I don't want John Kerry to be the 2008 pres. nominee. Who's with me?

[MoonRiver]

Poll question: I don't want John Kerry to be the 2008 pres. nominee. Who's with me?

He's failed me in so many ways, from voting for IWR to caving before the votes were counted in Ohio. I don't want to think I'm grossly compromising my principles by simply voting ABR again. Even if Dem votes don't count because the black box eats them, at least I'd like to feel I'm voting in alliance with my conscience and beliefs.

[leyton]

1. This is just destructive.

If you want to start threads to destructively attack Democrats, there's a place called Free Republic where that's what's fashionable.

[MoonRiver]

2. It's only destructive to state a preference that someone not get the nom,

if you're a supporter of that person. You obviously are. My criticism has nothing at all to do with any Democrat other than Kerry.

[CBGLuthier]

4. Yeah but unlike the freepers

We still believe in the right to choose the best candidate. Kerry lost me 100% with his foolish anti-human rights comments the other day about gay marriage being a losing idea for the democrats.

Zell Miller calls himself a democrat. May we not point out that he is a fool?

Same standards apply to Kerry. Wrong is wrong.

[paulk]

45. do you think gay marriage is a

winning idea for the Dems, then?

Did you pay any attention to the last election?

[Catt03]

22. I think so too...it's not only destructive

it's kinda silly.

Between now and the election, there will be people we never thought of who will be running.

I like Kerry and if he does run, I think it will be a different man we
observe.

[charlyvi]

31. Yes, it is destructive. n/t

[chaumont58]

3. If he were to get nomination in '08

I hope he doesn't hire Bob Shrum as campaign manager. Shrum was 0 for 7. Kerry made him zero for 8. Someone should have caught on sooner.

[lancdem]

25. That's for sure

[saracat]

5. Kerry deserves the nomination. He has been working his butt off for us

and is the only 100% liberal that we have .All the other politico's, except maybe Kennedy, who got snookered with LNCB, have sold out somewhere along the line to Bushco. Some have caved only a little and others, like Lieberman, a lot. Kerry has consistently voted corrected and been out front leading the effort. No one in American politics today can match his record. I also think it probable that he actually won in 2004. And I think he did what ever he could legally and is still investigating that election. We should back him as the winner and stop whining. What other potential candidate has contributed more to this country both legislatively, and personally than Kerry? Flame away. JMHO.

[Bluebear]

15. I would really question that Kerry is "100% liberal"

Just sayin'.

[saracat]

17. On what basis? Look at his record! If you mean the gay marriage flap, He

has always supported civil unions! He is even rated as the most liberal member of the Senate. Just compare his record overall with the others!

[Bluebear]

20. I wouldn't call voting for the Iraq War "liberal"

You said he is 100% liberal, all I said was I would not call him 100%. I consider Mosely-Braun more liberal, for instance.

(By the way, gay marriage is not a "flap" or a "thingy" as another poster said.) :)

[saracat]

27. Mosely Braun didn't HAVE a vote.

and I really like he but she didn't.And not to reargue the election, but Kerry DIDN"T technically vote for IWAR. He voted to give the preseident authority to go to war after all other options were exhausted. Bush didn't keep his word. But whatever. I said "overall record". There is no one else who matches him for liberalism. You may look at some who voted against the war but their is much else in their records to disapprove of. And Kerry is the ONLY candidate who never took PAC money. That says a lot! And BTW, I didn't say "gay marriage ( which I support) was a "flap",I said their was a "flaP" about his comments on "gay marriage"!

[Bluebear]

41. Fair enough

PS You can see I am really pissed off at Kerry's comments about the gay marriage thing. Of course if he is the nominee I will vote for him, but that comment down in Louisiana REALLY ticked me off.

[CTLawGuy]

44. no

he gave the president the authority to go to war whenever he wanted, not "when all the other options were exhausted."

[safi0]

24. I like Kerry

If he ends up being the 2008 candidate I'll work just as hard for him as I did in 2004. But to say he has consistently voted correct is assanine to say the least. I think most of us would agree that the most important vote of Bush's first term was the IWR vote and Kerry was not one of the 22 Democrats who had the guts to vote against that illegal war.

[suziedemocrat]

6. Who is your alternative? Clark? Bayh - I think he is planning to run.

Although I must say - even though I think Kerry actually won the last election - electoral and popular vote IMO - he was a little timid in his defense against the swiftboat veterans for truth. But - who knows - with the media the way it is - maybe there is no right way for a Democrat to run a campaign???

[MoonRiver]

9. Clark is obviously my first choice, but there are others I like also.

Kerry is dead last on my list of people who will probably announce.

[madrchsod]

7. kerry lost me when he quit

he was a coward.

[jsw_81]

14. Coward?

How many Purple Hearts (and Silver Stars etc.) have you won?

[jsw_81]

8. I'd definitely support Kerry

And you're deluding yourself if you really think that Clark -- or any other mainstream Democratic candidate -- would have reacted to the Iraq war or last year's election results any differently than Kerry did.

[MoonRiver]

13. Well, that's an easy spin cause we'll never know, will we.

What we do know is that Kerry ran a disastrous campaign and LOST. Whether he really lost or just gave up before the votes were all counted and/or recounted is an academic discussion. We now have bush for 4 more and Kerry is partially responsible.

[jsw_81]

18. Disastrous campaign? Hardly.

John Kerry won 251 electoral votes -- only 19 short of victory -- and more popular votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in American history. A shift of only two percentage points in Ohio and he would be in the Oval Office at this very moment; he came closer to beating an incumbent president than any challenger in decades.

If you want to see a truly disastrous campaign, take a look at McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and the others -- including Wesley Clark, winner of one primary and loser of forty-nine -- who truly went down in flames. Yes, Kerry's campaign was flawed, but it was hardly disastrous.

[MoonRiver]

23. My God! He lost to the worst, most despicable excuse for a pResident

in American history! One who, btw, despite being a "war" pResident, was barely eking out a 50% approval rating before the election. THAT is disastrous in anybody's book.

[jsw_81]

26. And Clark lost overwhelmingly to Kerry

So by your logic (or lack thereof), Clark is the worst of the worst. And he's your choice for 2008? Yikes!

[MoonRiver]

28. Clark didn't run against bush! Everybody dropped out before most

of the states held their primaries or caucuses. Sorry this is not a good analogy.

[lancdem]

32. It wasn't even 50 percent

That's what's so frustrating.

[MoonRiver]

34. You're right. He was usually at about 47. Gallup gave him 50

most of the time with the help of "creative" sampling.

[lancdem]

29. Came closer to beating an incumbent president

than any challenger in decades?? Bill Clinton beat an incumbent in 1992. Bush was beatable, and Kerry didn't come through. His campaign staff was terrible, and he was the one who picked them.

[charlyvi]

33. Agreed. And I might add

he came closer to beating an incumbent WAR president than any challenger in decades.

[AP]

10. If there's someone better, I'm with you. If there isn't, I'm not with you.

I still wish Kerry ran in 2000. I think he would have defeated Gore and Bush and he'd be president today.

[snowbear]

11. Welp...

I'll end up supporting whoever the eventual nominee is.. but in all honesty, Senator Kerry will not be my first choice.

That said.. I'd love to have a dollar for every poll on here asking about 2008 nominees in the next 3 years! :rofl: ;)

[FrenchieCat]

12. Kerry should run

and the people will judge.

Right now, the polls showing who people want to win are in favor of whomever has the most name recognition. It will be that way for sometime. That's why we always end up with "familiar" faces.

If we straighten out the media, we'll get who we want, and not who they tell us we should have. that's the most important chore. We need to hit the corporate media enough times so that they are afraid to fuck with us. That's what we need to do.

[Mr_King]

16. Wow

It just surprises me that some people in our own party will attack John Kerry because they think every Democrat in elected office should kiss the ground they walk on. We are over here bitching about a bunch of wedge issues created by the right wing while Bush and Rove are sitting up in the White House laughing at us.

Not all Democrats are the same. Look at John Breaux and Ted Kennedy, both Dems one is more conservative the other more liberal. Look at our history John Kennedy (Liberal Democrat) and Lyndon Johnson (Blue Dog Democrat) then Lyndon Johnson picks Hubert Humphery (Liberal Democrat) to be his V-P. We used to be able to work together before and after election day.

This is the reason why Republicans always say "Get Over It, You Lost." Because some people in this party are stuck in 2000 and 2004. We need to look at 2006 and 2008 and beyond. The election is over and Diebold and Ken Blackwell won it for Bush in Ohio. But there is no way to prove it. History in the long run will bring Bush and Company's crimes to light. They'll have to answer to the God they say they love so much on judgement day.


If you don't like the Democrats that are leading this party, then you should work to become a party leader in your own area and then work your way up to the national level. Or run for local office yourself and work your way up. Just sitting at a computer screen and complaining about Kerry, Clark, Clinton, Dean, Reid, Gore, Edwards, etc. isn't doing anything to help the cause.

[NMDemDist2]

19. I supported Kerry in '04 and I'll support any Dem we name in '08

Senator Kerry has been the topic of a lot of discussion in the last few days that have (mostly) devolved into flame wars.

I hope this won't be a continuation of the lamentable lack of civility I have witnessed on this topic so frequently.

JMHO :shrug:

[onehandle]

43. Ditto on your entire post. nt

[rzemanfl]

21. I am seriously for a Kerry/Gore or Gore/Kerry ticket with a swap

in positions after two years. Then each of the last two President-elects could actually get a chance to hold office.

[Kolesar]

30. Kerry's speeches were boring and the Dem convention was a waste

A whole evening leading up to retelling his Vietnam & antiwar activism experience. There were a number of issues he could have based his campaign on and did not. He did not lead on global warming, for one. JK was in such an awkward position because of his IWR vote & $87 billion appropriation vote that he could not smash bush with that one, either.

[safi0]

35. Plus he didn't bring up the

Atrocities that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

[Kolesar]

46. Three debates and "Abu Ghraib" was never uttered

Salon.com had a summary of the three debates with all of the issues that were never mentioned. The moderators were partly responsible for that. (this is depressing)

[elfin]

36. Kerry keeps trying to have it both ways

on too many issues - ex. gay rights - not making clear whatever distinction he has between civil unions and "marriage."

He does not make himself clear and forthright.

While this could be sign of nuanced intelligence, it is a big loser in elections.

I still favor Clark/Richardson.

I will vote for any Dem nominated, but will not be enthusiastic about Kerry again.

[incapsulated]

37. Pet, this isn't helpful...

2008 is years away, there will be plenty of time for primary wars. No one has even formally announced yet, and won't for quite a while.

Let's try to stop going at each other in the meantime.

[cornermouse]

38. I have a better idea.

Let's forget about the 2008 presidential election until after the 2006 congressional election.

[mattclearing]

39. Nice flamebait. n/t

[minnesotaDFLer]

40. no way should he run

john Kerry makes me sick. If we can't get a better nominee we're doomed. Bush was only a taste of whats to come. There will be other nominees who are much smarter and more able to run then he has been. Unless someone emerges "like an FDR or a Clinton" I think we're doomed.

[onehandle]

42. Nader For President in 2008!

If you're going to post such a pointless post, you might as well go all the way.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I really do not like this kind of post.

I don't think that bashing Democrats and provoking flamewars is a constructive way to use this forum.

[Moderator]

48. Locking, Flame bait n/t