Kerry ideas didn’t win the first time and they won’t win again.  Over half the voters in the country agree with me.  As for your other strong senator...Ted Kennedy......yes he has power....is he a great leader?  I don’t think so.  Hell he is not even a good driver.

Kerry has the nature to be a great senator.Watch his moves. See his ideas take hold. Ma. has two powerful senators.

Kerry a hero? That is open for interpetation.  Kerry’s time has come and gone as far as Presidential assperations.  He offers very little to the country in terms of leadership IMHO.  Most people who voted for him in the last election weren’t really voting FOR Kerry they were voting AGAINST Bush.

I would prefer Kerry to Bush and Nader to both of them.

Kerry is an example of why this country needs term limits nationwide but he is not the only one.

Republicans and Democrats have long term senators who become “senior” over vital comittee’s and stifle or cater to special interest lobbies. 

If one truely wants to represent their state and ultimately thir country it should be rounded as a congressman, senator, governor, president or back to state legislator or mayor where its really important.

Kerry is a hero....and when the current/early campaigns season..burns out...along with the unqualified candidates, other than New World Order Hillary...maybe Kerry will jump in.  America does need his leadership.  I hope he goes after bush in the senate...for all the crimes. 

google The Franklin Cover Up

Comment #50714 by John on 1/31 at 8:18 am

Ed writes.......Kerry would be a great chief executive but American voters don’t want a conscientious hero. They prefer draft-dodging, corporate sluts. Says:

I am confused...are you talking about Bill Clinton or George Bush?  I don’t seem to recall that Clinton fought in the military....something about going to England wasn’t it?  Now before you take my head off ranting about Bush please answer.....What was Bill Clinton doing during the Viet Nam war?

He was and is a “draft-d0dging corporate slut.  I don’t see any comnflict here.  Ed said “American voters don’t want a conscientious hero. They prefer draft-dodging, corporate sluts.” They elected Clinton (draft dodger) over GHWB (WW II hero) and Bob Dole (WW II hero) and GWB over Al Gore (with Vietnam Service record) and John Kerry (Silver Star reciepiant)

Guess that proves what Ed said.

Answer to “what did Clinton do?” he legally avoided the war by staying in college.

Ed writes.......Kerry would be a great chief executive but American voters don’t want a conscientious hero. They prefer draft-dodging, corporate sluts.

I am confused...are you talking about Bill Clinton or George Bush?  I don’t seem to recall that Clinton fought in the military....something about going to England wasn’t it?  Now before you take my head off ranting about Bush please answer.....What was Bill Clinton doing during the Viet Nam war?

Is getting the troops out all that matters?  What about the Iraqi people?  Kerry may have great plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but he and others seem to be unconcerned with the aftermath.  The US has destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure and turned it into a close approximation of hell (and if you do not believe that, read a few of the reports at bigfatamerica.com).  The US is responsible for cleaning up the mess it created.  Just to leave would be horribly irresponsible.  Of course, Americans do not care about anyone else, so they will, indeed, just leave.

“Me too, but I’d do it better” was never Kerry’s stand on Iraq. It was more “I’d do it different” meaning, as he urged from before the war, he would have sought a diplomatic solution and would not have gone to war unnecessarily.

There’s only one way to end the war in Iraq, and that’s by ending the war in Iran before it starts. And the only real way to do that is to impeach Bush and Cheney, right now.

If we don’t, there’s still plenty of time left for them to do untold more damage. Even cutting the funding to the war won’t stop it, because the real President, who we all know is Cheney, will still be able to dig up money from somewhere else to fund it.

I’m hugely disappointed in the Democrats right now. They’re wasting time, watching more American soldiers die in Iraq for the sole purpose of distracting us from the upcoming war in Iran.

My guess is that the U.S. will be dropping nuclear bombs on Iraq by May of this year, if Bush and Cheney are still at the helm by then.

And my hope is that at least one member of Congress will find the courage to introduce an Impeachment bill in the very near future.

Comment #50467 by John Hanks on 1/30 at 6:47 am said:

“I listen to Kerry much like I would listen to anyone who belongs to a Skull and Bones cult.  He is intelligent and perceptive, but no more to be trusted than Lyndon Larouche.  I gave him 1000 bucks to fight Bush, and it looks like he took a dive.”

Funny how people are quick to re-write history when the “danger” of a win is gone. 

Kerry is no neophite to politics. He was swift-boated for sure. but as a politician (particularly from Massachusetts where dispite reputation, politics is far from “friendly") he should have had an answer.  As John says above, it sure looked to me like he was either on the Bush payroll, or drugs.

His campaign was abysmal, and his 1,2,3, wins in the first three states(where Howard Dean was strongly favored) looked like a Democratic back-room set-up. (Anyone ever considered that maybe the D’s didn’t want to win that election?)

Kerry (not by birth a New Englander) is a sleazy male Hillary Clinton Clone, and all the favorable publicity (now that he’s not running) won’t change my mind…

If “We the people” are ever going to change this nation for the better, we have got to oppen our own eyes, and see.  Letting the Washington Post, (or the Manchester Union Leader) influence us with self serving “stories” will never be productive

What constitutes the “diplomatic thrust” that Kerry is working on?  All talk & no action gets no where in the middle east.  Money talks, action talks, but just sipping tea & chatting goes no where. 

The only action mentioned in the article is to re-deploy the troops.  What message does that send to the terrorist?  I think it says they win & we lose. Get real people.

Can we then RIP that false beatitude “Attitude is everything”? For now we know by bloody experience that truly “Character is everything.”

Kerry would be a great chief executive but American voters don’t want a conscientious hero. They prefer draft-dodging, corporate sluts.

What a well written article about Kerry. The media helped swiftboat Kerry. They clearly made someone who has poor judgment look better than someone who is well qualified to be President. Who would have known that this administration could make everything such a disaster for the USA and Iraq. I hope Congress has enough courage to stand up and get us out of this mess with diplomacy before more of the world is distroyed.
Thank you Kerry for standing up with courage and wisdom again.  Thank you Marie Cocco for writing clearly about Kerry.

I listen to Kerry much like I would listen to anyone who belongs to a Skull and Bones cult.  He is intelligent and perceptive, but no more to be trusted than Lyndon Larouche.  I gave him 1000 bucks to fight Bush, and it looks like he took a dive.

Marie is right, of course. Kerry’s plan should be given close attention. Sadly, though, the leadership of the country is, like most of the so-called media, disinterested. We should be looking with even greater care at Bush’s recent executive order setting up a political “gatekeeper” to supervise, and I quote the NYTimes, “the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries.” Such policies in other countries are seen as dictatorial and condemned. The media apparently hasn’t noticed the significance of this move.

So if we “redeploy” who will mind our oil for us? Who will control the oil that we have spent upwards of a million lives and a trillion dollars in stealing? And whose oil will we steal next? And what will be the result of our NOT stealing oil from some country somewhere?

Not Kerry, not Levin, not Conyers, not Kennedy, not Kucinich, not Clinton, not Obama, not any of you have ever admitted WHY we made war on Iraq in the first place; what makes you think that a waraholic can stop oil wars when he won’t ever admit that he has a problem?

As long as you ignore the root cause of the “problem,” you will continue forever with the symptoms of the same problem, and you are doomed to die in denial.

What about Kerry’s “Me too, but I’d do it better.” stand on Iraq? He and Hillary are still back pedalling on that.