Kerry 2008 Watch

[kerrygoddess]

Some very early 2008 speculation from the Washington Post:



Kerry Sets the Stage for a Second Act

• Campaign '08 Watch Begins: We solemnly vowed in November not to start ginning up stories about the next presidential election until at least March, and mirabile dictu: An enticing invitation crossed our desk just in time. "Thank you for your interest in joining John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry at their home on March 7 in Washington, DC for a special meeting to discuss the formation of Senator Kerry's political action committee, Keeping America's Promise."

Woo-hoo! It's not every day that a defeated '04 Democratic nominee sets up a new PAC. "This is the kind of thing he has to do" to run for prez again, Dan Payne, a Dem media consultant and longtime Kerry acquaintance, told us yesterday. "It seems to me that candidates have been forming PACs before they made a run for president for a long time."

The senator's camp wouldn't comment on whether Keeping America's Promise is an effort to maintain and invigorate Kerry's base for 2008, stressing instead his "focus on strengthening the Democratic Party," as spokeswoman Katharine Lister put it.

More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=445

[pacalo]

1. I hope Kerry stays vocal, vocal, vocal about WhatsHisFace!

[pauliedee]

27. Kerry a GREAT leader who'll fight the repugs to the death

I got his back!

[Discord]

47. so if thats true...

Then why did he just bend over and take it from behind from the Repug's KNOWING the election once once again a fraud?

What would make me want to let him even have a CHANCE to do that again? Will he have any kind of plan that would be firm, clear and relatable to the public? (something he clearly lacked in his first campaign) They have his number, and being a Massachusettes native, I would still not support Kerry running again. He is a "politics as usual" Democrat. He is much to willing to concede and give ground. He is not firm on ANYTHING, and will be nothing but more of the same.

[elehhhhna]

2. He's sooo over. flame away but he blew it.

Yes he hired the wrong people blah blah blah but poop on a stick should have beaten GW.

[blm]

3. GW and the GOP control over 90% of the broadcast media.

Guess it's OK to let the media off the hook.

[elehhhhna]

5. Did I excuse the media? Or Diebold? No. Did JK? Seems so . The silence

was deafening.

[cestpaspossible]

6. So something that didn't happen 'seems' to you to have happened.

So what?

[blm]

8. What Dem beat the national media last year?

The DNC should have had media monitors in place after 2000 and especially after 2002.

Kerry did a great job from his end, but if the media never let you in on what he was saying throughout the campaign, you never heard it.

The only time he was ever unfiltered was during the debates which he won decisively. Even then the media never held Bush to account for his deplorable lies during the debate, like that he never said he wasn't concerned about BinLaden and accused Kerry of exaggerating.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Yes, but appearing to be a bad loser

and whining about "it wasn't fair" would have done him more good than harm. There was no way he could have overturned the result, and conceding with good grace will have done the Democrats chances of winning future elections more good than fighting to the inevitably bitter end would have done.

I was fairly impressed with Kerry's campaign - I think there were a few things that he could have done better, but to come within 3% even given the media hostility was impressive. After 2001, I don't think anyone whose foreign policy didn't boil down to "Death to Abroad" would have had a chance of winning, but the Kerry did better than I'd hoped.

[Discord]

48. The problem...

He might have killed his own political aspiration... but once again we lost a golden opportunity to try and bring the level of Repug corruption to light. Even if it didn't overturn the election, there was great benifit for the party by persuing it. As it stands. We still have no way to push hard for election reform because at the moment. oficially... No election fraud has taken place.

[politicasista]

4. Gee more sour grapes

Nothing changes around here. :cry: Who would you support anyway?

[LittleClarkie]

12. Nah, he has at least as much support here as he did during the primary

and perhaps a bit more.

It may be enough. But neither he nor I are worrying to much about 2008 yet. He and I are both saying that we have to get past 2006 first.

[jswordy]

15. Right. Stick a fork in him. He's done.

My, there are so many excuses, so many reasons...it seems to be everyone else's fault but Kerry's. SIGH.

Remember, the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I just hope that when the Democratic nominee is indeed chosen, these Kerry folks can come onboard as so many of us who wanted other candidates did for his run.

[blm]

21. Ignore the GOP control of most of the media and the voting machines and

see if ANY Democrat wins the presidency or even comes as close as Kerry. Go ahead and name ONE Dem who can bypass broadcast media bias. Just one.

The most silvered tongue Dem in recent history couldn't use that talent to avoid impeachment once the broadcast media set itself on Search and Destroy.

Personally, I'm not going to let the media or BBV off the hook until Dems can count on fairness and integrity, and I hope others don't, either.

[jswordy]

33. SNORE...I work in the so-called "MSM," so I know yer...

...conspiracy theories are a bunch of BS. Nuff said. Ownership and production are two different things. But it's an easy sell to folks who have no idea how it all works, and have axes to grind or are looking to play the blame game.

Democrats will win the WH next time. It's our turn. But it won't be Kerry.

[blm]

35. Yeah, and MediaMatters and TakeBackTheMedia are wasting our time.

I'm married to an award winning person who works in a newsroom and I do know something about the media.

The mainstream media is heavily biased towards Bush and I don't trust anyone who tries to claim otherwise.

[Discord]

49. so let me get this straight...

You WANT the Repug's to continue to be able to CHOOSE who they run against?

[blm]

53. The GOP didn't CHOOSE to run against Kerry.

In fact, their minions in the mainstream media declared his candidacy dead for months which resulted in Kerry's national fundraising drying up.

The media consistently OVERstated Dean's support on the ground in Iowa while consistently UNDERstating Kerry's support.

The political reporter for MSNBC who covered Kerry said that for months she had to fight to get her producers to carry her stories.

You also never saw ANY of Kerry's key endorsements like the Firefighter's, even as a news story while most of Dean's key endorsements were not only news but, most were broadcast live.

Only towards the end of the Iowa campaign was the press unable to keep the positive Kerry movement suppressed. But, still, most pundits told us that Dean would still win.

Don't tell me that the GOP and the MSM chose Kerry as the Dem nominee. I'll tell you to prove it.

[Discord]

54. the point I was trying to put forth...

was simply that because the media is biased, they can influence what type of press the candidates will get. Starting with the announcements of who plans on running, nominations, primaries, all the way up until the final pick on who will run on the Democratic ticket is made, the process and opposing strategies are fluid. Changing to act and counter as new trends and information arises. Initially, it seems, that they, as you said, OVER stated Deans support and UNDER stated Kerry's. Nothing is coincidence! They knew about Kerry... and his service record scared the piss out of the GOP as Bush's service record was more than dubious. They we're afraid of Edwards charisma and obvious family values. Which was part of thier platform for thier campaign. Why could deny Edwards oozed good strong family values. It would be hard to use that as a campaign platform if the person they are running against has it in spades. They needed someone esle to appear as a legitamate contender. Spotlight: Dean
They didn't know much about this guy other than he was Gov. of a small population, very liberal, North-Eastern state. On the surface, an ideal target. It wasn't until they learned more about him that the GOP became aware that Dean did prove a very real and legitimate threat. He was not a leftist, not a liberal, not a pushover. He was passionate, motivated, and had a sterling public service record. The Repug's spent more on ad's against Dean in the week before the Iowa caucuses than on any other candidate. ( this does not take into account illegal methods of campaigning such as the Swift Boat Vererans for Lies). Fortunately, news reporters cannot outright lie. The general practice is to omit the truth and only air the segments that give the sentiment you wish to get across. When Dean fell to Kerry at the Iowa caucuses, it was now easy for the media to show that Kerry was now the emerging candidate in the race and promptly swept up the primaries to follow with very little resistance.

[karynnj]

34. But that definition applies to only a limited set of things

- usually computer things or mechanical things. For example, if you failed a course, I would hope you could take it again, DO SOME THINGS DIFFERENTLY, and then pass it.

In 2007, who knows who will be running, or what the issues are. What I do know, is that for me, if Kerry is running, I will look at the others, but they would have to pass a high threshold because Kerry has seriously impressed me as a man of vision, intelligence, and moral clarity. I trust him more than any politician.

Now, such as I have a preconceived view of Kerry, which is positive. Others have equally defined views that are negative. (If you think of it in the form of those favorability polls - JK and probably HRC will have only a small number in undecided. If another candidate is a strong contender it will be really tricky interpreting the results.

Example (Favorable, non favorable, undecided)
JK or HRC 48 45 7
other 37 28 35

Is other weaker? I have no idea!

[daydreamer]

18. I agree. Kerry was a lousy campaigner. But he did very well

in debates. Unfortunately he made the same mistake Dukakis made which was inexcusable.

[Totally Committed]

7. About 4-1/2 hours after the last vote was cast...

he conceded. 'Nuf said.

Never again... not even for Dog-Catcher.

TC

[elehhhhna]

9. Thanks TC. Good point.

[politicasista]

10. I see you are a Clark supporter

No wonder you dislike Kerry so much. :grr: :cry:

[Totally Committed]

11. No, I'm a Clark Supporter because

... after years and years and years of supporting Kerry here in Mass., I was fed up with him and his sloppy, weak, and pointless campaigns and looked for another candidate to support.

I have known Kerry since 1972, when we were both anti-war activists. Back then I thought he would be a great President, and supported him for years whenever he ran for office. I gave my money and my time freely. The longer I knew him and worked for his campaigns and supported him the more disenchanted I became. I left his campaign for Senator when he ran against Weld before it was over, vowing never to vote for him again for ANYTHING.

I went to the polls and cast my vote for him this time out of respect for Wes Clark, who asked all his supporters to vote for John as a favor to him -- so before you blame him for my attitude, he's not responsible for it, Kerry is. I would have stayed home this last time if it were not for Wes.

Sorry, but thats the reality of the siutuation.

TC

[blm]

13. Name one lawmaker who investigated and exposed more govt. corruption than

John Kerry did.

You may think he's a useless person, but, history won't. Thanks to Kerry we learned alot about the 3 decades of BushInc corruption and manipulation, like with IranContra and BCCI.

[Totally Committed]

16. To believe that is your right...

To believe what I do, is mine.

I didn't say he hadn't done anything. What I said (and maybe badly) was that he never lived up to the greatness he had as a young man. The fire, the passion, and the integrity was eaten up by all the corporate special interests he owed and all the the good will of the people who kept electing him was spat upon each and every time he chose not to show up for a vote (because he was running for President instead of being our Senator) that directly impacted us and our families negatively.

He could have been a contender. Instead, in the end, all he was was a huge disappointment.

TC

[blm]

17. Kerry never took corporate pac money for any of his Senate campaigns.

So WHAT corporate interests did he owe?

In fact, Kerry and Wellstone wrote the Clean Elections bill that went nowhere in the Senate, but, some states have adopted in recent years.

No one with ANY sense of history could claim that Kerry was a disappointment when he uncovered IranContra and BCCI and the illegal wars in Central America. No one but the Republicans who were exposed at the time.

It's not a matter of having the right to "believe it" about his work against govt. corruption when it's in the congressional record and in the National Security Archives. There are also a number of books that you can read on those subjects.

[Totally Committed]

23. Whatever...

I'm tired of this b.s., personally. I'm tired of these pointless fights. I see him one way, you obviously see him another.

Bottom line: He walked away hours after the last vote was cast, leaving you me, my family, my firends and my fellow Americans to live 4 more years under Bush without so much as an iota of challenge.

That says more about his character than all the defenses I could make.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

TC

[blm]

28. I see the HISTORY he made over THREE decades, you see only 1971.

Suit yourself. But, IranContra and BCCI were historic in ways you REFUSE to see for "whatever" reasons.

[daydreamer]

20. I am also a fan of that young Kerry

so charming, so poised and yet with so much fighting spirit.

[blm]

22. You didn't like the Kerry who exposed IranContra and BCCI

or the illegal wars in Central America?

You didn't like the Kerry who worked for 10 years helping to craft the Kyoto Protocol?

You didn't like the Kerry who wrote The New War in 1996, warning of the international financial networks that were funding global terrorism?

Yeah....Kerry was only cool when he helped end the Vietnam War, but not when he helped end the illegal wars in Central America or the Iran-Iraq war.

[Totally Committed]

24. Like I said....

W H A T E V E R . . .

I was there during this period of time, too. How old are you? Are you even old enough to remember this or do believe ALL the campaign literature you read? He wasn't like Don Quioxte out there tilting at windmills all by his lonesome... Yeah, he did some good stuff, but he wasn't alone. Ted Kennedy has always been by his side.

Peace, fercryinoutloud.

TC

[blm]

30. You're wrong. Kerry had to fight even the Kennedys during BCCI.

I have never seen one sentence of campaign literature, I just know my history of the BFEE and how crucial IranContra and BCCI were to democracy itself. If ONLY a few more Dems joined Kerry on those battles.

I'm probably as old as you. I worked on Dennis Kucinich's first run for Congress in 72 when I was a schoolgirl. Govt. corruption is an issue I take seriously.

[daydreamer]

41. But its his fault that he

did not highlight his accomplishments of his senate career during the campaign. He did not sell himself well to the American public.

[blm]

42. His fault he didn't brag, or the media's fault they FORGOT about BCCI

and IranContra and Kerry's book The New War which sounded the alarm on terror and its funding back in 1996?

Did you hear about Kerry's healthcare plan in the MSM which he spoke about at EVERY speech?

Did you hear about Kerry's solution for outsourcing?

Did you hear about Kerry's push for a minimum wage?

Did you hear about his plan to fully fund alternative fuel research with the intensity of the space program?

No. Because it didn't MATTER that Kerry spoke about all these issues and more REPEATEDLY throughout his campaign. The media only wanted to talk about Teresa's money or her scarves, and hey...there's another Swift Vet Liar we can interview for the 20th time.

[daydreamer]

43. Media did play a big role

that's why we will never win if we don't have a TV channel that counters the Fox. Air America is a good start.

[Totally Committed]

26. You have to be young...

Calm yourself. He isn't even running for anything right now. Save it for when he'll need all that zeal. All I am saying is, for me, he is and always will be finito.

TC

[blm]

29. If I were young I wouldn't even KNOW about IranContra or BCCI

or the illegal wars in Central America, would I?

I look at a man's ENTIRE history, not just the 70s.

[Totally Committed]

31. Well, then, bless your heart...

You have a lot more energy and optomism left than I do.

More power to you as you keep fighting the good fight. Kerry should be proud to have people like you still on his side and willing to fight.

TC

[politicasista]

32. I am sorry you're not on Kerry's side anymore

I guess Smirky did a good job of dividing all of us. :nopity:

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Hey now

I'm young and I know about that. :) Thanks to the internet and good old fashioned researching. I applaud him for that.

[Discord]

51. Michael Moore

Did more and reached more of the mainstream public in exposing BushCo than Kerry has ever done.

[blm]

56. Now name ONE lawmaker. Kerry did his work WITHOUT an internet

and with very little media attention as the DC powerstructure, including Dems at the time were lined up against his efforts.

Michael Moore is part of the media and reaching audiences is his career. Do you really feel that what you posted is an appropriate and valid answer?

[Discord]

57. I understand your point...

And not to take away from Kerry's accomplishments. You can go back a very long ways and list off many great things Kerry has accomplished throughout his lifetime. (I say lifetime because of his military service record and political activism even before his stint in politics) but what you should understand about the point in which I was trying to make. Very few people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike heard anything about it. Myself included, as at the time I had political interest, but was not politically active. But through another venue, Michael Moore reached MILLIONS! He bypassed standard media outlets directly into the mainstream and left the political pundits to discuss it in its aftermath. So yes, I would say that the post is entirely relevant.

[blm]

58. He had the media means to do that and the post 9-11 interest of Americans

more engaged in our country's politics.

When Kerry did the bulk of his work, it was without that level of interest from ordinary Americans, without an internet, and without media assistance. In fact, those reporters who worked on those stories would find themselves without a job. That's how Robert Parry lost his job with Newsweek.

BTW...movie screens around the country ARE standard media outlets. Videos and DVDs are now standard media outlets.

There is no comparison. Too bad Moore didn't work to MAKE IranContra and BCCI documentaries. Had BCCI been given greater media and political attention, then 9-11 probably wouldn't have even happened.

[Discord]

61. I think I see it...

We are in agreement with each other but stressing seperate points. You are pointing out about what Kerry has done to expose government corruption and the the actual finished products of the changes he has helped to make. I am pointing out about ways of reaching the masses about the existing corruption in government today. About increasing political awareness. You are promoting Kerry's ability based on his lifetime accomplishments. I am promoting the fact that despite Kerry's and the DNC's best efforts to educate the public on the ineffective and corrupt leadership we are presently under, Michael Moore simply reached more people. Sadly, that is todays best fourm to get a message out to the masses. And theres no reason that the Dem's couldn't help fund the production of other movies that similarly would be effective in getting messages out there to be seen and heard. I mean, the Republican's are creating fake groups and agencies to further thier goals. We already have the support of the movie and music industry. Why not put it to good use?

[blm]

62. Dems shouldn't have to fund the truth. It should be available

and promoted through our established media outlets.

However, since those are controlled mostly by the GOP now, we may have no choice but to make documentaries of ALL the information we have in the National Security Archives that implicates the Bushes and their GOP cronies and coverup artists.

That type of documentary could open alot of eyes.

[Discord]

65. oh I agree 100%

In principle, we absolutely shoudn't have to. We should be able to expose it in the means that are there that were meant for it. But our right, it could open alot of eyes. I wonder if theres any left owned cable networks left that could air a daily or weekly series. Kinda like the X-Files... but all true and documented about the policies and practices of the right wingers. With the follow up show, that points out the "strange coincidences and connections" surrounding the red party. Kinda like a "You Make the Call!" show. LOL

[karynnj]

64. Not the same

Kerry's work was criminal investigation and he and his staff had to meet far higher standards of proof. Kerry's work led to the exposure and proof of coruption. A bank was closed (BCCI) and some of the perjury charges that helped unravel Iran/Contra were for lying to Kerry. (If he were allowed on the Iran/Contra hearings that followed, they may have been tougher.) I do think that especially the BCCI think should have been communicated better. (the contra stuff would be tough to push given the political climate and Reagan's death.)

Moore's work was journalism/film making. Moore's work reported the Bush family's connections already found by others. The claims were put together in an entertaining way, but nothing had to be proved. They were reported in a guilt by association type way that to non-believers seemed slick.

The stronger parts of F911 were the segments on who gets drafted and the damage in Iraq. These two sections showed the glaring weakness in our network's reporting as it should have covered these subjects.

[Discord]

66. I know... see above :) nt

[blm]

14. Clark and Kerry were/are good friends. Just because someone is a Clark

supporter is not a reason to point a finger. Neither Clark or Kerry would.

[cestpaspossible]

19. Yeah, let's save the fights till primary season.

Now is the time for unity.

[politicasista]

25. Sorry blm

I guess I am just still in the post election thread. I can understand everyone's disappointment, but attacking/slamming Kerry won't change what's happened.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Seem the Washington Post is ever so slightly slow on the uptake

We'd already heard in November that Kerry was forming a PAC. All that's been added is the name and when they will start forming it for sure. And the reason given here is the same as it was back in November as well: to fight for things like health care and election reform.

Good to hear continuing news. Thanks Kerrygoddess.

[marcologico]

40. Ditto. Great news! :)

[Dinger]

38. Yawn. . .

:boring:

I supported him strongly during his campaign, but I was very disappoited . . . (imo) he gave up too soon, and responded to slowly to *'s attacks. Then he "let" Ohio dissipate like a fart in the wind. Sorry, he lost me.

[wisteria]

39. Kerry 2008-Yes!

I would like to see him run again. Some may say he didn't do this or that during the campaign,but he faced an uphill battle against a well funded,war president who has possibly the best strategist in politics. They rewrote the book on dirty tricks and shameful smears and flung them his way. The MSM was just shameful. John Kerry struggled to be seen and heard and attempted to get out him coherent messages. He may not have won, but he came close and actually had the the Republicans concerned about losing for awhile. He strikes me as a person who learns from his mistakes and vows not to repeat them. I trust that he will be an excellent candidate this time around if he does run. He has my vote, I want to see excellence restored to the White House.

[lojasmo]

44. Yeah, lets repeat 2004, but without the ABB votes.

Good idea. Let me know how the NEXT one turns out. If Kerry's the nominee, I won't be watching-or voting.

[karynnj]

50. It will still be a choice between a Rep and a Democrat

I would bet that if you spend the time posting on a political board in a non-election year, you will probably vote. In any year, there is a large % of people who will almost certainly vote for their party. Although I would have claimed to be independent, I will admit that given the way the 2 parties are right now, there is no LIKELY Democrat/Republican match where I would vote for the Republican. The two parties are each becoming more homogeneous. In the 60s and 70s, liberal Republicans I admired and might have voted for.

Was I ABB, because I knew I wanted Bush out by winter, 2001. My state's primary was too late last year, but Kerry and Dean were my preferred candidates. By the convention, I was really respected Kerry.
I think this whole ABB thing was used against us. Did we argue that Dole was ABC? or Clinton was ABB&P, or GWB was ABG? In each of those cases, the candidate started with a pretty certain base, which this time was called ABB to diminish Kerry.

[lojasmo]

52. Yeah, you're right....to a point.

I'm pretty sure I won't vote for any DLC bush-kneepad wearing jokers, though.

Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Bayh, etc. won't get my vote.

IWR
Patriot act
NCLB

I will never again vote for a politician who voted for that trifecta.

[CornField]

46. Kerry let me down

I won't support him as a candidate again.

[sadiesworld]

55. No way. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Either Kerry lost fair and square to an absolutely hideous incumbent, or he was beaten by republican owned machines yet didn't say a word.

[dolstein]

59. Considering what a political tin ear this guy has

it really doesn't surprise me that Kerry is the last person to realize that his presidential hopes are forever dashed.

[cestpaspossible]

63. What has he said that makes you think that?

Has Kerry made some statement that he plans to run again that I missed? If not, upon what facts are you basing your assertion of what he believes?

[Zhade]

60. Good for him!

He won't get my vote again.