Kerry Questions McCain's Judgment

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:54:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

When John Kerry decided to contend that John McCain lacks the judgment to be president, he had to expect this:

If that's the case, then it's probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Putting aside the gratuitous smack, it's difficult to argue with Kerry's current assessment of McCain's judgment:

"John McCain ... has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves"

Kerry, who knows something about being accused of flip-flopping, argues that the new McCain isn't a recognizable version of the McCain he once knew: [more ...]

"John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting. It is not the John McCain as the senator who defined himself, quote, as a maverick, though questionable," Kerry said. "This is want-to-be president John McCain. The result is that John McCain has flip-flopped on more issues than I was even ever accused possibly of thinking about."

"I mean, this is extraordinary what he's done: He's changed on taxes; he's now in favor of the Bush tax cut. If you like the Bush economy, if you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove.
"If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.

"I would have at least expected the John McCain that I knew back then to realize what almost every person in the Pentagon has admitted. There are very few who walk around and say, 'Going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and we should have done it, or do it again if I have the chance.' John McCain does.

"I'm challenging Senator McCain's judgment," Kerry said, "that says, 'There's no violent history between Sunni and Shia.' That's wrong. His judgment that says, 'This is going to increase the stability of the Middle East.' It hasn't, it's made it less stable. The judgment that says, quote, 'This will be the best thing for America and the world in a long time. It's the worst thing that we've done in a long time. And he's turned his [focus] away from Afghanistan and al Qaeda and made America less safe. That's dangerous for our country."

Agreed.

< AP Writer Learns that Online Speech Isn't Always Free | Handicapping the Legislative Race >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Kerry Questions McCain's Judgment | 127 comments (127 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Heh, what came to my mind was . . . (5.00 / 10) (#9)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:24:25 PM EST

Maybe it's a secret plan by McCain to get the conservatives to vote for him. When he gets in the WH, he'll turn back into the "Maverick". I swear! It's REALLY a secret plan, so it's ok to vote for him! He REALLY doesn't mean what he's saying, you'll see!

/snark

Dog help us. We need it.

: Heh, I suppose it's as credible (5.00 / 7) (#12)
by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:34:40 PM EST

as the secret plans we've seen discussed from Obama's side.

Bob Schieffer(sp) (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Jgarza on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST

Is a joke. He complained about this line of attack. Saying that John Kerry was attacking McCain's integrity.

I guess we can put Bob in the media camp that things McCain is off limits in this election.

typo (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Jgarza on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST

sorry should read.

I guess we can put Bob in the media camp that thinks McCain is off limits in this election.

: Scheiffer is not in any camp that thinks. (none / 0) (#16)
by wurman on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:59:30 PM EST

He signed up for that camp last week (none / 0) (#30)
by ruffian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:42:58 PM EST

with his Wes Clark interview.


Good statement (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by ruffian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:59:01 PM EST

but...and there's always a but...

No one in the pool of undecided voters listens to Kerry except to find new avenues of ridicule. Sorry, but it's true. These are the same people that thought his going windsurfing, a popular recreation anywhere there is water and wind, was unforgivably elitist, and can't listen to him past one sentence.

Right message, wrong messenger.

In fact, I'm going to flip-flop myself, in the time it takes to write one comment. I'm not even sure it is the right message. I think the surrogates are going negative on McCain way too early. They ought to be out there talking about how great Obama is.

This whole election is making me very cranky.

Ed O'Reilly has NO CHANCE. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:47:24 PM EST

He is a crackpot and a joke. Kerry polls 63 - 25 against the R in Mass. So hurt feelings over the primary mean undercutting one of the most liberal AND POWERFUL members of the Senate? Says more about you than Kerry.

BTW: (4.63 / 11) (#19)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:05:09 PM EST

Pertaining to this:

If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.

John Kerry is the WRONG PERSON to talk about health care. He is Mr. "UHC is off the table". He needs to STFU on that subject.

Yes, if possible there would be flames coming out of this comment. There is nothing that peeves me more than what the Kerry/Obama camp did to healthcare (Harry and Louise).

This is good (4.60 / 10) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST

but the wrong messenger.

Sending Kerry out to complain about McCain's flip flopping is not smart.

You know who would have worked? Russ Feingold.

That was my first thought as well. (5.00 / 8) (#2)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:02:37 PM EST

The choice invites ridicule.


Perhaps Daschle can accuse McCain (5.00 / 19) (#3)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST

of lacking spine, next.


Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:05:02 PM EST

And Bill Clinton can discuss (5.00 / 7) (#6)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:07:51 PM EST

McCain's lack of marital fidelity.


And Nancy Pelosi can talk about his (5.00 / 12) (#13)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:44:56 PM EST

lack of leadership skills.


: You people kill me (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:07:31 PM EST

It's a little after eight in the morning here in Tokyo and hhhot and hhhumid. Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

: John Edwards (none / 0) (#73)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:37:56 PM EST

could comment on McCain's lousy haircuts.

I don't think (none / 0) (#23)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:18:53 PM EST

That's funny.


I Do. n/t (none / 0) (#32)
by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:57:21 PM EST

I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST

A lot of people do.

I don't.

For instance, Bill kept his marriage together. McCain didn't.


: Um. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM EST

For instance, Bill kept his marriage together. McCain didn't.
Hillary and Bill kept their marriage together.
McCain's first wife accepted her fate.

I don't (none / 0) (#47)
by tek on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST

think Bill Clinton is on this train and, please, let's not class him with the likes of Kerry and Daschle. Maybe Bill could call McCain a racist.


And Sebelius and McCaskill (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:12:52 PM EST

can do a joint presser accusing him of being boring.

And they can all do a bus tour, and call it the pot-kettle tour.


I don't think that would work (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM EST

There's no Feingold Dem brand outside of Wisconsin and the Netroots.


Right (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:47:10 PM EST

Cuz everyone knows how McCain flip flopped on campaign finance, one of Feingold's pet issues.

: Yes, I think Feingold will be quite quiet (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:08:47 PM EST

for a while about Obama after his ff's on FISA and public financing -- unless Obama comes out backing a Feingold filibuster. All those who think that's gonna happen, pile on here!
Uh huh.

Big Tent: Kerry is the PERFECT messenger (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:57:05 PM EST

Read my diary on the Kerry/McCain history:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/23/112348/698/437/540609

Kerry drives McCain nuts. Kerry understands McCain better than almost ANYONE. Don't forget that they were good friends when they sat on the POW/MIA committee together. Kerry used to put his hand on McCain's arm during committee hearings to keep him calm. I say keep trotting out Kerry, to get under McCain's skin. Also, a surrogate is different from a nominee. You don't have to love the surrogate to digest the message. Nobody beats Kerry on talking about Iraq.


Oh yeah, Kerry was FABULOUS (none / 0) (#90)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:59:52 PM EST

in 2004 when he discussed Iraq---he just bowled people over!


: Kerry is fabulous talking on Iraq now. (none / 0) (#103)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:41:25 AM EST

Watch the video of him today and tell me he isn't crystal clear on Iraq.

Let me get this "straight" (none / 0) (#92)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:11:37 AM EST

Kerry used to pat McCain's arm; therefore he is the perfect person to attack McCain.
Huh??
I guess that makes sense, if you favor personal betrayal.
Maybe McCain should get Michele to dish on Barack too.. hehe.


Well, more of this please (IMO) (none / 0) (#101)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:39:07 AM EST

McCain Why Are You So Angry?


Kerry is not betraying McCain (none / 0) (#113)
by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:25:50 AM EST

Kerry and McCain are both Nam Vets. Nothing in what Kerry said could be construed as a betrayal if you are willing to try to understand the dynamics of Kerry's concerns.

McCain has "medical issues" related to his service in Vietnam. This is a euphemism, in my opinion, for hypertension which his doctors say is under control. Medicine helps, but it does not help completely. It helps to have that hand on the arm from a brother in arms.


What BM advocates IS betrayal---- (none / 0) (#114)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:27:04 AM EST

using the existence of a personal bond between McCain and Kerry to get at McCain.


: Well, yes... (none / 0) (#115)
by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST

that would be BM. If there is a Council of Dark Lords somewhere, he would certainly be on it.

Proper linking :) (none / 0) (#98)
by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:31 AM EST

either use tiny url or the little link button to do links :)


: Oop, thanks. Will do from now on. (none / 0) (#102)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:39:59 AM EST

Can you embed YouTube videos on Talk Left? I just tried to no avail. If so, how?

Kerry can't even be straight doing this (4.60 / 10) (#8)
by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:13:22 PM EST

If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy

Pardon me, but which one of the candidates voted for Cheney's Big Oil giveaway Energy bill? Hint, it wasn't McCain.

As for Feingold, he probably wouldn't do it.

Alos an Interesting Quote Below: (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by talex on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST

Now just substitute John McCain with Barack Obama and tell me if Kerry's quote is accurate.


I've read this: (none / 0) (#39)
by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST

Is it true? Does anyone have any confirmation?


No, the McCain people approached him: (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.
John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.
Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...
Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]

I believe Kerry over McCain any day of the week.


You've got to be kidding. (3.50 / 2) (#45)
by tek on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM EST

weren't around for the 2004 election? Yes, Kerry asked McCain to run with him and McCain refused.


Yeah, that was (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by pie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST

the gossip.

Confirmation?


That wasn't true (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM EST

C'mon, do you think the party would go out and ask a Republican to join the ticket and if they even did, not have it in the bag before telling people?


: well yeah! has there not also been (none / 0) (#129)
by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST

talk that obama was going to ask hagel or bloomberg to be on the ticket. he said outright he'd put conservative repubs in as possible sec of state. geez!

You can see the FTN (none / 0) (#76)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:48:45 PM EST

interview with John Kerry for yourself at The Democratic Daily, here:

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/


I have never heard Feingold called a flip- (4.33 / 6) (#4)
by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:03:19 PM EST

flopper, so you may be on to something...The phrase flip-flopper is tied forever to Kerry, with obama coming up the rear.

The phrase should be banished from the Dem lexicon (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by ruffian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:02:21 PM EST

At least when they speak in public. Come up with something else.


: I hate the phrase. (4.00 / 4) (#69)
by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:59:21 PM EST

What you have with Obama is a neophyte with a half formed governmental philosophy and a half baked policy platform. Thus he changes it often. It's not really flippping because he's not really got a track record you can nail him down to.
Hell he'll still win anyway because he's superficially better looking than McCain. There are no votes for him to complain about.

When is Obama scheduled to ride (4.20 / 5) (#29)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST

in a tank? Doesn't it seem like it's about time?

Isn't he going to Iraq soon? (none / 0) (#54)
by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST

I'm sure they can scrape up something for him.

Or I know! Maybe he'll arrive at Invesco Field in one.


: no need for the tank (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by ccpup on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST

all they'll need to do is put him in a flak jacket and helmet and Obama will look ridiculous enough.
Granted, not many can pull off that "look". But Obama? I dread the inevitable jokes and guffaws. I doubt "strong" and "leader" will be words used in response to those photo ops.
Ugh.

John Kerry, proving once again (4.00 / 4) (#14)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM EST

why that flip flopper label stuck...

Seriously, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Hey Now (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by MO Blue on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST

They had to let Kerry do this otherwise people might get the idea that he has become irrelevant. Got to make it look like he is still a "playa."


I've been wondering about this for some time (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by Valhalla on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST

Does anyone listen to, or care, what Kerry says about anything?

I mean people who aren't already in the tank for Obama.

Every time (like this article) an article quotes his opinion at length (nauseum) I start to ask myself why and only then am reminded oh yeah, he ran for president in 2004. If I think like that (and he's MY Senator), what do other people think?

Am I totally missing some great segment of the population that is profoundly interested in his opinion?


: no, you're not (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by ccpup on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST

Kerry was so expertly swift-boated and painted as a "flip-flopper" by the GOP -- and his lackadaisical response certainly didn't help -- that I strongly suspect when most Americans think of Kerry (which probably isn't often), they think "flip-flopper" and don't pay any attention to what he says.
If the Obama campaign has any interest at all in winning -- something I'm beginning to doubt --, they should keep Kerry far, far away from reporters and microphones. But I think Kerry's ego is too great for that and he is and will continue to be, as always, blissfully unaware of the detrimental effect his "inartful" words have.
Oh well.

No, Kerry is a real surrogate, who (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST

is willing to take the hits for the nominee. Too bad he had no one to do that in '04.


I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:48:35 AM EST

Don't forget this.

Betrayals are not usually rewarded with endorsements.


I'm sorry, that's hardly a betrayal (5.00 / 0) (#112)
by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:19:58 AM EST

She called a comment he made 'inappropriate'?

Well, off with her head!

I think the previous commenter meant he's realizing he backed the wrong horse in terms of the party's best political future, not in terms of Kerry's best self-interest. Although, if you're arguing that Kerry only endorsed Obama because of a petty resentment against Clinton's comment, I suppose that I could believe.


i don't call it a betrayal when bill clinton (5.00 / 0) (#125)
by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM EST

got up early off his hospital bed to campaign for the then candidate kerry. clearly kerry needed help and the clintons campaigned their hearts out for him. shame he didn't return the favor.


: Indeed... (none / 0) (#142)
by weltec2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:03:42 AM EST

I wonder what was up with that.

You know, bottom line, (none / 0) (#118)
by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:34:11 AM EST

I'm starting to realize that the reason Kerry didn't win in 2004 is because people didn't trust Kerry.

They hated Bush, so it was a year when any Democrat should have been able to win...

But Kerry lost.

People say it's because he's an elitist, he flip flopped -- but the bottom line is that they didn't trust him.

If people lose faith in Obama and they think they can't trust him either, Obama will lose. It doesn't matter what the polls say now. There is no way Americans are going to award someone they feel is untrustworthy with the Presidency.


I think he chose the right candidate (none / 0) (#133)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:25:38 AM EST

for the party. Hillary would have brought out the conservatives and right wing voters in droves. They hate the Clintons with a passion and she would have reengaged their anti-Democratic hatred of all things Left.

Kerry knows what happens when you underestimate the right wing. He's betting on a winner this time.


: I just don't buy this... (none / 0) (#143)
by weltec2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 04:26:12 AM EST

especially among those of us over sixty, right and left male and female, I saw an all-around change of heart -- at least toward Hillary -- as people saw Hillary's passion and desire to work for the people.
And let me add that I do not believe that Obama can count on the college voter in the GE. Obama got them all emotional and fired up for the primaries, but I sincerely do not believe that he is sustaining their interest. I see them losing interest rapidly. Unless he does something to change his current strategy, he's going to end up losing.
Young minds raised on digital toys can be easily led for a while. But all these kids aren't stupid. After a while the best of them will hunger for meaning. Then when they see all the reversals and fip flops... those jingles and slogans will be seen for the hollow meaningless beep beep beeps that they are.

Obama himself (4.00 / 4) (#21)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST

has already proved that Kerry lacks judgment so I soo no reason to trust Kerry's judgment about McCain.

WTF? So y'all are saying (3.00 / 1) (#83)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:44:20 PM EST

crap about our last nominee?? I mean .... WTF?? Sorry, he didn't support your candidate in the primaries but there is NO REASON for this level of disrespect.

His points were excellent on FTN. Yet y'all are buying into the MSM crap IN FAVOR of McCain? All I can say is unbelievable, and thanks for nothing.


obama is the one who attacked Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:05:32 AM EST

not me.

Obama says you lack judgment if you voted "for the war". So there you go.

take your issue up with obama, thanks!!


Kerry has long said he was wrong on the IWR (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:25:24 AM EST

And, you could say he showed up Hillary on NOT admitting she was wrong, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that her support for the war was a mistake.
...
Clinton and Kerry supported the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq war. Kerry recently renounced that vote, but Clinton has never done so. She finds herself in opposition to a majority of Democratic activists and is the target of passionate criticism from some of them.
Later, after Clinton's departure, Kerry delivered a fiery denunciation of the war that was continually interrupted with cheers and applause, and he repeated his call for "a hard and fast deadline" for withdrawing troops. At one point, Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, appeared to be directing his comments at the woman who leads early national Democratic polls for 2008.
"Let me say it plainly," Kerry said. "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake, to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride. We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi resolution."

All Hillary had to do was take note of the speech that was focused group NUMBER ONE of all potential presidential candidates (yep, that was Kerry's in '06 pre-Joke), and adopt it as her own. Then she would have been our nominee. Instead, she allied with the Right and attacked Kerry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

And gave the opening to Obama. She only has herself to blame for that.

Of course, that is who I BELIEVE you are referring to.


What kerry says does not matter--- (none / 0) (#99)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:30:43 AM EST

Obama categorically rejects the judgment of those who voted for the Iraq war.


: Yeah - what will he do when (none / 0) (#130)
by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST

people start categorically rejecting the judgement of anyone who supported this FISA bill? Political decisions are looking a little different to him these days.

Clinton said the same thing really (none / 0) (#104)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:42:01 AM EST

They were misled by evidence given to them that was not true. I pretty much agree with that.

But Obama says everyone knew what they were voting for. That if you believed that evidence then you lack judgment. I used defend Kerry until I realized he doesn't even want to defend himself.


Well, it was one moment of judgment. (3.00 / 1) (#108)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:55:46 AM EST

It wasn't the last. I don't think Hillary said the same thing. She went around the edges but never said what was essentially the truth: that the problem was BUSH was president and could not be trusted. THAT was the mistake in voting for the IWR. Obama called it right, and IMO called it right again in Dec. '06 when he unveiled his Iraq plan. But he has hardly been perfect (both Hillary and Obama voted against the Kerry/Feingold amendment in July '06 -- only 13 Senators voted for it).

Every vote, every endorsement is a calculation. I don't think you honor Kerry for who he is by boiling down his endorsement to just the Iraq issue and everything Obama has ever said about Iraq. I think part of the reason he endorsed Obama was because Barack came out with his Iraq plan in Dec. '06 which largely mirrored the K/F amendment. If you agree on current policy, isn't that as good a reason as any to endorse?


: with all due respect i think it is possible (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:33:22 PM EST

to disagree about kerry's endorsement without dissing his service both in the viet nam war and in the senate. i for one supported him in 2004. i was disapponted with the 2004 campaign as i am sure many were. i hope that he uses the dem wins for more investigations into what has happened under bush. he used to be good at that. i don't agree with his endorsement of obama in so far as some of his comments. i separate his positions from the man and his service.

: Of course Hillary has said that the problem (none / 0) (#110)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:00:34 AM EST

lies with Bush and the false promises he made.
What planet are you living on?

: Yeah she did (none / 0) (#111)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:01:06 AM EST

but no matter.
If obama wants to campaign for someone who thinks Kerry himself lacks judgment, that's his decision.

also (none / 0) (#109)
by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:56:15 AM EST

as far as that youtube clip is concerned. Which I know is used (probably bookmarked) by lots of people on Clinton hating blogs as if it means something horrible. Hence your big words.

Suffice to say I agreed with her that what he said was inappropriate. And I agreed with her that we should move on and focus on REAL issues.


So how does Kerry explain the daily - (4.00 / 4) (#58)
by Anne on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:41:53 PM EST

and sometimes more frequent - dance that "want-to-be-president" Obama is doing - we'll call it The Bamboozle" - that includes such all-time favorite steps as the walk-back, the side-step, the about-face, and the sli-i-i-ide?

Have we now been reduced to choosing between one guy who can't remember what he says from day to day - apparently - and another who can't pander fast enough or often enough? I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one is which.

And people wonder why so many of us are skipping that choice...

Have we now been reduced to choosing? (none / 0) (#71)
by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST

As a matter of fact, yes.


You are just ignorant on Obama's Iraq position (none / 0) (#87)
by beachmom on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:52:53 PM EST

Go to his website and educate yourself. Then you would learn that his position has not changed at all.

Here is a clue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6452142


"Go to his website" (none / 0) (#88)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:55:01 PM EST

You probably don't have the slightest clue what is on his website or what his position is---you just dutifully type the line.
Geez.. talk about lack of substance.


Read my link on DU. (none / 0) (#100)
by beachmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST

Then you would see I am quoting Obama's website.

Obama's Iraq plan is the latest version of the Kerry/Feingold amendment of '06. I am very familiar with it. Don't even try to think you can out debate me on that Iraq plan. The timetable for withdrawal is vitally important as it tells the Iraqis that they need to get serious and get moving. However, it would be stupid and foolish to not get feedback from the military on the ground and the Iraqi government to fine tune all that is needed to be done to start withdrawing troops. Obama is showing that he is not some ideological automaton who will mindlessly withdraw troops without consulting the military commanders, as it stipulates in his Iraqi plan on his website.

I mean, really, I have done my homework on this plan for 2 years. It has withstood the test of time, and will bring our troops home post 2009.


: You got links to the wayback machines (none / 0) (#107)
by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM EST

versions of this page too? I'd like to see all the revisions he's done to his Iraq policy since I first looked at the page.

: Well, bless your heart, dear, but (none / 0) (#119)
by Anne on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:18:02 AM EST

we are not expecting, nor are we looking for, an ideological automaton, just someone who can clearly articulate a policy from day-to-day that has some consistency. That doesn't have more and more tidbits for the right wing. That doesn't seem to turn its back on what he ran on in the primary, and what his speeches appeared to promise. You may be convinced that he has never deviated from his Iraq policy, but my comment above was not about just Iraq, and you will have a tough time convincing me - and a whole lot of other people - that he is not moving away from positions he took earlier, on a host of issues.
As for Obama's Iraq plan having withstood the test of time, I don't understand how a plan yet to be implemented has withstood anything, as it is only a plan predicated on a theory, at this stage.
If his plan - as laid out on the website - has not changed, then perhaps you can explain why the Senator cannot clearly articulate that plan.
Nice try. No sale.

Kerry, Mr. I voted for it before I voted against (4.00 / 4) (#59)
by Prabhata on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:42:05 PM EST

Kerry can twist and make himself a pretzel and it will not change people's perception of McCain. Although McCain has moved, he's moved to the right, not to the left. Obama on the other hand is running away from his base, and that's what makes him a flip-flopper. If Obama had moved to the left and stated that he'd round up senators (stop talking and demonstrate he can work with the Republicans) to give health care to every American (single payer), then it would not be flip. Obama has demonstrated to be another flip-flopper.

And judgment won't work for Obama either. Having all those friends in a very divisive church does not speak well of Senator Obama.

Kerry knows that he cannot bring up Obama, so he's trying to bring down McCain. Kerry is not believable.

: There is a point about McCain (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:51:19 PM EST

If McCain want's to be a George S. "blood and guts" Patton, he should be subjected to the same attacks that Patton himself suffered. No way round it. Not taking down his rep would be like allowing a Tiger tank to drive up and down your column of half tracks and Shermans without firing back.
(And obama is a crap candidate for this task of course. I'm not at all happy that we wheeled out this thin skinned resume against McCain's)

Seriously? (3.66 / 3) (#41)
by cmugirl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:37:30 PM EST

Does anyone really listen to John Kerry anymore? He proved he couldn't help "the most liberal Senator" win his state (the most liberal in the US). And as another poster upthread said - he really is a joke to those undecided and to the right of the spectrum.

No one does (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by CST on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST

I know a lot of Obama supporters in MA who can't wait to vote Kerry out of office. I can only imagine how the Clinton people feel.

Now that's unity.


: Wow, that's something (none / 0) (#66)
by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:33:29 PM EST

we can all get behind :-)

Heh, John Kerry is Obama's Bill Clinton (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by DandyTIger on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:23:27 PM EST

Let me first say I disagree with that Obama/Republican meme about Bill Clinton hurting Hillarys' campaign. But using that meme, it seems like Kerry is in that role. Every time he's out and about and associating himself with Obama, everyone goes, oh yea, Obama must be an elitist with no backbone too. They wonder if Obama will be out wind surfing when he's getting swift boated too.

Advice to TeamObama: lock Kerry up for the next four months. France may be nice this time of year. :-)

Shut Up, John. (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:06:10 PM EST

You're not helping.

: Alec, Congratulations (none / 0) (#120)
by creeper on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:35:15 AM EST

on your promotion to blog police.

Question (none / 0) (#15)
by MrPope on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:55:53 PM EST

so a flip flop means to change your mind on a position. If a general make a commitment to charge an enemy fort straight ahead ...and after loosing half his forces...decides that flanking the enemy would be more effective... then he is in fact a flip flopper? He has to stay locked in with his original plan without stray?

Did Obama lose half of his forces (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by nycstray on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:02:27 PM EST

since becoming the assumptive nom and that is his reason for changing positions to the right?


Well (5.00 / 7) (#18)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:02:47 PM EST

That's certainly the standard response, what you just said.

On the other hand, most people do not agree that when a candidate takes his party's position during the party primary, and then switches to a more centrist position during the general election, something has occurred akin to a general abandoning a failed plan. In fact, it strikes most people as craven political calculation, the sort of thing that leaves you with no idea what to expect if the candidate actually reaches office. But don't let any of that dissuade you from arguing that it's just like a general changing the battle plan.


Now, your general had a reason (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST

owing to changing circumstances. What changes occurred in the last two weeks to suggest to Obama that he change on more than half a dozen issues?

Please reply with the reasons for each change. Thankyouverymuch.


More than a half dozen? (none / 0) (#70)
by Veracitor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:15:01 PM EST

Can you name more than a half dozen, or are you engaging in a bit of hyperbole?


public financing, FISA, abortion, (none / 0) (#77)
by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST

NAFTA, death penalty, gun ban, welfare reform. . . .


And the question remains (none / 0) (#122)
by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST

that you avoid answering: What circumstances have changed in recent weeks that would justify, as with your example, the flipflops?

Still waiting.


If the Dem party was not still split (none / 0) (#131)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST

Obama could appear left of center and still get elected in a landslide. Unfortunately, a lot of Hillary supporters are saying they will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. Now our candidate needs to garner votes from more right wingers, hence a strong outreach to evangelicals and the proposed expansion to Bush's faith based initiatives.

I don't call Obama's positions on the issues you cite "flip flops" but perhaps that's because I think the term denigrates his thoughtful, flexible and sincere flexible response to the need to reach outside the base Dem for votes.

As I've posted before, I believe Obama's FISA position will prevent the GOP and 547s from plastering his face and words on ads claiming he's soft on terrorism.

His position on withdrawal from Iraq is consistent with what he said during the primary.

His position on women's rights is consistent. I believe his use of the words "mental distress" are simply a way to speak to anti-abortionists using their terms and finding common ground by speaking to their fears.

Other people have already answered your question on the other issues. Instead of waiting for someone to write a synosis for you, you might have to research the rest. The material is available here and on other blogs.


Those are not flip-flops (none / 0) (#138)
by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST

His basic position on all those issues is the same. He's merely made some comments that further clarify and refine where he stands.

For example - he is firmly pro-choice, except for "mental distress" in late pregnancies. When did he ever say he supported "mental stress"?

He is still for gun control, but recognizes the inherent right of people to own guns. When did he ever say he did not?

Obama bashers are making stuff up.


: He said it (none / 0) (#141)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST

in the bill he sponsored, the Freedom of Choice Act, which contains a provision on late-term abortions that is the polar opposite of what he told that Christian magazine.
On gun control, I guess the answer would be when he said the DC gun ban was constitutional. Of course, you're free to go with the party line that it was just some aide making an inartful statement, but I think you'll find most folks who aren't in the tank for Obama are a bit skeptical of that.

I Smell Troll (2.00 / 1) (#34)
by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:59:54 PM EST

You're being disingenuous. It does not become you.


It's more akin (none / 0) (#67)
by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST

to a ww1 general swearing that Cavalry is the future...and then sheepishly admitting that Tanks are the future ten years too late.

Both wrong stubborn nd then belatedly and pathetically "correct"


Has Obama lost half his forces already? (none / 0) (#72)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:21:13 PM EST

Wow.. just wow.


Ben "Switch-horse" Campbell . . . (none / 0) (#22)
by wurman on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST

former CO senator (1993-2005). . . one of the most stellar flip-flop artists in US politics, could be the messenger bashing McCain & it would suit me fine.

[Campbell switched from Democrat to GOoPer in 1995 for what turned out to be the most stupid reason ever given for a flopping flip---he was ticked off about Pres. Clinton's fiscal & economic policies.]

Also, in almost every respect, Sen. Kerry is exactly the "expert" to lecture McCain. Who could possibly know more about being branded a flip-flopper than the junior senator from MA???

Kerry is right that (none / 0) (#24)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:20:08 PM EST

McSame has changed. I believe that change is a result of battling the demons of war.

In 2000, McCain was himself. He was a good man. He had not yet been broken down by time and memory and the nightly battles that even medicine cannot fully contain. He is still a good man but he is now a casualty of war. The nightly and even unguarded daily battles have worn on the man. You can see it in those unguarded moments when he tightens and the muscles of his face and body stiffen with rage. Then he seems to get control of himself and he comes back from the hell inside his mind.

I have a great deal of respect for McCain's service to our country. But now its time... it really is time for him to retire and he cannot bare to do it. Its sad really.

But which war? (none / 0) (#25)
by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:21:28 PM EST

The war within his own party I think.


Bare to do it? (none / 0) (#46)
by Grace on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST

Is he joining a nudist colony after he retires?


: hey! (none / 0) (#61)
by ccpup on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:44:33 PM EST

some of us just ate dinner, okay?
(burp)

: good grief (none / 0) (#63)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:58:15 PM EST

how unbearable

How Dare John Kerry Question McCain's Judgment (none / 0) (#42)
by john horse on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:44:52 PM EST

How dare John Kerry question McCain's judgment. Doesn't he know that McCain is a war hero? Has Kerry ever ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down? (sarcasm alert)

OMG, it's the Bush campaign (none / 0) (#65)
by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:30:00 PM EST

slander from SC in 2000, but Rove kept it pretty well under wraps. These people are bringing it into the open. That's a bad mistake in the long run.

Bad move (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST

deleting the comment which I replied to but not deleting the comment by weltec2 which started the thread is dirty pool. Leaving the McCain is crazy theme here is poor.


I hope you are not implying (3.00 / 1) (#78)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:29:56 PM EST

that I said McCain is insane because I did not say that. I didn't even imply it. McCain is exhausted. He is 71 almost 72 years old and he has been through hell and back and in my opinion it is wearing on him.

It is very difficult to make clear judgments when you have become exhausted from struggling from psychological wounds. McCain makes simple errors of fact again and again that he would never have made in 2000. That's exhaustion not insanity.


Obama's been worn out by the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:36:48 PM EST

and constantly misspeaks, yet he is only 46.


I was referring (none / 0) (#84)
by weltec2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST

to a good man who had served his country honorably, a man who was tortured for years in a POW camp. Now I see him hurting himself by pushing himself too far and it's painful to watch.


That makes one honorable candidate. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:47:38 PM EST

killing with faint praise. you fool no one. (none / 0) (#128)
by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:15:27 AM EST

i don't support mccain but your attack and make no mistake we know what it is, is just well i won't use the words i personally think.

if this is the tone the obama campaign will take, then good luck!


: I will not attempt (none / 0) (#144)
by weltec2 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:02:02 AM EST

to explain myself except to sat that it was too personal for me. I should not have done it. What I have written I have written from pure motivations; nevertheless, I can see how it could be twisted otherwise. I am finished with any discussion of McCain at Talk Left. I appologize to those I have offended.

One could mention (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by tree on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST

similar simple errors of fact from Obama. What's his excuse? No combat, much younger age. I don't think we should go there.


: Early onset Alzheimers? (none / 0) (#93)
by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:19:03 AM EST

Or could it be genetic?

: Obama made gaffes in all the 58 (none / 0) (#94)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:20:55 AM EST

states.

McCain Policy Bounty (none / 0) (#97)
by Politalkix on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST

Here they come, McCain's policy presents on social security, medicare and health care.
link and link

Here's a good one: (none / 0) (#105)
by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:47:44 AM EST

Why some conservatives are backing Obama

Here are some money quotes:

"When he leaves the room, everybody thinks he just agreed with them," Greve said of Obama. "We don't know if you're really buying a pig in a poke here. It could be the second coming of the Clinton administration. If people have any confidence in that, I think a whole lot of conservatives would vote for him."

(Duh. They should have voted for Hillary.)

Libertarians are tired of Christian evangelicals, who they believe captured the GOP under President Bush. Evangelicals, for their part, are skeptical of McCain, who in 2000 called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." McCain has tried to make amends, promising to stand firm on abortion and same-sex marriage, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, but mistrust runs deep.

Meanwhile, Obama embraces the evangelicals and wants to expand their programs. Does anyone ever listen?

Many conservatives are looking for a Clintonesque "Sister Soulja" or "end welfare as we know it" moment from Obama, a concrete demonstration of a willingness to abandon Democratic dogma.

Well, he's certainly pleasing them at the moment!

Matt Welch, editor in chief of the libertarian Reason Magazine and author of "McCain, the Myth of a Maverick," thinks Obama's conservative support "comes as much anything else from people being exhausted with the Republican coalition, who are mad at one wing or another, and they just think it's time for them to lose. It's just, 'Look, we're out of ideas, we're exhausted, it's not working, we don't know what our principles are anymore, let's take one for the team and have a black guy be the president for a while.' "

Think the Obama campaign will call him out for racism?

Blinded by the light? (none / 0) (#121)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:52:13 AM EST

Kerry...argues that the new McCain isn't a recognizable version of the McCain he once knew

What is it with Kerry and Obama? Folks they have been close to for decades suddenly become unknowns. Frankly, this says something about those two guys ability, or rather inability, to judge the character and motivation of others. This is not a good blind spot to have in a President.

: mccain can't be recognized? (none / 0) (#127)
by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST

i agree that mccain has changed and was disappointed. what is being ignored by kerry is that obama has changed much more just since the primaries have ended. i find that even more worrying.

A VERY Good Sign (none / 0) (#135)
by pluege on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST

First Clark, now Kerry. If democrats are orchestrating an assault on the capabilities of mccain in regards to serving as POTUS, that would be a VERY good thing.

Fight fire with fire. It works absurdly well for republicans. Democrats need to do more republican campaign tactics in terms of tactics, not the part about out right lying all the time.

Kerry? Kerry who? n/t (none / 0) (#136)
by Gabriele Droz on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:31:40 PM EST