At the convention--national security and honoring veterans

[ginnyinWI]

will be the theme for the night that the Veep pick speaks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/a-vp-hint-vps-convention_n_118148.html Speculation is that the Veep will be a veteran...

Just the possiblity that the Veep pick could be JK makes me so excited! Like wow, if only! Now I have to calm down and tell myself that it's not going to happen and that it will most likely be someone else, and anyway nobody says it has to be a veteran.

:shrug:

But whoever it is, it looks like that person is going to be closely identified with veterans' issues and national security.

:bounce:

No! Stop that bouncing! Don't get hopes up--don't!

:)

(still a die-hard Kerrycrat to the core--marked for life, apparently!)

[JI7]

1. do you think it could be Wes Clark ?

i still keep thinking it will be Biden and/or Bayh. while they are not veterans themselves they are seen as qualified and having experience on all issues, and especially with Biden on foreign policy.

[ginnyinWI]

2. Might be

Biden, Dodd and Kerry are the big names in the SFRC. Or maybe Jack Reed? Jim Webb? (despite what he says.) Someone from the House, perhaps? It would be nice not to rob the Senate if they can help it.

Colin Powell?? Naw. Not after his appearance at the U.N.

We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe not very long--it's less than two weeks to the convention.

[JI7]

3. Biden, Dodd and Reed would make me happy

i actually think Reed is a very good choice but i think he made some comment about not wanting it but then again many say that. i can't see it being Jim Webb for many reasons. if they want to go virginia route Mark Warner or Tim Kaine would help more.

i can see Wes Clark but i just think the media whores will bring up the McCain crap and i just think Obama would want to avoid that for one of the big news moments in a presidential campaign. of course if Obama thinks in the long run it would be worth it i can see. also Clark has been getting back out there so it's possible. and he did well for Kerry and other Dems in the last couple elections.

at this point i think it will be Bayh or Biden. i wonder if Richardson is being considered, he was one i liked also.

someone suggested Joe Sestak yesterday and i think all of us in the Kerry forum would love that.

with the Russia Georgia thing coming up, i do think it will be someone with foreign policy background (though not necessarily a veteran).

[karynnj]

4. Joe Sestak would be interesting

He was great on the Sunday morning shows. He also did endorse HRC. He seems a "better" Clark - in that he was a good enough politician to win in a hostile district and he was an Admiral. Was he the one who was Navy intelligence? He was someone helped and pushed by Kerry. (That he is attractive with an attractive family doesn't hurt.) I think he could be the real black horse for VP.

I thought Reed was good, if boring.

Joe Sestak is the first one named (other than Kerry) who I would be really very very happy about. With Kerry there would be very mixed feelings given the nature of the VP.

[ginnyinWI]

5. the chemistry with Richardson seemed especially good

at least as seen from a distance (my TV screen). He's a diplomat. But then so are others. I think foreign policy creds are going to be a must, given the state of the world today (thanks, chimpy).

[ginnyinWI]

6. The case for Clark laid out at FiveThirtyEight

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/georgia-conflict-and-case-for-clark.html

He also gives a list of veep contenders.

[Mass]

7. Nice article. Though it will not happen, it is good to see people suggesting Kerry as a plausible VP

(Surprisingly, I have seen more articles than I thought suggesting that without mockery. I find that really satisfying, and yes, the idea that Kerry could be VP makes me excited too).

I like the idea of Biden, though he is not a vet, I think. Reed is very competent, but I do not find him very exciting. I do not know enough about Sestak, and Clark is somebody I like, but I am not sure what statements he has made against Obama as a Clinton's surrogate. If he has made statements saying that Obama is not ready to be CiC or something like that, why take the risk of providing the GOP a ready to use ad.

I am still as little excited as I was a few weeks ago concerning these potential VPs. Like JI7, I keep thinking Biden and Bayh are the two who make the more sense,but I cannot see Bayh because it would make us lose a seat in the US Senate, as would Reed.

[Mass]

8. Does Wolfson hate Kerry that much that he is trying to revive the rumors of Kerry as a potential VP?

http://www.politickerma.com/taxonomy/term/8899

(Just asking, because we know it is really unlikely).

[JI7]

9. are they trying to hurt him for Senate ?

[Mass]

10. Probably the goal. I can see that the thread concerning Kerry's website

was attacked both on DU and kos for some weird reason, and at least by one blogger from MA. Not sure why she is after him this way, but it is highly suspect.

[karynnj]

11. The DU one ended up saying he/she liked Kerry

He/she was mainly suggesting that in addition to defense, we need to attack McCain. After many, including you, pointed out that Kerry has hit hime very hard on the issues, he stated more clearly what he wanted - the Democrats to all attack McCain on his "violent" temper, and call him phony, immature, and inauthentic. He/she thinks this is what will work. :crazy:

The whole thread on the Kos one was weird.

Isn't Kerry's site for ALL Democrats, not just Obama, who does have his own - where Kerry was involved in the beginning in publicizing it. I would assume that Obama's campaign could not defend all Democrats as the money is to elect him. A leadership PAC, like Kerry's , can help ALL Democrats, where needed. Each campaign setting one up would be a waste and an expense that most could not afford. Is this right? If so, it is Kerry being a Democratic leader - as is usually the case.

[Mass]

12. No clue who this idiot is, but he is really an idiot. Kerry is doing what he can to

support Obama, and this person thinks he is positioning himself for 2012?:crazy:

Talk of being imaginative.

http://www.politickerma.com/wallyedgema/685/john-kerry-setting-himself-2012

[Mass]

13. I was expecting Kerry to speak that night, but he is not in the lineup.

(and Gore has not been announced either). Did I miss a date or is he not going to speak (or speak the same day than Obama).

http://www.demconvention.com/the-2008-convention-wednesday-august-27th-securing-americas-future/

[Inuca]

14. I did a search on the site

amd his name only came up in relation to 04. He MUST speak, right? COuld it....? No, it can't be.

[YvonneCa]

16. Did you look at that ...

...lineup?




http://www.demconvention.com/the-2008-convention-wednesday-august-27th-securing-americas-future/





It's tailor-made for someone... But who? :)

[Mass]

17. I know, but I find that for the very least unlikely.

Anyway, he is not the only one who was not scheduled yet:

Al Giordano has an interesting post here:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/vp-process-elimination-part-ii

Kerry




That leaves (among those that have been mentioned that do not yet have convention speaking slots announced):

Among the very big names that people would expect to see speak (aside Dean, Gore and Kerry), he lists (and of course, Webb is not yet scheduled yet).

Kaine

Dodd

Graham

Chaffee

Hamilton

Nunn

Reed

[MBS]

15. It would be very strange ==

for the previous election's nominee not to speak at all. (Am I right? ) Even if they are in disgrace, they're usually given some kind of slot, even if not a prominent slot, right? Can anyone remember what happened at the 1984 convention? Was Carter given any kind of slot even though he lost in 1980???

[TayTay]

18. No, he did not

Jimmy Carter did not speak again at a National convention until 2004, when John Kerry asked him to speak.

Don't read anything into this schedule. It doesn't mean anything. John Kerry might be doing commentary on the convention for the networks or hanging out with the MA delegation or talking strategy with Obama people. There are a ton of other things to be done at the Convention. I do think it highly logical to have John Kerry around and on-stage on Monday when the Tribute to Teddy Kennedy happens. Other than that, he might not have a stage appearance. No harm, no foul here on that.

Maybe Sen. Kerry doesn't want to be highly visible at the Convention. The Senator has been bearing down and doing Senate work. It is entirely possible that he wants to use the Convention to talk to others about issues and legislation and other stuff. This is Senator Obama's show. Maybe JK is graciously ceding that ground to Obama and working on Party unity events behind the scenes. Could happen.

[Mass]

19. This is why I was asking the question.

But, in all honesty, I would find that greatly disturbing. JMO.

[MBS]

20. good, sensible possibilities that seem in line with who JK is..

I have no doubt that he'll be working behind the scenes, but I'd still love to see him up there, publicly. Part of the Teddy tribute, for sure, at minimum. How I long to see him recognized , with a standing O, for who he is and what he's done, for the party and for the country.

[wisteria]

21. Yay, I understand what a wonderful Senator Kennedy is, but why a

tribute at this time? It seems morbid to me. Isn't Senator Kennedy doing well? He seems to have come through the surgery and chemo well.

[TayTay]

22. That's why. Because he is still here to see it

There are a lot of folks who want to wish him well. This is a good time to show that Teddy K is still there, still fighting, and still endorsing Obama.

Maybe in that order.

[wisteria]

23. Do you know if he is well enough and intends on attending the convention?n/t

[beachmom]

24. I think everyone should brace themselves for more "behind the scenes"

Obama tonight, when asked which "wise men" he would listen to, mentioned Nunn and Lugar for foreign policy. Now, we all know darn well that Obama is not channeling either of those men in terms of foreign policy. I don't know what is going to happen, and the VP rumors strike me as not credible. I will say that Obama is smart about electoral politics, and Kerry is no slouch either. Sometimes, "behind the scenes", as inglorious as it sounds, ends up being more influential.

It may well be a downer, and the fact that it was Kerry who selected Obama to keynote in '04, may mean that I have gotten this all wrong, and some brief appearance will be apt .... but I still think we should keep our expectations low as to what role Kerry will have in the convention. As Tay said, this is for Barack Obama, and all that matters to me at this point is that everything is done to give him a major bounce that propels him to the White House.

[Mass]

25. We can keep it low, but some others here in the state are keeping it high.

Sorry, if he does not speak --and not as a Kennedy surrogate--, it will hurt him here, there is no other way to put it.

The message it will send loud and clear is the one his opposition here wants: an unimportant player in the game that has been pushing himself and lost. The fact that Patrick, who is not liked in the state, gets a speaking slot, will compound the problem, particularly if other Representatives do as well.

Obviously, Obama will do what he wants, and you may be right that he will keep a background role that will be influential, but on the game of apparency that is politics, the message will be bad. See the reaction of Clark's people at the idea he is not speaking (and there are way less compelling reasons for Clark to speak). They are right for all I can see.

Honestly, I feel bitter right now because, in the list that has been posted, very few of the names I respect are present. If this is the image of the Democratic Party Obama will create, it may be a winning coalition, but it is one who will lose many people in the same time.

As for yesterday, clearly, it was a losing proposition and would have been whatever Obama and Mccain had said. I however put a lot less weight in what he said: Lugar and Nunn are something simply obvious, and naming Biden or Kerry (and anybody else of some weight in foreign affairs) there would simply have hyped the VP rumors. He also said he would listen to Kennedy and Coburn in domestic affairs. :scared:

[beachmom]

26. Yeah, I agree it will be a disappointment.

Maybe we shouldn't worry about it yet, though, until it gets closer to the convention and the whole schedule is known. Remember, Gore has not been put on the schedule yet either, and he's had a very good 2 years in terms of enthusiasm among Democrats.

As to Coburn, I assume Obama only means ethics and some fiscal restraint in terms of a ballooning deficit, as well as open government. He has worked with Coburn on those issues before.

Still, everyone needs to remember 2006 and the Alito filibuster. There is that side to Obama that has always been there.

[wisteria]

31. Gore waited until after Senator Obama was our candidate to even make an endorsement.

Yes, he is popular, but I would still expect Kerry to speak, considering his early endorsement,support and defense, and consider it a bonus if Gore did.

[Mass]

33. Oops, I thought you were answering to me.

[wisteria]

29. You know what bothers me? Many Clinton supporters are being given speaking spots.

Ed Rendell,who did everything in his power to make Hillary our candidate by exerting his power in Pa, has a spot and is just one person who comes to mind. Then there is Bayh who not only is speaking, but is being consider for VP. Oh, and then there is the tag team Clinton's. And, unfortunately, with Kerry not being given a spot, this jades my opinion of Obama. Senator Kerry has done so much for him and his support is rewarded with nothing but the suggestion that he should lay low and pehaps not attend at all.

[Mass]

30. At this point, to be honest, the suggestion was from some of his supporters.

I've have not heard it from anywhere else than in this forum. Now, I am somewhat perplexed and worried that the first person whom I heard that was TayTay, and not sure where it comes from.

While my feelings are the same as yours on that, note that there is a full day of speaking not attributed, and that major figures like Gore, Durbin, Daschle, and Kaine, have not been given a speaking slot. As much as I am deeply displeased by the extend given to the Clinton clan, it was necessary in order to help the healing. Let's wait and see what happens.

[wisteria]

All true. I can't wait for this waiting to be overwith. n/t

[wisteria]

27. Whatever.

I want most of all for JK to be given the respect and accolades he deserves. And, I have said before here and elsewhere, that I think he could accomplish more if he had a more prestigious and even more respected position outside the senate. The media do not promote those who work "behind the scenes". If you don't gain the media's attention and respect, whatever you do goes unreported and un-noticed and sometimes this is detrimental to what you want to accomplish.IMO, Kerry gains nothing if he isn't VP or SOS. Dodd is next in line for chairman of the FRC- if the senate rewards senators with chairmanships based on length of service and Biden becomes VP. ( I personally like Biden the least for VP and would be pleased if he wasn't chosen).And, frankly, all the names being tossed around for VP leave me very underwhelmed.
Maybe Senator Kerry will skip the entire convention and go skiing in Denver.That way, he in no way takes something away from Obama's week. Now, if we could only do something about the scene stealing Clintons.

LOL, now I just broke my promise not to mention anything more about this entire subject.

[Mass]

28. Well, on these topics, we are in agreement.

[beachmom]

34. It's not our decision. That's the point. And you can get mad about it,

or you can accentuate the positive. I realize you think "Senator" is not a prestigious job, but Ted Kennedy would disagree with you on that score. Just remember that with all the hoopla about Al Gore being such a great champion for the environment, it was John Kerry who did more work on the issue in 2007, as in real action in the law, when he and the other Senators involved got the CAFE standards raised for ALL vehicles to 35 mpg.

Again, we are not in a disagreement here, but if the die has been cast, there is nothing we can do about it except concentrate on the good works Kerry has done and will do in the future.

And, really, we don't know anything.

[wisteria]

35. You make my point, who got the credit and the prizes- Gore.

And, it was probably Gore's infulence on the media that actually help convince the public thus, some legislatures to vote as they did for the bill you mention. You think Kerry likes being ignored and discredited? I didn't think I was supporting this guy in 2004, I thought I was supporting a leader. As for Kennedy, he had a name and two brothers who were important to America. IMO, Kennedy inherited some of his prestige. Kerry is not Kennedy.
As for it being Obama's choice, you are absolutely right. However, that does not mean that I have to like it, be enthusiastic about that choice or even support it. Frankly, I find it hard to promote and volunteer for candidates that I find unappealing. Call me a bad Democrat, what can I say? I am to honest and a bad actor when it comes to supporting those I don't like- another Democrat or not.

[karynnj]

50. Carter was not given a slot in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 or 2000

In 2004, Kerry gave slots to Carter and Gore, who had not yet done his book and was less popular than Kerry is now.

I wonder if this was another Clinton demand.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[TayTay]

36. Some other thoughts on the Convention

John Kerry, former nominee of the Democratic Party, sitting United States Senator, distinguished member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading figure in the Senate and in the Dem Party can probably do what he wants at the Convention. Sen. Kerry was an early and critical endorser of Barack Obama; the Senator has gone on the cable nets and talk shows and skewered Repubs and critics for Senator Obama and is, I think, in high favor with the Obama campaign. Many of the people who worked for Sen. Kerry in 2004 are now working for Sen. Obama, including David Wade, who is helping build an organization for the VP yet to be announced and left with Sen. Kerry's full blessing and support.

Consider you are planning this convention for a second. You have a past nominee who has done exceptional work on the cable nets on defense and on offense for the current nominee. He doesn't wilt on TV. He hasn't been bested in an argument and has been really, really good at turning an argument around and getting Obama and the Dem Party's views across.

How would you use such a person at an event that is being covered 24/7 by the cable nets? Certainly he will have a speaking role somewhere at the Convention, but in what capacity is he really, really valuable and doing work that just damn right and well suits him?

Okay, now tell me how you slot this asset?

[wisteria]

37. So are you telling us he is being reduced to a talking head role like Buchanan and

Joe Scarsboro? On the outside looking in except for a morbid tribute to Senator Kennedy. How disappointing. Sorry Tay, but if this is going to be his role, I am very disappointed and angry at the Obama camp. Obama doesn't need defending during his Convention.

[MBS]

38. I agree. His TV gig is important, but he should have something during

convention

[Mass]

39. Same here. I am still not sure whether TayTay is telling it is the case or

if she is trying to find a rational in case it is so, but I find this very bothering.

[TayTay]

40. I am saying that maybe this *is* what the good Senator wants to do

Maybe he was given his choice of what he wants to do in Denver and he has CHOSEN not to be a big presence on stage.

I am saying that maybe the Obama people are respecting his wishes and giving him something more valuable to do.

We have a chance to elect a Democratic President. We have a chance to elect a more Democratic Senate and House. That means that so many things Sen. Kerry has spent his political career fighting for have a chance to be enacted. 24+ years in public service, 25 freaking years and this *is* the moment that we could have the political will, the momentum and the right number of elected officials in place to enact real change. Don't you think that is worth battling for? Haven't we said over and over that the media is a problem and maybe, just maybe the Dems need someone helping out on commentary.

Why is this less important than some speaking role onstage at the convention? I don't get it. I honestly don't. There is zero snub here. It is not a figment of my imagination, a face-saving device or anything else. I think Sen. Kerry wants to help and be in the right position to do the most good for the national ticket and elect a Dem Pres and a more Dem Party. A speaking role at the convention is nice, I suppose, but it means little for Sen. Kerry in the fall elections.

[karynnj]

43. I am sure Kerry would do what he thinks is best

for the party. I do see that this is Obama's show - but Kerry gave speeches to Gore (before he was popular), Carter and every 2004 competitor. There was no one you could say was a party elder statesman missing. There is nothing any Democrat will be doing during that convention - so there is no "giving him something more valuable to do." The only possibility is that Obama is giving to slots to people whose support has been tepid to get them actively behind him.

The problem is that schedule coupled with his LAME answer on the T Bone question hurts. (Instead of just saying his record was longer than that - he could have said that funding the SBVT was unconscienable, but that he was a major player on the energy scene.) The fact is that no one has spent the millions of dollars against Obama yet. When they do, I doubt he will take that in so off hand a fashion.

The fact is that no one defended Obama better than Kerry in the primaries when he needed it. I know that having Kerry's back is less important than Obama's this election - but how little would it take. What gets me is Obama is catering to every little thing the Clintons want, possibly because he knows they will subtly knife him in the back.

[wisteria]

46. Governor Rendell of PA an ardent Clinton supporter is speaking .

And, Senator Casey. Casey I can understand he supported and promoted Obama in Pa during the primaries, but not Rendell. I was told personally by a Rendell assistant that he was positioning himself behind the Clinton's because he was getting a cabinet position.
I may be done with politics after this. I only got involved in 2003/04 because I believed in Kerry. I don't need to stick around to witness these slams against him or the snubs either. It is very sad the way this is all turning out.

[MBS]

56. ditto. n/t

[wisteria]

45. I find it hard to believe that Senator Kerry wouldn't want to be there.

Even former President Clinton made it known he felt slighted without an invite. And, even if this is may be what Kerry wants it is a bad move and makes it look like he is being pushed aside. Gee, if he has a choice maybe he should reconsider. He looks like the odd man out here, something Senator Kerry doesn't deserve.

[wisteria]

49. Sorry, I don't buy it. There will be plenty of other times to defend

and present our point of views. I don't think Kerry's commentary is necessary on cable TV during the Convention. This is the Dem's and Obama's week. You make it sound like an appearance at the Convention by Senator Kerry will ruin everything. I don't get it. As the last Presidential candidate he should be there.

[beachmom]

51. He's going to be there, Wisteria!

Oh, I am sure it will all work out, and you will be happy with the results. Maybe we should just drop it, not worry, and let it all just happen.

[beachmom]

41. Have you considered that this is what John Kerry wants?

He's been the star of the show before. He really doesn't have so big an ego, that he needs to be slotted in A Very Important Democratic Speaking Role at the Democratic National Convention, like other Democrats who have very wounded egos at the moment. The Obama campaign is REALLY pleased with John Kerry, and I can imagine they would bend over backwards to express their appreciation for all that he has done for Obama all year (and even in 2007). It has been in every press account I have read how pleased they are with John Kerry. I have a feeling that the Obama campaign would be pretty accommodating to whatever JK thought would be a good role at the convention. But John Kerry's goal at the convention is not to gain accolades. It is to make sure Barack Obama has a successful convention.

Sometimes Kerry does annoying things like checking his ego at the door. He has done it in the past on bills, where he has written them, they finally pass, and suddenly he takes his name off of it to let another Senator get the glory. It can be downright infuriating when he pulls this sort of thing. But this is the John Kerry we all decided we would continue to support, even after he lost the presidency in 2004. That he still had great things in him; I think 2008 is proving that.

Of course, all of this is pure speculation -- nothing is set in stone. I still have a pretty strong feeling that JK will do what he thinks is best during the convention.

[Mass]

42. Once again and knowing that the last day is not known, are we ranting about

hypotheticals, or are people here trying to tell us that Kerry will not speak, because honestly, the reasons given do not even hold water.

If Kerry has so little ego, he should get out of elective politics, because this is not exactly a place where people with small egos do things, and, which is worse, he has the reputation of somebody with a very big ego.

I am going to drop this issue because, given that a big speaking role at a Convention, except for the big stars like the Clintons, the VP and the nominee, is something of about 10 to 20 mn, this discussion is getting ridiculous, particularly added to the aggravation of Reid speaking on energy and no speeches planned about global warming or healthcare at this point. I will wait until the full schedule is known to post on that.

[beachmom]

44. You're right, it could change in a twinkle of an eye.

But since everyone sounds all bent out of shape, I was just offering my view. That is all.

[wisteria]

48. You make a lot of sense Mass. Entirely ego-less people do not belong in politics.

Running for office requires a bit of self serving -importance and ego. Politics is no place for those who want to be saints.
As for the topics I also agree, much is being omitted or at least it seems so at this point. Health care is a glaring example.
The whole discussion has me upset at this point. I think I need to put it aside if I can.

[ray of light]

52. Are you really saying that a big ego is more important than a big desire to help people? nt

[ray of light]

53. Also, it's not a big ego that's needed. It's confidence & integrity.

JK has both. When you have that, you don't need ego.

And as far as ego is concerned, ego brings about bad policies. Example: Iraq, Bankruptcy "reform" bill, the Terri Shaivo stuff.

[wisteria]

55. I would suggest that confidence comes from ego and success.

I won't disagree with you assessment of JFK. I am saying a healthy ego is also needed and there is nothing wrong with it.

[wisteria]

54. No, I am saying you need a healthy ego to be a politician. If all you are interested in is helping

people and not being remembered for anything there are many other ways to do this in more direct and even effective ways. Don't twist around what I am saying. If you expect me to believe that Senator Kerry is all saviour and no ego, sorry, I don't buy it. There is nothing wrong with ambition and ego that is channeled in a way that is positive.

[Mass]

57. What you said.\nt

[beachmom]

58. This isn't about Kerry's ego; it's about making the convention a success.

The two of you are sitting there doing your armchair quarterbacking on what Kerry should do. He might not do what you want. I think Kerry has been pretty savvy and astute getting his reputation back after all the crap he took in '04, '05, and '06. So I am going to defer to him what is the best move during the convention. And you can oppose him on it, but frankly, I am distressed that my supposition that doing what is best for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE is now being poo pooed here. Basically, you are saying that all those Democrats who distanced themselves from Kerry, concern trolled for Kerry, did not stand up for John Kerry in 2004 are GOOD politicians because they put their own selves before the nominee. If political ego is what you love, Bill Clinton is more your man. I mean, REALLY.

But let's be clear about one thing: don't blame Obama if you don't like what role JK plays at the convention. Okay?

[Mass]

59. Sure. I will leave you make your own quaterbacking, because,except if you know for a fact that

Kerry will not speak at the Convention and why, this is what you have been doing.

[beachmom]

60. Well, except, I am not turning it into The Worst Thing Ever.

That it will hurt him in Mass., that this is a slap in the face, etc.

And armchair quarterbacking usually is criticizing, which I am not doing.

[karynnj]

61. There is a difference between distancing oneself from Obama

and finding his choices on speakers unsatisfying.

Looking at the link, what I think I see is that Obama is secure enough with the left of center support he has that he has concentrated on two goals. 1) Giving the Clintons a huge amount of time between them to completely make any attack that he slighted either laughable. 2) Giving as many purple or even reddish purple Governors and Senators speeches. (The same lefties who didn't like Kerry's convention, may see in retrospect that he gave Obama the keynote speech - not a centrist and he gave Gore, Carter, and each of his opponents a speech. His likely goal was to showcase a unified party, where every elder statesman was given time and promising new stars were introduced)

If this observation is right - the non- Obama part of the convention may not be that inspiring to us, but it might help with people in the center who turn in to see what happens and with people furious that Clinton lost. If so, that's what he needs. I hope he is correct that he doesn't have to worry about his left. (I keep thinking of how Kerry actually met with Nader and to some degree helped himself with Nader commenting that Kerry was Presidential - and refraining from the nonsense of no difference he spouted in 2000)

I do hope that if he gives Kerry nothing in the convention that he does something before the primary - such as recording a robo call where he speaks of how much he values Kerry. I realize that Obama needs to do his convention in whatever way he thinks maximizes his own chances, but he has to be smart enough to see the major risks Kerry took to help him. If there is anyone Obama owes, it is Kerry. If he does nothing - there are major reasons to stay involved even if Obama does nothing - as Kerry himself will continue to work his heart out to help Obama because the consequences are dire. As to supporting the Senator himself, nothing Obama says or does running for President will change that the one person I trust to try to do what is right is Kerry.

[MBS]

62. Beautifully said.

Perfect!! Thanks. :)

[wisteria]

65. If Obama does not have enough integrity to at least acknowledge all the JK

has done for him, I will view this in an unfavorable way towards Senator Obama. Senator Obama has utilized Kerry's people and has benefited from his e-mail list, but if I understand you correctly, Senator Kerry's presence at the Convention may hurt Obama's chances of winning. So, for the good of the party and Obama, Kerry will possibly stay away.

[ray of light]

63. I thought I responded to Mass. But since I guess it went to you too, I'll say this...

You need a number of things to be a politician and ego isn't necessarily prime.

1. You want to create laws that better this country and help others.

2. You want to be in charge of creating better laws. Heck...I would do this because I'm sure I would do a better job than my current House Rep.



In terms of this elections...well, we've gone through a drought for Democratic control. I think it takes a strong person to put aside his ego to help the team.

And that brings about point three.

3. It takes people willing to work together to make better things happen and to WIN after a long drought!

So even if you have ego, helping us win is better.

[wisteria]

64. I never said it was. I was responding to those who tried to say he had none.

Of course the things you mentioned are important. I would never want someone to lead us who was all ego. Actually, I would never consider such a person a leader at all.

[wisteria]

47. As I said in my other post, I find it hard to believe Senator Kerry wouldn't want to be there.

Maybe I am wrong on this, but it is disapointing none the less.And, if this is Kerry's choice, perhaps he should reconsider-not being there makes it look like he is being slighed in the eyes of his enemies and his supporters. And I fail to see how his presence at the Convention will undermine the Covention and steal the limelight from Obama. That makes no sense to me especially since the Clinton's are both speaking and will be covered by national TV.
This is all so aweful and I am distraught by it all.

[Noisy Democrat]

66. JK said today he's speaking at the convention

It was an offhand comment in Leominster. He said he's speaking on Wednesday but he hasn't pulled anything together yet (that part might've been a joke, but I dunno :) ).

[YvonneCa]

67. OMG, I sure hope...

...he wasn't joking. :) Wednesday? It DOES sound like a joke. :7

[Noisy Democrat]

68. I'll post the video if I can

I think he was serious about speaking Wednesday, but as for not having written anything yet, who knows. We shouldn't read anything into anything, though. Let's just assume he'll be giving some kind of brief speech. He also said he has not been approached about being VP and doesn't know who's on the shortlist.

I'll do my best to post a video clip when I get it off the camera. I *think* I got the Q&A about the convention on tape.

[YvonneCa]

69. No conclusion...

...jumping here. :) Thanks for the post.

[wisteria]

70. I wonder if this is besides the tribute to Senator Kennedy? What day is that?

And, how come he isn't on the listing? Oh, and thank you for letting us know. At least he isn't going to be in exile.

[YvonneCa]

71. The tribute is on Monday...

...I believe. Here is a link: http://www.demconvention.com/press-releases/


I don't know if he is speaking on Wednesday or if he was kidding...but the VP is on Wednesday.

*breathing* :)

[wisteria]

72. Thanks for the information. If this is true, I feel better just knowing he is not

being ignored.

[YvonneCa]

73. Me, too. n/t

[Mass]

74. in Dorchester, Kerry says he is expecting to speak at the Convention, probably Wednesday

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1113694

Kerry said he’s expecting to speak at the DNC and may give a talk on national security Wednesday night. Final details on his speaking schedule are being ironed out, an aide said.
...

[beachmom]

75. Gore will be speaking Thursday night at INVESCO field:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/19/115352/608/150/570389

So Gore will probably be introducing Obama.

[YvonneCa]

76. I saw that. It's great...

...news. Did you happen to catch Obama's VFW speech? It was wonderful...he's channeling JK again. The perfect set up for the Wednesday theme. I think C-Span will replay it at 2:15 Pacific (so 5:15 Eastern ?).