AP Article on Kerry and '08.

[TayTay]

It is by Glenn Johnson. This reporter used to work for the Boston Globe and now works for the AP. Johnson is the guy who, in 2003, got really pissed at the Senator because Kerry didn't tell Johnson, before he told his family, that Kerry had prostrate cancer. (As recorded on C-Span and in the pages of the Boston Globe.)

Anyway this is a really interesting article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061201/ap_on_el_pr/kerry2008_5

I wanted to go through the main part of it and reflect on some things. The article starts off talking about how The Joke may have changed things for Kerry's future and changed whether or not he can run for President.

Behind the scenes, Kerry apparently has been having doubts, calling current and former Democratic confidantes to inquire just how much his gaffe hurt his presidential chances, according to several Democrats who spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations were private.

Kerry, who turns 63 next month, had been planning to announce a comeback campaign in December or January. He had thrown himself into helping his party reclaim Congress in the midterm election, campaigning for roughly 80 House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates.

He also has a political account of $14 million -- about the same as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

I am not surprised that there have been calls made. That was one of the nastiest attacks of that last two years. The media attention was unfair and based on a presumption that the media Kewl Kidz and other politicians knew was false; the idea that Kerry does not support the troops. The resulting publicity was intended to ridicule the Senator, because ridiculing someone is fun for some people and because, well, it's fun to report on. It's controversial and it allows the punditry to feel superior to someone and allows rival pols a chance to pontificate on how righteous they are and how sad it is to see others 'fall from grace.' (This is always accompanied by the 'but if they only apologize and do what WE suggest, they can come back into the club.' This is done so that the attackers can try and look innocent and nice instead of like the back-stabbing bastids they really are. Sadly, the media usually falls for this, as they are the same way.)

Two things have delayed Kerry's plans: fallout from the joke, and the Democrats' newfound control over the House and Senate.

As a member of the incoming majority party, come January Kerry will be chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee and the Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific affairs subcommittee. He will be in attendance when the new Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., convenes hearings on the future of U.S. military action in Iraq.

These responsibilities will impede Kerry's ability to jet around the country, attending fundraisers and courting political operatives, as he did in 2002 and 2003 when Democrats were in the congressional minority and largely powerless.

I do see this as key. There is a huge difference between being in the minority and being in the majority. When I have seen Sen. Kerry in person this year at various speeches, he has genuinely been angry at the inability of this present government to do anything that even remotely suggests it believes in accountability and oversight. I truly believe that this offends him to the core.

Now that the Dems have power and the ability to convene hearings that will have legal subpoena power behind them, it's a different ballgame. I mean, if you truly believe that we were lied into a war (and Sen. Kerry has repeatedly said that he only voted for the IWR because he was assured by certain people in government that they would hold the worst impulses of the Bush Admin in check, people like Colin Powell) then the chance to hold hearings and air that out would be irresistible.

"Everybody's clock's been slowed down by the move into the majority," said Edward Reilly, Kerry's top political consultant. "Clearly the election was about Iraq and people want change -- and this new Congress to deliver it."

Nonetheless, "We're still very much in a go-mode on this thing," Reilly said. Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, hope to boost their public reemergence with a book about the environment slated for publication next April.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Kerry did not make any announcements about his future until March or so. It all depends on how that first session of Congress goes. Sen. Reid has stated that he intends to convene the Senate for 7 consecutive weeks, beginning on Jan 3rd and not taking a break until around 2/17. That should determine a lot. We shall see if Congress is serious about oversight and accountability or if it is one big grand-standing exercise for the folks with Presidential ambitions. I think a lot depends on this.

The article does have one error in it, that surprises me, given that the writer used to work for the Boston Glob:

First, Kerry is up for re-election in 2008, which means he will have to simultaneously run for president and the Senate if he doesn't want to take an all-or-nothing chance on the White House.

It is against the Mass Constitution to run for two federal offices at once. Nor would it be even remotely tolerated by the people of the Commonwealth. It is not legal nor politically savvy to even pretend that you can run for both at the same time. You cannot. Period.

[blm]

1. Kerry also doesn't need to court - he's more known now and could do best by being a GREAT

senator and leader for the next 6 months. Let the others take their hits for a change while Kerry continues to carry the heavy loads in Senate he's always done, but with greater chance for results as majority party.

Nothing is ever set in concrete the first 6 months anyway. Heck, even consultants and strategists are still switching camps at that point.

[ProSense]

2. Isn't this the

similar to the information Firespirit posted? There are those no-name Democrats again. Anyway, this moves the discussion beyond the silliness, which this Uppper-Left blog post sums up perfectly.

[demdiva]

6. What did Firespirit post?

I haven't been on much lately

[wisteria]

3. I think there is time for any announcements.

You are correct about the attack- unfair and nasty. I felt I was reliving 04 all over again, only this time there was less support and more childish smear games on the part of the media. And, they seemed to just love what their lies and viciousness were able to accomplish, the results relayed in a Quinpac poll.Then they used this to try and kick him some more some even further declaring him dead and shamed forever. I just don't understand how and why this attack was taken as far as it was. I am also having trouble believing that what transpired was all the work of Rove.
For now, I feel positive that this can be turned around and it won't have a lasting impact. What bothers me more is what can be done to prevent this type of media attack in the future and boost his personal appeal. We all know what a great man he is dammit, others need to find this out too.

I hold out a lot of hope for 08, but I am not totally convinced this will be the year for the Democrats.Maybe when Hillary runs and loses either the primary or the general, our party will again become more of the party of the people and less the party of the Clinton's and the DLC. I can possibly see a Repub elected for one term, being awful, them a thoughtful, serious father like Dem in 2012 for two terms.

[ginnyinWI]

4. I think he has plenty of time to decide.

First, because he's already a household name--doesn't have to introduce himself, just refresh/renew the aquaintance.

Second, he has to wait a few months until the memory of the joke thing fades in order to clearly see what the public wants.

Third, he will have a lot to do in the next few months helping to get the Democratic Congressional ball rolling. Which will also be good for him politically.

[demdiva]

5. I think the courting may be important

But less important then the last campaign, because the campaign now has the infrastructure of the last campaign (i.e. a donor database, e-mail list, consultants etc). Am I right or wrong? Don't get me wrong this isn't everything ... but I think having run before (esp successfully!) is a huge advantage. Plus. He has as much $ as Hillary!!!

p.s. I can't wait for the book with THK....

[beachmom]

7. I like, overall, what the excerpts and you are saying

I am not exclusively a "Kerry '08!" person. I sincerely want him to play a part in our government because I don't think you get much better than John Kerry. Sure, it would be great if he were president, but second best for me is him in a powerful position in the Senate or in a Democratic administration (like Sec. of State). I think, as usual, he's doing the right thing by deciding to completely focus on the Senate, and to delay any decisions about '08. This will also take all of the pressure off of him for the silly talk; the focus will return, as it mostly did this week, to the issues.

I think this has been a great week for Senator Kerry. I just feel like basking in that, and not worrying about the future.

[whometense]

8. Chicago columnist thinks Obama will run.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/154692,CST-EDT-sweet30.article

But this paragraph really brought me up short:

I saw the movie "Bobby" last week and hearing snippets of Bobby Kennedy's speeches gave me an insight into why Obama clicks with so many people: Like Kennedy, he offers hope for a better future. An Obama candidacy may suck the oxygen from the second-tier Democratic field.

Ummmm, that's one of the main reasons why I like Kerry - he gives me hope that a better future is possible. Obamamania continues...but I do enjoy the thought :evilgrin: that he might be giving the Clintons heartburn.

[beachmom]

9. Yeah, I'm definitely taking a step back from this.

I REALLY like Obama, in general, and I wish he had spent more time in the Senate putting his nose down doing good work. But if the whole thing amounts to a personality contest, then he certainly has some pluses. What will Americans do? We currently have somebody in the Oval Office who had limited experience; in defense of Obama, he had experience in community organizing and in the Illinois legislature before being a Senator. So on the domestic side, he does have something to talk about. But absolutely ZERO on national defense. Unless terrorism and the Iraq War go away, I would be very nervous thinking his personality would make up for all of that lack of experience.

Still, he's above Hillary for me.

[whometense]

12. David Sirota, via The Premise

Pretty much sums up what I think on the subject, only better than I could. ;-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-ridiculousness-dang_b_35334.html

http://thepremise.com/archives/12/01/2006/746

The national media is swooning over Obama, begging him to run for president. Yet, at the same time, they are implicitly acknowledging that he has actually not “developed significant legislative initiatives.” In other words, we are to simply accept that the the Obama for President wave has absolutely nothing to do with anything that the man HAS DONE and further, that whenever he does decide to use his enormous political capital to do something, it is all in pursuit of the White House - not any actual sense of DOING SOMETHING for the people who elected him to the Senate.

I don’t blame Obama for not having accomplished much - he’s been in the Senate for two years. As I wrote in the Nation, the main concern about him is that he doesn’t actually seem to ASPIRE to anything outside of the Washington power structure (other than maybe running for another higher office), and doesn’t seem to be interested in challenging the status quo in any fundamental way. Using his senate career as a guide, it suggests that any presidential run by him is about him, his speaking ability and his fawned over talent for “connecting” (whatever the hell that means).

For progressives, this situation is perilous indeed. Obama is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin, who has risked almost nothing for the bigger movement, and in fact who has sometimes gone out of his way to reinforce dishonest stereotypes about the left. This is a man who has helped launch the Hamilton Project designed to undermine Democrats pushing for fairer trade deals. This is a man who belittled Paul Wellstone as merely a “gadfly.” This is a man who refused to lift a finger for Ned Lamont. Flocking to a candidate like that without demanding that he change only reinforces the damaging concept that our movement is a Seinfeld Movement about nothing.

Haven't we had enough presonality cult votes to learn the difference between form and substance? You might think that the activists who have had to live under Bush II rule for 6 years might be able to understand that President is not a ceremonial post.

[ProSense]

16. Just read that!

Pretty much sums up Obama: inexperienced personality.

[Dr Ron]

29. Obama could respresent serious obstacle to Kerry

At the moment it is not yet clear whether Obamamania is the flavor of the moment or if this is going to develop into something big. He's looking a lot like Dean in 2003 in terms of the excitement, and he's less likely to be shoot himself in the foot as Dean wound up doing repeatedly to help Kerry's come back.

The problem with Obama is that he might prevent Kerry from becomming the main anti-Hillary (assuming the conventional wisdom holds that she does become a potent front runner). Kerry had three main lines of attack to challenge Hillary:

1) He's not Hillary Clinton

2) Opposition to the war

3) Contrasting his health care plan to Hillary Care. Any opponent of Hillary in 2007/8 should force Hillary to either defend her old plan or to renounce it, admitting she was wrong on the biggest task she undertook in government.

Problems is that #1 is true for Obama. #2 is also true and he doesn't have the baggage of Kerry's IWR vote which is still misunderstood. Obama doesn't have the baggage of Hillary's health care plan either (and hopefully Kerry can gain points from having proposed a much better plan four years ago).

Another problem is that when Kerry takes on Obama the obvious line of attack is lack of experience. However, experience might also be Hillary's main line of attack on Obama.

It is far too early to predict what will happen, but all the talk of Obama in the last few months is not a good thing for a Kerry run.

[politicasista]

31. Interesting here also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2995540

[Dr Ron]

32. Or Obama could help Kerry

Of course there's many different ways this could all turn out.

There's been a lot of speculation that Obama might do well in Iowa and in some of the early caucus and primary states, stopping Hillary early.

Here's one scenario. Let's say those people are right and Obama does stop Hillary from getting traction. However, Obama then receives more scrutiny as front runner and it becoems clearer he is not ready to be President. Kerry might have a better shot of a come back in such a three way race than if Clinton remained a strong front runner from the start.

[wisteria]

13. Obama, for me is an example of hype.

What has he done in his two years in the senate to make a name for himself?

How hard fought was his senate seat to obtain?

What other speeches, other than the one delivered at Kerry's convention can be attributed to him as being moving and inspiring.

And now, how is he really like Bobby Kennedy, who had passion and could inspire, but also had strongly held convictions that really distinguished him from other politicians.

For me, Obama is nothing more than a great story, based on his family background.

I have nothing against Obama, I just don't get all the WOW factor surrounding him right now.

[Dr Ron]

30. Sure it's all hype

But that doesn't mean he might not be a formidable opponent. Politicics is largely hype. See my other comment on Obama.

[JI7]

34. i think Obama is more than just Hype

his Primary win wasn't a given. he had to work hard to get that. and it was before he got all the attention. he has also had years as an elected official in his state .

the only area where he might have a bit weakness compared to others is foreign policy. he still doesn't come across that well when discussing the issues seriously. you can tell he lacks experience. but it's something he can work on and being on the foreign relations committee should have helped him some.

a lot of the positive news he is getting in terms of 2008 is based on the media. but i think it's important not to discount the positive qualities he can bring.

right now i'm seeing him reaching out to the Christian Right and he does very well there. only problem might be the Primary voters who tend to be liberal wont care. but it might help if he can convince them that he could win over voters that "someone like Kerry" couldn't .

in the end it will come down to debates and other appearances. his forming a serious obstacle to Hillary is one reason i want him to run.

[Dr Ron]

38. As a Senator it is more than hype, but not as President

As a Senator it is more than hype. He does have a lot of positive qualities. The hype portion is to consider him Presidential material at this point.

If we were looking purely at qualifications, he would not be a consideration. However, Presidential races are decided by far more than qualifications and the issues. He's received a tremendous amount of favorable publicity. It is too early to tell if that will last, but it is possible that this publicity/hype could turn him into a serious candidate.

He also benefits from being a virtually blank slate. He has little record, and people are tending to project what they want in a candidate onto him. Time will tell how much of this is accurate and whether his support holds up.

His forming a serious obstacle to Hillary is a plus.

[ProSense]

10. Mentions:

From The Carpetbagger

* On CNN yesterday, John Kerry was asked about whether he’s going to announce another run for president. He said, “I can’t tell you exactly when.” You’ll notice, of course, that the word “if” wasn’t used.

Link is to Political Wire.

[whometense]

11. True,

but it was my impression that the "when" referred to the announcement itself, and not to whether or not he's running.

[benny05]

14. Thanks for the info

and congrats to the JK Forum for being one of the featured forums on the DU Front Page!

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. No way!

Thanks for the cool heads up!

You staying warm? I forgot my warm winter hat and had to walk to campus this morning... not fun! :scared:

[benny05]

17. Yeppers

I had to wear a heavier hat and I got a ride to work from my spouse. I didn't want to take my car out in this messy weather. Stay warm!

[TayTay]

19. This always happens to us when the place is untidy!

People, people, we are on the front page of DU.

Quick, let's clean the place up a bit, you know, sort of get tidy for the home inspectors and all. Take those magazines, all 50 pounds of them, off the coffee table and somebody get the paper towels and clean that spill up. (Was that beer or coffee?)

Let me go throw on one of my better sweatshirts and find my reserved and aloof manerisms and put that on. (Ahm, can you be aloof in a sweatshirt? No sure.)

Welcome visitors! Sit down, hae a cup of tea and don't mind the mess. We like it this way. It's a nice cozy place to be.

[benny05]

20. Here's cozy and warm both

[TayTay]

21. Awwwwhhhh, Benny

You, got me. That is the cutest damn pic ever.

Just, awwwwwwhhhhhhh. I am disabled now for awhile. Can't argue or read wonky stuff or long for a Senate Hearing or anything. Just awwwwwhhhhhhm, that's so cute!

Can that be one of the pictures permanently on the clubhouse wall. Cuz it isn't aloof at all.

Awwwwwhhhhhhhh.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. That is the most awesome picture ever

:loveya: Thanks! Just what I needed on this cold bitter day!

[MBS]

28. This is a WONDERFUL photograph!!

This is screen-saver material. Thanks!!!

[whometense]

18. Department of Karma's a Bitch

hee hee hee

Alex Koppelman in the Salon War Room:

Romney '08 over before it began?

It's the return of the scandal that brought down Zoe Baird: A report in today's Boston Globe says outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has, for at least eight years, had illegal immigrants tending to the grounds of his Belmont, Mass., home. Romney was not their direct employer; he hired a service, Community Lawn Service With a Heart, that employed the workers in question.

And yes, folks, there is another shoe to be dropped here -- despite his residence in one of the country's northernmost states, Romney has maintained a tough stance on illegal immigration. Think Progress has a list of some of his statements on the subject.

The story seems to have Romney spooked. Questioned by a reporter, the Globe says, Romney said, "'Aw, geez,' and walked away."

Globe link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/01/illegal_immigrants_toiled_for_governor/
My comment here: http://toughenough.org/2006/12/department-of-karmas-bitch.html

[beachmom]

22. Actually, I had to laugh at his reaction, "Aw, geez".

Of course, this is real and bad. But that's my reaction to most of the silly stuff. And hear I had been studying so much about Mormonism; all for bloody nothing.

[TayTay]

23. Oh, there is more on Romney to come out

He was 'bad.' Just bad.

He is a bald-faced liar and people just had to go back to 1994 Romney and 2002 and then 2006 Romney and see that this bastid spins like a freakin top when it comes to telling that truth.

[whometense]

24. Yeah.

Ain't it great??

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

He will - literally - say ANYTHING he thinks will help him get where he wants to go. He wants national exposure - let's grant his wish. :evilgrin:

[whometense]

35. Did you see Olbermann??

Romney was WORSE person in the world.

He got beat by - I forget who made number 2 - and of course, the perpetual number 1, O'Reilly.

Oh, and McLaughlin showed film of JK's 1971 testimony - the famous question.

[whometense]

25. btw,

very nice quote from William Shaheen:

William Shaheen, a veteran New Hampshire activist whose wife, Jeanne, served as the state's governor and Kerry's campaign chairwoman, said the senator remains viable as a presidential candidate because he has a clear strategy on Iraq, a plan for improving health care nationwide and an outline for energy independence.

"John Kerry is a very complicated guy who offers a lot," he said.

As for whom he will support going forward, Shaheen replied: "I'm certainly leaning toward him, because he's done nothing to violate my trust. I appreciate the race he ran in '04 and I appreciated what he did this fall."

Made me feel all warm inside. :-)

[ProSense]

27. Nice!

I wonder if Shaheen plans to run again in 2008 now that NH is blue:

Trouble for Republicans: At-risk incumbents in Minnesota, New Hampshire

[TayTay]

36. That is very good news indeed

It is so early in this effort. I really do think that the Dems having Congress changes things. I know that Bush will veto anything good the Dems pass, but they will be putting forth real plans. Sen. Kerry has a real plan for health care, a real plan to help stop the outsourcing of some of the jobs out of America and so forth. These can get an airing in Congress.

It is very, very early. Still, it's gratifying to read this. It means that people are starting to move on from PronounGate.

[wisteria]

37. I and very happy to hear this, n/t

[JI7]

33. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani

i think another thing most Dems who are considering running will also look at the possibliity of running against Giuliani and McCain in a General Election. the media whores are so far up McCain and Giuliani's asses and pretty much refer to them as "the maverick Senator" or the hero of 9/11.

you see how much the whore media protects Bush, it would be even worse with McCain and Giuliani, especially if both end up on the same ticket.

[Dr Ron]

39. Doubt both will run on same ticket

I think either would see running for VP as too small for them.

The media coverage for either will be a serious problem for the Democratic nominee.

[Mass]

40. Kerry to postpone decision on '08 run

Pretty much the same thing from the Globe.

While I understand that he would want to reconsider a decision that will probably led him to be thrashed for the next one year at least, I hope that he does not change his mind. It is not clear if this noises comes from him or from other people, but a decision in April when some will be already running full speed and have some traction seems late.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/02/kerry_to_postpone_decision_on_08_run/

[whometense]

41. Weird quote from Johnston in that article:

Not my impression at all.

Philip W. Johnston, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, called it "disgraceful" that Kerry's own party quickly rebuked him. But he added that the incident showed that many Democrats are still angry about Kerry's defeat in 2004.

"People did not trash him after the election two years ago, and it's almost like all of the pent-up frustration came after the joke," Johnston said.

[beachmom]

43. Is he talking about elected officials like Hillary?

Obviously, he's been bashed nonstop since the election by blogs, pundits, and "liberal" talking heads. Yeah, that's disengenuous. You guys know this guy? Looks like he was triangulating the issue trying to defend Kerry and bash him at the same time.

[wisteria]

50. Yep, and protect Hillary. n/t

[ProSense]

45. I think it's weird too, and this too:

Kerry -- who had methodically resurrected his political standing after a tough loss to President Bush in 2004 -- was stunned by the swift, angry reaction to his Oct. 30 statement that underachieving students would end up "stuck in Iraq." Aides and friends say the senator was particularly stung by the fact that so many Democrats had joined Republicans in rebuking him.

The incident laid bare to the senator the lingering skepticism and resentment of him two years after he failed to unseat Bush, according to Kerry advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In recent media interviews, Kerry has downplayed the impact of the incident, and has declared himself ready to jump into Senate business with renewed vigor when Democrats take control of Congress in January.

He was stung! Everyone knows this was purely political, and the Democrats who did so did it for political reasons, maybe related to the war or some other political alliance they have. Among the candidates, Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey didn't, and he made a case of fighting Santorum down to the wire on it!

I find it hard to believe Kerry was stung by Democrats joining to rebuke him! Was he stunned during BCCI?

The snip in your post is weird because it's the same people who have been trashing him about 2004 that are doing it still. The fact that the piece doesn't mention any support gained because of the smear is telling too! It's one thing to look at the effects of the smear through the snapshots of polls, but I've seen a lot of new people showing up to defend Kerry, and others on blogs that didn't discuss his chances before this making the case for him.

This is about where I think things stand:

"One thing I can assure you of is that the Washington pundit class really gets it wrong a lot of the time," Thorne said.

Kerry and his top aides reached out to his network of fund-raisers shortly after the incident and in the weeks since, to reassure those concerned about whether the senator could secure the nomination.

All in all, it's not a bad article, but I still don't trust the media to not try to spin more there than is actually there (stunned!) or mis-characterize public sentiment (it's about the 2004 loss).

[beachmom]

46. You've got a point about the media.

Nevertheless, I think this article seems different from what he said on Fox News. And he seemed more putting things off this week. So there is evidence that he is putting off the decision, not just because the Democrats are in the majority, but also because he is still trying to assess how bad the "joke" damaged him. It's hard to tell, though. Trying to look at the tea leaves, and I'm just not sure what's going to happen.

[beachmom]

42. But the thinking is he needs to repair the damage first

He needs to do good work in the Senate and make good appearances on TV highlighting that good work. He needs good publicity. I think this week, he overall had pretty good pubicity with his ideas on what to do about Iraq, and even his declining to bash the president when everyone else is (his lame duck quote, which I thought was fantastic, as did a lot of people). '08 needs to essentially be put to the side, otherwise, the talk will be essentially silly (the joke, polls, what fellow Democrats are saying).

I have to say, I found that article sobering. It appears that if he went in early like you're talking about, it wouldn't be worth it.

The other part of it is, the people of Massachusetts elected him to do a job; it is vital that he is in the Senate to do it. With real power, he most certainly cannot be out campaigning and missing hearings and votes.

[ProSense]

44. Agree, but

only for the short term. He can respond the way he did this week. As Mass implied, it shouldn't be put off too long.

[fedupinBushcountry]

47. My 2 cents

There is a lot on the agenda for January in the Senate, and as Kerry is the chairman of SB, and 3rd in rank on the FRC, and also chair of the Asia-Pacific subcommittee, there is a lot of good legislation he can get through, and also a lot of corruption to investigate. He shouldn't miss any of these hearings, because no doubt in my mind it will be used against anyone who does.

I think he is doing the right thing and he can pick up a lot of good. Also he said his book is coming out in April, and he should get a lot of media time for that, lets say also a guest on The Daily Show, Colbert, Larry King, etc., and Teresa will be out there too.

As far as other Dems trashing him, I have no use for them, they are nothing but politicians and they show me that they care little about what the people want it is all about them, John Kerry is much bigger then that. I will never forgive HC for her back stabbing, she looked ugly < (by this I mean hateful and despicable) on that clip, I think she is the one that owes him the biggest apology.

[MBS]

54. I totally agree with this

Thanks to everyone for all these later comments, from this one, on.

[wisteria]

53. Yep.

This piece is purposely negative. Notice, not one good point other than the, it wasn't fair, but oh well comment.

[sandnsea]

48. He needs a better PR team

There's a reason Dean comes to Oregon instead of JK. I continue to get emails from Oregon activists that NEVER mention his name. They will announce all sorts of stuff on Iraq, but won't mention Kerry-Feingold because they would have to mention the name Kerry. It's absolutely ridiculous and no amount of information sent to them changes their minds. While I do think there are more people who genuinely like him than don't, I also think those that viscerally reject him are so vocal that they intimidate those who do like him. I don't go to my local meetings because I can't stand listening to the lefty freeper bullshit. I don't understand mob behavior or jr high backstabbing, but somebody who does needs to come up with a plan to turn this crap around. Has the poor guy even stepped foot outdoors in the last 2 years - to recreate, which he loves? How insane is it when outdoor recreation is labeled elitist? I don't know how he got such a bad 'brand', but until that changes, I don't think he can do enough Senate work to make a difference, especially when he has to make the necessary compromises to get things signed in the end. Somebody can always find something in legislation to pick apart if they want to.

[ProSense]

51. I agree, and

I agree with Fedup: everything all the candidates do will be held against them via the noise, it will not be just Kerry! The fact that people are actually speculating that Kerry, the best qualified for the position and still one of the few people who can garner real support, will make his decision based on this incident is still ludicrous. Only three of the candidates can effectively raise money and support, the others will have trouble raising support and/or money. Given that scenario, the only reason to drop out is, as the detractors say, to make it easier for a lesser qualified candidate to get the nomination. Makes no sense!

[JI7]

59. but how much do these people matter in the first place ?

they didn't seem to do much for Dean , or Lamont or even JK. the popular ones at the moment like Obama and Hillary don't reach out to them.

the way i see it one problem is the lack of information about what Kerry has done in his life for the people getting out there. so one sees the snowboarding but they don't hear about his years of helping the children in poor areas , helping minorities and women when it comes to small business, his years of supporting the veterans. and as i mentioned before his time as a prosecutor and DA. and his investigations.

if people had a clearer picture of what JK has done through all the years of his life than it would be easier . take the example of McCain where he ins't just seen as a soldier who was a POW , he is also seen as some kind of maverick that stands up to his party.

[sandnsea]

60. That's what I mean

I'm not talking about reaching out to any particular group of people. I'm talking about the lack of information which makes it easier for the freeptards to pile on. His 'story' isn't being told, that's the basics of what I mean. Just like what you said.

My local politics just annoy me, that's pretty much all. Except Democrats are winning here so it does seem to be a problem that he either didn't want to come or didn't feel welcome, or something.

[JI7]

61. i think he just needs to focus on his knowledge, experience,accomplishments

get out the stuff about his investigations, his prosecuting and convictions in rape and murder cases. his helping start a center to help victims of rape.

if anyone brings up the popularity , botched joke and other nonsense, he should just bring up those other issues. he can respond by saying "you don't have to like me, just like what i have/can/will do" and bring up those things.


one of the reasons Bush won in 2000 was because of Dick Cheney who nobody liked personally but people saw him as being experienced and being able to get the job done. we know it's all bs now. but remember how much the Republicans would talk about "well, BUsh may not be the smartest, but he has a great team". the "great team" line helped more than the stupid images of Bush working in the yard which only appealed to his ignorant supporters.

remember, for all the criticism and attacks Kerry has taken, almost none have been on his actual position on the issues and on what he has accomplished.

[wisteria]

52. It was purposely written that way, All negatives and no positives.

Don't buy into it.

[wisteria]

49. I don't agree with mr. Johnston's assessment.

The attacks by "some" fellow Democrats had more to do with concern over their own races and of course we know why Hillary did what she did. I don't buy for a minute it was 04 backlash unless some inside Washington realized they should of done a job on him after 04 and they saw an opportunity in the botched joke. The article also fails to mention, that Kerry did have support and some Democrats did come to his aid. This article just wants to focus on the negative and makes the incident more important than it actually was. Some of this I think is the media covering themselves for wrongly attacking him. The new talking point is, gee, what a shame what happened to Kerry, it wasn't fair,it hurt him, so lets just forget about him and move on. This view is beneficial to the other candidate running and Johnson's remarks appear to be a cover for Hillary stabbing him in the back. She was the Dem everyone remembers coming out so strongly.

One other thing, I don't recall him saying postponing this decision until April. The interviews I saw mentioned early next year.

If I were to give him advise, I would say, run if you want to, if you have the drive and desire to lead this country- then do it. Just find a good PR firm to handle the type of smears that you just experienced.Make sure you can count on some friends to support you. And, realize that you have enemies on both sides. Keep your enemies close.

[ProSense]

55. Food for thought

from The Premise:

Whether John Kerry will run again in 2004 or not I have no idea. It’s clear he didn’t take on the traditional demeanor of a failed presidential candidate after his loss, and until the botched joke intersected with other Democratic candidates looking ahead to 2008 it’s also clear that no one asked him to.

What does seem clear is that John Edwards is going to run again. And it’s also pretty obvious that he never really stopped running after the 2004 loss. In fact, I think the only surprise would be if John Edwards decided not to run.

Now, what’s interesting to me about all this is that I can’t think of a similar sequence of events in either party in my lifetime, where both the presidential and vice-presidential nominee on a given ticket effectively continued campaigning right through their loss.

Leaving aside whether that’s folly or wishful thinking or stubbornness or ego, what are the odds that two men on a losing ticket would both choose to stay so fully engaged? It seems to me that they’re pretty long, and infinitely longer if you assume that the two men never talked with each other about their decisions to keep up the fight.

– Mark Barrett

[wisteria]

56. What does he mean by saying they are pretty long?

I don't understand the comment at all.
Thanks.

[ProSense]

57. I took it to mean

that the chances are pretty slim to none that Kerry and Edwards haven't had a conversation since the election!

[wisteria]

58. Thanks, that makes sense. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

62. A point in fact on the last election and JK's announcement

JK did not formally announce until early Spetember of '03. Although it was already assumed it was a given the formal announcement was around Labor Day - can't remember the exact day.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. Really??

I thought I remember reading that he announced with the "band of brothers" in late 2002. I am probably wrong, but I thought I read that in the epilogue of Tour of Duty.

Sept of 03 is very interesting though. Hmmm...

[JI7]

64. there are usually 2 types of "announcements"

KerryGoddess is referring to the formal announcement. but a real announcement is made far before the formal one unless one decides late as Clark did. it's not really an announcement but rather the actions taken such as forming an exploratory committee, campaigning and participating in primary debates and events. it's more of "an intention to run".

it was known Kerry was running in 2002 if not earlier.

the formal announcement is mostly a formality, kind of like the nominating conventions are these days.

Evan Bayh's current moves are a good example of this. he hasn't made any announcements or anything but he has taken the steps with an intention to run.

[kerrygoddess]

66. Yes there are

I believe JK's announcement on the exploratory committee was either very late '02 or very early '03 (Dec - Jan) and then the formal announcement was Sept '03.

[Mass]

65. He formed an exploratory committee at the end of 02.

I agree he does not need to do it that early this time, but it is different than deciding at Labor Day.

Clark did so and it did not really help him.