For those who value facts, Kerry ISN'T more polarizing than Hillary.

[PresidentObama]

I love Hillary Clinton.

But you can't change the truth with a lie.

Senator Kerry is NOT more polarizing than Hillary Clinton.

John Kerry got the most votes of any Democrat in history. And love or hate him, you can't take that fact away. And he actually won a Presidential Primary.

I respect and admire Clinton, but she's the most polarizing candidate in history. Look at any polling data, and it'll show you that.

Whether you believe Kerry would be a good VP pick or not, let's at least post the truth...shall we?

[mtnsnake]

1. Only in La La land is Hillary more polarizing. The days of Hillary being polarizing are long gone.

[PresidentObama]

2. I've got a simple challenge: Prove it!

I know your tactics. You'll try and change the subject. You'll try and insult me. You'll do everything to manuever around the question.

You made the statement, now back it up!

[mtnsnake]

8. Prove yours first. You can't so you won't. Practice what you preach

lol

[PresidentObama]

10. Like I said, change the subject. You posted the original thread, now back it up.

Show me that Kerry's more polarizing nationally than Clinton.

You can't. Because it's a lie.

[mtnsnake]

12. You first

You can't because it's a lie

[PresidentObama]

18. You're a horrible debator. If you can't back up your point, you shouldn't have launched the thread.

I wasn't the one who made the statement that Kerry was more polarizing, you did.

Back it up, or shut up.

[mtnsnake]

27. In another thread tonight, you told me you loved me. Did you change your mind ALREADY?

lol

[PresidentObama]

28. Change the subject? I said put up or shut up, and you can't. Thanks for lying, try again later.

[mitchum]

114. I don't think that particular automaton was programmed to debate

just spew

[PresidentObama]

19. You're a horrible debator. If you can't back up your point, you shouldn't have launched the thread.

I wasn't the one who made the statement that Kerry was more polarizing, you did.

Back it up, or shut up.

[mtnsnake]

30. You already told me that

Jeesh

[LakeSamish706]

57. Why are you being so hard nosed? Kerry dumped in 2004, and thats the bottom line!

Even if Edwards had family problems, Kerry should have kept the fight going and thats also the bottom line. And he didn't. And thats also a bottom line..... So I sure as hell would not want to see a Kerry as VP... And thats the bottom line.

[karynnj]

66. Even now there is NOT the proof needed - the same team that pushed Gore to contest, told Kerry it

was hopeless.

Do you understand that Kerry needed to proof not just that there were problems or voter suppression in Ohio, but that he got more votes? Even the RFKjr article - which proves more people got up that morning to vote for Kerry - counts votes that were NEVER CAST due to long lines or other problems. (As Kerry pointed out, the inadequate provisioning of machines is not even against current Ohio law. Kerry and Feingold wrote legislation that would require when there were machine problems that paper ballots must be available and offered - to be counted as regular votes. It was not passed - or even allowed out of the Rules Committee.)

Other problems, like the caterpillar ballot, where votes were lost - could no more be claimed than Gore could have been given the "Jewish Buchanan" votes - because the confusing butterfly ballot led them to inadvertently vote for Buchanan. (In Ohio, inner city blacks had votes going to the Constitution party and even to an empty line where Nader was before he was taken off the ballot. ) A statistician doing a corporate study could and would "clean" the data in both cases - as the problem is clear - but that's not how elections work. (These errors in both FL 2000 and OH 2004 partially account for the big discrepancies with exit polls.)

Not only did they need proof, they needed proof before January 6, 2005 - preferably before the point in December before the Ohio electoral college delegates were named. Even Edwards has never said HOW he would contest this.

[blm]

88. She already proved it - Kerry won more votes than any other Dem in history. If DNC had secured the

election process in the four years after 2000s theft, Kerry would be in office today. Instead, Clinton loyalists at the dNC let the party infrastructure in many states collapse by the late 90s so that in 2000, 2002 and 2004 election cycles the GOP had near total control of the election process in many states at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

[Divine Discontent]

16. good luck with that...

Kerry was an honorable man who was a tad naive in understanding the ways of the modern GOP, and for that, he is to blame, but to say he's 'polarizing' as others are saying is a tad disingenuous, because no one complained at any of the rallies that he was boring, or out of touch, or didn't make sense - they cheered mightily at his attacks on Bush ---

One must only point to two reasons why Kerry didn't "win" the election -

The GOP releasing an Osama tape at the end, and, the way Ohio was turned into "Florida 2000" where J. Kenneth Blackwell did everything he could (and was stopped by the Ohio court system on at least one occasion during the summer of '04) to finagle the turnout, and the voting process, all while the final numbers were run through a company's servers, as we came to find out, who also ran or were affiliated with the RNC's website, if memory serves me right!

I mean, wow, what more needs said. Everything crooked that they could do, they did.

And I say it now, there's NO way Obama should lose this election, regardless of what fear-mongering they do, he's too well liked compared to McCranky, and, the economy is in the absolute SHITTER, and the war is not a war, it's a for-profit biz that most of America knows it to be. I'll either be in the streets if he doesn't get in, or move to another country.

[karynnj]

67. Great analysis

2008 should be different for all the reasons in your last paragraph - all of which led to the fact that about 80% of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction.

I am not sure that Kerry was naive to the ways of the GOP - he did say they were the biggest crooks and liars he had seen - and this from the man who exposed the illegal funding of the Contras and BCCI! I think he over estimated the intelligence of the American people and the professionalism of the MSM. In 2004, it is likely that the task of defeating a President, who people saw as protecting them was too difficult. (I know some people who were young during WWII still angry that he questioned whether it was the "right war" and how it was run - while we were at war.)

I don't think he will be VP - he can defend Obama just as well as a party atatesman.

[Divine Discontent]

95. thank you and thank you for your views! intersting points EOM

[blm]

89. 2004 was post 9-11 media climate. 2008 is post Katrina and post Iraq Civil War reality.

We have gained some in the media climate, and that will make a significant difference.

[catgirl]

122. Why bother with snakes

this one is always out for a fight.

I think John Kerry would be an amazing V.P. :-)

[Skittles]

3. did she become a man? n/t

[hughee99]

29. How the hell did we all get in La La Land?

Since Hillary is more polarizing everywhere in this world except perhaps in the Clintons' house.

[LittleClarkie]

87. Kerry wouldn't be a fundraising tool like Hillary would be. Republicans consider him a joke.

They don't even see him as a good Senator.

Hillary they take seriously. They hate the Clintons like no other. Kerry isn't in that league. He's in the same group Al Gore is in, the group the Republicans think they've already neutralized and turned into buffoons in the eyes of the public.

[catgirl]

121. They think Al Gore is a buffoon in the eyes of the public?

Interesting inside info. you have from the republicans. Al Gore draws enormous crowds,
has won more awards than anybody I can think of- including the Nobel Peace Prize, and
has garnered the greatest respect from fellow dems, independents, as well as repubs.

Sure, there will be the RW BS crowd who fears him and will still try to kill him in the
media..., but your statement is crap.

[LittleClarkie]

125. Considering the way they still refer to him as having invented the internet

Whether or not he's drawing crowds and has won awards, I'm talking about the perception of the right, not the reality. To hear some of them talk, it seems they think the Nobel Peace Prize is irrelevant because that just shows that the Nobel committee has become a liberally biased joke. And they STILL refer to the internet thing even 8 years later, though he never said it. THEY consider him a joke, and as such he would not be the same kind of polarizing figure for THEM as Hillary Clinton.

You know and I know that Al Gore and his work are not a joke. But then truth never got in the way of a good meme, did it.

[catgirl]

130. Perhaps you meant RW media?

You generalized and said "republicans". There's a bid difference there. And
the idiots who refer to these RW talking points, are a dying breed. Al Gore
has the admiration of young people who's parents are/were republican.

[adoraz]

96. do you have any polling data? If not, stop making stuff up.

[andromedo]

4. Even in his state Kerry is polarizing

His approval there barely surpasses 50%.

[PresidentObama]

6. We're talking nationally, he'll win the Senate race easily.

[andromedo]

31. And how in the world would we know how polarizing Kerry is nationally?

It's common sense. If Massachussets, a liberal state, has an approval of Kerry of around 50%, imagine the more moderate nation as a whole.

[beachmom]

105. Latest Rasmussen has him at 60% approval rating, and he

is slated to easily be re-elected.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_senate

Massachusetts Senate: Kerry Still Cruising to Re-Election
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Email a Friend Email to a Friend

There are no surprises in the latest numbers from the Senate election in Massachusetts. The newest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds incumbent John Kerry well ahead of Republican Jeff Beatty, 58% to 27% in his bid for re-election.

...

The former Presidential candidate is viewed favorably by 60% of Massachusetts voters, up from 54% last month. He is viewed unfavorably by 39%, up from 32% in June. Beatty is less known to voters. His numbers are 25% favorable, 30% unfavorable, and 44% have no opinion. Those numbers have changed little over the past month.

Rasmussen Markets data shows that Kerry is given a 94.0 % chance of winning re-election in November. These figures are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants.

[ProSense]

15. Kerry won re-election with over 80% of the vote

In the current race, the Repub is trailing him by 38 to 45 points in the poll.

Where did you come from?

[PresidentObama]

32. Not to mention, he won a Presidential Primary and a General Election (was cheated like Gore)

[NYC_SKP]

37. You said Kerry had 71% with Dems and 20% with Repubs in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6468142#6468350

I'm confused now.

[Captain Hilts]

53. And, despite his, Ted Kennedy's, Patrick's and Caroline K's 'round the clock ads for Obama...

Massachusetts voted for Clinton.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. During a time when Obama wasn't a household name, of course Hillary would win MA

I'm sure that Obama will win MA handily. I think the Clintons are well known and very loved in MA.

[karynnj]

73. They started out as mush as 37 points ahead

Obama also had virtually no organization in MA before Kerry announced - almost all the local party leaders were with Clinton. That means they had almost all the experienced campaign people. Obama was polling in the 20s then. That he ended up with 41% was a very major shift - and kept HRC from getting a large number of delegates. The biggest value of the Kerry/Kennedy endorsements was that they held down the numbers in all those big primary states where HRC had the party machines in line. (I know those endorsements shifted things in NJ - and I know from phone banking for Obama that mentioning that Kerry and Kennedy, who worked with both in the Senate, was a great argument to people who were undecided.) Obama's huge wins in the little caucus states could only balance moderate loses - not blowouts in all those big states - and before the senators' announcements, NY, NJ, MA, and CA were likely to be huge blowouts.

Kerry also was a big help in keeping NV close (equal in terms of delegates - having someone of Kerry's stature to call Bill Clinton on his dishonesty on Obama's record on Iraq and on the Clinton allies attempt to eliminate some caucuses in NV was important.

[karynnj]

70. There are likely two reasons for that

1) He has been smeared for at least 4 years and ridiculed even by the MSM - in MA as well as elsewhere. Many Kerry accomplishments are not even given coverage in the Boston Globe - he got more detailed coverage in the world press on his efforts in Bali.

The Boston Globe gave no coverage to the praise he got on those efforts from the Bush administration itself.
The President’s chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, spoke before the SFRC hearing chaired by Senator Menendez. Mr. Connaughton was part of the President’s delegation who attended the second week of the Bali Conference. Because of the Senate schedule, Senator Kerry flew 40 hours round trip to spend 36 hours as the sole US Congressional representative to the conference. At a SFRC hearing earlier this year, Mr. Connaughton, who represented President Bush said:
“I would particularly also want to call out thanks to Senator Kerry for coming to Bali. I would note that the remarks he gave in Bali were very constructive in helping to educate the international community on the needs, what it would take for America to move forward together in a bi-partisan way. I thought those remarks were very well received. Senator Kerry, thank you for that.”
Listening to the hearing, the Senator is praised for his leadership on this issue by both Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080124p.html

Here was even stronger praise from an earth day SFRC hearing: Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat (around 4 minutes in) said:

"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty.

http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defense_of_treehuggers.html#comments (I was surprised to see this on Kerryvision because I had heard nothing on this and it was the same day Kerry did an amazing job on the Future of the Internet hearing.

2) The second reason is that MA is more discriminating in awarding approval* - look at Patrick's ratings which are far worse. Kennedy is a ledgend and they know that he is and love him - yet HIS ratings which are higher are nowhere near the highest across the country. What is clear is that vs any opponent, Kerry polls over 20 points higher. (This was true even back a year or so ago when they polled him vs the various Congressmen who had been the most mentioned to get his seat had he became President. These are more realistic than the do you want someone other than Kerry - where you have all the Republicans and any Democrat wanting anyone else.)

* National companies have found for decades that customer satisfaction responses have regional difference when matched with objective measures.

[baldguy]

5. John Kerry won in 2004

The MSM just didn't report it, so it never happened.

[PresidentObama]

7. Of course he did. RE: Ohio

[mtnsnake]

9. Yeah that's why he's sitting in the WH as we speak (snicker)

[PresidentObama]

11. Tell that to Al Gore n/t

[mtnsnake]

13. Gore won, Kerry didn't. Take that to the bank. n/t

[PresidentObama]

14. You choose to see some facts, but not others. Whats new?

[mtnsnake]

20. York

[ProSense]

17. Kerry won,

Hillary didn't.

Is it painful?

[mtnsnake]

22. Yes, Kerry won. That was one heck of a 4 years he just put in (snicker)

[PresidentObama]

24. Gore didn't get a chance to serve either, and he won too.

Your point?

[ProSense]

26. Let me clarify for you:

Kerry won his primary challenge. Hillary didn't.

Take that to the bank.

[YvonneCa]

48. Glad you ...

...noticed.:patriot:

[karynnj]

75. Kerry easily won the NOMINATION -

HRC with all her many advantages and a media saying she was flawless -didn't.

Kerry emerged from a close loss in an election stacked against him after a high road campaign, with integrity and honor. HRC - not so much so.

[TheKentuckian]

45. Both are polarizing

Kerry's status puzzles me but it seems he is highly disliked even by many Democrats, maybe it's just anger at another four years of Bush. I mean seriously, what could the guy have done to be so disliked by so many? Maybe coming out against Viet Nam?

Senator Clinton's status as polarizing is in large part unfair, but other than Bush, she probably has the most people in the country who for whatever reason can't tolerate her. I think much of her lack of popularity stems from her efforts in the area of healthcare under Bubba and a out of date view of "a woman's place".
With Hillary, I see a group of people across the political spectrum who despise her, a group of people that love her with a great passion, and some few of us that are varying degrees of neutral.

Don't get it twisted though, Hillary is quite possibly the 2nd most polarizing personality in politics, even ahead of Bill.

My top 5 right now is.

1. Dubbya
2. Hillary
3. Bubba
4. Kerry
5. Edwards (also randomly hated around the political spectrum).

and Barack is coming on strong.

[YvonneCa]

50. Welcome to DU...

...:)

[karynnj]

79. Interesting analysis

I suspect that part of Kerry's problem with Democrats is partially because of his success in 2004 convincing many who had no hope that he could win. Additionally, he was already disliked, but tepidly supported, by the LW of the party. His vote - in spite of his being an opponent of the invasion hurt and in addition many Dean supporters never fact checked some attacks Dean made in the desperate last days of his run - that Kerry was a "corporate" favorite and had Lobbyist problems - neither were true and they are STILL used now against Kerry.

I don't buy the "woman's place" argument. HRC for at least 2 years was favored by more than 20 points more than anyone else. All these people knew, of course, that she was a woman. She started to lose those people as people saw Clinton actions that recalled the parts of the Clinton years that nostalgia had erased. Where it is real is that HRC was hit harder for being strident when she was than Edwards was when he was (mostly in 2007). As strident woman was apparently a negative - where Edwards actually rose when he was being that way.

Edwards is different than the other 4 in that I think he is "disrespected" more than hated. (That's good and bad - the good side is that if he finds ways to make some real substantial accomplishments he could change that more easily than the first 3). Of the others, Kerry has more ability to change Democrats' opinions and possibly Republicans as well - had he become President that would have happened more easily. In a democratic Senate with Obama as President, Kerry would likely be more visibly the force he has been for at least the last 4 years. (If he is SoS, he could become the Good "Kissinger" as SOS - changing the foreign policy direction (as he spoke of even in 1971 and leading the US efforts on global warming) The integrity, intelligence and sincerity which Kerry has always shown are the real truth and when Obama is President, some of the anger over Kerry's loss will be diminished or re-directed to the Republicans and media.

[Webster Green]

36. Oh bullshit!

They changed the Ohio vote in the middle of the night. Everyone knows that. :eyes:

[Overseas]

92. Whoops. Kerry actually did win. But Republicans steal well.

Dribs and drabs method -- steal a few thousand there and there and people will shout down those of us were crying foul and call us "conspiracy theorists" because each little incident was considered too small to influence the final tally.

Then when the information is compiled later, surprise-- those fools crying out on election day about irregularities they were seeing were right. Whoops.

www.uncountedthemovie.com

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[baldguy]

51. You can believe the truth, or believe the corporate media.

But remember, the corporate media whats to keep you uninformed & docile. So they will always lie to you when given the opportunity.

[LakeSamish706]

21. The problem with John Kerry is that he didn't fight the fight when he should have....

I'm almost certain that he knew that the voting was rigged and he just gave up before standing up. I think that many Democrats will remember this for a long time to come. There may have been many reasons to not fight it, but I certainly would have put up my fists....

[politicasista]

33. Neither did the Democratic Party

But it's easier to blame only Kerry.

I am glad Obama appreciates the hardwork one of his best surrogates puts in to getting him elected. It's too bad that some (not all) of his supporters don't respect that.

[Captain Hilts]

39. Right. The Dem party didn't fight for Gore or for Kerry. nt

[LakeSamish706]

43. Well then maybe it is the Dem. party that is at fault... But like I said in my post...

there is no damn way that I would have laid down and played dead..... I want to see fighters in this party, not people that will give up when some Repug tells ya too....

[Captain Hilts]

54. I completely agree. This is how I came out of the primary campaign liking both candidates more...

Each of them has more fight in them than Gore and Kerry combined.

[LakeSamish706]

56. Yep, me as well.... I was so upset when Kerry and Edwards did not fight that...

The only thing that I could see at the time was John Edwards problems at home that maybe short circuited the election... ie: Elizabeth's health, which I can totally understand....

[karynnj]

81. So, you would potentially damage the party by having what would be cast as a

temper tantrum when you lost. Kerry did not lay down or play dead. Within a few weeks he was both back in the Senate - leading against Bush idiocies and had written an unusual appeal to his 3 million email list - begging people who had become involved to not give up hope and to keep fighting.

Sometimes you need to look at the options in front of you and consider what the long term impact would or could be. If there was a chance of changing the results, it would have been different - but there was no way to uncover and prove to the nation a massive amount of cheating (if it happened) by January 5, 2005.

I have heard Kerry occasionally speak of the consequences of losing - and it is always in the context of what he could have done on a foreign policy, environmental, or judicial matter. He knew how important victory was and worked as hard as he could for it against huge odds.

[karynnj]

80. "Knowing" and proving are two very different things

Even now if a whistleblower came to Kerry, I am positive that he would have the person vetted and if the accusations could be proven - he would intitiate an investigation. This is the guy who worked 5 years aon BCCI when everyone wanted him to stop. There were intervals where everything was being quietly investigated and others when there were hearings - at least one with Kerry sitting alone on the Senate side, without any staffers from the rest of the committee. What this shows is:
1) He would never make an unsupported indefensible accusations
2) If he found information, he would keep at the investigation like a bull dog - even if powers that be objected.

Kerry didn't have the numbers with him and he had no support from the party. The country was at war and the Democratic party would have been gravely hurt had they been seen to be fighting when they lost. We would have sacrificed 2006 and 2008 - and it was unwinnable.

This was not a re-count situation like FL, there was no way to "find" sufficient errors and you can't count votes not cast. You also could not establish and win a fraud case by Jan 2005 - and if you could - that STILL doesn't equate to "Kerry won Ohio". That would throw the decision to the Ohio legislature ..... which was Republican. (Do you think the Supreme Court would have then changed that?)

Where is the path to it being challenged and won. In terms of speaking out on teh problems, Kerry did and does speak about these issues in the Senate and outside it - in detail. He got NO support in changing things - DU current favorite Dodd heads that committee any legislation needs to go through. He is the one who needed pushing before 2008. I hope Obama's victory is suitably big.

[AtomicKitten]

23. No one is more polarizing than Hillary Clinton.

[PresidentObama]

25. BINGO!

[Captain Hilts]

40. Not so.

Ancient history.

[mkultra]

123. the only thing that stops hillary from being polarizing

is her closed mouth.

[Zavulon]

34. Recommended.

An actual fan of Hillary's who admits this is someone who has my respect. I detest her, and can't think of anyone more polarizing. The idea that Kerry is more polarizing than Hillary is beyond rational belief.

Republicans are going to hate both, for whatever reasons. However, far more Democrats hate Hillary than Kerry. In fact, I've only seen a couple posters here who seem to hate him. Half of the board seems to hate Hillary, and I'm among that half.

[Captain Hilts]

35. Two national surveys in the last week of May had her beating McCain by a wider margin than Obama..

over 70% of Obama voters said they'd vote for her if he didn't get the nomination - and that was before McCain was the R candidate.

Not that polarizing at all. Stop believing the Right Wing spin.

That said, I don't think I'd pick her for Veep.

[mtnsnake]

38. Amen, Mookie. Thanks for proving Kerry2008 dead wrong AGAIN

[PresidentObama]

41. How does that prove me wrong? The question was who was more polarizing, Kerry or Hillary.

Mookie didn't say anything that related to that.

Pay attention, it helps.

[mtnsnake]

44. You could put the North and South Pole together and John Kerry would STILL be more polarizing!

[PresidentObama]

47. Mtnsnakes logic: Can't debate your point? Change the subject!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. The problem lies with the Democratic party. The party treats losers like

pariahs. Look at how the party officials treated Gore after he "lost." They didn't make him a standard bearer of the party. Look at how Kerry was treated and how very few (including Hillary and Bill Clinton) never came to the aid of Kerry when he was lambasted by the Repukes and the M$M during the botched troop joke debacle. In fact, Hillary agreed that Kerry should apologize.

Most polls show that Hillary is polarizing. Her negatives are higher than for any Democrat. Her negatives have always been high, even when she was First Lady, as they were when she ran in the primaries. The only time that her approval ratings increased is whenever she is viewed as the victim, especially during the height of the Monica Lewinsky affair. But by and large, the Repukes and the M$M succeeded in turning Hillary Clinton into a non-human, unwomanly person. And sadly, it seemed as though her most ardent critics were suburban women.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/19/politics/main265470.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2169159/
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=10&num=12359
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1229053,00.html

[Captain Hilts]

42. Oh to be in the Adirondacks right now...

ER certainly had fun there...

[mtnsnake]

49. Nice picture! Mrs mtnsnake & I spent the 4th in an Adirondack fire tower watching fireworks

from the top of a mountain. We could see them getting shot off from little villages all around the horizon. It was fun coming down in the total dark with headlammps afterward. Slipped on my but once.

[Captain Hilts]

52. That is totally cool!

My buddy in Scenic, Utica NY - the Emerald of the Mohawk Valley - died, so I'm not in Upstate as much any more, but I really love it.

You don't have to believe this, but I spent the 4th watching fireworks from GWB's White House lawn! Republicans ARE different. They handed out lots of VANILLA ice cream! Even the ice cream was white! I think next year's 4th party will be more fun...

[beachmom]

107. That was AFTER the Right knew she would lose and held their fire on her.

I mean -- PLEASE. You're really going to cite an out of date poll of someone poised to lose the Democratic nomination?

[andromedo]

46. guys, you should learn to say "I have no idea"

Why do we always claim to know the truth? Who knows who's more polarizing? God, maybe.

[goldcanyonaz]

55. *snort*

[Hoof Hearted]

58. I'll see your snort and raise it by 2 chortles.

[barack the house]

59. That's a cool stat and Obama can only build on his voting base...

If he does pick Kerry I hope he highlights that statistic.

[Oregone]

60. Kerry: Too boring to polarize...

Though, to be fair, I did have a right wing neighbor who was terrified of him 4 years ago. Shes probably not a future Obama voter

[dailykoff]

64. That's a bad thing?

Veeps are supposed to be boring aren't they?

[PresidentObama]

94. Boring? Thanks for a right wing talking point.

[eridani]

61. Does it matter?

She started out with 45%, a huge lead in an eight candidate race. She wound up with 45%, which is a loss in a two way race.

At any rate, I don't think she's the type to be a second fiddle vice president. She can be Senator for life like Kennedy, or drop out to do for women's issues what Gore is doing to fight global warming and Edwards is doing to fight poverty. Either way, she has a lot of stuff to do.

[JVS]

62. agreed

:popcorn:

[dailykoff]

63. Love your sig photo.

Thanks for posting this! :thumbsup:

[pecwae]

65. Aren't the primaries over? nt

[sourmilk]

68. Sure, post the truth.

Kerry sold Democrats out in 2004. He sold Progressives out during the cmpaign and all Democrats during the counts.

When he should have fought the smears, he was silent. When he should have fought the THEFT, he was silent. He's been silent EVER SINCE. He's a BONESMAN, ferchrissakes.

I don't think Hillary is all that much better, but she, at least, IS A FIGHTER - something John Kerry certainly and DEMONSTRABLY IS NOT.

[SeaLyons]

72. Kerry is a loser....

He would be a terrible choice for VP. If Obama puts Hillary on the ticket, he will win. Kerry brings him NOTHING.

[GalleryGod]

86. Yeah, Kerry's a loser..I'm sure his PBR crew would really agree with you.

Nothing? Kerry's been shot at.
I've been shot at.
And of course...Vous?????

[Marrah_G]

74. Both are opinions, both are subjective, you are both being silly.

[wyldwolf]

76. ... just my two cents

Hillary fought back. Kerry didn't. So of course Hillary is more polarizing to the right. Kerry just seems weak.

Kerry got more votes than any Dem in history in a general election, true. Hillary got more votes in the primaries than Kerry did.

But the #1 reason Hillary is MORE polarizing to the right wing is she's a woman with a brain, and that is ALWAYS threatening. And it doesn't help that her husband whacked the GOP repeatedly.

[Colobo]

77. This Kerry vs. Clinton shit needs to stop.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

82. It took me a minute to get the point of your post, if I did.

Is there a battle to fight over whether HRC or Kerry should be the vp?

Wait a minute...I still don't get the point. It's not as if anyone on DU has any influence on the VP pick. We're not voting. What is the point in arguing?

HRC is polarizing. You are correct. So is Obama.

I don't think Kerry should be vp, for what it's worth...not even 2 cents, but since you brought it up...

He is senior to Obama in experience, and he, if election fraud did not exist, should be president now. If you want him on the ticket, put him on the top.

[PresidentObama]

83. No, it's not about Clinton vs. Kerry for VP

I would love either, but I don't think either is going to be the VP pick.

I'm simply debunking a previous post that suggested John Kerry is more polarizing than Hillary Clinton. Simply is NOT true!!

[LWolf]

91. I agree with that.

Clinton is fascinating to me, even though I've never been a fan. Smart, capable, admirable in some ways, yet alien, and alienating, to my own female experience, and divided herself, never sure if she's serving a liberal ideal, a pragmatic goal, or her corporate/corrupt dlc connections.

Love her or hate her, and there don't seem to be a lot of people who fall somewhere in between, she's nothing if not polarizing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. They both have many of the same negatives.

But if you compare the 2004 season with the 2008, the idea that Kerry's more polarizing is ridiculous on its surface.

[GalleryGod]

85. Jesus...it's A$$wipe Paradise @ DUJHS, today.

Forget it,Pal....it's J.A.F.O.

[Beacool]

90. Maybe..................

But did Kerry win 18 million votes?

Both Obama and Hillary needed the super delegates to make it through the finish line. Therefore, my belief has been that they have both won the right to be on each other's ticket. Half of the party wanted her, half wanted him, everybody would have gotten something. What better way to unite the party?

[PresidentObama]

93. No, he won MORE than 18 million votes.

He got more votes as the Democratic nominee than ANY in history!

[beachmom]

108. Try 59 million votes. More than any other Democrat EVER ... until Obama gets more in November. nt

[PresidentObama]

109. So some simple math....59 million > 18 million

[Beacool]

115. In the primary, not the GE............

[PresidentObama]

116. Well he won more votes than Hillary because he actually made to the GE.

She didn't.

In case you can't do math

50+ million > 18 million

[Beacool]

119. Oh please................

Kerry was a bad candidate, just as bad as Mondale and Dukakis. Good men, but lousy as candidates. Hillary lost by a hair and you know it. Let's not rehash the whole primary again.

[PresidentObama]

128. Yeah fact still remains: He won, she didn't.

And he more votes than anyone in history.

Not in the primary, but in the general election. Which is more important, and 50 plus million is more than 18 million. If AGAIN, you can't do math.

And you can't call him a bad candidate when your candidate lost a huge lead she held for a year to a rookie. The nomination was her's, and she blew it.

[awoke_in_2003]

97. Kerry is only a bad pick

because we don't need to lose him in the senate. If he took a VP slot, a DLCer might take the seat.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

98. Kerry is probably the only person

who could run against George Bush TODAY and lose. Sure, Kerry has credentials and tons of time in the Senate, but he is absolutely unlikeable. People followed and supported Kerry because he was not Bush not because he was Kerry. It was a "Hate Bush! Hate Bush!" agenda that allowed him to even come close. It said alot about the country's feelings about Bush when a walking, breathing, prime specimen of voter repellant like Kerry almost won.

That he is even being considered by many Democrats as a VP choice really has me baffled. I guess some people just like being kicked in the balls over and over again.

[mtnsnake]

99. You just nailed it.

:thumbsup:

[Seabiscuit]

102. I'll second that.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[PresidentObama]

101. Kerry lost? News to me! I guess Gore lost too, then?

[Super Soaker Sniper]

112. In a word, Yes.

It was Gore's race to lose in 2000 and he lost it. He was the VP of a popular President. The economy was sound. No war. Low unemployment. Neglible Inflation and Gore's campaign was inept enough that it all rested on the delgates from a single solitary state. Had he won like he should have. Had he won his own home state, Florida and the Supreme Court would not have mattered at all. Maybe the USSC handed it to Bush in the end, but it was Gore's fault that it even came down to that.

Kerry lost, of this I have no doubt and (this is just my opinion, mind you) all the talk of "fraud" is just making excuses. No different than the claims that Pelosi is being blackmailed to keep Impeachment off the table. She is just inept, nothing else.

[PresidentObama]

117. Gore and Kerry lost? Now you've lost all credibility.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

118. Apparently you did not read my post.

I said Kerry lost. That is my opinion and I am not going to make excuses for him by claiming election fraud.

On the other hand, I said if Gore is not President it is entirely his fault. The election should never have been close enough to where Florida mattered. All Gore had to do to be President was win his home satate and Florida would have been academic. Instead he blew it and allowed it to be so close that it all hung in the balance with Florida and the Supreme Court.

[beachmom]

110. Luckily, I have FACTS that prove you WRONG:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/04/opinion/polls/main1011154.shtml

If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all.


And Bush's disapproval ratings have only gone DOWN since 2005 when this poll was taken.

[PresidentObama]

111. Don't bother--facts mean nothing to these people in their anti-Kerry smears.

[Phillycat]

126. A-freaking-men!

I am as Democrat a Democrat as you can possibly be, and I did my damndest to muster enthusiasm for Kerry in 2004. I voted for him, I canvassed for him, etc. But all along, I was thinking, this guy is a DUD. And he was.

[Seabiscuit]

100. That's an opinion, not a fact.

And a downright silly waste of energy and time if you ask me.

[PresidentObama]

103. It was a rebuttal to a previous post, but thanks for your opinion.

Next...

[Seabiscuit]

104. Whatever it was a reply to must have been an equal waste of time and energy.

Bleeaaaaggghhhh!

[PresidentObama]

106. And yet you take the time to reply? Ooookkkaayyy then!!

Then please feel free to post elsewhere. And stop wasting "time and energy"

[wisteria]

113. Senator Kerry is only polarizing to the 28% or so that still think Bush is wonderful. n/t

[Zhade]

120. True - Kerry's not a proven rampant liar like clinton.

He never lied about things like nonexistent sniper fire - he really DID dodge bullets!

[Lucky 13]

124. "Fact" and "Truth" hasn't mattered to the folks you are arguing with for some time.

Don't expect it to matter now.

Truth be damned! They'll believe only what they wish to believe.

[Forkboy]

127. Anyone who thinks he is needs mental help.

[Phx_Dem]

129. Kerry isn't polarizing at all.

Some people don't like him, but that's the same for anyone. No one is liked by everyone. People (mostly Rpeublicans) don't hate Kerry, but they do absolutely hate Hillary.