n e r b l e

I'm kinda curious about both sides views on this. I've noticed that while there's been a lot of negative Bush press we don't see a lot of Kerry press ... even going good or bad. It's like he's just the "other guy that's not Bush." In addition no one thought that he'd go anywhere and had pretty much given up the Dem nom to Dean until the guy lost everywhere.

Does anyone think that perhaps they should have chosen somene else? I think that hardline dems will vote for anyone that's not Bush. But I don't think that Kerry's the guy that will sway any reps over at all. If you ask me Lieberman would have been the best choice for that. He's got the creds and he's more middle of the road than Kerry. I think that he would have given Bush a run for his money or better.

So what do you think? Is Kerry a good choice? If so why? If not who and why?

Jerry D

I was surprised that Dean’s campaign collapsed like it did, because I honestly expected him to get the nomination. I personally would have preferred Lieberman myself. I haven’t been all that impressed with Kerry. One thing that I think may hurt him is his leadership in the Vietnam Veterans Against The War. To be sure, it was a long time ago, but I’ve received quite a few e-mails from one of my right leaning friends that say a lot of Vietnam veterans feel betrayed by what he did. Personally, if I was “of age” in that era, (I was a kid back then, and by the time I turned 18, our involvement in Vietnam was over) I feel that would have served my country and not participated in any anti-war protests, but the Vietnam era was a divisive time, so Kerry’s dual status as a decorated veteran and an outspoken critic of that war somewhat reflects the times, but I do feel that it could hurt his election chances.

I tend to be rather liberal, which is surprising, because many people get more conservative as they get older, while with me, I was more conservative when I was younger (I was in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and I usually voted Republican back then). Still though, I honestly don’t feel that Kerry will be able to beat Bush, even though I don’t care for Bush’s policies, because I haven’t seen a groundswell of support for Kerry, and to me at least, he hasn’t seemed to generate a lot of excitement for his campaign. I could be wrong, though, of course, and we’ll see what happens as we get closer to the election.

*Lauren

Personally, I have more respect for someone who served his time, and then spoke out against it. He didn't run away, or get Daddy to put him in something else (Hi Dubya!), so he gets my respect actully having the guts to do his duty.

Personally, for me, its a case of "anyone but Bush".

Jerry D

True point, Lauren. I personally refer to Bush as a “chicken hawk,” because he has no problem committing the lives of the members of our Armed Forces in the war in Iraq, but when it was his turn to serve, his father to pulled strings so he could skate out his military commitment in the Texas National Guard.

ceilirose

Lieberman never would have gotten the core Democratic vote or caused much excitement in the party. He isn't called Republican Lite for nothing. In fact I think he can articulate Bush's views better than Bush. I wasn't that thrilled with him in 2000 but could have accepted him as a VP - but not as President.

Kerry was one of the Vietnam Vets Against the War. It was a fairly sizeable and influential group at the time. If baby boomers are honest with themselves then they shouldn't have much trouble not seeing the issue of Kerry serving and then protesting the War as a failing. To put it mildly - it was a much more divisive, changing and confusing time both culturally and politically then it is now. The WWII generation might hold it against him but I'm not sure how many younger voters even care about what happened 30 years ago.

The election will be close and much will depend on the situation in Iraq and how far up the ladder the torture scandal goes. One thing going for Kerry is that he's still in a close election with Bush even after his campaign threw about $75 million dollars worth of negative advertising at him in March.

From what I've read Kerry is leading in some battleground states and running close in others. The LA Times had him leading by 5 or 6 points this week in a nationwide poll. Kerry will get a bump after the Democratic Convention as well Bush after his and then we'll have to see.

It's a mistake for the Bush campaign to continue to question Kerry's service in Vietnam, his intent there and his patriotism. Kerry volunteered to go when Bush declined to serve overseas. Both supported the war but only one used his influence to get a National Guard slot in a time where there were 2 - 3 years waiting list. It's a losing situation for Bush if he continues this part of his campaign.

n e r b l e

I also think a major issue in the election will be if we are out of Iraq (not many troops left holding down the fort, ect) and how the new Iraqi gov't is doing. If all is well over there and things seem to be looking up, w/ the UN on board an all, that will play badly for Kerry just b/c there will be no reason the switch out the guy in charge. Just my $.02

mattia

WOW!!! I completely agree!

-Bianca-

That's exactly my stance on it.

sick little jag

honestly, kerry may not have been my number one choice for the nomination, but he is a good candidate. it just seems like you can't learn stuff about his views without doing your homework. i know enough to know that i like him, but that's because i've been volunteering with moveon.org and the dnc. others who aren't as involved or are in between candidates might not go looking for who they agree with on the issues and just vote for...oh...who has the better hair. people really are that lazy. i never really cared for dean, so i'm okay that he didn't get the nomination. leiberman...ah...no. i actually really liked wesley clark and i think that him or john edwards would be a good choice for VP. you can't be campaigning that kerry is going to be "weak on defence" if he's a vietnam vet and he's got a retired general as his vice president.

Semmer

Truthfully, even though I am quite conservative, I liked Kerry the most out of the Democratic nominees. I absolutely loathed Dean, but almost wanted him to be the Democratic nominee because I knew he would lose to Bush. Kerry, however, might not. I'm still not exactly sure how I feel about him though. It's hard to know where he stands on issues, because he is to wishy washy. The thing about Bush that I like, is that you know where he stands on issues, whether you agree with him or not.

AlexEvans

I think he's the worst possible choice the Democrats could have made, for the country if not for winning the election.

I'm a moderate Democrat - I voted for Gore last time, voted for Liebermann in the primary and will vote for Bush this general election.

But even Dean would have been better than Kerry, who alternately comes across as extremely radical or extremely wishy-washy. Naturally, being most extremist when he's wrong (eg. calling US allies "not real countries") and being wishy-washy when the liberal position is right (eg. gay marriage, which he unfortunately opposes). Dean seemed more sincere, had a better record of accomplishments in political office, and has a much better sense of humour.

wanderer78

I fall into the "anyone but Bush" category. It's going to be a very close election I think, much like last time.

Is Kerry my ideal candidate? I'll admit he's not. I don't agree with all his positions. I don't have a problem with him criticizing Vietnam. I mean, he was there. He'd know better than the average person. But I can see how it would hurt him.

And I'm very liberal (supported Dean until he dropped out), but I'd vote another Republican if it meant Bush getting out of the Oval Office.

sick little jag

there was an article about john kerry on my aim news ticker and i thought it was a pretty interesting read for anyone who maybe wants to know a little more about him.

http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.ps...12130002694331

IsabellaSophia

I'm a republican, and had Lieberman run, I might have voted for him. I will not vote for Kerry though. Sometimes my gut just tells me not to vote for a politician (like Norm Coleman. . . now he was one slimy guy) and my gut is telling me to stay far away from Kerry.
The only substatial reason I have for not voting for Kerry is that Bush got us into this war on terror and he needs to be the one to lead us out. Many people I know are concerned with what might happen if Kerry takes over at this point; they think it will do more harm than good.
I'm sure nothing I nor anyone else could say will change any of your minds here, but it is food for thought. Some of my democrat friends who can't bring themselves to vote for Bush or Kerry are going to vote Nader or write in someone.

*Lauren

Isabella, do you honestly think that the "War on Terror" will be over by 2008?

Besides, just because someone starts a war, dosen't mean they're the one to finish it. Look at all the goodwill the USA had after 9/11. Everyone wanted to help. Its three years later, and most countries don't want to help anymore. Who do you think has done that?