|
Kerry's decision
I am saddened to hear that Sen. John Kerry has decided not to take another shot at the presidency right now ("Kerry Passes on Presidential Run to Oppose War," Jan. 25). His entrance into the race would have added the much-needed dimension of statesmanship and expertise into the debates on foreign policy and domestic issues.
I held out hope that perhaps this election, we would vote for a candidate on merit and experience and not whether we wanted to have a beer or dine with him. Sen. Kerry's campaign in 2004 was a tough one as he took on a wartime president. It wasn't the Swift Boat smears or the other minor things that led to his defeat; it was the fear card, played so well by our current administration. The public didn't know Sen. Kerry well enough to "change horses in midstream."
However, his decision not to run in what is shaping up to be a three-ring circus is probably the smartest thing to do right now. Now he doesn't have to worry about omitting a word from a sentence. He has more important things to focus on like bringing our fighting men and women home from Iraq. This is a lofty goal, and he takes it on because he cares about America and our soldiers.
A great opportunity for America was lost in 2004 when Sen. Kerry lost his bid for the presidency, and we are out another chance to get it right -- for now. The senator, however, is going to continue to fight to get it right for America.
MARGARET VOGEL
Greensburg, PA
Jan. 31, 2007 published in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
-----------------------------------------------------
Once and for all, don't blame Kerry
February 4, 2007
ELLEN GOODMAN'S gratuitous slap against John Kerry's presidential candidacy ("Mitt's turnaround," Op-ed, Feb. 2) omitted two salient points. First, Senator Kerry faced difficult political odds in 2004. Second, Kerry would have made a very fine president.
A number of deluded and self-serving Democrats have chosen to blame Kerry, but not themselves, for the election outcome. But they neglect to mention that the 2004 election would have been tough for any Democratic nominee. Kerry ran an uphill battle against a sitting wartime president, with the additional political burden of a dysfunctional Democratic party and an inattentive electorate confused and cowed by fear. Even with these handicaps, he almost won. Kerry deserves our gratitude, not insults, for his valiant efforts.
They say that great leaders arise in times of crisis. But democracy adds a crucial condition: Citizens must recognize the leaders in their midst and lift them up. We had our chance in 2004 to put a first-rate president, a man with depth, courage, and integrity, into the White House, but we blew it. We, not Kerry, should be ashamed.
MARY BETH SAFFO
Cambridge Published in The Boston Globe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Editor of The Boston Globe:
What's gotten into you, Ellen Goodman ("Mitt's turnaround," Op-ed, Feb. 2), with your Kerry bashing? Shrieking that Kerry's candidacy for president would have killed the Democrats' chances in '08, sounds more like the bile we sometimes get on the Web from immature bloggers, than analysis from a usually sensible, and sometimes even wise, journalist. And then you pile on the misinterpretation spread all over the mainstream media, that Kerry was choking over his Senate speech last week, because he had to give up his ambitions to be president.
Wrong. Even if you had listened to the speech with a deafened ear, you would have noticed that the bulk of it was devoted to Kerry's objection to Bush's war and to any war based on unforgivable mistakes in judgment from our president. Namely, for Kerry, Vietnam all over again. It's at that point that he choked a little, explaining how he's devoted his whole political life to trying to prevent that kind of war from happening again.
We Democrats, instead of stewing in our own discontents and insecurities, should think seriously about why it is we think our country would have trouble electing a man of Kerry's intelligence, courage and wisdom--the closest man to the Founding Fathers we can get in these times, and the President we most need.
Tela Zasloff
Williamstown, MA
Submitted to The Boston Globe, Feb. 5, 2007
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
