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: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Sun, 07-25-2004 - 10:23am
And Iraq's 'potential WMDs were supposed to reach the US? I think not! It's been clearly established that they did not and could not ever get the capabilities to get them to reach the US! Beside, this is a moot point, since these countries's biggest threat is Israel, as it has WMDs, a fact everyone knows. Not to mention that it is a strong ally to the US, who has made it clear that it wants the Iran government to go. After all, it was selling weapons to a horrible dictator (Saddam) just so that it could continue fighting Iran and kill as many iranians as possible! I would say that Iran and a whole lot of other countries have a whole not to reason to feel threatened by both Israel and the US! The attack on Iraq being one of the most recent reason!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Sun, 07-25-2004 - 10:30am
"We still dont know what happened to the chemical and biological agents or the weapons that Iraq had in the mid 90's."

You mean the ones we sold him?

AGain, if one mentions UN resolutions, then one needs to look at all binding resolutions that were not followed by all countries, and the US needs to not just say the UN is an irrelevant institution when it doesn't do what it wants.

How about all the other countries that we suspect have WMDs are don't allow inspectors? Let's bomb them all!


And who started it all anyhow? Who has ACTUALLY used WMDs on a large number of civilians? Think no further than the US. Nagasaki and Hiroshima ring a bell?

Yep, the attack on the MILITARY base of Pearl Harbour was justification for killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, in a horrific way.... After all, it 'ended the war', right?

Isn't that ALWAYS the point for using WMDs? DUH!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Sun, 07-25-2004 - 1:54pm

<, I think not! It's been clearly established that they did not and could not ever get the capabilities to get them to reach the US!>>


Who ever said such a riduculous thing?


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 2:45pm
We sold them chemical weapons during the UN ban??? I dont believe you have your facts straight.

-- How about all the other countries that we suspect have WMDs are don't allow inspectors? Let's bomb them all!

The other countries were not violating the cease fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions which came about as a result of Hussines "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" during the first Gulf War, which Iraq did for over 10 years. Unconditional means that Hussein was willing to accept and abide by any conditions set forth by the opposing force, which he did not.

-- And who started it all anyhow? Who has ACTUALLY used WMDs on a large number of civilians? Think no further than the US. Nagasaki and Hiroshima ring a bell?

We did so to end the war. Our government had warned Japan numerous times about what we were prepared to do, and the Emperor did not believe that our government would carry it out. After the first bomb, he didn't believe that we could do it again. After the second bomb, he realized that Truman was prepared to do whatever it took to bring about the end of hostilities between our two countries. By the way, are you aware of the fact that the firebombing of Tokyo actually claimed more lives than both atomic explosions combined?

Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people for ethnic cleansing.....there is a difference.

-- Yep, the attack on the MILITARY base of Pearl Harbour was justification for killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, in a horrific way.... After all, it 'ended the war', right?

I quote Admiral Yamamoto when asked what Japan accomplished by its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. He said "I feel all we did was awaken a sleeping dragon." and he was right.

-- Isn't that ALWAYS the point for using WMDs? DUH!

WMD's are now used as a deterrent to prevent other countries from using them (such as between the former USSR and the US).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 2:48pm
Try picking up a newspaper from time to time, and reading the comments on the politica pages, and in the OpEd section.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 5:02pm
Clearly, you believe that 'the end justifies the means'.

So if Saddam Hussein had used nuclear weapons against the US, and it WASN"T ethnical cleansing, and he would have succeeded in 'ending the war' by destroying every single US nuclear weapon, or whatever .. then he would have been justified? That would have been OK with you. We could just say 'the US awakened a sleeping dragon"..

Pretty sick if you ask me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 1:57am
"A" newspaper. hm. just any old one, or what? If you can't cite a source, then just say so. I will still like you.

You are talking about the opinions section in the paper, this is not a place to get facts. In fact, if you live where I do, the newspaper in general is not a place to get facts... It makes a heck of a good birdcage liner though, but the price has gone up...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 10:27pm
Obviously you know very little about history, so it really is not worth debating.

If you are trying to compare the two scenarios, then your grasp of the situation is extremely limited.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 9:42am
So when you can't attack the post, you attack the poster?

I know history pretty well, thank you. Do you? Then you must know that the majority of historians say that WWII was about to end before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The purpose of the bombing was to demonstrate the "US's power' to the world. And it started the arms race...What in the world did the US think? That no-one else would be capable of also building them? Pretty arrogant, don't you think? Yeah, the rest of the world is ignorant, and they should have just stood by as the US had the capabilities to anihiliate anyone it didn't like.

The point is very simple. The US used HORRIBLE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONS ON CIVILIANS. The reasons are totally irrelevant. The end DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Targetting civilians is wrong, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it.


Murder by a so-called 'nice guy' is still murder..

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 11:51am
Okay....the NYT, the WSJ, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe (sometimes when I am in the region), the NY Post....sorry those are the ones that I normally will read (not all on the same day however, as I would go batty).

Regarding the radio: WABC, Bloomberg, NPR

Regarding TV: Fox News, MSNBC, Tim Russert, CNBC

These are my traditional outlets where I get my news from, as well as from the internet.

Pages