1. Actually, there is a good chance Mr. O'Reilly won't even get on the ballot. According to this Massachusetts blog, that'll be tough for him:

http://point08.blogspot.com/2007/05/watertown-native-challenging-kerry-in.html

He not only needs 10,000 signatures, but he'll need the vote of 15% of the delegates at the 2008 state convention. The latter is a feat that gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli only barely pulled off last year. O'Reilly would likely have to accomplish that without the support of any institutional Democrat and without the benefit of a pre-convention advertising blitz. It seems doubtful that O'Reilly will make the ballot.


There's also the fact that Senator Kerry has led the effort (along with Russ Feingold) in the Senate to end this war. The two of them teamed up back in June 2006, authoring the Kerry/Feingold amendment which set a timetable for withdrawal. It was tough going at the time, but now, one year later, this idea has been adopted by the entire Democratic caucus, including all of the Dem presidential candidates. That's what I call leadership, and Mr. O'Reilly simply will not be able to compete with that.

beachmom at 5:56PM on Jun 22nd 2007

2. The DEMOCRATS in the Mass are perhaps the most mindless and corrupt people in the United States. The keep electing that murderous drunken slob billionaire Kennedy, why in the world do you think they would go against the DEMOCRAT political machine and dump the billionaire "marry for money" Kerry.....the folks up there like high taxes,handouts and government telling them every step they are allowed to take.. That way they don't have to think....if they could they would have dumped those two liberal dinosaurs a very long time ago.

joem at 8:44PM on Jun 22nd 2007

3. "If O'Reilly has the enthusiastic support of the liberal netroots..." Aye, there's the rub. Does he, cann he, will we? He's certainly trying hard enough to ingratiate himself with political bloggers in Massachusetts, but there's a distinct absence of people there willing to buy into his schtick. Even those who wish, for whatever reasons, that there will be a credible alternative to Kerry in '08 seem to have no faith in O'Reilly as being either credible or an alternative. There's a reason for that. People have the same trouble with O'Reilly as a candidate that Gertrude Sten famouly had with Oakland: "There's no there there."

charles at 9:59PM on Jun 22nd 2007

4. Inspite of the vitriolic comments from joem regarding those of us who live in the northeast, we are very proud of our Senators. Health care issues have been on the forefront recently because of years of hard work by Sen. Kennedy. Sen. Kerry has served this country well and he did it before he "married for money", joem, and neither of them has led us into an unjust war for reasons of personal wealth.

Bette at 12:36PM on Jun 23rd 2007

5. already submitted, this is confirmation e-mail

Bette at 6:36PM on Jul 4th 2007

6. The war vote may work against him, but at least he changed his position later. However, the confidence of the people is not with Congress, and many of us may vote for new blood in the House and Senate. The argument against term limits is that we don't need them because we can change our Reps at any time by using the ballot box. 2008 may be the time to try it.

Steve Bonomo at 4:08PM on Jun 23rd 2007

7. #4...Your drunken Senator Kennedy, by the way was helping the KGB in the'80s, (as reported by the Russians). He might wish to bribe the sheep in Mass with some other hand out as a way to "get over" on them...but almost everything else he has championed has been against the benefit of the nation. Hope you like paying for 20+ million illegal aliens. You need to pay much twice more in taxes, because you are a good liberal..., but them again I forgot to ask if you work for a living.

joem at 6:52PM on Jun 23rd 2007

8. Beachmom asserts that Ed O’Reilly will probably not be able to get his name on the Democratic primary ballot for two reasons: 1) the need to get 10,000 signatures on his nomination papers. This would be hard to do if O’Reilly was planning an air campaign, but he isn’t. It is a grassroots effort and there will be plenty of people out getting signatures next year; 2) not being able to get 15% of the delegates at the Democratic State Convention. Beachmom points to the difficulty that Chris Gabrielli had. But delegates were elected to the Convention in February, some weeks before Gabrielli entered the race. the majority of delegates were already committed to either Patrick or Reilly. The only ones G. could influence were the superdelegates - state legislators and other elected officials. Yes, G. barely got enough and that was with the help of Travaglini and De Masi getting their delegations to vote for him.
While John Kerry did not vote to authorize Bush to go to war in order to increase his personal wealth, we now know that he did do it to further his personal ambition.
In regard to ending the war, one has to ask John Kerry a question. He stated just this month that he wants to leave a number of troops over in iraq in “enclaves.” What does he mean by “enclaves”? The fourteen permanent US miltary bases that Halliburton built? Will leaving troops there end the war? Is Kerry leaving himself a loophole so that he can again change his mind if need be?




”

Maniac at 12:26PM on Jun 24th 2007

9. Ed O'Reilly is a fresh breath of air and progressive ideas. I heard him speak in Western Mass recently at the Jones Library in Amherst. O’Reilly is a graduate of UMass and an attorney with a history of public service. He was a firefighter in his youth, as were many of his family. What we are seeing is that the senators who are making a difference in Congress right now have rejected the Centrist view, which is where John Kerry finds himself these days, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and a few others - a really stuck place to be. Taking the middle way is allowing the Bush people to run us all aground as the Centrists are conciliatory, and have made absolutely NO headway. The newest senators and reps who we just elected into Congress in November show the greatest promise of truly representing the people. They are still in touch with their base and have not been corrupted by the corporate agenda (and their funding). Ed O'Reilly thinks like the people. He is a progressive. Progressives are the ones who are pushing hardest to end the war and bring vital protections back to the people including reversing the Military Commissions Act, and investigating corruption in the White House and Republican party which are rapidly undoing our US Constitution and our democracy. Ed O'Reilly supports clean alternative energy and wants to make them public utilities taking the decision-making away from the corporations whose bottom line is clearly profit, and not the environment or public health. He wants to see a Single-Payer Health care system put in place as well. But his most urgent message is to End the war. He sees the waste of the Iraq invasion to our towns and communities, and suggests we look at the dollars that we are loosing daily on this war based on lies by visiting the National Priorities Project website: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/where-do-your-tax-dollars-go-17.html . Many of us don't "feel" the impact of this immediate waste, until we notice our teachers, our police and firefighters being laid off, our libraries loosing funding, the local pool not opening in summer, the parks being ignored, our roads needing repair, snow plows reduced, after school programs and free school lunch programs minimized, as well as our local taxes going up and up because the federal government has pulled the plug and left us holding the bag, despite how much money we have poured annually into the federal coffer. Ed O’Reilly’s cause is our cause, and the same message we are hearing from Progressive candidates all over the country. Look at the numbers to your community. The fact that the White House lied to get us into this is enough for me. We can no longer support any part of it. I hope you will follow O’Reilly’s candidacy. John Kerry has stopped listening. Check his voting record. He has voted time and time again to support the war. Ed O’Reilly represents the voice of the people of Massachusetts. He hears us, and I believe Kerry is in for a really good fight.

Emily West at 1:26PM on Jun 24th 2007

10. As a long time supporter of Senator Kerry, the passion behind my candidacy for the U.S. Senate can be traced not only to Senator Kerry's vote in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq, but his motivation behind this vote. The vote was no mistake as he is now claiming--it was a deliberate and calculated action based upon Senator Kerry's own political ambition to become President. This campaign is gaining momentum despite the recent hiring of professional bloggers by the Kerry campaign to comment on every blog and on-line article.

The following are links to more recent articles than the one posted above:

http://richardhowe.com/?p=275

http://point08.blogspot.com

http://www.leftinlowell.com/2007/06/17/kerry%e2%80%99s-challenger-o%e2%80%99reilley-introduces-himself-to-greater-lowell

There is more to my candidacy, but we can save that for another time. Thank you.

Ed O'Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for Massachusetts

Ed O'Reilly at 12:33PM on Jun 24th 2007

11. In regards to Kerry's so-called "leadership" in ending the war, let me say two things:

1. Kerry is a follower, not a leader. He was following NATIONAL public opinion and his own presidential obsession when he authorized the president's action in 2002. On three to four occasions since that initial carte blanche for Bush/Cheney et. al. Kerry has voted to continue funding the war effort without a timeline for troop removal. NOW that the political wind has shifted, Kerry is haplessly trying to reinvent himself a leader in this regard.

Beachmom: two weeks ago I heard Kerry speak in Natick at a town meeting. I left that meeting incredibly disillusioned and heard this so-called "leader" equivocate on both the issue of the timeline for withdrawal and the definition of withdrawal itself--small enclaves of troops left to "guard American interests" leaves a lot of waffle room.

This is not a problem exclusive to Kerry but it is outrageous for him to suggest that his actions since 2002 show leadership on this issue, especially for those of us in Massachusetts who respectfully wish for a Senator that reflects the interests of this state.

2. True "leadership" requires courage and moral conviction. I know many many people here in Massachusetts who feel that Senator Kerry has lost his.

grumpygrouper at 1:28PM on Jun 24th 2007

12. I worked hard in 2004 to elect John Kerry as U.S. President. This included serving as an election protection lawyer for him in New Hampshire. N.H., of course, went for Kerry by (officially) about 9,000 votes. About 1,000 were in my precinct.

The other lawyers and I spent more than 12 hours on our feet that day helping New Hampshire residents prove their eligibility to register and vote, and eventually helping the poll workers deal with an overwhelming surge of voters. We were sustained (cautiously, of course, we were lawyers) by news that that nationwide exit polls showed Kerry ahead. Not only this. Kerry had promised that, unlike in 2000, in 2004 every vote would be counted.

I drove home that night exhausted but hopeful that we'd soon have a Democrat in the White House. We could start repairing George W. Bush's damage to the U.S. Constitution, to the U.S. budget, to U.S. schools, to the U.S. military, and to the other casualties of his reign.

Well, you know how that turned out. Ohio Secretary of State and Bush campaign chair Kenneth Blackwell's official website election counter went down for a few hours in the still of that night. When it came up again, voila! Amazing numbers of late, late Ohio returns had, remarkably, given Ohio and thus the U.S. to Bush.

Did Kerry insist on investigation? Did he demand the recounts, in Ohio and other states with suspect election results, for which we grass roots had contributed? For which his campaign warchest had millions at the ready? No, Virginia. Our war hero caved. At once. Couldn't concede fast enough.

Would a President Kerry would have halted our illegal occupation of another sovereign nation and brought our troops and mercenaries home? Who knows? He seems unclear to this day that just going and grabbing what you want from someone who has it, even if it's oil, is not at all nice.

But Kerry would not have corrupted the U.S. Department of Justice. Kerry would not have turned it into the enforcement arm of a political party.

Bush's wholesale illegal wiretapping of Americans was still secret in 2004. Yet we knew then, if not in 2000, exactly what George W. Bush was.

Kerry had the last clear chance to oust Bush from the White House. He didn't even try. He blew it, and kept the dough.

For this, and other reasons, I emailed Kerry that he no longer had my support. But, would anyone challenge Kerry for '08?

Massachusetts lawyer (and former firefighter) Ed O'Reilly has. I checked out O'Reilly's credentials; heard him speak; asked him questions; listened to his answers; and have plastered a blue, green, and white "Ed O'Reilly U.S. Senate" sticker on the left rear bumper of my car.

O'Reilly sees the connections between complex international issues and down-to-earth Massachusetts realities. The Commonwealth could, for instance, generate all of its electricity from renewables. E.g., our mills once ran on water power. Canals feeding into the hydro stations are still there. We have tides to harness, and winds. 40 Massachusetts municipalities, furthermore, own their own power companies. All of them could. There would be no reason then to deploy U.S. troops, reservists, National guard members, and mercenaries to Iraq, or anywhere else, to try to get oil at enormous expense, both now and for decades to come. Result: lots more money for great schools, great parks, clean air, clean water, universal healthcare, fill in the blanks.

It makes all the difference in the world for the quality of Massachusetts residents' lives. It's pretty simple, really. But Kerry obviously doesn't think this way. O'Reilly does.

harper at 7:33PM on Jun 24th 2007

13. I was at Natick, too, where Kerry floundered amidst a welter of questions. I was especially struck by his inability to have a coherent explanation for his vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. His first explanation is he made a "mistake." That's not convincing. Kerry can’t pretend he didn’t know what Senators Kennedy knew and Bob Graham insisted upon: the National Intelligence Estimate Report showed lies and deceptions. Kerry also can’t hide that he sought pollster guidance about how his vote would affect his status as a presidential candidate.

Kerry second explanation for his vote is that the text of the authorization resolution contained language about negotiation, and that his vote in favor of the use of force was also a vote to negotiate first. This explanation completely contradicts the notion of a “mistake,” because it says that Kerry was in support of the actual authorization resolution after all. Which is it? Mistake or intentional participation in the Bush/Cheney scenario? It can’t be both.

I think Ed O’Reilly is right: Kerry’s vote was not a mistake, but a calculated move. I think we are ready for a senator who is not always preening for national polls.

dErrico at 7:21PM on Jun 24th 2007

14. I don't like infighting but I must say there aren't many simularities between Sen. Kerry and challenger Ed O'Reilly. Kerry now de facto supports the war in Iraq which can be proven by his vote to give funding. He sold us all out by not even challenging the vote in Ohio and elsewhere. He seems to have become the ultimate opportunist. Ed O'Reilly is a true progressive who deserves the support of those who want to see change.
Stan Maron

stan maron at 10:45PM on Jun 24th 2007

15. I met Ed O'Reilly at the Democratic State Convention
in Amherst on May 19. I was most impressed with his
down to earth manner and his strong, unequivocal stand against the war in Iraq. I've been a Democrat
and a peace activist since the 1960's and, like most folks I know, I've had more than enough of Sen. John F. Kerry.
If we Democrats truly believe in a constitutional democracy, then we can have no problem with a challenger to an incumbent. Ed O'Reilly's progressive ideas deserve to be heard. I have no
doubt that as Massachusetts Democrats get to know him
and what he stands for, his campaign for U.S. Senate
will be taken very seriously.
Given the great degree of disapproval of Sen. Kerry,
I have no doubt that Ed O'Reilly will be on the ballot in 2008. I also think he has a good chance of
winning both the primary and the general election and
that he would make an excellent junior U.S. senator
from Massachusetts.
Let us hear the issues of the day debated by the
all the candidates, incumbents as well as challengers, so we that can make informed decisions
at the ballot box.

Isabella Jancourtz at 10:55AM on Jun 26th 2007