Great article.

There are a lot of people out here who really hope Senator Kerry runs in 2008. Whenever there is a positive article about the Senator, the attacks are strong, which shows he's still a threat. This, along with the crowds he's been drawing lately, his incredible ability to fundraise through his GROWING e-mail list and the staunch loyalty of his supporters, makes him a force to be reckoned with should he decide to run.

The senator recently biked 111 miles for cancer, then hopped on a plane immediately after to stump for Dems running in November. His time was amazing too. Kerry's as tough as they come and able to go the distance. There are a lot of new faces, but do they have what it takes or will they fold when the going gets tough or the attacks begin? We'll see. Time will tell.

This is the best comment in here:
Let whoever wants to run, run!

The primaries and contributions resulting from them, have a nice way of weeding out those who don't belong.

But, let's really save all of that until after November 7th.

Posted by: Nor'Easter
****************************************
That is the absolute truth, let the 30 politicans named so far by the media to get their names out there and weed them out. On the Democrats side, 15 candidates.
Iowa has a record of eliminating a few (Gephardt and Dean lost out in Iowa for bashing each other, so Kerry won by default)
But Edwards was respectful, and did his job as VP nominee in 2004. So he can pick up a lot of support just for keeping his mouth shut and not really attacking other Democrats. That might explain why Edwards in front of Hillary in some polls.

On the Republican side, there are also
15 candidates or possible running.
They should also be allowed to put their names out there and see who suppports them and who is willing to donate to them. That is the real American way. There is no real frontrunner here, no matter how much Chris Matthews and other political gurus think it is McCain. He is tied with Rudy. So if any truth was being expressed, the gurus would say there are 2 frontrunners. And if they were really looking a polls, it is a 3 WAY FRONTRUNNER RACE on the Republican side if they include Condi Rice.

So let's really have a debate starting January 2007, and let all the 30 candidates to have a go at it.

I understand Ms. Dacey's loyalty to John Kerry, ok, nice comment. That is the same loyalty and dedication which is held by thousands of Republican,conservatives and independents who believe Condi Rice will be the best choice in 2008. The polls show strong support for her to run, and strong support for her nomination. She is by far way ahead of Newt, Brownback, Hagel, Pataki, and Tancredo. The polls are taken by the media as gospel, so why not see more reports of Condi on the same level as McCain or Rudy? Is she that much of a threat against the comments by reporters that McCain is the "frontrunner"? Even Chris Matthews is claiming McCain as "heir apparent" to Bush. Based on what? Since when did McCain come out as favored by President Bush for the 2008 race? If that were true, McCain would not be badmouthing Bush at every chance like the recent swipe at the Senator DeWine event in Ohio. All McCain is doing is making the GOP base more angry and he will suffer for his nasty mouth at the ballot booths when the primary starts. In fact, if McCain were the candidate in 2008, I would stay home no matter who the Democrat is.

What is lost in all this brou-ha-ha and argument ad-hominem...is that John Kerry is not an everyman. He is not Bubba and doesn't share his background...he's honest to who he is. He's not very telegenic, and his voice and delivery aren't going to be compared to Garrison Keilor or (insert your favorite radio voice/personality here)anytime soon. Is he articulate? Yes. Is he able to relay his message and answer the qustions before him? Absolutely. How our current President won this high-school-popularity-contest we call American Presidential Politics I cannot fathom, but at end of day, that is the issue. The man lost, but his ideals and ideas found some tenacious footholds in spite of the smears and half-truths of the campaign trail. Anyone who saw JK at a live event knows he can raise the rafters. Kudos to Ms. Dacey to standing by principles and ideals and the man espousing and embodying them. Too many today forget the ords of Thomas Jefferson: "In matters of fashion, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock".

Michael: "We need to stop nominating extreme liberals including Hillary (disguising herself as a moderate) and everyone else and start nominating moderates such as Mark Warner or Evan Bayh. Those are the Democrats that can win." This is a shibboleth. Please name, specifically, just a couple of the leftie positions that kept Kerry and Gore, respectively, from winning (or winning decisively enough to put their elections outside dispute). Both, so far as I'm aware, took great pains to run as non-scary moderates. And Bill Clinton wasn't elected twice because he was so restrained policy-wise. He happens to have been an enormously talented politician. From the little I've seen of Warner, he might have real election-winning potential; Bayh, on the other hand, I think would be battered into the ground after the first couple weeks of a general election.

Let whoever wants to run, run!

The primaries and contributions resulting from them, have a nice way of weeding out those who don't belong.

But, let's really save all of that until after November 7th.

Kerry has about as much of a chance of winning the democratic nomination in 08 as Romney does of winning the republican nomination in 08. Face it Kerry is to liberal and he lost in 04. What makes people think he can win in 08. We need to stop nominating extreme liberals including Hillary (disguising herself as a moderate) and everyone else and start nominating moderates such as Mark Warner or Evan Bayh. Those are the Democrats that can win.

Not to mention JR, an ability to speak on the pros and cons of restricter plate racing, and the ramifications of Toyota's entry into stock car racing.

Either that or wear a "I hate Tony Stewart" t-shirt.

I would be interested--mildly--in knowing how F&B can call someone a "buffoon" in one sentence, only to claim "I respect him" in the next. I hate to think what F&B calls those she/he doesn't respect!

Independent Woman poses an interesting question (which Democrat could show up at a NASCAR event without looking like Michael Dukakis in a tank), but I sincerely hope it's not "the ultimate test of viability for the Presidency."

I think Russ Feingold, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Al Gore could all roam the pit area without looking ludicrously out of place. Of course, they would all wear civvies, whereas John Kerry would buy himself flame retardant coveralls, festooned with advertising patches. Whatever he does, he buys an expensive outfit in which to do it.

As was made abundantly clear by Junior's recent appearance on the Daily Show, our favorite anchorman, Jon Stewart, would be welcomed like a potentate in the pit area. Junior, immediately after his appearance: "Man, that was awesome! There are certain things you remember doing. This is gonna be one of them....My friends are really gonna go, "Jon Stewart!"

All candidates planning to visit a NASCAR event had better know who Junior is before they show up at Bristol this weekend.

Primary Primer

Alaska

Governor
Survey USA July Approval
Murkowski (R)* 21% up from 20% in June, down from 26% in Feb
2nd Lowest in the nation (Taft 17%)

GOP Primary
Rasmussen
August 3
Binkley 30%
Murkowski* 17%
Pallin 43%

Head to Head
Knowles (D) 36%
Pallin (R) 51%

Knowles (D) 44%
Binkley (R) 46%

Knowles (D) 58%
Murkowski (R)* 29%

Wyoming

Governor
Dem Primary
Gov Freudenthal (D)*
Al Hamburg

Survey USA July Approval
Freudenthal (D)* 66% down from 67% in June and 68% in Feb

Rep Primary
Hunkins
Self

Freudenthal expected to cruise to victory today and in Nov

Rasmussen
July 6
Freudenthal (D)* 58%
Hunkins (R) 29%

Oklahoma Run-off

OK-5
GOP Runoff
Cornett
Fallin (Lt Gov)

Fallin received 35% to Cornetts 24% in primary

Survey USA
August 21
Cornett 36%
Fallin 61%

Winner will face Dem David Hunter in Nov

Ho hum. Another tired politician who has the delusional idea (like Joe Lieberman) that the Democratic Party (and the country at large) "needs" him. Many people who suppported and worked for Kerry solely because he was the only real alternative to Bush - just as they supported Gore and Lieberman in 2000. The media and others may say what they will about the inexperience of people like John Edwards and Barack Obama, but I truly believe those are the very people who bring really bring fresh ideas and perspectives to the table. Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, and John Kerry - are creatures of ego that are so compromised, coiffed and beholdened that they really don't offer much of anything at all. If they really cared about the Democratic Party they would use their resources to move the party and the really promising candidates/ ideas forward. If they still had anything left in their enormous campaign money chests after doing so, there are any number of problems facing the country that could use an influx of cash resources.

I think alot of ya'll are missing the main reason why Kerry can't win. He voted for the War.
The democrats are not going to nominate anyone who voted for the Iraq War. Especially not someone like Kerry who did it for purely political reasons. Now Warner, Obama, Clark, etc didn't have to vote yes or no, but it doesn't matter. The War is going to be the huge issue in 08, and the democratic nominee will have to be on our side on this one.
I live in Massachusetts and when Kerry voted for the war I was disgusted.

For those with an interest in state legislative races, a concise analysis on the Ohio Senate was done by Gongwer's News service:
REPORT NO. 160, VOLUME 75-- MONDAY, AUGUST 21 2006

SENATE CAUCUSES FOCUSED ON HANDFUL OF FALL RACES

It's an odd year for Senate races - in terms of district numbers up for elections this year, that is - but fairly typical in regards to competitiveness. Less than a third of the 17 districts on the ballot are truly up for grabs, both caucuses acknowledge, because the parties hold strong electoral majorities in the remainder.

Examples of those include northwest Ohio's 1st Senate District, an open seat sought by Rep. Stephen Buehrer (R-Delta) against Democrat Ben Nienberg. Sen. Lynn Wachtmann (R-Napoleon), forced out by term limits this year and running for his old House seat, averaged more than 60% of the vote in winning his two four-year Senate terms.

Another is the 23rd Senate District, now represented by Sen. Dale Miller (D-Cleveland), an appointee seeking his first full term in office against Republican Howard Shrimpton. Former Sen. Dan Brady carried two-thirds of the district's vote in 2004 and was unopposed in 2002.

Similar scenarios mark Senate elections in most other districts, leaving about a half-dozen, give or take, that both caucuses are at least keeping an eye on.

Senate Minority Leader C.J. Prentiss (D-Cleveland) said Democrats are eyeing four GOP-held seats based on various indicators that include recent election results. The caucus is in defensive mode in two others, she said, adding that Democrats' first priority is to hold onto the 5th Senate District served by Tom Roberts (D-Trotwood) and the 9th Senate District represented by appointee Eric Kearney (D-Cincinnati).

Either race would be an upset win for the GOP, but Sen. Prentiss said her caucus is taking no chances considering it will be outgunned significantly in the campaign finance arena.

"We're not taking any of these races for granted," she said in an interview. "Our first obligation is with election protection for our members."

"We are very, very aware that the Republicans have more money than God," and that Democrats will need to respond to a flurry of television spots and other advertising in certain districts, Sen. Prentiss added.

The Senate Republican Campaign Committee held a five-fold advantage in terms of available cash over the Ohio Senate Democrats fund as of the last filing deadline on June 9. According to secretary of state data, SRCC had more than $2.5 million on hand compared to OSD's $569,000 in the post-primary report.

Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) mentioned the 5th and 13th Senate districts as targets for GOP "resources" this fall. He agreed that Republicans would be playing keep-away with the 3rd, 27th and 29th Senate districts.

The caucus leader has urged his candidates, most of them incumbents, to focus on legislative accomplishments such as tax reform and economic development efforts while out on the campaign trail.

"The candidates that do that are going to be all right," Sen. Harris said, adding that voters seem especially interested this year in the state's future plans. "We've built a terrific base with the tax reform package, but they want to know what else we're going to do."

Under a recently accelerated component of the tax changes, citizens will see a drop in their personal income tax withholding beginning Oct. 1, Sen. Harris noted. "We need to make sure we talk about that."

The Republican acknowledged it would be a difficult year for officeholders. "There is a strong sentiment of anti-incumbents, probably because we've been in the position of leadership as long as we have," Sen. Harris said. "I don't think they're going to vote for the incumbents just because they're the incumbents."

In challenging GOP-held territory, the Democratic caucus hopes to capitalize on Congressman Ted Strickland's apparent momentum at the top of the statewide ticket, and what appears to be voter discontent with the party in power over the last decade, in chiseling away at the Republican's 22-11 chamber majority.

"We're hearing the message continues to be, 'Enough is enough, let's vote Democratic,'" Sen. Prentiss said. "People are truly getting it. It's almost like a free-for-all."

Sen. Harris said the Democrats' mantra of a GOP "culture of corruption" and "pay to play" in state government doesn't seem to be gaining traction with the electorate. "For some time now I've not seen anything that relates to a culture of corruption except when Democrats say it," he said. "That's the message they've been using and I think they'll continue to use it."

There's always a few bad apples in government, but for the most part the legislature is home to hard working, honest people, Sen. Harris said, adding of the ongoing workers' compensation investigation: "We took action to make sure the Inspector General had the resources and ability to do the investigation and we're seeing that continue today."

The following races are on the Senate campaign radar screen for one reason or another:

3rd Senate District: Democrats targeted incumbent Republican David Goodman of New Albany in 2002 to no avail, but see a win this year in the suburban Columbus district as feasible given the political climate.

Sen. Prentiss described Democrat Emily Kreider, a social worker and small business owner from Westerville, as an energetic campaigner with a chance in a district carries by Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential elections.

Sen. Goodman, while enjoying a relatively favorable political index based on recent election results, lost his last election - a bid for Franklin County Commissioner turned aside by Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy.

Sen. Harris said he expected the Democrat to work hard against Sen. Goodman but that the incumbent would work harder. President Bush carried the district with only 51% of the vote in 2004.

"He's working hard and not taking it for granted," he said of Sen. Goodman.

5th Senate District: Republicans love the chances of their candidate, Trotwood Mayor Donald McLaurin, to unseat Sen. Roberts. Democrats, however, have found a way to hold onto the seat over the years even as redistricting included more GOP voters to the north of Montgomery County. That's because a majority of the district's votes still come from the Democratic stronghold of Dayton.

Mr. McLaurin is the first black mayor of the Dayton suburb, which has seen its economy revitalized since he won the office in 1999, according to Republicans. He is the founder and CEO of D'Laurin Electric, Inc., an electrical contracting firm.

"There's lots of opportunities for Don McLaurin. He brings a lot to the table," Sen. Harris said, adding the anti-incumbent climate cuts across party lines. "I'm working hard to make sure he has the resources" to run a solid campaign this fall, he said.

Sen. Roberts, a former House member, seeks his second term in the Senate. Although Republicans took a shot at the district in the last cycle, the incumbent won in 2002 with just over 52% of the vote.

9th Senate District: On paper at least the urban Cincinnati district appears safe for Democrats, and Sen. Kearney is a black businessman with crossover appeal - he once held a fund-raiser for Republican Ken Blackwell, the GOP gubernatorial nominee.

But Democrats don't forget that the GOP once held the longtime minority district before Janet Howard lost to now-Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory in 1998. They are keeping tabs on Republican hopeful Tom Brown even though he is a replacement candidate for primary winner Maggie Nafziger.

13th Senate District: Tops on the hit parade for both parties, the politically borderline district had a bull's-eye on it in 2002 when Sen. Jeffry Armbruster (R-N. Ridgeville), who faces term limits this year, won a nail-biter by less than 400 votes.

The runner-up in that contest by less than a half percentage point, registered nurse Sue Morano, returns for a try at the open seat against longtime State Board of Education member Martha Wise.

"She not only has labor support, she has family support," Sen. Prentiss said in describing the candidate's family as a microcosm of the district. "Everybody's working, everybody's struggling to make ends meet. This is like Lorain. We have a real, real good feeling about that race."

Republicans said their research shows Ms. Wise is well known in the district, popular and a good fit politically. She irked conservative Republicans with her support of evolution in the curriculum and opposition to "intelligent design" concepts.

Sen. Harris noted Ms. Wise has been on the ballot in the district for more than 20 years as a state board member. "Martha Wise is as hard a working lady as you'll find," he said. "She's won lots of elections up there and has great name recognition."

The 13th District covers all of Lorain and Huron counties and the eastern third of Seneca County.

27th Senate District: Sandwiched between Democratic strongholds of Cleveland to the north and Akron to the south, the Summit County district has been a battleground of sorts over the years and 2006 appears no different.

Sen. Kevin Coughlin (R-Cuyahoga Falls) carried about 53% of the district following a knockdown, drag-out skirmish with Democrat Tom Bevan, an attorney, in 2002. The GOP reportedly dumped more than $1 million into the race in the final two weeks.

This year, Democrats fielded University of Akron instructor and longtime political activist Judy Hanna in their effort to topple the incumbent. "She's been an activist. Before I became a legislator I was an activist," Sen. Prentiss said. "That brings a lot of constituency groups and interest groups that really work on a campaign in a coordinated way."

Sen. Coughlin has been targeted by some local education groups for his policy positions but is an aggressive campaigner in his own right.

"Kevin's not taking any chances. He's been working for a month now continuously going door-to-door," Sen. Harris said, adding that the lawmaker has done well to focus on jobs and economic issues, in the process "he has built a rapport with people who look at other things" as well as education.

29th Senate District: Similarly situated politically as the 27th District, Sen. Kirk Schuring's (R-Canton) seat is about as close to a 50-50 index as possible but nonetheless has remained in GOP hands for some time.

Like his predecessor in the seat, Rep. Scott Oelslager (R-Canton), Sen. Schuring has struck a moderate tone during his time in office and votes accordingly on policy matters. His crossover appeal showed in 2002, when he carried nearly 58% of the vote in knocking off Democrat Jan Schwartz.

Still, with the anti-incumbent sentiment being as strong as it is this year, Democrats view the seat as winnable. Tom West, a Canton city councilman and founder and CEO of A.B.L.E., carries the party's hopes in 2006.

"Canton is the largest city in that district," Sen. Prentiss noted. "That looks good and (Mr. Strickland's) numbers look good in that district."

Sen. Harris said the incumbent, a former House member, has built a strong following in the area during his legislative career. "That's not just because he kind of votes the right way," he said.

"Kirk is as good as any member we have with constituents. He follows up and he has that rapport," Sen. Harris said.

agreed, Max. Spot on.

Publius writes, "Kerry has no shot at all in 2008. He should focus on his senate career and if nothing else, save his legacy from being an absolute joke that a 2008 run will make it." I don't think Kerry stands to lose anything other than some temporary face by running a second time. Hubert Humphrey, one of America's great politicians destined to never become president, isn't looked on less kindly because he failed miserably when he tried to get the Democratic nomination in '72. That's because there's nothing to sneer at in holding the presidency as one's utmost ambition. Should Kerry try again and fail again (which I think is the likely outcome, though not a done deal), his dream, like Humphrey's, will have gone unachieved. That doesn't mean his legacy will in any way be damaged. HHH's 1948 Democratic convention speech is not a less heroic and stirring moment in American history for the fact that he later lost some elections. Nor does anyone, so far as I know, think his work in the senate should be viewed less highly because he wished to become president and didn't manage to do so.

Kaos cleverly calls Kerry "the reigning elitist-in-chief" -- damn those Frenchies! -- and sneers at any attempt JK might make "to talk his way into the Executive Branch." I wonder if Kaos could explain how political candidates are supposed to win office other than by talking. Blast their way into office with both barrels blazing like the big strong cowboys they are? Or is he advocating less time spent explaining silly, complicated positions and more handshaking and baby-kissing?

Awesome! Run, Johnny Kerry, run!

I can think of nothing more entertaining than watching the dems rip each other apart over another futile effort by their reigning elitist-in-chief and his sidekick Amy to talk his way into the Executive Branch. Almost as funny is the Kerry for the Middle Class comment above. The Dem strategy of union goons running the educational system in Blue counties into the ground so they turn over all decisionmaking to the elite has seen its day come and go. After the shock delivered later this year when the GOP actually picks up seats in the House and retains the Senate, followed by a Civil War over the Kerry run, there will be nothing left of the party that abandonded FDR.

Run, JFK (wannabe), run!

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 21, 2006 10:33 PM

Truth Hunter,

I think your title is fitting the environment we face now. And it also fits what Kerry has been attacking since the 04 election. He's clearly learned. And his rampant support and hard fighting and clawing to get Democrats elected in 06 is going to change the environment we have now and had in 04. Because each of those Democrats are sitting on the sidelines biding their time waiting for 08 and instead people are gathering across the country to see Kerry's support of their candidate and they're seeing Kerry's support of their dreams.

So to an extent...you're sort of right. In 04, nobody could win against the lies out there. But starting today, with all of us fighting to get Democrats elected, we can take back our country.

And frankly, Kerry's leading the way. He's out fundraising for other candidates. He's out 'rallying' for other candidates. And he's kickin a$$, taking names, and leaving the rest in his dust.

AND that's why you see all these people claiming he should just drop out. The more he does, the more they see that their candidate of choice isn't fighting quite as hard nor quite as effectively.

I don't think Kerry's done at all. Afterall, if he were done, then there would be no interest in this thread at all.

Instead, people are reacting like they reacted to Al Gore after 2000, and now people sing his acolades. Interesting. But the grass is always greener...except with Al Gore claiming that he's not running, and with Al Gore not having a record for the last 8 years, it will be pretty difficult for him to get any kudos for fighting when he's basically had a rockin' speech and a rockin' movie but he's got no other record of fighting like John Kerry has.

Can we please end this charade with Kerry?

He had his chance in 2004 and long story short: he blew it. I am a liberal and I was very unethused by him.

The fact is that he and his campaign staff are deluding themselves. Kerry has no shot at all in 2008. He should focus on his senate career and if nothing else, save his legacy from being an absolute joke that a 2008 run will make it.

Tia, At one time people had more than one chance to secure the presidency, but in the current climate even one-time losers won't make it.

Too much is at stake to chance it again.... the swiftboating, the pushy (sorry) wife, the maddeningly slow and pompously wordy replies to questions.... people will be looking for a "now" candidate, not yesterday's news.

I like Kerry, think he is probably able and smart, and unelectable.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

No matter what kind of candidate Kerry was in 2004 if bad or good I owe it to him for showing me the Democratic ideology. I would not have been a Democrat if Kerry was the weaker of the two leaders in 2004. Today I remain a faithful Democrat but the 2004 race started it all. So Kerry will always have the place in my memory as the first Democrat I worked for and it was a honor.

Interesting dialogue. But mostly what I see about the negatives is people complaining about how 04 was run. And that point was valid in 04. However in 06, it has nothing to do with the cost of tea in China.

Kerry and any other candidate is made better by the experience of running for President. It gives him an opportunity to learn and to take action. The same is true for Al Gore. Besides, these two people most likely won the election anyways!

Anyone who says "You have one chance and one chance only..." needs to go back to the history books and read about all the candidates who failed their first time but still won the second and still became wonderful Presidents.

The one thing I admired about John Kerry after his loss to Bush was his ability to get right back up and start plugging away. Here are a few interesting facts: John Kerry has a better chance of winning in the general election than Hillary rodham Clinton. Is that a good chance? No.

He does not have a good chance of winning, unless the GOP is too squeamish to pick John McCain or Rudy Giuliani as the frontrunner; should niether of those men appear on the ticket and the GOP opts for an easily parodied pseudo Good Ol' Boy like George Allen, John Kerry could win. Hillary probably could not, but Kerry would have a chance. Who would have a still better chance is his former runningmate John Edwards, who may have siezed the nomination after his come-from-behind-give-me-another-look surge to number two in Iowa -- except for one thing: Mister Dean did his absurd little scream and stole the show that night, robbing Edwards of his opportunity for a Clintoesque comeback kid number two fame.

Governor Mark Warner is still out there. The man who left Virginia with a seventy-five percent approval rating.

Not the NY senator whose claim to fame as a winner of red state votes amounts to her winning of more blue-collar-blue-than heartland-red upstate New York. Never mind that the senator won in a tight margin - Gore and Kerry both won the supposedly "red" area in a much bigger way -- that's how red upstate NY is. But I digress, in a big way, JFK -- let's hope enters if only to keep things interesting.

FDR was once considered a flip-flopper, too.

Imho, and im being totally frank here, I think Kerry is both a loser and a buffoon. I do respect him but its true. But it also just so happens that he is ALSO right on the issues most of the time. He's a Good senator but would be a mediocre President (compared to several other Dem candidates) and I felt so way before voting for him in '04.

As for above, Max, it tracks. But given the cognitive dissonance these people (koz, bhoomes) must experience on a minute-by-minute basis, it's a wonder they can even see straight much less post on a blog. Gotta give em that at least.

Btw, KOZ, you left a pretty big matzoh ball hangin on the end of the last thread if you care to defend your whole "Media Matters is all lies" shtick.

I admire John Kerry and voted for him. I met him briefly at an anti-war demonstration in Boston in the early 70's when I was an undergrad and he was a law student at Boston College. However, I think his time as a candidate has come and gone. He was a very awkward candidate. I am still furious over his campaign's totally inept response to the Swift Boat slander campaign. They should have anticipated that. The leader of the Swift Boat Veterans (his name is O'Neill, I believe) was a pro-Vietnam war activist who debated Kerry on TV in the 70s. He, and many veterans of his age group, are still angry over Kerry's testimony to Congress about alleged war crimes based on stories related by some veterans who had turned against the war. This guy also published a book laying out the Swift Boat lies that was published (or re-issued) to coincide with the 2004 campaign. He went on Nightline and made an idiot of himself as Koppel pressed him on his "facts". BUT, the whole Swift Boat campaign should have been anticipated by the Kerry people because the allegations had been out there for years. They had to have known about the book. They knew Karl Rove was running the Bush campaign. So why did they not have any response (let alone an effective response) for weeks into the Swift Boat campaign? I think the election was lost right there. They should have trotted out the crew members of Kerry's boat and the guy he pulled from the river and ran commercials with them denouncing the slander campaign. Every living crew member (save one) and the guy he rescued were campaigning for Kerry. They could have made some very impressive counter commercials.

FYI: My pick of Clinton/Warner keeps getting better. I found some poll out has her apptoval over 50%. I may be wrong about this since I am fairly new to this, having a computer for a few months and trying to learn how to use it. Does anyone have anything on this? Hill's approval that is.

To make Kerry the target is to miss the point. Whether or not he should be president now, he isn't. What he would have done as president no one knows, although there are certainly some of you who would feel free to assume.
No, the real issue is that there are those who (to use one poster as an example) believe that correct English is "some kind of Ivy-league blue-state new English that only you genius Libs use."
What does it say that (some) conservatives attack intellectual curiosity and ability when they can't attack the ideas themselves? even George Will has been decent enough recently to admit that he was WRONG to support Bush in going to war in Iraq. Discussion and even disagreement are foundational elements of our free society, but when uninformed (either deliberately or through laziness / lack of understanding) it's just hot air... and does not make any point effectively.

MikeB tells me that "Terry Pratchett refers to your sort as "prodnoses, curtain-twitchers, and lingusitic vigilantes"." This is silly. I'm not pulling any "gotcha"s. I'm not flying into fits at those who don't capitalize their "I"s. I'm not harping on every silly spelling error. I'm asking that a certain amount of proficiency in English -- which is to say, don't write "who's time" -- be demonstrated by knee-jerk Coulter apologists (and knee-jerk apologists of every stripe). If Bhoomes can't even competently type rhetoric stolen from Fox -- if his grammatical errors have to be so absolutely glaring -- then his arguments don't even merit a glance and a shrug. I'm asking, I guess, for a slightly more formidable winger to put in an appearance on this blog. In an ideal world, I'd ask for a conservative who was both grammatical AND thoughtful to drop by. But accepting that that's unlikely to happen (and acknowledging that I'd take thoughtfulness over grammar), I think that Bhoomes ought at least to fulfill ONE of the "ideal adversary" qualifications. It's just too easy to brush off someone who types like an 11-year-old.

Here's the ultimate test of viability for the Presidency. What Democratic candidate could show up at a NASCAR event and not look like Michael Dukakis in a tank?

Hilary Clinton? Hmm...dunno

Mark Warner? Been there/done that (I think)

John Kerry? *shudder* Such a hypothetical Kerry NASCAR photo-op would almost certainly make him
fodder for late-night comedians.

The thing is, Bill Clinton in his prime could have *definitely* showed up at a NASCAR event, scarfed down a few hot dogs, and been a Bubba-among-Bubbas. Dare I say it: a Ricky Bobby among Ricky Bobbys.

This is just my way of pointing out that John Kerry lacks the social skills to connect with the NASCAR Dad set. It's not that he's too bright to be President--Bill Clinton was a Rhode scholar. It's that he's not smart enough to know how to dumb-down his media persona. He's Adlai Stephenson.

Kerry reminds me of Gore in the sense that he has something that can only be described as almost the *opposite* of charisma.

Max, Max, Max, Terry Pratchett refers to your sort as "prodnoses, curtain-twitchers, and lingusitic vigilantes". That's about as good a description as I can think of. Eat LOTS of fiber. I hear it works wonders for constipation.

Posted by: Kerryvisionary | August 21, 2006 03:46 PM

Yes, he has done quite a bit for us despite the disappointing result in 04. Even Firedoglake has positive comments about Senator Kerry's actions. See this link:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/20/three-cheers-for-kerry/#comments

And he's won the award for the best protector of the middleclass. You can see that here too.
"Kerry Earns Perfect Score on Standing up for America's Middle Class

Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, July 10, 2006"

And even on Dafur...he's right on target.

http://www.darfurscores.org/

So he's not the horrible guy the media says and his chances to win in 08 will only improve as he keeps fighting for us.

Has it come to the point where we need a 5th grade Nun with an 18-inch ruler to handle the spelling and grammar here?

The spelling typos I can handle; and the grammar usually. But sometimes it truly leads to confusion. For logic's sake I prefer clarity; grammar be damned.

JD,

I couldn't agree with you more. JK is a man of integrity and grace. He's compassionate and articulate. His diplomatic skills are sorely needed and are missed.

Yes, he should be in the White House now. And had the election not been run by a partison election chief and a corrupt voting machine company, he probably did win. Unfortunately, the Republicans have made suppression of legitimate voters a work of art. And the facts about election fraud are slowly coming forth, but in 2004 they just weren't there.

Unlike you though, I don't leave his chances of becoming President in the dust. I see many Kerry stickers even today. In fact, more kerry stickers are out here than Bush stickers. Yes, more people are wiser about how the media led them astray.

And when we win in 06 we're going to be fighting a whole new ballgame.

"What kind of grammar is that? Is that some kind of Ivy-league blue-state new English that only you genius Libs use? Or are you choking on your own slurs?"

It's called a multi-clause sentence. I'm pretty sure it tracks beginning to end. I did make the mistake of using the word "all" twice in it.

"When you are bereft of creativity, attack something minor and make a petty point."

Day in and day out, Bhoomes' comments aim to infuriate liberals, without ever making the least effort to engage them. Bereft of creativity? What could be more bereft of creativity than the regurgitations of party-line rhetoric Bhoomes constantly serves up? If B is going to insist on wagging his finger at all of us, I'd prefer he do so gramatically.

I agree with MikeB. While I wouldn't necessarily go with Kerry in 2008 for electability reasons (and really, that stinks), it saddens me to hear him discribed as a "loser" or "buffoon." Senator Kerry is a good man who gave all he could to this country and was slurred by the right wing. He is a true patriot, and I will always respect what he has done and what he stands for. I respect Dacy's decision to stay with Sen. Kerry, and I wish that she could today be serving him in the White House. The fact that I don't expect him to achieve the presidency says more about our society than about him, and that is unfortunate. If a few hundred thousand voters in Ohio had decided differently, we would all be talking about what a brilliant campaign he ran to unseat a sitting president during wartime. Therefore, even if you disagree with his views, I ask you not to question his patriotism or his character. He is a brave man, and America would be better off with more brave men like him.

Loyal? Or is Kerry simply the star to which the wagon is currently hitched?

You're right Che, you murdering thug, it is time to eliminate the rest of the killers. Syria and Iran make the best next targets.

For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060810&articleId=2942

The Pentagon's "Second 911"
"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"

by Michel Chossudovsky

August 10, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)

In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that "9/11-type terrorist attacks" are recognized in Cheney's office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).

"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State Sponsors [of Terrorism]"

In April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:

"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.

This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (italics added, WP 23 April 2006)

The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.

Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.

LOL - Max's post, above, is a keeper.

:-)

"Given, the assertion that Ann Coulter, the ultimate purveyor of anti-insight, has (all) liberals figured out, will remain ridiculous under all circumstances."

What kind of grammar is that? Is that some kind of Ivy-league blue-state new English that only you genius Libs use? Or are you choking on your own slurs?

Grammar and spelling are not usually held in high esteem on this blog. Are you the new editor? Or you just think you are so smart that your ideas need no debate. Typical. When you are bereft of creativity, attack something minor and make a petty point. Well done if that was your goal.

I understand Ms. Dacey's loyalty to John Kerry. He changed many lives with his 2004 campaign, mine among them. After years of cynicism and despair about politics, seeing his genuine patriotism and dedication to serving our country inspired me to feel those simple, powerful feelings once again, too.

I hope that more people will follow this talented, loyal woman's example and look beyond the spin at the real John Kerry. After 2004, he quietly and steadfastly picked himself up and went back to doing all he could for America. If he chooses to run again in 2008, I believe he is our best hope.

http://welovejohnkerry.com

I don't particularly care what a talking points-spouter like Bhoomes, you know, spouts -- but Jesus, B, at least make an effort to look like a serious, semi-educated individual. That means knowing the difference between "to" and "too," and "who's" and "whose." Given, the assertion that Ann Coulter, the ultimate purveyor of anti-insight, has (all) liberals figured out, will remain ridiculous under all circumstances. But it doesn't even need to be examined when it's made by someone without basic command of (what I assume to be) his mother tongue. In other words, Bhoomes, learn some more English, THEN come back and do what you can to show us America-hating liberals the light.

Amy Dacey, like John Kerry, is a decent person who has the best intersts of this country at heart. Unfortunately (see bhoomes and other conservative posters comments) the right wing in this country is an unthinking mob who allows others to do their thinking for them. So we will have another one of Rove's campaign's of Fear and Smear - more terrorist alerts, those idiot lights blinking from orange to red to ellow and back, White House leaks of imminent terrorist attacks...

Bravo to Amy Dacey for her loyalty to Kerry. I think her comments on Kerry are dead-on and that's why I've been one of the people who have been contributing to his PAC and advising others to do so as well. I think he was the best person to be President in '04 and I continue to think he will be the best in '08.

As much as I admire loyalty, I believe Dacey ought to cut her losses with a loser like Kerry. She has to much talent to be wasted on a guy who's time has come and gone but has to big an ego to accept it.