Kennedy: I'll Support Kerry in 2008 Race

[IN-dem]

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 12,11:01 PM ET

BOSTON - Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday he would back fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 — even if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also pursues a White House bid.

"If he runs, I would support him," Kennedy told The Associated Press in an interview at his Boston office.

While Kennedy has frequently entertained the New York senator and her husband, former President Clinton, he said his loyalty is to Kerry. Early polling shows Clinton and Kerry among the favorites for their party's nomination in 2008, but neither has said for sure whether they'll run.

Kennedy called Kerry, the 2004 nominee, an "able, gifted and talented political leader."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_el_pr/kennedy2008;_ylt=AixRpADSj_bN5e_e3UD31Xms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[kster]

1. Dem's looks like the team that plays against Harlem Globetrotters

they are paid to look like they are trying to win. But we all know they won't.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Exactly what do statements like this accomplish?

Are you for any Democrats at all?

[roguevalley]

3. I'm for a lot of dems. I just don't have to be for all dems. Teddy

gets a pass from me every time. He's loyal and he's a grandee of the party. Go, Teddy. I will however only vote for Kerry if I have to. I don't have to get hit in the face with a frying pan twice to know its not a good thing.

And, having an opinion is not a bad thing either.

[Tesha]

6. You know, it's funny...

> I will however only vote for Kerry if I have to.

Get ready, it will come to that. Once again, the Democrats will put
up an appallingly bad candidate who is acceptable to the Corpor-
atocrats, and we'll be told "DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!" and that we should
all hold our noses and vote for the bastard/bastardette.

And because hope always triumphs over experience, we'll do it.

And the Dem will lose but because we all came out, held our noses,
and voted for the bastard/bastardette, the Democrats *STILL* won't
learn the lesson that we all think their recent candidates have all
sucked and that the only reason we voted for them was the (D) next
to their name. So next time, still convinced that they're on the right
course, the Democrats will nominate another appallingly awful
candidate and the cycle can repeat yet again, in another election
that will be proclaimed *"THE MOST IMPORTANT EVER!"

One of these elections, we really need to walk away, vote for a
candidate we really believe in, and let the chips fall where they may.
In 2004, at the last minute, I decided to hold my nose and vote for
Kerry. But if the Dems give us either Kerry or Clinton in 2008, there
is *NO WAY* that I will be convinced to hold my nose again.

Tesha

[blm]

17. Corporatists wanted a nominee who advocated for public financed campaigns

for 20 years and submitted that legislation with Paul Wellstone before the McCain-Feingold bill that got all the media attention?

Corporatists wanted a nominee who worked for 10 years to craft the Kyoto Protocol with other world leaders?

Corporatists wanted a nominee who advocated more defense dollars go to military personnel and their families and cut the millions in profits for big defense executives, and for the cancellation of star wars and tactical nuke programs?

Corporatists wanted a nominee who would sign an executive order to forbid any government contract to go to companies using offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying US taxes?

It's tough for Democrats to get the media to be honest in its characterizations of them. It's sad when Democratic activists spread false characterizations of people in their own party.

[Tesha]

30. You seem to assume that I assume it will be Kerry.

You seem to assume that I assume it will be Kerry.

I made no such assumption in my post; I merely assumed that the
Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party will deliver up, as usual,
a candidate who is to their liking, and (ergo) probably not to
the liking of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Tesha

[blm]

32. You said it yourself "Kerry or Clinton" as if corporatists would choose

Kerry.

That completely ignores the FACT that Kerry NEVER took corporate pac money in any of his senate races and has accumulated a very progressive record over the last 20 years that was furthest left of ALL the Dem lawmaker candidates last year, including Dennis Kucinich. No corporatist machine prefers a nominee with the BEST environmental record.

The tragedy is that too many people new to political activism believed the false characterizations and attacks that were heaped upon Kerry since 2002 just because of his support of IWR to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

[Tesha]

33. Context is everything, and you're not reading mine.

I said there was *NO WAY* I would vote for Kerry or Clinton.
But that was a rather-confined statement at the very end of
my post.

The rest of my post spoke nuch more-generally of Corporatist
Democrats (of which either of us could probably come up with
a dozen or more, not just Kerry and Clinton).

Please don't embarrass yourself by attempting to distort
my words.

Tesha

[blm]

38. You rail against corporatists and mention two names with the clear

implication that they're the choice of corporatists.

So, now you're saying that you DIDN'T mean that, and I am mistaken....fine...then why would you even HAVE to hold your nose for the most progressive Dem nominee of the last half century and say so after a post railing against corporatists?

[Tesha]

40. I had *NO PROBLEM* voting for Dukakis and Mondale.

> ...then why would you even HAVE to hold your nose for the most
> progressive Dem nominee of the last half century...

I had *NO PROBLEM* voting for either Dukakis or Mondale!

One of those two must be who you're talking about, because you
surely can't be talking about Mr. "I voted for the war before
I voted against the war".

Tesha

[blm]

42. He never said that...that's another false characterization. Why promote

something so demonstrably false?

Kerry voted for an 87b dollar bill that had guidelines for the money spent and demanded an accounting to prove that the money being spent was going to needs like body armor and the needs of the troops and their families. He then voted AGAINST the bill that Bush wanted that had no accountability for the money spent.

Surely you couldn't be so unfamiliar with Kerry's entire record in the Senate that PROVES his Dem creds?

You can't even NAME a lawmaker who comes close to investigating and exposing more government corruption than John Kerry. He also accumulated the closest rating to Paul Wellstone out of all the Dem candidates last year.

I am surprised that ANYONE would claim he's not part of the Democratic wing of the party, when his lifetime rating put him well to Dean's left and even Kucinich's lifetime rating. In fact, though he was in the senate for 20 years, his Dem rating was the same as Carol Braun's who served for just 6 years. That's not easy to do over 20 years.

[Tesha]

44. He's the salt of the earth. That's why he's president now! (NT)

[blm]

48. And that's why Free Republic beat DU at their task last year.

Kerry beat Bush decisively in their one on one matchups.

The DNC failed to organize as scrupulously as the RNC did in their matchup.

The left-leaning and objective media had their ASSES handed to them by a RW message machine that dominated the news shows on a daily basis. They couldn't tell the truth as well or as firmly as the RW could lie. They couldn't cut through when it was needed on a DAILY BASIS.

Of course, owning most of the broadcast media was a huge help for the RW message machine.

That media even elevated Free Republic as a legitimate news source while ignoring forums like DU. Cspan even linked to FR with DU nowhere in sight.

And yet BushInc still had to pull out a Bin Laden tape and forced to rig the voting machines to maintain power.

[Der Blaue Engel]

13. As long as you're for some Dems

I was just curious about people who seem anti-Dem, but it looks like I misunderstood the poster.

[Tesha]

31. I am opposed to DLC (Corporatist) Dems.

I am opposed to DLC (Corporatist) Dems.

If the party wishes to run an *ACTUAL* Democrat*, I would gladly
support such a person, but I'm pretty sure I'm done supporting
Corporatist Dems.

Tesha



* You know, one who unashamedly stands for all the Democratic
values I think most of us stand for and the DLC doesn't:

o Human rights
o No torture
o No needless, pointless wars
o Women's rights
o Gay rights
o Freedom *FROM* religion as well as freedom to be Christian
o Global environmental protection
o Species protection
o Safety nets for the poor
o Etc.
o Etc.

[blm]

39. What corporatist Dem did you support in the past?

.

[Tesha]

43. Why Kerry, of course. But you knew that. ,-) (NT)

[blm]

49. ....

John Kerry Says No on Proposition 75
For Immediate Release

Washington, DC - John Kerry stood with California’s firefighters, teachers and nurses today to announce his opposition to Proposition 75.

“We need to do more to empower Americans’ voices in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. – not silence them,” said Kerry. “Proposition 75 isn’t reform, it's an assault on the right of working people to speak up against corporate interests and powerful lobbyists. This initiative is nothing more than yet another recycled attempt to limit the power of the people who work the hardest to educate our children and keep us safe and secure – our firefighters, our teachers, our nurses and our police officers.”

“To deliver reform, government needs instead to stop giving all the breaks to all the special interests,” Kerry continued. “I urge Californians to vote no on Prop 75. The special interests who stand to benefit from this initiative are counting on a low turnout in the election this November. They wanted to force taxpayers to pay an extra $54 million for a special election in November because they know special elections have lower turnouts. But we aren’t going to let that happen. Californians know how powerful their votes can be and will not be silenced by these cynical tactics.”

Proposition 75 is a deceptive measure put on this fall’s special election ballot designed to silence the voices of firefighters, teachers and nurses and increase the power corporate special interests have over government. It is similar to the so-called Paycheck Protection Bill that failed in California in 1998 but it only targets public sector employees like firefighters, police officers, teachers and nurses.

Kerry has helped to lead the fight against the control of corporate special interests in Washington, calling for more accountability in Washington and fewer special giveaways for the big corporations and special interests. Whether it was fighting alongside John McCain to pass campaign finance reform, joining Paul Wellstone as a champion of “Clean Campaigns, Clean Elections” political reform, or standing up to powerful lobbyists to eliminate wasteful corporate subsidies, Kerry has been an independent voice working to put power in the hands of average Americans. He is also a long time supporter of campaign reform initiatives that truly reform the system. Prop 75 does not.

[kster]

9. Yes, every damn one of them

thats why it is important to keep spreading the word about these secret vote counting machines.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. Then why are you saying they're being paid to take a fall

and don't even want to win. Or am I totally misunderstanding your post?

[kster]

11. I don't know what else to call it

There is mountains of evidence that says that the votes are being counted in secret, whether you or I believe it or not, the Dem's and the honest Repugs (for that matter) will not put a stop to it.

I'm not saying to look in to 2004,but with the information that is out there from 2004 they should be trying to put a stop to the corporate vote stealing machines for 2006.

But silence from all but a few of them. I don't get it? It all reminds me of the Harlem Globetrotters syndrome. Because they always needed a team to play with to make the game look legit.

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. I agree that the vote counts are being manipulated

But I don't believe that all in Congress know or believe this. I think the ones who have been vocal about it are taking a brave stand (and I think some of these don't stand to lose even if they're dismissed as conspiracy theorist wingnuts), but I don't think that makes the rest cowards or co-conspirators. I think most are frustrated and suspicious, but feel they have no compelling evidence that would warrant making open accusations. There is probably another sizeable group who are in denial (like much of the country), and then of course a few who just stink.

What remains to be seen is who will back legislation for real change. I still have faith. Maybe it'll be gone next year. But right now I still believe.

[kster]

27. True but, even if they

don't want to make accusations and or don't believe that the machines are being rigged, why not atleast look at the evidence going forward to 06 and fight for the changes needed to stop secret vote counting. Anyone in the government with a little common sense that looks at the evidence on the internet will know that if the machines can be rigged, they will be rigged.

.

[dmkinsey]

4. This sort of story is basically meaningless

the MSM operates in the most conventional, unimaginative way.
Their conventional thinking is that because John Kerry was the Democratic candidate last time he'll be our candidate next time. So they go ask Sen. Kennedy if he'd support Sen. Kerry.
Instant space filler

The reality is that it's a long time until the first primary, we haven't even established a calendar for the primaries. Plenty of time for candidates to come forward.

[Tesha]

5. Ted was wrong then and he's wrong now.

We need a fighter, not an equivocator who votes for the war before
he votes against the war before he speaks for the war before...

Tesha

[mattclearing]

8. Agreed.

I don't think Democrats are going to nominate anyone who voted for the Iraq War. It will reflect poorly on their judgment.

That leaves: Feingold, Warner, Gore, and Clark.

[second edition]

18. Kerry didn't vote to go to war! Bush did that all by himself! n/t

[NNN0LHI]

23. Kerry should have mentioned that during the election. He might have won

Instead he said that even though Bush lied to and manipulated him and the whole country with the bogus WMD threat he would have still voted to give the Chimp authorization to invade Iraq. That confused me. I am sure it confused some others.

Don

[Bridget Burke]

26. Some people are more easily confused....

than others.

[blm]

41. He said he'd vote for IWR. A res to get weapons inspections.

The IWR would have prevented war if implemented honestly.

By spinning that the IWR was a blank check for war, the media let Bush off the hook for failing to follow its guidelines, and no matter how many times Kerry said that Bush wrongly rushed to war without the proof necessary, the media refused to question Bush's right to do so.


Weapons inspections proved invasion was unnecessary. Bush LIED and declared that even after weapons inspections he....and HE alone....has determined the need for military force.

Try blaming Bush for not administering the IWR honestly.

Blaming the IWR lets Bush off the hook. It gives the impression that Bush HAD no guidelines to meet before he went to war, when he DID. They won that spin, thanks to a complicit media and too many on the left who were snookered into believing that the IWR gave Bush all he wanted to go to war.

[mattclearing]

25. You must be joking, right? n/t

[Tesha]

29. No, he only voted to give the stupidest president in history...

No, he only voted to give the stupidest* president in history,
a president *EVERYONE* knew was out to settle old scores with
Saddam Hussein, the authority to *GO TO WAR*.

As if event B didn't follow directly as a consequence of event A.

Tesha


*Or most malicious president, doesn't really matter.

[blm]

35. Bush did that himself. Blame Bush. IWR would've PREVENTED war if

implemented honestly. Weapons inspections were a provision of the IWR. War was only an option if the president DETERMINED it was necessary AFTER weapons inspections.

And what many conveniently forget is that Bush was prepared to go in WITHOUT a resolution, by enforcing the original 1991 UN resolution which would have been firmer legal ground for him. But, he and Rove wanted a congressional resolution for the sole purpose of dividing the Dem party before the 2002 and 2004 elections.

With a GOP majority setting the agenda, a res WAS going to happen, no matter what. People like Kerry and Gephardt at least managed to get weapons inspections into the resolution as a condition of military action and absorbed the Biden-Lugar provision that Bush needed to send a letter to Congress explaining his decision. (Many forget that Dean supported the B-L version of the resolution which was not significantly different than the final draft of the IWR.)

Rove's media controlled the framing and convinced the people that a vote for IWR meant full support of war. That let Bush off the hook and he was never forced to explain to the media and the public HOW he came to the determination that was force was necessary AFTER weapons inspections proved military invasion was NOT necessary.

The IWR also said that Bush had to make that determination in an official document letter to Congress. Bush should be impeached for declaring in that letter that even after weapons inspections, invading Iraq was necessary for national security.

Because so many in the media and the public believed the spin that IWR gave Bush a "blank check" to do as he pleased, few are savvy enough to question how Bush ILLEGALLY went to war by not administering the guidelines of the IWR in any honest way.

Sorry, but too many on the left have propagated that major lie by blaming the IWR for war....just as Rove predicted they would. They won that spin.

[butterfly77]

22. i agree..

and we need someone to say what they mean and mean what they say.

[unhappycamper]

7. IN-dem:

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

[WI_DEM]

12. No big deal, they are from the same state

if they run. Harkin has said he will support Vilsak. Schumer will support Hillary. Leahy supported Dean in '04. It's just the way it usually is.

[blm]

14. Johnson is lying about 2000 and FOX ran with that lie and furthered it.

Last night FOX had a NEWS break and said that Kennedy and Kerry were on the outs because Kennedy favored Edwards last year and ONLY came out for Kerry after he became the obvious nominee.

THIS is how corporate media tries to keep Dems divided, with snarky little lies that seem too small to be corrected, but that become part of a storyline ....a great big lying storyline.

They did shit like this to Gore with the internet and Love Story lies.

[second edition]

19. Thanks for setting the record straight. I thought it was odd that

Kennedy would come out in favor of Edwards over Kerry.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Teddy has one vote - just like the rest of us. Kerry won't get mine.

I like Teddy, but that doesn't make his choice in candidates any more reliable than anyone else's.

[second edition]

20. Well, Kerry's got mine if he runs. That makes two against your one. n/t

[butterfly77]

21. Don't run Kerry

We do not need to go through that again!

[seabeyond]

24. run kerry. we exactly need to go thru this again

i will support kerry. and i think it will be exciting times. i like what i see kerry doing, both in the campaign, and now

[Mass]

28. What a surprise! Kennedy supporting Kerry?

:sarcasm:

I guess that the rest of the interview was attacking Bush and the Repugs too much and that Johnson was too lame to publish it.

Can people on DU get a grip and stop bashing Kerry at each occasion, or should each of us jump in every thread concerning somebody they will not support to make a comment.

The person who deserves to be bashed here is Glenn Johnson. He is given an interview by one of the major leading Democrats on the Senate and the only thing he finds worth publishing is that Kennedy would support Kerry? May be he should change his job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Just Want A Democrat Back In The White House...

Kerry would be a stronger candidate than some and weaker than others...


I'm sick and tired of losing....


Losing doesn't suit me....

[Deja Q]

36. I could make a vile joke right now, but I won't.

Mostly because, unlike for Kerry, I have some respect for Kennedy.

But I will say I will not vote for Kerry in 2008. He was a horse's heiney in election 2004; he could have slammed Bushiekins SEVERAL times. Instead he often enough opted to dodge the issues entirely. He was scripted. I was yelling at the tv.

The whole debate was a farce.

Indeed, Kerry telling that lady in episode 3 that she'd not ever be likely to become a millionaire probably changed her tune, not to say quite a few swing voter viewers to boot.

We need a candidate who will speak to his mind. Not a frigging script or say things that'll make people question his sincerity. We get enough damn scripts in tv shows. We do not need the definition of tv to go from scripted pablum to "reality" shows to selecting our very leaders!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. He Beat Bush Like A Drum In The First Debate

He outscored him in the next two...



That being said I can think of better candidates than Kerry in 08 but I can also think of worse...

[Tesha]

45. Hear, hear! (NT)

[Mass]

46. I'm sure Kerry has the greatest respect for Kennedy

You, on the other hand, do not. Kennedy is entitled to his own opinions and does not have to agree with you.

For the rest, I cannot figure out what you mean, except, may be, for the fact that you are repeating some RW talking point. Do you actually believe this lady was likely to become a millionaire. So may be it is time to call a spade a spade. Most people who vote Republican do it because they believe they may become millionaire one day AND NOBODY TELLS THEM IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

And if you think we need reality shows to choose our leaders, we certainly do not believe in the same thing. The republican party is probably what you need.

[globalvillage]

47. Me too, Teddy.

I will support the Dem nominee, whoever that is, but I'm hoping Sen Kerry gets another chance.
He learned from the mistakes of the '04 campaign. He's fighting for us every day in the senate and he's actively campaigning for '06 candidates.
Sen Kerry had the choice, after the election, to fade into the background or fight even harder for us and for his own beliefs.
I'm glad he made the choice to keep working for us.
Anyone who thinks he's not either has a different view of Democratic values or is just not paying attention.