Kerry on The Fix (re: today's BG article); comments need help.

[beachmom]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/10/kerrys_re...

The article is not bad, but the comments OTOH . . .

It's absolutely ugly there. Any positive comments will help (and it's really easy to comment).

[ProSense]

1. It's a regular

primary brawl!

Bayh!

Richardson!

Warner!

LOL!

[karynnj]

2. Their comments are beyond stupid

Edwards is improving on his excellent primary work in 2004 - he won the Carolinas only - themedia created the whole story that he was a contender after Dean left. The only one excellent in the 2004 primaries was Kerry. Obama is charismatic but he runs the risk of being too green. Gore has no more star power than Kerry.

[wisteria]

4. Check out my post. to BM, it has a wonderful post on Kerry.

Kerry should recruit that person to use all over the US.

[wisteria]

3. It appears the primaries have begun. Richardson?

He seems to be getting some mention on this blog. I have a problem with him, he was another person who prevented votes from being counted in NM. I don't find him Presidential material, but as is evident on that blog, to each his own.

Oh, there are some good comments there, I especially like this one,

- This is one case where we completely disagree. John Kerry *is* the most decent, the most competent, and the single most courageous leader this country has produced since Dwight Eisenhower. We got into the the dual morrases of Iraq and Afgahnistan, uncontrolled outsourcing, and just about every other failure you can point to over the past, not just 8, but 18 years! I would quit my job and knock on doors, work on is website, do whatever he asked, if he were to run. He is superior to any other political leader (or any other leader of any sort) this country has produced in the past 20 years. I hope to God he runs and wins.

Posted by: MikeB | Oc

Unbelievable post. I want to give that person a huge hug. His comments make up for all the other bullsh*t posted over there.

[karynnj]

5. Here's my vote for dumbest, while sounding coherent

Kerry is welcome to run again in 2008. He'll probably be deeply embarrassed when it turns out he has no real constituency, and loses badly in every contest he enters. He was only nominated because he was the only plausible choice, and then managed to lose an almost-unlosable election by his weak showing. I have never, in the entire time from 2003 to the present, been told by a single person that they actually LIKE John Kerry or really think he'd be a good President. He was simple the least objectionable of a bad lot. That won't be true in 2008, no matter who runs (because his poor performance in 2004 lowered his stock considerably).

[wisteria]

12. Spoken like a person with a foot up his or her a**.

Seriously, that post is just obnoxious. It is down right snotty,shrill,mean spirited and wrong. it kind of makes me wonder who they support.

[ProSense]

6. Please

check out the comment in the GD-P post about the BG article. Someone actually responded: Because we're afraid....

LOL!

[Mass]

7. And we have a well-known Hillary supporter claiming that JK is boring.

Can these people be more obvious.

[beachmom]

8. Hillary is a terrible speaker, and quite boring.

That person needs to think of a different tactic. I mean, maybe a John Edwards supporter could get away with that, but Hillary?????????? She just does not inspire when she speaks.

[karynnj]

10. Edwards may be charming, have a good smile etc (I don't see it

but enough people do) but I found him boring over time - he was "too plastic" repeating the same stump speech all the time. He was a little better in interviews

[Mass]

11. Edwards is very good at stump speeches (assuming you dont see him

more than one or twice). He is generally very good in everything that allowes him to recycle his stump speech (debates, interviews, ...).

However, he is a lot less good at ad-libems (some reporters noticed that the ad-libems in his speeches were the same time after time), and definitively less good on issues that do not relate to his stump speech (probably due to his lack of experience), though he is a quick learner. This is where the experience of Kerry, (or Dodd, or Biden, ...) has its advantage.

Dodd is definitively right on this one. After these 5 years, experience has value.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/10/quote_of_t...

Quote of the Day
"If you had 25 years in the Senate -- sorry, you're disqualified. I think this is different... Certainly the last five years has reminded people that maybe -- maybe -- experience has value."

-- Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), quoted by the Wall Street Journal, on why politicial experience might be an asset in running for president in 2008.

[karynnj]

9. Also, what a silly comment

Did people ask if Linclon was amusing and interesting. I seriously think the reason Kerry's numbers rose during the debate was that people saw a person who was very knowledgable and who had an open mind that was willing to think things through. If you try to think of candidate's lives as possible movies - the biggest flaw in Kerry's is that it seems unlikely that 1 person could be the center of so many interesting conflicts.

[whometense]

15. What drives me crazy is

all that "fresh face" crap. Either they are trolls or they're morons.

Fresh face?? Are we looking for a model or a president? Is newness more important than experience? Than knowledge? Beyond stupid. If those people who claim to be democrats really are, then they are just tearing Kerry down in order to build someone else up. It's sickening. And don't get me started on the Gore worship.

Or on the people who accuse Kerry of not being progressive enough and then tout Warner.

[ProSense]

13. The other thing is, when did Hillary Clinton

ever support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq? This was Carville in Jan. 06:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Senator Clinton’s position on the war in Iraq’s been clear, unambiguous, firm?

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, I think so. I think she supported the resolution, she did not support kicking the U.N. inspectors out when they were there, and she’s, you know, trying to get some kind of a solution that works. She’s one of 40 Democrats that said it was time to put Iraq on a timetable. Look, it’s a very difficult thing that we’re going through in Iraq, you know, I suspect that this president’s going to start pulling troops back, and they’re going to do exactly the same thing that the Democrats that they’re accusing the Democrats of urging them to do.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406

[karynnj]

14. No Carville is wrong or playing with words.

What he is speaking of was that in the end of 2005, there was a Levin amendment that was exctremely vague to get a maximum number of Democrats to vote for. Then Warner ? changed a few phrases and it passed. Remember Kerry's Oct 2005 proposal it was far less aggressive than that or Feingold's flexible target date. It may be that the resolution called for a timetable to be set. (My guess - they are subtlely rewriting history.

Bill and Hillary have BIG voices, they did NOT speak out when the inspectors were kicked out - Kerry did. They truely wanted to have it both ways.