Lively forum at Harvard on Friday.

Looks like protestors were outside and in. Sounds like it was an interesting exchange.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512063



I kind of wish they hadn't removed the guy either. You can't have a genuine discussion without all the parties present. If not at a University, then where?

I imagine he is not talking about votes as he obviously did not get enough to be elected (or I am missing something).

He got more votes then any Democrat presidential nominee. He got more but they got a handle on the machines and the disgraceful ways in which Republicans suppressed the voters.

their numbers as much as they did. (I think Gore/Bush were both under 50,000,0000 - where Bush got around 59 million this time - an enormous increase for both. Kerry targets were in terms of votes they hoped to turn out.

Glad Kerry address it.

Unfortunately, that's the consequence of voting for the IWR. It's good that he welcomes dissenting opinions unlike Blinky.

It shows a dishonest and childish understanding of the IWR for people to protest like that. They have the right to protest, but that doesn't mean they are right or have a point.

At some point it is not his fault when the same dishonest people with an agenda refuse to listen.

This person in the audience was affiliated with the Military Families Speak Out. They have moral standing and I should think that Sen. Kerry would have enjoyed talking with them and airing out their differences. (Ahm, have you ever seen Mr. Kerry debate. He can be quite good at it you know.)

This was a forum about the effects of war on the troops that fight it. What better place to debate Senate votes and stances. (Again, Kerry is not unable to defend himself in an open debate, I think.) Have at it.

after reading Pro-Sense and sandnsea's replies. :)

I get the feeling that Kerry looks at these exchanges as an opportunity.

in 1971 - though more politely and intelligently. He also knows what he did and why he did it and knows that he has been using his intelligence and position to try to re-direct an administration that doesn't want to be redirected.

help - clearly not happy with him, but the comment suggests a more complicated relationship as opposed to the hatred that Bush would get.

I'm also sorry that the protestor was ejected. I would rather have had a free exchange. If the protestor wasn't interested in a free exchange and insisted on disrupting the forum with slogans alone, then I would have tossed him. But a US Senator is supposed to take questions and dissent from constituents. (Even if they are rude dissents. The Constitution doesn't have a provision that says that people have the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, except for rude people.)

Lively exchanges are good for people. One of the most disgraceful and unAmerican things this Admin does is suppress free speech at their 'rallies.' Bush would be much better off if he heard a little dissent, even rude dissent, every now and then. That's American and it's good for you.