Kerry as the comeback kid? Give me a break. It took him three years to decide to come up with a response to the swift boaters.

I'm sorry, but Kerry ran against a warmongering boob the last time out, and he lost. He was a terrific washington insider, visibly out of touch, boring, pedantic, ineffectual. Kerry came across as even less sincere than Gore.

Worst of all, on the key issue, Kerry came off as Bush's lapdog. Did he support the war in Iraq? Yes he did. Did he support the invasion? Yes he did. Would he have voted the way he did, even with proof the wmd claims were bogus? Yes he would have.

So what was Kerry's claim to fame? He too was a member of the skull and bones fraternity? He too came from blueblood stock, ivy league colleges, and wealth?

He was George W. Bush as far as patrician elitism went, but smarter and less accessible.

Ah well, be that as it may. But Kerry must be damned for running a terrible campaign, for throwing it all away, for acting like he could just walk into the Presidency, for not counterpunching when he needed to, for not reaching out to his constituents when they needed him. And when it came down to the wire in Ohio, when he was still sitting on his war chest, after he'd done all his thumping over how he'd insist on the last vote being counted, when he's pissed and moaned about election tampering... when it all came down in Ohio, he choked, folded his tent and walked away with his millions.

America deserves better than George W. Bush. It deserves better than John Kerry.

Kerry's had his shot. If he couldn't beat a moron like Bush in the middle of two unpopular wars, he can't beat whoever it is that the Republicans put up as a fresh candidate.

Forget Kerry.

A great as Kerry's been this last year or so, I have to agree with the others -- I just don't feel like he's going to, or even should, get another chance.

We need someone new. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Wouldn't Rove and the Rebublicans LOVE for the DNC to come down to Hillary versus Kerry.

It would ensure that a Republican wins in 2008

Well, if you've got a wealth of choices, then you don't need to bother with Kerry, do you.

Look at the list of potential Dem candidates. Who's the anti-Hillary? (Keep in mind the candidate will most likely be left of Hillary, especially if this election is any indication, and the candidate must have some name recognition, money and organization to compete as the anti-Hillary.)

Al Gore
John Edwards
John Kerry
Joe Biden
Mark Warner
Tom Daschle
Bill Richardson
Russ Feingold
Wesley Clark
Evan Bayh
Chris Dodd

Kerry and Gore are in the best position to be the anti-Hillary but will it matter? The media's in love with her and it will be an uphill climb for the left to overcome their ability to brainwash the public.

Kerry is a man, and a credible, strong candidate.. face it, the neo-left couldn't elect one of their sham-liberal candidates out of a paper bag.. not one of them has had a leg to stand on because the people could see through their hypocrisies and see the Bush-like character within..

But didn't Dean's ascendancy at DNC "ensure" the Democratic defeat (rout?) in 2006. If memory serves me correctly all the Republican punditry wisdom, parroted endlessly by our Democratic centrists as well, was that Dean having power in the Dem Party was the gift that kept on giving. We don't hear that particular Rovism so much any more. What else would Rove "love"?

Au contraire. Sarcasm and humour is the lifeblood of the Canadian soul. It runs through us like the very maple syrup in our veins.

Mary, so good to hear from you. I was afraid something might have happened to you. Forcible medication, or rubber sheets or something unpleasant. Excellent to see that you are up and around.

To reply to your questions:

On what do you base your comments against Kerry, re: his "manhood"? What constitutes "manhood" to you, the ability to run off at the mouth, scream hysterically, and diddle a bunch of flakey neo-lefties?

Well, if running off at the mouth, hysteria and diddling were criteria for manhood, I think we'd both have no difficulty in assigning Kerry as a man.

On the most restrictive sense - a person possessing at least one Y chromosome, and who at some point possessed external genitalia of some sort, Kerry is probably a man.

In terms of someone who stood up for and articulated principles of honour and integrity, I think I'd argue that Kerry *was* a man... certainly in Vietnam and in Winter Soldier hearings in the 70's.

Sadly, his utter emasculation at the hands of the Swift Boat crews, his failure to take a clear stance on Iraq, his lack of committment to his own election, certainly undercuts his claim to manhood of any sort.

Face it, the neo-left didn't "fall in line" they attacked, smeared, lied and slandered John Kerry, because puppet master Joe Trippi didn't canonize hime.

I don't think that's true. Indeed, the results speak for themselves. Ralph Nader's vote collapsed almost completely. There were no anti-war demonstrations against Kerry. There was no talk of 'they're just the same.'

I'm afraid Mary, that your position is at variance with reality. Once Kerry became the candidate, then he was the candidate.

I really don't understand your point in attacking Dean. We're not discussing Dean's fitness or worth as a potential future Democratic candidate. Maybe that discussion will come about, maybe it won't. But I don't think its relevant now. The issue now is Kerry.

Sadly, Kerry has proven his lack as a candidate.

He ran against a drooling idiot.

He lost.

Why should we believe that he might run against someone who is more than a drooling idiot and have any hope of winning?

Thank you, BlueinColorado, for the 0 rating. Since the post clearly had content of historical validity, your rating helps expose the fraudulence and bias in the TPMCage rating system.

I'll lay odds it courses through as sluggishly as flipper pie goes through ones digestion.

How humorously do you deal with the fact that Canada, far from being some egalitarian dream hides the mass poverty within it's borders by sweeping it under the rug, that rather than deal with it's own waste, it attempts to force it on other countries.. sorry, but you asked for it.

I happen to think Kerry would be a pretty good president. I think he's smart and considered and has taken good positions on many issues dating back to Vietnam. However, as close as he got in 04 (and who knows what all happened in Ohio, maybe he did win) getting more votes than any other dem ever, I don't think he's a particularly viable candidate. I think history has shown that senators are not good candidates. New Englanders no longer make very good candidates. Pedants don't make particularly good candidates. Charismatic governors from the south make good candidates. On the other hand trying something new and unproven might also be a good idea, but Kerry is not that either.

Please accept my sympathies for the untimely death of your husband. I recently lost a close family member and I appreciate the pain you are undergoing. All I can say is keep on getting up each morning, it does, ever so slowly, become bearable.

"He also helped grow the environmental movement in this country, he was a co-founder of earth day.."

Well, during the election, Rush Limbaugh noted that Kerry's state was a big polluter!

Today, I went to "http://www.scorecard.org" and, indeed, Rush was right that Massachusetts is a true "environmental john."

Certainly, I can't blame Kerry for the mess, but I think it's safe to say: "Kerry hasn't don't much to clean it up!"

"Kerry was slandered and attacked for speaking out, but still he kept on fighting."

In my opinion, Kerry seemed to be schizophrenic during the election... He couldn't decide if he was proud of his "speaking out" or not... I'm thinking that Kerry decided to worship the "military industrial machine" instead of the truth...

"Fact is, he believed that the people wanted the issues to be paramount"

That isn't what I saw... Kerry was paying lawyers to get Ralph Nader off the ballots so he could position himself as "Bush Lite..." After I saw that, I thought: "Kerry hates democracy as much as Bush!"

In my opinion, "fact is," Kerry was unable to show enough character and, therefore, he had to rely on the "democratic party machine" to embellish his worthyness.

As I write this, I'm thinking that Kerry knew that the people didn't really give a hoot about him and that's why he couldn't contest the election because he only had very shallow popular support-- the type that marketing can build up.

I certainly don't look forward to either Hillary or Kerry but then, hey!, I'm looking for someone like Dennis Kucinich.

Sacre Bleu. Who knew? In any case, you carefully avoid identifying "the man" in '08

Yes, but his true point, which was loud and clear, was that Kerry is not the man.

Hmmmm. Let's cross Gore, Kerry, and Edwards off the list on the grounds that failure should not be a resume plus.

Clinton has more negatives than positives.

Biden is only a contender in his own mind.

Daschle would need cell walls to be a contender, as it is, the 'sacks of undifferentiated protoplasm' constituency is just not big enough.

Who's left?

Richardson, possible.

Clark, possible.

Feingold, possible.

Dodds, don't know.

You want some advice? Forget about licking the South's ass. The hard core confederate south will never vote for you, no way, no how. So there's no point in compromising your principles for the 'vicious cracker vote'.

You want to make headway in the South, start challenging those Felon Voting laws down there as the sleazed up, slicked up Jim Crow disenfranchisement shtick it is. Southern states Republicans have developed a lot of cagy ways to suppress or disenfranchise Democratic voters. You'll win Southern states (or at least the ones on the edge or in demographic transition) by fighting for your natural voters rather than trying to change Republican ones.

The two big fighting grounds are the Midwest, and the West/Plains. A candidate from either of those places will do you good.

Stop screwing over your old constituencies to cater to hypothetical winnable votes. No one respects a backstabber. Westerners and Mid-Westerners may not like blacks or gays or women, but they're smart enough to know that if these groups get the back of the Democratic hand this week, they'll get it next week.

So grow a spine and be true to your supporters. The reality is that standing up for gays or blacks doesn't amount to screwing people over in Idaho, its not a zero sum game where every gain for a gay person in civil rights means that you have to shoot a cow in Montana. Cows and gays can coexist.

That has to be your message. That your tent is big enough to admit cowboys and rust belters, but its never going to be big enough to screw one group of Americans for another.

Apart from that, take numbers, chew bubble gum and kick ass.

Bubble gum optional.

No, Edwards certainly didn't lose the election in '04. His running mate Mr. Heinz-Kerry, apparently acting as if he were president already, seems to have sent his VP to a secure undisclosed location during most of the election so as not to be outshone by him. Edwards thus remains relatively pristine, having hardly been driven except on Sundays to go to church.

The problem with Edwards, though, is twofold. One is, he's a one-term senator out of office running for president as his profession. That makes him, basically, Lamar Alexander-- a guy who's simply too lightly rooted in an actual, fairly current political career to remain credible as presidential timber. And the next step after being Lamar Alexander is being Harold Stassen, a national punchline.

The other? It's Edwards' stump speech, which is starting to draw derision as the press hears it for the 4th straight year. Here's Michael Barone earlier in the week:

Edwards seems to do better than Kerry in polls now, but it doesn't seem certain to me that his stump speech is going to enchant the press in the '08 cycle as it did in '04. His shtick on how many Americans live in poverty is going to wear thin. His stump speech includes a line about a little girl whose parents couldn't afford a winter coat.

Give me a break. You can buy a little girl's winter coat at Wal-Mart for $10. That's the price of taking the little girl out to lunch at McDonald's. As Juan Williams points out in his book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America—and What We Can Do About It, no one in America is stuck in poverty if he or she does three things: graduates from high school; gets a job, any job; refrains from having children before getting married. Poverty comes not from any structural failure of society but from dysfunctional behaviors. Edwards's poverty shtick is a crock.

The cynical press will go along with hokum like Edwards' little match girl when they think the rubes are buying it, but once it starts provoking audible snickers, it's toast-- and Edwards better get some new material quick.

"Mr. Heinz-Kerry" What the hell is that? Do you think you're in second grade. That earned your zero.

And that half baked right wing quotefest would have gotten you another zero. If you have something to say for yourself, then say it, don't cut and paste.

For all that, your criticisms of Edwards lack of political track record seem valid.

On the other hand, I'm not impressed with upper class bozos holding forth on poverty as a lifestyle choice.

Thank you for having the honesty to admit that your ranking was in willful violation of the rules of the site, though I cannot congratulate you on reading comprehension, since (though I happen to think Barone's mostly right here) it was clearly posted as an example of the derision Edwards is starting to face, more than for its content per se.

As for being in second-grade, I remind you that this entire thread began when you implied Kerry wasn't a man. Name-call, or run to teacher, but don't do both.

Quit grasping at a straw to try to hide the fact that you've been ranking my comments in violation of the site's rules for some time. As the FAQ states clearly:

Many users believe that the rating system is intented to be an opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with a post, or with the poster themself. This is not accurate; ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input. [Sounds like TPMCafe to me!]

So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them

No, you've demonstrated what a bully looks like when someone finally stands up to him.

"Mary, so good to hear from you. I was afraid something might have happened to you. Forcible medication, or rubber sheets or something unpleasant."--Valdron, setting the tone for TPMCafe as a trusted member

Well, Mary's another charmer with a talent for childish invective.

What, you guys form a club or something? Can anyone join, or do you have to be voted in? Are there dues? Do you take minutes? Is there a club song?

Just asking.

Seriously though, I'm bored. This thread isn't about you. Swallow your zero, get over it, and stop posing like a debutante schoolgirl.

Here's all the problem, and all the fixing, in a nutshell. From the FAQ:

Many users believe that the rating system is intented to be an opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with a post, or with the poster themself. This is not accurate; ratings are intended to help elevate those posters that consistently make clear, good arguments and points, regardless of content, and to prevent trolls from invading the message board. Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.

So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

That's the policy. Abide by it. You don't have to give a rating but rating people 0 or 1 because you disagree with them-- or disagreed with them a month ago-- is a violation.

Lot of stuck pigs squealing today.

Thank you for helping me establish that I have been rating by the rules. Low-rating people because they do not express themselves clearly, make personal observations about things they cannot possibly know, or go (and this is subjective) into disparaging text is quite within the rules.

Lot of stuck pigs squealing today.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My backpedaling? Historical data alone does not give a post free license to insult, condescend, etc.

If I were to say "You obviously can't read the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education, you cretinous dolt, which was the foundation of the modern civil rights movement, you pig", that contains accurate historical references. It also contains inappropriate characterization of people as pigs, as evidenced in your earlier, substance-free comment about pigs squealing.

I repeat. Historical content alone does not give total protection against criticism. Mike Godwin made the point, in Godwin's Law, if clear historical parallels between actions of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and a current event were drawn, the comment is not a Godwinism. To throw out that one has Gestapo thinking, without clear relevance, is deserving of a 1 on first presentation and 0 if it becomes a pattern. The subsequent downgrading when a pattern becomes obvious is something Josh has mentioned and considers appropriate rating.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Note that HCB only downrated you for the second post that complained about BlueInColorado. Also note that if downrating is undeserved others here are likely to offset it, as did some on your original post.

If you find this site unfair, don't visit. I feel it is quite fair to our discontents. What is definitely uncalled for is personal counterattack after a rating. This will remove the welcome mat.

Let's all get back to substance.