Kerry sang the right notes...

[ray of light]

But Obama...

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/04/from_concord_nh_obamas_music

[Mass]

1. Well, Baer was a Lieberman adviser during the 04 campaign, so his judgement

is to be questioned. (and what was he doing at a Kerry rally?)

I hate the media for trying to do this artificial comparison. They need to bash Kerry.

[politicasista]

2. I hate that they need to

bash Kerry just to promote Obama. It's a turn off because I heard a lot of this talk in the real world, but I won't go there. :(



Check your pm. :hi:

[karynnj]

5. Very interesting

It may well be possible that Kerry's music was fine, and this Leiberman adviser is just tone deaf. I mean, his candidate, the former VP nominee came in a three way tie for third, except for a few points he he didn't have. Kerry must have inspired someone as he got 45% of the vote, a feat it will be great if Obama equals. Kerry won the nomination overwhelmingly - you would thing from all the negative comparisons that he ended up tied with Leiberman. I noticed that they don't bother comparing anyone to Kerry in terms of the primary debates.

I did like Obama's speech yesterday, though it was extremely unusual as a campaign victory speech. Though in 2004, I found I couldn't help smiling at the TV as Kerry with that huge grin came out and said that he loved Iowa. (I loved that in NH, he said he loved NH, but still loved Iowa. Absolute joy was written on his face. The thing forgotten was the take away image - a 10 foot tall candidate, radiating happiness and hope surrounded by his family and firemen and veterans who had followed him for decades. When you need help, what better shorthand than firemen. (Note - this was much better than the endless repeats of Dean which likely cut down on the numbers of times it was shown or spoken of.)

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Well, IMO

I may not be some writer who went to Oxford but... Kerry had the right notes and the music in '04 and in '03, oh and please now if you wear a certain scarf you are Aspenage.(SHEESH). One of my problems with Obama is, I want a president not a preacher.

[Island Blue]

4. I have the same problem with Obama.

I really, really want to like the guy and feel bad that I just haven't been able to warm up to him. His preacher-style of speaking is a real turn-off for me as is his cockiness.

Please don't think that I'm bashing Obama here. Like I said, I really want to like him and if anyone has any suggestions for me I'd be happy to listen.

(Just in case there are any doubts I'd gladly vote for Obama if he's our nominee. I'll vote for anyone with a D behind their name, contrary to what I may have said in the past. ;))

[beachmom]

7. Okay, I'll take a stab at it. Meet Professor Obama (definitely not a preacher):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/20/12119/122

Diarist Adam B went to University of Chicago Law School and had Obama as his teacher. If you read the whole diary, he'll set you up to the nature of that law school (it is quite conservative actually), and then he gets to the part of having Professor Obama:

Spring quarter of my second year, I took Voting Rights and Election Law as a seminar with Professor Obama. Now, let’s be clear: in a school with a lot of Somebodies – Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Cass Sunstein and David Currie – he was a relative nobody, and even compared with other younger faculty, it was Larry Lessig and Elena Kagan who had more of the hype. But Obama was teaching a course in a subject I wanted to study – at a point when I realized that law school was too short to be spent in classes that felt obligatory – and that made it an easy decision.

And he was ... different. For one thing, better dressed. Sleek sweaters and blazers as opposed to ill-fitting, coffee-stained suits with mismatched ties. But he was also less formal, more relaxed – he never taught the class as though he knew the answers to all the questions he was posing and was just hiding the ball from us until we could find them. Confident, sure, but never cocky.

What’s more, he taught Voting Rights in a different way than others do. He didn’t use a textbook, for starters, but rather had us each purchase an eight-inch high multilith of cases, law review articles and statutes that he had personally compiled. And they weren’t all the "big" cases either – no, our class started by reviewing some early-19th century cases about the denial of the franchise, so that as the course moved forward we saw "voting rights" not as some static thing to be analyzed, but a constantly- and still-evolving process to be affected. Over the course of a few months, we studied changes in the franchise, changes in the rights of political parties, campaign finance law and redistricting, among other topics. We learned the law, but we also learned it on the level of real-world impact: based on a whites-only party primary, how many people would be denied a voice? What kind of policies would result from such a legislature?

(Mind you, he was running for the State Senate at the same time. Honestly, I had no idea. Law school is something of a cocoon, and he never brought his outside life into the classroom.)

Much in the Chicago tradition, he wanted all voices to be heard in the classroom, and when there was (sic) a viewpoint that wasn’t being expressed or students were too complacent in their liberal views, he’d push the contrary view himself. These classes were conversations.

And the conversations extended outside the classroom. I spent plenty of time in Prof. Obama’s office, talking to him about the paper I was working on. Just the two of us, one on one, with him always provoking me to think deeper, work harder ...

... and keep it real. During my senior year of college, I had written a 100 page honors thesis on racial gerrymandering, mostly focused on the original understanding of what "representation" meant, arguing that to properly understand the Federalist Papers and John Stuart Mill meant that representatives had to each filter the views of their constituents, and that you couldn’t have a process in which the legislature decided which groups were guaranteed seats in Congress, and so therefore, the whole process of guaranteeing "majority-minority districts" in contemporary America was wrong.

Prof. Obama taught me to think about it differently. He made me look at this as a real world issue, and not as a theoretical construct. And in that world, unless some voices are physically present, they won’t be heard at all – and in the real world, legislatures are drawing their own maps to accumulate power, largely for incumbents. In other words, don’t just be principled when everyone else is being pragmatic – fight for your principles with a pragmatic approach.

So, yes, I then spent 20+ pages demolishing what I spent a hundred building just two years before. Why? It reminds me of this courtroom scene between Denzel Washington and the trial judge in Philadelphia:

Judge Garrett: In this courtroom, Mr. Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion, and sexual orientation.

Joe Miller: With all due respect, your honor, we don't live in this courtroom, do we?

Professor Barack Obama reminded me that whatever my beliefs were, I’d have to find a way to implement them in the real world if I wanted to make change happen. Good lesson. Great professor.

Oh, and I only got a B on the paper.

Some details in there I really liked. For example, that he didn't use a text book but created all of the materials himself to use for the class -- that shows originality, a creative mind, and a desire not to always follow things by the book (thinking outside the box). That he was not arrogant but respectful of his students (um, I met another professor, Juan Cole, and he was VERY arrogant and condescending, very typical of professors), and tried to push them to think and come to their own conclusions while being open to other possibilities. He sounds quite serious to me, and not preachy or condescending.

[Island Blue]

58. Thanks, Beachmom.

Sounds like I would have enjoyed being in Professor Obama's class (although he probably would have been a TA at the time since he's only a couple of years older than I am. ;)) While I certainly appreciate your viewpoint, I still think he sounds like a preacher (which is not necessarily the same thing as being "preachy" if that makes sense)and a bit cocky (which is not to say condescending or disrespectful.) Maybe it's just the cadence of his speech, I don't know.

There are other reasons that I haven't fallen in love with him. I really think that he is just too untested and unseasoned to be the leader of the free world in this dangerous time. In that regard however, he's certainly not alone among the top three.

If my primary vote mattered (which it doesn't) I'd probably choose Obama. At least at this point. I guess what's bothering me is that I just haven't gone "ga ga" over the guy like so many others seem to have done. I feel like I'm missing something that they see in him. I'll get over it though, and at the end of the day if he's our candidate I'll support him 100%.

[karynnj]

6. I thought it was just me

I loved Kerry's speeches especially the way he dealt with the whole alternative fuel/environment issue. To me, the innovation of scientific research as a solution in the way he did it was JFKish. There was something strong and real in the way Kerry spoke - and you knew that it was not just words written for him with no deep knowledge or ideas behind them.

[MBS]

47. . . what you said. I totally agree n/t

[wisteria]

10. I agree Fed-up.

Style and flash over real substance and experience- no thank you. An inexperienced Obama at the helm during these crucial period in our nations history scares me to death. We don't need someone learning as they go along or someone good with photo-ops.
I just can not bring myself to vote for someone who I think is not up to the job.

I am bowing out now. This forum is going to turn into a forum less about Senator Kerry and more about Senator Obama.

[politicasista]

19. I still support the senator

and his efforts. We will still post and discuss Kerry stuff here.

[JI7]

8. the Lieberman people are still bitter about the 2006 Primary

where Kerry actively supported Lamont in the Primary.

they will now use Obama to try to bash Kerry. but Lieberman is still a loser who is now whoring for McCain.

[wisteria]

9. Well it starts, Everyone on the Obama bandwagon.

Not me though. He is IMO the wrong choice at this important time in our history.

Not that it matters much to anyone here, but I am bowing out.

[beachmom]

11. Who is the right choice who is actually running? Because if the

answer is NOBODY, well, that's a pretty negative place to be, when we HAVE to win the White House this time.

[wisteria]

12. So be it. I am negative. And I don't see a real urgent need to win the White House

if we can increase our numbers in the Senate. If our Democratic choice is bad, it will be a long time before we will gain the Presidency again. For me it is more important that we elect the best and most experienced person to lead this country. These are dangerous times and I won't be responsible for electing anyone who I don't feel is really up to the job. Obama, is from all I have read, nothing more than style with very little substance. Bush was the candidate of change and inexperienced in 2000, but at least he was a governor. Bush ran as a uniter and Washington outsider. Carter also ran on changes and as an outsider. Both presidencies have been bad. What makes anyone think Obama's will be any different?

[JI7]

14. Obama actually has a record and how about issues like abortion rights

gay rights , the war.

Kerry picked Obama to give the keynote so certainly Kerry feels Obama represents what he views our country needs.

[wisteria]

16. A very thin record and his claim to have been against the war in Iraq

is a bit disingenuous since he may have spoken out against it, but he never had to actually vote for or against the resolution. He is at the very least stretching the truth here and misleading people into thinking he actually cast a vote. Then there was his vote against the Kerry/Feingold bill - when he had the audacity to claim he couldn't vote for it because it would be a precipitous withdraw. He plays it to safe and is more calculation than passion. But, his claim to be able to bring change to Washington just rubs me the wrong way- especially coming from a DLC'er and a Senator who has not taken the lead on any issues of real substance or importance. I want someone who can hit the ground running, this country does not need someone who needs on the job training.

Kerry picked him to give a good speech- not run this country.

[JI7]

17. i'm sorry, but that's like people claiming Kerry was pro war because of IWR

you ignore and dismiss any record and just see what you want to see.

read beachmom's posts about his record. there is nothing thin about it.

[wisteria]

21. I have and it is. And Obama's opinion about the Iraq War and Senator Kerry's

vote for the IWR are no even close. Senator Kerry had to make a definitive choice that could bring on change, Obama was nothing more than his opinion. If he was wrong it affected no one.

Obama from what is written about him appears to be a good man, that doesn't make him qualified to be the leader of this great country. Many people have impressive resumes.

[JI7]

22. so what Kerry says doesn't matter ?

a lot of people ignore what Kerry says and just look to the vote and claim he supported the war. that's what you do with Obama, you say he didn't have to vote so it doesn't matter. that it doesn't matter if he said anything.

[wisteria]

29. Not in this matter. Kerry has to be a good Democrat. He has to support the party

and declare loyalty to it. I do not.

Today, I gave up my non-paying but elected position as a committee person. I can't support people I do not believe in.

[JI7]

31. i'm not talking about this matter, i'm talking about Kerry's IWR vote

do you discount anything he said in his explanation for why he voted for it ? and just look at the vote itself, because what you are saying is that Obama did not vote so nothing he says matters.

i mean, that's what people said about Kerry's iwr vote. he voted for it and nothing else mattered.

[wisteria]

34. No, I am saying that Obama's opinion's from the perspective of a safe haven in Ill

is not on par with the painful and difficult decision Senator Kerry had to make. Obama risked nothing with his opinion.

[beachmom]

38. It WAS a risk. He was running for the U.S. Senate, and he chose

to speak out very clearly against an invasion of Iraq. Remember, when Michael Moore won an Oscar and in March 2003 spoke out against the Iraq War as being illegal? He was BOOED. In HOLLYWOOD. It was a lonely road back then to speak out unequivocally against that war. That is why so many of us admired Kerry, because even after having voted for the IWR, he chose to say invading Iraq was wrong BEFORE Bush invaded, saying "do not rush into war", wait for the inspectors to do their job, get allies, get the U.N. on board. That mattered. As did Obama's speech in October 2002.

[wisteria]

42. Oh come on, he was running against Keyes the kook. I doubt anyone decided against

Obama because of that opinion.

[Mass]

43. At that point, he was running against a number of other Democrats and the Republican was Ryan, who

later quit the race because of his problems with his wife. It was only much later than Keyes became the Republican candidate. So, there was some risk when he said that.

I understand your point concerning the responsibility that Kerry had and how it is not the same thing, but I disagree that there was no risk in what Obama did.

[beachmom]

33. I have been very candid in my disappointment in Obama's K/F vote

and for his reasons for doing so. I am not a particularly confrontational person, but if I weren't so shy in a setting of press and a lot of people, I would have liked to have asked him about it at YearlyKos, especially since his plan that he unveiled in January '07 was nearly identical to the K/F plan. However, not one presidential candidate voted for K/F, and Edwards did not signal that he supported it at the time. So although Obama was dead wrong there, show me someone who was right and is in the presidential race. Kerry is a better choice than Obama; but he is not running and Obama is the candidate most aligned with my values. I also happen to recall Kerry walking over to Obama at the Petraeus hearing before the SFRC. Obama was quite interested in what Kerry was telling him, and then right afterwards Obama launched into his Q & A, which was quite good. I can't help but think that Kerry advised him well in that instance, AND Obama served Kerry's goals well in what kind of message Dems wanted to send on the current state of the Iraq War. They work together on a great many things, and agree probably 95% of the time. If Obama were in the WH, you're telling me that Kerry wouldn't be a trusted confidant and ally in the Senate? You make it seem like Obama will be by himself and won't tap into OUR Democrats, the ones we like and agree with. It is not just the person running for president but the company he keeps. I like Obama's advisors on FP especially, and even Marvin is an aid to Obama. So, I think a lot of your worries are unfounded. Obama is no George Bush.

[wisteria]

35. The similarities come in the form of the type of campaign Obama is running

and his inexperience. I do not believe Obama can and really means to bring change to Washington.
I certainly do not compare him in demeanor to the awful Bush. I do not think Obama is being totally honest and I do not think he is ready to be President.

[Inuca]

48. I think he means to, I do not know if he can

I AM worried about the inexperience thing. A lot. That's why my head and a significant part of my heart as well were with Biden (:cry:). Given the remaining choices, and trying to put my personal bias aside to the extent that I can, I think that Obama is the best bet (and I emphasize BET). Beachmom brought up "the company you keep" issue. He seems to have kept pretty good company so far, and I pray that if he makes it, he will be extremely careful and wise in who he choses for what.

[karynnj]

36. Obama never joined the DLC

The DLC put his name on a list when he joined the Senate, but Obama asked that it be taken off - and it was. i think you have a point that he has less experience than many - but in reality, even Kerry would have faced something that he had no pre-existing experience on. That is why, in addition to the wealth of experience I was impressed by the description of how he made decisions. I liked that in a way it matched what he did intuitively as a young officer. His Silver Star story impressed me more by the planning ahead, then the guts to do it. From the accounts, concerned about the type of ambush that was happening, he first asked people who experienced it what happened, then he came up with a solution and then explained it to many people (going to the point of using paper cups) asking their input. He eventually was at a point where he and other officers were comfortable with the idea of using it if attacked.

Now, I haven't read anything on how Obama makes decisions. What I do see is that he is a contemplative person and he seems to listen to the ideas of others. My concern with HRC is because of her Healthcare plan. My issue is not that it didn't work, but because she apparently had a very closed process, ignoring even some Senators with a lifetime of experience. I could see her changing on how much she socializes her solutions, but I doubt at age 60 that she would suddenly change how she goes about solving problems. Here, it is exasperated because many people who act as HRC did would consider the Kerry type process indecisive - even if the decision is reached in the same amount of time.

[wisteria]

40. Kerry is mature and presidential- Obama is not IMO. He does good speeches and is great at photo-ops.

[wisteria]

41. I will not get into healthcare. My opinions on how to fix it differ from all of our candidates. n/t

[beachmom]

15. Because he has better judgment!!! He got it right on Iraq when

so many got it wrong. He has a very impressive record in the Illinois legislature (gee, I don't recall Bush doing much of anything in TX, especially since the governor was only the 3rd most powerful person in that state. A Democrat did all the work for W, and before that, W's only success was being a cheerleader for the TX Rangers after being a collosal failure at every business he tried to run, following his joining the Air National Guard while going absent for some time all to avoid going to Vietnam, a war he supported, following a top rate education where he didn't seem to get much out of it).

I think you have really launched an unbelievable insult at Sen. Obama who actually has a list of accomplishments (unlike Bush) as community organizer, president of the Harvard Law Review (first AA to have that honor), civil rights lawyer, Constitutional Law professor, seven years in the Illinois Senate, and now 3 years in the U.S. Senate where he most notably helped get an ethics and lobbying reform bill passed (plus getting disclosure on the internet), and has partnered up with Kerry on a great many issues like veterans' care, voting rights, and the FCC. Is he perfect? No. But I think Obama is far more clever than any of the people you mentioned; plus Bill Clinton (an uneven presidency, but not a failure) also didn't have foreign policy experience and he served two terms, even getting a few good things done internationally.

Saying it's no big deal if we lose the WH is really an incredible remark. What about the Supreme Court? Are you hinting that you will vote for McCain, if he becomes the GOP nominee? Because, Lord knows, he's got a lot of experience.

The other night I was knocking Hillary on this forum; now, I guess I am getting a taste of my own medicine. The Kerry forum should not be about knocking the Dem presidential candidates because they're not Kerry. That isn't what we should be about. I'll stick to Kerry only topics from now on.

[wisteria]

20. Padded and filled with attention getting titles and names.

I am not bashing Obama by bring to everyones attention some things they may not have thought about. Many in our party are being as manipulated now as the public was in 2000 and 2004. I am about my country first and my party second and I am not a Republican as someone here has suggested a little while back. I just will not support any candidate the media and this party brings forth just to have a Democrat in the White House. IMO, Obama is about promises that he will not be able to fulfill, and change he will not have the experience to bring about. He will owe a lot of people if he gets in, you don't raise the money he has without making promises. He can't run on his experience so he is running on change and giving people false hope. My gut tells me he is wrong for this country right now. I just can not vote for him-Democrat or no Democrat.
That is why I am having my say and leaving this forum for others to post on from now on. I am in the minority here and I fear this place will become less about Senator Kerry and more a place to promote and support Obama.
I apologize if I have offended anyone here regarding my Obama remarks. My intention was to present another point of view regarding this candidate.

[JI7]

23. so you vote based on your gut over facts ?

[wisteria]

28. Obama facts are nothing more than surface salt. I base my opinion

on the facts as I know them and have researched them and yes, my gut feeling. It has been very reliable in the past.

[JI7]

30. so you think Kerry had bad judgement when he picked him to give Keynote ?

[wisteria]

32. No, Obama gave a very moving speech, but that is all it was a speech.

A good speech now and again does not mean one is Presidential material.

[ginnyinWI]

49. and that's an important point, wisteria!

I like Obama's speeches a lot, but as Kathleen Hall Jamison pointed out on Bill Moyers last night, that doesn't mean he's good at everything.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch.html

What she was saying: in order to do well as a candidate, you have to be good in a one-on-one interview, and you have to be good one-on-one with individual voters, and, perhaps most importantly, you have to be excellent in a debate! We all know how well JK did at his debates, and it may be that he excelled at debating over all of his other campaigning tasks.

Obama? Dunno yet. He's a great speaker, that we know. But how is he at debating a repub? How will he come off in the infinite number of interviews he'll have to do before the election? I was always impressed at JK's patience and endurance on the campaign trail. Staying late to talk to, shake hands with and sign autographs for people. Answering the same questions over and over and over and over. Sitting in that sweaty locker room that time, putting up with problems with the audio--taking it all in stride. You have to be almost super-human to do all of this well. So we'll see. Maybe it takes surviving getting shot at on the Mekong river to help you put it all into perpective! Because he truly has the temperament that makes a good campaigner and president.

When I see Hillary smiling in front of the crowds, I always get a mental picture of her backstage in some room screaming her head off at someone. Kind of like Emma Thompson who played her in "Primary Colors". I believe that's what she's really like. How long until she snaps in public? And what kind of president would she make with that temperament? They say that women like her, except for highly educated older women, and that would include me. We are suspicious of her.

Edwards is a boring speaker, frankly. I just can't keep my mind on what he's saying. He's okay in an interview. And I was disappointed in his debate with Cheney. He just doesn't rate high enough with me to trust him with the nomination. But he'd be a great Attorney General, because he does have a good sense of justice and a heart for the people.

[TayTay]

26. No, it won't.

This is the John Kerry forum. it will stay the John Kerry forum. Senator Kerry has big plans in 08 and this will be a good place to come and hear about them.

We have a Senate to take back.

We have a US House to get a bigger Dem majority in.

We have issues like the environment and energy and veterans care and honesty in government to promote. Sen. Kerry has a stake in those things and a lot of other issues that he has spent a lifetime fighting for and to advance.

Sen. Obama *might* be the nominee of the Dem Party. If that happens, yeah he will get mentioned a lot. But Sen. Kerry plans on being in this fight and supporting the Dem candidates ups and down the ticket and plans to continue to fight to make this a better country.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Stay here. We ain't going anywhere.

[wisteria]

39. Tay, I will support Senator Kerry's efforts to gain seats in the Senate.

I do think they are important and the other major issues you mentioned certainly are important to me too. However, I know that from now until the end of this year, the major talk will be this election and I just don't want to be here for that. I feel Senator Kerry was cheated out of the Presidency in 2004. He had a difficult tough race. I want to see our other candidates face what he had to face, why should it be any different for them. I am sure this is not the position that Senator Kerry would take, but it is how I feel. I will not assist in making their runs any easier so that the media and the candidates can belittle him and marginalize his campaign. I will scan this forum for news and perhaps GV or yourself can e-mail me with any requests. I just have to step back from this election and tune it out. I find that it depresses me.

[fedupinBushcountry]

44. Wisteria

I am not jumping on the presidential bandwagon and don't know if I will. But I am with you, I will work my butt off to get a BIG majority in the House and the Senate. We need that big majority no matter who is in the WH. I'm sure this forum will be working on that a lot in the next 11 months. So please stay around.

[Mass]

27. wisteria, I hope that the place will continue to be about Kerry, and I think Kerry was the subject

of this thread, as idiotic that this comparison made by a former Lieberman staffer may be.

You are entitled to your opinion, so nobody should feel offended by what you think. It is just that somewhere, I get the feeling that you feel we somehow are abandoning Kerry somewhere. We are not. My guess is that everybody in this forum would want to see Kerry in this race as the frontrunner, whatever our individual preferences for one candidate or the other. But he is not. And, as sorry as we can be than he is not, some of us have been leaning for a candidate or not.

I am sure that the posting concerning Kerry will be more voluminous when there will be some news concerning him, but unfortunately, there is not very much these days (I wish there were, but I can understand he would stay silent these days, particularly if he does not want to have a favorite).

[wisteria]

37. When Obama is faced with a real vote that matters as much as the IWR vote did,

than I want to see how he actually votes. An opinion that risks nothing is not the same thing as Kerry having to decide the best course for this country.
I was opposed to the war too and I wouldn't put my opinion up there with Kerry's vote.

[karynnj]

18. We can't have Kerry and to many of us he is the measure we are now comparing everyone to

Not surprisingly, they all come up short. This is to be expected because many (or even all of us) have said that in Kerry we found a candidate who ended up impressing us more than any in our lifetime.

Even the worse Democrat is immensely better than Bush - and some of the Republican choices can be as bad as Bush hard as that is to believe. Huckabee, genial on the outside but with a mind that is down right scary would be far worse than any of the Democrats.

On Obama, you may be reading things written by people who far prefer HRC or Edwards. His work in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate are far better than Edwards' - and remember Kerry trusted Edwards enough to put him in a position where he could have under awful circumstances become President. I trust Kerry enough to think that he believed Edwards could be a reasonable President. There were reports months ago of Kerry and Obama having a long dinner together in DC where they looked like they were having a good conversation. There is every reason to think that Obama, if elected, would trust Kerry's judgment enough that he would be one of the people whose opinions are sought out - something that will likely not happen with most Republicans.

When I knew I would vote for the Democrat - yes, even the Hillary monster (as my husband has started to joking call her) - was when Bush vetoed S-CHIP. This showed the stakes - no Democrat would have vetoed it.

[wisteria]

25. You suggest someone has influenced my opinions. You sell me short.

My opinions are my own. Many people are good and just and have impressive resumes. The position of President of the United States is a unique one and calls for unique talents and IMO Obama is not the right person for this position. I might even suggest he wants it for the wrong reasons. As for Kerry and the cozy dinner with Obama a while back, that has no effect on my position. My gut tells me- as it did with Bush- that Obama is not the leader this country needs at this time. If Kerry supports him so be it. That will not change my mind. I can not bring myself to vote for someone I do not think is up to the job-Democrat or not.

[YvonneCa]

45. Please stay...

...I'd miss you. :hug: I've just read most of this thread and agree with much of what you say about Obama. I'm trying hard just to let the process choose our nominee and to stay detached (which is NOT easy, by the way :) ). It's the 'fresh face vs. experience' argument again, and I want experience...JK style.

I DO think he is the wrong choice now...but as VP he'd be great. If he wins, I'll just have to pray he has the wisdom, and be glad he's at least a Democrat. But we could do so much better...and that's a hurt that will never go away for me.

[beachmom]

13. Just finished reading it. Here is my take:

The media and punditocracy never got Kerry, so why do we expect them to get him even better now, four years after he ran, where their selective amnesia is even more fractured?

I love Kerry, I like Obama. It is very hurtful and just plain boneheaded to lift Obama up by putting Kerry down, and it is as insulting to Obama as it is to Kerry. Why the comparison? What's the point? Every person has their own talents and gifts. I like the way Obama speaks, but he hasn't given a speech like Dissent in his life, and really, he won't be able to because that was not his life experience. Similarly, Kerry couldn't talk about how history had been made when he won Iowa the way Obama could, because Obama had truly made history in a way Kerry never could.

I have just decided to let this stuff roll off of me, because I know who Kerry is, and I know that he is making this country a better place every day with his tireless work. True, it would be nice for people to notice what he's doing once in a while, but OTOH, the work he is getting done is far more important than a glowing review from some obscure blogger. I thought that LA Times article 2 weeks back was really good, so let's remember that, when stupid 3rd rate fluff like this dispatch pop up on the ethers.

[Democrafty]

24. Very well stated!

I feel the same way, on all points.

[cadmium]

55. Agree Beachmom. This sounds like an

exaggerated controversy The political landscape was different in 2004. People were generally angry -- Now most people are just hoping this Bush nightmare comes to an end. I was in Manchester NH today --- hordes of Kucinich supporters and McCain supporters were confrontationally shouting at each other across the street -- but they were also joshing and crossing the street to shake hands.

We had our Obama swag on and had a lot of very friendly banter with Hillary supports (they were everywhere).

[ladym55]

63. I agree

These comparisons are totally boneheaded and hurtful and benefit no one.

However, I've come to the sad conclusion that if the media and punditocracy didn't say make meaningless comparisons (note to self--check attire before attending any political event for message sent), they'd have nothing to say. They appear to lack the ability to think critically. They are unable (or unwilling) to analyze and synthesize what really is important in the campaign.

Senator Kerry was the first presidential candidate in my lifetime (and I've been around awhile) that I cared enough about and was committed enough to campaign for. I admire what he continues to do in the Senate, and if I can't get wound up about this year's crop of Democratic hopefuls, it's because it should have have Kerry.

[JI7]

46. and what does it matter if we win the Congress if the President vetoes

all the good legislation.

[wisteria]

50. We will have enough votes to over ride the veto. n/t

[beachmom]

51. That is just not true. You need 2/3rd majority to override a veto.

We're not going to get 2/3rd majority. Look, you have made it clear that you do not want several Democrats in the WH EVEN IF they get the nomination, and you are entitled to that opinion, but Politics 101 tells us that Congress cannot implement a progressive agenda by itself with an antagonistic president. The president, even a weak one, is very powerful with many tools to get his/her way, and barring getting 2/3rds of the Congress (that's 67 votes in the Senate -- an impossible number to get in '08), the Democrats will not get the job done, like getting us out of Iraq, dealing with climate change, or getting universal healthcare. Even WITH a Democratic president, it will be a tough slog; without one, it will be beyond our reach. I maintain as I said at the outset that it is IMPERATIVE that we get a Democrat in the WH AS WELL AS increasing our majorities in the Congress, and that is Senator Kerry's position as well, and frankly, I will support any of the Democrats currently in the running for the nomination because SO MUCH is at stake.

[ray of light]

52. 67 votes in the Senate is nearly impossible to get.

I just want to say one thing about the whole thread and discussion. I posted it because I felt it was wrong for that person to compare Kerry to Obama, but I didn't know he was a LIEberman hack when I did so. I have learned so much by everyone in this forum who are incredibly informed!

Regarding the article... I don't like how one person has to put down in order to lift up someone else. I've never liked it. It's bullying and it ticks me off when I see adults doing it--like that author had to diminish Kerry to lift up Obama. I don't like the mean bullying side of politics.

I am not saying it to diss Obama or any of the candidates either.

I'm just saying that it's important for us to recognise that JK is not running for President, no matter how much he deserves to be the President or the fact that he should be there right now! So of course it's difficult to imagine supporting anyone but Kerry, but we have to find a way to support a democratic candidate over the Republican one. We don't agree with each other 100% of the time. We don't agree with Kerry 100% of the time. And I don't expect to agree with Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or anyone else 100% of the time. BUT what I do know is that I agree MORE with any of them, than I do with any Republican running. And if Bloomberg announces he'll run, he will be pulling up the corporatist votes from BOTH PARTIES, and that's something to worry about too!

So getting a D elected IS important! Because the likelyhood of getting 67 votes to override a Huckabee veto or a Bloomberg veto would be impossible.

So, you know...it's difficult for me to support anyone but Kerry, but I know that I will have to turn off my own disappointment when the time to vote comes. But also, I will not feed the bullies (meaning Rove and the Republicans who read this forum!). I will not give them any bait to use against any of our Dems.

Because my gut instinct says that any of them will be better than a Republican or a Bloomberg.

[wisteria]

53. They don't need to read this forum to come up with bait, they have plenty to use

w/o my comments about what will really transpire in the future. You do what you want. I am not wasting my time promoting our Presidential candidates. I am focusing on the Senate, where I hold a more optimistic view of getting things done.
And, Senator Kerry might hope for a Democrat for President, but he is putting his money in increasing our numbers in the Senate.

[ray of light]

54. They do read this forum. Just like they used the Kerryblog against

Kerry in 04.

I remember when I still listened to the msm and heard them reading posts from the jkblog and discussing what Kerry supporter's thoughts were, and they would use those against him. The fact is that even though Kerry is not running he IS a powerful entity in DC, particularly in going against the corporatists. And the other fact is that they use kernals of seeds taken from out here and they use them to hurt Kerry and to hurt other Democrats in general.

I'm not saying this in support of a candidate or to ask you to support a candidate. I'm just saying that we need to work as a team to get progressives elected.

And I'm glad you will keep fighting for seats in the Senate. We need those seats. Right now, we have to get enough people in there to equalize the branches of government again. To stop signing statements. To break up the media monopolies and to stop sending people to die overseas in an occupation that started for a lie.

[karynnj]

56. I agree with you - wishing the Democrat to lose in hopes that Kerry could win in 2008

is 100% against what Kerry himself has spoken of - remember the incredible emotion in his voice when he opted out and he spoke of there being stuff that had to be done (in 2007 and 2008) to make things less impossible for the President who comes into office in 2009. He since then has always answered that ALL the Democrats are close in policy compared to their distance from the Republicans.

I understand the temptation - and even the feeling that they might respect Kerry more if the 2008 Democrat does worse fighting on the current unfair playing field. He used his convention and the debates as well as anyone could. (Thanks to Prosense for the thread on coverage of the convention when it happened.) In the first place, even if this happened would the media write it that way? Or anoint a new savior? This would also make us like the Democrats I respect least from 2004 - those who preferred a loss to let their favorite win in 2008. Kerry took the unusual role for a party standard bearer in 2006 of being an attack dog for freshman vet candidates fighting SBVT like charges - that was extraordinary and he did not get enough credit for it. Per the Nation article - these same people will attack whoever our candidate is. I would be shocked if Kerry does not fight them as hard as anyone. (Ironically, if because of Kerry they succeed, the media may again negatively contrast Kerry 04 to now on this.)

But, it is imperative that a Democrat take the WH.

[wisteria]

57. I never suggested that my opinion of Obama and my lack of support for other

candidates meant I was doing so in hopes of an 08 run by Kerry. Who even said he would run to begin with. And, in 2012 he will become the senior senator from Mass, when Kennedy retires. He may find himself on more important commitees and may find that he can do much more good and weld more influence in the Senate. No, Senator Kerry being president is not behind my objections to Obama or even the other candidates.
Everyone assumes our country is going to remain as divided as it has these last eight years. I see signs all over that things are changing. It has already happened in the way many of the bills that have pasted have been bipartisan. I said somewhere on here that I love my country first and my party second. I would rather see checks and balances at work once again in order to get things done than have it all go one way. Our government is stronger when it works out its differences and comes up with something that a majority can support. I don't care for any of our candidates really, and Obama is not ready to take the helm IMO. His campaign is all about feel good words and pie in the sky promises.Everyone will wake up after the fact and realize that they had been fooled by smooth words and false hope. No one man can accomplish what Obama is promising to deliver. I have decided to not waste my time in fighting for or promoting our candidates for the Presidency. I am going to devote my time to where I think we have the most promise for real change- the senate races. Let the chips fall where they may in 08. If that makes me less a Democrat then so be it. I believe in America first.

[karynnj]

59. Given the results, maybe Kerry had the notes and music better than Obama

or maybe he just connected better with the voters. He clearly had a more definitive win in NH.
Kerry - 38
Dean - 26
Clark - 12
Edwards - 12
Leiberman - 9

http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

Yeah - I know it's a neighboring state - but look at the entire chart - all Kerry's wins were very definitive. No matter what happens in this race - Kerry had a better, easier nomination win. All three have gone negative which Kerry didn't.

[Mass]

60. I was listening to the polls last week with a huge incredulity.

There was no way it was that much spread, between the fact that the NH and MA establishment were largely behind Clinton and the fact that the independents had to split between McCain (who is liked there) and Obama. So, I am not that surprised.

This said, whoever wins, the race is much closer than it was in 04, clearly, and some people in both camps may have to rethink something.

[Inuca]

66. So why do you think that the polls were SO off?

I heard several explanations, dealing primarily with the impact of the last couple of days (the :cry: factor, etc.) + NH wanting to assert its "independence", but stil... On the other hand, the media jump on the Obama bandwagon was beyond belief and bordering on the ridiculous. What it meant and what impact it may had, I have no idea... On yet another hand (the one I keep locked in a closet for special occasions), I have another window opened with Obama's site, ready to send him a few bucks I cannot afford, especially after the other bucks I cannot afford I sent to Biden earlier.

[beachmom]

61. That's what I was thinking. Kerry STEAMROLLED through the primaries.

He was a great, great candidate, and don't let anyone tell us differently.

In '08, looks like the race is on. The media has got to love it now (a horse race boosts ratings) as they forget how wrong they and the polls were just a day ago. I also didn't think it was in the bag today -- I believed the outlier poll which had them tied, the closest one to the actual vote.

[politicasista]

62. I try not to let anyone tell me differently, but

they still repeat that he was lousy or (cough) terrible and that Iowa and NH just "gave" us Kerry.

I am trying to get excited. I really am, but don't know how.

[Inuca]

67. Really loved your last sentence :-)

:hug:

[politicasista]

68. Thanks

:hug: :grouphug:

[MBS]

64. yes, I hope that the current crop of candidates and the media

will come to appreciate the real magnitude of what JK achieved in those dual wins in Iowa and NH. Neither HRC, with her Machine and her millions, nor Obama, with voter excitement and a fawning press and his millions, could do it. But JK did it, with shoe-leather, organization, determination, class, and sheer guts.

As whome wrote to me (I'm paraphrasing), "you learn the measure of someone when they're down." I wrote back that JK passed all my tests right there at the beginning: he showed himself to be the very definition of a class act, the Real Deal.

[Luftmensch067]

65. Quite right

I love "shoe-leather, organization, determination, class, and sheer guts." Well said.

HRC in Iowa, Obama in NH -- this is only the BEGINNING of their lesson. It's clear that a presidential campaign is not the ride you expect and you can't know that 'til you're in it. And whether they have the understanding to learn to respect and honor what JK went through or not and how much courage and grace he employed, they'll have to go through it, too.