John Kerry Must Go (WTF is this baloney from the VillageVoice?)

[w4rma]

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway

John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.
…
Additional reporting: Alicia Ng and Phoebe St John
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Kerry is being wimpy in his attacks on Bush

It is too late to get rid of him though.

[RobertSeattle]

4. Wimpy?

Today's counter was awesome.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html

[Classical_Liberal]

7. That is nice he is defending his PERSONAL

record, but he needs to actually attack Bush on the war, and differ with Bush on foreign policy.

[hughee99]

10. I agree

Looking at the other forum messages here, there sure are a lot of people who would rather have someone else as the nominee. It's to late for that now though. Kerry has to go on the offensive about relevant issues (the economy, healthcare and other serious election issues) rather than spending his time talking about Vietnam. Those who care have already made up their mind, and those who don't aren't hearing his message.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. He needs to talk about the middle east

not viet nam.

[ArkDem]

60. His message needs to be more than

"I am not George Bush".

[DarthReagan]

12. Edwards would have been stronger

I still think he'd have put several southern states in play and held onto Gore states without trouble.

[Skwmom]

55. Edwards would sink like the Titanic once his

channeling of an unborn child became common knowledge. The repubs wouldn't even need to expose Edwards as a phony populist to destroy him (however they would in order to argue that the Democrats don't really care about the poor and working class).

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The writer of the article really shouldn't call anyone a dim-bulb and then mention Edwards as a viable alternative.

[RobertSeattle]

2. Nattering Nabobs

Wasn't this just on Drudge's home page? Ack.

[Classical_Liberal]

9. Do you want Kerry to end up like Nixon was to LBJ

Changes in tactics and personell are needed.

[papau]

72. Not sure Village Voice op-eds by Ridgeway and Schanberg are important

This "Village Voice Dump Kerry" comes down to Ridgeway and Schanberg op-eds.

Now our friend James Ridgeway writes and rewrites a "dump the Dem" column to pay the rent every few months (He did dump Gore variations in the way back).

As for book selling Schanberg ("Did America Abandon Vietnam War POWs?" by Sydney H. Schanberg) and his POW blast at Kerry in his op-ed http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind - - When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A. - by Sydney H. Schanberg -February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM, well he does the same article every few months to sell his book (Related Articles: "Did America Abandon Vietnam War POWs?" by Sydney H. Schanberg ). Of course the real heros like McCain slap him down, knowing the years Kerry put into the POW/MIA quest.

But it is interesting to see Nader/Bush folks pushing the "Village Voice anti-Kerry" angle on DU.

[jpgray]

3. The same people predicted a Kerry loss in the primary

The pundits have a lousy record for prognosticating these things. And Village Voice is a schizoid mag to begin with.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Kerry won by getting rid of the Dem hawks and replacing them

with Kennedy people. Now he is letting the hawks run his campaign again and fucking up royally.

Although it would also be nice to have a candidate that thinks for himself.

[jpgray]

8. No, I think Kerry is just sitting back and letting Bush spend his money

The fact that they are at near parity now in finances is incredible. Kerry is running to the center because that's where the votes are, and the media will do the best to piss off progressives at every opportunity to divide the base and ensure a Bush win. Their main goal is to distract people from replacing Bush, and rather focus their attention on being unhappy with Kerry. From the looks of this forum, it's working great so far.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Hint the center doesn't like the war

those that do with vote for Bush. Most of the states that are in contention are places that are antiwar, like Pennsylvania, Iowa and Minnesota.

[jpgray]

16. All the polls disagree with you

Remember, even after Kent state, according to the Gallup poll only 11% sided with the students while 58% sided with the guardsmen. Antiwar activism is not at all popular with mainstream America. I wish it were, but it most certainly is not. Antiwar candidates generally meet a brief and ignomious end at the hands of flag-waving media and public apathy.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. This isn't about antiwar activists. It is about the war

and most of America wants an alternative vision to Bush. Those that don't will vote Bush. Also your Kent State example indicates you would like a Nixon. Why the hell would you like a Nixon?

[jpgray]

23. You said the centrists are against the war. That isn't true

That you would tie that into my preferring a Nixon might show you how illogical some of your conclusions have been thus far. By 52 to 41 percent, Americans believe this war was the right thing to do. And still, they trust Bush on handling the war far more than Kerry. Kerry's plan is already quite sensible--de-Americanize the reconstruction of Iraq, and change the war on terrorism to more law enforcement than military invasion. Guess what? Americans are patriotic blowhards or too uninformed to realize this. The media will not report these differences, and rather if Kerry were to take the hard line on Iraq many desire, they would define him to death as a terrorist supporter and sympathizer and everyone would buy it, no matter how wrong it was. There is a reason Dean and Kucinich lost the primaries, and it isn't because they were bad candidates or had bad policies. They simply weren't aware of what the media can do to a candidacy, and how jingoistic or uninformed the American public can be.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. I know the South likes the war

but the swing states don't. Particularly the states where there is a Nader threat.

In order the escape Nixon's fate, Kerry will have to look ahead to where polls are going and not just where they are. Bush's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Dean knocked those poll numbers down to war this race is winnable, by relentlessly attacking Bush. Kerry will have to knock those numbers down more to win. That means Kerry must raise a stink about Bush's handling of foreign policy rather than agreeing with Bush on everything.

[jpgray]

28. But Dean lost. Kucinich lost. Both relentlessly attacked Bush

Americans aren't interested in the kind of antiwar rhetoric that Dean and Kucinich espouse, and the proof is in the primary results. They had the opportunity to vote for that, and they didn't care to. One can argue the media played a substantial role, but one can't argue that people just didn't vote for the antiwar candidates. I was against the war, and my policy stances are mostly in line with Kucinich, but I am so sick of people focusing on their disappointment with Kerry to the exclusion of any effort to beat Bush that I am going to sit out DU until after Novemeber. I get too involved in these arguments, and it is really depressing. Criticizing Kerry is extremely important--no one should vote for him without knowing his flaws. Beating Bush is more important to me, however, so I'm going to spend the time I normally DU writing LTTEs and working for the Kerry camp. I get the feeling here that I am increasingly just wasting my time. No foul on you, just pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back in this case. See you in Nov. :hi:

[Classical_Liberal]

29. That was because of the neocon pundits

Fulluja proves what fools those people are. If it hadn't been for Dean Kerry wouldn't be in a winning position. I hope Kerry fires his foreign polciy advisors and replaces them with asskickers so we can win in November. By criticizing Kerry's wimpyness in hopes that he will fight back, like he promised in Texas, and I am focusing on efforts to win the election.

[Guaranteed]

51. That's not right at all.

People are most certainly interested in the anti-Iraq-war rhetoric. Don't know how many times it has to be said, but the reason Dean lost Iowa was because of the word "unelectable." And even those who were anti-Iraq-war, ESPECIALLY those who were anti-Iraq-war, bought it, because they KNEW how important it is to get Bush out of the White House. They didn't realize that they weren't alone.

Your statement completely contradicts ABB sentiment.

Besides, AGAIN, it was the TAXES issues, not the foreign policy issues, that were Dean's weakness.

[zoeyfong]

58. Might have helped if half the dem leadership didn't jump on the war band-

wagon. The public is easily led, and when many dems as well as almost all repubs are saying the war is necessary and wise, what do you expect the polls to show? Even now, many dems are mouthing the 'stay the course' mantra, rather than speaking the truth about the certain failure that awaits us at the end of the course. Anti-war candidates have a difficult time getting elected because of this self-reinforcing group-think, but the solution is not just to accept it; leaders must lead, and our democratic representatives in congress, including Kerry, are not doing it.

[Guaranteed]

22. Man, this isn't a "run to the center" election.

That's a peace-time election. That's a Clinton-Dole election.

Do you see Bush running to the center? No. Why? Because during times like these people want to see leadership and direction! They want clear decisiveness in their representation. They're not screwing around.

The sooner Kerry gets his shit together and starts making a solid argument, the sooner he'll start beating the crap out of Bush in the polls.

[Old and In the Way]

30. So why is the 6/30 "handover" non-negotiable?

Because Bush has to moderate his war hard-on to win the election. He's hoping that Americans don't look at the issue too closely and assume he's ending the war and leaving Iraq. He's not doing that for the radical RW....he's doing that to get votes from the center.

[Guaranteed]

49. Yeah, but that's not "moderation."

That's "covering your ass."

Look more closely at the "non-negotiable" part.

[Old and In the Way]

52. OK, Kerry's covering his ass, too.

[Guaranteed]

54. No, Kerry's wussing out. nt

[jewishlib]

32. I am totally disappointed in Kerry.

He is turning out to be nothing more than Bush lite in his foreign policy statements. Same approach, different tactics, is just not good enough. We need a liberal with a spine, like Kucinich. Kerry is a total embarrasment, a slave of the same military-industrial complex built up by paleo-cons.

[no name no slogan]

47. Welcome to DU, jewishlib!!!!

And I couldn't agree with you more re: Kerry's foreign policy issues. You're correct-- his FP positions are not too far off from Bush in its insistence on "winning" the war in Iraq, unconditionally supporting the likes of Sharon, and waging a so-called "war on terror" that seems little different from the one Reagan declared in the 80s, which has led to the present situation.

Right now, I'm voting for Kerry because of his domestic policy, and the hopes that he returns to what he was like in 1990. But I'd feel a lot better about voting for him if he were to come up with a foreign policy distinctly different from that of Shrub.

:hi:

[jewishlib]

48. Thanks for the welcome, but

what precisely do you mean by return to what he was like in 1990? Can you be more specific? Also, why are you wasting your vote on a hope and a prayer that someone will turn out to be like you want?

[no name no slogan]

69. Kerry in the early days

Kerry was the one who led the investigation into Iran/Contra and the BCCI scandal. He also voted against Operation Desert Storm, and was not afraid to stand up to Republicans when it mattered. I still hold out hope that the John Kerry from back then is buried somewhere in the corporate-friendly John Kerry of today.

Unfortunately, much of Kerry's "liberal" record is in the past-- hence the reason why he's given a higher liberal rating than Kucinich by many organizations.

As far as "wasting" my vote this year, let me give you a little background on myself. I'm a native Minnesotan, and I became a Democrat in 1988 after meeting and working with Paul Wellstone on a local legislative race. He inspired a whole generation of young people in the late 80s and 90s, and got them into party politics.

After the 1994 debacle, I abandoned the Dems. The DLC and their ilk had thoroughly ruined the party for me, and I got sick and tired of having to battle the Repubs in my own party before we even got to a general election. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 because I'm in a solid "blue" state, and I didn't care for the positions of either Clinton or Gore on most issues.

After the 2000 election theft and Paul Wellstone's death in 2002, I got back into DFL party politics. I helped organize my state for Kucinich, where we got 17% of the vote despite no money, almost no press coverage, and even trivialization by our own party leadership. Regardless of that, DK supporters are now being sought out and actively welcomed into the party, because they see the devotion and energy we can give them for progressive candidates, and they need that to revitalize their party.

Now, members in our statewide organization are getting into the party at all levels. We now have numerous county unit chairpeople and officers, and many delegates to the state party central committee, too (I myself am one of those). We're here because we want to the party to move leftward and stand up for our traditional Democratic values.

However, we're also realists. They system in this country is designed to support two broadbased coalition parties. Right now, that's the Repubs on the right (big business, religious conservatives, etc) and the Democrats on the left, theoretically (labor, racial/cultural minorities, civil libertarians, educators, anti-war/anti-imperialism activists, etc.).

Until the system itself is reformed (with IRV, proportional representation, etc.), the only way to change things in this country is by working with/through one of the major parties. Yes, I'm not very happy about Kerry's positions on many things, but he is still somewhat better than Shrub's band of brigands. I doubt I'll campaign for Kerry, or donate money to Kerry's campaign, but I will vote for him, nonetheless.

Noveber 2, 2004 is just one election. Most of us are here for the long haul. No matter who wins, we'll still have an unfriendly congress, and many Repub-controlled state legislatures and/or governorships. We still won't have single-payer healthcare, an end to US imperialism, a sane military budget or enough money to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. We'll STILL be working hard, at all levels, to make these things possible.

November 2 is not the end, but Noveber 3 is just the beginning.

[GreenPartyVoter]

63. Welcome! I'd love for Dennis to be the candidate!

[Finch]

64. Ha Ha Ha...

...yeah we need someone more liberal than Kerry... yeah that'll work... LOL... thats 20% of the population in the Bag!... nominate Kucinich with his lunatic polices and watch as we realise that McGovern did ok...


Its about connecting with the hopes and values of ordinary Americans, and neither an uncompromising conservative or an extreme liberal can hope to do this... Bush is playing as a moderate removed from the zealots of his administration... Kerry needs to seem like a moderate as well and needs to argue that he is the best candidate to reflect the views of most Americans and help them realise their aspirations...no extremist could ever do this...

But hey if you think a candidate who demeans the values and beliefs of most Americans and a great many democrats then go ahead nominate Kucinich, look I’m sure he’s principled (now) but he doesn’t tolerant any view except his own... just don’t expect me or one other moderate democrat to stick around in such, we're tired of being pushed around so much by the liberal wing of the party, its the intolerance of others your as bad as the right of the GOP, just for g*** sake be a little more tolerant and sensible... if such a thing as nominating Kucinich ever happened of course we moderates would as always be there to pick up the pieces from the ensuing electoral disaster and rebuild the party, such has always been the case and sadly will probably always be the case… ahh well…

[beyurslf]

66. Agreed.

I may be a member of the liberal wing but I understand that America wants someone in the center. Would Kerry support Roe v Wade? Will Keerry's choices for the Court be the same as Bush's? I don't want Bush's Court influencing my life for a generation so I will support Kerry whole heartedly even if I don't think he was the candidate most in line with my views.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. Hmmm.

Its about connecting with the hopes and values of ordinary Americans, and neither an uncompromising conservative or an extreme liberal can hope to do this...


Explain Chimp.

[no name no slogan]

70. Nice try, keep talking up the GOP talking points

Kucinich's policies are actually closer to where the mainstream American public is (which, btw is different from the VOTING public).

And, BTW, as a DLCer, I have to ask you which policies of his are "lunatic"?

I doubt it's the de-corporatization of our healthcare system. After all, most Americans favor a single-payer health care system-- 70% of Americans and 50%+ of Republicans, according to Pew. I'd hardly call his position on the issue "lunatic". BOLD, yes, but lunatic, no.

I also doubt it has anything to do with his stance on "free trade". After all, 64% of Americans believe that global trade pushes DOWN US wages, rather than increasing them (Market Strategies/Committee for Free Trade, via Jim Hightower's "Thieves In High Places"; hardcover, p.121).

Americans know that so-called "free trade" favors the rich and the corporations over the average working person: 72% say that the President and Congress give too little consideration to working people when formulating their policies (University of Maryland, via Hightower, p.122). Americans know the truth about so-called "free trade" policies-- too bad their politicians don't, or are TOO AFRAID to stand up for them.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt it has anything to do with his stance on a free public education (preschool through college) for anybody who can do the work. After all, 73% of Americans believe there's too little spending for education, while only 7% think there's too much (Gallup, via Hightower, p.120). The rest of the industrialized world also heavily subsidized public education through college-- it only makes sense that, to be competitive, we should do the same.

And what is so "lunatic" about cooperating with the rest of the world as EQUALS, not as the imperial bully that has to have its own way. What's "lunatic" about organizing around peaceful, nonviolent principles? Most Americans don't want perpetual war-- they sure don't want to send their children off to die for the benefit of a rich elite who controls the reigns of power.

As a lifelong liberal, it disgusts me to see the party of Hubert Humphrey, JFK and LBJ so far to the right that such things as universal health care and strengthening public education are seen as "lunacy". And yet the so-called "moderates" claim that they've "saved" the party after electoral defeats-- i.e., Bill Clinton. But let's look at what they've "saved".

During Clinton and the DLC's tenure, we've lost not only the US Senate, but also the US House after 40 years of control. Our numbers in state houses are the lowest since 1962. More Republican governors are in charge than before. Other than two pluralities in the 1990s, the DLC has done little if anything to strengthen the party-- unless you consider fundraising to equal popular support and winning elections.

Not to mention that Americans are now voting at lower and lower levels than ever before. In 2000, barely 50% of the population voted-- 50%!!!! Why?

Because most voters could not tell the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on the issues that affected them!

On jobs and trade, Al Gore and GeeDubya both supported NAFTA and policies that favored corporations over workers.

On the "war on drugs", both men favored militaristic "interventions" in foreign countries rather than rehabilitation and addressing the causes of drug abuse.

Both men promised to be "tough on crime" at a time when we have the largest per capita prison population IN THE WORLD. We spend more on imprisoning our population that we do on educating it-- what kind of message are we sending?

You could hardly blame most Americans for staying home in 2000, when both men were reading from the same playbook.

America is not nearly as "moderate" as so many believe. There's 50% who don't vote, and who overwhelmingly prefer liberal policies over conservative policies. Yet so many in the party think it's more valuable to fight over the 5% of the voting age population known as the "moderate middle" than to get even 10% of non-voters a REASON to vote.

But, if you want the Democrats to become the Whig party of the 21st century, give it your best shot. The DLC and its corporate cronies have done a great job so far-- but don't expect the rest of us to sit still and take it.

[Cocoa]

5. the fool is even using the "medals" nonsense

what a moron.

[seventhson]

13. I am one hundred percent behind Kerry

but I also think Ridgeway is right.

Kerry is the candidate, pure and simple, so this is just wishful thinking on Ridgeway's part and is counterproductive.

Thing is, Kerry needs to get his shit more together and critiques like this might well help.

No way the dems are going back to Dean. This is a Democracy. Dean lost the primary as did Edwards, and going back now would be untenable strategically.

I could see a Gore/Clinton ticket or even a Dean Edwards ticket and I might even prefer a Hillary/Edwards or Hillary/Kerry ticket.

But I think it is a pipe dream.

Ridgeway has spent too much time in New York where they make too much common sense but are NOT like the rest of the country.

[Cocoa]

25. why didn't he include the sex scandal

the one Drudge printed that so many people promoted here at DU?

The one that even the Fox News panel declined to promote, but which some DUers kept going for days?

[seventhson]

34. There is a huge difference between the two

and there is no serious evidence to support it (altho I believed at the time that there was such evidence which never materialized).

On the other hand, the medals flap is one which I felt strongly was a liability (hopefully not a serious or fatal one) which was substantially supported by the evidence of Kerry's obfuscation and/or lack of consistency about the incident.

I fear that Kerry will lose and feel that this is one reason he was not the best candidate.

Having said that - he IS the candidate and I support him -- but I am perplexed why YOU would raise the alleged scandal --- how does THAT help Kerry? Why beat on me by raising this if you want to help Kerry?

I guess I get it -- but is it REALLY helpful?

[Finch]

65. Dean is never getting near the nomination...

...period...if Kerry fell under a bus tomorrow, Edwards would probably get the nomination, that or an elder statesmen of the party such as Gore, Biden, Reid even perhaps someone like Feinstein or Breaux, in such an instance as an act of promoting unity Edwards would probably get the VP slot on the ticket...

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. Last line in the article is true enough...

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

"Mr Electable" has so far been anything but. And I'm not buying the excuses his campaign ops are putting out any more than I buy the absolute LIE that "he'll go back to being a liberal after he's elected".

Fuck it. It's time to pull the plug on this travesty and get a candidate who will fight the Bush machine on the big issues. Not agree with their insane policies. Get a Dean/Clark ticket out there before this whole mess is irrevocably lost.

I know all you "ABB" types will have to agree with me, because you were willing to overlook every thing Kerry's done to support the neocon agenda, as long as they told you he was "electable". So then, what if he's not? Where do you pull the plug?

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I don't agree that all the leaders are sorry about a Bush win

.

[w4rma]

19. You sound like you wrote this baloney, AntiCoup2k.

I supported Dean in the primary, but Kerry won the primary not Dean, not Lieberman, not Edwards, not Gephardt, not Sharpton, not Kucinich, not Braun, not Graham, not Clark.

Sen. Kerry is the elected flag bearer for the Democratic Party. That is the way this democratic republic works.

[dammit905]

21. Que ridiculo nm

[returnable]

24. Oh, please...

...like the GOP smear machine wouldn't be having a field day with Dean's pot-smoking deferrment excursion to the slopes of Aspen?

Kerry needs to tighten up his act some, sure.

But it's ridiculous to think any other prospective candidate, especially one who couldn't even survive his own party's primary, wouldn't be absorbing some smear shots right about now.

[Old and In the Way]

31. If they are questioning Kerry's conduct in Viet Nam, can you imagine how

the Dean-skiing-in-Aspen story would be playing against Dean? Why, Bush would even look like a real soldier compared to Dean. They'd be playing the "war pResident" leadership card non-stop and they'd have Dean painted as a pot smoking elitist war protesting commie. It wouldn't matter that it's all lies, they'd play that meme until the FOX/CNN voting electorate bought it.

Kerry's do absolutely as well as I expected. He's going to kick Bush's ass, no doubt. This incompetent administration is history and no amount of media whoring is going to change that fact.

[mitchum]

33. "Resentment is like taking poison, and hoping the other guy..

dies" is an aphorism you will hear quite often, once someone creates a 12 step program for you people. Face reality...Kerry will be the nominee.

[Bill Todd]

37. The reality that appears to be bothering people here

is not so much that Kerry will be the nominee, but that because of that Bush will win. This is, of course, very much a matter of opinion, but those who hold this opinion should not be expected just to sit back and say "Them's the breaks!": they are, and should be, trying to figure out how to change things for the better.

And until such time as the convention declares Kerry the nominee, change in that regard is possible, albeit probably unlikely. Beyond that point, even if Kerry is the nominee change in Kerry remains possible.

- bill

[mitchum]

43. Why bother responding to you...

since you didn't address the particular poster's "addiction" (a pressing need for DA and all...)

[Exgeneral]

36. I recall an article entitled "John Kerry , president of nothing"

and a similar article entitled John Kerry, President of nothing

[zulchzulu]

39. "Mr Electable" has so far been anything but....

I thought you were talking about Dean.

Hey I like Dean now. But if he was such a strong candidate, why did he....ah....nevermind.

[zulchzulu]

41. Reality check: Dean pulled the plug

It's nice seeing negative poor sports with a fresh bowl of sour grapes popping up that have no clue what this election is about and understand the differences between Bush and Kerry.

It's like a bad case of acne that crops up every now and then.

Bzzzt.

[Upfront]

62. Amen!

You nailed it AntiCoup2K. Kerry has to defend the Bush war because he voted for it and dosen't have the guts to say I made a big mis-take. It is another Nam and we will never win there. Face facts people. We can't win this war!!!! Dean says we need to stay the course, and he to is wrong. He was against the war before it started and Kerry was for it, so Dean has a leg to stand on. Kerry is screwed unless he gets some backbone.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Cyrano]

26. Take a deep breath.

The election is six months away. Stop getting fixated on the daily polls and articles that predict Kerry's doom. If, IF, our votes get counted, Kerry might not only win, but win in a landslide. Naive? Maybe, but when we get around to the presidential debates, I think that Kerry will be able to pin the tail on the chimp.

[doubles]

35. He agrees with * on his war on terror and Sharon on taking the West Bank

He will lose if he continues down this road. All Kerry wants to address is the 10 million jobs he will create. KERRY, YOU DUMB PHUCQUE, IRAQ WAS NOT A WAR ON TERROR!!! Get some balls, maybe then you will realize the reason you are low in the polls on foreign policy. How the hell can you expect to win agreeing with Bush on the West Bank territory and that 'either you or Bush will win the war on terror'.

No balls, I might have to go Green, it's a matter of principle.

[zulchzulu]

38. What a bunch of BS

All you have to do is read the last line in this trash:

"If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean."

Talk about dim bulbs...

[onehandle]

40. This article was written by a Nader enabler.

It's a tiny hitpiece. Ignore it.

[zulchzulu]

44. Exactly! And he wanted to dump Gore in 2000

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0224-13.htm

Read how this dim bulb thinks it's not so bad having Nader around.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0028/ridgeway.php

He wanted to dump Gore in 2000.

[KoKo]

42. This sounds like something that would have been written about Gore. Did

the writers of this article just go through old clips and reword RW Garbage and repackage it for their editors?

Trash. Sounds like "The Voice" needs to do some checking on these folks. They might be like Kelly of USA today who was caught making up stuff.

[zulchzulu]

45. Same article from Ridgeway in 2000 about Gore

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0028/ridgeway.php

yawn...

[KoKo]

50. Zulu! this is creepy! Here's a clip of the article. It's plagerism!

nation

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
July 12 - 18, 2000

Dump Gore
Undermining the Environment
Disappearing the Poor
Off the Hook
Kash & Carry
All Washed Up

How Can the Democrats Go With Him?
Dump Gore

A look at Al Gore's just-released interview with the Justice Department's campaign-finance task force director not only makes the vice president look like a barefaced liar but also makes you wonder why Janet Reno has not prosecuted him and why this man is the certain nominee of the Democratic Party.

The interrogation of Gore by task force director Robert J. Conrad, analyzed in a devastating piece in the July 8 Washington Post, centers around the scandal-ridden White House coffees, where big shots paid big bucks to gain access to the president and vice president in social settings. Questioned by Conrad in April, Gore denied attending any of the coffees. But two days later, his attorney, James Neal, wrote Conrad a letter saying that indeed Gore had hosted 21 coffees in the Old Executive Office Building and attended four others at the White House. In explaining the about-face, Neal said Gore had gotten mixed up because he hadn't been prepared to answer questions about "EOB coffees." It is safe to say that there is no one in official Washington—except maybe Clinton himself—who would try to imply that the Old Executive Office Building isn't part of the White House complex.

Although Harold Ickes, Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, had called the events "political/fundraising coffees," Gore maintained he had not heard them described that way. He thought of them as gatherings of influential people who wanted to talk policy, and who in the future might contribute to the DNC.

"Sitting here today," Conrad asked Gore, "you don't have a concrete recollection of your attendance at any particular coffee, is that correct?"

"No, I don't," answered the vice president. "That was on the president's side of things. . . ."

Question: "You are not familiar with . . . $50,000 being the cost to attend a coffee?"

Gore: "Absolutely not. . . . And it is my b

[zulchzulu]

46. More stupid "predictions" from James Ridgeway

"If anything, Arnold Schwarzenegger's plunge into California politics could turn into a booster rocket for former Vermont governor Howard Dean's presidential campaign. In what looks like a breakaway lead, Dean is ahead in both New Hampshire and Iowa, and is buoyed by an imaginative Internet-based fundraising drive across 89 different websites. Another Seabiscuit? Too early to tell, but looking stronger every day. His nearest contender, opportunistic Massachusetts senator John Kerry, is fading and needs to dig into his wife's ketchup money to stay in the running. "

http://www.esoterically.net/log/archives/000834.html

Yeah, this guy can really pick 'em. Upgrade your weed, James.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Thanks for sharing!

Good to know he's as good a prognosticator as some of our friends here at the DU.

[zoeyfong]

56. I am also clinging to the dream of a last minute change of nominee.

In times like this we can not afford to put forward a man as wishy-washy and uninspiring as John kerry.

[dkf]

57. Admit it. Looks like Kerry is going to lose, that is why all the

talk about finding a new nominee is starting to spread.

Looks to me like the economy will be picking up before the election because Alan Greenspan is damned determined not to bring Bush down.

That only leaves Kerry with Iraq and if he does not challenge Bush on Iraq, he will have nothing.

The fact that he has not said much on Iraq will not help him if he needs it later, because Bush will say "why didn't you say something earlier? It's only when you're behind and desperate that you start to politicize Iraq".

This accusation of politicizing Iraq will stick because it was not a central part of Kerry's campaign.

In fact, it is probably already too late for Kerry to make hay about Iraq.

Yup, I think we're doomed.

[Snivi Yllom]

68. Mr. Ridgeway is just expressing what many are thinking

[zulchzulu]

73. Admit you are not someone to have in a battle

It's a pretty long way until the election and you are already giving up.

Thanks for playing.

[bklyncowgirl]

59. GOP would have been smearing any Dem nominee

What's happening to Kerry would have happened to any Democratic nominee.

Let's face it. If it hadn't been Kerry's flip flops it would have been Dean's ski bum draft deferment and temperment, Edward's ties to the trial lawyers and inexperience or four star generals with a grudge trotted out to give their opinions on Clark's mental fitness to have his finger on the button.

These guys are nasty. If it turns out that Kerry wins Terry McAuliffe's a genius for front loading the primaries so that whoever won Iowa would win the whole damn thing. If he loses, we can all dump on the DNC for giving us a nominee who was not thoroughly vetted before he became inevetible. That might be a pretty good consolation prize for some of us.

[Finch]

61. He's not defining him self clearly...

Kerry’s problem is that he’s defining himself in relation to the issues, rather than defining himself and his core principles on a less transitory basis… it is not simply that Kerry’s attract aren’t working he is not articulating a positive message either…

So in short, Kerry is not defining himself and his principles removed from what issues are important at the moment, which is allowing the GOP to run rings around him as unprincipled and without any firm moral centre and at the same time he is not articulating a positive message and is instead simply reacting to the GOP, what attempts there have been at taking the initiative away from the GOP have been weak and poorly executed…

Its ridicules to say that Kerry is dead he could well still win, that said looking at things as they are I would predict a narrow Bush win in both the EV and the PV, adding WI, NM and PA to his column…

Yes, Edwards would have been better, but lets not think about that and lets concentrate upon Kerry, his campaign has not been good so far but it can be salvaged…the thing is Kerry campaign thus far seems to be very similar to his lacklusta efforts in the early summer of 2003 when Dean began to threaten him in NH… as I said this can be overcome, but action must be taken quickly…

[SeveneightyWhoa]

71. This reminds me of the anti-Clark piece..

..in The Nation, by Matt Taibbi (a Kucinich supporter, anti-military type, and Milosevic apologist).

[robbedvoter]

74. Both Nation and Voice are bent on vote supression

Someone would find some interesting things if they'd follow the money that's paid to these faux left outlets. (add Pacifica too)