The Media, John Kerry, and 2008

[erpowers]

In the days after the election some in the media began to speculate about which Democrats may run for president in 2008. It seems as if the name that showed up was John Kerry. I am not sure the media has been pointing out any of the other Democrats who might run. Does anyone think the media wil try to push John Kerry on the Democrats in 2008? Does anyone think the media wil try to talk him up and make out like he is the only choice for the Democrats? I realize that after some elections the media look at who will run in the future and the person who lost is sometimes looked at, but I am just wondering if the media might try to push Kerry on the Democrats.

[GRLMGC]

1. Oh God

The media only mentioned Kerry because he's the most recognizable Democrat at this point. Just like they mentioned Gore after 2000. Obviously, other candidates will pop up as we get closer to the primaries.

[Demit]

5. Really. I can't believe people want to speculate 3 years in advance.

Maybe they're trying to ignore what shitstorms this administration is going to stir up in that time, and looking ahead is their way of being hopeful, but I wish the mods would make a separate forum for people who want to engage in such speculation.

[GRLMGC]

6. That's what I'm saying

After 2000 who was even thinking of Howard Dean or John Kerry? Different circumstances will give rise to a different group of candidates. We can't possibly predict it in advance.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Well, Kerry was the presumptive favorite from the start.

The rest of the field were relative unknowns.

[GRLMGC]

9. In 2001?

I hadn't even heard of him. I think its too soon

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Gore and Kerry.

And Gore removed himself from the list.


Edit to add: And Lieberman :silly:

[FreedomAngel82]

28. I agree

It's just too early. Anybody can pop up. I've also been hearing Edwards lately. But not from MSM of course.

[Clark2008]

42. Really? I don't hear that at all.

And I'm just one state over from his home state.

I hear (in alphabetical order):

Clark
H. Clinton
Feingold
Gore
Kerry
Warner

(And sometimes, even Bredesen, but I think that's a Tennessee thing)

[ultraist]

57. I've heard a lot of talk about Edwards lately too, but it's just too early

It's fun to speculate but there are things in the immediate to focus and work on. Additionally, it wont be long before we know who is running during the midterms.

[rockymountaindem]

23. There is

it's called the Campaign 2006 & 2008 forum. People don't seem to use it that much.

[Borgnine]

2. Remember...

For the longest while, Lieberman was the front runner for 2004, based off nothing but name recognition.

[SheilaT]

3. What GRLMGC said.

It is about two years too soon to being at all occupied with thinking about who might run four years from now. Really, it is.

[lojasmo]

4. But, but....

He's so "electable" :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

14. Yes, I am proud of him, and look forward to re-electing him

in 2008, if he choses to run.

But at the moment, I don't care if Mickey Mouse is running. It's not primary season yet. I'm supporting Kerry, Reid or anyone else I see who shows signs of fighting the agenda.

Please, can we give the primaries a rest for a little while?

[lojasmo]

16. Perhaps you should address the OP....

and IIRC, Kerry LOST by 4 million votes.

[LittleClarkie]

19. OP?

Operating Procedure?

Other putz's

Other people's Property?

Ron Howard's character in the Andy Griffiths Show?

As for losing by 4 million votes, that's debatable. Erase the suppression, erase the outright fraud, and I think we'd find he was at least on a par with Gore.

I love the other poster's comment about this person being forced on Dems.

He won the primaries. We voted for him. Take some responsibility for his selection. Take some responsibility for the ABB, ie the negativity.

He was the best of the crop, imo. And if you couldn't make it though the primaries, you sure weren't making it through the election.

[NYCGirl]

22. Original post. NT

[lojasmo]

27. Original poster

I certainly didn't start this one.

As far as losing the election, debate it all you fucking want. Bush is in the white house, unfortunately.

Would have been nice if Kerry had addressed voter fraud and disenfranchisement after 2000. Oh well.

[politicasista]

30. Why didn't he want to address this issue?

Is he afraid of us or something.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Why would I want to address the original poster

when I got chu.

As for the debate, you're the one who said "he's so electable" wit cher eyes rollin' and such. And then you talk about the fraud and disenfranchisement after 2000. So which is it.

If you believe the fraud happened, then you don't get to roll your eyes at his electability.

If you don't believe in the fraud, then you don't get to bring it up as an issue alongside Kerry's electability.

You gots to pick one. You can't have both. You don't get to talk fraud then criticize Kerry for not getting elected. If there was fraud, then he was electable, and could very well have been elected.

As for addressing the election issues of 2000, that was the damn problem. We were ALL set for the disenfranchisement of 2000. We had folks in place and plenty of money for recounts. Yessiree bob, we were all set for a replay of 2000, not for what happened in 2004. Even here, there were precious few going all apeshit over the voting machines.

And then there's the Raw Story ...err... story and the comment from the writer of that story that not all of the lawyers in Ohio were on Kerry's side, or in her words, Kerry had to come to the realization that not all his lawyers in Ohio were "his." No wonder we got stories about them destroying evidence. They weren't on Kerry's side either. Nice huh?

Cut the victim some slack. He got gamed too.

[lojasmo]

43. I decline to accept your premise.

I believe that Kerry was a poor candidate, and I believe that fraud was present in 2000. I am less convinced that Kerry lost due to fraud than I am that Gore did.

My belief from WAY back, was that Kerry could NEVER win this race, and would be outmaneuvered by Bushco.

"electability" was always a particularly irksome meme to me because I felt strongly that he was one of the weakest candidates in the primaries.

That being said, woefully little was done by the legislature about the fraud and disenfranchisement that took place in 2000.

I don't believe that Kerry got gamed. I think he dropped the ball.

[JoshK]

8. The reasons this bumbler was pushed on Dems in '04 might not

be relevant in 2008. The reason it happened in '04 was simply to prevent any serious discussion of why we invaded Iraq. And certainly, Kerry made sure that this issue was never given any serious attention, since his position was hardly distinguishable from Bush's.

[blm]

11. Well, there's the simpleton "no difference" answer.

That "bumbler" won all three debates decisively because not even the media could twist his performance into that of a "bumbler" the way they stomped all over his actual policy positions on EVERY issue.

You "distilled" his policies into what YOU believe helps YOUR argument, no different than the well-paid mediawhores.

In fact, one can say that YOUR criticism is "indistinguishable" from the mediawhores.

[JoshK]

18. Kerry: a pro-war Dem, who concealed his past as a critic of

the Vietnam War during the '04 campaign. Kerry: made no campaign issue of US atrocities at Abu Ghraib & Gitmo & elsewhere. Never mentioned Bush's ties to Enron. Never tried to educate the American people about the US slaughter of civilians in Iraq, nor of the use of depleted uranium weapons. Never showed the American people that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Never even said that to invade Iraq based on alleged WMD, then to discover there were no WMD, is a war crime of the highest order. Never even questioned Bush's claim that the invasion was based on "WMD" (as opposed to control of OIL access.) Never educated the public about the corruption of the Halliburton "reconstruction" contracts.

Surely, your tendency to be an apologist for Kerry doesn't prevent you from seeing that this criticism is not quite the same as that of the media whores, does it?

[blm]

20. I think you say whatever you think makes you SOUND right to your own ears

No different than anyone else who prefers the shorthand version of analysis ala Tweety and the mediawhores.

You hear what YOU want to hear and what THEY say.

[rockymountaindem]

26. Indeed he did mention Abu Ghraib

specifically calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld in March after the story broke and after he had all but secured the nomination.

As for the rest, the invasion of Iraq was not a war crime. A war crime is a breech of law comitted during the conduct of war, such as mass executions and willful destruction of non-military property. Starting a war (any war) may or may not be justified, but it is not a war crime. There can be wars without war crimes, theoretically if not practically.

Coming out and saying "the President is a war criminal" wouldn't have garnered any more votes for Kerry than he would have lost.

Just because your criticism isn't the same as the media whores' doesn't make it any more valid.

[JoshK]

31. He did not make a campaign issue of Abu Ghraib, nor of Gitmo,

nor of the "little detail" of starting a war based on WMD only to discover that there were no WMD.

It was YOU that inserted the word "mention." My claim was that he failed to make a "campaign issue" of the matter. He gets little credit for a quick "mention" back in March, if he fails to make a major point of it during the campaign.

Your claim about "not a war crime" is ridiculous. The PRIMARY charge that the Allies made against the Nazi bigwigs at Nuremberg was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war." This is precisely what the US was guilty of in Iraq. The very same principle of non-aggression without proof of clear & present threat is enshrined in the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory.

Furthermore, the Geneva conventions expressly forbid destruction of infrastructure on which civilian life is dependent -- such as water & electricity supplies, etc. The US is guilty of all this, too. Kerry failed to so much as mention any of this, because he is a complete sellout to corporate interests & US imperialism.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[ultraist]

58. good points

I agree, JoshK, these things you note were a REAL problem: "Kerry: made no campaign issue of US atrocities at Abu Ghraib & Gitmo & elsewhere. Never mentioned Bush's ties to Enron. Never tried to educate the American people about the US slaughter of civilians in Iraq, nor of the use of depleted uranium weapons. Never showed the American people that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Never even said that to invade Iraq based on alleged WMD, then to discover there were no WMD, is a war crime of the highest order. Never even questioned Bush's claim that the invasion was based on "WMD" (as opposed to control of OIL access.) Never educated the public about the corruption of the Halliburton "reconstruction" contracts."

There were some other serious campaign strategy problems including, not immediately counter attacking after the SwiftBoat Liars ad (that REALLY killed it for us), writing off the South, and perhaps the biggest: GOING REPUKE LITE. Many people didn't really know where Kerry stood. The ambiguity did not help.

That said, I think that Kerry did win. There was fraud in Ohio, IMO. He won by a narrow margin against a horrible incumbent who had a horrendous record including the biggest deficit in the history of the US but happened to have had a stronger, more effective marketing campaign.

[globalvillage]

15. Unbelievable.

It amazes me how quick we are to toss JK aside. Kerry did not fail us, we failed ourselves and him. He ALMOST beat an incumbent POTUS (some say he did) despite the best efforts of the media and the neocons. I wonder how many Kerry-bashers out there really know what he stands for, how many have read Tour of Duty or seen Going Upriver? How many have even read the Plan for America? How many hours did these good Democrats spend during the campaign doing everything possible to de-select this administration? Obviously not enough. Is Kerry an ultra-liberal senator, as he was painted by the right, or is he "almost Bush"? Well, he's neither. He's an articulate, insightful, compassionate and intelligent combat hero who would make an excellent POTUS. Compare that to the current moron-in-chief. And after the election, he didn't hide like Al Gore. He went to the Middle East. He's still out there leading his supporters, attacking Rumsfeld, attacking Bush's SS garbage, promoting children's healthcare. How about some legitimate reasons for thinking he's not the person to lead us in 2008? That he lost in 04 is not enough.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Well said, Global. Bravo. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

24. great post, globalvillage

great post, great screenname, a great start at DU! welcome!

[ultraist]

59. "We failed Kerry" ??? I refuse to take responsibility for Kerry's loss

I volunteered a LOT of time and money but the Kerry campaign wrote off my state and made some serious strategic mistakes.

Discussing the strategic mistakes is not Kerry bashing. Even Mary Beth Cahill has discussed some of these.

Furthermore, discussing Kerry's weaknesses and strengths as a candidate is not Kerry bashing. He is not perfect. He has flaws just as any other HUMAN does.

Hero worshipping does not make for an interesting discussion. This is not a fan club board. Granted, some view Kerry as a weaker candidate than others, but worshipping a candidate doesn't do us any good.

[globalvillage]

62. Ultraist?

I hate to lose my cool, but you've pissed me off with your "fan club" bs. Don't like my post? You sound like a censor who refuses to change the channel. If you don't like it, skip over it and don't waste your time. There are lots of others to read.
No one said YOU did not put enough time into the campaign. Many of us did our part. Many did not.
Calling Kerry a "bumbler" IS Kerry bashing, and I will respond. He was our candidate. Showing a little respect and support is not hero worship. The campaign made mistakes. We all do. I hope we learn from them. I do not agree with Sen Kerry's position on every topic, and have written him several times in disagreement both during and after the election. But my post was not in response to campaign mistakes, it was in reply to the notion of the Senator as a "bumbler". IMO, he is not.
Back to the free speech issue, as this is a Democratic forum. This board is open to opinions, and you have a right to decide what might be interesting to you, but not what might be interesting to me or other posters. Free country, remember? I admire and respect John Kerry, but I do not worship anyone but God. BTW, I have not started a fan club for Him either, although I will defend Him. Do you have a problem with that, too?
I will NOT turn my back on Sen Kerry just because he didn't win. I haven't given up on the Steelers, either. They'll be back next year. There is nothing wrong with loyalty. I will not apologize for it or hide it because some choose to see it as a character flaw.
Kerry '08. Like it or don't.

[Laurab]

45. I think you're wrong

There is a reason Kerry handled the war the way he did. It's called the "right wing media". The war was not then as unpopular as it is now, and it would have been "unpatriotic" to question a war in which people were dying. The RW would have had a field day with any anti-war comments he would have made. I found it frustrating, but I understood why he handled it the way he did. He would have lost a lot of votes if he had come out swinging against the war - that's how fucked up our country is.

IF you listened, his position was quite distinguishable from Bush's - as much as it could be, while still not alienating the mainstream-we-get-our-news-from-Faux voters. It's unfortunate, but he had to be a politician in order to have any real chance of defeating the asshole. The same goes for Enron, and all the other scandals the media has so kindly ignored for *. What makes you think Kerry would have had any better luck than anyone else. That RW spin machine works 24/7, and it is EFFECTIVE. If it were not, the chimp would not be in the white house, and we would not be in the mess we're in.

There is more than enough to impeach the chimp on, but with everyone in the mainstream aiding and abetting his every crime, and falling all over each other to spout out the newest RW spin, it's not gonna happen.

John Kerry was robbed, and so were we.

[JoshK]

47. Though your description of the media is true, what you are

basically saying here is that Democrats are "forced" by the RW media to refrain from speaking the truth on important matters such as Enron or Iraq. But excusing them for caving in to this kind of pressure merely results in a Democratic Party that repeatedly caves in.

Your point that "the RW would've had a field day" with anti-war comments is correct, but if such a consideration is permitted to become a reason for Democrats' failure to courageously oppose a completely immoral war, then the Democrats have lost all claim to principle. They merely become corrupt sellouts who caved in to pressure.

In Kerry's case, it was not exactly "caving in." He was not really opposed to the war. He supports the occupation, and supports the phony "War on Terror," which is just an excuse for using American military power anywhere we want, at any time. Kerry's only difference from Bush was that he wanted to share some of the loot with European allies. But he did nothing to educate the American people about the immorality of our invasion of Iraq. He merely complained about some limited aspects of the way Bush went about it.

[Laurab]

50. I think you are confusing his public, political face

with what he really thinks. I think there are a lot of democratic politicians who do oppose the war, but don't want to be seen as "unpatriotic", or "traitors". Yes, he voted for the war, but certainly not for a preemptive attack. As a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had failed, and had that been done, there would have been no war.

Yes, they have repeatedly caved in, I agree. It's gotten them nowhere. I think we are going to see that changing - I HOPE that we're going to see that changing.

Unfortunately, an unelected democratic candidate is of little use to us. They DO have to consider the RW spin, even if it's caving in, if they want to be elected. It's reality, and I'm hopeful that will change too. While "courageously opposing" this immoral war would be noble, it would have eroded JK's electability. I think it is wise to save the nobleness until after you are elected.

Just my opinion - I am also of the opinion that Kerry actually won, so I don't have a problem with his campaign, and I don't believe he "dropped the ball" as someone else said. I think he was screwed.

[JoshK]

51. Let's look at several of your points here.

First, to privately oppose a war, but to be frightened of saying so publicly for fear of being seen as unpatriotic, is the very definition of political cowardice. Only a sellout goes along with an immoral war because he's scared of what will be said about him.

Second, if Kerry really opposed the concept of "preemptive war," he would have said so, loud, clear, and repeatedly throughout the campaign. But he said no such thing. In fact, several times, he made clear that he would not hesitate to order unilateral use of US force, should "the national security interests of the United States require it." This is practically the same as the Bush position.

You say "Unfortunately, an unelected democratic candidate is of little use to us." A Democratic candidate that sells out on the issue of immoral wars is also of little use to us. As soon as you start talking "reality," what you are really doing is offering rationalizations for selling out. You think it's wise to save the nobleness until after you're elected, but such a turnaround on a major position has never happened, and cannot happen. Once you spend a whole campaign promising to win wars and fight "a better, more effective war on terror," you cannot turn around and become a peacenik once in office.

Please reflect on this: Bush said that we were invading Iraq because of Saddam's dangerous WMD. Kerry NEVER challenged this framing of the rationale for the invasion. Kerry could have pointed out, if he was honest, that the real reason was for control of the oil and to build US military bases in the Middle East. He could have said, "Mr President, you have lied to the American people about the real reasons for this war." That would have been courageous. And if it made him lose, at least he would have lost for being brave and honest. As it was, he lost anyway, despite being too spineless to speak the truth.

[Laurab]

52. I'm not going to argue with you anymore - you just don't like the guy

"And if it made him lose, at least he would have lost for being brave and honest. As it was, he lost anyway, despite being too spineless to speak the truth. "

That's your opinion, mine is different, and will remain different. Also, I don't believe he lost. You think he was "spineless", I think it was politically prudent of him, if in fact he wanted to win the election.

I disagree with you on just about every point, I mean, he HAD to say he "would not hesitate to order unilateral use of US force...." because * was saying he wouldn't do it, and that he would let the terrorists "get us". THIS is the kind of thing people who are not all that enlightened hear - ie: the majority of voters. Also, Kerry DID challenge his framing of the rationale for the invasion.

You obviously don't understand politics as they are today, and more importantly, you obviously don't understand the right-wing spin and how very powerful it is. The "rationalizations" I am offering are based on reality.

You obviously don't like the guy, and that's the bottom line. I think you are somewhat politically naive, and I will not argue with you anymore.

[blm]

12. They are NOT. They are attacking him SNIDELY and not reporting his efforts

in child healthcare legislation, his successful trips overseas with other world leaders, and his call for working towards TRANSPARENT election system.

Tweety has been working OVERTIME slamming Kerry from every angle and mostly with LIES.

Where the FOCK are you getting YOUR news? I haven't read anything or SEEN anything from the mainstream media that shows Kerry in any positive light. Please share it with the rest of us.

[LittleClarkie]

13. I actually think they've been chatting up Hillary more

to the point where most people seem to be assuming she'll be the nominee.

Listening to Rush and other RW folk, they take Hillary pretty serious, and take the idea that Gore or Kerry could run again as a joke. But then they think they've already pre-smeared those two.

And in a way, they've already done the same to Hillary. I don't care what she's tried to do in the way of making herself more moderate. She's still the hated uberliberal maneater probable lesbian to them.

They're also salvating at the thought of Dean as Chair, so I wouldn't take their judgement to mean much. I think we might surprise them (if we can get a fair election, that is.)

[HeatherG.]

25. Hillary

I suspect that the Republicans want us to pick Hillary Clinton because they think she would be easy to beat. She probably would be easy to beat. I like the idea of running Kerry again. We already know what his percieved problems are, so we won't be caught off gaurd. If we nominate someone new we will have to deal with new baggage and new smears as they come along.

[LittleClarkie]

33. Especially if we have the same cast of characters against us

I can't help but think of things I would want folks to know about John if we run him again. I would like to be ready.

But maybe if we run someone else, I can still put together the knowledge I would need to campaign properly. I'm not a tremendous Hillary fan. I don't know what it is. It might just be the same feel I had about John before I got to know him.

For instance, has she always been more centrist, or is this new? If she's positioning, then that annoys me. At least I know where John is coming from. He doesn't mind questioning the hallowed liberal values in case there is a better way. Even so, nine times out of then he will vote as a progressive. I even understand his war stance. He never really attacked the war it was said in the Globe, because he couldn't do that to the soldiers who were over there. Perhaps from talking to McCain, he seems to be more sensitive than he used to be about what's going on at the war front while we are here at home. It's a way he's changed since 1971. He's even said that about his testimony. He wishes he could have used less abrasive words, though he knows at the time it came from his gut.

There are so many things that were never brought up. There are folks who just kneejerk vote Dem the way some on the other side kneejerk vote Republican. Neither knew their candidates very well. I'd have someone say, "What do you want, a hand out?" To which I'd reply, "Your guy is NOT a fiscal conservative." No dice. Not listening. Some on our side, by the same token, though they supported him, didn't know John Kerry worth spit. When I told one of my friends (a Vietnam vet who remembers reading about the testimony when he was in 'Nam) knew nothing of Iran/Contra, for instance. Kerry's work as a procecutor should have been brought out. His chops in the area of terrorism, to the point that he even wrote a book about it, should have been brought out. At the very least, perhaps we'll have buyers remorse in our favor. The "my God he was right" factor.

But at any rate, I need to know more about our candidate, whoever it is, so I can sell him/her properly. Anybody but (blank) won't ever be enough. Much as I'd like to know who this person is, I can't jump in to that pool yet. I have to make sure we keep our Dems here in Wisconsin. I have to make sure our voting remains on the up and up. I'd like to see some major reforms happen before the next round of voting. So, there's lots to do without going gonzo over who may or may not be running in 2008. I can't get truly fired up yet. The closest I come is a burning desire to help the Shadow Prez do what he can to fulfill his campaign promises, winner or no. He's off to a good start. And I will want to help Dean as much as possible, presuming he's our Chair, as it looks now.

[Spiked_Lemon]

39. The Albatroses that got hung...

around Kerry's neck in '04 are still going to be there in '08. Politics are fluid and I am sure we will be surprised at the Dems that rise to the top in a couple of years as Presidential Material. Like I said in another thread, nothing wrong with a little new blood.
Bill Clinton was "new blood" once.

[HeatherG.]

40. We Will See

I understand your point that everybody is new blood once. But,I still want Kerry to be president. I feel sorry for him because he wanted it so badly. He is still going to have enemies in 2008. But, the SBVFT have lost some credibility. The mainstream media did not do their job. They did very little critical analysis of the SBVFT's claims. People like Bob Sommerby of the Daily Howler have had to do their job for them. Anyways, many of the claims of the SBVFT have been shown to be false. We just need to make the media aware of this. If Kerry ran again the SBVFT will likely be treated with less respect this time around if the media is aware that they were taken for chumps. Also, you know how Americans are scared of change? Kerry will be familiar to them this time.

[ultraist]

60. You feel sorry for him? He didn't use millions of our dollars

to counter attack the swift boat liars, run ads or pay for staff or transportation to the polls in numerous states including the south.

The Kerry campaign made some serious and fatal mistakes. It seems very odd to me that they hoarded this money when it was very close to the end. Had Kerry been way out front, I could understanding not spending the money, but he wasn't.

[HeatherG.]

61. Left Over Money

It is more complicated than that. I think candidates are supposed to have money left over after the campaign. He may still be paying bills for services he and his campaign staff got during the election. Somebody older than I and with a better grasp on the value of money and the expenses of campaigns could probably explain it better than I just did.

[LittleClarkie]

44. Nothing wrong with new blood indeed

but the old blood has just as much right to be there. There's room for both, I think. I don't think we should discount the old-bies just for having had a first run. We never give any of these guys the chance to show what they learned the first time. We reinvent the wheel.

Maybe. Maybe not. May the best person win, old or new.

In some ways Hillary is old blood too, it occurs to me. Baggage gallore from being first lady, and in some folks eyes, co-prez.

I think it will all depend on who impresses between then and now. Perhaps Hillary will impress me. Maybe Bayh. Maybe Kerry will work his freakin' ass off and impress some people into thinking "Why the hell not.?" He's come back before.

I'd rather we didn't pick a conservative Southerner just to try for someone "electable." That criteria sucks. I think that Kerry was a good and qualified candidate above and beyond that label, but others disagree.

But that criteria sucks. How do you get behind a guy you don't believe in only because you think he can win? Don't get me wrong. It should be part of the equation, but not the whole enchilada when it comes to picking a candidate.

[Clark2008]

41. This is what I think, as well.

I think the cWHOREporate media is talking up Hillary to the point of nausea.

I'm already tired of hearing about Hillary - mainly because I don't think she can win in a general election. I, obviously, know the ultra right wing will villify her, but I still don't think a lot of moderates in the Heartland will swing in her favor, particularly if all they hear for the next four years is how "evil" Hillary is. I know this isn't the truth, but I also know how right wing radio permeates the Heart Land - even moderates have no choice but to listen to it, since it's the only thing on.

It behooves us to nominate someone else - someone who can win.

[stray cat]

17. I think we have alot of good potential candidates

Lets see how Dean and the grass roots movement revitalizes things the next 4 years and what Bush screws up. I think the dems will have alot of decent tough candidates to draw on.

[HeatherG.]

29. They Do Mention Him

The reason the media mention Kerry is that he has given strong indications that he is interested. They have to guess the other potential candidates. If they really wanted to push Kerry they would be giving him more positive coverage. They are just as nasty towards him as they are towards any democrat last time I checked.

[Still_Loves_John]

32. Media is plural

That is all.

/grammar nazi

[politicasista]

34. The media doesn't like Kerry

nobody does. :shrug: :cry:

[LittleClarkie]

36. I beg your pardon

I do more than like Kerry. He rather grows on a person if you give him a long enough gander.

Pundits can kiss my grits. I don't think they like any of our Dems. Bill maybe. But they don't make Kennedy look very good, do they. Can you think of one Dem who consistently gets decent coverage. Actually, Kerry's been doing a bit better since the election. He gets a nice yahoo.com photo once in a while.

But for some reason, even the RW is chatting up Hillary as being a possible threat. Yeah right, guys. We're back to "Oh no, don't throw me in the briar patch" again.

What is it about John. I love the stuffin's out of the guy, and yet some wouldn't give him the time of day. Eh, what the hell. I'd rather folks didn't try to support someone they don't support anyway. G'head and vote Green or somesuch. But if the Repub is heinous enough, I think you'll be back, no matter which pol we field here in Dem land.

[marcologico]

38. You rock!

:toast:

[marcologico]

37. Nope, and they never did, because they know a threat when they see one.

Kerry would re-regulate and de-monopolize those a-holes and they know it, which is why they'll never collectively "push" him, even though individual pundits (like John McLaughlin) might.

[nomaco-10]

46. From what I've heard from the corporate whore media,........

I think John Kerry may push himself on the public, not the media. Time will tell.

Of course Hillary will always be fuel for the fodder, we shall see.
Maybe the DNC election will put the party in a whole new light and direction, we can only hope.

[Obviousman]

48. They did it in 2004

With "electability" then they tore him down. They'd love to do it again

[Thrill]

53. NO MORE RUNNING SENATORS

I can't say it enough.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

54. WE CAN'T EVEN VOTE FOR ANYONE!! ELECTRONIC MACHINES. N/T

[earth mom]

55. Some great posts on this thread, it's difficult to know who to reply to...

but this is what sticks out. The general consensus is that the repukes want Hillary to run. WHY is that? Because they know that they can beat her. Everytime they talk about Kerry or Gore they get as nasty as all get out. Again, WHY is that? Because they know that there is a VERY real possibility that Kerry or Gore could win because they both have already won against *!!! Again-both men are extremely strong candidates because they already beat *!!! Think about it! The repukes and M$M will attack Kerry and/or Gore relentlessly if they run in '08 and it will be with both barrels because both men are a helluva threat. I think both Kerry or Gore have an excellent chance, though my money is on Kerry. And that's after being majorly ticked at Kerry for not fighting about the election fraud. I've come to the conclusion that there has to be a reason for why he handled it the way that he did. Kerry is a man of integrity and I accept that he had to do what he had to do. He had his reasons. Perhaps a threat on his family which I read about on another thread here on DU, or there could be a lot brewing behind the scenes that we just don't know about yet that will eventually take down *.

[globalvillage]

56. Gore???

I agree with you re Hillary. I don't think she has what it takes to win a national election. I also agree that there's more to Sen Kerry's concession without a fight than meets the eye. Mark my words, he's going to be the power behind the Dem party for the next four years, and I think he'll surprise a lot of people with his strength and integrity. I see him as hugely popular by 2008 IF we can manage to expose the lying right wing media. THEY won *'s election for him by trashing Kerry, and they need to be held accountable. If we fail in that, we don't have a chance with any candidate. People are looking for leadership, and if all they hear is O'Reilly and Limbaugh and their ilk, that's who they'll listen to.
I don't get Gore, though. Basically, the guy has been hiding since 2000. What's up with that? Maybe I've just been lax in my studies, but he hasn't resurfaced in any meaningful way. Where in the hell was he, anyway, when we needed him in 04? To me, leaders are leaders, in or out of office. Look at Edwards. He's back in the public eye, and fighting for Dem ideals even though he's out of public office. Personally, I love Edwards, but I don't think he has the experience necessary for the top job. I think he'd be a great VP, and could go on to POTUS some day, just not yet.
Anyway, as mentioned earlier in this thread, it's a long way to '08. Job #1 is to work at taking down Sinclair and it's minions. They are the enemy.