I don't put much stock in endorsements. But I am glad to see that the big guy (Kerry) isn't endorsing Hillary, at least.

On the lighter side: I can hear the Republican smear-machine now, saying that Kerry was against Obama before he was for him!...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ultimate Wuss who couldn't even be bothered to run a decent campaign against one of the worst candidates ever endorses the great not-quite-white hope.

Who is foolish enough to think Kerry is even relevant in any way anymore???? I'd guess its the same deluded fools who think he was a good candidate in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess John Edwards' talk of going after corporate greed and breaking up predatory monopolies – actually working for The People – got him kicked out of the "Good 'Ol Boy's Club."

Such is the price of being intelligent and compassionate in today's America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The endorsement that Obama really needs is Gore. That will start an avalanche.

Then he needs to name a running mate that's the demographic opposite of him. An old white guy either from the South or in the military. Clark would work, but he's already endorsed Hillary, I believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you don't matter any more. go away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and Edwards ought to be sighing in relief. Kerry's anti-charisma could drain the brilliance out of a third magnitude pulsar. Obama looks dimmer just standing next to him. Seriously, if Obama is really the candidate for change he should say thanks but no thanks. Kerry and his blue-blooded backstabbing frat boys represent everything that has been wrong with the Democrats since the real JFK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, Kerry takes a slap at Edwards, who had wanted to show at least some guts in the 2004 election. Kerry also jabs Hillary...perhaps because of the tepid support he received from the Clintons in 2004? Of course, the Clintons' lack of enthusiasm in that botched effort to depose the worst President in our history could not have had anything to do with their WANTING Kerry to lose so Hillary could grab the nomination in 2008? Of course not.

This is all that these people do is calculate their way to power, as if this is some giant board game. They strategize, create sound bytes, polish their image, and don't tackle the issues.

They're all so blinded and intoxicated by the desire for power (and by their corporate masters) that they're willing to sacrifice the country, the Constitution, democracy, the planet, the future, principles...everything. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans in this respect, aside from some carefully applied cosmetics. Almost no one talks about the fundamental changes that need to be made quickly to save this country and the planet and those that do speak out, such as Dennis Kucinich, are stifled by the system and yes, by the American people. We have the biggest discrepancies in wealth in US history, 47 million uninsured and many more underinsured, a quagmire in Iraq, climate change that threatens to devastate the entire planet, a shredded Constitution, elections controlled by big corporations, a government that is practicing torture and spying on us...and the media and most of the voters debate things like Hillary's tears.

I keep hearing that old DEVO line: The freedom from choice is what you've got. The freedom from choice is what you want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neither has any real chance of being elected (selected?) as their party's nominee.

They have very different social policies but they focus on issues, and not on public image and focus groups. The most notable thing about Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is that they will take on the biased positions of the 'moderators' - which is probably why ABC and FOX have given them the silent treatment.

Kucinich is the only one tracking the oil in Iraq issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp4Ller8l4)

All the leading candidates and the press should be forced to discuss those issues.

Ron Paul's supporters seem to be following his lead. See, for example Hannity on the Run at YouTube.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Kerry meant to damage Edwards, I think he showed the same lack of nous as he did in '04. I would guess that Kerry has few admirerers within or outside of the Democratic Party.

I did get the news via a Kerry e-mail which I enjoyed giving a resounding reply to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Senator Kerry:

I officially take back EVERYTHING GOOD I EVER said about you, I officially take back my support of you in the 2004 election. You have, with this action, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are nothing more than a paid GOPNazi Skulll & Bones shill.

Your first betrayal: Conceeding the election before it was over. But i cut you slack on that, you could have gotten "the call" inquiring as to the "health" of your family. That was possibly understandable.

Your second betrayal: Backing Rove's Nader Obama who has no chance in Hell of winning against Nazi red state AmeriKKKa instead of your running mate Edwards, who HAS a slim chance of winning, or Hillary who has the most chance of winning.

Thank you for showing your true colors. Lieberman-lite, that's you. You're just better at it.

I take back EVERYTHING supportive I ever said about you. What an idiot I was. You really had us all fooled in 2004.

NO WONDER you ran such a crap campaign.

AS IF you wanted to win then. AS IF you want a Democrat to win now. AS IF you even BELIEVE Obama could win now. You're NOT that stupid. YOU'RE not that naive.

Hope the perks make it all worthwhile. I really thought more of you.

You couldn't win against BUSH, but Obama can win against the NAZIGOP machine? On WHAT friggin' planet do YOU live ON?

Bizzaro-world, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama didn't gain anything by receiving Kerry's endorsement.

This is just what the self-proclaimed profit of change needs; support from Swiftboat Kerry, the New England elite whose election it was to lose to George Bush.

This will work well in the Republican Party play book. Its called 'Divide and Conquer.'

The Republicans can - and will easily defeat Hillary because of all the skeletons in her closet (Whitewater on the one hand and her refusal to dump her philandering hubby on the other).

They will also trounce Obama because, whether Oprah believes it or not, bigotry exists in America like a thin film - the Bradley Effect will rear its ugly head and America will be the loser.

So, while the candidates with bigger egos who wrap themselves in idealisms of 'isms', their party bleeds and America will loose again.

Let's forget about the next election and prepare for more dark days ahead because neither of the two front runners are capable of pulling it off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Kerry is a horses' ass and belongs to the Skull and Bones club of Yale which should tell people alot about both Obama and Edwards.

For those of us paying attention to the secretive behind-the-scenes intrigue that drives government policy this is an endorsement of Edwards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.....his swiftboating experience with Obama. Not good in any book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So why are we disappointed? Below I reprint a past comment. There are logical stoppers for Hillary and Obama. Even Edwards has waffled on nuclear power. The best strategy for progressives is to make sure sincere people who speak to the public sentiment are included in the debates and media discourse as much as possible. These include Gravel, Kucinich, Paul and Richardson; those whom the Republican owned media has mortified from credibility, using the tactics of Karl Rove. Sadly, those most able to get the nomination are not the ones who can prevail against the corporatism of the day, either before or after the general election. But Hillary is the Fox in the henhouse (pun intended, no sexism intended) and should be rejected ASAP. Even Geo. W. is currently upstaging her extreme position in Israel now.

Hillary a Parrot for Bush and Israel
Posted by: herbal on Jan 9, 2008 4:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Hillary and all the others need to be evaluated according to their past voting records and forget image and their posturing and disowning of past record. Hillary has tried to avoid accountability for her 100% Bush agenda war voting record for 7 years. She is a corporatist (Mussilini definition, see wikipedia) who is but a stealth Republican. What a joke, 'experience' and 'change'. See her performance by keying into U tube:" Hillary Clinton AIPAC" to see her endorse nuclear attack on Iran (fooled again?) and then key in Rev. Hagee, the Christian Zionist cultist to see him use identical rhetoric to Hillary's. She is a lost cause and a vote for death.

But campaign for nice man Obama? He is misinformed and is showing sings of having joined the Corporatists. Obama needs to be rejected because of his endorsement for Nuclear Energy.

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can Asteroid miner and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply is no excuse for promoting Nuke.
Obama may not be a lost cause, if voters hit him hard on the campaign trail. But he is a compromiser.

Better Edwards for the straightest shooter who is electable. In fact, Edwards polls the best against the Republicans and may be the most electable with in the general election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]