Kerry seems to be one of the more moderate candidates of the bunch, and while there are many things that I don't agree with fully, I generally like his platform.

On the positive side, he's a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war who served his country honorably. Unfortunately his lack of sparkling personality doesn't seem to be helping him along, and he is often criticized for being a blue-blood and a Skull & Bones/Yale man.

I don't know that I'm ready to give him my support, but I'm certainly considering his position, and I want to know what others think about him. Is he electable? What do you like and dislike about Kerry?

Correct me if I'm mistkane, but wasn't he part of the group of senators who voted for the war who are now turning around and cirticizing it? I hate it when people try and have things both ways, and I see his vote as key evidence of that. It seems wishy-washy to me, and I have a hard time believing that he didn't have some game plan in mind when the war was about to start. At least Bush and Kucinich(and Dean for that matter) knew exactly what they were doing and what they backed from day one. I don't believe that Kerry can say that.

From what I understand he voted for the war and has been a longtime supporter of removing Saddam Hussain from power, but he has also been consistently critical of certain aspects, particularly regarding diplomacy and an extended amount of time for inspectors to find WMD. His ambiguity on this issue is probably the one thing that will hurt him the most, but I can identify with his position. I'm still on the fence regarding Iraq.

My criticism aside, I think he would be an interesting candidate against Bush. In my home state, he would come off as being just another east coast liberal(like Dukakis) and Nebraska is a fiercely Republican state. Though Kerry should do well in traditional "blue" urban states, he might just be able to steal a few red states in order to become president. I only see Gephardt, Kerry, and Clark doing well in my part of the country.

Kerry and American Workers


This is one reason I wouldn't hesitate to vote for Kerry should he become the Democratic Party Presidential nominee.

Kerry Proposes A New U.N. Resolution


This is just one of the points stated regarding the war in Iraq and the occupation. The war is one huge subject. I don't know if the Democrats were intimidated with the threat of being labeled unpatriotic if they didn't go along with Bush, but it is not an unlikely scenario. As a decorated veteran, Kerry would attract military votes.

Kerry on Education


I think that Kerry is looking at this in a sensible way--of course, there are a lot of other references regarding education and other subjects of interest.

All in all, Kerry looks like he is far more interested than George W. Bush regarding the needs of the American people, and as a Senator and military veteran who has seen action and proven his mettle, he most certainly possesses more savvy regarding foreign relations and the effects of war.

While Kucinich's views are near and dear to my heart, I will wholeheartedly support Kerry if he becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee.

While I agree with the others that Kerry would make a better alternative to Bush (as would Dean, Edwards, and Lieberman), I won't vote for Kerry in the primaries.

I think he spends too much time attacking. Attacking Bush, attacking Dean. He needs to spend more time trying to inspire people to voting, not attacking others with whom he disagrees or wants to beat. In times when fear is being thrown at us daily, I'm looking for someone who can inspire us to be better.

Kerry also needs to become a better public speaker. I've read reports from all over that he's smart and very personable in private, but the personable part just doesn't come across when he's speaking in public for some reason. He needs to spend more time acting like he didn't just swallow a lemon.

Amf, I agree that he needs to spend less time attacking and more time talking about his platform. In fact, that has been my biggest irritation from all of the candidates. I don't want to consistently hear how Bush did it wrong or how negative the other candidates are. I can make those determinations on my own. I want to know how the Democratic candidates think that they would do it right. They need to provide a vision for the future.

So, he advocates a nanny state...

He backs having a US led international military force, something which is vehemently opposed by certain EU members. Isn't he listening to the international community?

I also don't think simply being a veteran is enough to earn military votes.


So, we should throw up our hands and say "Whatever the local teachers are doing is ok. No need to encourage better results. No need to measure results."

Testing is needed to measure results. Is the "No Child Left Behind" idea perfect... of course not. It needs to be improved. Is saying that it "punishes schools and teachers" a fair statement? I don't believe so. Everyone has a job. Everyone's performance must be measured. How can my boss rate me if he doesn't know what similar employees are doing? It is the same for schools. We need to be able to compare districts in some objective way. Does this "punish" them (or me)? Only if they don't meet expectations.

I could never vote for Kerry. To me, the most sensible Democrat candidates are Lieberman and Edwards, neither of which is likely to win the nomination.

You said that--it certainly wasn't me. Sounds like you are jumping to a conclusion.



The testing needs to be made fair, proportional to the challenges the teachers are faced with in different school systems. An urban school in a crime-ridden neighborhood where moms and dads cannot (or will not) take the time to help their children with homework, and where the teacher spends more time trying to keep order than actually educating children in an overcrowded classroom cannot be expected to provide the same results as a suburban magnet school where the teacher to student ratio is more reasonable, the soccer moms are on the PTA and where materials are more easily obtained to teach the class.

Further, IF the standardized test provides the main criterion for evaluation to the extent that funds will be denied if the school doesn't measure up, the teachers have to prep the students like seniors are prepped to take the SAT, to the detriment of their regular studies. That is a very narrow range of learning and doesn't adequately reflect the entirety of the school experience.


Kerry is not simply a veteran; he is a decorated veteran. He actually served his country, didn't just join the Reserve and show up when he felt like it.



Kerry's primary concern is what Americans think about the idea of the UN commanding American military forces. Somehow, people tend to get a bug up their butt at the idea of foreigners commanding our military.

At the same time, Kerry doesn't have to work too hard to be better at diplomacy than Dubya, who's like a bull in a china shop when it comes to foreign relations.



Yeah, whatever. A healthy economy depends upon people being able to purchase goods produced. In order for people to do that, they need jobs where they earn a living wage.

"Trickle down" only produces a wet, warm feeling down the inside of your leg. Any corporation that takes the tax incentives and socks the money in a foreign bank where the funds are non-taxable, while laying off people here, is not worthy of receiving government "bennies."

You don't want a nanny state; I don't want a state that coddles the corporate interests regardless of their bad behavior, and to the detriment of the workforce.

Once again, I guess that where you stand depends on where you are sitting.

Looks like bad news for Kerry. I'm not sure that he can overcome the Dean juggernaut.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/...ain586833.shtml

Dean-42%
Kerry-12%
Clark-9%
Lieberman-7%
Edwards-4%
Gephardt-3%
Kucinich-2%

By raising the most money so far, Dean has been able to extend his campaigning outside of NH and IA (and, for some, SC) into a number of other states where the other candidates just don't have much of a presence. The other candidates -- Kerry included -- are hoping to stay near the top early and then sling-shot past Dean's lead. It worked well for Clinton in '92, but I don't think that the situation is quite the same.

If Kerry doesn't start looking like a national candidate instead of a 3-state (NH, IA, MA) candidate, his candidacy is sunk.

I don't believe anyone would deny that he would win New Hampshire, it's a neighboring state and he has good name recognition up there. Now, if he wins Iowa, that would be something else. I think it would be a KO blow for Gephardt. Even if Gephardt wins by a small margin, it will show that Gephardt's campaign is struggling and is almost down for the count. I'm not quite sure where Kerry would win, but perhaps big states like Ohio and Pennsylvania?

Well Kerry seems to be trying to bring in the younger vote by cussing out George W. Bush. In an interview with Rollingstone Magazine Kerry uses the "F-bomb" when trying to rationalize his "yes" vote to the Iraq war vote in Congress.

Foul-Mouthed Kerry

That's nothing-George Bush used a naughty word in pointing out a New York Times reporter to Dick Cheney. He didn't know the microphone could pick up his voice. Is there something more substantive to dissect about this guy?

I think that is substantive.

Catching someone swearing in private is not the same as someone who publically uses the F-bomb in reference to his opponents. It is unprofessional, distasteful, and frankly uncalled for.

Kerry is desperate for attention. This is simply going to garner him the wrong kind.

Kerry's campaign is history, in my opinion, since he can't even win in NH...

I agree, Amlord. It is substantive. Kerry is running for the office of President, a role in which he would be the main representative of our country. His job includes a lot of communicating both with world leaders outside of the country and with the citizens of the U.S. Dropping the F-Bomb in his anger and frustration is so inappropriate in this scenario. He may be doing it to get the votes of younger people, but it indicates to me that he lacks control.

I wholeheartedly agree. His slip of the tongue may have attracted some young voters, but it lost the respect of this one (I'm not a "voter" per se, but I can influence my parents' votes ). I like his platform pretty well, especially the requisite hours of service for high schoolers. I don't think he is a very strong public speaker, and his addresses tend to make me think of a talking rock. The little cursing incident made me think twice about ever supporting him. Sure, if he gets the nomination I'll support him. But if he is willing to go so far as to eschew decorum to make himself look "bad" to the young voters, I might just have to look otherwise.

He won't be around much longer. His foul-mouthed quip over the weekend is a sign of his meltdown. That's fueled most recently by Gore throwing his support to Dean. He was the early favorite but couldn't go the distance. Not surprising though since he seemed to base his campaign on being a Vietnam vet. That's not a qualifier in the minds of righ-thinking voters.

Right you are on that one. I was very surprised to hear that Gore backs Dean. I believe that Dean is doing an excellent job of wooing insider democrats to his side. I think we'll see Dean riding through the storm.

Like Passion and Nebraska said, Dean is going to get the nomination. When Gore announced that he is backing Dean (which didn't surprise me, he's just saying to the Clintons, "Since you didn't support me in 2000, I don't need you!"), Kerry is just pulling these stunts as a last-ditch effort to get some sort of showing for him. It will, of course, be to no avail; Dean has the nomination. It doesn't really make me happy that someone whom I respect like Senator Kerry is trying to curse his way to victory; it's just shameful. If he's going to go down, she should at least go down honorably.

Very true--and by having a serious case of sour grapes, he hurts any chance of being a possible vice presidential nominee. Kerry should've kept his mouth shut. Though, I doubt he would've been the vp nominee, since his home state will go democratic no matter what. On paper, the Kerry campaign looked very impressive. He had some fundraising prowess, and had some interesting views on the issues. I believe things began to fall apart for him when he began firing people on his staff because his campaign was floundering. The problem isn't the horse on this campaign, it's the jockey.

Dean supporters love to talk about how their guy opposed the war from the start. Very nice, but how will Dean's anti-war position get our troops out? What's his plan? Retreat? Kerry knows what it is like to be a solider stuck in a quagmire and was deeply involved in the anti-war movement when he returned from Vietnam. We need a new president with a military background (Kerry or Clark) who knows our military. Don't blame Kerry for the war, blame Bush! He is the commander in chief and could have sent in our troops without approval from Congress. Besides, the resolution on Iraq was not a declaraion of war it only gave Bush the authority to use force if necessary, leading the White House to lie to the American people about the “imminent threat” from Sadam. Bush lied to us and to Congress, I don’t blame Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards or Hillary.

Although many democrats are backing Dean, several polls have shown that Kerry and Clark are the strongest two democratic candidates versus Bush among average voters (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm). The polls vary month-to-month, but even with Dean’s flood of positive press (cover of Newsweek & Time), he still remains weak against Bush among average voters. I personally think Dean is a nice guy, and I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but in the end can he beat Bush? … can he win the peace in Iraq?. I prefer Kerry over Clark for his Congressional and military experience.

You're right. Bush could have sent troops to Iraq without the approval of Congress, but he didn't. He chose to get their approval, and when Congress voted in favor of it they became culpable to any failure that may result or to any erroneous intelligence. They had access to the same intelligence as Bush did. They saw the same evidence the public did and probably more. They took that evidence and decided that it was enough to give the President the authority to act. If Bush is to blame so are the people that gave him the go ahead to act. I will hold my criticizm until we know all the facts, but to blame only Bush and his adminisitration is wrong.

"I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did," Kerry told the youth-oriented magazine.

Instead of the "oh my goodness" hand-wringing over Sen. Kerry dropping a F-bomb on Bush, it seems people are ignoring the question of whether or not Bush DID f---- it up in Iraq. That is far more relevant than whether Kerry used overly colorful language in describing the situation. I seriously doubt most people in Iowa or New Hampshire are going to vote for or against Kerry due to his potty mouth.

When Kerry wrote a Harley-Davidson onto the set of The Tonight Show would you be upset because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Gee, that must mean he is a reckless risk-taker and you wouldn't want those traits in a Chief Executive.

News flash people: Politicians curse. They swear, sweat, have sex and go to the bathroom---just like everyone else. We're electing a president, not a pope, in 2004.

Kerry may still be able to jump start his campaign (though I doubt it), but this is really a non-story. The fact that the Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post gossip page is trying to make it one should be viewed with suspicion.

Nighttimer, I already made it clear in this thread that I identified with Kerry's position on Iraq, and I still think that his language was inappropriate for a Presidential Candidate.



Politicians can swear, sweat, have sex and go to the bathroom just like everyone else. That's fine, but their public speaking skills are important and actually do pertain to the office of president. It's not the only criteria that I would base my vote on, but communication skills certainly is one of them.

Senator Kerry is strictly a hack. By that I mean a bland, by the book liberal, who has no vision, no ideas and uses polls and the way the wind blows to get his opinions. He excites no one and turns military people like me off because he doesn't have the stomach to stay in Iraq and keep hammering the remnants of Sadam's Baath party. Kerry is too pesimisstic and gloom and doom to appeal to many americans who are upbeat about the hot economy and our tough, kick butt-kicking president

Cyan, I've been around politicians when they're just cooling out, having a beer and relaxing. The air could turn blue from some of the language used in an informal setting. Now granted an interview with Rolling Stone isn't exactly like one with The Washington Post, but maybe Kerry was using a colorful word in an unguarded moment. It it apparent to me from the way the interviewer phrased some of his questions, this was not the most formal of settings (Kerry's repeated use of the word "gonna" instead of "going to" is a tip-off for me). If the remark wasn't off-the-record, it would then be up to the reporter whether or not to include it. Maybe Kerry told the reporter to go with it. Who can say?

Kerry was not speaking in public when he made the remark. He was being interviewed for a magazine and this ONE quote has been extrapolated. Here's a link to the original interview.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/natio...en.asp?pid=2454

I don't believe this would mean John Kerry would be a lousy POTUS. However, as his campaign seems stuck in neutral he may never get the chance to prove it.

Nighttimer,

My language has often been likened that of a Shanghai Sailor's but Kerry's language itself doesn't seem to be what bother's me about this latest little publicity stunt.

To me what is most bothersome is that fact that Kerry seems bent on putting out some sort of image in order to get votes rather than focus on issues. There was a wide range of accusations (most of which I believe) claiming that Kerry's people are really pushing this bad boy image, swearing adn cursing, motorcycles, the sudden drop of his thick NorthEastern accent, and on and on. This isn't Bill Clinton '92 and saxophone or motorcycle, Kerry's falling way behind, I think he needs to find a better, more secretive way of establishing his differences from the other 9 or 10, how many were there again?

This little dust-up is so revealing. Not just of Kerry, but of the Dems in general. These guys cannot let themselves be themselves. They must fashion an image for each audience. Clinton's leadership by straw-poll, Gore's multitude of wardrobe changes, and now Kerry's bad-boy image.

It's no wonder the left despises GWB so much. They can't stomach someone so comfortable in his own skin. It's true on the world stage as well. Leaders of other countries are having a hard time understanding a President who actually means what he says, and follows through.

Lieberman and Gephart can't make any headway because they haven't been chamelionizing their images. Dean is going to pull away. In the primary. But then he too will change course and it will spell his defeat. Once he gets the nomination he will have to move quickly to the center and that'll be it. Bye-bye Dean.

When your positions are so far out-of-touch with mainstream Americans, you have to rely on illusion. Having been duped by Clinton, Americans are wary enough not to let that happen again so soon.

And that is a good thing!

Talk about "fashion an image"--Kerry wasn't the one playing "Top Gun" on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln a few months ago, under the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. Seems to me that while Dubya might be comfortable in his own skin, his image is one of little substance and continuing obfuscation.

Regarding Kerry, I think that nighttimer is right as far as the circumstances and the tone of the conversation. Surely there are more things to get all hot and bothered about than a profanity (I mean, it's not like he was posting on AD or something!). I remember Dubya and Cheney up on a grandstand talking when they didn't know the PA system was on. Bush was pointing out someone and saying, "That's __________. He's a major__________." I don't recall Dubya apologizing for that one, just saying he didn't know the microphone was on. And lo and Behold! He still got the votes from those who supported him!

So why don't we focus on what Kerry would plan to do as President just in case Dean doesn't have the nomination sewn up?

After all, there are still the primaries.

(And regarding the Clinton comment, at least Clinton won his elections fair and square, your opinions of him notwithstanding.)

I have absolutely no doubt about that, Nighttimer, nor do I have a problem with it.



Whether with the informal Rolling Stone or the Washington Post, He was doing an interview that was going to be made public. The bulk of the interview is good. I still contend that his language was inappropriate for a Presidential candidate. <shrug> I made an observation, but it's not that big of an issue, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to disregard everything else that he says because of it.



Good plan, P.E.

Two things that I really like about Kerry's platform are his .

1. His College Opportunity Tax Credit



2. His Service for College Initiative

I find it slightly disturbing that some people can't seem to see that such posturing is universal among politicians. I'm not excusing it, but to to say this is the exclusive domain of the Democrats is just plain wrong. That would be like saying only Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility, while ignoring that at the height of the Clinton (who, as you recall, was a Democrat) administration, the budget was not only balanced, but as a percentage of GDP was the smallest in several decades.



You are incorrect. Kerry's fairly mainstream Democratic platform is widely liked by "mainstream Americans." Or did you forget that in the Presidential election in 2000, and again in the Congressional races in 2002, the results were almost universally extremely close. You speak here as though Bush and the Republican platform is being implemented due to some sort of overwhelming mandate from the voters. This is not the case. The most that could be said in terms of differentiating the levels of support these differing platforms have is that the current Republican platform has been supported by a very slight plurality of the percentage of registered voters who turned up at the polls in the last several elections. Hardly evidence to support your statement. Nice try, though.

Oh, and:



Not quite what was promised...



But when the money he actually committed fell a bit short,



Good follow through.

Seems as though we're standing on the slope of another Bush-bashing thread. Rather than see that happen let's just leave it at this. If you tell me that Kerry rides a Harley in his everyday life and curses like a sailor in normal conversation, then I'll withdraw my criticism of him as just another panderer with no substance.
Hold on, no I won't. Didn't he vote in favor of the use of force against Iraq? Then do some kind of Clintonesque flip-flop to a "I only meant we could scare 'em" posiiton? Yeah, he did. Forget it, he's a hack. Kick 'im to the curb!

Actually, no. My intention was not to find some way, any way, to bash Bush. It was merely to point out that such flip-flopping is more the rule than the exception in Washington.

The difference between a Bush supporter and an ardent Kerry supporter (which I am not) is this: when Bush flip-flops, the Bush supporter rationalizes that there is probably a good reason for it, right? Like, when Bush campaigned that he was against the principle of nation-building. Of course that has changed. What's the rationality? Well, it can be argued that 9/11, even though it did not directly involve Iraq, changed the way we play the international game. Fine. A supporter of Kerry, however, can also find a logical rationale for Kerry's about-face on the war. There are some people who voted for the war, based on the information at hand at the time; later, when there was reason to question some of that information, and some of the reasons given for the war, started to question the motives. Whether or not those doubts are valid is a different issue - what matters is that they are being raised, and considered, by many people.

When someone you agree with changes their mind, you tend to give them the benefit of a doubt. When someone you disagree with does the same thing, you tend to attack them for being a hypocrite. The thing is, it's rare to see a candidate who doesn't pander to the electorate by doing and saying things which are out of whack with their core positions or their actual lifestyle. Clinton had his saxophone, Kerry has his Harley. This is nothing new. Politicians, Kerry and Bush are not exceptions, want to be elected. Bottom line. It's sad, perhaps, but it's true. Do you, Passion, believe that Bush should be "kicked to the curb" for flip-flopping on his nation-building stance? Likely not.

I would agree with what quarkhead, nighttimer and Paladin Elspeth have all said that the cursing thing is not a big deal heck shows he is only human. While I am a Dean supporter I do believe Kerry's policies are are very interesting just like most of the democrats policies are which we would be much better off having then the Dubya adminstrations policies we are living with now.

And to Passion if only Clinton could have been voted in for another term Dubya would still be back in Texas were he will be living after the election in '04.

I'll interject my two cents...

The cursing deal (as with Dean) shows that Kerry is willing to pander to whatever audience comes his way, at the expense of the principles of civil discourse. Positioning is one thing (one usually disgusting thing) but it would be nice for politicians to have some principles they won't sell out for a shot a three more votes.

One of these, I would hope, is respect for the political process in the US. Enough, respect not to allow decidedly uncivil talk.

I have less a problem with this as with the Dean case (where the language was directly applied to a group of people) but it's still troubling.

We're all only human, but if you were running would you engage in this sort of behavior?

I'm not sure if this story is accurate, since it's from a right-wing online magazine, but if it is, it's another reason to be rather skeptical of his campaign. The issue? Kerry criticizing Bush over the MTBE provision in the energy bill while failing to take credit for mandating it's use years ago!! Anyone else have a plausible explanation as to how the good senator got this wrong?


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36072

What Kerry is criticizing the energy bill provision about is giving a free pass to the companies that made this product from liability lawsuits which they don't deserve. At the time the congress thought just like in your post Nebraska that at the time they thought that would reduce harmful emissions, but infact the companies that were making these products knew of the harmful reactions and kept it hidden from the country.

http://www.ewg.org/issues/mtbe/20031001/report.php








So in fact based on the information at the time Kerry and others that voted for this were not in error. But what he and others are against is giving a free pass on lawsuits to the companies that lobbied for this, knew the risks and kept the information secret and now hoping to have the communities have to foot the bill for the clean up costs.

I think you are mis-contruing what the free pass is about. The pass is so that the COMPANY producing the gas as required by law are not charged with a 3rd parties tanks leaking. Of course they are responsible for their own tanks and can be charged..why should they be liable for a 3rd part station also? This is alot like gun companies getting sued because someone using their product to murder someone. Or heck why not sue fertilizer plants for the bomb in OK.

cusbilla

MTBE is just one example of an oxygenated fuel, and I don't know that it's the most common. Another alternative that has been used in many states is ethanol.

Ethanol? Oh yes, that stuff that they can make from corn. When this law was passed, many farm-belt politicians hoped for a big pay-off, but despite the billions spent perfecting the process to make ethanol, it wasn't any cheaper than MTBE.

---------------------------------
If I'm driving around at lunch time, I usually listed to Rush. The guy makes me mental, but I can't stop myself. The few times I've heard him during the past few weeks, I was surprised to hear him assault Kerry so much. He seems to mention Kerry more than Dean (I don't keep track of these things, just my opinion). Maybe Mr. Oxy-cot is entertained by the Democrats fighting each other. From the debate this week, it was clear that Kerry is in "attack" mode. He has decided that it will do him no good to be polite and smile for the camera, so it's time to go after Dean (and Bush).

It's interesting that you mention ethanol. Nebraska has lots of farmers who benefit from the ethanol program in our state. The state runs ads and so do various groups telling us to use ethanol to reduce pollution. Perhaps the cost isn't cheaper than MTBE or other solutions, but so far it has a decent track record. Getting back to the topic, I don't see Kerry's positions on any particular issue to be really inspiring or original. His agriculture stance is somewhat muddled. He would give "grants" to create value-added businesses in rural communities. Ther are only so many potato chip factories that you can create, and from what source of money will you build that factory? He says nothing about concentration in the ag. economy. He doesn't state how he'll help the small farmers survive against the big ones, as well as what he will do with farm subsidies. He would expand Amtrak service to small, rural communities and encourage the building of small airports to connect rural areas with larger ones. Is there a market for such a thing? I live in a town of 1,445 and it sounds as if we would be blowing lots of money on pork that has very little benefits to people who actually live and work in rural areas. For the senator's views on agriculture and other topics, visit: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/agriculture/