You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #166: He didn't let us down. He was let down. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
_dynamicdems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-21-06 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #140
166. He didn't let us down. He was let down.
The ambitions of those whom a Kerry candidacy in 2008 would most threaten are the ones who worked hardest in 2004 to make certain that there would be no President Kerry. Are these really the people you want to see take power in Washington, by default, because you can't forgive someone for not winning the first time?

You do know that Kerry was pretty much fed to the wolves in 2004, don't you? If not, do some googling and you will find many, many examples of this, left-wing hit pieces written while we were all working our asses off for Kerry. We were working and they were attacking with a million paper cuts that virtually shredded his campaign. Sure it wasn't the best campaign. That's no crime. Nobody knows how difficult it is to run for President of the United States, until they have experienced it. (Gore ran for President more times than Kerry, had 8 years as VP and his campaign still made mistakes.) The crime is that our Democratic nominee, running against the worst President ever, was undermined by his own side for nothing more than naked ambition. That is criminal and I'm directing MY anger toward the people who really deserve it.

I'm seeing good people already squeezed out of the 2008 race. They see the handwriting on the wall and they are backing off. This is fundamentally wrong.

I want Kerry to run. Gore would be my second choice. Both are good men and either would make a terrific President. The reason I prefer Kerry is because of his behavior after the election and also because I line up with his political viewpoints a bit more closely than with Gore's. Kerry fought like a tiger (far beyond his role as Senator called for) for us and for Democrats running in the midterms. I'm also happy that he's active on all issues from Iraq to health care to the environment to civil rights and more.

John Kerry has also learned from his experience in 2004. Remember this was Kerry's FIRST run for President. He won the primary, which is a Hell of a lot closer than others have come who are now running again and doing so without the criticism Kerry is getting for not winning the general election. That just doesn't make sense to me. In a horse race, a horse who lost by a nose or in a photo finish is considered a future contender but the also-rans are only considered for small claiming races, put out to pasture or sent to the glue factory.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC