Question for supporters of 2008 candidates

[politicasista]

We all know that 2008 will be much different than 2004 (and 2000), simply because Bush isn't running again and the country will be in a gigantic mess that it will take more than four years (hopefully not that long) to fix.

This is NOT for flamewar purposes, but an honest observation:

If the 2008 field is much more "stronger" and "formidable" than the 2004 field, then why didn't they run (minus Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards) in 04 if they thought that Bush was so beatable?

Were they afraid to go up against a wartime incumbent, GOP-controlled media, and a fear-minded public? Or were they waiting for things to get worse before they get better cause they won't have to worry about Blinky again?

I don't have a candidate yet (it's too early), but this is just an honest question that no 08 candidates' supporters want to answer. :shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Well, I'm for Edwards, so I don't have to answer for him, but I will offer a partial explanation.

There is a certain rhythm to these things. Take Hillary, for example. In 2002 (when she would have had to begin running), she would have been 2 years into her first senate term. One of the slams agaisnt her, as I recall, when she first ran for senate was that she was just using New York to launch her campaign for the WH. Reinforcing that impression by running immediately would have been bad. Now she has completed a full senate term and won re-election. A stronger position. Edwards might have been in a stronger position too, if he had stayed and won re-election (as an election day poll showed he would have, by 5 points, IIRC)

[damntexdem]

2. I like Kucinich, then Obama, then Edwards, so I have no problems with the question.

Kucinich and Edwards did run.

Obama was just emerging from obscurity to the limelight.

Next question!

[politicasista]

4. Except that

they have been preparing for a Hillary WH run since 2001. Why didn't they run then, if they thought Bush was so beatable like they now proclaim, when it wouldn't have hurt for them to run in 2004.

That's all I am saying.

[wyldwolf]

7. You said "This is NOT for flamewar purposes," then attack Clinton... LOL!

So transparent.

[William769]

8. They all are.

But then again desperation does that to people.

[waiting for hope]

3. I'm for Edwards as well -

Too many reasons to list here so I'll take a short cut:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/waiting%20for%20hope

:hi: Good luck with your choice.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Kucinich ran.

I'm supporting him.

[politicasista]

6. Went back and edited post

Thanks. :hi:

[Tellurian]

9. The Left Wing, Progressive and Liberals picked Kerry..

He said he would "fight for us"... still waiting!

[blm]

10. He did - too bad McAuliffe's Office of Voter Integrity didn't do their job for 4yrs and

let both the 2002 and 2004 election process go unsecured.

In fact, though he promised to counter election fraud so another 2000 would never happen again, the problem WORSENED in 2002 and even moreso in 2004.

Glad Dean and the DNC has been more attentive to this issue since he took over.

I just read through McAuliffe's book the other day and he mentions NOTHING about securing the election process in 2002 and 2004. Nothing about taking on election fraud.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

30. That's a fantasy you made up. I never advised Kerry - he doesn't even know me.

If I did he would have been advised to pound on the connections between IranContra and BCCI to 9-11 and Iraq war.

Unfortunately there were Clinton team advisors telling him that they focus-grouped BCCI and it confused people who called it the BBC. Yeah, right.

Why DO you keep posting this fantasy that I advised Kerry's campaign, anyway? There are many DUers shared 2002-2004 here at DU with me, and will not believe your charge. However there WAS a DUer who DID end up helping the Kerry campaign - his name was Pete - and I am definitely not a Pete.

[Tellurian]

34. blm Logic: Botched Joke = dropped pronoun

Kerry folds after election = Clinton's fault

Bush Crime Family = Clinton's fault

Kerry, fails follow through after investigation = Clinton's fault

Raining today in the NEast = Clinton's fault

The one mo that never changes, is when blm gets quiet or offers up the give away giggle...heh!..Eureka!

[blm]

45. Why don't you contact Brinkley, Parry, and TPM and tell them they are all wrong

instead of attacking just me for committing the crime of AGREEING with their analysis?



And why don't you explain why you keep posting your fantasy scenario where I advised Kerry's campaign and he lost because of me. And explain why the election fraud that DID cause the loss had nothing to do with Terry McAuliffe's FAILURE to secure the election process as his Office of Voter Integrity promised it would do in 2001?

[laugle]

57. Please give it a rest ......it's over......Kerry is no longer

running.......

Your starting to get scary with this obsession with Clinton.

I'd like to know who you are currently supporting and why?

[blm]

60. Why don't one of you explain WHY Clinton would be a good choice for anti-corruption

open government Democrats.

Ever try THAT approach instead of attacking those of us who have seen evidence that Clintons aren't INTERESTED in those issues most important to us?

Those issues MATTER more than anything else whether YOU see it or not, because they effected every other serious matter of the last 8 yrs. Had BushInc been fully exposed when the opportunity was there in 1993 and again in 1996, there would have been no GOP takeover of congress, no impeachment, no Bush2 in the WH, no 9-11 and no Iraq war.

So tell me WHY anyone who focuses on corruption matters, open government issues and ACCOUNTABILITY for BushInc once and for all is 'scary' to you?

Because, if you want a BOTTOM LINE observation, people obsessed with PROTECTING the Clintons are scary because they don't CARE about corruption and open government issues and don't CARE if BushInc is ever held accountable.

BushInc IS the bottom line - so tell me what you believe a Clinton2 administration will do about it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[GreenArrow]

65. because all they see is the "D"

and that's good enough.

[DFW]

52. Here's a song for you!

go here: http://cdbaby.com/cd/freedomtoastdem

and listen to "Clinton is to Blame-O"

If you don't know it yet, you'll like it plenty!

[blm]

55. Here's an article for you. Contact Parry if you believe he's lying.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!
By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.
>>>>>

[karynnj]

54. BLM has NEVER said any of those things

As to Kerry not following through - he did everything he possibly could and he did it against the desires of nearly everyone in the Senate.

- He investigated until he had no sub-committee and no supoena power.

- He listed things that he thought needed more study

- He took everything he found to the justise department, when they did nothing

- He took it to Morgenthau who prosecuted based on Kerry's info

- Then he wrote a book that framed the problem of nonstate terrorism

[wyldwolf]

17. If Kerry had just fought back in 2004, we wouldn't be in this mess

[MH1]

28. Carrying on a flamewar from a locked thread? It's STILL a right wing lie.

No matter how many times you keep spamming this board.

[beachmom]

38. Please point to what your candidate, Sen. Clinton, has done

to combat election fraud. Because maybe I missed the memo, but this doesn't seem to be much concern to her.

[elizm]

18. I think NOT!

The left wing, progressives and liberals picked Howard Dean and John Edwards. Kerry was handpicked and 'enabled' by the DLC....who is also trying to pick Hillary for us in 2008. What planet do you live on?

[politicasista]

19. No, the people of Iowa, NH and other primary states did

Kerry was never an DC favorite. He never had (and still doesn't) have a lot of support. The average voters and loyal bloggers supported him to the fullest.

[elizm]

21. Read Crashing the Gate. n/t

[politicasista]

22. Can do, but we should not overlook the voters of Iowa, NH, and other primary states

they had a bigger say than the beltway dems and pundits.

[elizm]

23. A synopsis for you...

Crashing the Gate chronicled the deal that the DLC (the GOP wing of the Democratic party) made with Kerry ... Tom Vilsack came out in support of Kerry at the last minute in IA ... Tom Vilsack was also the chair of the DLC at that time ... Those folks are not left wing Democrats.

[politicasista]

24. How did Kerry win Iowa then?

It sounds like you are refusing to give credit to the average voters

Not all of them in Iowa, NH, and other primary states were ABB. They liked Kerry and what he stood for. Not all of them held their noses.

[UrbScotty]

59. One word: Vilsack.

When a popular governor endorses someone, it often carries weight.

[blm]

61. Internal numbers had JK going up in Nov 2003. Firefighters, Vets and college students

started effecting the race even more by December and January when Kerry moved ahead.

Vilsack didn't endorse anyone, and his wife did one week before the primary.

[IA_Seth]

68. One more word: Wrong!

Vilsack didn't win Iowa, Kerry won Iowa. Kerry took Dean by getting union support, vet support, and by making progress with actual caucus attendees. Deans folks relied more on overwhelming volunteer support, most of them from other states, which does not translate into caucus success.

Im not saying he was a bad candidate, but his strategy didnt match the game on the ground.

[blm]

26. That book leaves out the backstabbing Kerry was getting and the fact that the internal

poll numbers had already been climbing for Kerry since November 2003, while the corporate media was telling a different story.

If the DLC had truly wanted Kerry they would have directed donations to him in those last few CRUCIAL months - they did NOT and Kerry was funding himself.

Crashing the Gate assumed much and ignored much.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>

[AtomicKitten]

32. much like what you post here

... assumed much and ignored much.

Restricting one's intake of data to that which only supports a preconceived POV and ignoring that which challenges it has a tendency to give one a skewed view of truth and reality, much like what you post here regarding the Clintons and St. Kerry.

Dean's anti-war platform was what we needed in 2004, not St. Kerry's 'yeah war' squishy platform. There is a reason he fell flat on that and it has entirely to do with his inadequacies as a candidate and a poorly run campaign.

I noticed you posted David Corn's piece chastising McAullife for talking about Bush being AWOL, but that, again, is just another opinion piece you agree with. "Reporting for duty" and using his Vietnam experience in ads coupled with the Swift Boat Liars shamefully unanswered smear campaign led McAullife to attack Kerry's opponent, yet you continue to spew what nobody hewped poor widdle Kerry; he didn't have the balls to attack his opponent back and ended up sniveling that McAullife was playing hardball, like that's a bad thing.

And the rest of us remain sorely disappointed Dean didn't get the nod; at least he would have gone down fighting.

[blm]

33. Kerry DID attack back - Did McAuliffe back up Kerry's challenge to Bush

on Aug 19 to DEBATE their service records and stop hiding behind the swifts?

And Dean couldn't handle the backlash from the scream lie against him and reacted by toning himself down. But he's a heck of alot more thorough a DNC chair than McAuliffe ever was.

Kerry won, AK. So he DID his job. Terry McSAuliffe's Office of Voter Integrity did....what? Can you answer that straight?

[karynnj]

53. Does anyone remember a politician who complained about being a pincushion?

Dean imploded before the Iowa caucus. But even when he was riding high for the nomination, he polled double digits behind Bush. What was going to change that?

Even on the war, had he become the candidate some of HIS September or October statements would have bben used to say that he did think Saddam was a threat. If he thought Gephardt attacked him, how would he have dealt with Bush?

[beachmom]

39. Crashing the Gate was written by folks involved with the Dean campaign.

So they write from that viewpoint.

And it seems to me that you need to get all kinds of people to come out and support you in order to win a primary. Dean was anti-war, but in general, Kerry was always more liberal than Dean if you go by record. The netroots at that time certainly loved Dean, but it looks to me like rank and file Democrats went to the polls and voted for Kerry in overwhelming numbers in most states.

[elizm]

40. Exactly...

which was my point. The post I was responding to said 'progressives, left wing, and liberals nominated Kerry'. Progressives (The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party?) went for Dean, NOT Kerry. It was, as you say, the rank and file Democrats who rammed Kerry in...with the help of the DLC (the GOP wing of the Democratic party) when they realized Dean needed to be taken down.

[MH1]

42. No, I am a progressive liberal, and I chose Kerry.

I do NOT appreciate you purporting to speak for "progressives, liberals, and the left wing."

I looked at Dean because of all the press he was getting, but when I saw the debates and did some reading up on positions, I ended up liking Kerry better - because he is more liberal yet is a good leader who knows how to get things done.

I like Dean fine, but I am sick and tired of his "supporters" trashing Kerry with lies, like his former paid shill did in that book.

[karynnj]

62. I was exactly the same

I liked both Dean and Kerry. Reading more, I prefered Kerry. Dean was less liberal than portrayed.

[blm]

43. Then explain why they made sure Kerry had no money in the last crucial months before

the first caucus vote.

Explain why HISTORIAN Doug Brinkley said in APRIL 2004 that the establishment Dems ran AWAY from Kerry and the Clinton team was stabbing him in the back throughout that time.

Can you do that?

[blm]

25. NO WAY! They were against Kerry and undermined him at every opportunity.

Did you forget that Kerry had to fund HIMSELF the last two months of the primaries because the DLC and establishment Dems had NO INTEREST in Kerry as the nominee.

Here's how DC establishment treated Kerry:


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>

[TwilightGardener]

11. Because you have to be in a position to run--the timing has to be right.

Each election cycle will yield a different crop, depending on all sorts of factors, including current position, age, health, and political opportunity. Hillary was building up her creds as Senator--2004 was too close to the Clinton years, anyway--there would have been more resistance to her candidacy. To everything, a season. Obama thinks he has a chance now, and he's right--this election is wide open and unpredictable, like never before, and there will most likely be a credible third-party challenge as well.

[politicasista]

12. I am aware of that, but

I think they (not Obama) knew that Bush wasn't going to run again, so they sat out 2004. They knew that Bush was pathetic and didn't want to run against him.

It's too bad the Dems didn't work hard in 2000 and 2004. It would have made a difference than waiting until 2008.

[William769]

16. Dems didn't work hard in 2000?

:eyes:

[NoPasaran]

20. "They knew Bush was pathetic..."

So they didn't want to run against him in 2004 because he'd be too easy to beat?
:shrug:

[CK_John]

13. Real world events on Feb 5 and Nov 08 will determine the election. Gas price, weather, health of

candidates, Iran, events in China and India. Today is just the babble of the scratch off crowd.

[Catchawave]

15. I really wanted Gore to run in 2004

But decided on the fresher face of John Edwards. Funny how the 2004 ticket was composed of Gore's VP finalists :)

[ElizabethDC]

27. Hillary made a pledge to serve her entire first term

when she ran in 2000, she pledged to serve our her entire six year term, which she did. In her 2006 election, when asked to make that same promise, she said that she couldn't promise that she'd serve out her entire term, because obviously she was thinking of running for president.

[Honeycombe8]

29. If you're really asking about Clinton...

it's because she wasn't ready, politically, and didn't stand a chance in '04. Kerry was the chosen one, pretty much. She really needed to serve another couple of years in the Senate to more firmly establish herself with her constituents, and build more of a record, as well as get the people and the money lined up.

It's all strategy. I see nothing important in it. You could ask that of just about any politician running today.

In politics, things change a lot in the span of a few months, not to mention years.

I'm not supporting any of the candidates yet. But I don't think who ran in '04 is of any consequence.

[politicasista]

31. It wouldn't have hurt

for her and others to get their feet wet. They would have added more to the table like they are for 08.

It's just interesting how Dems talk about how Bush was so beatable, but the ones who stayed on the sidelines chose to not defend the 04 candidate and wait their turn until 08.

Not hating, just how I am seeing it. :shrug:

[Honeycombe8]

49. Did Obama, Clinton, Kucinich say in '04 that Bush was so beatable?

If so, that's what they should have said. That's called defending your side, I think. Did they say it after '04? I haven't heard them say that. (I'm one of those who thinks that Bush was in fact beaten in '04.)

The responsibility for the loss in '04 lands squarely on two things, IMO, and it has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. One was Kerry's failures. The other was the massive group of disadvantaged people who didn't bother to vote. If either one of those things had been a little better, Kerry would've won officially. That is to say, the difference in votes would've been great enough to overcome the fraud that the Republicans pulled.

[politicasista]

50. And Kerry has taken responsibility unlike those who were supposed to protect the vote

Where is the blame at them? What about the Dems who claim that they could have done a better job, but sat on their behinds and stood silent while the Swifties made their rounds?

No one wants to answer that question cause it's so much easier to blame ONLY the candidate instead.

[karynnj]

66. I certainly don't blame Obama, who gave an exceptional convention speech

that lent grace to a very positive, inspiring convention.

As to your reasons:
1) Kerry's faults - Kerry did not run a flawless campaign - no one ever has. There is an insidious tendency to edit history to make things seem "right". A winning campaign is air brushed of its error and a losing campaign concentrates on the mistakes. Kerry was exceptional in the debates and in the last months was bringing out incredible crowds. Contrary to CW, his convention did make people more comfortable with him. (There was a small bounce. The fact that networks only covered 3 hours, not 9 hurt.

When it came down to it, Kerry had excellent, well accepted domestic plans - the biggest problem was how well they were known. On Iraq, the ISG's proposal was in line with the 2005 version of what he spoke of at NYU in his Iraq poilicy speech - that was poorly and dishonestly covered. His approach to dealing with non-state terrorists produced a 2006 "Kerry was right" moment from George Will. Also, as the mud thrown at him showed, Kerry had been ethical and honest through 3 plus decades in the public eye.

2) Not motivating enough people who previously didn't vote - Kerry got 10 million more votes then Clinton in 1996 and 8 million more than Gore in 2000. Just as Kerry and the Democrats motivated non-voters to vote, so did Bush. Also, in Ohio alone, the number of people prevented from voting estimated by RFKjr by voter suppression was (I think) over 200,000 (if you add the lack of voting machines to other techniques).

What do I think are some of the reasons.

1) The media - The echo chamber of the RW wing internet/talk radio/cable news had become more solid. You also had some of the MSM looking at this in admiration. (Harris/Halpern in their book called Drudge our "Edwards R. Murrow - for fabricating a story on Kerry.)

In addition, between 2000 and 2004, there was a splintering of the Democratic side on foreign policy. Publications that Democrats could always count on became hostile to people, like Kerry, who were not neo-cons.
Kerry and his wife were smeared on every aspect of their lives.

2) The illegal use of the government:
- Unwarranted terror warning were used to change the subject every time he got any traction.
-Various government agencies paid journalists(covertly) to praise Bush programs
-There was clearly a pattern of voter suppression and possibly worse.
-There are still unresolved issues of who the NSA taps were on - was John Kerry or key campaign officials on the list.

3) Timing - It was still too close to 911. Only now are we BEGINNING to get to the level of dissatisfaction with the administration that existed in 1992. In December 2003, Dean was the leading Democrat and he polled 20 points behind Bush, who had 60% approval ratings. Kerry made up a lot of that space - and in spite of the uneven playing field nearly won.
)

[edwardsdefender]

35. Well, the truth is Edwards was the strongest candidate in 2004 as well, according to

an extensive study that was done by PBS. Edwards took votes from Bush. Kerry and Bush were always tied in that study, just like they were basically tied throughout the election. Since the Kerry-Bush matchup played out like PBS's study showed it, then Edwards would have consistently been 11% ahead of Bush like the study showed, and that would have been a "steal proof" advantage.

[blm]

44. Sure, if you think he dominated the debates, aced his convention speech, dominated debate w/Cheney.

.

[Honeycombe8]

56. So, you are saying that the voters in NH and Iowa voted for the wrong guy?

Or it's that those two states shouldn't be the first two to dictate who the nominee will be? It was the voters who selected Kerry, but it was the voters of those two states. By the time those primaries are over, it's like a snowball effect....the other states more often than not fall in line and vote for the same person as the nominee.

Did Edwards will the nominee vote in his home state? I remember it was close, but I don't recall if he won.

It should be better this time, since there are so many states moving up their primaries, including California.

I don't think Edwards was the strongest candidate in '04. He was strong. He was good. But he was best as a V.P. candidate. He just didn't have the right stuff to be the top of the ticket. BTW, he aced his bit as the V.P. candidate. I think part of the reason Kerry did as well as he did was because Edwards was on the ticket.

[karynnj]

67. Kerry easily could have lost after Iowa and NH

The next set of states that voted on the first multistate day were - SC,OK, MO, ND, AZ, NM, and DE. Not a dream list for a Northeasterner. Think 1992, where Clinton lost the first 2 then swept all the (mostly Southern states) on Super Tuesday, putting him in the lead.

In 2004, the media ran a lot of John Edwards articles. - usually calling him sunny. If he were stronger (or Kerry weaker) this would have been the point where Edwards took the lead. Kerry won 5 of these states. Edwards 1.

[edwardsdefender]

36. Well, Hillary didn't run because she didn't feel like it was "her time" yet, and because

she didn't want to make it look too obvious to voters that we just might be getting duped if the matchup was once again between a Clinton and a Bush.

[illinoisprogressive]

37. I think each has a different reason.

[peace frog]

41. Obama was running for the Senate in '04

Prior to that he served in the Illinois Senate.
Not yet ready for prime time (presidential race) in '04.

[politicasista]

46. I left Obama out of the OP

:hi:

[peace frog]

47. Hi back atya

:hi:

[madfloridian]

48. I think it is all just a formality.

I think it is already decided.

[flaminbats]

51. Dodd didn't run in 2004 because Lieberman ran..

Bill Richardson wasn't elected as New Mexico's Governor until 2002 and he was re-elected just last November. I think Mike Gravel was only seen as a "hasbeen" for years, and only decided to run this time because it was wide open. I think Joe Biden is running this year for the same reason he ran in 1988, he views the Democratic nomination as winnable and there is no incumbent running for re-election.

as I have noted several times..Kerry far exceeded my expectations against Bush, and if Bush's approval ratings had been this low in 2004 an election wouldn't have been necessary.

[UrbScotty]

58. My guess re: Richardson (my #2 pick at the moment)

Richardson was in his first term as Governor. As we all know, presidential campaigns start up right after the midterms, and beginning a White House campaign having just been elected to his first term would rub people the wrong way.

[ChiciB1]

63. My Reply To This?? The Idiot DIDN'T Win EITHER TIME OUT!!

So I don't spend time worrying about "why" Democrats didn't win!

Living where I do, in a place where we STILL have a contested House Race, I KNOW how difficult it is to find TRUTH about Voter Fraud. Some days I completely understand WHY Kerry didn't fight harder, actually most days I understand it... however it truly sickens me that we have not better mechanisms in place to "FIND" the REAL TRUTH!!

Just recently it was stated (after all the time since November) that there was a "worm" in our "no paper trail, electronic machines" and THEY want us to believe THAT crap now. Hey it's ALWAYS something! I know what I did BEFORE Election Day here, and I KNOW that I called several several times to the local Supervisor of Elections here to tell her that "something" is wrong, but got SLAMMED and SLIMED for it!

So, I can understand VOTER FRAUD very well! AAAAHHH, The Sunshine State!!

[primative1]

64. In 2004 It would have taken Courage and Leadership ...

It took some courage in 2004 to stand up to the united Bush machine and set the record straight. Kerry and Dean demonstrated that.
Today the only courage I see is from the guy (Paul) taking the message to the neocons in their own house.
Over here we could see a much stronger message, since EVERYONE over here agrees but doesn't it trouble you that we get such watered down rhetoric from the Leaders who IMO are simply taking advantage of the fact that the tide will slip the one who says least into office.
If they oppose the war why did they just give Bush more money?
If they were so stupid that they got duped into authorizing it, why should we accept them as leaders? Were you fooled by Bush?
Kucinich gets the tip of my hat. He is always there, but the rest of this gaggle of snake oil salesmen are RUNNING from issues, not embracing them.

[ChiciB1]

69. IF I Thought For ONE Moment That Kucinich Could Win... He Would

be my guy! It ain't gonna happen. My REAL preference would be Feingold and throw in a little Bernie Sanders on top, AIN'T gonna happen.

Some may question why I support Edwards, but I have my reasons... not the least of which is that he just MAY be someone the "red staters" will go for. And please, don't start the stuff about how "GOP" he is. He's not as liberal as I am, however he's palatable to those on the other side.

And that just MY opinion!