I would always chose a politics that is strategically sensible.  I am a registered Green because I want to give that cause some hope and to protest against the snake in the grass “liberal” scum.  I vote because it matters in terms of the Zeitgeist; a term too few people know and/or understand. The purpose of the left is to move the dialog left and to repudiate the right as much as possible.

That last statement means we have to hold our noses and vote for the furthest left candidate that has a chance of winning unless that candidate already has a chance of winning without our vote. Then we are free to vote for the left candidate.  NO ONE should fool themselves that you can vote into office in the Fascist USA an anti-capitalist candidate, ONLY VIOLENT REVOLUTION HAS ANY CHANCE OF CHANGING AMERIKKKA!

All of the above means that if it were strategically necessary to vote for Kerry I wouldn’t think twice.  Remember the important thing is not voting, it is acting!

Support everything that will liberalize the franchise like instant run off, proportional representation, reformed political boundary fixing, abolishing the Senate/Electoral College, reduce onerous ballot requirements and so on.

Hey Dems, offer personalities people can trust!

When telling of family and friends, John Kerry has charm and ease in his words. But when speaking as a politician, his parental style is lecturing, tedious, more like plowing a field of boulders (Hillary does this too except when she’s pissed). Kerry’s presidential persona is passe. Give us the likes of Feingold, someone who isn’t afraid his ideas and personality will be disliked. Because voters can’t trust a cardboard cutout.

Poor crippled ! Does he try to walk on the string one more time ?

So the Democrats want to lose again…. Well, it’s no skin off my nose as the parties are indistingushable as seperate entities…. \

BUT

Why would the Democrats again run a senator for president knowing full well that the American people seldom elevate a senator to the White House by popular vote.  Only one time in the last 100 years has a senator been elected president, and without the vote fraud in Chicago John Kennedy might have lost.

Kerry blew it in 2004. The war in Iraq was unpopular then. Kerry adopted a “me too, but I’d do it better” stand. He said that even if he knew that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction before the vote to okay the invasion, he still would have voted for it because we were bringing democracy to Iraq. Because of that I voted for the Libertarian candidate.

John Kerry will not recieve either the demoocratic nod nor will he become our president. I voted for him in ‘04 simply because he was the stronger option. He was weak when he should have come out with guns blazing against Bush. The American public will never forget that and I think that we need a candidate that people will not have to second guess over.

Kerry is still in the race, he says, but Feingold is out.  What does this tell us about the Democratic Party?  And who sat on Feingold to get him out of the race?

Personally, I wasted my vote on John Kerry in ‘04, while violently holding my nose.  Never again.

Kerry offers two attributes that no other potential presidential candidate offers:

He arrives at the right solutions for how to deal with the difficult issues of our day and he has the political smarts to implement those solutions.

Choose instead the candidate who is great at folksy ingratiation and hot-button slogans and you doom us all to a future of George W. Bushes.

There are NO personalities on the scene who possess both of those qualities.

Kerry’s pre-election comments not only DID NOT reduce the number of people charged up about voting Democratic this November (as the Right-Wing media spin machine suggested it would), but polls indicate quite convincingly that the slimy way the Bushes and the John McCains responded to Kerry’s comments worked quite well to INCREASE the number of people charged up to vote Democrat.

It wouldn’t matter If Kerry was the only Democratic candidate running for president in 2008. I don’t have any Dem. friends that would support him. Someone needs to tell the numb nutted jerk that he can’t win.

EMPATHY

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=999

Kerry for president? Talk to the cabbies and some of the other “little people” in Boston about Kerry as president. To a person, when I have talked with others who cross his path and are not wealthy, they describe a man so arrogant as to make Napoleon blush. Kerry as president? Give me someone who at least remembers when they were beholden to the people they are supposed to be serving.

The botched joke isn’t the fiasco. The fiasco is the attention that the botched joke has received
I keep hearing and reading that Sen. Clinton is the front runner for the democratic ticket. Kerry was out there stumping for democrates for many many months. He has worked very hard for the democrates.
And so big deal! He messed up a joke. The republicans have been spinning it for all its worth too. And you know what? Its all b***sh**!
John Kerry is a good man. And has all the qualifications and experience we need to get our country back and get out of Iraq.

John Kerry is a good man.
John Kerry is a brave man.
John Kerry is a principaled legislator.
John Kerry is a lousy national candidate.

To paraphrase Bill Maher: Kerry losing to Bush in 2004 is like a normal person loosing in the special olympics.

Besides, the longer a congressman is in the public eye the more his record haunts him. Too many votes, too much cannon fodder for the opposition. Let’s back the newbies and governors. Lawmakers are a different breed.

“My team’s confident and strong”, eh what?
But wait a second.  Any presidential candidate who intends to represent us in election ‘08 will need more than the confidence of her or his team to gain our approval.  At a minimum she or he will have to agree to follow the will of the people, no ad-libbing allowed.  And the same holds for Congress.  Popular control, that is.