February 21, 2005

Kerry '08???!!!!!

Thought I'd haul this discussion out from the Clinton comments where it began.

Seems some otherwise fine and wise Dopesters feel that Kerry is just the ticket in 2008. The Dope feels this is sheer folly and delusional. (One hopes that even Kerry himself will realize this and not run.)

What do YOU think? (and of course, why.)

I mean, Kerry lost to THESE "compassionate conservatives"!!




15 Comments:

At 2/21/2005 6:31 PM, Anonymous Pops said...

I feel that Kerry should take his wife (and the $10 or $20 million that he held back) and just get lost. Far, far away. His debating skills and his wife's money can buy him glory at Yale or some such place. It was his election to lose and he lost it!

 
At 2/21/2005 9:08 PM, Blogger Dissenter said...

The DNC and Kerry must simply acknowledge that the voters have spoken. For real, this time. And not as it was in 2000, when not all the votes were counted. In 2004, President Bush really did win the election.

We need a candidate who is resolute and unequivocal. Kerry simply did not fit that bill. The Republicans are masters of attacking the straw men they concoct and spinning falsity with reckless abandon. With Kerry, however, their work was made much, much easier. He waffled on the Iraq war. He attempted to be all things to all people and, in the process, he appeared disingenuous. Kerry was brilliant in the debates, particularly the first and third debates, but by then it was too late. President Bush is one of the greatest dangers our nation has ever withstood, but he is stubbornly resolute and definitive in his ill-conceived positions. Against such a backdrop, Kerry appeared weak and wishy-washy.

The Democrats need a candidate who is definitive and resolute. Voters will follow a steadfast candidate with whom they do not fully agree, long before they will ever support a candidate who will sing whatever song he/she thinks they want to hear. We will be a much stronger party when for once we realize just that.

 
At 2/21/2005 9:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm unequivocally for Kerry. A few votes in Ohio and we'd all be celebrating and doing toasts to the Kerry-Edwards' brilliant campaign. Kerry won 58 million votes -- largest number of votes in our party's history. He has a strong national network and foundation, amazing fundraising ability, war hero credentials, the ability to win every debate against MCCain or Frist and the absolute commitment to win.

Kerry in 08.

 
At 2/21/2005 9:42 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

Well, you know my point of view: It's folly to rule Kerry in or out.
He's a major contender for 2008. Major national network of allies and fundraisers, solid ability to articulate the message from the Senate floor in 2005, 2006, 2007, and lots of IOU's as he criss-crosses the nation helping candidates. He is the Donkey's top vote-getter, but true to form the whiners in our party start looking for someone new.

Kerry is a major contender, and desrves to be. Period. End of blog.

 
At 2/21/2005 9:48 PM, Anonymous Gun Owner said...

Kerry would be a great choice.

When I saw him shoot three turkeys in a row during the Iowa caucus, I knew he was our man. That man can shoot! I guess it was all that Vietnam war experience.

One thing I've learned in this business, the right wing talks a good game about hunters, but it's real guys like Kerry who get the job done. They quietly know how to hunt and shoot. As someone who lives in rural Henry County, that truly impresses me.

I know one of the guys who went hunting with Kerry in Iowa last January, and they were amazed at his shot. I'll take his hunting skills and match them to Bush and Cheney any day of the week!

Kerry in 08!!

 
At 2/21/2005 10:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I sincerely hope that the poster above considers other aspects of a candidate than their shooting accuracy when deciding who will lead the free world.

But that said, I'm heartened to hear that Kerry knew what he was doing. If you recall, the right, as they so skillfully do, pretty much turned Kerry's goose hunting expedition into a joke by mocking his brand new hunting outfit, and the fact that he didn't carry the goose he shot himself. Pure B.S. of course, but I think it probably resonated with gun types and hunters.
Glad to see that gun owner above didn't buy the B.S.

 
At 2/21/2005 10:20 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Oh, and what whitesidedem said.

Pretty much parallels my thoughts on the matter.

And the "resolute" issue is one of my main arguments for why the Dems need to embrace the liberal label and not continue to try to edge to the right. No one will ever respect a party or candidates that seem to not really believe in anything enough to run and risk losing with it. Constantly trimming and tacking and abandoning Dem principles with the only goal to get elected truly turns off voters.

 
At 2/21/2005 10:37 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

Dope, please get it straight. Please refer to my previous blogs about the future of our party. We don't need a candidate to swing to the left with great courage, as you say, we need a candidate who can stand up for our values, our traditions, our ideals in the heartland. We need to stand up strongly for opportunity, freedom, education and more. We need to tell them blue staters like me teach little league and serve as dad's club presidents for our kids. We need to reclaim the language they stole from us (pro-life, etc.). We need to compete in the RED STATES, so we don't wake up every four years trying to protect fewer states.

Again, DOPE, this is not a question of turning to the left with courage. It's articulating who we are with more clarity and courage.

Bill Clinton stood up for more responsibllity and opportunity, more cops on the street, cutting the deficit. Those aren't "liberal" by your definition, but they are great American values. That's what we need to stand up for -- great American values.

 
At 2/21/2005 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!

 
At 2/21/2005 11:02 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

B.S.... you say Kerry is a war hero. Well, I don't need to remind you what they did to him on that. Ye gads! I mean, is he somehow going to emerge in '08 and expect everyone to suffer mass amnesia?!!

He already has had the best campaign effort money could buy. His campaign account broke all records! He has been put before the American people and he didn't get it done.

I simply don't think that Kerry would be the best we could do. He's incredibly tarnished, his fund raising appeal will only go down, not up, and when push comes to shove, I'm not sure many would stand by him in the face of other better candidates for the Dem nomination.
You assert that he'd best anyone in a debate. Well, get real here. He pulverized Bush in one debate, beat him clearly in another, and fought him to a near draw on another. But a gradeschooler could make Bush look stupid in a debate.
In other words, beating Bush in debate isn't exactly an indication that you're the best debater in the room.

Kerry's sonorous and stentorian speech just turned people off. He was unable to connect, and was easily turned into someone that people thought was almost an alien by the time the Repubs got done with him.
Sure, he's a great guy, and I'd be damn happy with him in the White House, but .....
We can do better.

 
At 2/21/2005 11:05 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And one more point. He was recently asked why he stood still while the Swift Boat Liars were stomping him into paste for weeks. I heard that he said that his campaign wouldn't let him!!
I mean...A. That's a rather unflattering attempt to blame others, and B. YOU'RE THE CANDIDATE!! What do you mean they wouldn't LET you? I understand how campaigns go, but if Kerry was the leader we need, he wouldn't have been whipsawed by his lame campaign. He was too cautious, too studious, and not able to simply be himself ala McCain, for example. Everything was calculated to the point where it was phony and thus ineffective.

 
At 2/21/2005 11:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Blue State... you articulate all the things you think we need to do, such as standing up for our principles, etc.
But whoever does just what you suggest I guarantee will be tatooed as a flaming far left liberal.
I'm in favor of the same things you are. But the things you articulate WOULD BE moveing back to the left.
I'm saying we need to go back to where the Dems were and stand up for our bedrock values.
Unless I miss your point, that's just what you suggest as well.
But somehow you feel that this is not moving to the left.
Believe me, you'll see how hard the right SCREAMS "liberal" at the top of their lungs when any Dem tries to get back to our "roots" so to speak.
I just think we need to stop freaking worrying about what the right thinks and just do it, win, lose, or draw.
As Whiteside Dem said, the American people respect someone who takes a strong stand for what they believe in, even if they disagree.

I think we both believe the same things need to be done, but somehow you've convinced yourself that these things would not be moving left.
When you start out from what used to be center right, which is where the Dem party is today,(Most Dems are to the RIGHT of Barry Goldwater, for crying out loud.) any movement towards our core traditional values is going to be to the left.
I don't like the fact that you seem to flip at the suggestion of moving to the left, as if that's certain death. Yet the things you articulate are exactly the values of the left.

Stop running scared from the idea that we're liberal, we're left wing, and we're RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT on so many issues, and we're a hell of a lot more moral than any right wing lunatic ever thought of being.

 
At 2/21/2005 11:41 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

Dope, you continue to make my point exactly.

We are a party that needs a strong, clear message spoken in terms of values and not 5-point plans that don't connect with voters. We need to reach their hearts, not just their heads. We need to speak to suburban and rural America with those values, not just urban America (which eats up liberal issue-based talk about abortion, etc.). We need to tell them what Barack Obama told them in his Boston address, that we have mighty little league coaches in the Blue State and we worship a mighty God in the blue state.

If we speak like that, we might win. Again, you are caught up in the old brain-dead right-left paradigm. When about 18 percent of Americans now ID themselves as LIBERAL, it's crazy to say "Let's all have the courage to be LIBERALS."

Let's have the courage to talk about the values that have made Ameica great -- fiscal responsibility, opportunity for all, civil rights for all, protection of the environment, safer streets, strong national defense. That's how we win.

We are talking about a similar strategy, but you seem to want to take this into the old left-right paradigm. That's not what this is about.

Bill Clinton demonstrated in two straight Democratic wins that we can talk about opportunity and responsibility, values and GOD, freedom and civil rights, blue states and red states. He talked mainstream values and won in rural states.

We can do that, too. You don't seem to get that point.

 
At 2/21/2005 11:44 PM, Anonymous Blue State said...

Again, the anti-Kerry "DOPE" asserts Kerry is damaged by the GOP. Sure he's been damaged by the GOP. They're the most vicious campaign operation we've ever seen in American politics. Look what they did to Howard Dean -- and he resurrected himself from the graveyard. Kerry never even reached that point and he's looking very strong for 2008.

I am not saying he's the only strong candidate for 2008, because there could be others and I may end up supporting someone else. But it is sheer folly to say someone is too damaged because he took some hits from the Rove Attack Machine. From my point of view, Kerry earned those hits. He fought the good fight. He stood up strong. He got wounded in battle, trying to put us in the White House.

I am proud of that service.

 
At 2/22/2005 10:01 PM, Anonymous ll cool t said...

now let's get our local party and grass roots organized right now to compete in '06 and '08 and be ready to support whoever the nominee is. I worked with dozens of Illinoisans who traveled to Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri to support Kerry and our party. We wrote hundreds of letters, made thousands of phone calls to New Hampshire, Iowa, etc, posted hundreds of blogs, lit up hundreds of online polls. A few Illinoisans made a difference even though we didn't have a primary to speak of. If we can build upon this small group of volunteers from '04 it will have an unbelievable impact next time. Rove stole our grass roots organization and perfected it for the other side, now we must take it back and take OUR game to a higher level. Whatever happened to that Nixon guy who got beat in 1960? Or that Reagan guy who got trounced in the 1976 primary, did he ever amount to anything?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home