Kerry Rolls
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 07-18-2004 - 3:36pm |
Kerry couldn't say no
Hillary waffle was just part of a wimpy week
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/213256p-183572c.html
John Kerry is about to be crowned King of all Democrats and he's got at least a 50-50 shot at being the 44th President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is but one of 100 senators. Any clash between the two should thus be a mismatch - and it was. Kerry never stood a chance.
If you're scoring at home, that's Clinton 1, Kerry 0.
What's amazing about the spat over whether Hillary would get a primetime convention speech was how quickly Kerry retreated. No sooner had his aides insulted Clinton by saying, first, she hadn't asked for a role and second, the convention was about the "future" then they caved and asked her to speak. Begged would be more accurate.
Kerry's the king all right, but Clinton's the unchallenged Queen of Democrats - and the King better not forget it again.
Her supporters rejoiced at her triumph, but Republicans must be delighted, too, for the embarrassing incident reveals a weak spot in the Democratic nominee.
John Kerry is a man who can be rolled. Quickly and often.
His surrender to Clinton was one of three cases in just a week where Kerry took a stand, then immediately folded his cards when challenged. He's definitely not ready for the World Series of Poker.
The first case involved the July 8 Bush-bash at Radio City Music Hall. A day after he praised Whoopi Goldberg and others as representing the "heart and soul of America," Kerry wilted in the face of media and GOP heat. Suddenly, he found Goldberg's lewd act inappropriate.
And on the same day as the Hillary fold, Kerry backed away from some of his own TV ads when black officials called them "lackluster."
Only a week after touting the $2 million buy as the largest ever aimed at black voters, Kerry agreed to scrap the ads. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Kerry flubbed by not showing the ads to the caucus first. "It was corrected," Cummings said as Kerry agreed to the changes the caucus wanted.
Final score: Critics 3, Kerry 0.
None of these incidents is fatal at this early stage, and Dem partisans will even argue they show a nuanced thinker willing to listen and change his mind. Those traits, they say, go to the heart of why they prefer him to President Bush.
But it's also true that the three incidents play into the GOP attack machine theme that Kerry is a flip-flopper who can't be trusted. Even a top Dem stalwart conceded there are doubts about Kerry's "internal gyroscope."
Such doubts worry this Kerry supporter because of how he views the election landscape: A slim majority of Americans have turned against Bush, but Kerry has not yet captured all their votes, especially independents. To win, my Democratic sage says, Kerry must meet two tests:
"He must convince people that he has a strong foreign policy, and he must show middle class families that he cares about them and understands their problems."
He's right, but here's a third challenge. Kerry needs a Sister Souljah moment.
It was 12 years ago, just before his own crowning convention, that Bill Clinton demonstrated strength and independence by scolding the young black rap singer. She had defended Los Angeles riots by saying, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people."
Clinton not only said the comments reflected "hatred," he did so at Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Sister Souljah then called Clinton "racist," and Jackson was furious at him, too. But Clinton stood his ground, and the incident established his willingness to say no and risk offending a key party voting bloc.
Kerry has not yet taken such a risk. When he does, he'll be a stronger, more worthy candidate for the Oval Office.
Renee ~~~

Pages
As I pasted elsewhere in this thread... on August 9, the Japaneese parliment was called into session at 2PM FOLLOWING Nagasaki AND following the Presidents address (which was broadcast on armed forces radio networks and WAS monitored by the Japaneese). The meeting ran until 2:30AM and ended when the Emperor ordered surrender. A recording by the Emporer was made at 4AM to be broadcast at dawn... ordering all Japaneese to cease active hostilities against the allies and all ships to return to the nearest port.
Quite clearly the 2nd attack, AND the Presidents address inspired total surrender.
One must not only have a bomb, one must be willing to use it, to present a credible threat.
So if this is a WAR the US is having with the terrorists, does that mean in your opinion that in order to "WIN THE WAR" and save lives in these countries under attack, Al Quaeda would be JUSTIFIED in using nuclear weapons??? After all, that was the justification you provided for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And before you answer that 'that wouldn't happen' because you'd 'nuke them" back, what if you don't know who did it? That IS their tactic with terrorism - it's not one specific nation. Nuke'em all you say? Except some of these nations have friends who also have nuclear weapons, so they would retaliate. And where does it stop?
Edited 7/30/2004 12:57 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady
Edited 7/30/2004 12:58 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady
As to effort going after Ossama... well we had to work out arrangements with the Taliban... that helped enormously working things out with Pakistan... invading Iraq has even helped get Iran and Syria to be more cooperative... yup... personally my guess is Bush has a date picked when he wants Ossama out of his cave... until then he can play Fred Flintstone.... I'd guess about the Thursday before election day would be a good time for Ossama to appear... until then he's probably spilling the beans on all his friends, and on all his assets.
You are saying that the President knows where Osama is, and instead of taking him into custody he is going to wait till the right time to help his campaign? What is even worse is that you are behind a man who is willing to do this? May GOD help us all, becuase according to you, the republicans and our President are only trying to help themselves.
If you have not been following the news lately, Pakistan citizens are about to do one over on Musharaf. So the President there has been trying to cut down on so much Bush butt kissing.
I'll tell you what, let another country's force come into your neighborhood and start shooting it up. Would you just sit back and take it or would you fight back? But considering you never answered my other question about if you would tell the police if you saw your best friend murder someone, I highly find it unlikely you will answer this one.
Honestly, you are really giving republicans a bad name here. I do not see many of them defending your stance on these comments you make.
I just cant believe you would back Bush knowing he is not bringing in a criminal..it is truly an idea that if true, make Bush the absolute worst and evil person.
As to your previous post, I dont see how you can say that Iraq and Afghan have fallen so easily.. Still today can you tell me how many soldiers have been killed since it was announced it was over in both countries?? I do not see these countries grasping to the Americans nor do I see either country doing any better, in alot of areas they are worse than before we attacked.
<<You realize many of those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died horrible deaths. The deaths from it continued for years after that. >>
Of course no analogy is
Renee ~~~
You are saying that the President knows where Osama is, and instead of taking him into custody he is going to wait till the right time to help his campaign? What is even worse is that you are behind a man who is willing to do this? May GOD help us all, becuase according to you, the republicans and our President are only trying to help themselves.<<<<
I think thatis true... This theory has been floating around that Bush has captured OBL and is gonna spring him on us before the elections. Sick, isn't it?? I also read somewhere, couldn't find the link again, that osama is in the Peshawar jail in Pakistan. But this may be a rumor or may be not. But I wouldn't be surprised if we do capture OBL before elections.
In Peshawar you dont say? I could beleive that, however, Peshawar is in the middle of the region that fiercely defends osama and hates the Americans. Osamas first headquarters was there if I am not mistaken. Another interesting note: people from Peshawar are Pathans and have a totally different culture than the rest of Paksitan. They do not use Pakistani laws, they basically set up their own government. They are very fierce fighters and will do anything to protect their own. So I think this one is a rumor, just because they said it was in Peshawar.
I have heard the rumor for a long time about Bush supposedly holding Osama. Honestly, this is one I do everything to not believe!!! I could not imagine anyone, even Bush, doing something this vile, for political gain.
have heard the rumor for a long time about Bush supposedly holding Osama. Honestly, this is one I do everything to not believe!!! I could not imagine anyone, even Bush, doing something this vile, for political gain.
--
I agree, this notion is utterly ridiculous and usually mentioned by those who know little about politics and/or the issues.
Bush is in dire need of good press, he's gotten a very poor shake in the press this year. I imagine Al Gore knows what that feels like :)
Pages