Could John Kerry wind up an alternative candidate for President?

[jaysunb]

I know it's early, but things are far from settled in our party, and neither Sanders or Clinton have a clear path to the nomination, leaving open the possibility of a brokered convention.
Enter the only viable person (at this time) in SOS Kerry. He probably won in 04 but for the blatant theft of Ohio. I can see him as a compromise candidate of both the left and establishment.

What say you DU ?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No. We've got perfectly good candidates already.

And while Kerry is a good guy he was a lousy campaigner.

[peacebird]

2. Bernie Sanders will be the nominee

[arcane1]

3. I'll pass. Voted for Iraq and said he would've invaded if he'd been president.

I'll give him fair credit for Iran, but I don't trust him when it comes to war.

[karynnj]

16. He never said he would have invaded had he been President - in fact, he said many many times that

he would not have. In fact, he said not to rush to war BEFORE the war started. In the same speech he said that the US should never go to war except as a last resort. (He then listed in that speech and many others the things not done - exhausting the diplomacy, letting the inspectors finish etc.) In summer 2004, he often said "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place - I might have the order wrong.

I assume what you are referring to is his answer to a question that is not included in the video but introduced by Candy Crowley. Kerry's answer was the answer he gave many times explaining his vote -- and in full it cannot be the answer to Crowley's question. What Crowley did was conflate a question of the Bush team - that spoke of what would he have done had he known then what he knew "now" with Kerry answering a question asked a million times.

This became a media smear on Kerry. It is interesting that that story was given MORE coverage in 2005 - when Kerry was considering running than in 2004. (Here is the story written in 2004 - http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml )

[arcane1]

20. I'm referring to October 2004

KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.

But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-kerry-debate-ii/

That's how I interpret it, anyway.

[karynnj]

24. I took it far more conditionally

Look at the Syrian Chemical weapons agreement -- that could only have been obtained with the threat of force. I assume that - given everything else Kerry ever said - that he would have exhausted all possibilities before going to war.

Not to mention in his speech on Iraq at NYU a few weeks before that debate he said point blank -- that he would not have taken the country to war.

[cascadiance]

4. Why would we want someone that doesn't even try defend himself appropriately against swift boaters?

He's had his shot when the PTB pushed Howard Dean out of the race. Why should we lose again with him with our rigged system that he doesn't fight to get fixed? At least he should have sued after the election to try and make an effort to take down that rigging that screws up our elections.

[jaysunb]

8. Point well taken. n/t

[karynnj]

19. Why didn't a Democratic party defend him with even half the strength they showed

defending Bill Clinton for actions he could not have been proud of? Why did his VP say he would - then not do it.

The fact is the media did NOT cover the Kerry response to charges they gave enormous free time to those lying people making the charges. The fact is the Democrats had:

The entire official Navy record. (The biggest lie was that it was Kerry's story vs the SBVT) In fact, it was the official Navy story.

The Nixon tapes showed the Nixon people speaking of having looked into him - and they were dissapointed that he was a hero and he was "clean".

All but one of the living men who had reported to him were with him then -- and were still with him in 2010 when they surprised him at a celebration for his 25 years in the Senate.

Senator John Warner, a Republican, who had been a Vietnam era Secretary of the Navy said that he deserved the medals and had served honorably.

On the other side, the Kerry team identified many lies and misstatements in the book - giving the media a 30 page document listing them. The Kerry team also followed the money and they were funded by Bush/Cheney big donors.

In reality, this was a character assassination condoned by the media. (ie Why did no one ask Bush or McCain why they did not demand that the purple heart band aids disappear? The fact that no one did sends a pretty strong signal that this was an ok thing to do. )

Not to mention that the DEFENSE that should have come had to come from someone else - you don't make the argument for yourself that you really are a hero. This was NOT the case that there was something -- like a personal server used for government business - that he could say that he should not have done and apologize.

[cascadiance]

32. Those are good questions too. But Kerry failed to really challenge that treatment...

... in the way he should have had he been the leader we needed to reverse the problems we have with our party and the corporate influences that are becoming the cancer that it is killing it.

Of course he didn't deserve the treatment he got. And likely the corporate media didn't give enough attention to the manipulative game the swift boaters and their enablers were playing (which arguably included the media, and perhaps even some elements of the Democratic Party itself who are more loyal to corporate enablers than the party's constituency).

But as I noted before, I think even after defeat, he could have done the country and our government good by taking down the swift boaters in a lawsuit afterward, to expose and point out this kind of game that was going on, so that perhaps we could have found more ways to shut those kind of games down in the future, instead of allowing its success to enable other strategies by Koch Brothers and other corporatist entities later. Make the swift boaters PAY for their Bull Sh*t, and perhaps that would be also a signal to otherwise participating in such efforts that they could pay a price personally too.

I think if Bernie gets swift boated in a similar fashion, he won't go down without a fight and will fight with the spirit of not just "profiting" from such efforts financially in a law suit, but to make sure the system isn't enabled to play those games. I'm confident we need someone like him to fight that fight, that we really haven't had in my lifetime of candidates.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I don't think so

I really like him as SOS.

[Siwsan]

6. Per his personal request, I have held on to my Veterans for Kerry button

I met him in Flint, during Governor Granholm's last campaign and I wore the button. He smiled and told me to keep it, so I have. And, no matter what, I always will. That was a fine, fine day.

[Brother Buzz]

7. Joe Biden is not viable?

[HooptieWagon]

9. No.

He's already failed once, has given zero indication he wants to give it another go, and the party insiders are already lining up Biden for their PlanB.

[Dems to Win]

10. Look! Another YES voter on the Iraq War being pushed by the Establishment!

No thanks.

cut and paste of a post I made a few days ago:

Dem Establishment in 2016 puts up a candidate who voted to authorize the travesty

When it looks like the Establishment candidate might be faltering, they put forth two more names who voted for the epic tragedy.

I personally know many people who marched, called, and begged Clinton, Kerry, and Biden to vote NO on the Iraq War resolution. Some will never, ever, in any circumstances, vote for anyone who authorized the biggest American manmade disaster of their lives.

Almost as if the Democratic Establishment wants to lose in Nov 2016.

I'm hoping the people ignore the establishment and choose a different candidate, one who voted against the Iraq War. I wholeheartedly support Bernie, and truly think he's our best shot for victory in November 2016.

[Renew Deal]

22. Individual DUers are now the Establishment®?

[ellisonz]

25. I can personally assure you jaysunb is not the Establishment!

[Dems to Win]

30. Agreed

The name John Kerry has been put out there by the establishment, in the New York Times and elsewhere.

No offense intended to jaysunb

[jaysunb]

41. LOL ! One never know. Do one ? :)

[ellisonz]

46. Don't go turning on us now! ;-)

[Daemonaquila]

11. Oh HELL to the no!

Kerry tried, sucked, and failed. He's done. Don't even go there.

I remember when he ran, getting approached on the street by Democratic Party campaign workers. They didn't ask if I wanted to learn more about Kerry. They didn't want to talk about the issues. The ONLY message they had was "Do you want to get George Bush out of office?" That's a campaign built on fear and "I'm not the other guy." Hell no. Not again.

Sanders can win the primary, and take us to the White House. That is, if people will quit kicking and screaming that he can't because he isn't just another empty suit candidate.

[smirkymonkey]

15. He ran a terrible campaign.

I was pretty pissed about him for that. However, he is a very effective statesman. He actually lives in my neighborhood. Never met him in person, but have seen him around.

[Daemonaquila]

18. Yes, he's an effective Senator and SOS.

He's very competent at those jobs, mostly behind the scenes. But POTUS? With the pressures he'd be under? I don't see it for a minute. It's a very different, very public role that requires taking - and dishing - a lot of heat. He's not that guy.

[MADem]

12. John Kerry is 71 and his wife is unwell.

He's recovering from a painful broken leg that happened at the end of May. He is very fit, probably more fit than anyone else running for POTUS, but I believe his priorities lie elsewhere at this stage of his life.

[Gothmog]

13. Biden is the first fall back candidate and then perhaps Kerry

Sanders is not viable in the general election and will have a very hard time becoming the nominee unless he can make a case as to such viability.

[cascadiance]

28. Define how and why he's not "viable". That is a corporate media label...

... that really in most of our books has no basis.

[Gothmog]

34. Why don't you explain how Sanders would be viable in a general election debate

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[cascadiance]

37. I think the number one issue of ALL Americans, NOT just Democrats is corporate crony corruption...

... that is so prevalent in both parties that has brought about a destruction of the middle class and our economy, and isn't getting any better with the "Trickle Down" mantra in effect from them.

That is why not only Bernie is GROWING his campaign so that he's STRONGER now against Hillary in 2015 than Obama was in September of 2007 then. Look at the polls.



I would argue that it is also why an inexperienced and controversial candidate like Trump is leading the Republican field too. They are just as sick of corruption as well, and see him as the only candidate not taking corruption money from other influences as he funds his own campaign. They will value someone that stands with the people moreso too, the way that Trump has stood up against the Free Trade crap and H-1B visas too. Bernie negates that argument from Trump as he also favors the people's position on those issues that probably draws many independents and Republicans to Trump, whereas Hillary WOULDN'T in a general election against someone like Trump.

This IS a different campaign, and I don't think we've seen economic and societal conditions like we have now since FDR's time, when society also demanded a socialist solution then too that had FDR publicly speaking against "economic royalists" of his time too.

Dark money might have been successfully buying elections in the past, but the smell of it now in many political races is tuning many voters out to candidates that depend on it heavily. The rules that might have been applicable in the previous 20-40 years about money affecting election I would argue are changing in this election as people are FED UP with the CRAP they've been given as a result of politicians that have been bought off from it. If you argue that there's no favoritism, that's an argument against capitalism. Good "capitalists" that value profits over losses, aren't going to throw tons of money at politicians or other political ad campaigns if they didn't expect to get far more than that money back from that "investment" as a result. And that money back SCREWS the rest of us and society is starting now to come to grips with that.

No matter what the corporate media tries to say that these rules still apply (as their bosses pay them and want them to do), that won't necessarily make it so this time around.

[Gothmog]

39. So you have no answer to my question

You may not think that this question needs to be answered but many other Democrats do care. For example, it is difficult to complain that African American voters are not supporting Sanders when the Sanders campaign does not have a satisfactiory answer to this question

Viability is very important to African American voters. Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability and I doubt that Sanders will make significan inroads with the African American community without this proof. I was a bundlers event last week held by some African American professionals and right now in Texas there is strong support for Hillary Clinton in the African American community.

[cascadiance]

40. Why was Obama any more "viable" at this point than Hillary was then?

What does "viable" mean? The ability to get numbers of voters? Or are you trying to say that there is something more to that term that you are defining that Hillary has and Sanders doesn't.

Was Hillary "viable" to African American voters in 2008? Was Obama "viable" to female voters in 2008? Yes, there were many voters voting their "identity" then that perhaps sided more with candidates for that reason. If there are other reasons for one candidate being more "viable" than another, they beg to be define.

A lot what governs "viability" in a political campaign early on is visibility and name recognition. I don't think many deny that this is a measure that Hillary Clinton profited from early on in both this election and in 2008 as well. But as a deciding factor in the election, over time, when people got to know the candidates if this aspect defined "viability" it wasn't a winning card for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and I would argue that it is less of a winning card now as I note with the graphs that Bernie is a lot closer in polls to Hillary Clinton at this point of the campaign than Obama was in 2007. So based on that measure alone, Bernie is more "viable" now than Obama was at that time then, and as we know ultimately Obama won the viability contest in votes in the election.

In terms of growth of support, I would argue in that sense that Bernie is more "viable" than Hillary is, in that he's overcoming this first measure and GROWING the support for his campaign, while Hillary is LOSING support for her campaign in terms of vote numbers, which is ultimately what counts in winning an election, not the amount of money raised. And we haven't even had a debate yet, which arguably increases the visibility quotient a lot more for Sanders when that happens compared to what Hillary already has. Now if more people that come to know Sanders has him faltering in the polls, then the increased visibility could be viewed as a negative, but the more people know Sanders the more they LIKE him, and the variables such as debates and earlier primary battles that increase his visibility quotient, the more he will grow that support in my book.

Now African American voters support? There are quite a variety of different groups of people within that community that have different views of him. There are quite a few like this bright kid that knows and supports Sanders and is vocal about it, and who I think many will be persuaded by him to follow his example.

I think a lot was made about the events at Netroots and in Washington state. I think some may confuse the natural human rejection of the TACTICS that many would call lies and/or distortions some of those used in calling supporters "white racists" as his supporters being that and not supporting BLM issues, when Bernie and the vast majority of his supporters have through their lives been STRONG supporters for POC and their issues. Hillary early on supported Barry Goldwater who actively worked AGAINST the Civil Rights Bill back in the 60's.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-declares-that-the-1964-civil-rights-act-is-a-dire-threat-to-the-liberties-of-african-americans-and-will-creat.html

Perhaps Hillary's past here and as president as a freshman of the College Republicans chapter in Wellesley College as something she "evolved" her views from in her youth. But Bernie has NEVER had a departure like that in supporting civil rights supporting politicians and issues. Why do many give her a pass on that and not him to consider him "viable" to represent them. I would suggest it is because he still hasn't had his visibility quotient of where he stands on issues and his history, etc. raised enough on these issues, that will happen over time through this campaign, and many will see that he's not the "problem" that the corporate media and certain selective information campaigns would have them try to believe about him.

Now if there is some other definition of "viability" that you seem to think he doesn't have enough of, it's upon you to explain what you mean and not hide behind semantics of a word and being the echo chamber of a propaganda machine that tries to just use words like this to push him down when they don't have anything else to work against him with.

[Gothmog]

47. What a sad and wrong response

Have you worked on a campaign before? You are aware that campaigns require cash and fundraising. In 2008, President Obama out raised McCain and the GOP. In 2012, President Obama kept the fund raising close so that he was competitive. When I posted that Sanders was bringing a knife to a gun fight, I meant that Sanders would not be able to compete against the financial resources that the Kochs and the RNC candidate will have compared to Sanders. Sanders is very very vulnerable to negative ads and would be buried by such ads without the resources to explain his position. The terms "socialism" and "socialist" poll very badly now and such terms would be radioactive after several 100 million of negative ads. Sanders programs will cost $17 trillion and the offsets or cost savings will be difficult to explain without sufficient financial resources.

President Obama was viable because he had the ability to raise enough funds to get his message out. Hillary Clinton and perhaps Joe Biden each have the ability to raise the funds to be competitive with the Kochs and the GOP. That is not the case with Sanders and many groups in the Democratic coalition will not consider Sanders if he can not demonstrate viability.

[cascadiance]

50. Why in a democracy is it SAD to not want someone to be FORCED to engaged in corruption to be viable?

That is what you are basically saying. That because Bernie is trying to do what MOST Americans want him and other pols to do and NOT be BOUGHT OFF by politicians through campaign contributions that somehow makes him "not viable".

What you are basically saying that the system is so rigged that you have to play in it and be corrupted to participate. Most Americans who still do hold the ability to VOTE for their candidate, even if it is harder to get information when it isn't being streamed out through propaganda outlets, are completely fed up with this system and how it has NOT served them and only served those who keep corrupting it. This election is why the terms "viability" are going to be DIFFERENT than those in most of our lifetimes, and I would warrant we would have to go back to the times of FDR to find similar circumstances to what the public felt they wanted to vote for in terms of someone that had spoonfed election propaganda fed to them or someone that works hard as a candidate avoiding getting corrupted by that and trying to be more directly connected to those that he wants to vote for them.

In my and many other people's book here, it is more "sad" that some here just don't get that people aren't accepting these "traditional" campaign methodologies any more and that is why the older Democratic Party leadership is being rejected by a huge portion of the party constituency now. They've gotten used to being in control that they manipulated to themselves and the powerful, and just can't see that the public isn't going to accept that any more.

WE'RE FED UP!!!!! And those that don't see that are the ones that aren't "viable"! That is why Hillary is sliding in the polls. GET IT?

[Gothmog]

54. Words have meanings.

I am sorry that you do not like what this terms means but the facts are that many people do not think that Sanders is viable. Your response is that it does not matter if Sanders is viable because he has a pure heart. George McGovern had a pure heart and his campaign is very similar to your claims



Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it

[avaistheone1]

48. k&r

[djean111]

14. I feel like I am at a balloon festival today. Possible candidates floating all around me.

I will be supporting Bernie no matter who else jumps into the mix.

[Iggo]

17. LOL...no.

[Renew Deal]

21. That would be a disaster

[karynnj]

23. Secretary Kerry has too many important things to do as Secretary of State

He can't both be SoS and run for President. His choice is likely pretty easy -- continue doing the good work that he is doing that is making him one of the best Secretaries of State this country has had or get into a cat fight with the Clintons and fight a really tough battle that he is more likely to lose.

Consider that one of the next big things that he is working on is building on the US/China climate pact for the Paris conference.

I don't think that we will have a brokered convention. I would bet that the superdelegates would insure that the one who wins the most regular delegates gets the nomination. I really don't think the party would accept any candidate dropping in just at the convention. The winner will be someone who runs.

[brooklynite]

26. The anti-Hillary people will say he has a much "blood dripping from his hands" as Hillary...

I would say he was a mediocre candidate in 2004.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I say, please, please, please let Kerry and Biden both join the race!

Thus watering down the establishment vote even more.

[Blasphemer]

29. If we're dipping into the former candidate political vault, I'd vastly prefer Gore

That said, given how many people opted out this election cycle (prematurely, IMO), I think Biden is the only non-declared candidate who can realistically jump in and make a run for it.

[BeyondGeography]

31. I'd love the alternative to be someone under 70

Is it asking so much!

Warren should have run, dammit.

There's a major problem with our field. Our 1-2 right now have personality gaps you can drive a truck through.

[DFW]

33. I say I agree with Howard Dean

An incoming president should be around 50, not someone who is eligible for Social Security. This is one of the reasons Howard ruled himself out (there are others, having to do with family). At 67 (in November), he feels he is way too old to be running for president. Kerry will be 72 in December. Already our two major candidates are older than Howard. I don't think a third one in that age group is what we need. What, our party doesn't have ANY dynamic, youthful prospects for the Oval Office?

[jaysunb]

42. I can't disagree with your reasoning.

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

And I very much agree with HD, the next President should be a 50ish age person.

[Blasphemer]

45. I agree

I sometimes hesitate to bring it up, lest I be called ageist, but this is my preference as well. However, given that no one younger has stepped up, I've accepted that this is election cycle is just skewing older. A lot of attention was being paid to a potential Warren run - she's 66. On the GOP side, the younger Republicans aren't getting any traction. Trump is 69, Carson 63.

[cascadiance]

52. Part of the problem is that the new corporatist leadership has kept out progressive options that age

... from being a part of the political system in congress or other places that could help them launch a career to run for the presidency. We just don't have many progressives in office now in that age range to choose from.

We need to overhaul congress, and it will need to start with newer leadership at the top to get that started. That is why I think the first election we'll need someone like a Bernie Sanders who is more of the older progressive guard that wasn't brought in during the DLC years of managing the party for us to get the revolution that most Americans want now.

In a way, I hope that Bernie has Warren as his VP and chooses to only be there for one term so that Warren could become president in 2020. And if she stays in two terms that is 12 years where we could have gotten newer blood in congress with more progressive leadership in organizations like the DNC, the DSCC, and DCCC that could have experience to run as younger candidates in 2024. Perhaps Bernie could have more energy after stepping down in 2020 to do something like run the DNC or other party organizational entities that wouldn't be as demanding on him as he gets older and closer to permanent retirement. But we really can't wait that long to get a decent progressive populist in office to make the necessary changes that need to happen NOW to stop problems from climate change and many other issues that won't wait for another presidential term to be solved before crises hit us.

[djean111]

53. No Progressive gets past Debbie Dino if she can possibly help it. n/t

[olddots]

35. in a word

no..

[philosslayer]

36. And I hear John Edwards is free.

Lets get the band back together again!

[jaysunb]

43. LOL ! Yeah, Jake, that's all we need right now. N/t

[TheKentuckian]

38. No thanks. Kerry and especially Biden have even less plausible deniability of "being tricked" than

Clinton.

Literally it is impossible for either of them, especially Biden to have not known better though I tend to believe both are less all around hawkish ideologically.

None of these folks respect the Bill of Rights much at all, none are willing to rein in the wealthy and the corporations, and all are either craven or perhaps wicked when it comes to use of force.

No dice.

[Hydraulico]

44. The media hate him

So no.

[Betty Karlson]

49. Shall we not start brokering conventions before the first primary has been had?

It smells of undue desperation.

[rjsquirrel]

51. Please dear god no

An honorable man. A terrible candidate.