Follow Up: Should Kerry GET the 2008 nomination

[Zynx]

This is not run for it like my last poll, this is GET the nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 2008.

I'm adding a NO that I saw a few times in the other poll - that he will lose again. There are no versions of YES - presumably the only reason someone wants him to run is to win.

Other than that, feel free to explain your vote just as in the last one.

[Wizard777]

1. No

I like John Kerry. I think he's a great guy and would be a good President. But if I never hear another word from them shrimpboat bastards again. It'll be too soon. Hillary is the logical choice. We've had another one of them Bush's in the White House. It's gonna take a Clinton to clean up that mess. She may not have had to clean house as First Lady. But there will be no avoiding it as President.

[HeatherG.]

44. I Don't See It

Why Hillary? She doesn't have a better record than Kerry. She is actually less charasmatic than Kerry. The fact that the SBVFT may have actually influenced the election makes me angry. They need to know that they don't get to decide who gets to be president. They are a bunch of nasty, bitter, old men, and their opinions should mean next to nothing. The print media did a better job disputing their claims, then the talking heads. If we can bring the truth to the mentally lazy news readers, and pundits then they will be less respectful to the SBVFT if they try to re-emerge, and they probably would re-emerge in weakened form.

[Mist]

2. I voted "No - he ran a poor campaign"

He didn't respond to the Swift Boat Liars in a timely or forceful way-in fact, his entire campaign lacked forcefulness - too much Rethug lite.

[Wizard777]

3. He could have been more forceful with Bush.

In the last and most important debates. He let Bush put him on the ropes. Dean would have driven nails every step of the way. If Bush would have tried that "you have insulted our allies" routine on him. Dean would told him, you have tortured some of our allies. Merely insulting them would be a vast improvement in foreign relations. I think sometimes Kerry took Bush too seriously and put too much weight in Bush's jabs. Toward the end of the race Bush's campaign slogan was pretty much "I don't understand." Yep, that's Bush alright. I guess the conservatives are capable of achieving those crystal clear moments of honesty. But Dean would have rode Bush's ass right into the ground.

[karynnj]

20. Rethug lite - NO WAY

Criticizing his campaign or voting record is fair game, Say he is not only Republican lite, but Rethug lite is outrageous and unfair. Kerry's life has been an open book since he was in his 20s - his values have been consistent and he has followed them even when others took the easy way out.

He is now articulating both what is wrong with the Republicans and what Democrats value as well as anyone. He is a decent honorable man who has fought the RW longer and harder than almost anyone else. If he is a Rethug Lite, give me the names of two people you feel do not warrant this title.

[Jo March]

23. Yes, his statements today are really "rethug lite" - NOT

Read this and tell me where the Rethug lite comes in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1737203

:shrug:

[lojasmo]

4. I'm ambivalent

I don't think he deserves it, but with the other peoples' names being bandied about (clinton, edwards, etc) Feingold excepted, I don't think there's anybody I'd prefer.

[Zynx]

12. Interesting - should we run a non-politician then? - RESPONSE TO #5

I agree somewhat with the idea of baggage, but how little "experience" do you think we can get away with? A governor? Clark? Someone from the private sector?

EDIT: This should be a response to #5 - I misclicked.

[Les BOOGIE]

5. NO, we need a candidate with no baggage that can be exploited

That also includes John Edwards' career as a trial lawyer & Hillary's baggage

[Beelzebud]

6. ...

If Kerry runs as the democratic candidate in 08, I'll vote 3rd party.

[Jo March]

8. That'll show 'em!

:eyes:

[Beelzebud]

10. Yeah it will show them.

It will also "show me" if they run him again.

It's called political suicide, and that is what running Kerry for president again would look like...

Think about it. If the democrats decide to run the same guy that lost to the WORST PRESIDENT EVER again, they don't deserve the office!

[Jo March]

14. But Kerry didn't lose

Head on over to the 2004 Election Results & Discussion forum and read a little bit. Read the Conyers's report, TruthIsAll's many analyses and many other things that talk about the election and how it was stolen.

If you need more information, feel free to PM me. I'll be more than happy to send you some literature on the election.

Besides, if Kerry is the nominee and you vote 3rd party, then you are doing your best to put a repub in the White House. It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Also, welcome to DU. :hi:

[Zynx]

15. Kerry doesn't believe in the vote fraud

So either he knows better or he rolled completely for Bush for some unknown and detestable reason.

I'm not seeing a third option.

[Jo March]

16. Do some research

Kerry's team joined the lawsuit in Ohio. I'll get the link for you.

[Jo March]

22. Here are some links for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=334288

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=22581

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=351187


The first one deals with Kerry's team joining the lawsuit. The others are equally important, IMHO.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. Actually, in the end, Kerry DID lose

Yes there was fraud. Blatantly in Ohio and Florida, possibly elsewhere. I had a thread on another board that was tracking problems even prior to election day, and if memory serves me correctly there were at least 6 different problems with Ohio ballots even before the polls opened.

Kerry lost because, in the face of all this, he conceded less than 12 hours after they kicked the last Ohio voters (who were still in line waiting) out of the buildings.

And his lack of response to the Swift Boat Liars definitely didn't help either.

[AP]

7. I think he ran a really good campaign despite weaknesses and difficulties.

Somewhere in the first 25 or so pages of Wealth & Democracy, Kevin Phillips comments on how silly it is for Democrats to run candidates who don't symbolize and make strong arguments about the huge class differences and the polarization of wealth which Republican policies create. He said that Al Gore and Million Dollar Bill Bradley made Bush look like the populist, which is an ourtageous situation.

It would be nice if Democrats ran a candidate who wasn't fighting against perceptions that he or she might not have an appreciation of what's it's like to be born without much money and to work hard all your life, and that he or she didn't have a very keen interest in making sure everyone has opportunity.

I think Kerry did a good job of fighting those perceptions, but it would be better if you had someone who didn't have to fight those percerptions -- if you had someone running whose person invoked a sense that the person is a populist.

[flpoljunkie]

9. AP, do you, perchance, mean someone like........John Edwards?

[Zynx]

13. Sounds like Edwards to me

Could also be a comment that "Kerry as common man" comes across fake as hell.

[flpoljunkie]

18. JK never pretended to be the "common man". On the other hand, Edwards

comes across as rather a little too smooth, and should I say, a little slick--like a pitchman on a game show--and not at all like a "common man."

His wife, Elizabeth, on the other hand, comes across as real, and definitely has the earthy, common touch.

[AP]

21. Unless someone even better comes along.

I'd say that Edwards is more in the direction that Phillips was talking about than anyone else I've seen so far.

[McGonigle]

59. Bill Bradley has showered

with more black men than most republicans have shaken hands with.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[flpoljunkie]

19. JK actually won the election, before they hacked in, changed the results

He is rightfully our president, but there is no way to prove it--absent a courageous whistleblower. As Avi Rubin said right before the election, in an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, "Without paper ballots that can be physically examined, the only recount possible is a review of the votes recorded by the DRE system itself. And if those votes were recorded incorrectly, no recount will fix the error. The incorrect result could never be detected, much less corrected."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.vo...

This hacking in applies even to punch card systems who use central tabulating or "mother" computers, without hidden software code, as Teresa Kerry calls them.

[New Dealer]

25. I refuse to accept it was stolen

Why?

Not because I think there's evidence saying it wasn't, but because I think accepting it's stolen is giving up. If they stole this election, what's to stop them from stealing every election? What's to stop them from "selecting" a Republican president and congress for the next 50 years until America collapses? I'm optimistic, and I believe there still is a chance to save America. I will do my best to help the Democrats gain seats in congress and gain back the White House in 2008, because I believe there is hope.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not you think it was stolen, you cannot put up an argument as to why Kerry was a good candidate. He was very unclear about his intentions; he couldn't resist the Swift Boat Liars, and he didn't seem to be popular with most Americans - even the ones that voted for him. If I'm going to campaign as hard as I can for a Democrat in 2008, it better be the best candidate there is.

[borg5575]

33. If we win by a landslide they can't steal it.

They can only steal relativley close elections. So we have to make sure that we win by a big enoough margin next time that they can't steal it.

I know that's not fair. If we win a close election, then we should have the right to assume office.

But in today's world of almost total Rethug control, actually being allowed to assume office after a close election win might not be a realistic option.

We need to work our butts off to make sure that the margin is so big that it's unquestionable.

Then once the Dems are back in office they can clean it up so that nobody can ever steal it again.

[lady lib]

68. Sorry, I don't agree that "accepting it's stolen is giving up."

I think it's facing reality so it doesn't happen again. You might want to read bradblog.com to see what's going on with election reform. IMHO :)

[blm]

26. I understood what he meant by that. ALL congressional votes work like that

You vote for the bill the way YOU want to see it written before you vote on the bill that the opposing view has written.

The GOP and their media lapdogs know most people are dumb and unsure of how the congress votes. In fact, BushInc was insulting their audience by COUNTING on their ignorance of how bills are actually passed.

Shame that so many are so ignorant.

[New Dealer]

27. I know that, but that's not the point

Saying something like that is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Of course he didn't mean that he changed his mind on the exact same bill, but the clip of that can be played to millions of Americans who know nothing about bills, and will think "Oh no! Kerry is a flip-flopper! We better make sure he's not elected!" and then Kerry loses.

Kerry has been in politics for a long time now. He should know not to say things like that.

[blm]

28. I think BELIEVING the spin on it PROVES stupidity.

Typical dumbass Bush voters and the media who refuses to let the truth come forward.

[New Dealer]

31. Yes, but he shouldn't have said it in the first place

We can blame the Bush voters and the media, but we can't change them. However, we can ensure that our candidates don't say something like by nominating someone better. You have to admit, it is a pretty stupid thing for a presidential candidate to say that.

[blm]

32. No, it was NOT. Kerry talked to his audiences with RESPECT and didn't talk

down to them. He expected his audience to understand how bills were passed. It was Bush USING the media to portray a different spin.

If we had even a HALF honest media, BushInc wouldn't have been able to get away with their spin that was fit only for an ignoramus.

Bush INSULTED his audience and the American people by expecting them to be ignorant in regard to congressional voting, and the media helped him do it.

[New Dealer]

34. Kerry's audience for everything he says is all of America

And he would be stupid to think that most Americans are smart. Most Americans can't name the vice president, the party in control of Congress, and the significance of the Fourth of July. Why should they be expected to know anything about Kerry other than what ads during TV shows tell them?

Everything a politician publicly says is recorded on video and made available for everyone to see. Kerry should have been more careful.

[karynnj]

51. Do you know the context?

Kerry was asked by a heckler why he voted against the $87 billion. He answered completely explaining the alternative bill - it had oversight and was to be funded by rolling back a small part of the tax cut. The heckler interrupted again and Kerry stated that he had already explained it and unfortunately summed it up in the famous quote.

Was it stupid to use a shorthand way of stating it or of not having someone throw out persistent hecklers? Possibly But Kerry was being taped speaking for many hours a day, every day for several months. He actually made very very few errors in speaking. Consider what the expected number of words uttered is until a major mistake for Bush. There was a major double standard. Kerry was and is an extremely articulate, intelligent man. Do you think any candidate speaking that often, running from city to city wouldn't make some verbal faux pas. (Several primary candidates got in trouble for things they said - when the coverage was less intense and it was a shorter period of time.)

[McGonigle]

61. I'd like to make

a parody attack ad with dumb things said by democratic presidents/candidates over the last 30 years, a la Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.

"It depends on what the definition of is is."

"I have lusted in my heart."

"YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAARGH!"

"I was instrumental in creating the internet." (true, but misunderstood and oft parodied, like the scream.)

"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."

Dukakis in a tank. Kerry windsurfing. Etc.

The fact of the matter is that Kerry's statement that he voted for it before he voted against it was incredibly stupid. He voted for it while it was still in committee, which is basically a vote to talk about it more, but ultimately he voted not to approve it and actually requisition the money. Then he tried to say that he made a mistake in talking about it, but he never really explained exactly what happened in a forum that got wide media attention, thereby correcting the mistake and defusing the power of the quote.

(Needless to say, a parody attack ad with every dumb thing every republican has ever said would basically have to be a whole damn TV channel.... maybe Al Gore's new channel?)

[BlueIris]

24. Love him and picked him because he was the best choice.

will support, give money to and campaign for him again because he's still the best choice. I'd like to see him with a different running mate, and don't even get me started on why it shouldn't be Hillary, but he's getting my vote no matter what.

[lala_rawraw]

29. Um, it was not the camp that lost it

It was the fraud. Now, I say this w/o speculation because given the stories that I have covered and that I went into them open minded, and given that everything that I reported on was ignored (as well as the reports by others), I can say that I feel there was massive fraud. When the election came down to 60k votes... the math starts to get interesting when you take fraud into account. So for the record, I think Kerry won the election. I dare anyone to prove that Bush won and I will not accept they said so on TV.

So, maybe an ideal ticket would be Kerry/Boxer?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

30. In the clearing stands a Boxer...

I think she has earned the title, being the only Dem with a set of balls in D.C. And I think the repukes are wondering about her as well, because lately they have been screaming "Boxer, Nut Job". The more popular she becomes the louder they will scream.

[TriMetFan]

45. Boxer for 2008

And they are not called Set of Balls, they are called Set of Ovaries.:evilgrin:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

50. She convinced me she has both!

:)

[sellitman]

53. Boxer will make an excellent President!!!!

She is Liberal and 100% Democratic! Plus she has more balls that the Harlem Globetrotters!!!!

[Imagevision]

58. Boxer doesn't have the balls Hillary has.

[Blue Moon]

35. No, he's a proven loser.

Sorry, politics is a tough game. Losers carry a stigma. Go with the odds and support a non-loser. My support goes to Clark.

[Blue Moon]

36. Interesting thought for discussion

Seeing as how there is great negativity towards Ratzinger, should Kerry renounce his Catholicism for greater appeal to the anti-Pope voting crowd?

[nickgutierrez]

47. You could say that Clark is a 'proven loser', too.

After all, he didn't exactly provide competition in the 2004 primaries. By the premise behind your post, why should I back Clark if he hasn't ever won anything?

[Joey Liberal]

37. Kerry disappointed me

Kerry let the republicans runs all over him. He let the Swift Boat Morons get away with trashing his Vietnam service, while Bush was a fucking wartime deserter. I wouldn't want to suffer through that again. And it still amazes me that republicans have taken to disrespecting people that served in Vietnam. They did it to Gore first and then they did it to Kerry. They will do it to Clark too - despite the fact that he was an airborne ranger qualified infantry officer. That's how sick the chickenhawk republican party is.

[Clarkie1]

39. If they try that with Clark he will "beat the shit out of them."

He said he would, I know he can, and I believe it.

[Clarkie1]

38. I do think Kerry should get the 2008 nomination

if he gets the most votes.

[Blue Moon]

40. An obvious, but legitmate observation. I agree. eom.

[Larkspur]

41. Kerry already proved he is unelectible. Time to Fade into History senator

We don't need Kerry being the 21st century Adlai Stevenson.

[wisteria]

56. Don't agree!

Your reasoning is wrong and would only apply if he had lost in a landslide.He certainly didn't do that did he? I still think he is more electable then other frequently mentioned contenders in DU.He also still maintains large support in this country. I for one an not interested in him fading away anytime soon.

[Gimley13]

42. He ran one of the worst campaigns ever

he constantly seemed to switch views (Even if he didnt he made things to confusing for the average person to easily comprehend, thus giving the republicans something to hammer into). In my mind he lost the election when he said that knowing hwat he knows now, he still would have voted for the iraq war? what the fuck?

[Blue Moon]

43. Kerry has residual value...

as a Vice-Presidential running mate. Think about it.

[snowbear]

46. Senator Kerry.....

He blew Bush away in all three debates.. A pure hat-trick as they say in hockey (3 straight wins)

And he would have done a zillion times better than the loser currently occupying the residence.

But should he be our candidate again in 2008?

:-( In my opinion, no.

We need to WIN..

As a matter of fact... we =ARE= going to WIN!! ~~ :kick: :toast:

[ComerPerro]

48. Its still early 2005, right?

Or did I miss two years?

[liberalpragmatist]

49. How about "too soon to decide"

I think he has a right to run and I'd certainly consider him if he runs. But I don't think anyone at this point "SHOULD" be the nominee.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

52. I voted for he'll just lose again. I think would have made a .......

GREAT President. But I'm not sure he has "learned."

Oh. I do think a good VP choice would be Clark. The only reason I say that is the "lack of political experience", IMHO. We need a brawler like him! I also thought he would have made the prefect VP choice in 04 too!

[high density]

54. Goodness no, why do people want to go through that crap again?

I'm going to remember the political disaster that was August 2004 for many years to come.

[wisteria]

55. Positively!

I can think of no one who is more qualified and presidential then John Kerry. His campaign wasn't that bad.Mistakes were made, (live and learn). He took the high road. I would have lost respect for him as a leader if he would resorted to the ugly tactics executed by the republicans. We should be better then these low life, lying thugs. They have reduced our government into a mediocre cesspool of slim and filth. Others, some have mentioned, are certainly doing there parts to help the democratic party and deserve our support. I just can not however, see anyone doing as dedicated a job as John Kerry would do.

[Imagevision]

57. Kerry never did get all the votes counted - How many times can we go thru

The swiftboatee BS?? -- It broke my heart when he wasn't elected but Kerry wasn't as good as he could have been -- waited way too long before he responded to attacks -- if Carvel wasn't all over his shit to say something he never would have (about the swiftboatee's)

Rove ran a slime campaign carried on further by the Linbaugh's and Hannity's out there and it only proved that this country has less informed and educated people.

[Imagevision]

60. With Hillary they'll use Vince fosters suicide the issue!

[splat@14]

62. My problem with Kerry is..

First, I voted for Kerry. The problem is that my vote was "against Bush" not "for Kerry". And I bet a bunch of others were the same. I liked Kerry but I hated Bush more. The problem is that the other side really likes Bush and doesn't care if its Kerry or whomever and thats why they voted for him. They really wanted Bush/Cheney over anyone. We'll never win a contest where voters have to de-select someone by selecting someone else. We have to have someone that voters will select over the alternative. I mean no disrespect to Kerry. I listened to both he and Edwards and I know we would be much better off with them now. They didn't get their message across. Kerry and Edwards are sharp and know the details. Why they didn't hand those two their asses, the idiot & the crook (read Bush & Cheney), is beyond me. They should have wiped the floor with them during the debates. Thats when they had their opportunity to demonstrate it to the public, or at least a portion of it. The American electorate doesn't give a shit enough about finding out anything on their own...it has to be spoon fed to them. Kerry and Edwards missed that opportunity. A 5 point jump in the polls, post debate, means nothing....they needed big scores and they could have had them.

Maybe not, just my opinion. Some people I know voted for Bush for single issues like abortion, gun control, etc. When I press them for details, turns out they didn't really "know the issues", or voted on "parental guidance", or "9/11", some didn't even care and still voted just so they could feel that they filled their obligation....all kinds of shit. Rove sold them a bill of goods that was easy to take. Americans like it that way - thats whats needs to change!!!!

Kerry is smart enough, but I doubt he'll have the resolve. Especially after the loss. I'd vote for him again, but it would be for the same reason which is why I don't think it would work.

[Geek_Girl]

63. I'd Vote for Him over Hillary

But I'd prefer Clark :)

[Catchawave]

64. Not until he shuts these assholes down.....

or shuts them up with a cease and desist lawsuit ?

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

They appear stronger than ever with their unforgiving hatred for JK. I just don't want to go through that again.

Otherwise, I really, really like JK.

edit: add link !

[KoKo]

65. Your choices of #2 and 4, seem to be too close. So it splits the vote.

Some folks here think Kerry ran a poor campaign and caved at the end to Repug BS but also think he won.

Maybe you should have just put: Do you think Kerry ran a bad campaign but won the election? Instead of adding "caved to Repug BS," which is kind of "flame bait." :shrug:

[HeatherG.]

66. I Think He Should

You still should have added a maybe option. There are people who want to see what the field looks like before they decide wether to support Kerry. Alot of potential Kerry primary voters are going to be left out of this poll because they won't give Kerry a definitive yes vote this early.

[LiberalFighter]

67. It depends on who else runs