Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith his op-ed piece in the New York Times on Wednesday; his remarks on Meet the Press this past Sunday; and his e-mail and online petition calling for a withdrawal from Iraq today--John Kerry has broken ranks with a silent Democratic leadership and joined the likes of Russ Feingold and John Murtha in taking a strong position against the war.
In addition to his new stance, it is good to hear that the man who wasn't known for punchiness on the campaign trail is striving for, in his own words, "pretty simple messages" such as, "Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Get out of Iraq. Have health care for all Americans."
And while Kerry didn't say he will run again in 2008 there are sure signs he is back on the trail: his non-answer on Meet the Press and reports by Washington insiders that he is planning to set up a national security think tank in the nation's capital (just what the city needs--the heck with voting rights, how about another think tank?) in an effort to bolster his "strong on defense" image.
But there are still signs of lessons not yet learned. On Meet the Press, Kerry said his campaign's biggest mistake was to not spend more money on commercials to combat the Swift Boat lies. But it wasn't about money or more commercials--it was about his own will and guts and fighting instinct.
Nevertheless, this has been a good week for Kerry when it comes to will and guts. Let's hope he builds on it--and that his Democratic colleagues do the same.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Hmm...let's see if he stays on message. Be nice if one grows a spine, maybe others will do the same.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 10:56am
Unelectable. The Democrats need new life and not recycled losers...as do the Republicans.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 10:57am
"Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Get out of Iraq. Have health care for all Americans."
He will also raise taxes, but has no balls to say it.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 10:58am
I liked Kerry before he flip-flopped on Iraq. I can only hope all DEMS remain steadfastly opposed to attacking Iran, regardless of the trumped up "intelligence" the Bush Administration is fabricating as we speak.
Kerry is probably unelectable, but the pool of electable candidates is dry, and the springs that feed that pool dried up 9/11/2001, when the DEMS couldn't decide to run, hide, negotiate, or attack.
The GOP decided to attack a year before 9/11. It was a disastrous and deadly decision that increased everyone's risk. But, atleast they made a decision, something the DEMS have been incapable of doing since 1998.
If the DEMS can make a stand, and make a decision that war is not the answer to America's problems, then every DEM in every precinct across America will look electable in contrast to the war-mongering, anti-American Republicans running for office today.
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/11/2006 @ 11:11am
JM:
I'm glad to see that the winds of public opinion have started to make their way to the absurdly out of touch Dems. But I agree with you that Kerry is unelectable.
As far as raising taxes, is that the only thing you guys care about? Is that the reason you continue to defend the current president?
Posted by rain man at 04/11/2006 @ 11:11am
I just about fell over when I heard him say "get out of Iraq" in so many words. It almost took the metallic taste of the previous "we didn't spend enough money on the campaign" out of my mouth. If he could have spoken so clearly about the Swift Boat Liars he could gave given this interview from the oval office.
I like John Kerry, I really do. He's thoughtful, and today's mature issues need careful consideration. If this is an indication that he's ready to stop thinking out loud and bear up under the load of having your every word be an expression of future policy, great.
He can start by getting about 30 senators to back him up on his May 15 withdrawal deadline. For God's sake, he's a decorated veteran. If he wimps out because a flock of chickenhawks can whine that he's not supporting the troops, to hell with him.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 11:18am
I didn't vote for Kerry in '04, he didn't bring enough personal conviction to the table. I doubt he'll do that for any upcoming presidential election either, but at least he's finally understanding the talking points that the democratic voters are interested in. As for taxes.. No offense, Maasch, but we've got 3 wars, an apparent viral epidemic, a space program, underfunded schools, and a massive deficit. It's Time For More Taxes. Whine about it to your libertarian knitting circle.
Posted by Megido at 04/11/2006 @ 11:36am
Let's see...he was against the war before he was for it and before he was against it? Oh, forget it.
Posted by woodyee at 04/11/2006 @ 11:41am
"Will and guts?" Or, watching the way the polls are blowing? How and why did Kerry arrive at this new "stance?"
Posted by donescobar at 04/11/2006 @ 11:46am
Where does Kerry stand on granting amnesty to illegals?
Posted by woodyee at 04/11/2006 @ 11:48am
Once and for all...
If all the people who claim that Kerry "flip- flopped" on Iraq were to actually read the Congressional records as to how that vote(s)- there were multiple votes- went down, they (if they had synapses firing) would realize what he was saying in his (surprisingly) inarticlulate way.
Otherwise, one can only attribute the ignorance associated with the "flip- flopping" charge with the "tastes reat-less filling" mindset.
People, look behind the 30- second ad. The picture you see of those behind it might make you vomit, but then again so does "tastes great- less filling" if consumed too much.
Posted by AmeriPundit at 04/11/2006 @ 11:50am
I still favor Al Gore.Sure he is still an establishment man,but his speeches have been right on target and he can (hopefully) turn this country around from its crash course towards a fascist-racist state.Mr Gore may be the one man that can,at least,slow that train.He is also the one man,I know this might sound crazy,that the right,in and out of government would kill.So Al move very slowly and ALWAYS look over your shoulder.I DON'T trust Skull and Bones men,(Kerry) or Hillary.She and her husband did more to wreck "FDR liberalism" than any Reupublican,up until Bush.
Posted by proudleftists at 04/11/2006 @ 11:52am
Kerry can't win the 2008 nomination, UNLESS he gets those "I didn't care for Kerry, but voted for him anyway" Feingold supporters (as are many here) to turn around and "see him in a new light".
He's running....period. He's kept his organization up and running. He's upped his profile in the last few weeks, and he's hoping for a "I could have spared us ****, if only I hadn't had Ohio stolen from me" resurgence in popularity in 2007-2008.
But...he has GOT to stop Feingold from taking the base, and blunt Hillary's money advantage.
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 12:12pm
He will also raise taxes, but has no balls to say it.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/11/2006 @ 10:58am
Sorry, John, you are wrong - he did say it during the campaign.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:29pm
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! As an anti-war Democrat I feel deeply betrayed by Kerry's recent remarks regarding Iraq. It is too little, too late, Senator. You are two years to late. Kerry's latest flip-flop on Iraq will not get him the nomination or the presidency. Let us all move on. Senator, you have had your chance and you blew it!
Posted by tcohan0117 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:30pm
ZERO, I agree completely with your post.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:33pm
the first one, that is
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:35pm
To the Gore fan above: at least Gore never voted to start the Iraq war.)
Posted by ZERO 04/11/2006 @ 12:34am | ignore this person
This one, you mean.
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 12:36pm
I can only hope all DEMS remain steadfastly opposed to attacking Iran, regardless of the trumped up "intelligence" the Bush Administration is fabricating as we speak.
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 04/11/2006 @ 11:11am
Sorry, your hope is dashed. I for one am steadfastly opposed to letting Iran get nukes. As for fabricated intelligence, it is unnecessary because the Iranians just announced that they have succeeded in enriching Uranium to fuel-grade. If true, then they can also enrich to weapons-grade. They are dangerous, unlike Saddam who was not a threat. I do not want to see muslim extremists with nuclear weapons because those people are unstable.
I support any action that Bush might take to stop those violent fanatics from getting nukes.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:40pm
It appears everybody on this blog plans to vote for Hillary for President.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:41pm
Rain,
I care about more than taxes, but he will raise them. He will lose if he says he will raise taxes.
Anyway, Hillary is the candidate for 08 and there is nothing you can do about it.
She will lose. But she doesn't care what you on the far left want. She wants power and will offer you up to get it. Feingold in unelectable and if Hillary writes you on thte far left off, she will have tyo "make up" your votes elsewhere, which is why she is curving to the right. Repubs are inept these days and their enemy(DEMS) will deliver them victory in 06 and 08, but the repubs will not win it on there own these days unless they grow a spine.
Ending the war is the only thing many here want and this will not win at the polls. Winning the war in an acceptable manner, however, will win at the polls.
Most are mad at repubs, including me, but not for any reason espoused here. The dems not inspiring in any manner. Gore would ensure a Repub victory as will Hillary.
Medigo,
"It's Time For More Taxes."
Enough spending already. You on ther left have to have some spending limits? $ 2.6 trillion isn't enough for all the boondogle government programs that don't work?
The revenues to feds have gone up ever since tax cuts...we are just spending too, much.
Try cutting spending for a change and you will gain power. Repubs are angry at Bush for NOT being a CONSERVATIVE. Not fot the war in Iraq.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 12:41pm
ZERO my information is that Kerry said that not only would he reverse the Bush tax cuts, but that he would raise capital gains taxes above what they were pre-Bush. Admittedly, my source on that is my right-wing friend who is often wrong, so I cannot immediately verify the statement.
However, I made that comment not to legitimize Maasch's rhetorical devices, but only to refute his assertion that Kerry doesn't have balls.
JOHN, if you're reading, Kerry is the one who fought in Viet Nam and Cheney, Bush etc. are the ones who hid, so who truly has balls? Show me your Purple Heart and Bronze Star before you go saying Kerry doesn't have balls. Or better yet, explain to me why you criticize someone's manhood from the comfort of the good ol' USA? To have any credibility, why don't you go drive a truck in Iraq?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:46pm
Enough spending already. You on ther left have to have some spending limits? $ 2.6 trillion isn't enough for all the boondogle government programs that don't work?
The revenues to feds have gone up ever since tax cuts...we are just spending too, much.
Try cutting spending for a change and you will gain power. Repubs are angry at Bush for NOT being a CONSERVATIVE. Not fot the war in Iraq.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/11/2006 @ 12:41am
Your political analysis is laughable! Gain power by cutting spending? The Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and all they've done is increase spending for 5 1/2 years
Don't blame all this spending on the Dems, they are out of power!!! Or don't facts enter into your analysis?
Anyway, the justification for collecting more revenue is not to increase spending, but to reduce the deficit. We need another Dem president to stop all the red ink....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:51pm
ZERO, maybe it was the dividends tax rate....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 12:52pm
Zero,
I am not relating balls to Kerrys service in Vietnam. I don't think balls and military service are necesarily connected. I just think we , as Americans, need a real person who runs for our offices. Kerry ain't real, neither is Gore, Hillary, Bush, Cheney,...we need someone new. No idealiologes(sp). Real people.
I am sick of the current batch we have in our "pool" of candidates on either side. Even if the Dems win in 08, the arguement just shifts and the country is torn in half again.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 12:53pm
Posted by ZERO 04/11/2006 @ 12:38am
Halleluyah!
Posted by drhammer at 04/11/2006 @ 12:56pm
Regarding taxes: It is time the greedy helped pay for Bush's war. The middle- and working-class have carried the burden alone for long enough. Stop shopping!
Bush's decision to go to war was also a decision to raise taxes. The only questions remaining are when do we do pay for the war and how?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:58pm
It's official! Prodi is declared the winner by Italian election officials.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 12:59pm
BBC Radio is my source for Prodi's win.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:00pm
ILP,
I am not blaming Dems for spending. Read further and you will see that Repubs are angry at Bush for NOT being a conservative. Me included.
If Dems gain power and raise taxes, along with spending, then they will be voted out again and for a longer time than before. Raising captial gains taxes will shrink revenues to the treasury, always has always will. You are upside down on taxes...read the IRS web site..it is in simple terms.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:01pm
ZERO I appreciate your position, partly because I was against the war even before it was started. But don't forget that a good many Dems were in favor of it. Polls leading up to the invasion showed about two thirds of the public supported war in Iraq. It does take some people longer than others to come around to a correct understanding of an issue, but that doesn't make them snakes.
I am not saying Kerry is or isn't a snake, all I am saying is that being wrong on Iraq was a mistake that many people made, and approximately 30% of the public who supported the war initially are now against it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 1:03pm
I understand why some are wary of the stronger postion Kerry is taking on Iraq - and maybe it is too little too late, but he IS starting to say the right things. But, I refuse to see this as the negative others do. At a minimum, perhaps his move will lead to others to join him. Whatever one's personal feelings are about Kerry, he still does carry a certain level of weight and name recognition compared to others in the Democratic Party.
As for predictions for 2008, there is still a TON of time between now and then. If Kerry continues, a lot could happen.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:03pm
Orbit 1952,
So what? Anyone who wins by 1 vote...look at our country...split..
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:04pm
Hman,
Why can't you see the future here...Hillary IS your candidate. You will have no choice.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:06pm
Actually, it's huge. It proves that even when you literally own the TV networks you can't necessarily get elected.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 1:07pm
JOHN I don't know how you can say I am upside down on taxation, since I didn't make any policy statement on capital gains taxes! I was talking about the need to in general increase revenue to cover what we currently spend, and not increase revenue to spend even more. The capital gains issue came up because we were discussing what Kerry said in the campaign, not what I am proposing.
You claim capital gains tax hikes shrink revenue. I am curious if you know the last time that government revenue went down?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 1:08pm
PS I was referring to Prodi but it applies to Ms. Clinton as well.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 1:09pm
caveat - I am not saying that I would support Kerry in 2008, just that I thin kit is way too early to rule him out.
On one point, I agree with Maasch - I think both parties could stand to have an influx of new blood. And maybe this will happen, again, there is a lot of time until 2008. But, Maasch, I disagree with you that Hillary is the presumptive nominee.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:09pm
Zero,
My way out would be declared unconstitutional..
1. No money from any union or company.
2. Campaigns last 6 months. Period.
3. Real debates and not moderated by idiots like Katy Couric. Moderated by someone picked from the audience. Questions are submitted by people at random in audience or on the internet. No previewing questions.AND NO HAND PICKED AUDIENCE. If candiate can't think on his feet or honestly say "I don't know", then I don't want him.
4.If you currently hold office, you can not run for another at the same time. If you want to gain office, then you must be willing to lose another. This may have a house clearing effect on both sides.
5. No 3rd party ads on TV.
6. No Soros or Moveon or Gopac ads. Period. They are full of shit..all of them
There is my start.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:13pm
So Zero -
Do you slam Kerry for taking a position that a majority of the public at the time agreed with, or because you surmise that he didn't really hold that position, he just crafted it to conform with the majority of the public?
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:16pm
Zero,
I don't mean YOUR candidate per say, but she will be and IS the Democratic candidate.The reups haven't narrowed theirs down yet..but I bet he is already lined up and we don't know it yet. Hillary is.
I agree with you on my vote too, as the repubs took my money...I want conservativism, ...less governmemt, lower taxes and more INDIVIDUAL power. Government is too big and efficient. You think EXXON is corrupt? The biggest corruption is in the government..and you GIVE them your money..with very little, resistance, efficency or return. No control..
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:19pm
New blood doesn't necessarily equate to better candidates.
Classic comment and I paraphrase: Celebrity status doesn't equate to credibility - Martin Sheen to Ohio Dems.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:20pm
To all Libs/Progressives,
People who say that Hillary is already the Dem candidate for 2008 are only pushing the Republican point of view.
The question is: "Why are they doing this?".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:23pm
If you nwant change you have got to forget the likes of Nadar, Ramsey Clark, and many other most consider kooks or so far left that they will be ignored.
Win the majority to govern not the plurality. Far left is as nuts as far right. The right has for the most part isolated their kooks but the left has not bridled them off as of yet. In fqct, the far left has taken control of thre democratic party, and this is why Hillary is moving right..
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:25pm
The revenues to feds have gone up ever since tax cuts...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/11/2006 @ 12:41am
This very common conservative soundbite is just not true. Tax cuts do not raise federal revenue, tax cuts cut federal revenue. It is easy enough to verify, so I don't know why conservatives keep repeating this myth. I don't think JOHN is intentionally dishonest; maybe he will enlighten us as to why he keeps repeating this myth...
www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R /R1.cfm
shows clearly how revenue went down after Reagan's first tax cut, went up after Clinton raised taxes, went down after Bush's tax cuts.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 1:25pm
JOHN, you say the GOP has isolated their kooks? I thought their number one kook was the guy in the White House...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 1:28pm
Orabit,
The repubs would love to see Hillary as the candidate. She will save them from the ire of their own base.
What you don't seem to get, is that the likes of Dean, et al, have chased away the JFK, Scoop Jackson democrats(Reagan Democrats), and as a result, the dems lose. Did you see Teddy with the demonstraters yesterday? I rest my case. It does not play well in most of the US. The big citys, maybe, but it is all a ploy for votes and the Dems will lose even more middle voters...This man should retire NOW.
Hillary believes she is entitled to the shot and since she has the cash, she will get the chance. And she will lose.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:30pm
Maasch -
Not only do I think Hillary will win not the nomination, I do not even think she will run when it comes down to it. Why? Her negative numbers are way to high for here to even hope that she could win the general election. Who knows, maybe she will run anyway, thinking that she can move off those numbers, but look at any polls for her. The most damning statistic is the percentage of people who "are not at all likely" to vote for her. Those numbers are in the mid to upper 40's. You do not run on those numbers. Hillary as the presumptive nominee is pushed by the GOP - probably for good reason.
So, I think when decision time comes, the Democratic Party will politely ask HRC to sit this one out - if they are smart. And if she is smart - she will listen. But, hubris is a dangerous thing.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:33pm
ILP,
No he is too(BUSH) "liberal". He is not and never was a conservative...what he was , was electable. He received many democrat votes in Texas..and honestly, the dems candidate, Gore and then Kerry, were weak at best.
Here is one for you...
Watch Iran and how the candidates handle them. I bet the one who is more hawkish with Iran may win. Since the Dems are percieved as the party to quit any war at all costs, they will come out hawkish in order to turn that perception around. The repubs will advocate another path, perhaps covert take down from inside Iran by Iranians, they will be correct, but will lose to Dems attack..
Maybe, but food for thought..speaking of which, I am out for lunch.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:37pm
Hman,
Maybe, but too mant here are fixed on polls. They are nothing but a flash of time, and time in the past, much like the Dow Jones, it measures what happened YESTERDAY.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 1:38pm
For whatever reason, I'm happy to see that Kerry is finally coming around and bringing his gut and his rhetoric into alignment on the Iraq war. That notwithstanding, I'd bet the farm that none of the major candidates from either party would maintain that broadly telling the truth about our problems and their required solutions would be the ticket to election even in these skeptical and jaundiced times. The US is going broke financially, intellectually, competitively and in just about every other conceivable way but militarily. How does one package that reality to an electorate weened on short pithy scripts with happy endings and utterly convinced of inherent American supremacy and goodness? The answer is, you don't, at least not if you want to get elected. We'll get better politicians when enough of us become informed and interested enough to demand them.
Posted by IgnatiousT at 04/11/2006 @ 1:42pm
Now I've heard everything! JOHN MAASCH says Bush is a liberal, and I have to restrain my laughter because I am in the library right now.
Hey, someone tell LOVE LIBERTY that Bush is a liberal. Poor guy, it will break his heart to learn the "truth"...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/11/2006 @ 1:43pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/11/2006 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person
Why does a US Senator (HRC) raise $40 Million dollars....for JUST a re-election campaign for Senate in a state where she polls 30-35%tiles ahead of her opponent?
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 1:48pm
For whatever reason, I'm happy to see that Kerry is finally coming around and bringing his gut and his rhetoric into alignment on the Iraq war. That notwithstanding, I'd bet the farm that none of the major candidates from either party would maintain that broadly telling the truth about our problems and their required solutions would be the ticket to election even in these skeptical and jaundiced times. The US is going broke financially, intellectually, competitively and in just about every other conceivable way but militarily. How does one package that reality to an electorate weened on short scripts with happy endings and utterly convinced of inherent American supremacy and goodness? The answer is, you don't, at least not if you want to get elected. We'll get better politicians when enough of us become informed and interested enough to demand them. In the meanwhile, the catch of the day will always be a flip flopper regardless of whether the water is red or blue.
Posted by IgnatiousT at 04/11/2006 @ 1:53pm
MASK -
Just in case? Hey - I freely admit I could be wrong. But, I could be right. Those poll numbers do not lie - and contrary to what Maasch thinks, the pols and strategists do consider them.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 1:59pm
Maasch,
"Orabit,"
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/11/2006 @ 1:30pm
Typo or insult?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 2:06pm
I'm glad to see a few Democrats growing at least a vestigal spine. It's too bad that it seems to take a presidential election loss (Gore, Kerry) to stimulate the growth.
Posted by frankob5 at 04/11/2006 @ 2:07pm
Vow, this is thrilling. Leading Democrat screws up courage to oppose a by now unpopular war. What next? Help is on the way? Oops, done that. Bring back triangulation? OK, vote for Hill or John, let's get Bush out of the WH. After that, a touch of beningn tinkering. Do you really expect more? Based on what?
Posted by donescobar at 04/11/2006 @ 2:21pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/11/2006 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person
Just a lot of "odd coincidences" (not even needing a RESE/PLUNGER type of paranoia)....
1. Super-fund size campaign war chest, enough (as the anti-nuke guys used to say back in the Cold War) to kill Jeanine Pirro "seven times over".
2. Speaking of "super"...the Super Delegates (Dem governors, etc) are "Friends of Bill/Hill".
3. Polls 20%+ over next Dem in line for President.
4. December 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 41% of Democrats preferred her for the 2008 presidential nomination.
That means she can let Feingold, Kerry and a third "pure progressive" split the "base", stall Warner or some other centrists, and she wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and just has to tie with Warner in South Carolina to become "presumptive".
5. MS Media love her more than John McCain, will paint her as liberal AND moderate.
6. Who's the number 2 fund-raiser for other Democrats?....she is.
Who's the number 1 fund-raiser for other Democrats?....she's married to him.
Not trying to re-make Dick Morris' case....but the points DO add up.
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 2:33pm
Brzezinski blames Bill and Hillary for Democrats' failure to take correct position on national security.
Excerpt from TomPaine.com article:
Brzezinski, appearing on the April 5 "Diane Rehm Show" on NPR, noted the traditional sad critique that Democrats fear being seen as weak or vacillating on issues related to national security.
But then he put the real blame squarely where it belongs: on Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Hawk-Tied Democrats [tinyurl.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 2:38pm
As soon as I read any rightwing nuttiness from a poster, I put that person on my ignore list along with Maasch, LoveLiberty, and a host of others, so I only know what they say from the posters who respond. However, it would appear that Maasch has criticized the government for excess spending. In case anyone hasn't broken it down, here is some perspective on how much the war in Iraq is costing.
Making it as simplistic as possible, the cost amounts to about $2,000 per second (yes, I know it's actually more, but this is easier to use to do the math).
That amounts to over $120,000 per minute. (Imagine! Every minute of every day that we are conducting a war in Iraq we could pay two teachers $60,000 to teach for a year!)
And (to continue the extrapolation) that adds up to SEVEN MILLION, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AN HOUR! And somewhere around 200 million per day. (I rounded when I did the math but you get the picture.)
Sort of makes the case for overspending on social programs a little more insignificant. And the above figures don't take into account the costs for funerals, health care for physically and mentally damaged vets, future revenues lost due to the deaths and illnesses of those vets, monetary damage to families, and a host of other hidden costs.
It's about time Kerry stood up and showed some integrity and courage. But I agree with many of the posters here - it's too little too late.
And I will never ever vote for Hillary even if it means not voting at all or writing in someone who can't possibly be elected. To me she's a either a sell-out or a hypocrite or both.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 04/11/2006 @ 2:41pm
I find the argument that Kerry's actions are "too little too late" to be a bit naive.
You seem to be saying that Dems should not speak out, but let American men and women continue to die in Bush's illegal war of choice.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 2:50pm
"Too little too late" is oversimplifying it. My position is that if he takes some kind of tangible action, it's not too late at all. It's never too late to stop screwing up. And it's always a good time to fix your mistakes if you still can. And if he does that, it's something people can relate to. Of such are candidates made.
Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 3:10pm
I posted early on that I was angry at Kerry for flip-flopping on Iraq. I don't condone flip-flopping; and I don't agree with the logic used so far to "defend" flip-flopping.
However, there is a much more honest and accurate "explanation" of a reasonable case for "flip-flopping" on any issue. This is where there are new facts, previously withheld, that have been presented.
Any individual that claims to be open-minded should be able to consider new facts, and adjust his or her opinion, accordingly.
Without defending flip-flopping, per se, I can without question site blog after blog that assails Bush for not changing course, essentially condemning him for not being a flip-flopper on Iraq.
Thus, LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and all other NON-NEOCONS cannot have it both ways! They cannot assail Bush for his "stay the course" approach, and turn around and assail Kerry for exactly what they assail Bush for not doing: "changing course".
In this context, there are many new details of the lies and deception used in the case for Iraq. With these newly learned facts, I feel it is entirely appropriate that anyone that previously supported the war in Iraq should flip-flop, as that is the only true sign of a thinking, feeling, and open-minded individual.
With that said - I agree with all the bloggers that there is a terrible void in leadership opposing the war. Hopefully, DEMS get it right this time, and actually defend their position, not just cave and waffle when attacked by the right-wing chicken-hawks.
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/11/2006 @ 3:19pm
MASK 04/11/2006 @ 2:33pm
And just imagine what will happen when this immutable establishment finds out that their "base" is not flocking to support their their candidate. Money will be withheld and will thus become available to "insurgent" candidacies. The punditry will announce the death of the two-party system and immense pressure will form to open the the faux "debates" to heretofore negligible candidates. The "free media" that flows to whoever has the most interesting story will cause more buzz than big-campaign advertising. And if one appealing non-standard candidate gives a killer speech somewhere along the line ...
Okay, that's a little dreamy but I hope you get my point.
A couple cycles back, Phil Gramm had all the same advantages, and he dropped like a rock when the primaries started. Hill and Bill are smarter than Phil, but it's never a done dil. Excuse my Texas accent.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 3:21pm
Sorry, your hope is dashed. I for one am steadfastly opposed to letting Iran get nukes. As for fabricated intelligence, it is unnecessary because the Iranians just announced that they have succeeded in enriching Uranium to fuel-grade. If true, then they can also enrich to weapons-grade. They are dangerous, unlike Saddam who was not a threat. I do not want to see muslim extremists with nuclear weapons because those people are unstable.
I support any action that Bush might take to stop those violent fanatics from getting nukes.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 04/11/2006 @ 12:40am | ignore this person
I too am against "violent fanatics" having nuclear weapons, be they Muslim or Christian (hint, hint). However, can one blame Iran for developing nukes? Put yourself in their position. The US has been launching threats at Iran for well over a year & the US/Israeli alliance is hostile towards them. Both have a nuclear arsenal & now have access to the rather large border shared between Iraq & Iran. So if I were them I would be doing something to at least attempt to deter war.
Plus, do you really think the public will be ready for another war that has the potential to be much more costly (in terms of blood & dollars) not to mention the fact that the Iranians, regardless of their feelings toward their current "leadership", will probably not have forgotten operation Ajax (you know where we overthrew the democratically elected govt & installed a "US friendly" one to secure our oil interests, which turned into a harsh dictatorship)? Don't you kinda think that we are a bit responsible for the situation there now (as well as the one in Iraq pre March 2003 & countless others around the world) We'll probably just have another insurgency that we cannot control on our hands.
I can't see Iran becoming anything but the SNAFU that we now call Iraq...
Posted by thejman at 04/11/2006 @ 3:22pm
I don't want to see "the bomb" dropped again...
Posted by thejman at 04/11/2006 @ 3:24pm
Plus, do you think the public will believe another "smoking gun" argument from Condoleeza Rice, this time in re: Iran, when we couldn't find the huge caches of WMDs in Iraq b/c they did not exist? Will they really believe them this time?
Posted by thejman at 04/11/2006 @ 3:30pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/11/2006 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person
MYPARA....here's the question...who can stop She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed (H. Rider Haggard ref)?
Feingold?....loved by the base, but what's the "track record" for Northeast/Midwestern liberals (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis)...and before you jump to "Hillary's one!", yep, she is. But she's already a prominent national figure and (I know this seems odd) can "pretend" to be Southern, by virtue of her years in Arkansas.
Warner?....moderate, I'd vote for him. And he has the "lucky charm" of Democrats (and Republicans)...he's a governor. But he's bland and doesn't have her money or name-recognition.
Kerry?....he was "the alternative" in 2004, as seen here, no love loss for him amongst either liberals or moderates.
Richardson?...probably DOA given the Immigration Problem Fever that will still be sweeping the country in 2008.
Miscellaneous Senators/Governors?....No "Dean" can take on Iraq like Feingold is going to and (as I noted) none have money, name recognition, or any pull in the Party.
Of all of them, Mr Nichols' fav, Russ is the best shot at A.B.H. (Anybody But Hillary), but he'll never have more than 1/2 her money...he'll never have the Party elders (and politicians who Bill and Hillary have raised money for)...and he'll never have the adoring Media she has.
Feingold's shot against Hillary, roughly the same as Paul Tsongas' shot against her hubby in 1992.
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 3:35pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/11/2006 @ 1:30pm
Typo or insult?
Posted by ORAIBI1952 04/11/2006 @ 2:06pm
Typo....I never could type..sorry.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 3:42pm
If you nwant change you have got to forget the likes of Nadar, Ramsey Clark, and many other most consider kooks or so far left that they will be ignored.
The only reason they are considered kooks, by a majority is bacause of a massive disinformation campaign promoted by the likes of you to discredit them. I thought that they were far left extremists at one time until I read their ideas & began to find out what they were about. I consider myself an "average Joe" & find many of their ideas to be in line w/my own.
Posted by thejman at 04/11/2006 @ 3:44pm
They are considered kooks because of their views and ideas. NOT because I say they are kooks...Jeez.
Posted by john maasch at 04/11/2006 @ 3:52pm
That's the second time the point that the "kooks" aren't so kooky has been made. Let's make it an even three.
The years of disarray among the Democrats have created all kinds of fractures and splinters. It could be a muddle. It could also be a tinderbox.
A nice fiery "kook" might be just the thing. Especially if he/she turns out to be not nearly as wacky as the that evil media made them out to be.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/11/2006 @ 3:57pm
Maasch,
Thanks for the response.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 4:00pm
MASK -
Sure it's entertaining to play who will win, but it is April 2006.
In 1990, Mario Cuomo was quite the buzz. Nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton.
Your other points only go to Hillary having an advantage (at this stage) in getting the nomination.
What about the general?
Hillary, those around her, and the Democratic Party see those high negative numbers. I think she wants to run, and is somehow hoping those negative numbers will drop (how else to explain her recent moves to the right of even moderate positions?). If I had to guess, I would say she will not announce until the negatives drop, and they likely will not drop, so she will not run.
And if she runs, it's not a lock (at this early stage) that she wins even the nomination
Posted by Hman23 at 04/11/2006 @ 4:20pm
ORAIBI1952 - I can see your point that my assertion that Kerry's new stance is "too little too late" may be somewhat unfair, although I don't see it as naive. It may just be a matter of semantics, but I believe "simplistic" might be a better word. I agree, and I didn't really explain my position very well. I have several points of clarification.
First of all, I am somewhat skeptical as to Kerry's motives. Is he now expressing what he really believes or has he tapped into the flow of public opinion? What has changed in the past couple of months to alter his view? I have grave doubts as to his sincerity, although I am surely open to changing my mind if new evidence surfaces.
Secondly, had Kerry bothered to investigate, he would have known what many anti-war citizens already figured out before the war. I don't believe that Kerry had no access to information that I and many other Americans had in the run-up to the invasion. His experience with Vietnam should have made him far more suspicious of the motives of the warmongers than the average American. (I read somewhere that if members of congress really wanted to know about Iraq's WMD, they should have asked any taxi driver in New York who already knew they didn't exist.) So was Kerry really in thrall to the liars and profit makers who pushed for the war or was he really that ignorant? Neither option makes him look very good.
Third, I agree that Kerry should be applauded for FINALLY seeing the light and stepping forward, but, in view of his past succumbing to the jingoism that was running rampant after 9/11, it's still too little too late for me to have genuine admiration for him or to vote for him for president. I never meant that it was too little too late for me to be glad he changed his attitude.
I would celebrate the total flip-flopping of everyone who supported the war, and I'd be thrilled even if the reason for opposition to the war were due to public opinion. But it doesn't change my basic distrust of Kerry, who waited until the waters were (at least relatively) safe to stick his toe in.
Where was he, and where were the others who cowered from the wrath of the Bushites, when it really might have counted?
Posted by LeeAnnG at 04/11/2006 @ 4:23pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/11/2006 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person
Couple of questions you have to ask...
1. Is she ambitious? More than just waiting for Schumer to retire and become "Senior US Senator from New York"?
2. Is BILL ambitious? Remember, this puts HIM back in the West Wing (somewhere) too.
3. Why does she raise 10-20-30 million more than she obviously needs for a light-weight like Pirro, and it can have NO OTHER USE than for her campaign war-chest?
4. Is it possible that her "negatives" are a myth? She polls well amongst Democrats, independents, and (as we've noted here at TN blog) Republicans are now turning on Bush...she's not the "Queen Bitch of the Universe" boogey-woman she used to be, except with the Hannity & Limbaughites.
5. Can anybody else use the "bring back the good ol' Clinton Days" line EASILY.
6. What's different about 2006, over 1990?......She's not like Cuomo (1990) who had the Media, but no organization, no money, and no nation-wide power lunches with Democratic politicians that put $50-150K in THEIR campaign funds. Plus, Mario was looking at a Bush-41 with 80% post-Gulf War approvals....Bush-43 won't get out of the 40s again and 2008 is an automatic 50-50 shot for ANY Democrat (even a Feingold).
7. Again, who can stop her if she wants it and why?
Posted by Mask at 04/11/2006 @ 4:28pm
Leeanng,
Should the public change its collective mind back to what it was like in 2004, should Kerry maintain his present position or adapt to the public's new view of things?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 4:39pm
Leeanng,
Another question: Why do you think Kerry supported the invasion of Iraq?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 4:46pm
John Kerry calls The Huffington Post. Below is an excerpt from Kerry's response to The Huffington Post - the actual post is comprehensive.
Excerpt:
So if there was no private meeting, no agreement to join with the majority, then why vote for the resolution?
"It didn't happen in a vacuum," he said. "I'd been supporting the Biden-Lugar Amendment, a bipartisan effort that would have required that the inspections be completed before any military action took place. We had a good chance of passing it. That amendment reflected my position on the war.
"Then one day we turned on the TV and Joe Lieberman was in the Rose Garden with the President, saying that he was supporting the resolution - as is. We realized that, as of that moment, the amendment was effectively dead."
Then why vote for the resolution without the Biden-Lugar Amendment?
"Colin Powell," said Kerry. "I've known him a long time. I respect him, and I trust him. We sat down one-on-one and he showed me the evidence. He has since made it clear that he was fed false information, that he was misled too. And Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked closely with him, has been even more direct - that there was a small group there, a cabal run by Cheney and Wolfowitz, directing all the planning and leaving the rest of them out of the loop."
Kerry Calls Huffington Post [tinyurl.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/11/2006 @ 5:03pm
Who can beat McCain in '08? And wha two main campaign themes would this Democrat have to pick in order to win? (Keeping in mind that what's the matter with Kansas is what's the matter with much of the country.)
Posted by donescobar at 04/11/2006 @ 5:33pm
We will need Kerry's healthcare (for the next terrorist attack) if we shamefully back out of IRAQ before the job is done. Apparently he knows when to quit a winning war.
Give Kerry enough time and he will say he supports the troops and encouraged victory.
Posted by airandee at 04/11/2006 @ 7:03pm
At some point it will occur to prominent democrats that they are at their peak in popularity when they speak to the left on basic issues: education, health care, environment/energy, prudent use of security and military, etc. Kerry used to have a strong standing for his knowledge on foreign affairs and the military combined with a commitment to liberal social issues. Then POOF! He turns into Michael Dukakis. Gore: the same.
I don't know whether it's the DNC, their handlers and pollsters, or their own lack of backbone when faced with an attack from the right, but sooner or later they'll realized that if you're attacked from one direction, it's usually not a good idea to move toward the attacker if you're not well-armed.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/11/2006 @ 7:15pm
It baseball time...perfect for a DNC spot to start.."America's tired of playing in the Bush leagues" spots using red cap / blue cap ballplayers.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/11/2006 @ 7:41pm
"He will also raise taxes, but has no balls to say it."
Or maybe he will stop the feeding frenzy the wealthy have been engaged in these past five years as a consequence of the large taxcuts instituted by Bush which mainly benefitted them, and especially, the deep cut in the capital gains/dividend tax, its halving to 15%. That was an even greater gift to our wealthy aristocrats.
Posted by shergald at 04/11/2006 @ 7:59pm
I saw an interview with Steve Jarding and Dave Saunders, authors of "Foxes in the Henhouse" on Tim Russert (CNBC, not MTP) after the Kerry appearance.
Saunders said that in order to not simply cede rural and Southern America, he would have liked to see Kerry "come across the table" when Russert (MTP mode) went into the flip-flopping spiel. Having grown up in the North, but lived in the South for most of my life, I have to agree with this assessment.
This means that Kerry needed to stand up for what he really believed then, and what he believes now. This would resonate because backbone/fight is the first demonstration of credibility for we Southerners. After that we pay attention to what you have to say, NOT before.
This is a lesson that seems to be totally lost on the northeastern Dems (not so much on the western Dems, but still). Rural America and the South would be in play if only...
These authors (who were advisors to Mark Warner) express this so much better and in greater depth than I can do here, both in the book and in the interview, but it is a fact of life that seems to be missing from the Dem conventional wisdom. Fight for the middle! Don't abandon working class people, sportsmen, and the women who love them (with economic views of their own) to the Republican division engine.
I know that this may not resonate with E/W Dem elites, but I would pose to any reading this that there is a deep pool of people here in Rural American and the South that would vote Dem, if only there was an alternative per above.
This does not mean that in the Deep South there would be a majority, but it does suggest that in Rural America there would be enough votes to move an election into the D column.
But it also means that it simply does not matter what Hillary, Kerry, Obama SAY. They need to back it up with spine and sensibility. What they SAY is meaningless, unless they, as Saunders said, are willing to "come across the table" to fight for those beliefs.
While I don't deign to speak for the South, the people I talk to are so disgusted with the Dem economic sellout (including illegal immigration amnesty) that they only see the the so-called "moral" issues as the way to express their/our anger.
Correct this perception (meaning pose an alternative here) and you realign the Red/Blue situation.
Posted by ritzl at 04/11/2006 @ 8:23pm
Um, back to the article, maybe I'm the only one who thinks this....but the reason Kerry didn't win wasn't cause not spending enough, but because of the family values he did (or didn't) have. If he had been pro-life, he would have been elected. Just my two cents.
Posted by HomeSklTeen at 04/11/2006 @ 9:46pm
Posted by RITZL 04/11/2006 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person
The flaw with Jarding and Saunders' thinking is...they think that the liberal base of the DNC can "remain quiet" on the Three "Gs" (God, guns, and gays) and JUST talk about the economic issues to the rural voters.
They can't. Despite attempts by Dean and now them, once media coverage of a Democrat forces them to either support the liberal social agenda of the Party, or break with the Party (and become "Lieberman"-like)....it's over.
Posted by Mask at 04/12/2006 @ 06:38am
Read what is there, not what you want to read. Senator "We Can Manage The War Better" Kerry is calling for Iraqization, not withdrawl. Didn't work in Vietnam. Won't work in Iraq. And his second deadline didn't even make it into that bullshit resolution he dumped on the Senate floor.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 04/12/2006 @ 08:29am
Breaking the silence?
Oh, this is just too silly.
Posted by Jay Cline at 04/12/2006 @ 09:27am
Alansmithee,
What is your alternative solution to the Iraq War of Choice? Who do you think would be the best person to execute your alternative solution?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/12/2006 @ 10:46am
Jay Cline,
What is "...just too silly."?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/12/2006 @ 10:47am
You don't really think this is John Kerry, do you?
Just because his handlers and campaign consultants may have suggested that he take a new tack, doesn't mean that he himself agrees with it or plans to do it.
In 2004 Kerry's team informed him that the American people were deeply concerned that votes hadn't been properly counted in 2000 and that Gore hadn't fought hard enough to prove it. So Kerry promised not to concede early and to ensure that every vote was counted. It was good advice. He raised a ton of money and got the most votes. Unfortunately, those were just campaign promises, so he didn't bother to dispatch the teams of lawyers waiting to contest the vote counts in disputed precincts, and he conceded early, breaking both campaign promises without even bothering to get elected first.
So now his advisors have informed him of public opposition to the war. He knows all about war resistance, so he has taken a very popular stance. But he isn't a principled person who has always opposed unjustified wars, he is a politician doing what his advisors tell him is the expedient thing at the moment.
Nice guy, but you can't count on him.
Posted by mymarkx at 04/12/2006 @ 11:04am
mymarkx,
Your 11:04am post describes information that Kerry is supposed to know, but you don't provide any evidence that what you say is true.
Provide proof of your allegations.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/12/2006 @ 11:32am
Kerry - and so many other democrats - are "a day late and a dollar short" as the old saying goes. Where were they before? Why did they dismiss Congressman Murtha as a lunatic when he first proposed withdrawal from Iraq? Why did they leave Russ Feingold hanging in the Senate when he proposed censure of the President? I'm surprised there weren't some broken bones during the mad dash to run the other way!
I don't care if Kerry has this late conversion, I wouldn't vote for him again under any circumstances. Senator Feingold and John Conyers and John Murtha and a few brave others will get my support through this next election cycle. They actually have principles that they are willing to stand on! What a concept!
As for Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry, Senator Biden and all the other Johnny-Come-Lately-if-at-all's... you missed the boat! In your mad rush to win votes at all costs, you have alienated those of us who still believe Democrats should stand for something instead of wearing the mantle of Republican-Lite! And as for Joe Lieberman.... switch parties, please! It's embarrassing!
Posted by Quannah at 04/12/2006 @ 12:57pm
kerry has no credibility...
biggest mistake was not enough "commercials to combat the Swift Boat lies" -guy has his head up his butt (sounds really committed to his new strong views)...
also, re: "simple messages" -that's what the republicans do best, vague emotional statements like "freedom" -without backing it up with acutal planning & numbers...
"healthcare for all americans" -that's pretty bold and ambitious (or else it means nothing) -doubt he has something concrete in mind to achieve this (same for "get out of Iraq")...
also: "fire the incompetents" -not too long ago, he was pro-war, so by his own definition he would be an "incompetent" -easy to point fingers
Posted by daniel_ny at 04/12/2006 @ 4:46pm
I was a big fan of Kerry's until he ran for President, then was bitterly disappointed by his lame campaign. And now that Bush's poll ratings are in the toilet, he suddenly finds the courage to say what he should have been saying years ago? He's a coward, or an opportunistic politician at best. I bet he wished he had voted against the war now... Feingold for President.
Posted by Mean Bunny at 04/13/2006 @ 02:17am
Kerry, like the Clintons, symbolizes an entire generation of elected officials who follow the polls. Kerry does not have the character and conscience to find the path away the abyss and find the trailblazers who will to the mountaintop. I don't see any difference between John Kerry changing his mind on Iraq seeking votes and a coyote chasing off the prairie dogs after a pack of wolves has killed the deer.
If Kerry, both Bushes, both Clintons and the current class of national leaders can't spell "Generational Responsibility" how can they even begin to define "Generational Responsibility."
Question what were the ages of John F. Kennedy's children when he was President? Teddy Roosevelt's?
Posted by EMBWayne at 04/13/2006 @ 08:59am
AS posted many times: Kerry, as with any politician is not only allowed to, but expected to change his position when that original position was based on lies. If he knew the GOP was lying about the threat Iraq posed, that's one thing. Getting suckered like everyone else is entirely different.
Stop dumping on Kerry for changing his mind? Who wouldn't once they found out their President lied to them, and continues to lie to this minute?
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/13/2006 @ 11:35am
I mean, I might even agree with a rightwing demagogue - if he/she was opposed to the War. But, because I agree with a rightwing demagogue on one issue and on no others doesn't make me a flip-flopper: it means I agree with that one idea.
Similarly, once anyone finds out their decision to support the War in Iraq was based on GOP lies: they are bound morally to change their position and oppose the War in Iraq.
Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/13/2006 @ 11:40am