Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did we pick Kerry

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:22 PM
Original message
Why did we pick Kerry
I'm just askin'. I was a Deanie myself, and I don't think that Dean had a better shot.
Was Kerry the best of what we had?

Upon reflection, I would have rather ran Kucinich, Clark, or Gephardt.

Edwards sure didn't add anything to the ticket either. Would some one else have been better?

And what of 2008? Do we try to be bush-lite electable or do we run to the progressive side of the spectrum/

Sorry to be such a downer, DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why ask inane, unanswerable, divisive questions?
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 04:27 PM by chimpymustgo
Let's fight the primaries ALL over again - great idea. I'll bet there are about 40 million better things we can discuss right now.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. If you figure out why you lost perhaps it wouldn't happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. We lost because of voting fraud.
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 04:30 PM by chimpymustgo
But there is no need to attack Kerry and Edwards and insist YOUR guy woulda coulda shoulda. It's just assinine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. As Clinton would say, "That dog ain't gonna hunt".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. so is Kerry fighting the fraud?
Is Edwards fight the fraud?
Is Hillary?

Only Cobb and Nader fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Is Dean?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Hell no, Dean is not fighting the fraud!
What would he say? "I know Kerry and Edwards were cheated, and I'm gonna fight even if they roll over."

It is up to Kerry and Edwards.
A word to Edwards supporters; If he doesn't fight for this vote, he should stay away from 2008 (he won't have no 'joememtum).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
72. Dean wasn't the candidate...but yes he has been working on the BBV
problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
73. Only a candidate can ask for a recount
or did that minor legal detail escaped you?

Kerry is not asking for a recount, I guess because he already surrendered to Bush. Lucky for us that the Green and the Libertarian party candidates are asking for a recount in Ohio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. So the answer is a "No"
But there are other things besides asking for a recount that Dean could do to fight for our votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #89
98. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #89
112. actually the answer is yes
Dean has been working on the BBV problem. Go to DFA and check it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
47. Even if we lost by fraud, Kerry's campaign still SUCKED
He got suckered into running on a war theme. He waited way too long to answer to the swift boat liars. He never explained himself clearly. His image makers sucked. He made some dumb mistakes including the Mary Cheney gaff.

Let's face it, ANYONE, even Charles Manson, should've been able to beat the chimp convincingly. You could tell just by talking to people or watching what was going on that Kerry never had a huge lead over Bush, not enough to make me absolutely convinced that voter fraud made the difference. If Kerry had been polling 5 or 10 points ahead of Bush all along, which he should've been, I'd be more apt to wonder about fraud. Regardless, his campaign left very much to be desired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #47
94. I still cringe when I think about that 'reporting for duty' salute.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 09:05 AM by ArkDem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #94
113. THAT was the moment I lost all hope
I still contributed, still put up signs, still canvassed, but at the point I really lost all hope for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

The whole convention was a wicked farce. I know of several (non-Kerry) delegates who were browbeaten into voting for Kerry on the first ballot because they were given certain promises by party bigwigs (including one ex-Vice President). I know one delegate who had his homemade pro-peace signs taken away by the "floor minders".

I could have tolerated some of that, but then the whole "Reporting for Duty" wargasm that was Kerry's acceptance speech really was the end for me. I still voted for him, but I lost all heart for campaigning after that.

You don't win by promising to manage the other's guys disasters better, you win by promising an ALTERNATIVE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #94
126. What was so bad about that? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HR_Pufnstuf Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #47
105. And he didnt make any commercials with...
... the Mission Accomplished banner

OR

... Bush saying "internets"

When Gore said he invented the net, it never went away. Poor George doesnt even know how many there are..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Let us know when you figure it out
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
95. Us southerners aren't bright enough to figure stuff out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. welcome to DU!
I'm just trying to make the party better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shawcomm Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Geppy would have taken all the blue states
plus his homestate, MO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
75. Gephardt couldn't even get the support of congress who he led for years
They were pissed at him over his rose garden appearence in support of the Iraq war.
I used to be a fan of his because of his union creds but he blew it with the war vote and the way he stabbed congress in the back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
71. Perhaps because ABB is dead and over with!
There is a war between the party establishment that brought us defeat in 3 straight cycles, and the progressive base of the party.

Unity is not possible with people that are a watered down version of Republicanism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
142. thise who do not learn from their mistakes
are doomed to repeat them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think the Democrats over looked the Best Candidate
and that was Clark. We needed to put our best candidate forward and put all of our best resources behind him. People with the best experience should of handled his campaign in the primaries. I'm starting to think its not enough for us to have a good candidate. We need to have the best campaign team behind them as well. Bush is the worst possible candidate in the republican party yet he has the ultimate campaign team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedeminredstate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. I think Wes could have
kicked ass, but I don't know if he would have done better. I don't trust the results. I hate being a tinfoiler, but these people would do ANYTHING to keep their claws on the gov't.
And I'll fully wear my tinfoil and say I think they killed Wellstone. There! I said it and I feel better!
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
114. But then Clark wouldn't be able to profit off the phony War on Terror
with his brand snew spiffy lobbying/consulting firm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. We didn't pick Kerry
Dean was politically assasinated by DNC/DLC chosen-ones: Gephardt and Kerry, in the Iowa primary. The last thing the DNC wanted was some maverick who they couldn't control.

Gyre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You have a point. That was probably a factor, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Dean imploded. Kerry/Edwards was a GREAT ticket.
And they got a helluva lot more votes than Chimpy.

Why did we pick Kerry? Because most Democrats thought he was the best candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Dean didn't "implode" and we didn't "select" Kerry.
Both wound up in the situation they were in due to media manipulation and propagandized versions of reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. What was so GREAT about this ticket?
How did they do better than GORE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. you're in serious delusion if you really believe that....
Kerry was picked by the DNC/DLC in collusion with the media circus surrounding the democratic primaries, and in no small part by manipulation of the primaries schedule. By the time "most Democrats" voted, the selection was a done deal. Dean-- the clear front runner until the media began to concentrate-- scared them witless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. If Dean couldn't fight the media
then how could he have done anything as president? It's not like the media was going to disappear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
74. People didn't vote for Kerry-Edwards, they voted against Bush.
You are fooling yourself if you think most people loved Kerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtb33 Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #74
127. and THAT is the underlying reason we lost...
We ran a candidate that people didn't really like and hung our hat on the "ABB" vote winning us the election. History teaches us that winning an election based on the UNpopularity of the opponent does not work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. If Dean couldn't fight the DNC/DLC
how was he gonna fight the BFEE?

Listing the number of people and groups that brought him down only makes the argument that Dean was a weak candidate, that all sorts of people and groups could bring down.

If Kerry and Gephardt could bring Dean down, the Dean SHOULD be brought down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
67. if 15 of your friends could beat the crap out of you
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 09:36 PM by Cheswick2.0
then you deserve to have the crap beat out of you.

That makes about as much sense.

How'd your electable candidate work out by the way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #67
90. The media is a friend of Deans?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 06:47 AM by sangh0
In which universe?

If the media comes after me, 15 of my friends will be defending me. When the media came after Dean, he didn't have enough "friends" to fight them off, so how do you expect him to do it if he had won the nomination?

You'll offer excuses for why he lost, but you'll never be able to explain how Dean could win if he couldn't beat back the media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #90
115. no but the DLC/DNC is supposed to be
sometimes Sangh you just aren't logical. Let go of your hate for Dean and embrace the truth of what they party chose to do. They jetisoned him to put Mr Electable in his place. It shows an utter lack of understanding about what the people of the US think and feel about politics and is the reason we keep losing more and more ground.
The biggest sucess in this election were the small grassroots campaigns of people DFA supported and the not so small ones like Barrack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #115
133. Really?
Why is the DLC/DNC "supposed to be" Dean's friend?

Let go of your hate for Dean and embrace the truth of what they party chose to do

Let go of your complusion to make this a personal attack, and ask yourself how Dean could have governed if the media could take him down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarySeven Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
69. You're right, but you're wrong
You're right about us not picking Kerry, but you are slightly off on how we wound up with him. It was actually Karl Rove who picked our candidate. By pushing Bush so far to the right at the very outset, Rove was counting on so galvanizing the base that we would either A) push for an ultra-liberal or B)Create a war within the party between the moderate and the liberal factions. It turned out, as you state, that the result was B - but the origin was the same. It was Karl Rove who picked our candidate. But in this he was nothing new; this party has ALWAYS been controlled by our enemies simply because we don't believe we should dirty our hands with the realpolitik of building coalitions, whereas they - lacking any morals whatsoever - have no such compunction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindashaw Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. I was a Deanie, too. When Kerry was running, I had many
reservations about the way he would dance around his war vote. I had always thought he was a decent man, but when we all saw the forthrightness of Dean, it made everything else look cloudy.

The decision to go with Kerry was made far up in the Democratic National crypts. Personally, I don't think we could ever have any influence when it gets that high up.

I agree with you. As much as I respected Dean -- my non-political husband went to Iowa -- I don't think he would have lasted even as long as Kerry.

There simply aren't enough people of that wonderful, rich integrity in politics anymore. We see what happens to people who go to Washington, hoping to do the right thing, hoping to survive. Principled people don't survive. But Kerry somehow learned how to survive, and he couldn't un-learn it. We paid a price for that "un-learning."

Don't mind me. I'm so deeply distressed at what's happening in this country, I have no words to comfort anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. I liked Dean's anti war stance, otherwise, I liked Kerry's
posistions, and I love Kucinich.

Kerry is a northeast liberal. How did Iowa end up going Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
70. You like the patriot act and no child left behind and possibly appointing
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 09:51 PM by Cheswick2.0
James Baker to the cabinet? You liked the fact that Kerry pandered to the DLC by saying he wouldn't be redistributing wealth? That was nothing more than code for "no social pgrograms".


I don't mean to get on your case, but what was there to like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldmund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Bush-lite electable"
Haven't we learned that this is a contradiction in terms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. I'm not sure... We'll see in HRC '08
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. We have no reason to believe that
Republicans will like Republican Lite over the real thing.
But it is certain that more DLC will drive the progressive wing of the Democratic Party toward third party affiliation.


I agree, Kucinich would have been better. His issues
were issues that would have reached deep into the real suffering heart of red staters. I believe his message of community is stronger than the red state mantra of social Darwinism. Indeed, many red staters came to believe in Darwinism in every way but the origin of the species, only because they do not see how they are helped by those few safety nets left.

America is going to crash really hard in the next two years, and I am not at all sanguine that one nation, under anything, will emerge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. Holy Toledo.
Again and again this stuff comes up.

Look at the way the campaign played out. Two Democrats opted out of matching funds: Kerry and Dean. Essentially, that alone eliminated the others as serious contenders, as they would have been outspent by Bush 250 million - 45 million until the Republican primary ended.

That's a big difference.


So you had the choice between two people: Kerry and Dean. Similar political leanings; both come from liberal, Northeastern states; one has an excellent military record while the other does not; one had a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth while the other did not; one had extensive national security experience while the other had none, and the country was at war.

Take your pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Then Kerry should have run on that (YOUR) record
He ran as a war hero (wasn't he actually an anti-war hero?)
He had extensive national security experience (you mean in the Senate, where he voted against all those dumb military spending ideas. His senate record was NOT a plus for the Dems).

Being that we lost, our choice was moot. My point is that if we had ran an outsider, we would be in a better posistion now. Dean and Kucinich would be in a building posistion now.

All the dems can do now is wait for Hillary, and hope that the GOP ends up with a moderate (shit, I'll vote for McCain before Hillary. Well, maybe not, but I've been disappointed with my patriot act junior senator).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. However Kerry should or shouldn't have run,
you asked a question and got an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
53. If you honestly believe
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 06:46 PM by fujiyama
Kucinich could have won, I would love to have some of what your smoking. On edit, I noticed you never said you believe Kucinich could have won. My mistake. Still had Kucinich been the nominee, we'd be a laughing stock of a party. We would have been killed and likely from the top down. We'd be in a worse position than we are in now. Kucinich wasn't a serious candidate.

As for Dean, maybe...we'll never know. I doubt it though. I see no state Kerry lost that Dean would have won. He may have won OH, but we're talking about a thin margin. Even Kerry may have won that state if he did certain things differently.

Dean is a good guy and had certain strengths Kerry didn't have (clearer position on Iraq), but he had certain weaknesses as well. Rove's fear machine would probably have been just as effective with Dean. I also think it's very easy for many former supporters to forget that he and Trippi made many mistakes during the campaign. Even Dean and Trippi will admit that they made quite a few. To believe it was all some conspiracy is to not look to learn from past mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. Voters in the primaries picked Kerry- if we can trust voting, that is.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. Kucinich?
He was never a serious candidate. He would have lost all 50 states - he probably would have won DC. But that would never have happened. He was not a serious candidate.

Fact is, Kerry was probably our strongest candidate. Edwards was strong as well and would have gotten some votes that Kerry didn't get. Even so, I don't think he'd have been as credible on national security. Clark was great on paper but I don't think he'd have run a good campaign given that he was a rookie. Dean would have been unfairly labeled as a far-left peacenik and my guess is he would have lost 53-46 or 52-47. It wouldn't have been a blowout, but it would have been a decisive win for Bush. Electoral college, Dean would probably have lost Pennsylvania, maybe Michigan as well.

But the truth is we can endlessly play hypotheticals. They're just that. Hypotheticals. We'll never know, and while it can be fun, it's useless from a strategy point of view. Kerry was who we picked. Most of us thought he'd make the best President. But now the election is over and it's time to look forward and learn from our mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Even if all of your post is true (and it looks good)
would we be in a better place NOW if we had run a progressive outsider?
Sure, Kerry ~ Edwards came closer to winning than Dean or Kucinich could have, but what good is that now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
59. Here's what I think
Dean or Wes might just have won this fight.

Kerry's campaign was damn poor. His decision to spend 20 days on vacation stunk. He failed to answer attacks upon him, and bush made him look old and out of touch.

Kerry and edwards should have locked this thing up and failed miserably

55%-45% believed america was going in the wrong direction.
49% approval rating of a sitting president.
60-40% undecided non-incumbent swing.

Kerry, had he been a better candidate, and had he run a better campaign should have crushed bush.

The only good that I think may come out of this is the opportunity for the democratic party to ditch the DLC. Running a centrist campaign obviously doesn't work. We need a two-party system with candidates that can actually present the DIFFERENCES between the two parties, or we need a multi-party system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
78. Dean would have run about as well as Kerry
and won the same states Kerry won. Dean also might have done a bit better too. First, he had a stance on the war that voters understood, they never knew where Kerry stood. Second, As a senator Kerry had twenty years of votes to defend. It is easier to run as a governor. Third, unlike Kerry from day one Iraq would have been the top issue of the campaign. It was always going to be the major issue and for some reason Kerry (perhaps because of his stance on the issue) didn't embrace it until the end of September.

Now it is easy to say that Dean would have run less well than Kerry, but this election should have and could have been won. Kerry after all was selected because of his "electability". It isn't only the red states that turned hard against the democratic ticket in 2004, but Kerry didn't do as well as Gore in several Blue states: NJ where Gore won by 16-pts went to Kerry by 8. Pa and MI went to Gore by 5 and 4 pts resepctively and Kerry won both by 2. Ct was 17-pts for Gore and 7 pts for Kerry.

So it makes me mad when people who all along said that Kerry was the "electable candidate" and when he falls short say, "well, Dean would have run even worse." We don't know that for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RunningFromCongress Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
30. I asked myself the same question, and then researched Kerry's life, and
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 05:16 PM by RunningFromCongress
found the answer. Great man, great candidate. I think perhaps Clark would have been an OK pres. pick, but he isn't very liberal; but def. a much better pick for VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
31. Kucinich???? Gephardt????
You've got to be kidding. Kucinich would have been another Dukakis. And Gephardt was even worse than Kerry. Are you forgetting him standing their grinning with Bush after the IWR was signed? He made a deal with the White House without even consulting the rest of the Democratic leadership. And do you honestly believe that he would have had any appeal to undecided voters. If people were either voting on fear or bigotry, Gephardt would have been a horrible choice. We needed someone who could convince people to overcome their fear or bigotry. Of the people you mention, Clark is the only person who would have had a chance. I am a big supporter of Howard Dean, but if the Republicans won the election because of rigged voting, I'm glad that he wasn't the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. But you don't think that Dean could have done better than Kerry
do you?

I don't, but, Kerry lost too.
Would it have been better to stand for something, and lose? Or is it better to stand for nothing (or stand for bush-lite, civil union, NCLB, patriot act, pro war) and come closer to winning, but still lose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. Because we didn't .....
the people, in the primaries, chose Kerry because they thought he had the best chance of winning. We got behind th people's choice. After all, we couldn't nominate a "crazy" person like Dr Dean.....remember the "scream"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I like your avatar image
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. SO ROVE WOULDN'T HAVE LIED ABOUT ANOTHER DEM CANDIDATE?
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 05:47 PM by emulatorloo
and Bush and Cheney wouldn't have continually taken that candidate's positions and TWISTED AND MISREPRESENTED THEM?

And the media would have presented this candidate UNFILTERED all the time rather than just at the Debates?

And there would have been no "XXXX for Truth" for this candidate, with endless media exposure?

Really, this exercise is pointless. . .

will refer you to this thread though:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. sure, Rove would have misrepresented Kucinich, et al
and we would have lost. Would we be in a better place now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Dems Lost the Battle, not the War
Conason worth reading in this context. . .

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/11/06/history...

<snip>

Democrats lost the battle, not the war
Only people suffering from historical amnesia could believe this election proves that liberalism is dead.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason


Nov. 6, 2004 |

In the dark post-election mood that lingers, the defeated should find history both restorative and instructive. Restorative because the past reminds us that both victors and vanquished tend to mistake the dimensions of the immediate event, whose true significance cannot be known until years or even decades later. Instructive because the past tells us so much about how the conditions of our present distress came to exist -- and, most important, how we can change them.

So for the moment set aside the triumphal proclamations from the Republican leadership and their echoes in the media, along with the petty recriminations against John Kerry, who has devoted his life to public service and deserves admiration for the honorable campaign he waged against unscrupulous opponents. As a presidential candidate he had his virtues and flaws, which obviously differed from those of George W. Bush -- and will surely differ from those of the next Democratic nominee.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
117. of course they would have
Kerry just made it so easy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. Because he was experienced, intelligent, articulate, courageous
and ready to be the leader of the free world from day one. He's a damn fine person and I'm proud of him and Howard Dean would not have done half as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. What if Kerry only did half as well as Joe Leiberman could have?
were we wrong not to pick Joe?
Should we always go for the most electable or should we go with whom best represents us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. My post contained nothing about Kerry's electability
i wrote about the qualities that make him an extraordinary person and someone who could handle the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Kerry does represent us quite well
may sound hard to believe but if you really look at his issue positions, he represents most of us, at least I think so but what do I know, I actually dont mind Gephardt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baltodemvet Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
83. No
we were right not to pick Joe. He certainly does not represent me well at all. For me, that probably would have been Kucinich but I did pass him over in favor of "more electable" choices (sorry, Dennis but I still think it was the right decision.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #42
100. Are you trying to say
that Joe Lieberman better represents us! If so, I am in the wrong party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #42
132. Well, I sure as sh*ttin' would've preferred Joe Leiberman
to Chimpenstein.

Wouldn't you? I mean, I know it's right fashionable to dump on the former Veep candidate here in DU, but he'd be a thousand times the President that Bush is.

That said, I still think Kerry was the best candidate we had to run in 2004, and we really, really need to stop beating ourselves up over his candidacy with all this second-guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
43. electibility
It was the electibility factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
44. Because he beat everyone in the primaries
Politics 101: The guy who gets the most votes usually wins. Usually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
63. Yup. and apparently nothing wins like a winner.
We needed to pick the "electable" one. What a sorry concept that was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
79. the party should have let the people chose without manipulating the
situation. Maybe we could have elected someone who wasn't so freaking "electable".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
81. Primary voters voted for Kerry because they were told he was "Electable"
We saw how electable Kerry was on Election Day. We also saw how Kerry was going to fight the following morning when he threw in the towel before all the votes had been counted.

Kerry was the biggest flop the Democrats have had since Dukakis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. Bullshit revisionist history
Sorry, IG, but this tastes like sour grapes from back in February. The man won all the primaries he needed to in order to become the nominee. Conspiracy theories and rationalizations won't cut through the facts. I respect you immensely, but this deal went down the way it did for reasons as straightforward as gravity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #85
107. Respectfully disagree.
Kerry was just the anti-Dean. He was in the right place at the right time. I don't call that "winning". imho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. What do you call it, then?
What do you call it when one candidate gets more votes than another candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #108
109.  I realize that
Kerry was your guy in the primaries, but the process was/is not that black and white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #107
138. Kerry was considered the favorite at the beginning.
How does that make him the "anti-Dean?" In fact, Dean was, and continues to be marketed as, the "anti-Kerry," "anti-DLC/DNC," "anti-MOTS;" "anti-CW" -- hell, he's anti-everything except anti-Republican.

I remember Jerry Brown in 1992, and the irrational fanaticism of some of his supporters. The hardcore Deanites are like those people except, like Peter Pan, and unlike the Brown supporters, they won't grow up. Same rhetoric, same adherence to a lost cause, the same power to shut one's eyes to reality, and the same indifference to winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #138
143. The only lost cause was Kerry's
Kerry is the man that waved the white flag of surrender before all of the votes in Ohio were counted. When Kerry conceded the election to Bush, he made it harder for us to get the MSM to investigate voting irregularities due to the computerized machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
45. He was picked for us by the corporate media who, of course, work for the
GOP. We really had no choice once the media marketed him as our candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
49. DId we pick him? Or DID THE MEDIA PICK HIM FOR US?
It's amazing how quickly Dean went from top of the bunch to bottom of the heap and Kerry, one of many lackluster candidates, managed to get to the top.

I was a Kucinich guy myself, but I agreed with Dean on many issues too.

Kerry looked the part, but the soul wasn't there. While he was more coherent and presidential in the debates, his performance WAS empty. But I thought he had done good, though he could have been more decisive when answering *'s flip-flops.

Then came the election, and he proved * right in terms of being a flip-flopper. All the talk about fighting for what's right and not even 24 hours later he pops his concession statement. Without even aiming at the most obvious and questionable aspects, which are the paperless voting machines - an item that should have been resolved long BEFORE the election.

We were betrayed, wouldn't you say? Not just as a party, but as a country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
President Jesus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
65. oh for chrissakes. that is just idiotic.
This blaming 'the media' is the most retarded stance out there. It's been used since the beginning of the republic, and it's always shared by the losers. Seriously.

But let's follow your line...the media DID pick a candidate to win the primaries, and his name was Howard Dean. Were you even alive during 2003? Dean got more press than all other candidates combined. And I remember countless pundits predicting an easy nomination win for Dean.

If you don't remember that, you were either in a coma, or you're lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #65
80. Dean still gets more media than all the other guys.....it's because he
is more interesting, active and has something to say worth reporting.
But the media didn't pick him, the people did and then the media unpicked him along with the democratic party machine. Now we have failed to elect Mr Electable and we get four more years of bush.

Hey, did you notice that Dean got more entrance applause at the convention and it lasted longer than Kerry's? Amazing for such an unpopular guy huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
President Jesus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. appoximately when did 'the media' unpick Dean? and don't say the scream!
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 04:48 AM by President Jesus
Because Dean had lost the nomination hours before he made 'the scream.' By finishing FOURTH place in Iowa after blowing 40+ million dollars and spending almost 2 years campaigning (almost half in Iowa alone), the voters clearly 'unpicked' Dean. His goose was cooked.

I still remember virtually every talking head picking Dean to win Iowa, and pretty much sweep the primaries.

And no, I do not remember Dean getting more applause than Kerry. I remember his speech being something of a dud.

Look, I got no problem with Dean taking another shot at the nomination. But if his supporters can't deal with the fact that he was outright rejected by Democratic voters in 2004, they are simply setting themselves up for more disappointment in 2008. I mean, it wasn't even close. And now you contend (with absolutely nothing to back it up) that Dean is more electable than Kerry.

Whatever. Let's see one iota of proof. Let's see him win a primary other than Vermont, umkay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #86
116. boy are you clueless about who I am. I know more about this topic than
you ever will. The media unpicked him when he said he was going to break up the media conglomerates. It was a mistake on his part, but it was also Dean being Dean.
That is not what did him in however. What did him in was the dirty tricks of his own party.

Go back to some tape of the convention and time the applause. You will find I am right. But I agree about his speach. His was one of the few not on the teleprompter and I think that is because they gave him some crap to say he just could not stomach and tried to placate the party, support Kerry and not be a lying hypocrite in the process..... all writen at the last minute.
There is a limit to how much bullshit one can spew even to get rid of bush. Maybe Dean finally choked when he couldn't swallow anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. Shrum and Cahill had to approve all the convention speeches.
But Sharpton "slipped the leash."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
51. Because the moderates in our party are being run off
We have let the extremist become the mainstream, and we have sacraficed to much to keep bad apples in power. The result is kerry, and the loss of our senior senator.

We can not be a party of extremist and win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. No, we'll have to do without Zell Miller...
"The extremist" has not yet become the mainstream, alas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
52. Because he seemed stable & presidential, had a good biography and a track
record for being a committed liberal on a range of issues the left cares about, from the environment to education to gender rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
120. oh come on AP...
voters didn't consider any of those things when they went to the primary polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. I think they did. And they're all fine reasons to pick a president.
Why do you think people picked Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
55. I believe he was picked for us
I saw Ted Rall on C-Span's Book TV a couple of weeks ago and he said the same thing.

Personally, I didn't like Kerry from the get-go. He had an air of entitlement about him like he "deserved" to be president. That is the last kind of person that I trust. I don't vote just to kiss somebody's feet. Especially after looking at his record, I couldn't understand why he'd hold himself in such high regard (esp. voting for Bush's agenda time after time?) Not that any of the other candidates had such impressive records either! But I just couldn't believe that after Kerry's lackluster career he'd think he was presidential material, especially at this crucial point in history. He appeared to be plenty smart enough to know better.

Bush isn't presidential material either, but he had a vastly stronger machine backing him.

Nevertheless, I believe this election was stolen, and Kerry won by the determination of so many voters to get Bush out. As low an opinion of him that I had though, I never expected him to concede so quickly. I was flabbergasted. He may very well pick up the ball again, once the "little people;" on the web, and the third party candidates do most of his work for him. If we do enough of it that he can burst forward and finish off the task convincingly he will do it and take the majority of the credit. That's the usual way of the powerful appropriating the work and energy of the plebes. But I'm not holding my breath that we will be able to come through fast enough given our relative powerlessness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John BigBootay Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
56. I didn't "pick" him...
I would have preferred Clark or Lieberman. Clark would have been a bullet-proof war hero and Lieberman could not be branded a "librul."

You have to nominate people who can win AT THE TIME in history when they are running.

Kerry had a chance, but not the BEST chance to win of the bunch, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #56
68. Lieberman would be a disaster
He bores most Democrats to death. He makes Kerry look positively vibrant.

I doubt if he could inspire the base to turn out, much less swing voters. I'm a die-hard Dem, and he couldn't even count on me to support him. I'm sure I'm not alone here in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticOhioLiberal Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #56
97. Lieberman!!!
OMG!
Please do not use the name Lieberwhiner in the same sentence with Wes Clark.

Nearly upchucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
128. By that logic
We should have nominated Bush.

I just don't get where the line is drawn between a candidate who "can win" and a candidate who represents our values. Lieberman did not represent my values and he would have lost more states than Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
58. Anybody but bunkerboy mostly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpe diem Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
60. We didn't .....
After Iowa the MSM was tired of the primaries and coronated Kerry as the nominee and the rest of the state primaries were just a formality. Most democratic VOTERS didn't really have a say...it was decided by the 'powers that be' by the time the candidates left Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
61. Because he was the "electable" one.
The concept was that rather than vote for the candidate we liked, we should vote for the candidate that we were sure "others" (swing voters, etc..) would prefer.

Oops, we apparently had no clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
62. Remember Primary season?
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 08:13 PM by zulchzulu
If Kucinich, Clark, or Gephardt were stronger candidates and won ANY states, then....they...would...be..the....

Nominee!

Perhaps you don't understand that?

Nothing wrong with any of them, but actually campaigning and winning is sort of part of the process as well as a way to see if they could run in a national election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Yes I do.
Kerry was sold to us as "Mr. Electability" and that anyone would be nuts or perhaps "Kool-Aid drinkers" to support another candidate. It was a sorry concept, but it did win the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Just like they sold Bush in 2000 as the best chance to beat Gore.
Again and again people were told that Kerry was the most electable until they bought into it (and that Clark wasn't ready for prime time and that Edwards was Mr. Populist who could mesmerize crowds - all b.s). The American public is so market driven that just hearing something over and over again they are condidtioned to buy into the hype.

Wake up America. Just because the dumb media repeats something over and over and over again does not make it true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #64
77. There's this little thing called voters...and they vote..
Despite the usual tendency of Democrats to start the circular firing squad in times of defeat (or whatever this phase is), voters of all stripes voted for Kerry.

To think that other candidates (who were way behind Kerry) would somehow have done better even tough they couldn't win in the primaries is a bit of a non-starter argument.

If the race had been closer, there might have been a brokered convention. There wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. there is something called backstage back stabbing
Osama adds, pushpolling, candidate collusion, Republicans caucusing for Kerry because he was so "electable"... the list goes on and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Ah yes...
Tinfoil, anyone?

The next thing you know, we'll be hearing "stories" about political "hacks" disrupting the Iowa caucus and forcing some candidate's fans into basements so they can't speak...

Sheesh. What is this? Bang on my Ol' Wound Hour?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baltodemvet Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
76. Well he wasn't my first choice
As a matter of fact, I supported four other candidates (Graham, Clark, Dean and Edwards--more or less in that order) before Kerry was the nominee-elect.

I don't think it was an impressive field of prospects to begin with and the primary set up is very quirky. He had some weaknesses as a candidate. In particular, he was unable to articulate a clear coherent perspective (not to be confused with positions or 'plans')on the critical issues--specifically, terrorism, the Iraq war and, yes, gay marriage.

Still, he may in fact have been the stongest candidate of the bunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
87. Because AL got a bug up his ass and i dont bla- fuck it i blame AL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
88. "We" didn't, Iowa did...
... and New Hampshire did, and we've got to stop letting piddly bit-part states having so much influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #88
119. no more small states with open caucuses chosing the candidate
Iowa was totally manipulated and look where we are now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
91. JK lost b/c Bush appealed to uninformed voters' baser instincts--fear,
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 08:26 AM by flpoljunkie
bigotry, homophobia, greed, nationalism--and the media failed to do their jobs. They cheerled this nation to war and failed to examine Bush's record as president--after having failed to examine Dubya in 2000.

John Kerry is a smart, caring, and honorable man who would have been a great president--he would have worked hard, fought for the middle class and for those struggling to get into the middle class and he would have fought a lot smarter war on terrorism and made us safer here at home from terrorism--something Bush has not done and the media has essentially held him unaccountable.

And I am sure JK will see the vote counting through in Ohio--like he said he would. It is imperative that this is done. Our voting system must be made secure so that we can trust the results of our elections. Will it happen in Bushworld? Probably not unless we raise a ruckus 'til they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
92. Because he was a tough-assed fighter who was going
to whup Bush's butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L84TEA Donating Member (668 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
93. I am not sure, But...
I was shocked at the caucus when I saw all of the Kerry supporters, I had no idea... I really thought that Dean would have a ton of support but in my precinct, maybe a handful of ppl. I was in the Edwards group...But my 2nd choice was Gephardt, because he is a labor man. Now I look back on it and think, maybe Gephardt was the man?
I personally don't think Dean would of worked either.

But maybe we overlooked Gephardt? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #93
121. The media CONSTANTLY referred to Gep as old news, a has-been.

The media plays an important role in the picking of the nominee. Even Cuomo commented on how ludicrous it was that the media would say something over and over and over again and people would just buy into the phony hype. I wish he would head the DNC. At least he has the ability to think on his own and see through the b.s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martinolich Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
96. ...The Bush-lite thing doesn't seem to work
...I mean, how many elections are we going to lose before we get what Howard Dean and others have said?....The people want strong stances and clear definitions...they want leadership, even..as was so disturbingly clear in interviews with Bush supporters...if it's WRONG!....So why not give them Leadership that's RIGHT...and which will actually benefit them?...We need to define ourselves as TRUE Democrats...and offer a TRUE choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fiorello Donating Member (140 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
99. Loved Kerry. Wish he could have made voters more comfortable
(1) I appreciate your sincerity! It's not a downer to reflect on things.

(2) Kerry was my candidate - and he did many good things in the campaign. He totally SMOKED the Chimp in the first debate - and only Kerry could have done that.

(3) Kerry's great strength: his foreign policy and military credentials. He could challenge the Chimp's wars in a way that Dean, Kucinich and Edwards couldn't.

He would have made a GREAT president. That's why he won all those endorsements from Republican newspapers.

(4) Kerry's great weakness: He made "non-intellectual" voters uneasy, and did not talk pursuasively and easily to people who don't follow politics.

I thought that Kerry presented himself in a way that made moderate voters (especially rural voters) uneasy. His manner hurt him, not his political positions.

(5) In hindsight, MAYBE Edwards/Clark would have done better. Edwards was the candidate with the moderate-voter appeal, but only with Clark to provide foreign-policy heft). My heart really went out to Clark (but I feared he would make "amateur's mistakes").

But Kerry was MY candidate. He made me feel comfortable - in the way Edwards or Clark might have made rural voters comfortable. I couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone else (in the primary).

Conclusion? Let's look for a candidate who is liberal/cosmopolitan on issues (no Bush-lite, please!) but traditional-American-values on cultural feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pazarus Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #99
104. I have to agree
Kerry really is a great man, and I wouldn't have chosen any of the other guys over him by a long shot. Four years ago, he would have schooled Bush in a way Gore can only imagine. Remember, Gore only lost after his embarrassing debate performance, and this time around Kerry destroyed Bush and impressed the world.

I don't think there is Democrat on earth that could have beaten Bush this time around. After 9/11, he and the Republican party made a successful power grab and they haven't let go. We have work to do, and I know Kerry will be working hard for us even if he isn't president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rambis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
101. It is all Iowa's fault didn't you hear?
Iowan's are smart people and contrary to all the posts on here we are not all hicks. We have shopping malls and everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
102. Dean would have lost by 8 points...
I wanted to vote for Nader, but threw my vote away on Kerry. The Democrat party will need to move to the center where Clinton had us, or we will always lose. If you cannot stand that, like myself, then vote green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
103. We got him because he was seen as 'electable'.
Even among large numbers of Democratic primary voters who actually liked another candidate more, Kerry still got their votes because they perceived him to be more 'electable' than the other candidates. They may have been right, and they may not have been right. We will never know.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #103
110. Shades of '88 redux
You're absolutely right Paddy. I hate to say it, but it was like deja vu all over again.

Kerry's campaign reminded me of Dukakis in 1988. It was like momentum toward the inevitable. Kerry, like Dukakis, had the solid backing of all the money-men and the party heirarchy. He was seen as "electable"-- unlike that firebrand Dean or that treehugging wacko Kucinich (or Jesse Jackson in 1988 and/or Paul Simon in 1988).

Kerry, like Dukakis, was an able candidate, but didn't "inspire" people the way that other candidates did. Yes, he certainly seemed more competant than Dubya at running the government, but he didn't appeal to the electorate's passions with a unique vision for how he wanted the US to be-- other than not run by Dubya and his cabal.

It's funny, because I worked my @$$ off for Dukakis in '88 during the primaries and general election-- and much of the Kerry campaign seemed eerily similar this year. The same party bigwigs running everything. The same top-heavy command structure.

Hopefully, the party heirarchy has learned the lessons of these past elections. People don't want just a competant manager-- they want a visionary leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HoosierClarkie Donating Member (504 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
106. We didn't.
The media did. I was new to the game, but learned two important things: 1)Turn off the TV. 2) Do my own homework. Sounds simple, but I was surprised to see how many people just followed the "watch for a Kerry surge" meme.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #106
123. The media tried to destroy Kerry last fall. They thought they succeeded,
but Kerry won it on the ground.

I believe the best evidence that Kerry was not the choice of the media is NPR's behaviour in the last week to ten days before Iowa.

First, I have to say that I believe that NPR is the bell-weather media whore. Pick your issue -- GMO, prescritption drugs, Venezuela -- and NPR has been on the side of corporations for about 8 years now.

In the run up to the Iowa caucus, NPR barely mentioned Kerry (or Edwards) and kept plugging away for Dean agressively. The MUST have seen the polls showing Dean dropping and Kerry and Edwards rising. So what was their reaction? More Dean (and Gephardt) and way way less Kerry and Edwards.

I think the Democrats did a REMARKABLE jog of NOT picking the candidates the media wanted this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. The media and many of us did try to declare Kerry a casuality
I know I did, I wanted a backup candidiate to him and Kucinich. I dont know what happened in Iowa but I do see a lot of revisionist like thinking that really upsets me, some people actually wanted to do away with the whole primaries and coronate a candidiate yet some now want reform in which states start off the primaries, I sort of see their points but I do find it fitting the first primary or cancus is in Iowa which is technically I believe the heartland of America geographically speaking, I dunno really and yes AP youre right, Kerry and Edwards were closing the gap a week before the day of the Iowa cancuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #123
129. Do you consider NPR as representative of "the media"?
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. I consider it a bellweather media whore. They were hating on Chvez from
wayback -- long before NYT wrote it's pro-coup editorial.

If you want to know what the corporations think, turn on NPR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. As far as viewership/listeners/readership, NPR is not representative
of the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. No, but if you want to hurt Dems, control NPR. Dems listen to NPR.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 02:10 PM by AP
They don't watch Fox.

For example, I think NPR was responsible for a large part of the popularity of Howard Dean, and I don't think that was in the best interest of the Dems. (And guess who the first NPR reporter was who started planting the seeds about Howard Dean? Mara Liasson - Fox employee. So in a way, Fox is telling Democrats what to think of themsevles, but they aren't doing it on Fox. They'rd doing it on NPR.)

If you're a winger and you want to control what Dems think about their own party you're going to get way more mileage controlling NPR and the NYT than Fox.

And it's true that NPR is always on the side of neoliberalism and constantly turns the garden hose on any impulse by "liberals" to look for political solutions to social problems. (Their answer to every problem is "go spend your money.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ventvon Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
111. We didn't.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 12:15 PM by ventvon
The same media that played to Bush and "moral" issues, played to Kerry and even filled his primary campaign with cash because Karl Rove and the GOP expected Kerry from the beginning, got a little side-tracked and anxious with their Howard Dean "too good to be true for us" fantasy, and then got terrified once John Edwards emerged as a serious contender for the nomination, and then did all that they could to make sure that Kerry got the nomination instead of Edwards.

I mean, go back and look at the videos from the night of the Iowa caucuses on CNN and MSNBC.

They tried to write off John Edwards that night and give Kerry the nomination.

Chris Matthews said: "IS THIS THE TICKET!!! KERRY-EDWARDS, IS THIS THE TICKET?"

Hello, John Edwards just finished strongly in Iowa. Shouldn't it have been, "Are these the two guys who are going to battle for the nomination? Can Dean recover?"

But no, he said, "Is this the ticket?" Inside message: Kerry is the nominee forget about Edwards.

On CNN, they were talking to Carville and Begala or Novak and Carlson as well, and a few of them were saying, "I think this is going to be the ticket."

The media promoted Kerry and dismissed Edwards because the GOP didn't want Edwards who they called, "Clinton without the scandal...JFK from the south."

So, I repeat. We didn't pick Kerry. The media mobilized support for Kerry after Iowa, and especially after NH which Edwards wasn't expected to win anyway although they called him a failure after NH, which is ironic because they didn't call him a success after Iowa.

Who were the people pumping up Edwards? The same people who would have been on his campaign from the beginning, and almost helped Kerry to reach the promised land. Former Clinton staff:

Joe Lockhard: One Capital Report he said, "I don't hear anyone talking about John Edwards who almost beat Kerry in Iowa despite being outspent by Kerry 4-to-1." Kerry won Iowa because he flooded the airways over the last few weeks with ads as a result of opting out of public financing, which Edwards did not do.

John Podesta: In Time magazine he said, "of all of the candidates out there" John Edwards has the best stuff (his proposes and message).

The female Clinton staffer named "Cookie" or something like that who was on the Hardball election show also spoke very highly of John Edwards during the primaries when everyone else in the media was chanting Kerry.

Carville mentioned Edwards on one Hardball show during the NH primary and went off into a daze with this goo-goo look and smile on his face.

The memories. The Clinton guys know talent when they see it.

My worry about Edwards being chosen as Kerry's running mate were not whether he could help Kerry or not, because he couldn't hurt him, it was whether Kerry would ruin his chances of a future. Kerry turned out better than I thought as a candidate, but I don't think the union helped John Edwards much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #111
124. I agree that the media buried Edwards, but I don't think they picked Kerry
I think after Iowa, they saw the writing on the wall -- ie, that Kerry was going to be the nominee. So they had to get down to phase two, which was to make sure that Edwards wasn't going to get his ideas out there and to make sure that Kerry wouldn't win the GE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ventvon Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #124
131. They promoted Kerry
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 01:45 PM by ventvon
You can't say the things that they said and not promote Kerry and demote Edwards.

You can't flood Kerry with cash and not be pushing his candidacy, only to turn on him after he got the nomination if you didn't want him for the specific reasons that some have mentioned.

Rove and the GOP wanted Kerry or Dean.

It is impossible for the writing to be on the wall after the first few primaries, no matter how quickly McAuliffe wanted a nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #131
136. I think they accepted that Kerry was going to be the nominee after IA
...and made sure that Edwards wasn't...but I don't think they wanted Kerry all that much.

I agree that it was pretty clear from the start HOW they would run against Kerry, but I don't think that means they wanted him the most because they probably could also see how Kerry was going to run against Bush and that it would get him very close to 50% of the vote (after all, with the exception of Kerry's biography, which he couldn't change, Kerry had done just about everything else right in his campaign and in the years leading up to 2004).

I think the way they treated Kerry in 2003 proves that they wanted him out of the way -- or at least out of Dean's way.

I think there's nothing more obvious than the fact that the media wanted Dean on the top of the ticket.

Clark is the one that confuses me the most. The media really wanted him in the race, but tried to destroy him after he announced. At the risk of seeing everything through the lens of John Edwards, it seems like the thing Clark did most effectively was (1) remove the threat of the only other southerner, and (2) give Democrats the argument that not all Dems are weak on national security. So, that sort of explains why the media would want him in there, but then tried to destroy him once he got in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ventvon Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #136
139. The Democrats didn't display any testicular fortitude
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 02:17 PM by ventvon
They should have put on a Veteran's show by calling a press conference with all of the Dems from the House and the Senate who have served in war standing behind Kerry as they said, "how dare they call us weak on security when we put it all on the line in live combat, for this country, and they didn't serve or ran away from it when their country called!"

Then Kerry'd mention how Bush was AWOL. How Cheney had 7 deferrments. How Wolfowitz wasn't even in the military. How the vast majority of the GOP in Congress did not serve, but most of those Dems in Congress did, and how that is significant in the Bush administration's wreckless rush to war and the dems/vets calls for more planning, because as a soldier on the ground, you want as much international support as possible to shoulder the load and feel good about what you are doing.

That's why they vote the way they do. That's why Chuck Hagel and John McCain vote like most of the Dems do. Because having been in war, they understand what it takes and what's most important.

But the Democrats, at least Kerry's campaign, refused to do something like that.

It's like they want the status quo to remain for some reason.

The only thing the GOP had besides "values" was "National security." The Democrats have no business being seen as weaker on national security, but the establishment obviously want to be seen that way because they have the resume's to change that image if they want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rndmprsn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
135. Ugh...these kinds of questions, while well meaning...
just serve to set off a firestorm of ego's..no dis-respect meant...but really...they do no good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Comicstripper Donating Member (876 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
140. Believe it or not, boring as he is, the nominee should've been....
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 02:15 PM by Comicstripper
Bob Graham. I mean, he's a former GOVERNOR, from FLORIDA, who's a MODERATE, and has a SOUTHERN ACCENT, and was a really smart and early opponent to the war, but without being too liberal-seeming about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
141. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, he was the result of the process.
Of course, the process is broken, but he is who we got.

Was he the best? IMIO, not by a long shot. But he was the candidate, and I voted for him, albeit quite reluctantly.

He has just under one month to prove he's not rolling over before I pass any further judgment on him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
144. Lousy, conventional handicapping
That ignored we were facing an incumbent, not an open race. That was always my premise dating long before the primaries and remains my conclusion looking back. You need someone with spark to oust an incumbent, especially an incumbent with high personal likeability numbers, for whatever reason. Only Reagan and Clinton have successfully booted a presidential incumbent in my lifetime.

I still don't understand how Kerry's war record was deemed a trump card, especially when you understood it came along with New England liberal senator.

This race was always about winning the majority of 10-12% swing or persuadable voters, not motivating our base. We deperately needed a "vote for me, vote for our approach" candidate, not a "that guy sucks" mentality. I realize no one agrees with this, but as I wrote many times, other than the debates I would have all but ignored Bush, focusing on positive and specifics, primarily to ease the minds of married white women with security concerns. That things like economy and health care and fuel costs and job loss impact our daily lives, while for the vast majority Iraq does not. Anything to get the focus off national security, where we had no chance.

Based on the impact of 9/11 on party ID, looking back I'm not sure we could have won in 2004, minus a perfect candidate, which we did not have. I thought Edwards and populus charisma came closest, a gamble on greatness not a safe strategic handicap. At 37-37 party ID according to national exit polls and the inevitability more Democrats will crossover to GOP than vice versa, this is simply a down period for us in federal races.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
145. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
146. Kerry was not my choice
but he did impress me in the end. Could someone else have won? Not unless we have fair elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
147. I honestly don't know
I'd didn't choose him. I'd be very intereted to know why others thought he was the best choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem_Loyalist Donating Member (234 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
148. Well, theres a lot of people saying
That the Clinton advisor's that joined his campaign at the last minute intentionally sunk him. I'm NOT advancing that theory, that's just something Ive heard. Id hate to think that was the case though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
149. Why I chose Kerry in Spring '03
In Spring "03 after reviewing the records and stance of the various Dem candidates I chose Kerry... here's why:

1. Foriegn Policy Experience (20 years Senate Committee on Foriegn Affairs)
2. Military Experience (I'm anti-war, but also a realist, it helps to know something about the Military if you are leading your nation in a war)
3. His voting record in the Senate (strongly supported the Democratic position... considerded to be a liberal voting record)
4. Kerry consistently advocated Women's Rights, from equal pay, to protection against domestic abuse to abortion, Kerry has always stood for Women's Right's
5. Veteran's Rights, Kerry fought for Agent Orange Benefits and has been an advocate for Veteran's Rights since he returned from serving in Vietnam
6. Environmental Champion, no Senator comes close to Kerry's lifetime record as a champion for the Environment.
7. Small Business advocate, as former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and current Ranking Member, Kerry has been a true advocate for Small Business, not larger corporate small business. He fought to create and keep the Micro Loan Program, he created Women's Business Centers through the SBDC, last year a major SBA Reauthorization Bill was passed included numerous legistlation written by Kerry to benefit small business, women owned business, Native American owned Businesses.
8. Education, Kerry has consistently fought to improve education for our children. He's an advocate to return the Arts to schools, improve HeadStart, for after school programs for children.
9. As a former Prosecutor, Kerry has been a leader in advocating strong anti-crime intiatives including Gun Control, anti-Hate Crime Bills.

10. The list goes on, but I won't bore all of you who choose to trash Kerry, rather than recognize the good he has done for this country!

Kerry serves on the following Senate Cmmittees:
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Ranking Member

Commerce, Science and Transportation
(Members, Jurisdiction)
Sub-Commitee on Oceans, Fisheries, and the Environment Ranking Member
Sub-Committee on Communications
Sub-Committee on Transportation

Finance
(Members, Jurisdiction)
Sub-Committee on Health Care
Sub-Committee on International Trade
Sub-Committee on Social Security and Family Policy

Foreign Relations
(Members, Jurisdiction)
Sub-Committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs Ranking Member
Sub-Committee on European Affairs
Sub-Committee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps & Narcotics Affairs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
150. Mr. Electability--it was the ABB primary.
So, the fault lies partly in we Democrats, in that what we were against (a scumbag so very worthy of opposing) overshadowed what we were for.

The bigger problem was that this election was about national security, and the Democrats and John Kerry hadn't built up a public perception that they took it as seriously as the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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