Kerry Rolls

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Kerry Rolls
108
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 ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 1:28pm
You need to look at it logically and not politically, if Kerry wins, Hillary's dream of running for President are lessened quite a bit.

It is logical. If Kerry wins, she can't and won't run against an incumbent Democrat for the seat in 2008, and then it is logical for Edwards to then run for the seat in 2012. Even if Kerry loses in 2008 if he wins this year, Edwards will still have the upper hand as he would have been the sitting VP for 4 years.

If Edwards loses, the earliest that Hillary could run for President would be 2016, and by then, her aspirations will be pretty much gone as she will be 69 years old, and probably tired of politics, having been involved in the political arena for over 38 years.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 3:27pm

Aparently Burger wasn't the only member of the Clinton administration who didn't take security procedures seriously:


<
“Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.” --

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 5:06pm
John Deutch took his laptop home from the CIA with classified and top secret information on it because he liked to view the pornography that he would download while at Langely.

I forgot to mention the fact that Clinton gave Deutch a pardon....something that he is not around to do for Sandy Berger.


Edited 7/23/2004 3:02 pm ET ET by debateguy

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 1:39am
That is not the case, we all know this country is too pubescent to ever elect somebody with boobs to serve as president. Would you please let me in on your source? I am confused by this!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 1:53am
WOAH there, sparky! what did you just say? HER aspirations at age 69 would be over and here I will just quote you here,

"her aspirations will be pretty much gone as she will be 69 years old, and probably tired of politics, having been involved in the political arena for over 38 years."

How old was Reagan, were his aspirations gone? (His mind, yes, but his hopes and dreams?) Okay for HIM I suppose, because he was an idiot with a mentally debilitating disease and a white man, but no, no, 69, is too old for HIllary. President Regan was 69, thank you, and mentally incompetent. 38 years is too long for her for what reason? You doubt her abilities, but I promise you Hillary CLinton will be around for a long long time.

Besides, your formula leaves out one very important thing, it is based on nothing but assumption.

and that makes it garbage.




iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 8:52am
I was really just teasing and specifically speaking of Iraq since that was supposed to be the reason we invaded.

But to your note - Let's hope the countries you mention don't do anything anytime soon as our military is stretched too thin now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:01am
I'm only holding Hillary up as a Strong senator - able to get things accomplished because of name recognition, intelligence and such. As a working woman myself, when you get called a B-tch, it's a compliment and usually means you're doing a good job. As to the following debate of her running for office, I'm more concentrated on this race. I don't think many Dems are spending much time on Hillary, this race is just too important. But if she did run, she wouldn't automatically get the female vote because nobody can understand why she'd put up with Bill's "activities". But it'd be just as detrimental to divorce him, so I don't know that she'd ever get the nod. Having said all that I'd love to see a woman President and I might be willing to overlook all of it if I thought she could do a good job of being President. I wouldn't judge her from her marriage alone. Anyway, we'll see. It's all hypothetical at this time.

As to Whitman, I agree she's appointed to support the President's agenda, but she owes some loyalty to those she's overseeing and to the mission of her particular area such as the EPA. I applaud that she refused to be used.

I hear Bush is now speaking to the Urban League so the NAACP thing is supposed mute. However, what kind of President only speaks to his supporters? Shouldn't he represent the whole United States?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:04am
missmaryjennifer, do not speak of Pres. Reagan in that way. It is disrespectful and doesn't do anything but make people defensive of you. Show me your proof that you have that he was mentally incompetant while in office. An idiot? Majority of Americans both democrat and republican will argue that he was no such thing. The only thing I think you got right was that he as a white man, which no one can debate.(but I am sure someone can) One other important note you may not know is that Reagan was a democrat for many years before switching parties. If you want to debate using these slime tactics go ahead, but do not say things about a man that is untrue and dead.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:07am
"Iranian leaders got together after the Iraq war and decided that the reason North Korea was not attacked was because it has the bomb. Iraq was attacked because it did not," a Western diplomat told Reuters this week, citing intelligence reports."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=2&u=/nm/20040721/wl_nm/israel_iran_nuclear_d

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Fri, 07-23-2004 - 9:17am
While I have no proof that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimers while in Office, I went to GWU, right down the street from the White House. Reagan came to speak in support of the Brady bill, along with Tom Brady, shortly after leaving office - I think the year after. He was a wonderful orator, the speech went off without a hitch and I could see how so many people could vote for him. He was such a likable guy. When his speech was over there was a luncheon across the street from where he spoke. The NROTC guys were directing the people through the building to the right room. Reagan was taken in a back way, but also directed by the NROTC guys who adored him. He had trouble. He would turn the wrong way, avoid the open door and head as if to walk into the wall. The NROTC guys that told this story were practically in tears. I really believe the effects of Alzheimers started much sooner than was "officially" stated. I think the story is it was diagnosed in 1997. This would've happened in 1991-ish? But again, the speech was done perfectly, it was the rest that he seemed to have trouble. I'm not an expert on Alzheimer's so maybe the fact that the speech was so good disproves my thought that he had it earlier than was known? Or maybe the fact that a great actor could pull that off, isn't surprising?

Pages