Not a surprise really. Especially, if, like me, you have been receiving emails from Kerry for the past 2 years touting all he was doing for Democrats, all he was doing to oppose Bush, all he was doing, etc. etc. etc. Still this story about a trip to New Hampshire does make it clear that his goal all along has been another run at the White House:
“You get one chance,” the Democrat tells a reporter. “If you can’t win, then it’s time to let someone else try.”
But less than an hour later, after she meets Kerry and listens to him deliver an impassioned speech from a wooden deck, Borden softens and says she would consider voting again for the Massachusetts Democrat.
“I always liked what he stood for but felt that he was very snobbish and arrogant,” she says. “He’s not that way. People told me I would change my mind once I met him. And they were right.”
It is not clear whether Kerry will have enough time to personally meet and convert every disaffected Democrat in the nation by the election of 2008. But he appears determined to at least counter the conventional wisdom that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has all but locked up the Democratic presidential nomination.
“I don’t buy it,” he said in an interview with The Examiner this week. “You know, people sit with you and talk with you here, and they’re going to make judgments about who can be president. They’re going to make judgments about who can run.
… “I don’t care what the dominant, conventional wisdom is today; it will not be the dominant, conventional wisdom in a year.” […]
Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.
“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”
(cont.)
Personally, I’m very ambivalent about another Kerry run. He’s a good Senator, and his policy on Iraq has done a complete 180 (give or take a few degrees) since the 2004 campaign, but I do not think he will succeed should he seek the 2008 nomination, nor do I believe he’s the best candidate the Democrats can field against the Republicans. He’s doesn’t come across well on television, whether in interviews or in other appearances. He transmits no inherent charisma when he appears on the little screen in your home, and sad to say, that is a critical qualification for any serious Presidential contender these days. He won the nomination in 2004 more by default than by anything he himself did.
And there are too many negatives about him among the general voting population thanks to the Swift Boat smears from 2004. He’d have too spend way too much time and energy combating the perception that his service in Vietnam was somehow dishonorable, and despite his high name recognition, that would be too high a hurdle to leap over in my view.
Another Kerry run may simply be too soon. We Americans live in a society that, as a general matter, is quick to abandon anyone not seen as a winner. I doubt Gore would have fared well had he run again in 2004, and Kerry has the same perception Gore had after 2000: that of an ineffective and distant campaigner, and a candidate who has too much baggage from the last election among many people in and out of the Democratic Party. Add to that the albatross of being the most recent Dem loser in an election many thought he would win, and I just don’t see his chances of pulling an Adlai Stevenson (i.e., the last consecutive Democratic Presidential nominee) as very likely.
I do however agree with him on one point. The conventional wisdom that Hillary is the front runner, or that she’s a lock for the nomination is ridiculous. That’s certainly the conventional wisdom among her supporters, and among the media, but I sincerely believe Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee in 2008. Someone will come out of the pack (hopefully someone like Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, John Edwards or perhaps even a renewed Al Gore) to snatch that brass ring away from her. It just won’t be Kerry.
Kerry is certainly no Adlai Stevenson, with whom my father had some correspondence back in the day. Give it up, John.
Yeah, the time to fight the swiftboaters was 2 years ago. Glad to hear he’s finally up to the task now, but I think he needs to pick some battle other than running for president.
I am so there with you. If you looked at the Kerry documentary, Going Upriver, you know that one of the main swiftboat guys, John O’Neil, has been fulminating about Kerry since the 1970s. Kerry went after these fuckers in Iran Contra. He had to know what they were capable of, and he didn’t kick their asses 2 years ago? How was he surprised?
It’s not that I dislike him, but we needed him to kick ass two years ago. It’s just that simple. I’m willing to look at others.
I would seriously like to know what it would take to get rid of John O’Neill and the other Swift Talkin’ Liars for Money. Unfortunately, confronting them with the truth doesn’t seem to do it. I remember seeing Koppel trying to take O’Neill on during Nightline. The guy just inhabits his own little fantasy world where Kerry is a liar who has somehow hypnotized plenty of other people — including Vietnamese citizens who live near the area where he performed his heroics and who have no reason to do so — to lie on his behalf.
And equally unfortunately, there are all too many people out there willing to believe him in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
He actually did respond in a way that would have worked even 4 years before. He quickly did get the media proof that many of the more prominent charges were in contradiction to the Navy record and the recollections of the people actually there. In addition, the Vietnam era Secretary of the Navy, Republican Senator John Warner, said that he had reviewed and approved the paperwork on Kerry’s silver star and he deserved it. The media also had a Nixon tape where he and people in his administration spoke of Kerry – it was clear they feared him because after investigating him, they found he was clean and a war hero. The Kerry campaign also proved they shared a lawyer and several financial backers with the Bush campaign.
As recently as 2000, this would have caused the SBVT to backfire on the Bus/Cheney team. It didn’t because the media continued to give airtime to proven liars that they gave to people. Before the election the Navy itself, because of a RW request to investigate Senator Kerry’s medals, confirmed that they had been correctly awarded. Polls near the election indicated that most people did not believe the SBVT.
The media also signaled very clearly that it was ok with them if the Republicans mocked John Kerry’s Purple Hearts. I did not hear ONE commentator show any disgust that the Republicans, for political reasons, would make fun of the fact that a 25 year old put his life at risk and was wounded 3 times and still has shrapnel in his leg. Their comments that he wasn’t hurt badly, were pathetic with a slightly different trajectory any of these events could have changed or ended his life. It’s also notable that most of those saying these things had not put themselves at risk.
I dwell on this only because it shows how completely offkilter the media was. To treat this as politics as normal and see nothing wrong with it is disrespectful to all people who ever won a purple heart. If the Navy gave Senator Kerry purple hearts for no reasons, how can they prove that theirs was given for a reason as well. As far as I am concerned, every person who spoke from that platform without demanding people take them off, has lost all moral credibility.
People have spoken of the vaunted Clinton war room. There goal, which they achieved, was to respond within the news cycle to every attack. In many cases, there response was simply to put the charge in the best light possible or to throw up enough flack that the charges didn’t get traction. This worked because the press reported the response – usually enthusiasticly.
The media also showed the large Clinton rallies and the build up of enthusiasm. In 2004, the media typically showed a few minutes of a Bush event unfiltered, then showed their reporter, saying Kerry spoke in —- and said —- about Bush. Meanwhile, Kerry was shown in the background – behind the reporter – in a narrow shot designed NOT to show the size of the crowd. I saw the rallies, the size of which broke records, on CSPAN. The media prevented Kerry from getting his message out and put as tough a brake on any momentum build up as possible. Only at his convention and in the debates could people really see Kerry, unfiltered.
I do hope Senator Kerry will run again. I saw his Faneuil Hall speech on National Security on September 9, 2006. (It was on CSPAN’s Road to The White House.) It is the strongest plan I have seen from anyone. At a point where conservatives like George Will are saying that Senator Kerry was fight on how to fight terrorism in 2004, it is absurd that Democrats do not have him up front and center on this issue. I sent the text of the speech to a WWII vet Republican and his comment was that it was far beyond what any other politician has come up with in the last decade.
That Senator Kerry’s strong counter speech to Bush’s policies is not being used is 2008 politics. It is sickening that the Democrat’s strongest voice on this is stifled because it could help him in 2008. It also begs the question, if Senator Kerry is so non-charismatic and unappealing, why do supporters of others try so hard to silence him, rather than use him on issues where he has credibility.
My brother was in Boston at his party during the election. Waiting for Kerry to speak… waiting for some sign of a fight.
… He conceded way too quickly in light of way too many election problems.
Hillary and Kerry … gawd we are so fucked if those are our only choices.
StevenD – Off topic.
I took this picture thinking of you…
Now I have to get my son to read it for me.
Thanks janet
I like John Kerry. He and Hillary and I saw Nixon re-elected in a landslide. We all took different lessons from it. I think we are too quick to label a person a loser, because it ain’t over ’til you’re dead.
Kerry is a grown-up who knows how to learn from his mistakes. I wish my country could be so too. Both Kerry and Clinton are willing to work hard to succeed in their chosen field of politics.
I think Al is just relieved to know he doesn’t have to sacrifice his soul to the family business.
I agree Alice. I think we get caught up too often in the difference between who makes a good candidate and who would make a good President.
I did then, and still do, think that Kerry would be a fantastic President. However, he was just an ‘ok’ candidate who wasn’t prepared for the level of attack that the Rovian smear machine was going to use. It sounds like he’s at least learned something from that.
Regardless, I still think he’d be a great President. I’d vote for him again without hesitation, just not in a primary.
I applaud anyone who is willing to run for President. It takes guts, grit, stamina and tons of money.
As for Kerry, I won’t vote for him. Or for Hillary or for any of the other corporate triangulators. That may leave me with no one to vote for. So be it.
I’d vote for him.. but then I’ve become a pragmatist in the last 6 years. If it’s somone just like Bush against Kerry? No contest.
I can’t stand Hillary.. but I’d even vote for her that for anyone out and out for the neo-cons. Hillary is just Neo-lite.. only half the calories.
Our real problem is that we don’t get enough grass roots participation. If our precincts aren’t just jostling with people interested in who is running things at every level we can’t expect much to change (they aren’t jostling. I’ve worked in enough precincts to know that most of them, except in the wealthier areas, are mostly empty. Watch the tumbleweeds roll by..).
This is how I see John Kerry. When Kerry came back from Vietnam and gave that marvelous “How Do You Ask” speech in 1971 before that Congressional committee, he was exactly the type of fighter with insight and intelligence that we need today as president. He was at his social mature peak, but alas, too soon.
Kerry has socially de-matured over the last 30 years by elevating his financial interests above his social concerns. He is either the richest man in Congress or one of the richest, and his corporate connections via his wife are unmatched! You just do not go against your own financial welfare in the end, and that is why Kerry has lost the fire in his belly that was there in 1971.
What we need is a younger version of John Kerry running now!
I suggest that the mature version of the young Kerry can be seen now. Watch Kerry’s April 22, 2006 speech, labeled “Dissent” and his September 9, 2006 national security speech – both on JohnKerry.com. He is that young man, only older and he is who we need.
Teresa is tremendously wealthy, but spends her time and money working on issues such as the environment, women’s pension rights, and health care. Senator Kerry met her when both attended the Rio conference that she attended as one of 10 non- govermental delegates from the United States.
John Kerry himself was born into an elite circle where he could easily have used his connections, talents and credentials to become enormously rich. Other than a few years as a highly successful lawyer, he has spent his entire adult life in public service. This meant that for many years, he had to struggle to afford his weekly trips to Boston to be with his kids and appartments in DC and Boston – at times staying with friends in one location or the other. If you have any questions on his honesty, consider that at this time he was fighting against the entire Senate and the President to close down BCCI, the terrorists’s bank that had paid off both Democrats and Republicans. (McCain at the time was one of the Keating 5)
Senator Kerry is also one of the few 4 term Senators who never took PAC money. Senator Kerry wrote the Clean elections bill that he sponsored with Senator Wellstone, that was far better than McCain/Feingold.
His Senate speech arguing for it has echoes of 1971 in it.
From the Senate record:
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 el ections” fu nded by “clean mo ney,” elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference
Kerry has his money so it is easy for him to shut the door on those running that do not. He is the richest man in the Senate, so get real.
from:
Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R – Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024
*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms.
Kerry has the ability to see the truth and the ideal social steps that should be followed. His 1971 speech and the one you quoted show this. Where he falls short and gives into the rich man’s syndrome is in his actions which are all that really count nowadays. We have Bush today partly because of Kerry’s almost capitulation in the 2004 campaign and even worse, his lack of challenging the 2000 election results along with every one of those spoiled Senators who should have known better!
You do know that that is mostly Teresa’s money and she is allowed to contribute only around $2000 just like anyone else.
What would challanging the 2000 election have done. In 2004, there was a point to be made – that there were irregularities and voter suppression especially in Ohio. In FL that was known. Gore supposedly didn’t want the election challanged. His own VP was in the Senate.
Imagine if Kerry had challanged him. Given the Supreme Court decision, the vote would have quickly lost. Kerry would have been accused of grandstanding. Kerry was one of the few Democrats who had been willing on Sunday talk shows to defend Gore before he conceded.
Kerry had a fantastic convention speech and 3 incredible debates. His rallies, seen mainly on CSPAN were fantastic. He was charismatic and wonderful.
Look at your own point, the Kerrys could easily retire and live a live of luxury, or Teresa could run her foundation and Kerry could remain a Senator, assured of becoming a very senior Senator with a seat for life. They ARE fighting for you. Do you think Kerry enjoys the smears thrown at him and the woman he very obviously loves?
If you don’t like Kerry don’t vote for him in the primary – if he runs. (If you’re from MA, try to vote him out.) There is no reason to attack his character – he clearly wanted to win. There is no other reason he would have gone through what he did otherwise.
OK, maybe — just maybe — Kerry could make a comeback win in 2012. But 2008? No way. In 2004 he had to battle the perception that he was a stiff liberal egghead; in 2008 he’d have to battle the perception that he’s a stiff liberal egghead, and a loser besides.
Besides, in 2012 I am hoping President Feingold (or Gore, or Edwards, or whoever) is doing so well that there is no question that he will be re-elected.
That said, I think Kerry would do well in some high-level post. Secretary of State, maybe, or Defense, or Attorney General But President? Or even VP? I don’t think so.
I like it. President Feingold appoints Kerry as SecState. After Feingold’s 2 terms are up, Kerry runs, wins, and then puts Feingold on SCOTUS.
The sheer awesomeness of that scenario is about to make my head explode.
Ooooh yeah, I could get all tingly just thinking about that.
But there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, if you will. First things first, and that’s getting a Congressional majority this year.
Of course…but it’s nice to dream sometimes 🙂
For me the number one issue is the integrity of our electoral process. If the GOP is free to continue stealing elections no other issues matter because they will control the power and they will set the agenda.
After the 2000 Florida debacle Kerry vowed that in 2004 he would see to it that every vote would be counted. He had a team of lawyers on the ready and a special fund to bear the cost of challenges and legal battles.
Then came Ohio which was worse than Florida. And there were irregularities elsewhere too, including Florida and New Mexico. Kerry, instead of fighting as he promised to, just threw in the towel, reportedly because he feared a protracted battle would raise the danger that the media would brand him a “sore loser.” In other words, living to run another day was more important than fulfilling his pledge to count all the votes.
Kerry has demonstrated that he will respond to election fraud by rolling over. That alone, regardless of where he stands on the issues, should disqualify him from ever again being our standard bearer. In fact I am aghast that he has the chutzpah to even run again.
Sorry John. Never again!
I totally agree, jpol. Kerry did all kinds of huffing and puffing on this issue and when the time came he folded like a wet kleenex. We need a street fighter to take on the thugs, not more promises of being ready this time. Is this country so short of capable leaders that we have to try to patch up old reruns to look better?
As the article points out, Kerry won’t be meeting all the voters in America, so his personal charm is good for nothing but backroom dealmaking. Not what we need.
There is absolutely no valid source to the “sore loserman” stuff. The top lawyers in the party advised him that there was not sufficient proof of fraud and there was no way to get sufficient votes. The problem is that there were many cases of cheating legally – there is no law that says how voting machines should be distributed.
It was the job of the party to address many of these issues – not the candidate who became the nominee in April 2004. Had the other primary candidates initiated any processes to safe guard the election?
“I intend to kick AlQueda’s posterior from one end of this great country to the other- I feel entirely confident that should I be given a chance to prove that, my approach would be a significant departure from the current administration, if you consider that in the past, the policy promoted by some has been not unentirely sucessful, whereas a policy by me to perhaps be proposed would significantly…….blah blah blah…”
Gee he said ASS. I guess his handlers told him that sounded macho, but you can see its more of the same. give it up.
PS: His comment is reminiscent of Bush’s “Dead or Alive ” comment- The last thing we need is more macho posturing. He is still letting repubs set the rules: Bush’s game is tired, he is playing Bush’s game, and he is three steps behind even that. Just shows the out-of-touch-ness he has already demonstrated. Loser!
Presisnot?
Bullshit.
He as good as threw the election when he did not have the courage and vision to stand up and fight the Ohio vote fraud, and his campaign was abominable.
Swift Boat my ass!!!
He’s through.
Had he fought the Diebolding of America…win, lose or draw…public consciousness of what is really up here would have been two or three years ahead of itself. But instead he is a rich, old money-familied Yalie Skull and Bones asshole who fucked and married his way up the money ladder to get where he is, and he did exactly what the PermaGov asked of him.
He conceded.
“For the good of the country.”
Bullshit.
For the good of the OWNERS of the country.
Well…fuck HIM!!!
What is WRONG with you people!!!???
You want to take it up the ass again?
Please…
AG
He could roll the dice. Go in front of groups and say, “I will ensure a Democratic Senate. I will campaign for Harold Ford, Bob Menendez, Claire McCaskill, Sharodd Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse and any other candidate who needs me. I WILL SPEND MY MONEY TO GET THEM ELECTED.”
If he did that, and pulled it off, I would support him.
He has raised money at least for Menendez, MCCaskill, Brown, and Ford. He made 5 well received events for Corzine in 2005, so I definately hope he does come for Menendez, who may need the help. Kerry has been in 30 some states helping candidates and he has said he will be doing a lot more before November.
What would be great is if the Democrats repeated some of his national security points. At this point even some Republicans see that he was right on this in 2004.
From his Faneuil Hall Speech (on Johnkerry.com):
“There are five principal priorities that demand immediate action: (1) redeploy from Iraq, (2) re-commit to Afghanistan, (3) reduce our dependence on foreign oil, (4) reinforce our homeland defense, and (5) restore America’s moral leadership in the world. These “5 R’s”-if you want to call them that– are bold steps Democrats will take to strengthen our national security, and that the Republicans who have set the agenda today resist to our national peril. “