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
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 12:53pm
The one thing about historians is that they have a wonderful gift, and that is hindsight.

At the time, it did not appear that Japan was in a position to surrender any time soon, so President Truman (even though he really did not want to) authorized the use of the first atomic weapon, and then the second, which brought about the very quick and the official unconditional surrender of Japan less than one month later, aboard the USS Missouri. The Japanese government actually sent word that they would surrender on August 14, just 5 days after Nagasaki.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 3:03pm
Can you explain to me the reasons for the SECOND attack? Wasn't the number of people killed enough? Wasn't the power of the US demonstrated with just ONE attack?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 3:07pm
Apparently not enough for Emperor Hirohito
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 3:17pm
Right, the US waited for a long time between the two attacks....
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 3:19pm
Wasn't the number of people killed enough? Wasn't the power of the US demonstrated with just ONE attack?"

Neither of these were the reasons for dropping Fat Man, it was to get unconditional surrender from Japan. Since time number one didn't work, it took Little Boy to convince the Emperor he'd better comply.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 3:29pm
Yes, and if that was done to the US with exactly the same circumstances, you would feel the dropping of two nuclear bombs on civilians would be totally justified???

Making an other country surrender by dropping WMs on civilians is a very exemplary way to win a war, right? After all, is there any other reason for dropping a nuclear bomb - I mean other than to win or to display force? Oh, you say some countries would just do it for the fun of it.. Those are the 'real' bad guys.. the ones who do it for fun. I get you now.. Makes perfect sense! So drop nuclear weapon on civilians to make country surrender unconditionally and 'show force' to communist country = GOOD. Possibly build WMDs (not yet found mind you) because head dictator has possible 'links' with terrorist group : VERY VERY BAD - deserves death of thousands of civilians and bombings of cities.

And my hair is blue, my eyes are yellow, and my skin color is purple. And I fly too.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 5:04pm
Well, perhaps Japan should have thought of these consequences prior to attacking the United States....do your sympathies extend to the victims of Japanese war crimes?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 5:38pm
It attacked a MILITARY base, for God's sake!

And yes, my sympaties go to anyone who dies or was tortured during war or at any other time for that matter.

Do your sympaties extend to Iraqi prisoners who were victims of american soldiers? Remember, Iraq did absolutely nothing to the US, or to americans. It also made no threats. Saddam and his croonies were the bad guys, not the average Iraqi.

So please enlighten me about the "good", "Justified" reasons to use WMDs on civilians. Clearly to you Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. I'd really be curious to read what the criteria is. So far, not a single person has ever answer me on this question. I've asked it on at least two other threads over the last month.

To me, using nuclear weapons just can't be justified - EVER. Even if one uses it to retaliate to a nuclear attack, it's pointless, because it will only just lead to a rebuttal and then ultimately --- anihiliation.

I will always remember the day I found out about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saw pictures of maimed children. I was a child myself, and all I could think was "How could the United States, our 'friend' to the south could ever do such a horrible thing". I guess I have never gotten over that moment...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Wed, 07-28-2004 - 10:58pm
Well it seems that the history books in Canada read differently than those here in the US as I see things much as you do, and totally different from the nicecanadianlady.

I do see her point that nuclear arms are terrible weapons, but in war, bad things do happen, without justification sometimes.

As you stated, we did not start the war, but Truman ended it.

If the atomic bomb had been read for use before Germany surrendered there is some thought that Truman was considering using it there as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
In reply to: cl_wrhen
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 2:40am
Gosh I had to trace the post clear back to remember what this was concerning. OK, you told me to look in the "op-ed" section (opinions and editorials)

this section of ANY newspaper, or source, is all speculation. Now, that said, should I care to speculate on Bush like that I should hope you would demand a source for my info.

The fact is, the Clintons are supporting Kerry. They have interest in Kerry. If Kerry wins, they have won in thier own right, as the benefits to their agenda are countless. A democratic majority in house and senate are important to them too. There are so many influential positions in congress and in all aspects of government, so many powerful places to be, it is not as if there is only one that is satisfactory. They want the whole party to succeed, it is not just for thier vanity.

That, I will freely admit, and NOT try to pass off as fact, is my opinion.

:)

By the way, NPR is my best source of info, why? because NPR and Public TV are not subject to the pressure of thier advertisers interests. I figure that means they report information that is not as biased as those who are under the thumb of the companies that advertise with them. Though PBS has taken on some advertising, it is still invaluable.

and I do not agree with all I hear or see, but I always walk away having learned something. WHen I listen to or read from a source with so much advertisement I always remember that I am not getting the viewpoint of a reporter, but I am getting the views of a corporation that might not necessarily have any knowledge of world events, but opinions on what they want poeple to know.

Pages