On the bigger boards here, the election is being discussed on only two dimensions, (1) personality and charisma and (2) electibility. All of thee are more subjective than they appear and are manipulated by the media. What they don't consider is leadership.

Leadership consists both of the ability to motivate people to act and to influence people's opinions on issues and what you chose to use those skills for. What is leadership worth if it goes in the wrong or incoherent directions. Is it leadership to follow the path of least resistance? I have always thought that triangulation was just a positive name for this.

Kerry was able to get people to act - even after a depressing election. He was one of the people whose actions complemented the excellent work done by Dean. Using his list to prod people still listening to him to get involved at the grassroots level seemed at first an unusual action of a party standard bearer and more that of an activist.

As to influencing people's opinions, he has been the main person who changed people's opinion several times on Iraq. First, in October 2005, when, among other things, he argued for removing the US troops from policing and search and destroy missions into more remote locations. He was able by describing the situation faced by soldiers, not knowing the language or culture, to gently move many people into seeing the impossibility of the situation. (Hillary only this week 'boldly" made that part of her plan). Since April, 2006 he led the discussion which has caused people to change their minds.

In fact, since 2004 there has been two competing leaders in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Starting immediately after the election, Clinton and his allies used inside the beltway whispers that resonated upward to call Kerry's attempt to lead illegitimate. Comments "that's he's not a Senate leader.", "no one likes him" "Reid (suddenly God of the Senate) is furious". "He is out of line."

But compare where and who each led:
-On Iraq, which impacted the ISG groups opinions and in (even if they don't credit him) who influenced the country. Whose phrases on the war are reported - uncredited - by the pundits. Who decided it would be better for the 2006 elections to stay quiet on Iraq and not debate it in the Senate - as soldiers died for a policy that all agreed was wrong.

-On the WoT, who was right? Who has a philosophy that will not create the next monster by arming people we ca use to fight an enemy - Kerry will not have his "own" Iran/Contra. That policy is bankrupt and has been for the half a century we followed it.

- On Constitutional issues, Alito with his approval of signing statements and the unitary presidency was the test - and that was the key issue. This was a battle that Clinton did not want and Hillary spoke mostly of a woman's right to choose - although ANY Bush nominee would be pro-life, not all would change the definition of balance of powers.

- On torture, Kerry along with people like Leahy, Kennedy and Dodd were absolutely and completely against the use of torture under ANY circumstances. This is a moral and ethical issue and there can be no equivocation. "America doe not torture Period" as Kerry said. Hillary voted correctly and made a good speech - but then when asked about a hypothetical question responded in favor of torture in that case, choosing to appear "strong" but destroying her moral strength in the process. Moral strength will be key to restore our leadership in the world.

Although we were out of power, those were the issues Democrats could have led on - Kerry did and the Clintons didn't and often tried to restrain him. When you consider, that the Clintons had more media assets and had control of the Senate leadership, it is amazing how well Kerry was able to lead with very little structural support and against both the Republicans and the timid Clinton Democrats.

Senator Kerry did all this while ignoring the hatred thrown at him from the right and the lack of respect from many in his own party. He has stood through everything with far more dignity than would seem possible. If he opts, not to run, I will be proud that I had the chance to be a supporter to the person who is really the moral leader and statesman of the last half century.

America needs Kerry as President far more than Kerry needs to be President. If nothing else, he has restored my belief that a man can succeed in politics and maintain the integrity, honesty and purpose that caused him to enter public life decades before.

Run, John, Run

[globalvillage]

1. So true, Karen

Kerry was first. Kerry was right.

The media and the Dem leadership's choices for Pres have co-opted his message on Iraq, that's for certain. How can they lead if they either don't have a message, or are afraid to put it out there?

I see no leaders in the current field of candidates. What are their bold ideas? What are their accomplishments?

Even their supporters here haven't put up a case for me to want to vote for any of them.

Nope, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist. Run, John, Run.

[ray of light]

2. call to action... write and Call...RUN JOHN RUN (on his blog)

or to his office.

The more I think about the choices the more obvious it shows that JK is the perfect candidate. Lessons learned. Skinnier and tougher and stronger than in 04.

And I can not trust Hillary. And Obama and Edwards are thin on experience.

[karynnj]

3. Good idea

I need to re-write this and post it to the blog.

[whometense]

4. Karyn,

that was just beautiful!!

I hope you'll either post it on his blog or email it to his office. Or both.

[karynnj]

8. I want to edit it and strengthen it and put it in DU -P and the Kerry blog

I realize I left out ethics reform- where other than Obama, the other hopefuls were on the wrong side of strenghening it. (Hillary on several votes actually) and Katrina - where Kerry actually did stuff (This is iffier as Bill raised a lot of money - so I may only state what Kerry did.)

[Democrafty]

19. May I x-post to wljk when you're ready?

I posted Firespirit's beautiful essay last week, and would love to follow up with more like it frmom more supporters.

[TayTay]

5. And perhaps because of things like this.

From the Boston Globe 01/14/1987 which really could be said today. (Look at the reasoning here.)

This is from a story about the Iran Contra investigations and what impact they had on America and American foreign policy. (Ah, this could have been written this year.)

Q. What are the foreign policy implications?

A. I think there are many. First of all, this is a democracy, and a democracy does not connive in secret to implement major foreign policy objectives regarding other countries. While there are such things as covert actions, there is even a process for those to be implemented, which involves notification of Congress and other agencies.

All of these processes were specifically circumvented with the intent of implementing a secret policy against the ability of the Congress to affect it and against even the ability of some of the president's advisers to restrain it; that represents a major breach in the entire manner by which this country is governed and the way in which we engage in activities abroad.

Secondly, it is nonsensical to have a private policy which you know runs the risk of being discovered. . . . It defies the imagination that you're trading with the Iranians for hostages against your own stated hostage policy. That is a major issue. . . . Thirdly, our credibility as a foreign policy entity has been tarnished and damaged. Our allies don't trust us. People in other parts of the world who were relying on the word of our diplomats now wonder if somebody's going to do something behind their backs. That injures all of our foreign policy objectives.

Fourthly, we upset the stability of the Middle East and have created serious problems in our dealings with moderate Arab countries as well as others; in our efforts at stabilizing the region, we have probably wound up destabilizing it. Apart from all that, there is a question of whether there was a cover-up -- whether or not officials in major positions of trust have lied to the American people, and I think that is a self-evident problem.

From: KERRY: PANEL TO EXAMINE PRIVATE AID NETWORK'S ROLE
BOSTON GLOBE, (01-14-1987) Interviewed by Adam Pertman

I wonder sometimes what 'fresh hells' the people in the Reagan Admin were thinking up then and I wonder how many of them were stopped because somebody did care and did stand up. I really do wonder sometimes.

[karynnj]

9. According to Stephanopolis' book, Bill Clinton was for supporting

the Contras.

Although a totally different context, this sentence, "First of all, this is a democracy, and a democracy does not connive in secret to implement major foreign policy objectives regarding other countries.", reminds me of the various times he has objected when Dr Rice now speaks of the true (PNAC) reason they invaded Iraq.

[wisteria]

6. Wonderful thoughts! I agree with you.

I will add that it is becoming clearer to me that the Clinton's and inside the beltway never figured Kerry had a chance. They figured they would let him run, but wouldn't go out of their way to support him. Chances were he wasn't going to make it anyway. He surprised them with his finish and with his dedicated supporter base, so then they had to try and marginalize him, because his agenda wasn't really their agenda. It was always going to be Hillary in 08. I remember attending a meeting for new grassroots support in my area and members of the local Democrats were there, as well as a DNC representative. This was January 05 and the talk was not of Kerry, he had already been forgotten, it was of the Clinton's and Hillary.
Kerry offered and still offers the promise of real change. But, he can not do it alone.Too many Democrats sit back and allow him to take the heat by himself without offering any defense.I refer to grassroots democrats here as well as elected ones. Too may Democrats are taken in by the Clinton machine and buy into the suggestion that only the Clinton's are electable. For me, the Clinton's offer more of the same politics with a D in front of their names instead of an R.
I think Kerry could win, if he could get his message out their and reach the people. But, he needs good Democrats behind him, ones that really want change along with a win. A win is hollow if it doesn't bring the feeling of real accomplishment and change with it.But, for some nothing matters but that win.
If he chooses not to run, he will certainly keep on doing what he is doing now, that's what makes Kerry special, but he will not, IMO, be given enough power to really effectively create change. The media will go back ignoring him as they tried to do after the 04 elections and the Clinton's and the Reid's will still pull the wool over the peoples eyes, claiming they are doing for the people when in fact, they are doing for themselves and their high paying donors.
Anyway, I am proud to be a Kerrycrat. I am a Kerrycrat first and for most, and a Democrat after that. Senator Kerry is a unique individual deserving of more respect that the lot in Washington altogether.
If he doesn't run, I will understand, every attack on him affects me, I can't imagine what it does to his family. And, one man should not have to take all this abuse alone and simply because he is trying to do the right things. I will emulate him, in the things I pursue and defend. But, this little taste of Washington has left a bitter taste in my mouth and a feeling that most of our party isn't interested in making things better, just gaining power, money and a win, which results in more of the same mediocre leadership and adds to the sad state of our country. I ask myself a lot lately, if we really are the country our forefathers intended us to be and if we really are the greatest country in the world. Our choice of leaders would seem to indicate otherwise.
So, run Senator Kerry,run if you yourself want to do this.But always remember, that if you don't their are people like myself who are grateful for all your efforts to right the wrongs and fight to take our country forward.

[whometense]

7. Beautifully said.

Sometimes I feel just selfish for wanting to put him and his wonderful family through another run. Some days it almost feels like the general will be a picnic after the Clinton/DLC buzzmachine is finished with the contenders.

[politicasista]

13. Same here

There was an interesting comment in a thread about wondering if he has the hunger to go through it all again because running for pres is brutal, grueling and draining.

I agree that the field is getting very crowded, and wonder if there would there be some room for him. I enjoy good, informative debates, but whatever he and Momma T decide to do, they will still be cool with me.

[TayTay]

14. I don't think it would be that so much now

The Democrats control the Congress. Things are possible now that were not effectively possible for about a dozen years. The conditions have changed. The ability to affect change from the Congress has changed.

That is nothing to sneeze at. Sen. Kerry is 3rd ranking Dem on SFRC, 3rd Ranking Dem on the Commerce Committee, 5th Ranking on the Finance Committee (which has oversight of 80% of the budget of the US government.)

This is nothing to just toss aside. It might be possible, just possible to affect real change from within the Senate and really get some things done that have been a lifetime in the making. I would think very, very carefully about that.

[politicasista]

15. I would too n/t

[karynnj]

10. That is beautiful

and captures both Kerry's inspiation and the bitterness at the ugly, cynical politics as usual. I seriously can't actively support Hillary if she runs - and I'm not sure I didn't mean it when I told Eric this morning that I might write in my dog, Punky's name if she is the candidate. (It's like a personal IWR, I don't want my name (though it's secret) on her election. )

[wisteria]

11. Thank you both. I have made a uneasy peace with whatever happens

with Senator Kerry.
I can not say the same for the Clinton's and their strong hold on our party. I am convinced that as long as they are around and influential, our party will not change effectively. I hate myself for saying this, but I hope Hillary crashes and burns in the primaries. That will effectively knock the Clinton's out and our party can go forward and finally grow.

[whometense]

12. Can't disagree with a word of that.

I guess we'll see.

[MBS]

16. Add my name to the chorus

please get this beautiful statement out there. Edit and polish as you feel you need to, then please put it out there.
I agree with both you and Wisteria (first paragraph of response #6 just NAILS this point) that it's Kerry vs. the Clintonite/Business-as-Usual cabal, and it's been that way for years.

[ProSense]

17. Beautiful! I agree.

Run John, Run!

[Blaukraut]

18. so well stated!

Let me add my call;
Run John Run!