Kerry admits "screw up" in lost 2004 election

[itzamirakul]

From http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/37318


"From Fark, I found this account from the Hollywood liberal who recounts what was said in an off-the-record meeting Sen. John Kerry conducted with a group of bloggers:
The meeting was off the record so no one took any notes or recorded what was said. The first question went straight to the point, about how pissed off so many Democratic voters, are about what happened with the election, and also that it seemed like most Democrats in Congress had no idea how bad the situation was. Kerry responded by dropping the whole political routine and speaking like he was off the record to a bunch of people that already know what’s going on anyway. "Look I know how bad things are, I know that people are pissed off, I know we screwed up."
There's more in there, but this left me wondering if Kerry himself believes that it was the 60,000 votes in Ohio that cost him the election, or if indeed it was him and his campaign."

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.
********
I know there are some DUers that still favor having Kerry run for the presidency in 2008, but I still can't help but feel that there was something dishonest about his entire run in 2004.

[bowens43]

1. It was the soldier boy routine that cost him the election.

[robinlynne]

2. I don't think so. I think he won. I would put money on it.

It was election fraud that cost him the election. he screwed up by letting it happen. He still needs to get those ballots counted and verified, before they shred them in september.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

34. Bowens has problems with soldiers

Disregard his biased statement.

[PWRinNY]

43. I agree with that 100%

I've always believed that he won.

[bdamomma]

53. I think he won also

he was just screwed by bush, and rove's diabolical plan, just like they screwed Gore. I think Kerry is a good guy, they just smeared him so badly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. What are you trying to say?

Are you trying to say he threw the election purposefully?

[itzamirakul]

10. Vash, I have to be honest with you...

I personally feel that it was either lost on purpose or lost due to plain ol' carelessness. Either way, I just don't think the necessary energy for the fight was present in that campaign from the very beginning. As I have already said, I realize that many DUers do not agree with the way I feel, but this is why I really don't want to see him run again. I think if he runs again it will divide the Dems enough to cause another loss.

My feelings:
No Kerry
No Gore
No Hillary

but that's ME. I understand that others feel differently. That's why we post to these boards, to try to explain to our fellow Dems why we feel as we do...at least many of us post for those reasons.

[TayTay]

13. I have been giving him money hoping he will run

I honestly think he is the best candidate. The fact that he is willing to run again so soon after the last race shows that he does really want it.

Vote for who you want. I will vote, raise money and organize for the one I want.

[ronnykmarshall]

20. I agree 100%

I think next to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, John Kerry is one of the brightest and men in the party.

We got screwed when this election (2004) was stolen.

[saltpoint]

23. Succinct and purposeful strategy. I've also contributed some cash

but can't send a larger amount until I hold up a couple more gas stations.

Actually at today's gas prices, I'll probably only have to hold up one.

Kerry is owed the courtesay and respect of topping our ticket against a thieving and lying administration. He led the charge and lives to fight again.

And I believe he is one of three potential 08 candidates with the best chance of being our nominee in 08 -- along with Al Gore and John Edwards.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. That is just off-the-charts insane.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, let me get this straight - you think Kerry literally gave away the most powerful position in the world for... what, exactly? NO ONE in their right mind would give up that kind of power for almost any reason.

[blm]

48. Not to mention the fact that Kerry won EVERY MATCHUP with Bush -

it was the DNC that got outhustled by the RNC and the LEFT MEDIA got their asses handed to them on a daily basis by the disciplined message system of the RW machine.

And still Kerry won - BushInc had to purge votes and rig machines all over the country to stay in power - and THAT was the fault of the Dem infrastructure and a DNC that didn't believe in machine fraud - but - Kerry gets all the blame and criticism.

[blm]

47. You used a STRONG word - you said DISHONEST. The man decisively won

all 3 debates - if he wanted to lose he would have done it there, or at least lost one. He came up with outstanding policy proposals and his speeches on everything from the environment to healthcare to port security to national security were compassionate, tough, precise and necessary.

If Kerry was such a lousy candidate why did BushInc work their mediawhores 24/7, suppress votes, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country?

[Pale Blue Dot]

52. To say that you have to ignore the overwhelming evidence

that the election was stolen. But that would make you like the MainStream Media, so I guess that's OK.

I'm no huge Kerry fan, BTW. But he won. No one who looks objectively at the facts can argue otherwise.

[AspenRose]

58. I agree.

eom

[Zhade]

63. You know, I'm not Kerry's biggest fan, but this is nuts.

You think he lost it on purpose? How does THAT make sense? To have done so, he'd have to be an evil man. Do you think Evil Kerry would settle for that dumbfuck b*s* remaining president, when with his intelligence he could reap far greater rewards?

Sheesh, know your villains! He didn't fight hard enough (no idea why), the party ignored the voting problems perhaps to its forecoming death at the polls, but Kerry didn't throw the friggin' thing. That's just, well, DUMB.

[rman]

67. people voting based on "feelings" is one of the problems.

[karynnj]

71. Kerry was fighting with enormous energy

You may not have seen it because there was a significant decrease in media coverage. This is not conjecture - in the past the conventions got 9 hours of network coverage - Kerry got 3 hours. (1 hour for Clinton's speech, 1 hour for Edwards' speech and an hour for his own.) In addition, in the lead up to the convention and the convention itself, the media usually had hours of coverage. There were always puff piece biographies of each candidate. PBS Frontline had an excellent program that had Kerry and Bush's biographies side by side. MSNBC had a Kerry special - that dealt only with his anti-war protest. CNN had a biography but it was not the puff peice that their Bush one was.

Kerry is correct that the 5 weeks between the parties hurt - this was a McAullife decision made before Kerry was the candidate. I think it clearly but Kerry at a disadvantage. Kerry was aware it would and had floated the idea of not officially accepting the nomination. There would have been downsides to this or for Kerry, the author of the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone, to reject ge federal finacing first. It's also not clear that even more money could have countered the media's giving credibility to the SBVT.

[ariellyn]

85. Good thing facts support that the election was stolen by republicants. nt

[Tace]

4. This Is Off The Top Of My Head -- But, Kerry Is Too Far Into The Gullet...

of the corporate beast.

He fucked up... big time. And it's his own damned fault. Sure, the election was stolen, but he didn't have the nuts to stand up and cry "foul!" It's the same damned thing with Gore.

What a bummer. What a fucking bummer...

[karynnj]

72. That is insane

"too far into the gullet of the corporate beast. Kerry is (I think) the only person to run 4 Senate campaigns without Pac money. Kerry wrote the Clean Elections bill that he and Wellstone sponsored in the 90s. Here is Kerry's floor speech when this was re-introduced in 1997:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference"


This doesn't sound like a corporation person to me.

[The Deacon]

5. Election Fraud Cost Him the Presidency

But it wouldn't have been close enough to steal if he had responded to the Swift Boat Liars like this:
"Mr. Bush, I'll be glad to put my military service up against yours any day you care to release ALL your records."

[Jane Austin]

17. Amen!

Most of us could and would have responded that way in a similar circumstance.

I am just sure of it.

[Deja Q]

41. Also a factor.

But Kerry did make some serious mistakes as well. Doing a proper job at oration, as the guy is clearly capable, he would have ensured the election would not have been "close enough to steal".

Those debates bother me to this day.

[TriSec]

6. la de freakin' da.

Too little.

Too late.

[saltpoint]

7. Kerry, Edwards, and many other Democrats are spending many hours

this summer appearing with Democratic candidates for the 06 Congress, plus many state reps and state senators, governors, etc.

It's going to be interesting to see what percentage of those candidates will in turn support one or another of the presidential potentials later on in 08.

The strategy from here on in to 06 will be to gain as many seats in both chambers as possible and I dont believe voters in all those different districts are considering 04 strategy. I think 06 is fresh and urgent for them, not to mention volunteers' priorities.

I'm not putting a lot of stock in an off-the-record conversation, whether it supports a personal contention of mine or not. RFK Jr.'s recent piece in ROLLING STONE provides an interesting glimpse into the 04 election int hat state, and although RFK is plainly partisan in his views, the partisan views he exhibits match mine. So I say more power to 'im. The floodlights are on Ken Blackwell this fall, and I think he's about to meet his Waterloo with Ohio voters.

It could be that Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards will choose not to run for the 08 nomination. If they do, I consider them the frontrunners now and not HClinton. Only Joe Lieberman is excluded from that batch of Democrats who have run on a national ticket in a presidential election and had their destinies obstructed or their victories stolen outright.

I think who screwed up where or how is of miniscule impact compared with the potential for victory over Republicans in 2006 (first and foremost) and 2008 (a bit later on).

[Vexatious Ape]

8. There was something weak in his run...

I made a comment the other day about Kerry's weakness at this website and got sodomized brutally. But I'll say it again. It was a sack-less campaign. He did not defend himself from the Swiftboat creeps at all and it could of been easy to do so.

[itzamirakul]

11. That IS a problem because it makes it nearly impossible to discuss what

may have gone wrong so that we don't get sucked in again.

I, too, have been attacked quite viciously for being against another run for Kerry although I supported him 100% during the 2004 campaign.

[blm]

50. No - we only ask that you use the facts - and there is a Research Forum

here at DU where you can get those facts if you really wanted them.

[itzamirakul]

56. You know, we have less that 2 years before it will be time to elect

another president and I personally feel that we need to discuss our feelings about potential candidates without wanting to kill each other.

If it has been proven that the writer quoted in the op was lying or was in some other way incorrect in the "screwed up" comment then so be it because I feel that Kerry "screwed up" in more than one way anyway. So that little phrase illustrates how I feel about the man and it also opened the door for communication. Am I saying that I will not vote for him if he ends up being our final candidate in 2008? Well...that is a point I am still debating. I didn't want him last time either but once he was selected I threw 100% support and activism in his favor.

But thank you for the suggestion re the research forum...

[karynnj]

75. The comment doesn't imply that Kerry alone "screwed up"

The first thing mentioned is the timing of the convention - decided before Kerry was the candidate. There is no campaign ever that made no mistakes. The analysis afterwards looks for the good strategic judgements in campaigns that won and credits the win to them. If you lose, they emphasize the mistakes.

Given the 24/7 scrutiny, Kerry made a few mistakes, not an overwhelming number. Some were mistakes only when taken out of context, others have been given more play after the election. It is also pretty clear that Kerry would have won without the OBL tape, or without Breslin or if the media would have handled the SBVT issue fairly.

[blm]

49. He did do it - did you ever read the Research Forum thread? Every time

Kerry's defense against the swifts or when he ran offense against them, the media muted it.

Seriously - others who thought the same as you read the actual chronological maneuvering and were shocked at how complicit the media was in downplaying every anti-swift measure while overplaying the swifts themselves.

[karynnj]

73. You would not have heard it anyway

If you would have read the posts that listed how Kerry did respond - complete with a link to video where Kerry did what you and others said he should have done - said clearly that these medals were given to him by the navy, weren't questioned for 35 years and he still had scrapnell in his leg - you would know that Kerry did and realized that the media covered the charges far better than the response. Think about that - the SBVT didn't have one piece of proof. Their accusations contradicted each other and the official records - they got enormous free coverage. Kerry, who has a clean, scandal free 2o plus year record as a public official with a reputation of being a very honest man -TIME labelled him the most honest man in politics in 1996, was treated as if he had to prove himself innocent even though every official record supported him.

What amazes me is that he has continued to fight for us after the Republicans and the media were willing to destroy him. This was not normal election stuff. They attacked Kerry's heroic service, his marriage, his wife, his character and his accomplishments. Still Kerry likely motivated enough people to go out intending to vote for him.

[longship]

9. Kerry does *not* get my respect

The last time something like this was reported, Kerry made public statements retracting it.

Until John Kerry goes *ON* the record and states that the Ohio election stunk to high heaven and that ChimpCo gamed the election systems, disenfranchised Democratic voters all over the nation he will *NOT* have my respect let alone my support.

John Kerry is a limp noodle. I cannot support him for national office. As far as I'm concerned he can stay in the Senate (with Hillary) where at least he does some good.

[TayTay]

14. There is still a Stephanie Miller radio show interview with Kerry

in which he stated these views.

You could, as they say, look it up. Also, interviews with Ed Schultz in which he has raised the problems with the voting system a few times.

It is a matter of public record.

[zulchzulu]

18. MP3 of interview with Stephanie Miller

www.kerrysupport.com/media/stephanie_miller_john_kerry-051705.mp3

[longship]

29. I wasn't aware of these.

I am still uncomfortable that Kerry hasn't been more forthcoming on the issue of these issues in venues that would bring this to the forefront.

Sure, the Repugs will call it "sour grapes" and tin foil hat stuff. But damnit, some prominent person has to beat the drum. The DNC should be doing it. Kerry should be doing it. Sen. Clinton should be doing it. There should be a groundswell. But the last I heard officially from Kerry on the election was that he had *backtracked* on the issue (with regards to Mark Crispin-Miller's quoting him). That's the last thing I've heard in the main stream media.

So, although it's fine for him to talk about it on Stephanie's and Big Ed's programs, it's no good unless he backs up his words and doesn't take them back. Again, I feel strongly that John Kerry is merely a limp rag.

[itzamirakul]

36. Why do you think our Dem leaders in DC have not been making a loud

roaring noise about the need for voting machine results protection since Kerry has been fighting for election reform? Why hasn't he been able to motivate the party leaders to take more action?

[sandnsea]

39. He explained that

There were several posts about that bloggers meeting, did you read any of them? Or do you just reflexively react against Kerry without taking the time to educate yourself on what he says???

[itzamirakul]

55. It is really so unnecessary to reply in such a snappish, snarky manner

We all belong to the same party and in many ways we all want much of the same thing. We may disagree on the leaders that we prefer, but for God's sake, save your snippiness for the Republicans. :)

No, I did not read the posts about a bloggers' meeting, I was kind of busy having chemotherapy for awhile there.

And yes, it is quite possible that I did "reflexively react against Kerry" because IMO anything he says now about the 2004 campaign is a day late and a dollar short.

I think it is important that I and my fellow Dems know what potential candidates are favored among us and which ones are not. That way, we get to know how many of our party feel. IMHO, the Republicans and their pundits have jammed Hillary Clinton down our throats almost to the point that we do not NEED a convention because our candidate has been CHOSEN FOR US!

Believe me, I want to see a Democratic President in the WH as much as any other loyal Democrat, we just don't all agree on the same person to fill that role. That is why I resent the fact that since Clinton's first run, the DLC has handpicked our candidates and we no longer get that opportunity. I always thought that that was what the big convention was for. That different candidates could be nominated and voted on...not selected by a self-serving organization that foisted itself on our party.

[sandnsea]

59. But you have time to start posts

about Democrats losing on purpose and now you're rolling out the DLC attack and coronation bullshit. But you don't bother to take the time to actually read anything those same Democrats have to say. Oo-kay, I see where this is going. Bye.

[itzamirakul]

64. This post shows me why we Dems have such a difficult time in winning

because we would rather attack each other instead of understanding differences of opinion. How pathetic...

[sandnsea]

65. Which is what you did

And then turn it around on the person pointing it out. This happens so often it isn't even insulting anymore. Just old and tiresome.

[itzamirakul]

68. Why then are you taking time to respond if it is so old and tiring to you?

Methinks you just choose to argue snarkily...Oh well, forget it....

I do not support Kerry because I feel that he wimped out during and after his campaign. I think he will do the same thing again and I am not going to deliberately set myself up for another disappointment.

I post my opinions and articles which allow room to discuss my opinions so that fellow dems can tell how they feel and who is in favor of which particular potential candidates. It makes no sense for us not to discuss the way we feel about potential leaders and why we feel as we do. Not only does this give us an idea of how others in our party feel (such as the poster to whom I am replying) but I think it also allows those potential leaders know what the majority of party members are looking for.

If they know that we are incensed by their lackadaisical behavior and their lack of backbone, then perhaps they will begin to show some energy and courage.

[Mass]

69. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

There were certainly things to criticize in the Kerry campaign. You of course point to none. All you do is to insult Kerry (which is soooooooooooooo constructive).

Do I think he did some errors: yes. They all make some and it is worthwhile to point at them.

Do I think he threw the election: No. Nobody is going to spend 2 years of their own life going on the road and working as crazy because they dont intend to win. If anything, he won, but even if he did not, it would be stupid to think this. This is just venting for the sake of venting (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt of your intentions), and nothing useful will come from that.

In addtion, you point to a second-hand report on a bloggers meeting where no notes were taken. The blogger did a great job, but it is always difficult to report what you hear without notes and quotes and the alternet.org post is not even about what he said, but what the alternet blogger thinks about what HL said. And this is the basis of what you decide to use. So, dont be surprised if some people jump at you. You dont want to discuss, you want to attack!

[TayTay]

57. It didn't happen to them.

A lot of politicians believe that the system must be okay because, hey, they got elected on it. Kerry now knows. His wife knows. A lot of other people who were active in '04 now know. But not everyone does. There is a wall of disbelief where people either don't want to know or just don't think it's the major issue it is. Sigh!

The DNC needs to get serious and hire full time staff to monitor elections. LEading Dems need to fight this. But remember, the Rethugs control the levers of power in DC. They have the right to schedule hearings and put bills forward. They are not going to do this. The present system benefits them too much.

There is something to the fear that the Rethugs will twist the data on election fraud and use it to blame Dems for encouraging people not legally allowed to vote to come in and vote. Sigh! Chicken or the egg here? Sigh!

We have to win elections by safe margins that exceed the ability to steal them. We have to have an independent press core that cares about this and will report on huge discrepencies between reliable exit polling and official polling results. We are dead in the water without that. Sigh!

[karynnj]

76. Why not attack the leaders who are not fighting this issue at all

rather than the one - who at a level lower than you want is. Gore is positioned far better on this - he's said little. I haven't heard one word from Feingold, Clark, Edwards etc, but it's always Kerry didn't do what I want him to. If what you want him to do is so obviously right, why is no one else rushing to do it.

[rocho]

38. You know...

A hypothetical:

Let's say your car is parked out in front of your house. It disappears and you report it stolen. You are sure it's Tommy down the block, and his gang of thugs, that took it. You put all your energy into 'proving' that. You work morning, noon, and night on it. However, in the end, there's nothing that's 'provable'.

You buy another car--and it 'disappears', too.

It turns out you've put so much energy into 'proving' Tommy is responsible that you're not paying attention to where you're parking: it's actually a fire lane and your building manager keeps having your car towed.

Capice?

Putting all your energies into thinking it's one thing, when it may not be, will prevent you from solving the real problem and actually keeping your car to drive.

[blm]

51. Good luck with that - cuz so far, Kerry's the ONLY Dem who even believes

machine fraud exists.

And if he works towards getting the electronic voting machines banned state by state like he said, then what are you gonna do? Reward someone who heard about it, too, and didn't believe it?

[stop the bleeding]

12. I didn't think alertnet.org was allowed to be sourced on DU

but I could be wrong, either way 2000, 2004, and 2006 are/will be stolen

[itzamirakul]

37. This was from Alternet.org. I have never been to alert.org

If an error was made in the choice of sources, I am sure that I will be notified...but I have never heard of such a restriction.

[zulchzulu]

16. Here we go again...

First off, cherrypicking a quote from some blogger who was at a meeting where others found Kerry to be honest, forthright and open is sad. But if you want to see what the real story is, here's some light reading...

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

Other links about the election:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm
http://www.voxpopuli-ne.com/2004_12/page49.html
http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-pushes-for-federal-election.html
http://www.northcountynews.com/view.asp?s=11-17-04/news5.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_perfect_election_day_crime.php
http://www.harpers.org/WhatWentWrongInOhio.html

[oasis]

32. Important post. Thanks.

[saltpoint]

19. We don't know yet who our nominee will be. We have an idea that

it is going to one of maybe 20 or so possible, potential prospects.

Kerry is one of them.

He's got name recognition, plenty of cash, and plenty of drive. That on top of his considerable and impressive qualifications for the job.

His family is with him and they believe in him.

He is appearing at numerous 06 candidate events, speaking in support of local and regional Democrats. Many of them will endorse him if he elects to run in 08. A network is being formed, built partially on 04 connections and partially on 06 connections.

Bill Weld was a moderate Republican who challenged Kerry for his senate seat in Massachusetts, and Bill Weld was no slouch. He was a hardened, fightin' kind of guy, well-backed and quite formidable. Many believed Weld would deal a knockout blow to John Kerry.

The reverse occurred.

I wouldn't count Kerry out. Not at all.

[NightOwwl]

21. He ran a terrible campaign...

to say the very least. He does not have my support if he decides to run again.

And I still want the money back that I sent for all those lawyers who were going to make sure every vote was counted. He has no right to use that money for another presidential run.

[saltpoint]

22. At the very least he and John Edwards garnered more votes than ANY

other Democratic ticket in U.S. history, and may have won, depending on one's take on the Ohio outcome.

That doesn't sound all that poorly managed a campaign to me.

Especially against an incumbent Republican-majority "war-time" president with the MSM at his back.

I believe candidates are in fact legally allowed to do as they legally wish with said funds.

[NightOwwl]

26. Except the email he sent requesting said funds....

stated the money was to be used for lawyers who would be available immediately to step in in the case of voter irregularities. I no longer have the email, but the intent was clear...the funds were to be used for "on-call" lawyers for the purpose of ensuring the vote was legitimate.

IMO, he ran a piss-poor campaign...I really hope he doesn't attempt another run.

[saltpoint]

27. What if Kerry does run, and earns the votes of voters in Iowa, New

Hampshire, and other primary states, and goes on to get the nomination?

In that scenario, which is quite possible, are those voters' votes misguided?

In other words, I'm interested in whether your personal opinion would eclipse your acknowledgment of other Democrats in other states voting their own reasons, and very possibly for John Kerry.

[NightOwwl]

28. I wouldn't consider their votes misguided.

I know Kerry still has the support of some Democrats...I would assume that is the reason they would vote for him again. I really don't think he will get the nomination, but if he does, as a Democrat, I will have no choice but to support him...maybe.

[saltpoint]

30. Do you bump into other Democrats who are, for example, hog wild

about Mark Warner or Joe Biden or Evan Bayh -- just fill in the blank for whichever Democrat they like best -- and find yourself asking that question?

I do.

I try to revert to broad strokes with Republicans if i'm making any effort to get along with them although it's harder and harder to do because the Bush administration is so abominable.

With Democrats, I can usually find a lot of common ground. Even Lieberman, who is not my favorite Democrat, voted against Bush's federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. So usually that common ground holds.

It's the Republican fundies I have the most trouble with. They inspire in me fantasies of escaped zoo animals, gnawing at their bones -- zoo animals I somehow free from captivity and direct to the the fundies homes in the dead of night... etc.

Ok, I'm kidding. That would probably be illegal or something.

[Asgaya Dihi]

24. Same problem we have now in ways.

The Kerry campaign I think would have had a better chance if they had set their own agenda. Instead they spent too much time dealing with the Swift-boat thing, with trying to prove his war record, responding to comments about medals, and so on. The party right now is doing the same, was immigration an issue that we decided was the big one of the day or did Carl Rove decide that? That's how we got the Patriot act, the Iraq war, and a number of other things. We let them set the terms of the debates.

There are a lot of good issues out there, the poor, the drug war and health care come to mind for me. We might want to pick our own cause instead of waiting for someone else to tell us what it should be. Immigration and such wasn't it before, and it still isn't to me. They are just distracting us from real issues. When we set our own agenda instead maybe we'll have a batter chance.

[INdemo]

25. As Corrupt as the Republicans are,Is there a chance

that JK or his family were threatened?..if he followed through with the vote recount issue..There was and still is an very powerful Republican Control Group..

[soothsayer]

31. He declared during moon void of course. Heart was never in it.

He actually had no intention (deep inside, anyway) of winning. Weird but true.

[zulchzulu]

35. These kinds of threads are great for updating your Ignore List

I won't, but others may...it's pathetic how uninformed and Roved people are about Kerry...

[Deja Q]

42. What?! Before you put me on ignore, please read what I have to say:

Ignore who you want, but if you'd rather cheerlead and jeer rather than reading other peoples' thoughts, which are relevant to improving the party we represent, then we've lost and shouldn't even get on the ballot next time.

Is criticism a no-no in this day and age, only blind allegience?

And did you see the debates?

[zulchzulu]

80. Um....

I'm finishing up a documentary about the 2004 election through the eyes of grassroots efforts and other issues, like election fraud. I'm a bit familiar with the subject.

And no, if you read my message, I'm not putting you or anyone on "Ignore".

[Deja Q]

40. I agree. The dishonest aspect was seen prominently in the debates.

Bush asked some fair questions... Kerry didn't handle many of them well, which seems odd... What's worse, he didn't do what anyone with integrity would: Throw the question right back after stating his alibi. Especially the flip-flop accusations, Bush had no right to ask some of those questions. It's as if Bush was confident he wouldn't be counter-questioned. That should strike us all as being odd. How often has any of us seen him come across as confident?

Even I was screaming at the TV over what was damningly obvious at times!

Kerry was pathetic. I said it then, I will say it now.

Yes, I voted for him. But his performance was pitiful and disingenuous and it didn't rub off well on the people either.

[Mass]

61. Did you listen to the debates? Kerry was excellent.

Where were you?

Bush confident during these debates? Well, I guess that your notion of confident is not mine. The man was totally beaten and most people recognized it (except GOP shills, but I dont think you are one, are you?).

[rman]

74. Now i've seen it all: Bush is fair, Kerry is dishonest

[karynnj]

77. I saw the same debate you did and thought Kerry was fantastic

Do you remember Kerry pointing out to Bush thet "you could be certain and still be wrong" I was with a room full of Democrats. The main converstation as it ended was - there's no way the Republicans can spin this one. Maybe you would have been better. Confident is not the first word I would have used for Bush's performance.

Kerry was far behind coming into the debates and they made him competitive. The format of the debates made counter attacks unlikely - especially when Kerry knew that he had won the previous point and would be better answering the question just asked.

[zulchzulu]

81. Kerry kicked Chimpy's ass into next week in the debates....

I'm not sure what you were watching...even people who were not that enthusiastic about Kerry (like a lot of Dean and Kucinich supporters) thought he did VERY well in all the debates.

[dailykoff]

44. I dunno.

That's honest and all, and there are plenty of "bloggers" who want to hear it, but how exactly did he screw up?

1. By not pumping enough campaign cash into swing states? Apparently he won the swing states.

2. By not contesting the results in Ohio? I think he is contesting them.

3. By not beating down the swifties? It seemed to me that he did, but then I don't live in a swing state.

4. By not running harder in the south? To win what state?

And so on. Realistically, I just don't see what he should have done differently.

:shrug:

[itzamirakul]

45. What seemed to me to be Kerry's major problem was that he

relied too much on the consultants from DLC.

If you recall, his consultants had NEVER helped ANY candidate win ANY race. As a matter of fact, those consultants were widely known as losers. The problem with a consultant driven campaign is that the consultants actually DON'T CARE who wins and who loses because they are going to be paid anyway!

I don't think Kerry was the leader when it came to devising plans with his consultants. He seemed to just blindly follow their advice without using any common sense when it came to fighting back. I realize that we have many centrists Dems among us, but there HAS to be a certain amount of give and take between them and those of us who are more progressive. There HAS to be a time when we stop being nicey-nice and do a little in-fighting with the down and dirty Repubs.

At any rate, I just don't see how I can support any other candidate who takes his/her marching orders from the DLC.

[Mass]

60. There is some truth here, but it is also clear that Kerry learned this

lesson (as Gore did).

[dailykoff]

62. Don't forget that he rejected Bill Clinton's advice

to support the DMA, and it doesn't get any more DLC than Bill!

[Mass]

70. And this is one of the reasons I disagree with the OP, but this does

not mean that, at some crucial instances, he did not listen to much to his consultants, IMHO.

In addition, it is the first time the OP point at something tangible, rather than simply engaging in ad hominem attacks on Kerry.

[karynnj]

78. That is neither true or fair

Kerry chose to speak on Iraq and terrorism in Sept 2004 against the advise of both Cahill/Shrum and the Clinton people. Kerry doesn't take orders from the DLC. What people do we have who won a campaign?

The only Democrats who have won a Presidency in the last 25 years are the Clinton ones. There is a case to be made that they were lucky in Clinton as a candidate, an unpopular President (at 39%) and a powerful third party candidate. It seems to me that the Clinton people who came in after the primaries were more trouble than they were worth. From their complaints, you can see that the advice, vintage 1992, was wrong and they whined to the press during the campaign about Kerry. (Kerry was lucky that Cleland stopped Lockhart from further contact with the Rather people as further contact would have backfired.)

The fact is that Kerry's numbers went up when he followed his gut and the advice of the Kerry people and spoke of Iraq and terrorism. They went up during the debates and during the last week when Kerry spoke of the terrorists throwing Ieds built using ammunition from the unguarded ammo dumps at "our kids". The Kerry people quite nearly won. I would guess in 2008, they may be the best people we have. They are smart and they seem to learn from mistakes. This bodes well for Kerry as they are solidly loyal to Kerry.

Do you really think it would have been better if Kerry would instead of speaking about the ammo dumps would have supported all the gay amenments as the state's choice as Clinton himself recommended at this time. Some of those amendments take away rights that gay or unmarried heterosexual couples already had.

[blm]

46. Tell us what was dishonest about his run.

.

[ray of light]

83. nothing was dishonest. It seems disingenuous to suggest that even!

[InkAddict]

54. You mean, something like the old S&B tap on the shoulder?

to acquiese to the election fraud or what? We'll stone (you).

Love my :tinfoilhat:

[rman]

66. "something" dishonest - nice and vague

Gut feeling, right?

In the mean time i wonder just what exactly Kerry means by "I know how bad things are" - which things, and bad how?

Does he mean how bad the situation is now with Bush in power? Does that mean he would have tried harder if he had known things were going to get this bad?
Does he mean election fraud? Or what?

[karynnj]

79. Good questions

It could mean how stacked against the Democrats things were (and are). It does seem that he is optimistic that it can be changed by continuing to fight. Otherwise, he could clearly opted for an easier life with his wife, family and friends. I don't see how he could have fought harder - the schedules he, Teresa and their kids took on were grueling.

[ray of light]

84. "I know how bad things are" = a person who listens to his constituents

The people who call his office or the people who talk to him.

That seems pretty obvious as well as it seems rather obvious that the original poster intended to smear Kerry. Support Kerry or not, no candidate deserves smears based on nothing but an imagined interpretation of a third hand off the record account.

[AnnieBW]

82. Between Election Fraud and UBL's Tape

I'd have to say that Kerry's loss was a combination of election fraud in Ohio and Florida (and probably other places), and the extremely-well-timed tape by UBL saying that * was lying to the American people. Of COURSE, if the guy responsible for 9/11 says that * is a lying scumbag, people are going to vote for * just to prove UBL wrong.

Naturally, we know now that * IS a lying scumbag, and UBL was just calling the kettle black.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. Fears, Smears, & Queers

I think that Al Franken in his latest book, "The Truth (with jokes)" made a pretty persuasive case that Kerry lost due to a combination of "fears (9/11, terror alerts), smears (Swift Boat Vets), and queers (gay marriage)," as well as an apparent unwillingness to strike back hard and fast against the Bush campaign. I don't know if electoral fraud had anything to do with it but it always seems awfully suspicious to me when you have the secretary of state (i.e. Harris, Blackwell), whose sole responsibility it is to monitor and oversee elections, simultaneously serving as campaign chair for their party's leading candidate. Something like that has always seemed kind of like a conflict of interest to me. I recall a few years ago we had a secretary of state (Joe Hogsett) here in Indiana who was running for a congressional seat and the GOP made a lot of political hay about him running for Congress while simultaneously serving as secretary of state. I think that it had something to do with him not serving the citizens of the state quite as well during his campaign (he lost to David McIntosh). Anyway, our leaders, particularly those running for President, really need to develop a thicker skin and be willing to fight fire with fire during elections or the GOP will maintain their electoral "edge."