If John Kerry were to jump into the Presidential Race today, would you consider supporting him?

[DemKR]

[bigtree]

1. in a frickin' heartbeat

don't count on it

[MH1]

18. Definitely, in a heartbeat

But Kerry won't be jumping in.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. Indeed.

He would always be my first choice.

[dailykoff]

41. Ditto.

But I don't see it happening either.

[pearl]

2. Anybody that hires Bob Shrum

as an advisor to his campaign will never get my vote.

[ray of light]

22. OMG--that means Gore can't decide to run then either. dang!

Gore and Kerry were the best. And they both hired Shrum-de-bum.

[wisteria]

60. i think we can safely say Shrum has moved on. No need to worry about him now. n/t

[karynnj]

73. He had made it clear that he was not using Shrum or any DC consultant

in the 2008 run that never was. If you want to know what he would have run on - check the Faneuil Hall speeches on Johnkerry.com.

[saltpoint]

3. Of course not. He's too informed on the issues, too dedicated to a more just

society, and would likely launch a long string of appointees to the courts and government positions who were competent, experienced, humane, and visionary.

Quite frankly, the country could not absorb that kind of radical governance.

[MH1]

17. Yeah, why would we want a competent and smart Prez anyway?

Hiya OC!

:hi:

On the question, of course I would vote for Kerry - in a heartbeat.

[saltpoint]

19. MH1 -- dammit, it's good to see you!

I have it from informed sources close to the Tall Guy that the re-election effort is proceeding apace and that there is reason for uplift.

I hope he crushes whichever nominee tries to oppose him there in the Commonwealth. If Bill Weld couldn't knock him off, I don't think anyone else can either.

Especially that pompous ass Curt Schilling.

Happy 2008, and let's kick some Republican butt!

[ray of light]

21. We like want a president who knows where Iraq, Pakistan, and Amerika are?

But..but...but...whatabout all the hair stuff and other right-winged talking points?

[saltpoint]

114. Yup. Plus, that Kerry talks French and his wife is a communist.

_ _ _ _

Of course Bush can hardly speak English. He was served up to the nation because of the famous family name and the pseudo-cowboy personna.

It was not our best 8 years as a nation.

We can do better. Al Gore and John Kerry would certainly have been wildly superior to the spiritual carnage visited upon our country under the two Bush administrations.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[tigereye]

97. sensible as ever, OC

just wish his campaign had bit back a bit more....

:hi:

He is a good guy - the polar opposite of Bush in every way.

[saltpoint]

113. Hey there, tigereye! Happy holidays right back your way.

The nation's red voters may have thought Dubya was someone they'd like to have a beer with, but it surely ought to have been clear to more of them that he was inadequate to the task.

And in the sad outcome, Dubya -- likely cheating the system -- denied the nation Al Gore and John Kerry. That is a staggering price to pay to "have a beer with someone."

Happy 2008 -- the last calendar year of the Bush administration!

[tigereye]

119. yay!

it's been a long 7 years... I can't remember what we did on Reagan's last day - I suspect there were many beers drunk and toasts made on that day.

[mchill]

4. No way. I still want my $200 back he should have spent in Ohio

recounting votes!

[ray of light]

7. Gore should return the $$$ too, don't ya think? Afterall, he let Florida go

while it was his.

But then again...I'm smarter than that. Gore or Kerry would be TOP KNOTCH.

[PeaceNikki]

154. No, he didn't "let it go". He took it to the Supreme Court.

Remember?

[wisteria]

59. 119 posts since 2004? I would bet most of them are posts bashing Kerry. n/t

[sam sarrha]

5. not after he let the ReThugs walk all over him and he did nothing..it was embarrassing and pathetic

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Did he fight for our votes after the '04 election like he said he would? No?

I didn't think so.

NO. I would not support him.

[ProSense]

26. Why

why he did, but looks like the Dem establishment was filled with traitors and still is.

[wisteria]

30. A great informative post. Kerry did fight back. Those who still hold on to this old excuse

must be part of the problem as much as the establishment Dem's that did very little to nothing to assist in the campaign of 2004.

[txwhitedove]

8. Nope, that's done.

[wisteria]

61. it is never good to say never. n/t

[txwhitedove]

112. True. I would never say never to Gore for President!

[wisteria]

121. There was a time not long ago that Gore was considered a failure and a looser.

Good leaders have ways of overcoming the negative. You have admire how they keep fighting for what is right. Gore needed a little more time than Kerry- Kerry went right back to the Senate and kept on fighting, but Gore has certainly risen above all the slim thrown his way- just like Senator Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

9. Yes, although Biden serves largely the same needs I've got when choosing a candidate

and on a tangent, it's notable that Kerry and Biden seem to work pretty well together.

[cgrindley]

10. He and haircut boy already lost once to the repukes

why should either of those losers get a second chance?

[bear425]

128. I don't believe they lost.

I'm not alone.

[cgrindley]

145. Lot of people don't believe in the moon landing either

doesn't mean much

[bear425]

148. Again with the fake moon landing argument?

on edit:
and what's with the ad hominem attack on Edwards regarding his hair? Sounds like a typical right wing talking point to me. In my opinion, that statement is beneath you.

[cgrindley]

150. I've made the point a million times

I don't think that it's right to run a failed candidate. For that matter, I'm always pretty suspicious of repeat party candidates from one primary cycle to another.

The 2004 election was run AFTER the Iraq War was started. Kerry was a lackluster and stupid candidate who was incapable of defending himself against a group of blathering old men let alone against Bush. Edwards got spanked like a naughty child by the prince of darkness himself. Don't forget, Cheney is an evil old bastard without a functioning heart and yet Edwards lost handily to him in the debates.

I've made the point before, but when you're running against Bush, the only acceptable result is for you to get all of the votes and for Bush to get NONE of the votes. If the election becomes close enough for Bush to steal--he didn't steal it, Kerry and Edwards and before them Gore and Loserman GAVE the election to Bush.

In an election, the only valid result is that Bush is left bleeding in an electoral ditch while the Dems march to victory.

Since Edwards was part of that debacle, screw him. And certainly screw that weakling Kerry. Worst candidate since Dukakis.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

163. Nixon won in '68 despite his loss in '60

Interestingly, Nixon won in 1968 running against a candidate whose party had become affiliated with (and tarnished by) an increasingly unpopular (and unwinnable) war so much so that the sitting President at the time (Johnson) didn't even run again for a second term. While Bush/Cheney, of course, won a second term in spite of the mess they created and perpetuated in Iraq, post-9/11 fears and anxieties (egged on by Bush/Cheney) were still potent enough back then to give them a slight "edge" when it came it to terrorism and national security issues, at least in terms of public perception. Frankly, I don't view Gore OR Kerry as "failures", particularly when you consider their small margin of "loss" to the Bush/Cheney/Republican Party machine despite their apparent advantages at the time, particularly in 2004, or the fact that there is plenty of evidence that suggests that neither Gore nor Kerry actually lost their respective elections but had them stolen from them through some particularly devious electoral shenanigans. Both of them could've done some things differently or better during their respective campaigns but they did pretty well overall when you consider the massive forces arrayed against them, particularly in the MSM.

[cgrindley]

167. And that was a great god damn idea, wasn't it? (nt)

DU = Freep as far as this retarded MSM = paid operative of the other guy attitude is concerned. It's just dumb.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

191. ?

:shrug: Care to decipher this post for me? I didn't necessarily say that Nixon running in '68 was a GOOD idea. Why would I? He's a Republican. However, as my post goes, I was merely suggesting that Gore/Kerry are far from being "losers" or "failures" IMHO and that I could support them again if they ran again. Just because a candidate "loses" a race shouldn't prevent them from running again, particularly if they didn't really "lose" in the first place.

[Leopolds Ghost]

169. "In an election, the only valid result is that Bush is left bleeding in an electoral ditch"

So in essence the Democratic party is an utter failure in establishing
itself as the party of civilized outcomes. Kerry is merely better than
most (say, Clinton -- either one, since Bill was a Rockefeller Republican
and so is Hillary.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

168. Kerry haters -- which is it? Is Kerry a loser or did he betray you by claiming not to have won?

In the absence of court admissible evidence of stolen votes
(which we need).

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[VenusRising]

173. New evidence out of Ohio

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/harvey_wasserman_on_new_ohio_voting

[karynnj]

179. This was not available in 2004 and it still doesn't prove Kerry won

1) The comments by Brunner are that all the methods of voting were easily corruptible. This is not far from what Teresa Heinz Kerry said in 2005. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/Connelly/214744_joel07.html) or what Kerry himself said in the Senate when the Rosa Parks voting rights extension was passed. This says that an election COULD be stolen, not that 2004 was. They are both addressing that the election process is NOT secure, not that Kerry definitely won.

2) Wasserman makes a good argument that this explains the discrepancy between exit polls and the official result. While it is true that putting the fact that the election results could have been tampered with together with exit polls showing a strong Kerry win make it arguable that Kerry won - it is still not the type of proof that could be taken to court. (Consider FL 2000 - same discrepancy, more obvious, simpler to understand ballot problems in Palm Beach and in inner city Jacksonville. If this were data in a statistical study, it would have been easy to see their was a problem and design a fix to get the voter intended result.)

3) That information was not available in 2004, thus couldn't be used. Consider the available time frame. The electoral congress delegates were designated in December. Even if all the information Brunner has now after a nearly $2 million study and control of the Ohio government and subpoena power that Kerry did not have, would it be possible in roughly one month to put together a case that not only was the election filled with irregularities but that Kerry actually won? It would also have had to be done in a Republican controlled state. This was not something that could be seen with a recount.

[VenusRising]

207. You said it yourself.

New evidence means wasn't available in 2004.

:eyes:

There may never be any evidence that PROVES Kerry won because there were ballots destroyed in Ohio after the elections thanks to Ken Blackwell. I live in Ohio and I saw what happened first hand. It was ugly, discriminatory, and disenfranchising. (Some voter registrations didn't count because of the weight of the paper the registration was printed on).

No, we may never have solid evidence because Blackwell did so much to destroy that evidence, but anyone that watched Ohio knows what the hell happened.

[cgrindley]

176. Kerry's definitely a loser

he was a weak and foolishly emasculated candidate. Utterly lacking in balls.

[karynnj]

181. So, I assume that in your life you showed more courage than

a highly decorated war hero, who had the guts to stand as the most effective anti-war statesman against the paranoid Nixon, then after he suffered from attacks because of that still had the courage to investigate the illegal support for the Contras. Then, of course, there was BCCI. It is not surprising that people spoke of him wearing a bullet proof vest for many of those years.

But I guess that you could be some uncelebrated hero who has taken greater risks - though I somehow suspect that there is very little in your resume that competes.

[cgrindley]

187. So... did he have his balls removed in 1973 or what? (nt)

[karynnj]

199. BCCI ended in the 1990s

Kerry continues to fight far more than you do.

[cgrindley]

205. yawn (nt)

[ProSense]

206. Someone has been

chumped!

[karynnj]

208. Still haven't heard of YOUR heroic feats

My guess is that JK likely does more for the world in any random day of the year, than you do in the entire year. There are few people who have fought the RW more than he did.

[cgrindley]

210. I dunno. At least I didn't fuck the pooch and let Bush get re-elected

I'll always have that over Kerry, won't I?

[ProSense]

212. Were you a candidate, or

were you too busy running a campaign for the most uses of the words "fuck" and "balls" in responses on threads you didn't even start?

No, I'm absolutely certain Kerry still tops you in the courage department!

[cgrindley]

214. Bollocks

he got served by a gassy collection of fat old men in ugly hats. he was a blathering retard rather than standing up for himself. he was a disgrace and an embarrassment. his lack of courage in the face of the swiftboat assmunch brigade earns only eternal scorn. he caved in front of them. it was dismal.

[ProSense]

217. Oooh, a new word for your campaign, but

you're still wrong, see.

[cgrindley]

221. Wait... you're telling me he didn't lose the election and didn't get served

by the swiftboat assholes? 'cause I seem to remember that Kerry both lost the election and ran whimpering from swiftboat.

[bemildred]

177. He's a loser who betrayed us by claiming not to have won.

You don't need court admissible evidence to question the outcome or demand a recount. You only need that if you go to court, and that is what discovery is all about. He should have made the weasels prove the count was accurate. There was plenty of evidence to question the outcome, and he owed us a fight.

[ProSense]

180. New evidence

“The 2004 Election Was Stolen… Finally We Have Irrefutable Confirmation”


Finally at the end of 2007, we have irrefutable evidence.


This suggests that the previous evidence was refutable.

Again, irrefutable proof, not just opinions and hypotheses, was need to show that the election was stolen. It was a given that it was going to be extremely hard to prove when the evidence amounted to disappeared and switched votes and vote suppression.

[bemildred]

183. Did Bush just give up in Florida in 2000 because he didn't have "irrefutable proof?"

Don't we deserve as much of a fight as Bush supporters got in 2000? Gore took it to the Supreme Court. Kerry caved immediately after promising to fight for us. All this legalistic crap does not wash with me.

[ProSense]

185. Wow, Bush is so courageous, no wonder he won! Did you know

the 2000 election was stolen? The Supreme Court was already set to throw the election to Bush?

[bemildred]

189. Apparently he's more courageous than Kerry.

Or maybe his handlers are more courageous than Kerry's are. Either way it's an embarrassing comparison to have to make.

[ProSense]

195. It's embarrassing the you believe AWOL is courageous! n/t

[karynnj]

Good point - but reading the article

even this is not irrefutable confirmation. Even here Brunner shows that they COULD have been flipped, not that they were.

[karynnj]

182. A recount would not have found the needed votes

Petitioning for a recount, can get you a recount. It would not change any mischief already done or count votes NOT CAST.

[bemildred]

184. How can you know that without doing the recount?

Are you claiming that you know the outcome of a recount without doing the recount? That was the problem in Florida in 2000, the USSC prevented a recount. Kerry saved them the trouble.

[ProSense]

186. You did not know

they had recounts?

You didn't know that the recounts were tampered with and a couple of people found guilty of rigging the recounts?

[bemildred]

190. There were NO RECOUNTS done at the time Kerry quit.

He quit bright and early on the first day.

[ProSense]

194. Stop twisting! The recounts did not change the outcome! n/t

[bemildred]

196. Good job! Never give up! nt

[karynnj]

201. Actually, you are the one who won't give up

Kerry conceded because it was extremely unlikely that there were enough valid countable actually cast votes. A standard recount would not mysteriously find tens of thousands of votes. If it were closer, he would have delayed conceding - and even if something turned up in late February - he could have rescinded the concession. (Remember Gore did.) Even with a Democratic Secretary of State, which we now have, they can simply say that the processes were such that they could have been manipulated. Still not good enough to take to court.

[karynnj]

197. A recount has never found anywhere near the percent of votes needed

In Florida, they were 537 votes short. In Ohio, they were ultimately about 60,000 short. The Green pushed recount found very few votes.

[LittleClarkie]

209. We can't even agree which it is. So with that kind of backing from us

and the non-backing of his party, how was he supposed to contest Ohio.

How can he have both lost to the worst president ever, and won, only to cave.

It's a lose/lose situation for him.

[sandrakae]

11. In a New York minute.

[tuckessee]

12. No way.

I'm tired of Bonesmen.

[Sensitivity]

13. Only Gore or Kerry should be considered for Nominee. There was no justification for usurpation

IMHO only Gore and Kerry should be being considered for the nom this year. A party out of power
should not have the luxury of the competitions of personalities represented by the present IOWA campaigns.
The reality is that the American Party system does not operate long-tern interests of the people.
There is no deep loyalty to past leaders -- no tradition of a leadership cadre.
Rise to prominence is based mainly of personality, individualistic calculations and "media moments" not ideas and depths of character.

[wisteria]

56. So true and this makes me distrust all who are willing to run like this

and not take the risk of being truly who they are.

[undeterred]

14. He's certainly worthy of consideration

and I don't hold past mistakes against him. Gore and Kerry made campaign mistakes that Bill Clinton did not. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been much better for the country than he was. Kerry's chance to be president was taken from him and it wasn't entirely his fault. Having said that, he'd still be one among many qualified candidates. I do like the way he's handled himself the last 2 years. He's still got a passion for justice.

[karynnj]

83. I suspect the biggest mistake was not running against a President who was at 33%

:) Bill Clinton chose the right time - although a year earlier Bush looked strong.

I spoke to an older relative, who knowing her well, I thought should have been impressed with Kerry's character, intelligence and accomplishments - but who voted for Bush. For the last 3 years, I've avoided asking - but I thought it was long enough ago. Her response was that she and many of her WWII age friends didn't like the criticisms he made of Bush going to war and how they fought the war. She spoke of how that was wrong when we were at war. Now, Kerry was as diplomatic in keeping his criticism on actions, not personal attacks, as possible. I've spent 3 years arguing that he did attack Bush on Iraq to people here who thought he would have won had he morphed into Michael Moore! I suspect that these comments, which ring true, show that Kerry chose his words and battles very well on Iraq and that it was a very tricky situation. Had he pushed harder, he would have offended more people - had he done less, he would have made a case that swayed fewer people. Did he draw the line perfectly, who knows?

In a 2005 interview, Kerry himself spoke of how no one had ever defeated a President in a time of war. He also spoke of how many people turned to Bush after 911. I guess you go with the leader you have when you need a leader - and people needed one after 911. This made him very hard to attack. To make matters worse, the media signaled that any attack on Kerry was fair when they failed to criticize the purple heart bandaids.

The other thing this says is that there are likely some people, who even if they now see Bush for what he is - still see Kerry in the same light they saw him in 2004. The strong case Kerry made on the need to change the policy in 2004 (The ISG understood what he recommended, even if the media played dumb) and in 2006 will help whomever the Democrat is. All the 2008 candidates have some ideas from his healthcare proposal and his environmental proposal in their plans. He will be a strong ally in getting these things turned into legislation as a 5th term Senator. Though he will likely never be President, he will likely be seen in a far better light than many of the Presidents he fought in his career.

[undeterred]

99. Well, then he couldn't win with anybody, could he?

The Democrats thought he didn't fight hard enough and the Republicans thought he criticized Bush too much. I thought he was a gentleman, and frankly I couldn't believe people were stupid enough to be taken in by the Swift Boat arguments. Anyone who watched the evenhanded Frontline special that PBS was showing the week before the 2004 election could have found out the truth about John Kerry's life and war record vs. that of George Bush. Neither man is perfect, but Kerry has been a patriot who fought for justice since he was a young man and he never went through a patch of irresponsibility like Bush did. Plus he is truly intelligent - which was amazingly used against him. There are a lot of fools in this country.

He came to Madison WI the Thursday before the election. We're a liberal city of 200,000 so its always the last big Democratic stop before a presidential election. 80,000 turned out to see him on a beautiful October day, and I believed that the terrible times were going to be over. He was very dignified and strong and we all felt so full of hope. What a let down.

[karynnj]

105. I agree with you - I'm one of the DU JK group people

and no one candidate in my life - and I first voted in 1972 has impressed me anywhere near as much as Kerry did and does. I saw the Madison event on CSPAN and it was incredible. Kerry was one of the people who could have been an extraordinary President.

I think that though he may not get the credit he is due now, in retrospect he will. There are very few people who acted with the dignity and grace that he has - or taken the risks to stand up for things that are right. There are also too many people - like you and others who saw those ralies - who know the truth.

I actually felt sorry for whoever had to complie the Bush part of that dual biography. Kerry was by far the better man - in nearly any way you can thing of. Including being the more fun to have a beer with per many of my DU JK group friends.

[undeterred]

109. I loaded the front 3000 people at that rally

so I can tell you it was very powerful. After 3 hours of checking people in (I was telling people to turn on their cell phones and cameras and at the same time slapping "russ is for us" stickers for Senator Feingold on each person) we were done. One of the other volunteers and I made our way back into the street and she tapped me on the shoulder and told me to turn around. There were people filled in everywhere the eye could see all the way back to the Capitol- and then the governor announced we had 80,000. I was just overwhelmed at that moment. I really thought we couldn't lose. In 2000 we had 30,000 turn out for Gore. People were there from IL, MN, IA, as well as WI.

At the end I got to touch his hand. I'd been on my feet for 6 hours. But I got a creepy feeling on election night and I didn't go downtown to the party. When I woke up it felt like another nightmare.

[karynnj]

153. Wow, that must have been cool

The photos of that event are a sea of people.

I remember the absolute euphoria late on election day when we heard of the exit polls - it made the loss that much harder. I can't imagine what a roller coaster that day was to the Kerrys and Edwards.

[undeterred]

157. For me the euphoria was that day at the rally

with the other volunteers. Springsteen was there for a song, but it wasn't about him. (Story about that: Some students made a cardbboard sign and wrote- "Bruce, come on up for a beer." He saw the sign, and after he got offstage and was walking back down the street behind the rally he and his wife went back to that apartment and had a beer with the students and watched the rally from their third floor porch!) Edwards wasn't there, just Kerry.

Somebody knocked on my door at 7:30 pm to make sure I had voted, and I said- "I voted 2 weeks ago!" So I went out with him to knock on doors till 8pm. I thought it was all going to be ok but I didn't want to celebrate. Kerrys win in Wisconsin was pretty narrow.

In 2008 I will stay awake and watch.

[davsand]

15. He lost that race last time he ran.

Even if it was vote fraud, he still ran against the asswipe in the Oval Office and couldn't get a big enough margin to make that race immune to tampering. That should have been a bullet proof win.

I wish you'd offered "HELL NO!" as an option rather than just "No."



Laura

[napi21]

16. NO! Kerry is a good, well informed, and smart man, but even now

when he speaks on a talk show or some TV interview, I cringe when I hear him. He ALWAYS sounds like he's speaking on the floor of the Senate! THAT somply doesn't relate to people. I KNOW he doesn't talk like that when he's talking to Theresa or his kids! That's not a criticism as much as it's just part of John Kerry that he can't change. I heard the same thing said about Dodd. When he's asked a question in a debate or on the stump, he responds with something like "Oh that's not true, I voted for SR XXXX." It comes from being in the Senate too long and most people just don't respond to that.

[ray of light]

20. of course. We need more bush-like people talkers rather than

good representation.

[napi21]

27. I didn't mean we need more idiots like Shrub, but listen to the

difference between Kerry & Biden when they talk to people.

[ray of light]

33. I have. & actually Kerry comes across as funny and warm in person. He actually

comes across as someone you'd like to party with.

I've also met Edwards too. There are a few other 'politicians' who I've met, but in person, Kerry is the most real, funny, warm and caring. I watched him talk to all different ages of people--teens through elderly. He had charisma and charm.

I liked him a lot. Of course, I also met Jesse Jackson too. Quite a different personality than what you'd expect. Not in a bad way. But I was rather shocked at how he is in person compared to what you see on the media. I liked him too actually.

[napi21]

35. I don't doubt that at all! But how many people ever meet a candidate personallly?

The closest I ever came was meeting Howard Dean once. Howard is the same personally as he is in front of a mike.

[Sugar Smack]

39. Aww, somehow, I knew that.

Lucky! I :loveya: that man.

[wisteria]

47. Sen Kerry makes a point of reaching out and connecting to people.

He has done this on various blogs as well as in open forums and in smaller settings. I have met him several times and he has always been very open, interested in what was being said or questioned and very approachable.
I have a suggestion for you, do not believe what has been pushed by the RW media. I have also meet Gov. Dean and I would say Sen. Kerry is every bit as open, friendly and down to earth as Mr. Dean is.

[ray of light]

49. At the K-E rally's people did get to meet them. That's where I did.

[JI7]

118. John Kerry is the same personally as on the mike also

nobody is alike all the time. just because one is able to give a serious policy speech doesn't mean they have another side to them. Kerry won the Primary easily against candidates people claim were so great and could connect.

[wisteria]

54. Well to be truthful, I can't always believe what Biden is telling me.

Biden can come off as being self-absorbed and slick. I never get that feeling with Senator Kerry. Different styles, yes. Kerry's approach would not discourage me from voting for him. Biden's might. JMHO.

[karynnj]

94. You liked the 26 minutes at the Alito hearing?

I like and respect Biden some of the time. He is very intelligent and seems to be a good person. But, I hate the Biden stories - that are always self serving. Like his long story about a DE waitress who he met after Nov 2004 who explained why he would have won.

I also have seen both him and Kerry run Senate committees. Biden cut off all his opponents as soon as they exceeded the time and allowed himself to pontificate after each Senator took his turn. Kerry was from more professional and polite to his fellow Senators. Biden himself said Kerry was a classy guy - and after seeing him run for President than gracefully continue to fight for what he believes in the Senate, I have seen nothing that contradicts that.

I have seen Kerry speak face to face with people - and he is a very respectful, kind person.

[karynnj]

90. How do you explain how easily he won the nomination in 2004?

Also in the books written on the primaries of 2004, the ones I've seen point out that in small groups or face to face, Kerry was by far the best. I have seen him at Faneuil Hall in Boston, in NYC and in a neighboring NJ town. He is very very good meeting with people. The strongest impression was the sense of respect he showed everyone - even people few would speak to.

I like his interviews and find that his answers are straight forward and honest. Go look at any of the book tour event write ups, he is able to give very insightful, but still concise answers that make me look at the situation differently. What is fascinating is the wide range of issues that he is an expert in.

I have cringed when I have heard some comments of some of the 2008 candidates - because I either wish they matched what was said the week before or because I knew they were said to pander.

[mnhtnbb]

23. No way.

[sellitman]

24. And I wouldnt vote for George McGovern either.

We have plenty of great choices. This poll is just dumb.

[wisteria]

50. Well you speak for yourself when you say "great" choices.

I could give you several reasons why each of these "great" candidates aren't actually that great. Now, Senator Kerry isn't perfect, but he would have offered another interesting choice. His presence would have challenged at least three of the other candidates standings.

[IsItJustMe]

25. He speaks French for gods sake and seems to have a brain on his shoulders, we can't have anyone

like that in the White House. Besides, is he the kind of guy you would want to drink a beer with.

:sarcasm:

[wisteria]

28. I would support him with out hesitation. He is what has been missing from this campaign.

A real strong authority figure.
Sorry you no voters, your candidates just don't measure up no matter how many times you vote for them. Take heart though, I will be voting for one of them when it becomes necessary to do so.

[ProSense]

29. Love your poll!

Kerry always gets a good chunk in these polls, especially now, during one of the silliest primary seasons.

[panzerfaust]

31. Who?

[ProSense]

36. This

guy.

[ray of light]

51. this

guy here too?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2527021&mesg_id=2527021

It's amazing the amount of work he does for us.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

43. You asked:

Yes.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[wisteria]

42. How can any one respond to this?

:crazy: :silly: :rofl:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[fascisthunter]

38. Kerry Makes a Statement and Right on Schedule

The guy does some good and gets attacked for it. Very strange...

[wisteria]

44. It makes me wonder. He does something good and positive and a small group go after him

all the time. It makes me thing there is another agenda at work here.

[Vektor]

45. You caught that too, eh?

The Pavlovian knee-jerk response is one you can set your watch by.

[politicasista]

117. Yes it is n/t

[Eurobabe]

46. You forgot the fuck no category

sorry, but he was not a good presidential candidate. Move on.

[ray of light]

48. people said "Fuck No" about GORE too. Looks who's still standing..

better than they ever were...

[wisteria]

63. Oh, and I bet you think your candidate is. n/t

[Eurobabe]

82. I like my candidate, but am not in love with him

why the snark? :shrug:

[book_worm]

52. Kerry decided not to run because he realized he probably wouldn't get the nomination.

[Union Label]

53. No, he gave up way to easy

and I support someone who would be a lot better as is, who is more in line with my thoughts DENNIS KUCINICH!

[lovuian]

89. No he's a Skull & Bones man all the way

and yes he gave in way to easy and for a reason

[karynnj]

98. I guess that's why he jeopordized even having a political career to

speak out on Vietnam. Then he was the only Senator willing to investigate the charge that the CIA was covertly arming the Contras and running drugs. Then he fought both parties to investigate BCCI.

He devoted more than a decade to these three actions - What is amazing is that he is good enough that he could do these and still win the nomination. Find me ONE Senator who fought the RW more.

[tokenlib]

55. It's too late..but the topic begs another question...

Why as democrats are we so quick to cast away our "failed" candidates? Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, Mondale,and Gore (Yes, I know he won) have all received too little respect from their own party after their campaigns. They are good people who deserved better than they got. They grew in wisdom and became better people as a result of their experience. In a few cases they could have been better candidates a second time around. Instead we cast them aside like the proverbial "crazy aunt in the attic."

[wisteria]

58. I agree with the lack of respect for our Democrat leaders. This is the inside the beltway crowd

dictating this childish and unproductive behavior.

[bunkerbuster1]

172. I've brought this up a few times in the past as well. Dukakis in particular...

it's like the guy became a nonperson after 1988.

Oh, and I answered "yes" to the poll simply because I would consider Kerry's qualifications. I'd probably reject him as a primary candidate at this point, but I would consider it, for cryin' out loud!

[Truth2Tell]

57. been there

done that.

[wisteria]

62. It is always nice to revisit. n/t

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

66. You have no idea about Kerry's

true colors.

What did Clinton do?

[southerncrone]

102. I felt JK was a "good guy" for a very long time, however

when the rubber met the road, he caved much too quickly to an opponent he knew was not deserving of the office. He lied down when it was the most important time to stand & fight. He knew how bad * was going to be for this country. I cannot respect him for that.

Regarding BC, this is the very reason I will not support HC. Enabling the other side apparently had it's payoff. Too close an association for me. Just more of the * BS for another 4-8 yrs., but wearing a dress.

[ProSense]

134. It would help to

base your opinion on facts.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. After announcing on the Senate Floor that

he wasn't running, jumping in now sure wouldn't help his "flip-flopper" image.

[ProSense]

68. What image?

Don't let the facts get in your way while you promote RW talking points.

[MonkeyFunk]

69. I didn't say he was a flip-flopper

I said it was an image problem he has. And it's ridiculously naive to deny that.

[ProSense]

71. Not ridiculous at all.

Kerry did get 59 million votes and the Repubicans did go out of there way to tamper with fair elections. So I'm fairly certain any one continuing to use the RW talking point is a political opportunist!

[MonkeyFunk]

75. But I'm not using the point

I'm stating that the point is there. There's a difference.

[ProSense]

78. No you're stating

that while it is an image created by the RW and perpetuated by political opportunist, it must play a factor in his decision on any issue.

Why even bring it up as it has nothing to do with anything real?

[MonkeyFunk]

86. because it does have something

with something real.

They were able to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper in 2004. FAir or not, the perception was there in enough people to make a difference.

Now, having announced he's not going to run, changing his mind now would play into that perception, to his disadvantage.

But, it's not really worth arguing about - He's not going to enter the race.

[ProSense]

91. Whatever Kerry does,

that argument will not be an issue. It will be chatter for desperate people but it will not be an issue in determining what he does.

He has announced he isn't running, but that hasn't stopped the opportunist from using the RW memes to try to distract others from the excellent work he continues to do in the Senate.

Point: The RW memes do not make Kerry a lesser candidate. His actions speak louder than spin.

He is one of the best Democratic leaders ever!

[MonkeyFunk]

92. I love Kerry

I'm not putting him down. I supported him enthusiastically in 2004.

[karynnj]

72. HRC has flip flopped more than Kerry even dreamed of doing

as Biden said on the floor of the Senate, Kerry's views and proposals on Iraq were consistent all the way since before Bush invaded. If you look at Kerry's speeches that is true. Odd that you chose to use a Republican smear that was never true.

HRC said that setting a deadline was "cut and run" and she vilified Kerry in July 2006 over his decision to bring Kerry/Feingold to the floor. Now, she practically channels Kerry's words that the Iraqis need a deadline to force them to make tough decisions. Her comments over time have been far less consistent than Kerry's - and I assume that the RW will go through the tapes to find her quotes.

Kerry will not jump in - he has committed to run for his Senate seat and has been very busy working on important issues since that speech. It was Kerry and Snowe who achieved the compromise that raised CAFE standards for the first time in 2 decades. It was Kerry who was the only member of Congress to go to Bali to work on the new global warming treaty.

He was and is the person who might really have changed our foreign policy. He spoke of the need to as long ago as 1966. He included it as a goal in the final paragraph of his 1971 speech and it was why he risked his career to fight the covert support of the Contras in the 1980s. Unlike the Governor of Arkansas who thought the Contras should be supported and ignored or was oblivious to the illegal CIA activities in Arkansas. It is there in his speeches - including his most recent one on Afghanistan.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. What does this thread

have to do with Clinton? :shrug:

[ProSense]

79. Similar avatar

as the OP. Think the person had a motive?

[MonkeyFunk]

87. That would be like

me having a conversation with my neighbor about repairing a fence between our yard, and noticing he's wearing a brown shirt and go off about nazis.

Arguing with my avatar is just stupid. But the hill-haters can't help themselves - it's like a red flag to a bull.


and since the OP and I disagree, what sort of secret deal do you think we have?

[ProSense]

88. The avatar was a hint.

Nothing in my response suggest that you and the OP have a secret deal.

[karynnj]

101. Consider that your avatar is more guilty of the specific charge you made

(I had not noticed the OP's avatar.)

I honestly thought it was self explanatory

[karynnj]

100. An election is a choice - and she is one of the other other choices

and the one you have a picture of.

[Blue-Jay]

67. NOBODY is going to join the primary race at this point.

Not Kerry. Not Gore. Nobody!

We're going to need to deal with the candidates we have, like it or not. Personally, I think that the list of Democratic candidates is the best I've seen in my lifetime.

[ProSense]

70. "I think that the list of Democratic candidates is the best I've seen in my lifetime. "

Wow! Gore, a future Nobel Prize winner, and Kerry, whose growing list of accomplishments are too long to list, and this line up of inexperienced candidates, currently taking petty swipes at each other and repeating positions that have long been fought for by others and making some odd claims, is the best you've seen?

[Blue-Jay]

74. Overall, yes.

There are a few people that I wish were in the race, but I'm mostly satisfied with the candidates that we currently have. There's not a single one of them who I agree with 100% of the time, but I don't live in a magical fairyland either.

Try to be less condescending in the future.

[wisteria]

125. Is this your first election dear? n/t

[Blue-Jay]

143. I'm not your "dear", and don't fucking patronize me.

[karlrschneider]

77. Nope. He's a good guy who had his chance and blew it.

Sorry.

[Desertrose]

80. Why? He didn't fight for it when he had the chance....

just sayin' that he sure gave in before all the votes were accounted for.

[ProSense]

85. Why

here's some fact checking.

[globalvillage]

81. Absolutely.

I can't think of anyone with a better record of service to this country.
I'd support him wholeheartedly.

[cynthia]

84. He can accomplish more by staying in the Senate

we need every democrat there - another reason to vote for John Edwards instead of Hillary or Barack

[karynnj]

103. He's not running, but if he were - Do you really think the Democrats

would lose Massachusetts? Both Illinois and NY have Democratic governors as well.

[cynthia]

116. Experienced senators have a lot more clout than freshman

Even Wellstone could not get much done in his first few years. I have been extremely disappointed in our current democratic senator Klobuchar.

I'm all for giving newcomers a shot, but sometimes our senior senators are true statesmen (stateswomen?)

[siri2k]

104. No, because although he moved to the left (which was great),

he didn't protest the second GOP coup d'etat in 2004.
He knew damned well Ohio was stolen, six was from Sunday.

http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html


www.legitgov.org

[bemildred]

106. Heck, I want him replaced with a real progressive in the Senate. nt

[Mass]

108. Heck, give us names, because you probably have to replace the entire senate except a couple of names

I guess you are not voting this election.

[bemildred]

110. You don't want my opinion, don't ask for it. I vote every chance I get.

But yeah, I would like to clean house in the Senate. What do you want? More disfunctional bullshit?

[Mass]

111. Good. Hope you vote for Kooch, because the candidate supported by the OP is a 100 % more

dysfunctional than my Senator.

[wisteria]

124. Senator Kerry is a progressive senator who has a long history of fighting corruption

and standing up for the people.

[karynnj]

203. Well if you are old enough and a MA resident, you can run against him

You would have to make a better case than you have here.

[Mass]

107. No, clearly America is too stupid for a good president like that.

This is the prototype of the idiotic post that will bring the Kerry bashing here. I guess the news are low.

BTW, 1000 times better than your candidate.

[MrSlayer]

115. I'd consider it but would probably pass.

The way things are right now, he'd be my third choice.

[ShadowLiberal]

120. NO - If he couldn't win in 04' then he probably can't win today.

[wisteria]

123. There is much evidence that says he did win and even if you don't want to accept that

he came very close to doing what has not been done before in our history- unseating a war time president. This election would be a piece of cake for him.

[Kucinich4America]

122. If voting for Kerry would be the ONLY way to get Hillary out of the race, I'd do it.

He would also have to promise to FIGHT for every goddamned vote this time. Even then, I can't say he'd be in my top 5.

[mzmolly]

126. I really like John Kerry, but I would not put him in front of other candidates.

It's too late.

[jillan]

127. Don't make me choose!!!

Kerry and Biden are my 2 favorite Senators. I would have to really give that some thought.

[bear425]

129. Um, aren't your 1st and 2nd choices the same? n/t

[Guaranteed]

130. You mean, would I want him to be nominated AGAIN- for the second time in a row?

No, I would not.

[Patchuli]

131. No, no and

hell no!

[BlueIris]

132. Not only YES, but HELL, YES. FUCK, YES. In fact, who do I

ahem....how do I make that happen?

[leftofthedial]

133. nah

he's a quitter

[ProSense]

135. Nah

he's not.

[leftofthedial]

138. yes

he is

[ProSense]

139. A

speech isn't quitting if you continue fighting to get the facts.

Grandstanding is not fighting!

[leftofthedial]

140. a concession is quitting

:shrug:

[ProSense]

141. I think you're confusing

conceding with quitting!

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

See there is a difference.

[leftofthedial]

160. I think you are confusing arguing about election fraud

with becoming President

[ProSense]

161. No, you're confusing

fighting with winning.

[TankLV]

159. He's a quitter...

[ProSense]

170. No,

he's a fighter, and I'd rather continue supporting a fighter than switch!

[JanusAscending]

136. With out a single doubt!!

After all he's done for his Country, he deserves it! (and after all, HE WON !!, and should serve his term!!) DC

[robbedvoter]

137. No. "Dude, where's my 2004 vote?" - goes for Edwards as well.

[HughMoran]

142. No, even Hillary has a better chance of winning than he does

At least IMHO.

[Stevepol]

144. Only if I saw that he had changed his view of electronic voting.

If he is convinced by RFK Jr. or somebody about the "possibility" that the vote count has been seriously flawed and that he needs to be aware of that in the election and after, I think he would be a good candidate. Otherwise, he would likely fail this time just as he did last time. He won the election by a comfortable margin if the exit polls are to be believed and I see no reason to believe they aren't or weren't. Unless the candidate really wants to win, I don't have any desire to support him. Kerry would have made a great president.

Both Kucinich and Edwards have made statements that show they realize the danger posed by the voting machines. Richardson has a good handle on this issue as well because of what has happened in NM. Biden has made some good statements about it. Dodd is completely in the dark and is perhaps the reason that Kerry turned off his brain on the issue (acc/ to Mark Crispin Miller). HRC is blithely unaware as far as I have been able to determine and probably would consult with Diebold and ES&S before coming to a conclusion.

[ProSense]

149. "Kerry would have made a great president." Agree. To your point:

Kerry has been addressing the issue: Russ Feingold and John Kerry Introduce Resolution Urging Backup Plans for Voting Machines

More here

[karynnj]

192. Actually both the Kerry's made statements long before Richardson and Edwards

Kerry spoke of voter suppression and other problems at least 10 times in 2005 - starting with a MLK day speech. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?pg=full )
Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke of the problem here - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/Connelly/214744_joel07.html The Kerrys both took a lot of criticism for these comments at this time. During the entire 2005, Edwards was silent - even though he spoke on many other issues and made international trips.

You are misinterpreting the Dodd/Kerry story. What MCM claimed was that Kerry and Dodd had a fight because Dodd, who heads the committee which wrote HAVA and has jurisdiction, was unwilling to lead an effort in the Senate on this. MCM was ticked off that Kerry would not publicly verify that he and Dodd had a disagreement on this. This could mean it didn't happen or that Kerry did not want what was rumor that MCM reported on the record.

Kerry also gave a detailed speech in the Senate on the problems including touch screens and other machines when the Rosa Parks voting rights extension was discussed. He and Feingold introduced legislation in 2006 that dealt with suppression by long lines or machines not working at precincts that they intended as a model for state legislation as they knew it would not pass in the Senate. Neither Edwards or Kuchinich have done or said more.

Richardson blocked an investigation in NM in 2004. To give him credit for this is upside down. He was part of the problem.

[LTR]

146. Is there a "fuck no!" option?

No way would I support him again, especially after he let those Swift Nuts dance all over his face in '04. The guy was a fighter in the 70s, but now he's a stuffy wimp. Won't get fooled again!

[ProSense]

152. No, but there should be

a I don't have all the facts category.

[LTR]

188. Well obviously, he didn't do enough

I notice that anytime I or anyone else attacks Kerry, you call us ignorant.

Well, if I'm ignorant, you're naive. Kerry screwed the pooch in '04, and was at best a mediocre candidate. Might as well have run Dukakis again.

[bemildred]

193. Dukakis was better. nt

[ProSense]

202. Mediocre doesn't hold the Democratic record for the most votes and online fundraising!

No one called you ignorant, the comment was for another category in the poll.

[BlueIris]

147. Kick. Because I hate having to deal with these fake candidates instead of a real one like JK.

[avenger64]

151. You should have had 'Hell no!' as an option

...n/t

[rosesaylavee]

155. Yes.

Without a doubt.

[Geek_Girl]

156. Yes but without the exclamation point

I would consider it. But I think there may be better candidates in the field.

[politicasista]

174. And those "better candidates" are trying to destroy each other.......

with the childish bickering and constant pettiness. What happened to destroying the Repukes and their candidates?



Flame away, but that is JMHO.











edit for spelling

[TankLV]

158. NO. FUCKING. WAY. been there, done that...

We need a real FIGHTER, not someone who brings a feather to a gun fight...

[Sensitivity]

178. "Need a REAL FIGHTER?" So funny what propaganda can do

[Proud Liberal Dem]

162. Yes

His positions on nearly all of the issues are good (to me, anyway), he's already been through the whole "swiftboating" experience, which has been thoroughly discredited and I think that it would probably be difficult for the media to bring anything else out that we don't already know about him (other than that botched Iraq/soldiers comment), and, despite Bush and the Republican's perceived electoral "strength" on terrorism and other national security issues back in 2004, as well as their shameless manipulation and abuse of 9/11 and public concern about terrorism, Kerry nearly won (or DID win depending on your view of the vote counts). With Bush/Cheney's consistently depressed poll numbers and the ongoing breakdown of the current Republican party that began in 2005 (pretty much right after the 2004 election), I believe that Kerry could easily triumph over any of the clowns being put forward by the Republican establishment.

[LittleClarkie]

164. Hell yeah, everyday and twice on Sunday

in a heartbeat

[deutsey]

165. Hell no, especially if he ran on his 2004 "strategy" n/t

[wisteria]

166. Ask this question after Nov. 2008.

All those voting no assume their candidates will fair better than Kerry did in 2004 and their candidate will have a better campaign. Well time will tell.

"The next president: Is this the best the two parties can do?"


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07364/845211-35.stm

[Rex]

171. Hell no! He would just lose again and act like a total gentleman about it.

Not a chance.

[wisteria]

175. I would vote for Kerry over any of the candidates running now. n/t

[natrat]

198. nah...chances are he's freak crook like so many of the rest of them

[ProSense]

200. Do you believe that about the 2008 Democratic candidates too? n/t

[karynnj]

204. Kerry is easily one of the cleanest politicians there was

He was among the poorest Senators when he fought BCCI, which had the potential of ending his career. This was at a time where he actually could not afford apartments in both DC and Boston along with paying for his kid's education and child support and travel back to be with them every weekend. He also was one of the people on the banking committee that fought the abuses - unlike the Keating 5. Kerry could have easily taken a different path out of Yale that would have made him very wealthy. He had the connections both to avoid the military and to get a top job via any of a number of connections. He was born into the elite. Clearly he was not motivated by money.

He never took PAC money in 4 Senate races and he wrote and sponsored the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone. His speech shows his values.

""Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference"

[Leopolds Ghost]

219. Excellent. Kerry's only failure is that he is long-winded and sanguine -- like me.

[rucky]

211. What's he bringing to the party?

that we don't already have in each of the other candidates?

[ProSense]

213. Here:

Leadership on ending the war in Iraq, the environment and a ton of other progressive issues.

Doesn't matter though, he's not running for president.

[rucky]

215. Wasn't meant as a diss on Kerry...

as much as a compliment to the current batch of candidates we have.

[karynnj]

218. except there is no canddiate running who has a solid record on

the environment. (Biden even said at a SFRC meeting when Kerry apologized for using his time giving background rather than questioning the generals who did a study on the national security aspect of the impact of global warming that Kerry had been speaking of this for decades and that they should have listened. Kerry has a 96% league of conservation voters score. Kerry was key to the first cap and trade plan for acid rain. (No current candidate comes close to Gore or Kerry)

Kerry is a great candidate on corruption - between BCCI and his Clean Elections bill he has impeccable credentials. (Biden is good on this as well, HRC not so much so)

Kerry has led on Iraq more than anyone else. Biden spoke of how much it mattered internationally that Kerry joined his amendment - after Biden made some changes that allow the Iraqis to designate the states and the roles played by the federal government.

Kerry has better credentials on health care than any of the candidates - his and Kennedy's bill was used as the basis for S-CHIP.

Kerry also has a unique history that would give him international trust when he would say that the US would no longer violate international law on things like torture. His anti-war history was used internationally at least twice. The obvious one was as head of the MIA/POW committee. It also helped when he and Lugar oversaw the Phillipine elections. He brokered the current on-going Cambodian war tribunal's form.

Kerry was speaking about non-state terrorism when NONE of the current candidates were.

You can find some candidates with some credentials in some categories - but no one as strong over all of them. Kerry is not running - this entire thread was created to cause fights. What is true is that Kerry will be a very influencial Senator and any Democratic President would be wise to listen to his advice - even if they don't take it.

[seabeyond]

216. accidently hit the simple yes, though the first choice correct one. n/t

[Mike03]

220. Absolutely not. NT

[Ioo]

222. I only voted for him because he was not Bush... We lost as soon as we nomed him...

Sorry, but we Dems have a great history of selecting the generic guy and we get our asses handed to us...