For those of us still looking for an answer to the question of why Democrats have lost so many elections recently ...

every democrat with deep pockets out there should be donating to a key campaign, or to the party itself.

He could be "president" someday!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

This is the lesson of the "Republican" revolution. If Dems want to start winning then they are going to have to rebuild from the ground up, from the grassroots, local election for dog catcher level. It might take 20 years. Don't look to wealthy liberals to bootstrap that process.

should send all of his money to defeat Tom Reynolds. A two million dollar ad blitz that hammers him into oblivion. That could be a lasting legacy, not a reelection run that is doomed to failure.

I've got my own plea for Sen Kerry: abandon any future bid for President. You lost the election to George Bush because You did not fight, You confused independent voters with your senate double-speak, You pushed 100% of the independants in my family to vote for your opponent.

That should free up some of your '08 cash.

First, Bowers doesn't even mention Kerry in terms of who should contribute more. He's talking about house members.

Second, Wade was talking about the "coward" at www.heyjohn.com, who does not identify himself but bashes Kerry for not giving enough.

Third, Kerry has given plenty. Hillary has $45 million and gives $2 million. Kerry gave about $30 million in 2004 and has stumped and raised funds for OTHER candidates since then. He created a PAC specifically for raising funds for OTHER candidates. He has given more than $2 million this cycle. He gave $1 million immediately after the election.

To be fair, one would have to check all of the facts, all of the history of Kerry's generosity of time and money. He only has $15 million - Bayh has $10 million and he's not defending his seat, why doesn't he pony up?

And to be fair, one would have to read the entire article, wherein Wade says that "real netroots activists" understand Kerry has done his part.

In other words, he does not lump Kos or anyone else in with "heyjohn.com" - the anonymous coward.

Circular firing squad anyone?

Hello??

And no, I don't work for Kerry or his campaign. Never met the man.

I think all Democrats should adopt the motto, "Forgive and remember." We should forgive John Kerry, whose wife could finance his 2008 run if she so chose for being selfish with his campaign hoard. But once he dips his toes into the Presidential campaign waters -- which would be a terrible mistake in any event -- we should all remember and ask the question "Gee Senator, where were you with your money in 2006?"

The answer is probably yes, so, pony up! The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

It would seem that John Kerry has a habit of saving for a rainy days...which include those emergencies which involve making sure he has a fat war chest. Remember that 16M he didn't spend in the days leading up to November 2004. The money which he had left over which he promised to give to the DNC.

First of all, John Kerry's war chest will never buy him the presidency. He had his shot...and came up short. His campaign was a case study on how not to run for president.

His defenders might say that Kerry's millions should be save for the off chance he might get the nomination again.

That somehow he has been generous, when he hasn't.

Kerry and Biden and the rest would have a better chance of actually raising money from donors like me who max out our donations, if they spend the money now....rather than banking it on an event that will never happen: the Democrats actually nominating these losers again.

A lot of people ran against John Kerry for President. A lot Democrats.

They criticized him for things he didn't do and things he did. They didn't stand up for him when he was criticized as a poor campaigner or that his voice was stentorian. In fact they laughed up their sleeve.

I think a lot of them were thinking of 2008 in 2004. Some weren't even Democrats but members of the Green Party.

I don't think Kerry's money, which doesn't come from his wife, a former Republican, ouch, but from campaign donations.

I gave to Kerry and for my money Kerry can do what he wants. I know a lot of people have their own greedy reasons for not giving. Why don't these critics own up to theirs?!!!

They predicted Howard Dean was going to win that nomination. Dean's advocates were getting prominent names like Al Gore to tell the rest of the field to drop out. John Kerry didn't drop out but won in Iowa and New Hampshire and then won enough delegates to win the nomination.

After winning the nomination Kerry was worried about money. He was going to use matching funds to run against Bush. Dean had thrown out matching funds in the primary elections by deciding to use his own money. Maybe Dean has money now. Why don't you ask him to give you some? Nobody had enough money to help Kerry when he was being smeared about his record. Everybody heard about Kerry's concern about the month of August. Everybody heard him suggest he should not accept the nomination so he could continue to raise money. Bill O'Reilly appeared to have won the day by calling the idea of not accepting the nomination a silly idea. Kerry did accept the nomination and he was short of money to fight the smeat campaign of the Swift Boat Commanders for Truth.

Now the far out left is just trying to push Kerry out again like it did in 2003 before the real voting contests began.

Kerry rejected matching funds in November in 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/14/politics/main583796.shtml

Any sane candidate who didn't want to come up short before the convention did this.

Kerry had spent 50M bucks before for he had a single vote in Iowa.

His coward apologists who are post anonymously seem unable to ask the question of their loser candidate.

Those of us who maxed out for John Kerry before and after the primary are wondering why we should defend him, when he refused to defend himself. His inaction against the Swift Boat Liars who he knew were coming after him made it kind of stupid to defend a candidate incapable of defending himself...