Kerry's Message To Clintonistas

[MethuenProgressive]

From http://www.TomPaine.com

Kerry's Message To Clintonistas

A possible 2008 presidential candidate made an aggressive bid to woo progressives Tuesday, but it was a failed 2004 presidential candidate that told progressives what they needed to hear.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts ignited us at the Take Back America conference by admitting that his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq was wrong. “It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake,” Kerry said, adding, “I was wrong to vote for that war resolution.” He received sustained applause and some cheers.

Contrast that with the comments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has become famous for her assiduous courtship of the center — and at times, even the right — as well as her coy courtship with a 2008 presidential bid. While she criticized the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war and its “open-ended commitment,” she added that she believed it was wrong to “set a date certain” for withdrawal. She received a scattering of applause and a number of boos.

Kerry told the morning plenary session that he is going to sponsor an amendment to the defense spending bill demanding a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year. It is measure that will apparently put Kerry at odds with the more cautious Clinton. It will force her to make a choice between those who are urging caution in Iraq and Kerry’s now full-throated denunciation of the war and the way it is being executed.

“A war on Iraq founded on a lie can never be true to the American character,” Kerry said early in his speech, which was almost totally devoted to the war, in contrast to Clinton’s, which was mainly focused on domestic policy. Kerry drew parallels between the Iraq war and the Vietnam War that he was a soldier in, noting that in both wars, thousands of soldiers were killed or injured long after policymakers realized they had headed in the wrong direction but stubbornly refused to reverse themselves. “I was morally wrong then and it is morally wrong now,” he said.

In direct contrast to Clinton’s refusal to back a firm deadline for troop withdrawal, Kerry said, “We need a hard and fast deadline” and a policy that demands that Iraqis take responsibility for their own security. He said that every movement in Iraq toward the establishment of a permament consensus government has been prompted by deadlines set by the Bush administration and coalition partners.

Kerry also offered a set of principles he said progressives should stand for:

• Tell the truth to the American people.

• “Fire the incompetents” and hold government accountable.

• Make America secure by making America energy independent.

• “Value work, not wealth.”

• Export products, not jobs.

• Provide affordable health care for all Americans.

• Address global warming and the pollution of our air and water.

Kerry was preceded by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who noted that she stood by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania when he called for a definitive plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq and that she voted against the Iraq War resolution in the House. “This war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake,” she said, and she repeated her call for the dismissal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

But of the two senators whose names are most closely associated with presidential politics, it was Kerry, not Clinton, who showed that he has learned from a botched 2004 presidential bid how to electrify progressive voters anxious to see one of their own in the White House in 2008.

--Isaiah J. Poole | Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:36 AM

[saltpoint]

1. Kerry, Gore or Edwards tops our ticket in 08.

[burythehatchet]

3. Honestly, the dems have a half dozen people who

would be great presidents.

[saltpoint]

4. That's right and there's going to be some serious red butt kicked high

and hard in November and in 08 too.

[blm]

9. And the one who works to expose voting machine fraud is the only one who

CAN win and will most deserve to win.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I'm afraid you are dead-on right.

Sometimes I wonder if the Dems think the "problem" is just going to go away.

[MethuenProgressive]

7. Kerry, Gore, Clark, perhaps

...with Clinton, Warner and Dashcle close behind. Lieberman and Edwards are destined to join Ferraro as mere triva.
Perhaps it's time for a DU Straw Poll?

[saltpoint]

8. Nope. It's going to be Kerry, Gore or Edwards. : )

[FrenchieCat]

43. Well Geez, Thanks old Crusoe.......

Guess I should just shut up and sit down! :(

[saltpoint]

62. Yep. It's already decided. : )

[FrenchieCat]

69. Well, I ain't rolling over.......

not while there is still breath in my body.

But thanks for the "lack of faith"! Guess if we all thought like you, we might as well just lay down and die. :eyes:

[saltpoint]

73. Yep. Kerry, Gore or Edwards. The entrails of the beast have spoken.

You know, FC, we've got a hell of a brainy line-up of people. Maybe 15 or so very well qualified, if different, people who could walk right into the damn White House and put Dubya to shame.

Of course Dubya's earned that shame all by himself, but I mean that if there was any doubt, our people could kick his people's butts any day of the week.

Possibly Mike Gravel still needs to prove himself a little more. But everybody else is potentially available and loads more presidential than that treacherous little freak in the White House.

[sandnsea]

76. This beast says Kerry, Edwards or Feingold

But Feingold only if he knocks off his Howard Dean strategy. I don't think Gore wants to do this again. His plan to put 1000 activists across the country is very exciting and I think he's going to be amazed at how much educating people changes the direction of the country and will get so much support for that, he'll be like the Johnny Appleseed of the 21st century.

[saltpoint]

85. Feingold has the potential, I readily grant, to do not only well in Iowa

but to place ahead of HClinton.

I don't frankly believe her campaign staff believes that right now, but for whatever it's worth, I do.

And while I would personally like to see Bayh move to the left a lot more, I would not count him out either. I'm not seeing the circumstances yet where multitudes of Iowans prefer HClinton to Bayh, if their druthers are for center-right Dems. Bayh is going to be formidable, especially in the demographic HClinton will need to place ahead of Feingold, Kerry, and Edwards.

I love your take on Gore. I think he's in, but your scenario is at least as plausible. He's getting a lot of press lately, most of it pretty good, and some of it very good. He's in a position where he can stay out of the foodfight and be an environmental Jeremiah or he can dive in and kick a few butts. It's an enviable position in many ways.

[madmunchie]

46. Please not Edwards.

[saltpoint]

63. madmunchie, I know you're a big Mike Gravel fan, but sorry, it's going

to be either Kerry, Gore, or Edwards. No question about it.

: )

[madmunchie]

64. Please not Edward, or Kerry

There are better people out there to be on the Dem Ticket for 08. I will not be happy with either on of those two especially Edwards, who didn't even finish out his one term in the Senate before going for the big Kahuna. Too little experience combined with too much ambition gave us Bush, I certainly hope that we don't make the same mistake 2x.

The only real support Edwards has is the "establishment" Democrats and some of the die hard liberals/moderates. If he just would have finished out his term without campaigning for Presidency/VP during a 1/3 of it, I would have had a great deal more respect for him. AND he needs to come up with a new story about being the "son of a mill worker"....or whatever the hell it is, that is really old to.

[saltpoint]

74. You might want to actually make a list of the people we've got

who are within reasonable, logical, possible, money-fueled, crowd-supported reach of the nomination.

Add 'talented' to those criteria, too.

My list is long.

I don't have a thing against Mike Gravel, but I'm not seeing him yet as a prime contender. Doesn't mean he isn't any good -- I just need more familiarity with him, that's all.

Everybody else looks viable. Biden -- foreign policy expert. Kerry -- tried and true. Clark -- most adept general EVER to run in U.S. history, including that dolt Eisenhower and that drunkard Ulysses S. Grant. Bayh -- a bit homespun and rosy-cheeked, but well-funded & smart as a whip. Edwards -- enormous crossover appeal with a broad reach into audience, witness this past Sunday's Des Moines REGISTER poll. Kucinich -- a blue-blooded soldier for what's Good and Right in the country. HClinton -- formidable intelligence and a genuinely good person; and it's high time we had a woman serve in that role. Feingold -- crusader for justice against an administration who doesn't believe in any for common people. Oil companies and corporations, yes; common folk, no.

And on and on. We're the ones with the all-star line-up. I use that as my starting point.

[Clark2008]

77. Clark , Gore or Feingold.

Edwards is fluff. Kerry's toast (and a New Englander who can't win).

So we agree on Gore.

If we have ANYONE but those three, we lose to George Allen.

[saltpoint]

82. Nope. Allen's a big wuss. We're gonna kick his red hindend so far

they won't find it for years to come.

You agree that we have a hell of a bench, don't you?

We can assemble any strong ticket we want from it, too.

And the hapless GOP is running who -- Rudy Giuliani? THE CAT BUTCHER? Sam Brownback? Newt Gingrich?

We're gonna kill 'em.

[madmunchie]

78. I have my list

Gore, Clark, Feingold(?)possibly, Kucinich, Biden -(outside chance perhaps Obamma)sure that there are a few more, just aren't coming to mind right now.

HClinton is unelectable. As much as a woman would be just a capable as a man, not in 2008, and not Hclinton, way too polarizing a figure.

Kerry said that he would fight for us and then couldn't concede the election fast eonough when it "appeared" that he had lost. EVERYBODY knew that the voting machines were suspicious at best, Kerry certainly knew which states were most vulnerable, he folded up much too quickly for me to ever really trust him again.

Edwards, don't trust him, yes, he has oodles of charisma, but that only matters if you vote on charisma alone. Yes he is intelligent and articulate, but the fact that he has been in Iowa a couuntless number of times explains how he was making sure that he would look good in that poll. Edwards is very heavily campaigning for the nomination, even as we speak. What sticks with me and many of my liberal activist friends, is that, Edwards was elected to be a Senator, 1st office he serves in and he doesn't even finish out his one and only term and he is campaigning for President. Voted for the war in Iraq and then stuck to his decision until the tide turned and then he made the announcement in a very public way that he wouldn't have voted for going into Iraq knowing what he knows now. It was so very very transparent, it was laughable. Integrity is very low on this guy's list of qualities. Clark had a better crossover appeal than Edwards in the Primaries. Up until Clark dropped out, he was doing better than Edwards. Edwards is the darling of the DNC (establishment) which is another reason why I don't like him.

We need someone like, Clark or Gore, Feingold. People that have years and years of experience and so much more going for them that it is impossible to list all of their sterling qualities. These men are natural leaders most qualified to lead us out of this mine field that * has led us into.

Not to say that we, the American people would ever elect someone who is best qualified. Now adays the question is, "Do you feel comfortable having a beer with him?" or How much charisma do they have? So sad , but so true. Who knows what will happen.

[politicasista]

79. We should let the voters decide who is best qualified.

Nothing against your list, but any Dem is qualified to clean up *'s mess.

Right now, we need to focus on 06, get the machines fixed and worry about 2008 after the elections. None of us know what the political climate or direction (i.e. attitude/issues) of America will look like two years from now.

Plus eating our own to promote favorites is not productive at a time when we are trying to get out of Iraq and take back Congress.


Just MHO.




BTW: You should read this. What makes you think those candidates would have fought?

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/06/back-to-ohio-rolling-stone-piece.html

[saltpoint]

81. Hi there, politicasista. You know, I've given that point some thought

about letting the voters decide, and I've decided nah, I think I should decide. Sole arbiter. Saves a lot of paperwork.

That seems fair to me! :)

Nice to see ya. Hope all's well your way.

[politicasista]

88. Sounds fair to me too

Nice to see you again. Everything's fine over here. :hi:

[saltpoint]

83. Hells bells, madmunchie. I've tried to establish a dialogue with you on

the merits of all our candidates and even put a smiley face next to my assertion of only 3 contenders.

Twice in this thread.

Pretend you are Howard Dean. You operate under the assumption that you have some but not unlimited authority in who the nominee will be. Perhaps one's first choice cannot be at the top of the ticket, or on the ticket at all.

It pays big dividends to find the strengths in the entire line-up and not build shrines to just on candidate. Very likely we all respond in degrees of enthusiasm to the different candidates, but it seems unlikely to me that we will all get our first choice.

Is it even mathematically possible? No.

If a DU poster cited loyalty and enthusiasm for someone who's not on your list, could you not make the effort to see why that candidate was worthy of consideration and praise?

[madmunchie]

87. I'd support them with my vote and reciting the record of * since he

has been in office, but to have any real passion and fire for some of them - one word - NO!

[madmunchie]

91. One other comment

Didn't we have a whole campaign with Kerry and Edwards in 2004? They are not new ideas nor are they ideas that have not been tried and tested. Furthermore, I supported them beyond "my vote" for that election - even with the many misgivings that I had and those misgivings grew more and more during the 2004 campaign. I do not consider myself close minded just know my own mind and drawing conclusions from a very recent past. The bottom line: I have many less misgivings about Gore, Clark, Biden...than I do about Kerry, Edwards. They just very recently were doing exactly what you are supporting them for in 08. Been there, done that, and if at all possible, really don't want to revisit that again.

Back in 04 most of my Dem Friends supported Kerry as the "Bush Alternative" NOBODY that I know from my Democratic meetings, meetups....had 1 ounce of passion for Kerry/Edwards. We basically swallowed a pretty bitter pill and then, guess what?, it came back up on us. Why should we be so anxious to swallow that pill again?

[saltpoint]

93. There are many kinds of Democrats. /nt

[patrice]

2. I will work!!! for this man if he runs. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

5. I will too. He's still the best choice. n/t

[xchrom]

6. that exports products bit is sooo important.

if we don't want corporate america to turn this place into a specialized economy -- than those words are extremely important.

if we want to return economic vitality to a greater number of people -- we need to commit ourselves to the return of manufacturing.

[emulatorloo]

10. very interesting -- thnks for the link n/t

[wisteria]

11. OMG, I have reason to hope, we Dem's have a voice. Go Kerry!! n/t

[robinlynne]

12. I love what he said, and the list. Why isn't election integrity up there

at the top, or even on the list?
How can they keep on avoiding the elephant in the room? (literally)

[karynnj]

13. This is a great summary

of a very very good speech

[ProSense]

14. Awesome! Thanks! n/t

[Kolesar]

15. A war on Iraq founded on a lie can never be true to the American character

I need a nap

[gordianot]

16. Senator Kerry please add election reform to the list for a 100%.n/t

[karynnj]

19. I think he's had it there in the past -

In NH when he first had the list there were 10 items. He has been speakinga lot about election reform and even though it may be more a state issue, I agree that it should be there.

[blm]

20. Kerry's siding with the banning of electronic vote machines state by state

I don't know how he is planning to help make it an issue nationally.

[gordianot]

21. That would be great.

Some honest news by Coroprate media would help.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

18. K & R

I'm looking forward to watching this on CSPAN later.

[blm]

23. Is it on their schedule?

.

[flpoljunkie]

36. You can watch it now at politicstv.com. Not listed on C-Span.

http://www.politicstv.com

[blm]

41. Didn't Cspan play the other speeches there?

They couldn't squeeze Kerry's in?

[flpoljunkie]

50. Haven't been able to find anything from this year's conference on C-Span.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

65. My Bad

I've been watching Yearly Kos on CSPAN at 5 AM and my half-awake brain confused that with this conferemce

[Placebo]

22. Kerry will say anything to win. Sad, really.

He didn't say this in 2004 because he was afraid to piss off the "swing voters" and in doing so allowed the Bush camp to turn him into a flip flopping sissy.

And now he's preaching about how wrong the war is, after he voted for it (you know, when it was popular) and now that it is unpopular.

As usual, Kerry shows himself to be the consummate politician—unprincipled, dodgy and opportunistic.

[politicasista]

25. Nice Rovian talking points

In fact, I remember Dickhead Cheney saying the same thing, along with the corporate media. Would you rather him shut up than speak up or are you just jealous that it's not someone other than Kerry speaking about this?

[TayTay]

26. Geez, and the crowd of 1500 ate it up

Round after round of progressive applause. Lots of standing ovations from a liberal and committed crowd who want to hear the progressive message loudly and clearly articulated.

Gee, 1500 progressives who just loved this guy today. Sen. Clinton's speech was good, but Kerry rocked the liberal activist base today. He just rocked it.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Bah.

He didn't say it yet, because he didn't believe it yet. Before he turned against the war, I could see it coming for about six months before. He said in Oct that there was a six month window. Lo and behold, six months later, he came out saying what he's saying now.

That's hardly just saying anything to win. He knew what he was looking for in Iraq and it's government. He didn't see it. He wasn't against Vietnam all at once either. He had to go over there and see for himself. Otherwise, you could say he was too late in 1971 because he should have been against the war in 1968.

[rockymountaindem]

28. Good point there about Vietnam

I never thought of it that way before.

[Mass]

29. You mean he is tired of triangulation, I guess. Sorry, I am happy that

my senator is following what his constituents want. Too bad if you dont like it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. This fellow loves Hillary Clinton...

... anything he says about "typical politicians" should therefore be met with a generous sprinkling of salt.

[blm]

31. NO lawmaker was going to put up a withdrawal plan for Iraq in 1994 BEFORE

Iraq even had the chance to have their FIRST election - NONE of them. Circumstances are not the same, now and haven't been since Kerry put up his first withdrawal plan last October. There have now been THREE elections - the Iraqi politicians have been given plenty of support and now they need to make their own governance effective.

To talk as if there is no difference today from 1994 is just uninformed yakking.

And anyone who claims Kerry is just being political is proving they have no clue about real history. Kerry has taken on MORE UNPOPULAR and ANTIPOLITICAL stances than any lawmaker in modern history. So, if you think Kerry is bad, then I'd like to see who you would even put forth as someone who has taken on more unpopular issues than Kerry has.

And DODGY? OPPORTUNISTIC? Kerry has been clear about Iraq and on every issue. He has always taken the OPPORTUNITY to investigate and expose GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION - and at great RISK to his political career, especially when every powerful Democrat in DC lined up against him. The opportunists advance their own careers by helping to cover up corruption.

You really haven't read real history have you?

[RDU Socialist]

37. that would have been very prescient if they were putting up

a withdrawal plan for Iraq before 1994. What were we going to withdraw? Halliburton employees illegally doing business with Saddam?

[blm]

39. Heheh.... meant 2004..... right BEFORE the Iraq election.

.

[blm]

38. I meant in 2004 - sorry about the typo.

.

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. This coming from the ultimate Hillary advocate

Excuse me while I :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

53. You rang?

This coming from the ultimate Hillary advocate

Hey what about me? :evilgrin:

:hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Hahahaha oh my bad

Looks like you've been dethroned!

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Kerry was blinded by ambition leading up to his presidential bid

Losing the election has clearly removed his blinders. He is now once again aggressively championing progressive causes like he has done for decades.

[Placebo]

48. He certainly was.

He was willing to do anything and say anything to win. And what did it get him? A lot of lost credibility, that's what.

[ProSense]

49. Here is what he was willing to do and say, very publicly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710


Stop pretending he didn't oppose the war!

[Rainscents]

89. Don't forget to add BCCI

It's important to add BCCI, since Kerry is the one who brought the underground terror network down.

[blm]

51. That's just WRONG. Kerry never chose expediency over principle in his life

and his entire history proves that he has taken on battles that NO POSTURING POLITICIAN would take on.

I think you are mischaracterizing him for some other reason - and certainly not to get the truth out.

[blm]

61. PLEASE SHOW US YOUR PROOF - USE ACTUAL RECORDS TO DO IT.

Because the actual records of the last 35 years show a man who has stood up to power CONSISTENTLY and taken alot of hits for it politically throughout his adult life.

You are welcome to try and name ONE lawmaker who has taken on tougher, more unpopular battles in DC - - and use actual records to do it.

[politicasista]

24. Kick and recommend!

Go Kerry! :kick:

[lillilbigone]

30. "I was wrong"

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts ignited us at the Take Back America conference by admitting that his 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq was wrong. “It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake,” Kerry said, adding, “I was wrong to vote for that war resolution.” He received sustained applause and some cheers.

It takes bravery to admit you were wrong.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. "It takes bravery to admit you were wrong."

...which is why we'll never hear it from Bush.

[mtnsnake]

52. He should've admitted it long ago when the polls werent as low for the war

It takes bravery to admit you were wrong.

No, it takes bravery to admit you were wrong when public sentiment would have gone AGAINST you for doing it, not when public sentiment is all going your way.

[Mass]

56. So you think he should not have said it. Or is it just that you like to

go after Kerry?

[mtnsnake]

57. It's not that at all

It's great he's saying it...all democrats should be saying it, including Hillary....but like I already implied, it would've been much nicer/braver to have said it when it might've made a bigger difference. He knew he was wrong long before he admitted it publicly.

Or is it just that you like to go after Kerry?

Unless I'm wrong, I'm allowed to express my opinion on this board, just as you are, so you don't need to make this into a me against John Kerry thing. Funny how none of the Edwards afficionadoes threw a fit when I went after Edwards for saying he's against impeaching Bush and started a thread about it.

[ProSense]

59. You mean these polls?

CBS News Poll. June 10-11, 2006. N=659 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults). RV = registered voters
"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"

6/10-11/06
Stay as Long As it Takes 48%
Leave ASAP 46%
Unsure 6%

4/6-9/06
Stay as Long As it Takes 47%
Leave ASAP 47%
Unsure 6%

1/20-25/06
Stay as Long As it Takes 50%
Leave ASAP 45%
Unsure 5%

USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 9-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by June 2007, that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."

6/9-11/06
Withdraw Immediately 17%
Withdraw by June 2007 32%
Take as Long As Needed 42%
Send More Troops 6%
Unsure 3%


CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. June 8-11, 2006. N=1,031 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which one do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by June 2007, that is, in 12 months time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."

6/8-11/06
Withdraw Immediately 18%
Withdraw by June 2007 29%
Take as Long As Needed 42%
Send More Troops 6%
Unsure 5%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


Seems if Kerry was following these polls, he'd be giving the same wait-and-see excuses as some Democrats!

[blm]

67. Where have you been? This isn't the first or even 5th time Kerry's said it

.

[Clarkie1]

32. Is this the first time he has admitted he was wrong on that vote?

I'm suprised this is news...is it?

[blm]

33. That's not the headline - his throwdown to other senators and congress to

move on a withdrawal plan for Iraq is the headline.

[Clarkie1]

34. Oh, I see. That makes sense. n/t

[karynnj]

42. No - he has hundreds of times

The media just has amnesia.

[mtnsnake]

54. More like he beat around the bush hundreds of times

Excuse the pun.

Unless I'm wrong, Edwards was the first big-name candidate to come right out and admit they were wrong about their vote and use the wording "I was wrong"...and it wasn't all that long ago he did it either.

[karynnj]

58. If the sacrosanct canonical text is specifically "I was wrong", yes

But, if I wanted to quibble - Edwards didn't even then say what specifically he was wrong on supporting the war or voting for the IWR. In fact: he was in favor of invading when Bush did and was in favor of the war itself through 2003. Kerry's words were more complicated because he was saying specifically what he was wrong on. Kerry is on record throughout the summer, fall and winter of 2002 as hoping the inspectors and the international community could avoid war. Kerry (and Harkin) are unusual in that they were against the invasion at the time it occurred , but had voted for the resolution.

Through 2004, Kerry spoke of the vote being to insure they took whatever threat Saddam posed seriously and he repeatedly quoted Bush's promises. In the last 5 or 6 months, he has answered as he did here that the vote was wrong - without defending his own motivations. He has also said he profoundly regrets the vote and that it was the vote he would most like to take back (April, MTP). This is the time period I am referring to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. Not true

Kerry has explicitly said he regrets hi IWR many many times and has since October or something.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Is this man on fire, or what?

Hasn't Kerry earn the right for a second chance? Even if he is not our first choice for President, hasn't he made amends for IWR and hasn't he led the fight against Alito, PATRIOT renewal, and hasn't he shown to be a leader of the "don't be the last man to die for a mistake" when it comes to Iraq?

[dailykoff]

55. Here's hoping that it spreads!

nt

[lojasmo]

60. Mea culpa isn't enough

Kerry, Clinton, and the rest of the assclowns who allowed this war to happen need to admit that they are unfit to lead the nation.

[blm]

66. People who refuse or are UNABLE to submit withdrawal plans are unfit to

lead.

Those who refuse to open the books on BushInc are unfit to lead.


Kerry has effected this nation's governance more positively in the last 35 years than ANY OTHER lawmaker. That makes him MORE FIT to lead than anyone else.

[lojasmo]

68. Kerry has...blah blah blah

Subjective analysis. Worse than worthless.

Blathering Loser Mischaracterizes?

[ProSense]

70. Great non comment! It explains the lack of understanding! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

71. Of course it's subjective. All comments are to some extent subjective

even yours.

[blm]

72. And yours was NOT? See - some mirrors go both ways.

I choose to use FACTS and the record instead of subjectively mischaracterizing people.

I expect one day for a reply to reflect the actual record - - that would be a nice change.

[blm]

75. So you can prove that the IWR RESOLUTION VOTE caused the war?

Because the DSM proves that Bush was going into Iraq with it or without it. But, hey - you keep on blaming that resolution and let Bush off the hook for violating it as he would have ANY RESOLUTION.

[MethuenProgressive]

92. It's one of the Repugnant's talking points

..that gets some echo, unfortunately.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Guess you'll be wanting "Give em Hell" Harry outta there too eh?

God forbid he should become Majority Leader, unfit as he is.

[rucky]

90. Kerry's gone all Gore-y on us!

It's amazing what getting an election stolen from you can do to a man.

:yourock: