John Kerry was the best candidate we could put forward.

[kentuck]

I truly believe that. He was chosen thru a hard-fought primary campaign and the people chose him. He was not defeated by George W Bush. He was defeated by a corporate media and a well-thought out propaganda campaign against him. In hindsight, we can say he should have done this or he should have done that. However, the cards were stacked against him.

Even though George Bush was a disaster as a president, with his historic deficits and the worst job creation since Herbert Hoover and with his incompetence being a big part of the attack of 9/11, he still "won" the race. There is no "logical" explanation. He did not deserve to win. He cheated fair and square and he had a lot of assistance.

[Meme]

1. I really liked Kerry too

loved hearing someone with an actual brain talk for a change. He formulated nice, correct sentences. Didn´t laugh about his own jokes. And I loved him during his conceding speech (well...not the conceding part of course) when he got kinda emotional.

[LittleClarkie]

40. I'm a Kerry Krishna

I do love him too.

My support kept growing as we went along. Watching him with veterans... discovering his 1971 self, the first debate... seeing "Going Upriver"... watching him get emotional at the end there.

Yeppers, that's my guy.

[vitoria]

53. I love the guy

Several years ago he caught my attention giving an environmental speech on c-span. Since then I've followed him through the years hoping he would run for president some day.

Seeing Kerry in person (Akron, Ohio rally) was awesome. Also watching his rallys even on c-span showed the excitement he created in person. Unfortunately, few people watch c-span or go to rallys.

What a guy, and what a shame 1/2 the country is too dumb or greedy to appreciate him. I work in Hudson, Ohio, a "Stepford Wife" community where Kerry only received 30% of the vote. The remainder voted for Bush because of their wallets, not for love of his intellect or values. Kerry won pretty much the rest of Northeastern Ohio - with signs and enthusiasm everywhere.

Kerry is probably the most "qualified, presidential" candidate we've ever had. I blame the media - they pumped up Bush and gave him tons more air time than Kerry. If they had shown more of Kerry's rallys and sound-bites like they did Bush, he would have had a better chance to get his message across.

I sure miss him and mourn for this country.

[mtnsnake]

2. Decent candidate, but possibly the worst campaign ever.

[liberalpragmatist]

41. It wasn't the worst campaign ever

You don't come within 2.5 points of a sitting president in a time of war with the "worst campaign ever." Democrats (myself included) truly believe that Bush is the worst president ever. But unfortunately, most of the country doesn't believe that. The indicators were pointing to a narrow Bush win - his approval ratings were in the mid-to-high 40s (Carter's and Bush I's were in the 30s) the economy was seen by most people to be sluggish but not catastrophic, and there was the pervasive fear of terrorism, lingering sympathy for Bush from 9/11, and the Democrats' perceived "weakness" on national security.

None of this is to say that Bush couldn't have been beaten, but that it was always gonna be an uphill battle.

Kerry's campaign clearly made many mistakes - the infamous $87 billion line, saying "yes" to the Iraq War question, not responding quickly to the SBVT, not speaking out against Iraq sooner. But you'll never have a perfect campaign, and you could argue that we lost on turnout. And there were so many slight variables - the Mary Cheney flap (which dulled his momentum coming out of the debates), the Bin Laden tape. Kerry did lots of stuff right. He was a very effective spokesman against Bush for the last 2 months of the campaign. He clearly beat Bush in 3 presidential debates. He made a great VP pick. He raised more money than any other campaign in history.

Had 60,000 votes in Ohio gone the other way, we'd be talking about all of Bush's mistakes: making a caricature of Kerry that failed to show up at the debate, losing 3 debates, being out of touch and stubborn, his Iraq folly, etc., etc.

[Overseas]

78. Maybe not the Worst but Definitely Poor Planning & Execution

I am still amazed his campaign team didn't have a solid action plan from the start-- anticipating the opposition attacks and ready for them-- realizing you're up against Lee Atwood clones playing image games-- Why weren't they more combative from the beginning ? The DNC and the DLC and all the Democrats should have opposed Bush in many key areas from the moment he was put into office, but many of them rolled over on key Democratic issues like more responsible, progressive taxation, and more responsible use of military force, which added to the image of Dems as wafflers. The Repubs were whupped and slapped into voting as a block

But letting election fraud 2000 go largely unchallenged, even after there was documentary evidence, allowed fraud 2004 to occurr with minimal objections, and here we are... So close and yet so far...

[TaleWgnDg]

3. I agreed w/ you until you said . . .

"(GWBush) cheated fair and square" . . . how does one "cheat fair and square?" That's impossible.

GWBush slimed and sleazed his way into the White House in the very same fashion that he slimed and sleazed his way into the Governor's office in Texas when he smeared Ann Richards. GWBush smeared and slimed John McCain in the 2000 primaries too.

His father slimed and smeared his way into the White House when he "Roved" Mike Dukakis who is a very honorable and credible guy.

It runs in the family. Hell, these Bushes have no morals, no character, and they will seek any level to achieve their goals. Even use God as a fear-mongering tool and as a deflection.

That's not "fair and square."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . edited to add:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . this is George Walker Bush


.

[kentuck]

6. Yes, I said that facetiously...

Hoping someone would define as you so very well stated... :)

[mkultra]

4. he was only ok

his biggest attraction for me was that he was not Bush.

[bobweaver]

5. Image is all that matters in U.S. politics, not reality or truth

Here we had the reality of two candidates:

Kerry, the decorated Vietnam war hero, vs.:
Bush, the guy who never set foot in any war and even went AWOL

Somehow, the Republicans managed to distort it into these images:

Kerry, the traitor (testified against the Vietnam war) and flip-flopper (can't make up his mind on Iraq), vs.:
Bush the commander-in-chief, "landing" on the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, in a flight jacket suit, and "decisive, uwavering leader" in the "war on terror."

It's obvious the Republicans have mastered the art of distorting reality and truth into the images that serve their agenda, in this case getting Bush re-elected instead of someone who was clearly far more qualified for the job.

How did they accomplish this? There are lessons for the Democrats in this, for example: Image is far more important than reality in electoral politics. The Republicans have known this for decades, yet the Democrats seem to still not have even learned this.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. Here's lessons in how to distort . . . so much so that it becomes

a part of one's being, it's accepted, to the point of no longer thinking cognitively about the systemic and pervasive distortions:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/11/21/science_wars/

Everything that GWBush touches is slime and sleaze. Here it's "junk science" that GWBush passes as scientific information . . . throughout his Administration. It's a sham game. There was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) a few weeks back wherein a female M.D. quit some federal agency because she was being pressured to write "junk science" that would injure people. She refused. She quit. And she wrote about it in NEJM. Unreal. This is the first time in our nation's history that such systemic and pervasive bullsh*t is being passed as legit science.

Frankly, GWBush is one twisted mf.

[PATRICK]

7. Activist foresight was nearly 20-20

THAT was the problem with the campaign, the war and everything else. And Kerry was likely the best candidate. In any event none of the others would have successfully confronted the real threats to democracy. Few appreciated how handicapped the normal efforts are under the current criminal system. Which is why no one looked better than the former BCCI investigator, medaled veteran, etc, etc, etc.

It wasn't hindsight that DU and many investigative people were trying to pump into the campaign. It was predictable reality. How can anyone say anyone would have done better when no one was ready to try. namely to treat the captured institutions of the nation like occupied territory within organized crime. That first, good politics second.

And in foresight, not hindsight, we knew we would win but it wouldn't be "allowed". Now the campaign SEEMS to doubt the truth. So their hindsight ain't too hot either, if so.

[Wapsie B]

8. Once the chimp was handed Florida in '00,

thereby giving him the WH, he had the power of incumbancy behind him. The battle was then to overcome horrible approval ratings, a never-ending war, a shitty economy, and scandals swept under the rug by an obedient media. He started with 25% of the electorate in his corner that would vote for him no matter what. What he needed to do it convince another 25% or so by either fear, deception, whatever that we needed to stay the course. 9/11 saved his presidency. Fear kept it in his hip pocket.

Sometimes I wonder that if this were '92 and Bill was running for his first term whether even he'd beat the chimp under these conditions.

[WI_DEM]

9. this is a minority view but I think Dick Gephardt may have

been the best candidate we nominated in 2004. And it pains me to say it because I am/was a huge Dean fan. I also think Kerry did a good job. In the end because of his economic populism I think that Gep may have been a more formidible candidate on domestic issues. While I disagree with his stand on Iraq--he would have neutralized that issue without Kerry's "nuanced" stance. Finally I think Gephardt with his strong ties to labor might have actually won Ohio and made West Virginia a true battleground. He also would not have conceded his homestate of Missouri.

But in the end, who knows?

[liberalpragmatist]

43. The problem is Gephardt always looks good on paper

He always starts out looking formidable but ultimately fails. He's a decent guy and he'd make a good president, but I just don't know if he'd be a strong candidate. Plus, the Bush campaign would have had a heyday with Gephardt's "flip-flops."

All our candidates had liabilities and any of them would have suffered a character assassination by Bushco. It's hard to decide who would have been a good candidate under those conditions. I think Kerry was probably strongest out of a relatively strong field, but it was always going to be an uphill battle against a wartime incumbent president.

[JohnKleeb]

54. I think Gephardt would have helped out

but he has a long record, even longer than Kerry. I like Gephardt a lot for the populist ideas.

[Mike L]

70. I don't think it was Kerry's senate record that hurt him. I'll give the

public credit for that. They seemed to know enough not to believe campaign ads. Rove hit Kerry from the start of March with ads about his senate record and Kerry never really fell in the polls until after his disasterous performance in August. Kerry fell in the polls after the public had a chance to see and hear him and he never fully recovered.

[Mike L]

69. I agree Gephardt would have been the best candidate for the reasons

you mentioned. Also, he had no negatives to attack and is a straight talker (unlike you-know-who) on all issues. I certainly had no idea that Kerry would be so bad.

We were trying to find someone who would have the best credentials to defeat chimp when we only had to find someone who was reasonably likable with no major flaws.

[nascarblue]

82. I Dont agree, NO ONE would have won...look at OHio. NT

[cali]

11. I like Kerry. I believe he would have been a

a good president, and maybe even a great one. However, he ran an awful campaign, and I truly believe he voted for the IWR out of political expedience. The convention was dreadful. I cringed at Kerry''s salute and reporting for service line. He stressed his
Vietnam experience far too much. I was dismayed when I found out that he only served there for three and a half months, It was ridiculous to fight the Vietnam War all over again, and Kerry invited it. He should have won convincingly over bushco.

[cidliz2004]

20. You said that you really like him though?

Judging from all that you said, its kind of hard to believe that you really like him or that you think that he might have made a great president.

I personally hoped he would win and participated in Kerry meetups and so on and so forth. I was also not happy about his campaign, nor his "nuances" and his lack of strength in coming out against the slime boat vetrans, the mess in Iraq, and the fact that as Bush adopted Kerry's platforms, Kerry never called him out on it. I think that we would have been far more successful with a candidate that was willing to "roll up thier sleeves" and have a real fight. I honestly believe that would have "inspired" more people to vote Democratic. Kerry "appeared" too weak and didn't connect with way too many voters. He probably could have been a fine President, but as a candidate gathering support for the Democrats....he failed. Even considering the election was stolen, it could have been a much more overwhelming victory considering the awful state of affairs that we are presently in. We needed a Dean or a Clark, but the DNC wanted to keep status quo in Washington, and because of that we ended up with not much difference between the candidates positions. That is what killed us.

While the Democrats are so worried about alienating that group or this group, the Republicans ran on a very limited non-Republican platform and WON! We have to get out of the "I'm so afraid of alienating this group or that group" mentality. Instead of really standing for something, we only stand for "something different". Many many people voted for Kerry because they so desperatley wanted Bush OUT! Just imagine if people had voted because of inspiration..... That is the vote that Bush got...people genuinely supported and believed in him (scarry) and of course Diebold helped that along.

So, no, I don't believe that Kerry was the best candidate for the job of unseating Bush. I do believe and hope that next time we will be wiser when choosing a candidate. AND I hope that we have the opportunity to REALLY choose a candidate instead of the weak unfair primary system that we had to suffer through this last election. Face it when the majority of states didn't even get a real choice to vote for, then we will never really get the "right" candidate.

[derby378]

12. I like Kerry, but...

There was a thread on DU not too long ago about a pretty sneaky campaign to undercut Howard Dean's primary campaign by a Dem-funded 527. I don't think Kerry was responsible (although some of his money might have gone to the non-profit), but it does show how much in-fighting there was in the party before Iowa and New Hampshire even opened the primary polls.

[kentuck]

13. I believe the Repubs would have been successful against Dean or Clark

also, if they had been the candidate. They had the guns and the media that made it very nearly impossible to overcome the odds, in my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Read my post #72....

Because I disagree with your premise.

[jarab]

14. I agree .....

This election has shown that it really doesn't matter who runs. The victor will be he/she who projects or is projected best. The one most accurate tossing the mud will win. The one least proficient at deflecting or dodging those randomly-thrown projectiles will lose.
Political paint ball.
...O...

[kentuck]

15. Excellent analogy, Bro'...

:)

[bobweaver]

48. Except they're not using paint, they're using [word deleted by the FCC]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. He Was A Decent Candidate...

I think Edwards , Gephardt and Clark might have run a marginally better race which is really all it would have taken to get elected...


I am also open to the possibility that I am wrong as Edwards, Gep, and Clark had their liabilities as well...

In the end maybe it wouldn't have made a difference...

The economy was a wash... You would think it would be stronger with all the stimulus or stimuli and American's don't usually fire wartime presidents even during wars which they wrongly started....


Anybody that read my posts knows I always called this race a pick em with a slight advantage to Bu$h.....

[Cheswick2.0]

17. I do not agree

I don't think he was the best we could do. If we believe that we can give up on ever winning again.
He ran a lousy campaign all based on reacting to bush and when he most needed to react, against the swiftboat liars, he did not.

He ran a very cautious campaign, his votes for IWR and several other pieces of lousy legislation left him with no moral authority to question bush's actions in office. Kerry was done in before he even had the nomination.

[TheDonkey]

18. Great candidate, stupid country. The debates made this clear

Kerry won by big margins all 3 debates, especially the first one which was a blow-out. It was clear to America that bush was an idiot and the Kerry was a fresh start.

Sadly a majority of the country are morons, the media is in the pocket of the WH, and voting machines steal votes.

[KSAtheist]

50. You don't understand...

Through his performance in debates, Bush wasn't trying to win the opinions of most americans. His debate performance wasn't geared towards them; it was geared towards the evangelicals and the hardcore red-staters. It succeeded.

[TheDonkey]

58. That was no fault of Kerry's

Bush appealed to hate and ignorance. Kerry appealed to compassion and common sense.
Guess which one won.

I think Kerry did a great job of pushing liberal values.

[Cha]

73. Yeah, if they like dumb, stupid and

dumber!

[ladjf]

19. In light of overwhelming evidence that the election was a fraud,

it doesn't matter who the Dem candidate was or who it will be in the future. Its all over unless somehow the election process can be recovered and I have no idea how that could be done.

[Forkboy]

21. Then we are truly fucked

or as they say in Snatch,"proper fucked".

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

23. Do you really think George Bush is "likeable"?

Or is that something you heard on FOX and CNN and just accepted as fact?

he's an unlikeable asshole.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. No

*You* thimnk he's unlikeable. *I* think he's unlikeable. Lots of people think he's unlikeable. But more people *do* think he's likeable.

Sorry, but that's the reality.

[kentuck]

32. I think the reality is...

that more people may have believed he was "likeable" because they heard that on TV...

[Stinky The Clown]

35. It might even be more accurate to say

the image they (his campaign and handlers, not the media, per se) painted of him was more likeable. I believe that if you were ever in his company you'd find him a small, petulent, self centered, petty, vindictive, insecure, inflexible, unintellectual, spiteful, deceitful, out of touch, spoiled, bed wetter of a man.

But that's just my opinion.

[XemaSab]

80. you forgot lazy

n/t

[Mike L]

71. He's "likable" to people who are non-political.

It's almost like they are willing to excuse his incompetence because he's a "good guy" (to them). I guess they blame his staff for the incompetence and don't hold it against him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I'd Like To Know What Your Definition Of Liberal Is

"making the word "liberal" safe again"



your posts puzzle me...

[Cheswick2.0]

27. "Both Gore and Kerry were less likeable"

Then why did more people vote for Gore?

I agree with much of what you said. But the "Bush is more likeable" meme just doesn't make any sense.

[liberalpragmatist]

44. Technically, no

Kerry won 9 million more votes than Gore. In percentage, Gore got 48.4% of the vote, Kerry got 48.3 (48.26 rounded to the nearest tenth). Gore was running in an open race, and while he didn't run on his accomplishments with Clinton, there was still residual association with the prosperity of the Clinton years. Kerry was running against a wartime incumbent, which is a different setting.

[MercutioATC]

24. I disagree.

I said this throughout the primaries, too.

John Kerry represents what's wrong with the Democratic Party. He compromises his message for a broader support base, making him seem weak. I'd rather have lost (or won) the election based on real Democratic values than on some watered-down message designed to appeal to the masses.

In addition, he seems not to know how to speak to average people. Since the vast majority of voters are average people, this is a problem. We needed somebody who could state ideas clearly and simply. Kerry wasn't that person.

[XNASA]

26. I think it's extra difficult for a Senator to run for the Presidency.

While I think he was the best person for the job, but you're right, the cards were stacked against him.

[kentuck]

28. Good point...

I do believe that some people that have been in the Senate a long time develop a certain "way" of talking that is convoluted and it becomes difficult for them to express themselves in a simple and understandable manner....for whatever reason.

[XNASA]

29. That's true enough.....but.......

I was thinking about the 20 year record on national issues that he has to defend while on the Hill .

A Governor usually only has to defend 8 years or so of issues and even then, they're not national issues.

[rfkrfk]

47. The classic age of, Senators actualy do something, is long gone

kinda sad.
Replaced by Hollywood, I guess.

[TeddyKGB]

31. Uh, no.

The best candidate would've won.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. I do not agree that we had a "hard fought primary"

What we had was, maybe, just maybe, a hard fought Iowa and a hard fought New Hampshire. After that, it was a walk.

We need to do a better job of vetting our candidate in *our* primaries. By the time I got to vote, it was fait acompli. Kerry was in and my vote didn't matter.

There was one good thing about our primaries this year and that was the televised debate schedule. Bush's numbers kept going down with each debate of our guys. That was a good thing and I would have welcomed more of them. Wouldn't it be far better to have our guys talking issues through more than just the early primaries?

And while some could say the debates hurt us because we got our guys smacked around by other "our guys", I don't see it that way. I thought our debates were gentlemanly, really. There was very little mud slinging. Sure there were a few things, but nothing serious and nothing that rose above simple "entertainment".

On balance, I do not think Kerry was the best candidate, although I supported him when he got the nod. But there were way too many times he just plain made me groan with what he said and what he did.

The "voted for before I voted against" thing was just plain stupid. Shame on him for that. And the duck hunt was so clearly a pandering stunt, it was beyond the pale. I won't even go into the swiftshit liars - they just kicked his ass all over the lot. In the end, his not responding to that strongly was his undoing. He could have overcome everything else, but they made him look weak and stupid. Sure it was an orchestrated smear, but it worked because he didn't fight. At all. Not a whimper. And that, at the end of the day, was all she wrote. He was a wuss.

[kentuck]

37. If we were the only ones in the Party, perhaps we would have chosen..

differently. But we have to go with who the Party chooses as a whole. That is hte choice we had and he voters decided that Kerry was the best man for the job. Who am I to argue? :)

[Leilani]

52. The front loaded primaries closed out most people

So we'll never really know.

[JNelson6563]

34. Your title presents opinion as fact

I'm always leary of that.

Julie

[LittleClarkie]

36. He merely makes an assertion

Prove him wrong or agree he's right. That's all.

He could have added "It is my opinion that..." but I think he would have run out of room.

[JNelson6563]

39. Oopsie

You are much mistaken my friend. It is the person making the assertion who bears the burden of proof.

And he could've prefaced his opinion with "I think".

I will add that he made it a bit more clear he was stating opinion in his post, but I didn't take issue with his post, did I?

Cheers-
Julie

[LittleClarkie]

42. True.

Perhaps I should say agree or disagree rather than say prove him wrong or right.

Nitpicking if you got the gist of what he was saying from his post. We do our best darling, but the heading is just the preface to the post itself. Why take issue at all when you understood what he meant.

[JNelson6563]

56. I take issue with stating opinion as fact

It's a Freeper tactic that we shouldn't emulate.

Julie

[LittleClarkie]

I think the emotionalism of war and 9/11 played a part too

I think that 9/11 may have pushed several people to the right who weren't there.

I agree about the media. They, as Rolling Stone pointed out, went out of their way to put people on the Kerry bus who didn't like him. Not to mention that lovely attitude of "Why should we cover him properly. He needs us more than we need him." Oh thank you for deciding democracy for me, oh great media.

I also think that he was still in the middle of that hard-fought primary campaign when the smear started (as soon as he was the obvious front-runner, in fact) so that by the time he'd emerged from there he was already fighting an uphill battle.

Think back to that last month. The Republicans were the ones who were talking secession. Rush was second-guessing how Bush expressed himself, saying it was still too defensive. Or local Conservative guy had resorted to using Airforce One the movie to prove his point (how disconnected from reality is that?) My conservative morning radio djs were suddenly making fun of Bush's sniveling laugh and shouting at their screens during the debate "Look presidential!!!" We suddenly had volunteers coming out our freakin' ears after that first debate. I had a hard time finding a place to sit and work after that.

Kerry scared the living crap out of them. It was glorious. I don't think they were expecting "The Closer." He sure did look like a winner. He had the big MO. That's what made Nov. 3 so damned heartbreaking.

And if Bush did win, he used hate, fear and false religion. I weep to think that I'm surrounded by folks who bought into that hate. I was called a Communist, and told that while it was okay for Dems to live in America, we couldn't serve here, because we're unconstitutional. I was also during the course of the campaign that every Dem from FDR on was a socialist. All socialists. Every damn one.

How many people like these I encountered are there? How much power do they really have? I don't know. But I never heard such frightening talk before. How many of the electorate are insane. That's what I wanna know. I shouldn't have encountered so many in my little 'burb.

[sampsonblk]

38. Then we have no party

If we have no one who can successfully beat an unpopular, inarticulate Republican un-elected pResident, then we have a worthless party.

I dunno about you, but I am NOT willing to concede that. Someone in our party could have won this thing. In fact, a LOT of somebodys could have done it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. A weak candidate on a weak platform.

He lost the election with his IWR vote. He gave Bush the election because he could only say that he wasn't "as bad" as Bush on Iraq.

He thought he was playing smart politics when he voted for the war and supported the occupation. He was wrong...not to mention cowardly and unethical.

[Kitsune]

46. .....no.

A great candidate does not run a terrible, terrible campaign.

A great candidate does not get elected by a hair against the worst human being to squat in the oval office in living memory, perhaps ever.

A great candidate does not allow that victory to be stolen by vote fraud.

A great candidate, above all, does not give up in the face of obvious vote fraud.

[KSAtheist]

49. Debatable...

He was no Bill Clinton. Whereas Clinton could turn the mechanations of the republicans against them, Kerry was hapless. He'd either ignore them or stuff his foot in his mouth. Whether this can be blamed on Kerry himself or his campaign is up for debate.

[politicasista]

51. I agree

First of all, I fault the DNC and their soft leadership. I thought the Dems blew it at the convention prohibiting Bush-bashing. Why not? The American people needed to hear the truth about Bush, and how bad his record is. The speeches were decent, but the platform should have focused on domestic issues or Kerry's Senate record instead of Vietnam. Yes, this is wartime what what about Head Start, ecomony, voting rights, etc.?

Kerry wasn't the perfect candidate (who is) and I think he suffered from constant comparisons to Bill Clinton. Clinton has a unique gift of connecting with voters on a personal level, something many say Kerry couldn't do. Kerry still got the African-American vote, but lots of AA didn't warm up to him like we did Clinton. Unfortunately, the GOP had fun laughing at Kerry for visiting black churches the last two months with Jesse and Al, making him seem desperate when he hired them and was losing support among AA (religious issues).

I am sorry but I fault is pathetic campaign. Especially his campaign manager's passive attitude towards the Swift Boat Liar Ads. I heard that Kerry wanted to respond the day after they aired, but his advisors told him not to because they thought it would "blow over." Please! If the media is not on your side, this story will NOT blow over. Sadly, lots of americans are ignorant and people believed those ads and everything that Kerry did from those fools. Plus, Smirky and Doughboy kept feeding and planting the words "liberal" "flip-flopper" "mexed messages" "windsurfer," and simply weak on terrorism into voters minds. Had Kerry come out on all of this, he would be choosing his cabinet, practicing his inaguaral address, and Smirky will have a one way ticket back to Crawford.

I don't know if Kerry's stance on Iraq may have hurt him, but the bottom line is the media and everybody was against him. I guess politics of fear, rather than hope works now.

I was an ABB before I voted for Kerry, but all this hindsight stuff of who we coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta nominated and won is a waste of time. Kerry/Edwards sacrificed family life for two years. I still think he conceded too soon, but thinks he should fight this fraud thing even though the results may not change, he would still have some respect for people who stood in long lines, hot, cold, rain or shine to vote for him.

Kerry, like Gore would have made a good president, instead, it's four more years of Smirky. This is making me sad all over again. :cry:

[Silverhair]

55. I still think that Clark would have won.

Obviously, we can't go back in time and try again with him, but I thought then and still think he would have beaten Bush by over 10 points. I personally know several conservatives that told me they were ready to listen to Clark, but were against Kerry from the start. Clark had the respect of the military and the most of the veterans. There were a lot of Vietnam veterans that held Kerry protester days against him. Clark was a decorated Vietnam vet, and he stayed with the service afterwards. Also, ex-NATO General Clark would have had much more credibility on military matters than an ex-LTjg/protester.

[liberalpragmatist]

64. I think Clark was the best on paper

I was always a Kerry supporter (still like the guy a lot and think he'd make a fantastic President) but in the primaries I liked Clark a lot too.

Here's the thing: Clark looked best on paper, but there's no way to tell how it would have worked out in real life. Campaigns don't occur in a vacuum.

You said many Republican friends of yours said they'd have voted for Clark. Do we know that? Remember that when Kerry first emerged from the primaries, he led Bush in the Gallup poll 55 to 43, which was probably a little high, but still evidence that a lot of Americans initially liked Kerry. It would probably have been the same story with Clark. The WH would've done a lot to smear him too.

Bush, Rove, and their cronies are ruthless character assassins. NOBODY would have been immune to them, even Clark. Clark had a lot of enemies from his days in the army (such as Gen. Hugh Shelton) who would have been trotted out. They would've painted him as untrustworthy and a political opportunist and tried to paint him as a flip-flopper on Iraq (citing his early statements about the war which are easily debunked, but do you think they'd care?).

So I'm hesitant to say that any candidate would have done any better or any worse. I think whoever the nominee was, it would've been a close race. It would've been a different campaign, but the end results may well have been similar. They would have made their own set of mistakes, b/c there is no perfect campaign. Maybe someone other than Kerry would have won, maybe they would have lost even worse - who knows? We can never know, and this isn't 1988, where it was clear that we picked completely the wrong guy. We had a lot of strong candidates, going up against a ruthless opponent - there are just so many variables it's impossible to know.

[Silverhair]

66. No, they said they would have considered him.

There is a difference between a chance and no chance. To Clark their minds were open. To Kerry, they slammed shut instantly.

True, no campaign happens in a vacumn, but I think he would have done far better than Kerry. But that is the magical world of "If", and it is not given to humans to know "If".

To debate it now is moot.

[liberalpragmatist]

81. yeah

To debate it now is moot.

I agree. My point is that we don't know how any of the other candidates would have done and this is 1988 where the problems were clearly the candidate. We had lots of good candidates each with their own sets of pros and cons and we just don't know how each one would have done.

[JNelson6563]

57. Let's see here....

He was chosen

Yes, you are right about that part.

thru a hard-fought primary campaign and the people chose him.

With the shenanigans by the Congress-Critter-Cabal in Iowa this is certainly debatable.

He was not defeated by George W Bush. He was defeated by a corporate media and a well-thought out propaganda campaign against him. In hindsight, we can say he should have done this or he should have done that. However, the cards were stacked against him.

The cards were stacked against any Dem who would have run. I have to say though that I do not believe all the other Dems would have waited three looooong weeks before responding to the first major Rethug broadside. I don't think all of them would have completely disregarded as many states as From and Cahill convinced Kerry to either. Not sure all the others would have taken the lame-ass approach to the Dem convention of only "happy-talk" allowed either.

Even though George Bush was a disaster as a president, with his historic deficits and the worst job creation since Herbert Hoover and with his incompetence being a big part of the attack of 9/11, he still "won" the race. There is no "logical" explanation. He did not deserve to win. He cheated fair and square and he had a lot of assistance.

There is no doubt the trained Chimp cheated. I also believe that if we had had a stronger candidate we could have beaten Jr in a landslide. But when you have someone state that yeah, Iraq's a bloody mess and it was launched on lies but yeah, I'd still vote for it, what do you expect?

I put in between 40&50 hours a week on that campaign here in northern MI. We had so many people pouring into HQ it was amazing. Truly. Especially since this area has long been considered a Rethug stronghold. Guess what I heard countless times. "I am an Independent and I usually vote Republican but I hate Bush." Not one time did I hear love for Kerry.

You cannot win elections on the hopes that the opposition is hated enough they'll fervently support anyone else. You need enthusiasm for your candidate of forget it.

Julie

[sendero]

59. I usually...

... agree with everything you post, and in fact make a point to open your threads.

This time, I don't agree at all. :( Kerry equivocates too much, plays the fence too much. It started with his IWR vote and continued through the campaign.

Even uninformed people who don't really understand the issues can spot a fence-sitter. And they don't like 'em.

With the walking disaster of a president we have, it is hard to imagine anyone getting beat. But Kerry managed to pull it off.

And people actually talk of running him in 08. I'll vote Green if they do, a person can only take so much BS.

[Disturbed]

61. A lot of truth in this thread.

ABB was a non-starter. The Kerry and Edwards stand on Iraq was a loser. Kerry lackes charisma and the ability to speak in simple terms. Kerry was weak and fence sitting. Media Right Wing push was a major negative for Dems. The Bush Steamroller of smear and fear mongering was a huge factor. Was there Fraud? I feel that there was but enough that it made a big difference? Of course, I don't know if that is the case. A stronger ticket may have overcome the Fraud in my view.

[Leilani]

62. I agree wholeheartedly

People want a leader & someone with convictions.

They'll vote for a person they disagree with, if they respect him.

Kerry tried to play it safe, & too cute by half. He voted for the war, then against the funding. He criticized the war, but he'd still vote yes. And what would he change? Add allies.

That & the fact that he never fought back against the Swifties. Made him look weak.

He was on the defensive, he only played in Gore states...it was a losing campaign.

I am really so disappointed, because I was told he would fight, that he was a closer, that he had our back. He did none of those things.

And we are now in a world of hurt. Tax cuts permanent, privatize social security, middle class going, going, gone.

This Really was the most important election of my liftime, for my own personal situation, & no, I can't be philosphical about it.

[patcox2]

60. No, absolutely not, talk of it is right wing propaganda.

I am serious, the people who most want her to run are the republicans, they want it bad. She is absolutely and unequivocally un-electable. It would be a gift to the republicans to have her run. They gain support and scare the trailer park dwellers who are their base just by constantly bringing her up.

And I wouldn't vote for her. She is the worst, the very worst, of the dmeocratic party. She has abandoned the traditional democratic support for the working class and economic justice (she and Bill were founding members of the DLC and invented the idea of a "third way pro-business democrat) and at the same time she espouses the most obnoxious forms of liberal political correctness, she is a leftists mommy-state proponent who would have the government interfering in people's lives as much or more than the christian taliban.

She's been making a name for herself by being bi-partisan and cooperating with republicans. She is a nightmare, nothing good about her, nothing but negative baggage. It would be so monumentally stupid to run her that I would quit the party.

[CityDem]

63. BWWWWHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

That is the best joke I have heard today. Keep up the attempt at humoring us -- shouldn't this post have been made in the DU Lounge.

[quaker bill]

65. John Kerry was fully qualified to be President

Was he the best candidate we could have possibly put forward? Perhaps, but I suspect not.

I was rather hoping that our "best" candidate would have won.

If coming in second is the "best" we can do, there is an awful lot of work to be done.

[Leilani]

67. John Kerry's campaign was not good

because he should have been prepared.

He watched 2000...he saw what they did to Gore, how they portrayed him into a liar & loser.

He saw Florida & the election fiasco.

He knew O'Neill would come after him...he's been haunting him for 30+ years.

He knew about the voting machines & the problems.

He didn't take any pre-emptive steps that were effective to prevent or counterattack these problems.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Yeah, right, keep on drinking that Kool-Aid

Mister Electable led the Democrats to their worst defeat since Mondale and he conceded the election before all the votes were counted. If that's the best we can do, then prepare for a century dominated by the RW.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Sorry, but I don't believe that Kerry was the "Best" candidate.....

I think he could have won....but I don't believe he was the best we had to offer.

The fact that Kerry lost by a "hair" (if that) means that just a slight improvement in just about any area or on any issue would have helped.

I do believe that Wes Clark would have achieved the difference needed by having more Republicans and Independents vote for him. He was not a senator...he was a General during wartime running against an “incompetent”. To begin, Clark's grassroots was more energized than any Kerry grassroots (which was small and didn't multiply until after the primary). In addition, we would have ran a more national campaign...and possibly would have fared better in the Senate and the House races. Baucus, Breaux, Lincoln and Prior, all had endorsed Clark….but were more skeptical of Kerry. Those like the Oklahoma Democratic candidate for senator, Chandler, would have fared better with Clark on the ticket.

The whole 9/11 strong resolute leader story for Bush would not have been as effective against Clark...who is perceived as a strong leader himself...and had more current and intense National Security and Foreign policy credentials than Kerry had. The percentages leads that Bush enjoyed on the issues of Terrorism and the War on Iraq would not have been as high with Clark on top of the ticket. The convention would not have been about Vietnam redux....it would have been about 9/11 and what Bush did wrong (that was Clark's platform to some degree...after all), and about the economy. Voters hungering for a change would have given Clark more benefit of the doubt as opposed to an "established partisan" a la Kerry.

The fact that whatever the Republicans had in store for Clark...most was thrown at him during the primaries. We must remember that the GOP tried very hard to make Clark disappear during the primaries....and more or less succeeded(because of the nature of Democrats during a primary)....but had a mighty hard time of it.

I don't think that the GOP and the MSM figured that Clark could even win a primary...which he did...and come in second in quite a few (3 on mini Tuesday)...because they had written his epitaph back in November of 2003. The video praising Bush, the out of context words taking from his '02 testimony, the Waco tenious link (disproved during the primary), the Shelton (j'accuse) smear which was recanted in Dec '03 due to Milsovic and the Hague trial, and the Jacko Jackson "he would have started WWIII" all were a "NO GO", i.e., it did not make Clark go away. His Republican votes would not have harmed him (Reagan Dems)....and the Extreme Left...just as they did for Kerry would have stayed on board (MM did endorse Clark). Even with the press' attempts to fry Clark during the debates for the Michael Moore deserter comments would have helped Clark more than they did Kerry (Clark did not protest after Vietnam...and his Vietnam wounds were more serious...his medals the same ones as those earned by Kerry).

It is remarkable that even with no press covering him at all....Clark still managed to keep on coming.

I think that Clark's southern roots, his charisma, his superior NS/FP experience vis-a-vis Kerry, his no votes to twist, his outsider status, his sincerity (Kerry did at time seem jaded), (even his wife Gert and Lefty son)would have left Republicans hard pressed for material and would have only had his words to twist.....which are easier to untwist and prove false than an entire "hero" saga dating back from 35 years ago to be proven or disproven.

If Clark would have had the entire Dem party behind him....as Kerry did, the 527 and the millions.....I just do think that Clark would have gotten the better of the small margin that Kerry was unable to pull off.

[Leilani]

74. Good post, Frenchie!

Add to the close Senate races: Mongiardo of Kentucky...he lost by a hair, & didn't get the financial help he needed.

It was so close, Clark could have pulled him across the finish line.
Kentucky folks like the military, & he could have talked to them as Southerner to Southerner, with his own message on family values.

While they couldn't vote for a "Massachusetts Liberal," they could have voted for an Arkansas man.

[robbedvoter]

79. Agree, but Kerry, or rather ABB won anyway

[UpsideDownFlag]

75. he was never more than an ABB candidate for way, way too many people.

myself included. I would have prefered dean or clark.

[UpsideDownFlag]

76. oh, by the way- a hard fought primary??

for goodness sake.