Kerry Dismisses Idea Whites Run Nomination

[CatWoman]

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry dismisses as "absolutely ridiculous" the notion that his support for Iowa and New Hampshire's prominent roles in the presidential nomination process means he thinks only the votes of white people count.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_on_go_co/kerry_democrats

Can't we all just get along?

[blm]

1. The spin on this is AMAZING = Stephanopolous should've been ashamed

to even proffer the question the way he did. He knows damn well all the work and support Kerry has given to the civil rights cause all these decades. To even imply Kerry is racist is absurd.

[CatWoman]

I'd like to see Stephanopolous get his

ever since he sold out Bill Clinton, he hasn't left his hole in the sewer.

As a matter of fact, he retreats deeper into it.

[blm]

3. He spins more now as a newsman than he did when he was a Dem strategist.

He puts more effort into protecting the Bushboy on his show than he did working for Clinton.

[jillan]

2. argh!

Do you ever get the feeling that when Kerry, or any other dem speaks, that the press is not listening but only looking for spin?

No wonder why we have to always be so defensive!

[seabeyond]

14. exactly. right on point. always..... n/t

[ProSense]

4. Here's a headline I'd like to see:

Election Fraud: Bush Campaign Suppressed African American Votes


The MSM injects race when it wants to and denounces/ignores the same at will. Are they ready for a real discussion of race in elections? Let's start with the last one.

[jillan]

5. hahaha

Could you imagine?

Not in this country! Not with these dictators running the media.

[incapsulated]

6. He's wrong

Look, Iowa and NH were very good to John Kerry, so I don't blame him for not wanting any changes to the primary system that nominated him.

But the ridiculous influence that these two states have, both very non-representative of the US in general and our urban population in particular, must change, imho. And the racial aspect of it is a perfectly legitimate question, especially given the make-up of the Democratic party.

You can flame me, but I won't be around to answer, this is a drive-by post because I have to go, sorry.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Figures

its drive by because you don't want the truth behind this, Byeeeeeee.

[KittyWampus]

8. I'd say Incapsulated raises very valid points.

[karynnj]

11. Yes, but it is pretty over stated

What is nice with Iowa and NH is, as Kerry pointed out, the fact that they do have a tradition of actively participating in essentially auditioning the candidates. I also think that people war now over-playing their importance.

In 1992, Clinton lost both. He claimed he was the comeback kid coming in third in NH. He became the front runner by winning a large number of southern states on the first multi-state day shortly after NH.

This could have happened in 2004 and I think the media actually wanted it to. After NH, there were contests in SC, MO, DE, ND, AZ, Ok,NM. These all are the types of states likely to be hospitable to a southern candidate. Edwards(45%) won one state, SC, where Kerry came in second with 305. Clark won one state, OK , with 30 % of the vote - Edwards (30%) and Kerry(27%) weren't that far behind. Kerry waon all the others with at least 10% more than his nearest competitor. In most years, the front runner status changes. The schedule in 2004 could very easily have led to Edwards (or Clark) being the front runner at the end of that day.

Notice how many Southern states are added before any of the big Democratic states are added. If anything they already get a big role.

[incapsulated]

13. If other states don't get a chance to matter

Then they will never bother creating "participatory" movements during the primaries. Why should they? By the time I voted it was over and done. My vote was meaningless.

Clinton also had plenty of time to gain his final lead and win. Now, the primaries are so front-loaded there is no time for a candidate to come from behind. Clinton didn't have it won until MAY.

[KittyWampus]

21. So other states are too stupid to do the same interviewing and research?

and going to Iowa means crop subsidies and ethanol are never on the chopping block.

[Pastiche423]

9. I believe she said what she did

because it is the TRUTH!

[incapsulated]

12. What's the truth, Skippy?

Please, I'm on and off the computer today, nothing I said hasn't been said before.

[Adelante]

16. Pastiche is agreeing with you, I think

I agree with you, too. :pals:

[incapsulated]

17. I was responding to fedup...

It just looks like I'm talking to Pastiche, heh.

Thanks Pastiche. :hi:

[seabeyond]

15. i will reply anyway. change i dont care. imply kerry is racist is wrong

[incapsulated]

18. I wasn't agreeing the slant or tone of the question

But the aspect that race plays in this is real and to question those who defend the system as it is, in that regard, is fair.

[Rose Siding]

19. I think so too

The interviewer was taking a cheap shot, but I strongly disagree with Kerry on this.

Our primary schedule is very UNdemocratic.

[WilliamPitt]

10. I'm of two minds on this

It is indeed barking mad insane to have two predominantly rural, predominantly white states wield such power in a country so ethnically, culturally, religiously and geographically diverse. Interestingly enough, (imho) in a way this setup is almost like having the same state have two primaries back to back. Iowa and New Hampshire have piles of different interests that do not coincide, of course. But the people who live in New Hampshire and the people who live in Iowa are a lot alike. I've spent a lot of time in both places, and it's kinda wierd to see, like someone planted a New England state out in the Midwest.

On the other hand, I am a gold-plated sucker for political traditions. Also, the merits of the first two primaries happening in states like these are manifest. You can't win just by dropping ten million dollars on a TV/radio ad buy and showing up at a few 5,000-people rallies. You have to wear out the shoe leather, knock on doors, visit homes, and drink a billion gallons of coffee in a thousand mom-and-pop coffee shops. It is an important proving ground, one that would be lost if these states came later.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, an underfunded candidate with a really ingenious ground attack plan can make serious hay in New Hampshire and Iowa. Having these two states come first helps candidates like Dennis Kucinich remain in the game. Once it comes down to New York, California and the Super Tuesdays, candidates like Kucinich simply get spent out of existence. Small-budget candidates can make big hay out of solid showings in these smaller markets.

It's a moot point, regardless. No candidate with the wits of a fruit bat is going to come out in favor of bouncing Iowa and New Hampshire out of their starting spots. Simply told, the change they advocate for probably won't happen for a couple of cycles, so large will the ensuing fight be if they actually try to do this. This means the candidate who advocates for dumping these states will then have to go there and peddle his/her ass for votes. They will, in due course, be slaughtered at the polls and wind up down in the ditch with all the other burned-out hulks.

Anyone pushing for this is dead in the water. Surrender. It isn't going to change. No professional politician who believes they have a snowballs chance in Hades to win a national election is going to say word one in favor of changing things.

[ultraist]

20. Kucinich won l% of the vote in Iowa and l% in NH

Just sayin'.

Didn't Iowa become the first caucus in the l970s? I don't think it's been a tradition for that long.

We need be inclusive. Our primaries voters should reflect AMERICA.

It's very un-Democratic to give a predominately "whites only" voting bloc a disproportionate amount of power in deciding who our candidate will be.

[mb7588a]

22. Nomination dismisses Kerry idea. nt.