Kerry needs to stay home...or rather, throw his support behind the candidates that the people want. There are increasingly voluminous mumblings and rumblings about Gore...I personally would like to see Obama or Edwards. We need someone that everyone can look at and say - he represents what we need. Kerry is not that person. I'm sure he's a delightful guy, and he has been pretty solid, but we need someone who can get to the point in 50 words or less. People are busy, people don't have a ton of time to listen to someone droning on and on. I think Hilary has balanced too carefully on that fence and has ruined her chances of becoming president. The sentiment in this country is that we need to clean house. The incumbents had better all start backpedaling because they are on frighteningly thin ice…much like the polar bears. The people of this country are ashamed of our reputation, and regardless of what the hate radio jocks say regarding our need to “kick ass!” we need to pull ourselves together, realize that stomping all over the playground, bullying all the inhabitants makes us a target. You can have a great reputation AND not be a coward, pansy or weak. Believe it! It’s true. We need to get our country back on track. Healthcare, alternative energy, reduce our debt, mend fences. Who wants a neighbor who covets everything on your property? You want a neighbor that smiles, waves, has a conversation with you periodically, watches your house while you’re gone, and realizes that his well being is your well being. As it stands, we are a crappy neighbor. Time for a change.

Penny,

Interesting comment from you. I find it interesting how you want to stifle democracy by just telling someone to "stay home" so that the canddidate YOU want has a chance of winning.

I think it's a shame that you think that Al Gore can't win against John Kerry on his own merits.

I however love both of them and think that BOTH would serve our country well if they were to make it through the primary process.

Unfortunately, unless Al Gore is playing games, He has no intention of running in 08 anyways.

So since right now,Kerry isn't necessarily a candidate either, I'd say your comment is a little premature.

Nontheless, if Kerry decides to run these are his qualifications for the job.

He's been a leader on the Alito filibuster.

he's got 100% on enviromental scores from environmental groups.

he's got an A= for his Dafur policies, he's the leading Public servant on all issues that 'help the middle class'.

he's got a huge amount of experience in handling dimplomatic matters.

he's a stand-out supporter of ending this Iraq occupation and is FIGHTING to get other progressives elected who will do so also.

he's also leading the pack in SHARING his money and time and status with people to change the Democratic party to the MAJORITY PARTY so that more bills can get done:

End Iraq occupation,
Healthcare,
Jobs,
Fairness in media,
Education,
helping Veterans,
Real environmental policies,
etc...the list goes on.

So...what has Al Gore done since 04? His movie is awsome, but until he's a candidate, we won't know HOW he intends to continue the fight for us. In the meantime, Kerry is kicking a$$es and leaving many people with the knowledge that the media gave them misinformation about John Kerry in 04.

Still seeing lots of Kerry stickers around too! Who would have thought 2 years later, so many would be around.

Sorry, Penny. I can't agree.
Obama? What has he done, really? No offense to the Senator, but I find his voting record less than stellar. Maybe with some experience, some day he'll be a viable presidential candidate. He's young. Let's see what he does. Edwards is great on poverty issues, but has little foreign policy experience, which is critical right now. Gore's position on the environment is outstanding. I think that's where he wants to be, and his current role suits him perfectly.
But Sen. Kerry has an outstanding voting record and a strong, moderate/progressive stance on all of the issues important to most Americans. He's an outspoken voice for Democratic values and candidates. He's been more willing to call out the Bush administration's disastrous policies than anyone I've heard. Just because the media doesn't cover it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
I'd guess the dozens of '06 candidates Sen. Kerry has been helping by raising money and making personal appearances don't want him to 'stay home'. Nor do the many who are donating to his PAC to elect Democrats or the large crowds who attend his appearances.
Sen. Kerry recently spoke in South Carolina to a hall so packed that hundreds had to be turned away. In contrast, Republicans John McCain and George Allen couldn't manage to fill a conference room this week at the Norfolk Marriott and Katherine Harris had about 40 people show for her recent rally.
Stay home? I don't think so. My advice to organizers of Kerry appearances is to rent a bigger hall.

I can't agree, either. To quote the late, great Hunter S. Thompson, "I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago...and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next President of the United States."

You can credit me with that sentiment as well. We may not all prefer the same candidate, but I take serious issue with anyone who refuses to look honestly at Kerry's credentials and insists on rejecting him out of hand.

"Make it stop"

Yes, please do. Please make attacks like this against strong, *liberal* Democrats STOP.

Kerry has every right to run for president again in 2008, and I welcome it. Although I am may ultimately choose to support someone else in the primary, one thing Kerry has is name recognition - and I like the way he's been using his better than how Hillary has been using hers.

Right now Kerry seems to be working hard to support candidates for 2006 so that Democrats can take back at least one House of Congress. He's spreading a lot of money around, and seems to be doing a fairly good job of target selection - for 2006 Democratic wins. I don't really care if a side-effect is that he has chits to call in for the 2008 campaign. Let him call them, if he earns them.

John Kerry garnered more votes in '04 than any other Democratic candidate before him - even Gore. That alone tells me that people thought he was a fine choice for president.
Ohio, or rather Blackwell, decided the unfortunate outcome of the election. Instead of crawling into a hole or disappearing from political spotlight, John Kerry decided to do his utmost to keep the promises he made to us, the people, during the campaign.
He has fought tirelessly for us, our civil liberties, our economic well-being, and our democracy since then.
So if he decides to run again in 2008, he will have earned it all over again by proving that he is the real deal.
Make it stop? Make what stop? The democratic process? No, thank you. Kerry has as much a right to run as anybody else, and he certainly has my vote.

Interesting comments. I heard Ira Glass dissing Kerry last night on This American Life and thought it was the biggest bunch of BS I'd heard come from his smug lips in a long time.
I think it takes courage to get back out there and try again. A lot of America's past political heroes had a rocky road to Presidency.
One of the things that keeps coming up is how 'the people' want simpler answers than Kerry gives. I find this an insulting attitude, that we should pander to the precident set by mass media and other outlets, of providing little spoonfuls of informational frappe, as if we are so stupid we can't follow a man through a long sentence [like this one].
Bravo for Kerry potentially giving it a go!
HOWEVER, I don't agree with Catherine's statement that he represents Democratic values, unless Democrats have removed the civil rights plank from their platform. As a gay American with a spouse recognized by only one state in the union, I was offended by the soft compromise Kerry attempted by endorsing civil unions instead of marriages. Democrats didn't back down from Bible thumping bigots in the 1960's and I hate to see them kowtowing to those groups now. Let's not forget that slavers used to justify slavery through passages in the Bible, so Americans who support equality and fairness should realize how fallable these disciples really are historically and today.
Pamphleture and surveys I have recieved in recent months from the Democratic party have been concerned with my perspective on every election year issue accept gay rights and legalized marriage for homosexuals. Cowardice on this issue is not my idea of a value any Democrat should embrace.

I understand that this is an issue of great concern to you and to many, Paul, but Sen. Kerry has been completely consistent on this. He has a 100% rating from HRC. He co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits Act of 2003. He spoke out in the Senate against the DOMA, and was one of only 14 Senators who voted against it.
He voted to expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, voted against a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, and voted to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation. He was the sole sponsor of the 1985 Gay and lesbian Civil Rights Act. That he’s stated he’s personally for civil unions as opposed to gay marriage is not to say he hasn’t been very supportive of the GLBT community. And to condemn his democratic values based on this issue is more than a little unfair.
I wouldn’t call it kowtowing or cowardice for Sen. Kerry’s personal beliefs to differ from yours. I would, though, if he abandoned them under pressure from either side of the issue.
You don’t have to agree, but I think it’s important to recognize his efforts.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you either, Penny. In case you haven't noticed, this country is in a mess right now. While I agree that Obama and Edwards are both highly intelligent, I'm afraid neither of them has the experience necessary (with either foreign or domestic issues) to get us back on track. We cannot afford for our next President to require on the job training - he (or she) must be able to get to work immediately. John Kerry is one of the few people who are capable of doing this. (At this particular time in US history.)

As for your statement, "...we need someone who can get to the point in 50 words or less." No, what we need are citizens who care enough about the future of the nation to sit still and LISTEN! Our current "President" certainly believes in brevity of speech, but that sure as hell doesn't qualify him to do the job he's been appointed to do.

Catherine, your point is valid enough, but politics is a lot like 'haggling' in a market,in that each party puts out their 'price' and they then arrive somewhere in the middle. If your starting bid is 'civil union' than where does that put the inevitable compromise? I can't believe that a man as educated and worldly as Sen. Kerry doesn't have many gay friends [likely why he was so ahead of the game with that 1985 sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act]. With this in mind, I'm sure he's also fair minded enough to realize why his gay friends [and fellow Americans] want equal access to lawful marriage. So what am I suppused to assume is the cause for his stance on this, if not timidity in the face of the right's spin on the issue - i.e., that American's aren't 'ready' for this?
And, yes, I do tend to overstate things and make rather sweeping comments. [Likely why others seem so tentitive by contrast.]

Democrats should nominate Kerry only run if they wish to have another republican president. Same goes for Hillary.

I would like to see a non-privledged individual (i.e., not independently wealthy) that is not connected to either Clinton or Bush get a stab at the job.

Broaden your thinking folks.

Even within the big shots in the party you have Jennifer Granholm or Janet Napolitano
http://democraticgovernors.org/governors/395/governor-jennifer-granholm
http://democraticgovernors.org/governors/359/governor-janet-napolitano

We would need a change in the Constitution for Jennifer Granholm to have a shot at the Presidency. That's not likely to happen in the next two years.

MainstreamMan,
Don't you think one of the natural vulnerabilites of a candidate without personal wealth is their obligations to corporate sponsors?
Thanks for the superior tone, but no thanks.

The other point to be made, Paul, is that marriage laws are decided at the state level, and that Sen Kerry's views aren't really germane unless legislation is proposed to change that (perhaps that's your point). Neither would they be if he were President except in respect to influence. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this. Should marriage laws be removed from the states' purview? Should that also include other marriage requirements such as age? Absolutely no snark here, Paul, I'm curious to know your proposal. I can take a pretty good guess, but I'd rather not lead your argument. I will admit this not an issue where I am particularly well versed, so you will probably start with the upper hand.
Thank you for this discussion, by the way.

I have my limitations of knowledge on this, also, Catherine, but the country did have to make a similar decision in the 60's when the president then sent the National Guard into the south to reinforce federal civil rights laws that effected black Americans. And the south, from which I hail, really resented it, part of a heredity of anti-Federalist sentiment. However, if states want to create their own cultures without federal interference, I think they need to be willing to give up all federal monies and other forms of federal aid.
While I appreciate that you aren't snarking me, I do resent that whenever this issue comes up, people want to make it more 'titilating' by playing the 'slippery slope' game, as if gay Americans are lobbying for marriage between animals and toddlers. Besides, regarding age [to answer your question] that to me would be a different issue, one in which a group of young people were lobbying to change the legal age for many things based on age discrimination.

Jennifer Granholm... damned, a Canadian...

Just thinking on-line here.

"Don't you think one of the natural vulnerabilites of a candidate without personal wealth is their obligations to corporate sponsors?"

What are you trying to say here? That you believe we should be lead by the upper class cuz they are not beholden to the upper class?

MainstreamMan,
Spin it however you want, but the question I posed is not irrelevant to the subject. It would take a campaign finance reform that specified a very 'conservative' limitation on spending to level the playing field in such a way as to make candidacy viable for Americans of all income brackets. This is not to suggest that all politicians who aren't wealthy take bribes or are corrupted by the system, but at the end of the day, a few rich guys feeding your campaign will probably influence your decisions at least as much as a thousand average voters. And if you think that's BS, look at the advantages that wealthy Americans have due to biased tax laws and ever-diminishing standards for workers [or the removal of the American laborer altogether from the picture through outsourcing]. So what am I saying? Obviously the rich look out for their own and a rich candidate is still not above promoting his own country club group, but Kerry's wealth, whether it disgusts you or not, is part of his strength. He is an idealist, alhough imperfect, and idealism married to wealth can be a strong ally or adversary. Persoanlly, I'm glad he's somewhere on my side of the fence.

Thanks, Paul. I hope you weren't lumping me into the group you describe, it was far from my intent to minimize this issue with the question regarding age. I was only trying to clarify the boundaries. As to the slippery slope argument, no doubt it's valid, but I also don't think that all people ask questions for the purpose you describe. Some just ask to better understand.
Point well made regarding the civil rights issues of the '60s. I absolutely see the parallels.
Have to run. Again, thank you for your time and insight.

I wouldn't dream of lumping you, Catherine. I enjoyed the discussion.

Senator Kerry is always been ahead of the pack and I'm thrilled he's been working so hard to help us take back Congress and the Senate.

As for Penny's comments: I couldn't disagree more about John Kerry and don't see either Obama or Edwards as potential '08 candidates. Obama's been all too cautious (he is a first term senator) and needs more time to come into his own. As for John Edwards, he didn't even add his own state to the ticket, so why would anyone think he's ready to take on the entire country? I think he's a great person and he was a good senator, but Kerry's got more knowledge and experience, expecially in foreign policy.

Senator Kerry has met with leaders across the globe numerous times since '04 and, by all accounts, maintains good relationships with them. This will be a huge asset to us should the senator run and be elected.

I think John Kerry has a lot more support than some people realize. The opposition, however, has been watching. Kerry's popularity scares the bejesus out of the Republicans because they hit the senator with everything they had. Unless he commits a felony, they haven't got squat. The man is clean and he's shown what he's made of.

He got up, dusted himself off and rallied the troops. I'd LOVE to see this man in the White House. He's the stuff true heroes (and legends) are made of.

Kerry or Clinton? We're doomed.

The main thing for Democrats is simply to run a candidate who can win, and although it might be the impression most have that Kerry lost in the last presidential election in 2004 the fact is he did not lose, any more than Gore did in 2000. The Republican vote tampering in both elections has been established, which brings us to the big question which is why in the hell did we, the American people, even stand for it once, much less twice? Disturbing does not even begin to touch the fact that we have allowed Hitler's mini-me to usurp power in the most blatantly illegal and unethical manner yet we just stood by doing nothing in the way of demanding that it be rectified and it somehow will leave it's taint, perversely, on either Gore or Kerry if it is either who run in 2008. I am concerned that this may be more detrimental than people generally percieve it to be capable of. But, the sense of fair play might kick in for either Gore or Kerry in that we ALL know they were cheated out of their rightfully won presidencies.

That aside, I agree Clinton has screwed herself out of being in the running by her war hawk stance, for one; I am still doubtful that this whole country is ready for a woman to be president. I'm sorry, folks, but have any of you actually talked to people in the deep south, perchance, about voting for a woman for president? I've overheard a few comments during my own travels to the effect that a woman is subject to hormonal influences and it would not be surmountable for a woman who was in that position, etc. ( and I rephrased this in the interest of being in better taste than the ones making the comments I have overheard). We can't count on these folks not voting as the aspect that would weed them out either. I'm afraid they do vote and they wouldn't be secure with a woman running the show -- although how any one, even a semi-thinking person, could really feel that a woman president could possibly be worse than the one we have right now is way beyond me.

The feeling about it all that I have right now is that the country is finally waking up and smelling the stench that has wafted across the nation emanating directly from the White House and they are not going to vote for any more Republicans in November nor do they want to see those in Congress running again as incumbents winning the seats in 2008; and I believe that this desire to see people in the executive branch who are more interested in doing the best thing for AMERICANS and minding our own business and that means no more deadly and unwinnable wars started up in the middle east for personal agendas and profiteering off of the death and destruction that follows in the wake of the Bush regime. And we do not want anyone else who is capable of another 9/11 as a flimsy excuse to start such wars at the expense of the lives of Americans killed in cold blooded mass murder as Bush did and will again if he is not impeached and soon.

A VIDEO MASHUP of KERRY's RECENT INTERVIEW WITH BILL O'REILLY ON THIS VERY SUBJECT:

http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2006/07/mashup_john_ker.html

JUST SAY NO!

Les,

Ha ha...Really funny. So Kerry has garnered the respect of the international community and their willingness to procede with diplomatic relations and you think that's bad? Ultimately, terrorism and the illegal war in Iraq (and somewhat Lebanon and Iran maybe) was caused by a rogue regime. Kerry is just the person to bring all the parties to the table again.

Hillary will have to work harder to garner respect and not be seen as a poll-follower. Her stance at the TBA and then her about-fact after the Lamont win is going to make it much more difficult for her.

Again, really don't get the aggressive backlash against Kerry. hotpotatomash, what would you have him do? Either refuse to go on the interview [I can get behidn that] or punch the guy and be called a hot head and a nut?

Since I started this, I will attempt to clarify my position and my opinion.
My feeling is that Kerry is too long winded. I have heard him speak on several occasions and repeatedly he makes his point within the first fifteen words, but then he continues on like he's on a filabuster. This does not make ME inattentive and uninterested, this makes him wordy. I'm sorry if you believe that we all should have more time to listen to someone belabor the point, but I only have so much time to devote. I am interested. I do care. But I only have 24 hours in my day. Make your point, back it up with one or even two real facts and move on.
Additionally, I was staggered when Kerry conceded. Did anyone else expect more of a fight? Considering there have been over a million complaints of election day problems/fraud, it seems to me that he folded dubiously. I know there is fraud with the electronic voting machines. Want to know how? I am the precinct chair in my area and the election judge in the latest election day. I was told to come pick up the machines for the elections last year on Monday night. The voting was to occur the following morning. I asked if I was to take them to the polling place and I was told - no. Take them home. Just make sure you get them to the school by 6 a.m. I got to the place to pick them up and the republican alternate judge had beat me to it. It takes 2 minutes of unsupervised access to these machines to corrupt them. They were in his home overnight. This was the template for the entire county. There were plenty of reasons to suspect the accuracy of the 2004 election, but where was Kerry's fighting spirit? Why, when we were so close, did he bail?
I have noticed that our country is in a mess...as a matter of fact I have been writing about it and fighting against it since bush took office. No one..and I mean no one can convince me that the information available to me was somehow not available to the people representing us in Washington. I will not back anyone that allowed us to go to war..an illegal, pre-emptive war against a sovereign country. I understand that taken out of context and out of the environment that existed directly after 9/11, some might deem my feelings unfair. But there is no excuse for our manipulations of the UN, the usurping of its authority, our belittling of its efforts, the chiding of those that would not go along (freedom fries for Christ's sake! How embarassing is that!?), the torture and abuse of innocent civilians, and our ability to sidestep decency and law by proclaiming ourselves exempt. We used to be the model for human rights -at least on a prisoner level - and now we are the example of how not to be.
I want all of the incumbents out. It might seem extreme, and there has been much said about historical models for this sort of purging. But there are always different variables that can make this a precedent setting time.
I am not anti-Kerry. I think he is a good guy, and a good democrat. I believe that some have become too comfortable in their positions and have become too familiar with graft, kickbacks and avarice. I am far from anti-democracy. I would like to see it actually working for a change. For everyone.
I don't want CEOs in the government - that model has not worked. It is erroneous to state that those not fortunate enough to have vast amounts of personal wealth will somehow be beholden to corporate sponsors. I can accept money from corporate sponsors but that will not make me a corporate whore. Why? Because regardless of who sponsors you, your job description is pretty transparent. You are a representative of the people. It's all about character. It's all about sticking to your principles. Sure that's easy to say from here, and it probably is very different when you are actually being wined and dined and your arm is being twisted. There are always reasons to compromise our values. My God, we expect the poorest of the poor to maintain elevated values of right and wrong, yet we excuse our affluent representatives. Accepting gifts and give-aways from lobbyists in exchange for legislation is abhorrent and it should be to every last one of our reps. But what reform occurred after Abramoff? The bare minimum.
I am tired of hearing people talk about representatives in congress being pro-environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare reform. Hmmm. Then why are the pollution controls weaker than they have ever been? Why are more people without healthcare? Why are we ranked so low on every level of education? Why has this president and his minions been allowed to steam roll over all these very important democratic issues?
I find all of this so frustrating. I am sick to death of people making excuses for our representatives not doing their jobs. How has bushco been able to get away with so much? Our guys sat on their hands or shrugged their collective shoulders and allowed them to descimate our economy, our international reputation, our resources, our citizens' health and well-being, and our troops safety. I believe that we have some good democrats but to be honest, I don't buy anything anyone is selling. I threw Obama, Gore and Edwards names out there because I at the very least believe that they are principled, that they don't sit on their party laurels expecting good speaking engagements. I absolutely believe that all the chat before an election isn't nearly as powerful as a voting record, but at this moment in time, I am disgusted with the lot of them. I want a democratic congress and administration but they need to be principled, they need to be strong, they need to be aware of everything that is going on.
And finally, I believe that the number one objective in our country should be to remove a corporation's ability to operate, in a legal sense, as an individual - in that somehow it can be a person that is protected as the citizens of this country are protected. A corporation is not an individual with individual rights.
I want big business out of our government.
Good to see so much activity in regards to conversation about our political landscape. I hope it translates in November 2006 and 2008.

Penny,

Glad I revisited this to find your comments; hopefully you will also.
I made the comment about one's financial status being reflective of one's vulnerabilty to graft, I suppose to be controversial, because on reflection, I think that's a cynical and a rather stupid stance for me to continue to support. I'm someone who actually defends Frank Capra movies to more cynical friends: "Unrealistic? Is it unrealistic to think there are people out there who actually care about our country and what it stands for?" I can get really pissy about it.
I am moved by your passion on this because I think belief in real political values is the absent ingrediant in our country, making it seem to fall apart.
I suppose when Kerry conceded I thought: 'Oh, he's doing this to sidestep all of the spin, hype and bs that Gore went through.' Even now I can see that this could be a benefit to a retry, but I also see your point. The election results of 2004 were genuinely depressing to me, because I realized that all the things that I value, which make sharing this earth better for everyone [even the jerks], just didn't seem to matter to enough Americans. But considering the voting corruptions, it did matter to enough and we were all duped and silenced. I want to become better at seeing all sides more fairly, although I think my reaction was defensive because it seemed like a very immediate and strong backlash to Kerry.

Paul,
I did come back and I appreciate your comments.