Searching for optimism in 2009

[politicasista]

I have only posted a few times since the holidays ended (breaks are really good!), but I do owe people in this group a minor apology.

This isn't another attention seeking, concern, ego-driven thread, but a hopeful one for the New Year.

A few days ago, I got into a mini-flame with people I really like here over what I believed happened in the elections of 2004 to 2008 or what people supposedly thought. Now that the light bulb has turned on, I have had a change of heart.

Last night, I was flipping through channels and stumbled on the 2001 World Series (I am big sports fan :)). There was something really wrong with that story because it was all about 9/11 and how NYC and baseball came together after the worst terrorist attack on American soil (since Pearl Harbor?), but worse was the exploitation of this tragedy by showing constant images of Bush, Gooliani (LOL!), and nonstop talk of terror alerts and fear, fear, fear. It should have been moving, but now that Bush will be gone in 6 days (:bounce:), it was all exploited for political gain (yep, he kept us safe alright).

After watching that, I now fully understand that people were afraid of (seen those orange, red, yellow terror alerts lately?) change in 2004. (Gee pol, we told you so. :banghead:) They were still reeling from 9/11 and Bush, Rove, played the fear card like crazy. In conclusion, I now understand what Kerry was up against. A wartime incumbent, a vicious Rovian machine, a fearful public.

I know for the last 4 1/2 years, I have lashed out at people like Cahill and Shrum for the handling of the SBV, but I don't blame Kerry (though mistakes were made). I blame the media more than anything else. So, if I said Kerry was lousy or if it came across as painting him as a horrible candidate, or if I unfairly compared him to Obama and the different times they ran in, then apologies because that was not my intent.

Sometimes I still get angry that people (including DUers) don't understand or care that the media was complacent with the SBV and compare that to Obama's handling of the Rev. Wright mess, or use anything to put down Kerry and Gore to praise Obama, (i.e. Obama gets praised for taking the high road, but Kerry gets berated for it) but it's not my duty to dissect somebody's agenda. If they don't want to hear or see the truth, then that's their problem.

Final point about the elections, I know that 2008 was a lot different than 04 because of Katrina, global warming, two wars, and the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression that drove people to say we needed change, and we need it now. It's not fair to blame people who were asleep then and are awake now for registering to vote. My first election was 2004 (I was all good to vote for the senator. I now wished I would have voted in 2000 :(), so every election brings out new voters. I am still in the young voting block (under 35), so it's all good that the young peeps got excited about Obama and more involved. We came though this time.

I also now believe that people voted for Obama because of his political skills and charisma, but more importantly, people (like this group. :)) wanted change, and still need it right now. People were sick of the GOP games, smears, being lied to and being fed the MSM junk spin (another pol, we told you so!) And I say good for them and us.

Election Day was great because it was time that we came together and said enough is enough. And yes, the grassroots got stronger from 04, Dean picked it up from there (and with Kerry's help), and we did win in 06. I still didn't know that Kerry had brought in his own people to work in Ohio (I still hope the truth about 04 comes out one day :)).

Before 08 ended, I decided to step away from DU and search for a little optimism. I stayed out of the controversial threads in GDP, but I agree and disagree with some things PE Obama has done, but I kinda understand why he is doing them. He wants to change the way things are done in politics (even if it means meeting with repukes or picking some controversial people for cabinet posts).

I also forgot to congratulate Senator Kerry on his new position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. :fistbump: :toast: I was one of those that wasn't feeling this deal because I (like others) thought that he could do more as President Obama's SOS or AG, without Reid the pest, and the rigid rules of the Senate. I saw him preside over HRC's confirmation and he did a nice job. It looks like he'll do some good work in that position :).

After watching the Today show video interview and Matt Lauer referring to him as "Mr. Chairman," and saying that the SFRC Chair was a "big deal," I am thinking that this may not be a bad idea for him to stay in the Senate. He seems to like being his own boss, having an independent voice, and being an Obama ally in the Senate. Hopefully, he can be a lifetime influential, and powerful senator (like Uncle Ted).

I know the media and people will still snark at him, but I am hopeful that someday the senator will get the respect and recognition he deserves, however, with the country in shambles, it may or may not matter who gets credit, it's just about cleaning up and fixing the mess.

TayTay and YvonneCa asked the question, why am I still here? Well, 4 1/2 years later, I am still looking for an answer to that question. I guess it's because I like the people in this group :hi:. I like the Senator and Momma T. :), I am interested in issues like jobs, education, environment, etc.

I am very excited about next Tuesday. Yes, it's history making, but it feels like a new day is dawning and hope, help and optimism is really on the way. (it was in 04, but people weren't ready for it).

I know I have always been a hand-wringer (ok pessimistic) in this group or see things as black and/or white (I am glad Obama doesn't see that this way), but I am hoping that this new year will bring much needed change, hope, and help to those that really need it. The economic downturn has really hit people hard down here in the South, so I am hopeful 09 is a sign of good things to come.

Meanwhile, a New Year's promise was to be more positive, so I will still be searching for optimism, even if it means being offline from DU or blogosphere or taking a break from politics. I will still support the good senator and the Obama administration all the way. :)

Last but not least, It's going to be a long and trying time for our country, but for the first time in 8 years, I feel good about seeing Obama, Biden, HRC, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc. working together as opposed to Smirky, Darth Cheney, Condi, Brownie, Rummy, etc. Thank goodness!

Thanks for leaving the light on 4 1/2 years later. :grouphug: :hi:


Peace

:patriot:









edit for word

[politicasista]

1. Kick for optimism!

:kick:

[TayTay]

2. We have a lot to be optimistic about

Winning, in a lot of ways, is every bit as difficult as losing. Things get reshuffled. The universe of "what could be" funnels into the actuality of "what can be." Things we thought would happen won't. That is the way of elections.

No one means to be deceptive in this. Only a cynic posits that the people running for office make promises knowing they might have to be scaled back or eliminated. That is not true, in most cases I've ever seen. What does happen is that people get into office and get a huge dose of reality. This is one of those times. Most of the '08 campaign happened before the financial meltdown really bit in September. Priorities have changed. We have to deal now with what actually is, not the world as we wish it were.

The Democrats will keep a lot of the promises like enacting S-Chip and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and so forth. But a lot of other things are going to be dependent on the financial crisis. I seriously don't see how it can be otherwise. Nothing is more dangerous to this Republic than a population that loses hope in their own and our national future. Demagogues and those who prey on the fearful can thrive in tough times. America is not immune to this threat. We cannot allow bad economic times to turn into a search for scapegoats and division, as has happened in other countries at other times.

We have to affirm our faith, as citizens, in the power of this country to renew itself. I believe in America because I believe in my fellow Americans and their ability to rebound from adversity. That is the real task ahead. We will get through this if we remain united and resist giving in to quick fixes and fear. That is the task of the people we just elected as well. I pray they are all focused on this as well. Our future depends on it.

[politicasista]

3. Thanks for writing this

I agree that priorities have changed since the economic meltdown happened. I do like this phrase "We have to deal now with what actually is, not the world as we wish it were."

I have never been one to believe that things PE Obama will wave a magic wand and poof, things will be rosy and normal again now that Bush, the evil bogey man is gone. That is fantasy, not reality. It is not good for the cause. I know there will be a lot of agreements/disagreements on the issue and I am hopeful that Democrats will be focused on staying united (without giving into the media spin) and getting things down. Yes, our future depends on it. The LLFPA and SCHIP are a start. :)

Somewhat OT. This may sound corny, but I copy and paste some of your posts and print them as reminders of what is really at stake. Yep. I have a tendency to knee-jerk react (Who doesn't? :)) or focus on who's being snarky towards the senator, but I do understand what this election was really about. It was about us. We have to be the media, we have to be the ones to put pressure on PEO, our congresspeople to demand the change we seek. That's making progress.

Thanks for the Kerry information. Best of luck with the job hunting. I am been doing that of late. :grouphug: :hi:

[YvonneCa]

5. "I believe in America because I believe in my fellow Americans and their ability to rebound from ...

...adversity." So do I. And one thing that makes me hopeful it that...I believe...our newly chosen leaders get this. They also understand the need for unity. That old saying that "A house divided against itself cannot stand" has never been more relevant.

This is a dangerous time for our country. As many feared, the dangers have only multiplied during the last four years...and they are made worse by a country divided.

I said once that our country is not ending...but it is being tested. Electing Democrats ...alone...is not a passing grade on our test. Learning the true meaning of the word 'citizen' and gladly shouldering that responsibility is a start.

We've got a lot of work to do.

[YvonneCa]

4. Absolutely! Hope springs...

...eternal. :)

[politicasista]

6. Bingo

:)

[cadmium]

7. polsista -- I am making a cursory general response

to your post as well as to promote a message to the general public. Kerry his an honest reformer. He will always be subject to ridicule (when that seems effective), subject to right and left wing noise machine outrage at any chance to pounce. This is the kind of price a real honest man in poltics pays and Kerry has been willing to keep working for progress despite - misquotes, unflattering pictures, and ridicule. He isnt going away - which I actually think is at least/if not more courageous than his military service. I think this is why more people to not try to be effective honest reformers from within the power structure. The more they diss Kerry the more I respect him

[politicasista]

8. And you pointed out in another thread

that Obama is getting some flack from the left (i.e. Pastor Warren, GLBT, etc) more than the right. It's been like that in GD/GDP. People are just looking for anything to pounce on (aka poutrage).

I do agree that Kerry is a real honest politician and he won't be going away. However, I noticed that while watching the inauguration with my parents, that he isn't popular, as far as name recognition.

When the cameras showed the VIP people taking their seats, the people they commented on were Uncle Ted (he looked good hope he is ok), Gore, all the former presidents and First Ladies, etc. When the camera showed Kerry, no one said anything. I was about to say that that's the person that gave Obama his first break, but held back because they probably think I am boasting. I thought my parents would have said, that's the man that ran for president or endorsed, supported Obama early on, but it's all good.

Roland Martin of CNN thinks the entire credit for Obama's rise should go to Illinois State Sen. Emil Jones because he like a godfather and helped put Obama's name on the map in Illinois and Chicago politics. Like Kerry, Mr. Jones doesn't like to take all the credit, so I say more power to them. Like Mass told me, others like Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, and Sanders don't get credit either, so that issue really isn't worth losing sleep over anymore.

During the DNC last summer, everyone heard speeches from Uncle Ted, the Clintons, Gore and Obama, but when Kerry gave his speech, and it was a good one :), it wasn't covered anywhere except on C-SPAN and PBS. My dad had left the room before he got to speak, but assumed he gave the speech because he was "pissed off" over what they (the Swifties) did to him in 2004, not defending Obama and going after McCain. And yes, my dad knows what Kerry did in 1971. He and my mom are both informed.

I guess what I am saying is that when you think of Democrats, you think FDR, Truman, the Kennedys, Clintons, Carter, Gore, and now Obama/Biden. You don't think of the name Kerry. I am thinking that people are seeing that Kerry is just another (one of 50) Democratic senator, not chairman of the most powerful committee in the Senate. (That's why I think that going on Oprah isn't a bad idea, but that's her call and with President Obama in the WH, that's unlikely).

When people talk about Obama's support from big time politicians, the Kennedys and Gore come to mind. You don't hear about Kerry. I don't even think my family knows what Kerry's endorsement did for Obama and how he got him on a national stage in 2004. Though they say it was a bold move for him to go against the Clintons.

I am Kennedy person (or as blm says, from the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party :)), but as far as respect and prestige goes, Kerry doesn't have that kind of thing, so he has to work hard and earn it. (Gore already has it due to the the global warming climate change issue)

I think a lot of people bought into the media lie that he hadn't accomplish much in the Senate in 04. It's really great to see/hear that Uncle Ted and Mrs. K appreciate him and Momma T. :). There won't be another liberal lion like him, but at least maybe a liberal tiger or bear? :) I don't think people even have a clue that Kerry is a progressive liberal and on the progressive side of the issues (i.e. A+ from the NAACP, 100% on other issues).

I still think there is a slight more respect and love for Gore right now than Kerry, because of what happened in 2000, and how this entire nightmare could have been avoided had he been POTUS, but now, it's a new day, new year, and new Democratic administration, and time to turn the page.


I will stop here because I have been told to stop the rhetoric and not bring it here anymore.

[Mass]

9. Here we go again, May be it is time for you to get out of your bubble and

think about what is important: how many times a CNN anchor or commentator said Kerry's name or what we can actually expect to change. Not sure there is even photo, so, to answer your initial post: while it will be extremely difficult, I am finding some hope in seeing the adults in power.

For the rest, I care about what the CNN commentators say about as much as I care about Britney Spears's last song.:silly: Not at all. I do not care. This is irrelevant.

[politicasista]

10. The OP is hopeful. I am hopeful too

of finally seeing the adults in charge. I have not forgotten what's important.

And I don't live in a bubble (LOL!). I get out in the real world.

I was being honest and making an observation of what I have seen from my parents during the election and on Tuesday. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

I was answering cadmium's post. I said all of that (getting credit, etc.) was not worth losing sleep over anymore, but guess that comment is over looked.

I don't understand why people are getting unhappy over what I have posted of late. I am just being honest. :shrug:

Forget I said anything or even wrote this OP, which was positive.

[karynnj]

11. Respectfully - I think you completely missed Cadmium's point

What Kerry brings to government is very rare. He also has made impacts at various points. If popularity was his only goal - he would have had a totally different career. First of all - he certainly would not have led an anti-war movement. I don't think Gallup measured anti-war leaders' approval ratings - but I can assure you, they wouldn't be high. Then he certainly would not have investigated the Contras bringing drugs into the country. Reagan was extremely popular and half of the Democratic party agreed with him that the Contras were heroes. He certainly would not have worked on BCCI for 5 years - it infuriated the powers that be and it was too complicated for many to even understand the significance.

What would he have done? After getting out of the Navy, he likely would have gone to law school and possibly still worked briefly as a prosecutor. He then should have been able to use his record as war hero and prosecutor - with his charm and eloquence to get elected. He would have identified some reasonably achievable goals and then used his God given eloquence to lead on them and gotten laws passed. He would have pandered to every talking head there is - while being the witty, charming person he is. He would have avoided anything that might have gotten anyone angry at him - triangulating rather than following conscience. His entire life would have been different and likely easier - and he likely could have become President - maybe in 1992, when there was a weak field. But he wouldn't have been the John Kerry we respect.

Honest reformers are essential, but they are very rarely trumpeted - because they expose where we are not living up to our values and our "myth". Without reformers, we would never be pulled back to our own believe system. (Before you say it - I doubt that Obama would have taken some of his more extreme positions - if Kerry hadn't taken them first and made them respectable - he was NOT a leader on Iraq (even though he says he took his position when few did - in fact he jumped on AFTER the majority of the country did having attacked it almost as much as HRC did.) and he was not that quick to speak against torture.

To me, the bigger surprise is that, after exposing the illegal arming of the Contras (who Gore and the Clintons thought should be legally supported) and BCCI, he still was able to get enough support to be the nominee - and he did it without media or party support. Other than Ted Kennedy, there were no party leaders supporting Kerry before he won Iowa.

I actually heard applause at the inauguration when Kerry was seen on the big TVs entering the podium and he was applauded yesterday on the floor of the Senate - something that is not suppose to happen and almost never does.

At this point, Kerry's contribution to the world can not be validly measured by a popularity test. He is a very powerful Senator. In committees, his power is not just that he is senior - it is that other Senators often agree with him because he always backs up his positions well. The fact is that his real contribution includes things that do not have his name on them. (Going back to the 1990s, look at S-CHIP. Without the key role Kerry played in writing the precursor bill, there might not have been a Kennedy/Hatch bill. Yet we heard more of HRC claiming the accomplishment in 2008 than Kerry in 2004, but the fact is that all the kids insured under that bill over the last decade were helped by Kerry's work. Consider that HRC used it as HER most significant accomplishment.) Though it's trite think of "It's a Wonderful Life". Kerry not being there might have meant - the Vietnam war (and likely the Iraq one) going on longer, veterans getting less benefits and care - PTSD might not have ever gotten the recognition it has, the Contra cocaine might have flowed into the US for a longer time - destroying kids' lives as it did, the many kids aided by Youthbuild might not have had that program that he fights for every budget. You can go on.

At this point - it is completely unlikely that Kerry will run for President again. It also seems completely clear that he can have his Senate seat as long as he wants it. This frees him to take the stands and fight the battles he chooses. If he is a major force in crafting a global warming agreement and he leads the effort and gets it through Congress, he will have done more good than many Presidents did in a term or two - even if Obama is the one seen to have accomplished this - as the President who signs it.

[politicasista]

13. I am not making this about

Kerry running for president again. I have long, long been at peace with his decision not to run. Because of his past campaign experience, grassroots, and platform, we now have a Democratic President Obama. And that is a nice thing. I too voted for change. And so far, I am seeing the change I believed in (there is more to come :)).

If you see the OP, I have hope and I am hopeful. Sorry I missed the point, but I was just being honest about an observation I have been observing from the 2008 election to Inauguration day.

I am glad that Kerry is going to be a powerful senator (as long as Reid, Schumer and the DLC snakes stay out of his way) and fine SFRC Chairman. Having that job and an independent voice is a big deal. I am glad he will have his Senate seat for as long as he wants. Problem is, you would think he was just another Dem politician or one of 50 senators (when he isn't) when people (I am NOT talking about the media talking heads) mention him.

As I have said, I am trying to be more positive and optimistic. I don't understand why everything I have said of late are being taken as painting Kerry as horribly bad or just pathetic. I am in no way doing that.

I am just for respect due. I don't know why people here a problem with that, but to each his/her own.


I have been told to stop the rhetoric because it's no longer welcomed here so I will just leave it at that.

[karynnj]

14. No one is telling you that the rhetoric is not welcome

It just seems that you are fixated on popularity to the exclusion of anything else. The only reason I mentioned anything about running for President is that that DOES require popularity. You say that things you write are taken as painting Kerry as horribly bad - but nothing you have written does than. Even if taken to the extreme, unpopular does not equal bad - and Kerry is not unpopular.

It is also not true that the media or people treat him as "just one of 50 Senators". That is simply not true. The fact is that he is a bigger deal and commands more attention than any current Senator - excepting maybe Reed, due entirely to his position. Do you think it was just stupidity or chance that Obama through the entire general election and most of the primaries had Kerry out there as his most prominent surrogate? The fact is that Reid and Feinstein, as chair of the committee that ran the inauguration, had ceremonial roles and were announced. Kerry though was cheered when he was seen on the TVs on the mall.

Though popularity can add to the power of a position, the position itself dominates. Bush was extremely powerful and able to change history, even when wildly unpopular. This is the first time in Kerry's career where he has seniority on important committees in a very Democratic Senate with a Democratic President. He also has nearly 6 years before he has to face re-election. He is the most important voice in the Senate on foreign policy, while also being a strong voice on the Finance committee.

Kennedy, like Kerry, had the potential to be President. At this point, no one speaks of that because the things he really did as Senator obviate the need to speak of that potential. Kerry, even at this point, has a strong list of accomplishments - yet the articles on his becoming chair, speak of him not yet fulfilling his potential. As they did speak of his accomplishments, this is a compliment. They are saying his potential is to be a great Senator. Doing that will not be based on people across the country liking or disliking him - but the legislation that he helps create.

The thing that most impressed me as I have seen more of who Kerry is in the last 4 years is that there are many people who have been with him, through thinner times than these, since almost childhood, prep school, Yale or Vietnam. Many have been with him since 1971. These are real people who through everything have seen him as a leader they could trust and a very good person.

All of us would have loved it if Kerry had won in 2004 and many of us would have loved it had he run in 2008 and become President last Tuesday. Some of us would have loved seeing Obama nominate him for SOS with a warm speech listing the reasons why. None of those things happened. That does not leave Kerry with nothing - he is a powerful Senator, with the love and support of the many people around him. He has said that the important thing is to do what is needed to deal with the huge problems we face - and that is what he will do. (Just remember that in 2008, it was not Kerry, but Clinton, doing truly awful things partially out of concern that his legacy was not good enough. That says something.)

There is a time for politics and a time for governance. Now, Kerry is in a time for governance. What he does on that will add to his accomplishments - a list he has every right to be proud of.

[politicasista]

18. To be honest

I am not a huge fan of popularity contests. Never was into them or a part of them in school either. I do see lots of comparisons between music and politics. I.e. One artist with lots of style gets the most promotion and hype, while the other, more under hyped, with more substance can't catch a break. (JMO)

I understand that Kerry commands more attention than most sens (despite the continued snark). If he didn't, he wouldn't have a connection with the netroots or a nice e-mail list. :) I haven't forgotten the surrogate work he did for Obama (even if others may have) or 2006. I appreciate that. I respect that. I am glad he has people that are loyal, love, and support him. That speaks volumes.

As I have said, I am trying to be more optimistic this year. I am really, really, looking forward to turning the page. There is a new Democratic president aka Obama administration, and Senator Kerry, a fine SFRC Chair and powerful senator. With the shape the country is in right now, it becomes more about governance than politics. I agree with PO, that it is time to put childish things aside (paraphrasing). I am sure that Kerry feels the same way.

I didn't see him get applause (I watched CNN), but I saw a Youtube clip of NBC's coverage. It was interesting that "No Retreat, No Surrender" was playing (from the Mall crowd) as the presidential motorcade was en route to the capitol. :patriot:


Nice post. Peace.

[TayTay]

12. Power is not given, power is taken

It can be taken in the Senate by those who push their own agendas and make stuff happen.

Yes, it can be like that. Wait and see.

[TayTay]

15. I don't know how optimistic this is, but it is nice to see

The Foreign Relations Committee did update their website.

http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html

Ah, maybe it's just me, but that is really nice to see.

[Luftmensch067]

16. Oh, it's SO not just you!!!!

Thanks for the heads up -- it looks GOOD. :-):toast: :bounce: :bounce: :dem: :applause:

[globalvillage]

17. Oh, wow. That rules!

or rather, he rules!

Whichever. I love that pic, and that they updated the site with it.

edit to add, nice welcome message from the Chairman

Message from the Chairman:

Thank you for visiting the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since the Committee’s founding in 1816, it has played a vital role in shaping U.S. foreign policy, from approving the purchase of Alaska in 1867 to the creation of the United Nations in 1945 to the present day.

This committee is responsible for overseeing the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps. The Committee reviews and considers all diplomatic nominations and international treaties, as well as legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy.

In the coming months and years, the Foreign Relations Committee will address some of the most pressing challenges this nation faces. America faces momentous challenges such as climate change, the spread of nuclear weapons, global terrorism, and an unfolding financial crisis with global implications. Senator Lugar and I are dedicated to making the committee a vital forum for a spirited exchange of ideas. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has historically been a place for bipartisanship – a place where both parties and all members come together to advance America’s interests in the world. I am confident that the 111th Congress will reinforce and build on that legacy. I hope you find this website useful. Come back often!

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry.

http://foreign.senate.gov/index.html

[sandnsea]

19. Not to be a nitpicker

But the picture links to Biden's former Senate site, and somebody didn't even try to optimize it. It's a .gif and the only reason it could take that long to load is because somebody stuck a huge picture in a little slot. Very frustrating that such an important web site is so shabbily mantained.

[TayTay]

20. I think it is scheduled for a major upgrade soon

I think it's a bit of a kludge right now, just to show the recent changes. Stay tuned.