Soros Says Kerry's Failings Undermined Campaign Against Bush

[Freddie Stubbs]

by Michael McKee

Billionaire investor George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to the failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush in November's election, said Democratic challenger John Kerry was a flawed candidate.

Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26 million in last year's campaign that he said was undermined by the candidate he supported.

``Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative,'' Soros, 74, said yesterday in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``That had a lot to do with Bush being re-elected.''

The comments by the Hungarian-born Soros marked his sharpest criticism of Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who later spoke against the war and focused his campaign against Bush on the war in Iraq. Republicans gained four seats in the Senate, including the defeat of the Senate's highest-ranking Democrat, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-seat chamber.

The Kerry campaign ``tried to emphasize his role as a Vietnam War hero and downplay his role as an anti-Vietnam War hero, which he was,'' said Soros. ``Had he admitted, owned up to it, I think actually the outcome could have been different.''

more: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0130-04.htm

[politicasista]

1. Thanks alot Kerry campaign

In helping re-elect the WORST president ever. Let's hear it, Clark, Dean or somebody else could have won. I guess it's "Let's hate on Kerry Day." (sarcasm):mad:

[salin]

6. Sadly what Soros is missing

is that the GOP has become great at propoganda and media manipulation... even if Kerry had done as Soros suggests... there would have been a full out attack on another angle/front; and that it would happen to ANY democrat who was put on top of the ticket.

Max Cleland is living proof - Vietnam vet maimed in the war... gets beat by a draft dodger because... Cleland is cast us not a real tough warrior sorta guy and soft on terrorism... even though he voted for the war and the patriot act... all because he did vote against HLS (which bush himself tried to kabosh).

Until we get this point - and anticipate and react strategically and efficiently rather than try to innoculate by selection (eg this candidate or that candidate will be safer on attacks on x issue or y issue) - we will see more repeat performances.

[googly]

8. Dean was by far the best candidate....but he got murdered by the media

and we got duped into thinking we needed a war veteran
to go against Bush. Dean was made out to be more liberal
than he really is. Dean is a pragmatic liberal, which is
exactly what we need in the White House.

[Orangepeel]

12. if the "best candidate" got murdered by the media in the primary...

then he would have been murdered by the media in the general.

I'm a big Dean supporter -- maxed out contributor, meet-up leader, hosted two house parties -- and I still love the man.

But, any candidate that can't win a primary doesn't have the ability to win a general election. The media would have been more honest? Bush would have played more fairly? All those moderate voters would have been harder to dupe?

[Cheswick2.0]

17. oh come on orangepeel...please face facts

It wasn't the media that trashed dean the worst. The party stopped him. If he had been the candidate he might have had a chance. We will never know, but it is clear that the democratic party machine was much more clear about wanting to stop Howard Dean than George Bush.
What we do know is that Kerry was sold to the voters as electable. The democrats who flocked to the polls during the primary and voted for Kerry said time after time that they wanted to vote for Dean, but though swing voters wouldn't vote for him because he was too liberal. The acted like sheep and did what they were directed to do.
The party manipulated the process and Kerry lost the general election. He was a terrible candidate. Now all of us are paying bcause the party elite decided that they knew better than the rest of us and they had the power to control the process.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Dean and the Deaniacs lost Iowa all by themselves, Cheswick. JK won Iowa

fair and square. And when Dean came in third in Iowa, his campaign was essentially over.

[mdmc]

19. DFA fked up in IA, and never recovered

Maybe Dean wanted out? Kerry still ran as a war hero (when he really was an anti war hero) and a liberal senator from MA. Dems deserve to lose.

[flpoljunkie]

21. JK did not run as a "liberal" altho convention "war hero" emphasis mistake

in my opinion. Too bad convention did not emphasize how he has fought for our democratic ideals his entire career against special interests and made military career just a part of his life's work.

[mdmc]

22. he also didn't run as a millionaire

yet he was a millonairre...

[flpoljunkie]

25. What is your point? They were mostly millionaires, Dean included.

[mdmc]

30. the point - he didn't run as a liberal, millionaire, anti war hero

but he was all those thing... And we all knew it. And when it didn't play in Peoria, or in Ohio, we could not believe it.

[flpoljunkie]

32. I would suggest you not go into the campaign consultant business.

[mdmc]

71. consulting , no

hard work at grassroots levels, YES!
Again, I care about issues... That is why I'm a Dem and not a GOP. I love the greens, but can advance issues better as a Dem.

I posts have nothing to do with consultation. Perhaps you mean, "don't advocate for the dems, you come off poorly".

[mdmc]

87. we have no great minds on our side...

[IndianaGreen]

69. Kerry's money is measured in the Billions

He and Teresa have more money than the entire Bush clan, and that's quite a bit!

[Orangepeel]

24. What facts?

You're saying that the Democratic machine was able to stop Dean, but the republican machine wouldn't have been able to?

Democratic primary voters were duped into thinking that Dean was unelectable, but general election voters would have seen through all the "too liberal, unstable" shit?

Primary voters are easily led sheep, but general election voters (all those moderates who can't even pick a party) wouldn't have been manipulated by the media? Nonsense.

I understand the need to believe that if we, as a party, had done things differently we could have won. The alternative is very depressing.

I worked my ass off for Dean, because I believed that the only way to fight media manipulation was with grassroots activists who would take the message neighbor-to-neighbor, door-to-door, and that Howard Dean was the best person to inspire that activism. I still believe that. Unfortunatley, the media was too strong and grassroots activism wasn't enough. And, if it wasn't enough in the primary, with a friendly audience, there is no way it would have been enough in the general.

[CTLawGuy]

53. the issue that killed Dean

was "electability"

That issue only exists in the primary, NOT in the general.

[Mark H]

60. If you recall

* was running ads against Dean when he was the frontrunner leading up to the Iowa primary. Dean is the man he was afraid of, and the media got rid of him for *.

[Orangepeel]

72. eh, maybe

but I don't agree. "Electable" just morphs into "presidential" when the general comes around.

I stand by my opinion. Any candidate who isn't strong enough to survive a primary wouldn't be able to survive a general election. Any candiate who can be taken out by the media in a primary can (and would) be taken out by the media in the general. Any candidate who could be destroyed by "the Democratic machine" could (and would) be taken out by "the republican machine" which is much more vicious and unfair.

[CTLawGuy]

82. no,

theres a distinction between "electable" and "presidential"

"electable" means "will other people vote for him? Enough so that we can beat the opponent?"

"presidential" means "does he possess the qualities necessary to be president".

[kerrygoddess]

26. The Kerry campaign was confident that they had Iowa

Members of the Kerry campaign was confident that they had Iowa in the bag in November. They flew under the radar and had it all shored up. Dean never knew what hit him!

[mdmc]

31. but Bush knew what to hit Kerry with

Dean got hit, then Kerry got beat...
Why they thought that they had Iowa is beyond me...

[Adelante]

74. This is absolutely true

It was amazing, almost miraculous, how the ground in Iowa was secured and the rest of us never noticed. Hats off to the Kerry campaign for this one. I keep waiting for the definitive history on the Iowa campaigns to be written. It will be not only fascinating, but instructive. Even folks who favor grassroots-type politics over more traditional forms have a lot to learn from the Kerry campaign's taking of Iowa.

:toast:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[marcologico]

62. Bingo! n/t

[Dover]

2. While I agree with Soros about Kerry being true to who he is......

I don't believe that's what lost him the election.

This was a fraudulent election....PERIOD! Gomer Pyle could have won against Bush if it were a fair election.

[Just Me]

3. '' Democrats need to counter ``a very effective conservative message,...

,...machine" Soros also stated.

Had we had a more effective, united communication structure, instead of the old-school DNC political mechanisms, Kerry may have done far better. Kerry listened to the wrong advisers.

[LittleClarkie]

28. He talked about modernizing today

and seemed to think Dean would be good in that role, or that's what I got out of the conversation.

Thank god Shrum went bye-bye.

Soros meant well, but I think what he's saying here is that Kerry got in the way of SOROS' message.

Sorry dude, but you weren't running. And some people didn't liek your message, or what they got to hear of it through the skewed media.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

5. I heard Soros speak last summer

He was wonderful. He is not a great public speaker but he had brilliant things to say, He is a humanitarian and had such deep understanding of the problems of the world and how they should be solved.
I agree with him about Kerry. I feel sorry for Kerry and for us, but I think Soros is right. Imagine giving 26 million personally, to a campaign and losing.

[TomClash]

7. What crap.

Billionaires think they know everything and Soros, much as I appreciate his assistance to the Democrats, is no exception.

Every candidate is flawed. Kerry was no exception.

Steve Rosenthal, who has forgotten more about plitics than George Soros will ever know, says it was the War that beat Kerry and he is correct - the country did not want to oust an incumbent President in the middle of a war. Kerry quite rightly said the same thing today.

Emphasizing an anti-Vietnam War past would have been weak. While the voters don't particularly care for the Iraq War, they don't want a President who is going to lose it either. No matter how right he was in his opposition to the Vietnam War, harping on that opposition would have reminded them that he advocated bailing out on that War and the Repugs would have morphed that into "cut and run" Kerry on the Iraq War. How would that help us win?

[blm]

9. Plus, the media was out to define ANY Democratic nominee as weak next to

Bush because they just spent the last 4 years lying about the bastard and keeping the fraud propped up as some sort of hero.

That's why they kept quiet on the fact that Bush refused to read the Hart-Rudman report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan.30, 2001.

Bush's failings were also indicative of THEIR own failings as journalists, so they kept mum and kept him propped.

[flpoljunkie]

35. A functioning media would have noticed Dubya was "nekid."

Alas, we don't have watchdogs, we have, with very few exceptions, cowardly lapdogs.

[JoshK]

10. Responses to points you raise --

While the voters don't particularly care for the Iraq War, they don't want a President who is going to lose it either...
- You omitted a possibility. There could have been a candidate arguing that the war itself was an enormous blunder -- in fact, a crime against humanity and a war crime -- so that the right thing to do would be to END IT IMMEDIATELY and bring the troops home. This would not have been "losing" the war.

It is possible that even a true antiwar candidate might have lost. However, this would just mean that a majority of voters do in fact support Bush. I personally think that a genuine high-integrity antiwar candidate would have inspired many voters, & probably would have won. This point of course can be argued. In any case, Kerry could not be that candidate.

...and the Repugs would have morphed that into "cut and run" Kerry on the Iraq War. How would that help us win?
- You are arguing purely at the level of campaign histrionics. If Kerry had had a deep and powerful conviction that the war was a crime & a monumnental blunder, it could not have been so lightly dismissed by a mere cloud of GOP campaign gas. The Republicans caught Kerry precisely on his weakness of pretending to be a little against how the war was managed, but basically supporting it. This couldn't have happened if his position was less fence-straddling & intrinsically feeble.

Essentially, Kerry himself was trying to finesse the system by being a little against the war, but still plenty for it. This signalled that he had no principled position. Once principles are no longer part of the fight, there's nothing left except campaign gas. And in this department, Republicans are much better than Democrats.

[TomClash]

14. Dennis Kucinich would not have won

You omitted a possibility. There could have been a candidate arguing that the war itself was an enormous blunder -- in fact, a crime against humanity and a war crime -- so that the right thing to do would be to END IT IMMEDIATELY and bring the troops home. This would not have been "losing" the war.

You're kidding. Every Islamic militant would be screaming "we drove the US out of Iraq" and they'd be right. We'd be handing the second largest oil reserves in the world to . . . who? This would be Somalia redux, but 100 times worse due to US oil interests in the region.

You are arguing purely at the level of campaign histrionics. If Kerry had had a deep and powerful conviction that the war was a crime & a monumnental blunder, it could not have been so lightly dismissed by a mere cloud of GOP campaign gas. The Republicans caught Kerry precisely on his weakness of pretending to be a little against how the war was managed, but basically supporting it. This couldn't have happened if his position was less fence-straddling & intrinsically feeble.

Campaign histrionics? Campaigns are about winning. That's it. The rest of it is horseshit. I've been involved in enough left-lib "principled" campaigns to know. Your position is essentially Dennis Kucinich's position. And how much of the Democratic vote did Denis Kucinich get?

Kerry's position was the best one that a Democratic candidate could take - and it was true, if the War were conducted better, we would have a better result, even though it's rationale was trumped up by Bush. He made a mistake by saying that he would have gone into Iraq even if he knew WMDs were not there. But no way the voters were going to vote for a candidate who called the US invasion a war crime and, by implication, American soldiers war criminals. Anti-War was not going to win - the strategic interests are much, much higher than they were in Vietnam and the voters know this.

[JoshK]

20. More responses to points you raise --

Dennis Kucinich had precisely the correct set of ideas, IMO. If he would not have won, it is only because Americans demand that a candidate be tall, married, usually wealthy, and distinguished-looking. I personally think that Kucinich's ideas and words, if magically transplanted to Kerry's body, would have won resoundingly. Of course, this is only speculation.

You are wrong that "no way voters were going to vote for a candidate who called the US invasion a war crime." It was the American public that finally forced an end to the Vietnam war, which was precisely the same type of thing. This need not have by implication meant calling American soldiers war criminals. Obviously, there is a difference between the soldiers and the war-policy makers; it would not be hard to make this distinction clear to people. (In fact, Kerry's own actual bio would have served as an example of this: he was well aware of the criminality of US govt policy in 1971, yet he himself served honorably in that conflict.) If he'd only had the guts to try it, he was unusually well-positioned to drive home this kind of point.

About the strategic interests being higher now & the public knowing it: the correct position would have been to explain that the invasion serves the interests of the oil and reconstruction corporations only -- even as it robs ordinary citizens who foot the bill for the whole thing, and sacrifice their children as cannon fodder for it. Ordinary Americans gain nothing from the invasion, and this point should have been hammered home relentlessly during the campaign.

[TomClash]

37. This analysis is inept

Kucinich lost because his positions, especially on the War, are not supported by a majority of the American people. His marriage status had little to do with it.

Iraq is not Vietnam. And Vietnam was not stopped by the will of the people - and even if it was they did not vote for McGovern or any other antiwar candidate - Nixon won in 68 and 72 with his policy of Vietnamization, or phased withdrawal, which lost the War.

You call Iraq a war crime and it will effectively be spun as an attack on the soldiers - no thanks, I'm not going down that road -it's the death of any candidate. I don't want to waste time and resources defending that.

I agree Big Oil and Defense contractors benefit from the War. It is also patently obvious that the American people benefit from having access to large supplies of oil reserves. Now, I would have flipped Saddam and I would have courted the Baathists even after the invasion; a better president might have done that. But in the summer and fall of 2004 those are irrelevant positions. The obvious retort is "ok where do you go from here?" Immediate withdrawal makes no sense from a campaign or policy perspective.

[JoshK]

38. By your logic, no candidate can ever oppose an immoral war.

You are essentially saying that no matter how criminal the war, the "opposition party" must always support it anyhow, for fear that their criticism might be spun as an attack on the soldiers. In your system of logic, there is no escape from this. By your logic, the opposition party ( = Dems) is not ever permitted to speak the truth. Instead, it must always collaborate with Republicans in lying to the public, and be seen as supporting the Republican war party. Don't you see where this leads?

The Democratic Party does indeed operate by your logic. This is why they are such spineless and contemptible losers.

[TomClash]

55. Spineless and Contemptible Losers?

You think elections are about always having the greatest principles.

I like politicians with conviction too, but elections are about winning. That's how you get to put those great principles into action.

Do you really think that Kerry would have won with an antiwar position? Tell me which antiwar candidate would have won? How and why? You can't make a convincing argument on this issue because there isn't one. The country wasn't going to support a candidate who was going to "cut and run." And 9/11 has a lot to do with that.

Spineless and Contemptible Losers? Kerry ran against an incumbent wartime President with a 4% economic growth rate and no serious third party candidate. Clinton won in '92 running against a recession postwar President with a strong fairly conservative third party challenger drawing votes from that President. Who got more votes?

The time to work on "principles" is now, not in the heat of an election campaign. We should be spreading the message everywhere - stop the Iran War before it starts, propose a national pensions system instead of social security "reform" (see Gene Sperling's proposal for starters) and so on.

[JoshK]

59. I don't think it's "always" about having the greatest principles, but

I do think that in this particular election, a war of utter criminality was being waged, & that if the Democratic Party was unable to stand up to courageously oppose it, it forfeits all claim to integrity. As the saying goes, "If not now, when?"

Tell me: where in the logic you've laid out here, is there room for an opposition party standing up to oppose a criminal war, by denouncing the lies on which it was based? You've laid out a scheme in which this is flatly & always impossible. The consequence can only be a submissive subordinate party that hangs its head docilely and accepts the role of helping the ruling party lie to the public. Nominating Kerry made the Democratic Party fully complicit in the crimes of the Iraq War.

I told you earlier that I believe Dennis Kucinich's ideas inside Kerry or Clark's body probably could have won. This is mere conjecture, & can be neither proven nor disproven.

Your description of the backdrop of the election is not adequately drawn. You can't just say "4% growth," because A) the average over Bush's 4 years is nothing close to that; and B) most other important economic measures are deteriorating. For example, there is net job loss, and the twin deficits are both exploding, with ominous implications well-recognized even by the conservative types who write for the Financial Times. Furthermore, growth itself does not necessarily benefit everyone in a society. It's an overall figure, and in our society the distribution of income is so skewed, that basically all the economic growth accrues to the top few percent of the population. {This kind of argument could have been potent for someone with the guts to use it -- ie, someone who thinks like Kucinich, and not like Kerry. (Even Gephardt, who was just as bad on the war as Kerry, might have made this kind of economic-populist point.)}

The fact that Kerry won a lot of votes is more a measure of how many Americans hate & fear Bush, than it is a credit to Kerry. It was widely said among Democrats before the election that even a ham sandwich could beat Bush. Well, as it turned out, they nominated a ham sandwich. And he did come within a few million votes of winning, despite the inadequacies Soros accurately describes.

Your last para is a real knee-slapper! You are basically saying that a presidential campaign is no time to be bringing up ultra-serious matters. The Iraq war is not just a matter of "principle" (in some ivory tower sense). It's a terribly practical matter -- large numbers of people being killed, an entire society (ours) being corrupted, and the very real risk of financial disaster (as even rightwing partisans like Baker & Scowcroft recognize). If the Dem Party can't tell the hard truth about a grotesque war like this during a presidential campaign, it simply means the party is a corrupt pack of submissive cowards & liars. Which with a few honorable exceptions, it is.

[TomClash]

70. You ignore several facts

1. By the time the Iowa caucuses were held, we were already in Iraq almost a year. Therefore, your only solution is immediate withdrawal, which few people support. Now why is that?

2. A political party interested in winning elections can stand up to oppose a "criminal war" when it makes a strong and convincing case that its solution, immediate withdrawal, is a viable option. No one ever made that case because it is a prety tough case to make. This is not some poli sci grad student exercise, you are asking the voters to elect you - and they expect you to ensure their security. Now tell me how immediate withdrawal does that.

3. Your economic analysis misses the point. That's not what the voters saw in late 2003 to late 2004. They didn't think the economy was bad and they saw it improving. I agree with your economic populist point - if Dems can't make this argument, what is the point of being a Dem? To me, this is the basis for future Democratic victories - and Montana is proof of that. But Kerry and Edwards made the class and inequities point time and time again - and still lost.

4. Your haughty response demonstrates you didn't understand my last paragraph. You don't build support for a position on "ultra-serious matters" by first articulating it during an election. You have to generate support for that position among the populace. And that means more than "we don't support this criminal war so let's go home." Leftists and Libs had to anticipate the possible consequences of withdrawal and describe how this would enhance the security of the United States. That wasn't done. Maybe it could have been - I don't know. But you didn't do it.

5. A ham sandwich could beat Bush? That's cute. But who was that ham sandwich? Hillary? She didn't run. Al Gore? He didn't run. Wes Clark? He won the Oklahoma primary. Wow. Howard Dean? He doesn't think he would have won and he's right. John Edwards? He didn't exactly energize the ticket - and he didn't carry his own neighborhood. I think you've mixed up baloney with ham.

6. Now it's my turn to slap a knee. I don't think Kucinich would have come close to winning even if he looked like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt.

7. A corrupt pack of submissive liars and cowards? Here's a flash: most Democratic politicians are not corrupt - they are practical. They compromise and trade off and do favors to get elected to push a part of their agenda through, just like everyone else. It's nice to be morally superior to everyone else, to fight the good fight for truth, justice and the American Way and then go down in flames. It's also irresponsible. A lot of people sat on their hands in 2000 because Gore wasn't good enough - and what happened? A lot of people worked for Anderson after Ted Kennedy lost to Carter in 1980 - and what happened? And if you think they are all corrupt, spineless, submissive cowards and liars, get off your ass and run for office, get involved, support good people and maybe you'll win. I hope you do.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

80. Brilliant points all.

However, keep this also in mind: what if you believed Saddam really posed a long time danger to us and the world, given the euphoria of the Qaeda camp after their 9/11 muscle-flex (thereby tempting Saddam to start working with them, even if he did personally detest them)? What if you thought that a Rethug pRez could pull off a massive scale invasion that remedying this would require, not the small-time affairs of our European excursions of the 90's? And what if you genuinely believed that going to the UN with a strong hand (ie Congressional authorization) and ordering the inspections could actually delay the process to possibly drill sense into both the chest-beating tyrants on either side of that conflict?

The strongest clue to finessing and acting out of political expediency is usually a shifting logic/rationale -- only when it is the true motivation (or if you are extra-ordinarily tone-deaf/disciplined) does the reasoning stay the same -- Kerry says that he would have liked to have had the authorization and therefore he gave it: he never once changed from that position; so I am more inclined to believe that his was, ultimately, the most principled stand. I think he really does believe that we needed to hold Saddam accountable at that time, but that it wasn't done right: there is nothing nuanced about this position, except that the stupid media claims it is.

On the other hand, Dean himself may have been a little opportunistic in his opposition to the IWR: he initially did say he would have voted for it; I am not sure exactly when his position changed but it was not until early in '03 that I heard that Dean was opposing the war.
As I recall, Gore was the first prominent Democrat to give a coherent response to Bush on the Iraq push, which in turn caused more Dems in Congress to get a spine to vote against it. Dean pumped up his volume (at best) only after that, if I remember right.

Dont get me wrong, I was (and am) a Dean supporter. Just asking you to look a little deeper...

[Cheswick2.0]

13. Rosenthal is wrong

We change Presidents during war all the time. The american people don't even believe in this war. I think they would be perfectly happy to cut and run if someone would give them that option. Kerry failed to do so and he is making excuses for why he lost.
He lost because people didn't know what he stood for and he gave no alternative to bush (not that people believed.)

[TomClash]

15. Then why didn't Kucinich get the nomiantion?

Go ask Dean if he would have won.

[no name no slogan]

84. He didn't have a billionaire wife, for one, ...

He also ran the campaign he could AFFORD to run. He did not borrow from wealthy relatives, or take contributions from big corporations. His largest organizational contributor was a union, IIRC, and then it was only a couple thousand dollars.

Also, unlike most of the other candidates, Kucinich paid off his campaign debt by the end of '04. IIRC Dennis didn't borrow more than five figures at the most to get his campaign going. The rest of his funds came directly from donations by individuals or small issue-oriented interest groups.

Not to mention the virtual blackout on his candidacy. There are studies from the period that show that Dennis got less coverage than ANY candidate, even Carol M-B. Why? Who knows. It probably has something to do with the fact that he was asking the hard questions and providing REAL alternatives to the problems that face this country, instead of campaign slogans and more warmed-over pap. No suprise when you consider the media hung on the very words of a lightweight like Edwards as if they were the next revelation.

He certainly didn't lose because of his platform. In fact, before the primaries started, over 60% of Democrats identified with his stands on the issues. In fact, 85% of the Delegates in Boston agreed with his plan for Iraq-- which was a gradual withdrawal over 6-12 months, not an "immediate" withdrawal as you claim upthread.

No, Dennis did not lose the primaries because of his stand on the issues. He lost because, once again, the Democrats were more worried about "electability"-- or, IOW, "what will the Repubs think of our candidate?"-- than about running a candidate of principals and conviction.

Call me back when you want to stop refighting the '04 primaries. Some of us have more important things to do....

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

85. What was the billionare wife doing that I haven't heard about

Where did money come from that can be traced to the billionare wife?

How did the billionare wife give more than any individual can?

Show me the money trail please. It's too easy to say "He had a billionare wife" as if that fact alone damns him. What did Teresa do that was untoward aside from the mere fact that she has money and lots of it?

IMO, Dennis wasn't in it to win it. He was there to make sure that certain issues remained prominent in the campaign. I think he knew he didn't have a chance. He was there as a voice, knowing he'd never have such a platform to speak otherwise. And for that alone I salute him.

[marcologico]

16. Right!! Kerry played a good game. He ran right to get the nomination,

center at the convention, and in the last two months, left to hold his base. He said this morning that 9/11 was the hurdle he couldn't get over, and fraud aside (another hurdle), he's probably right.

Bush screwed up BIG time by not bothering to tighten airport security when he should have and ironically, he got rewarded for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Kerry was weak on Iraq. He gave the issue to Bush by caving.

Instead of running against the mess in Iraq, he was forced, by his own vote, to come across as a nitpicking supporter of Bush's policies. Which he is still doing today.

[marcologico]

47. Tough issue to campaign on.

Get behind it and Nader screams. Denounce it and MSM, vets, South, Midwest, etc. scream. He did a good tightrope walk.

[TLM]

75. Tightrope walk?

Kerry gave up before the votes were even counted and refused to demand investigations into vote fraud.


The man never intended to win. Why else would he have 45 million left in his campaign war chest at election time?

Dean lost the primary because he had both the republican party and the democratic party gunning for him. And now we see what a pile of crap the whole issue of Kerry's electability was.

Face it, Kerry threw the fight for his frat brother, just like so many of us knew he would. We knew the fight was fixed when Kerry put more time and effort into attacking Dean than Bush... and when Kerry wouldn't stand up and defend himself against the swiftboat ads or strongly attack Bush for lying to the american people.

Do you recall him ever once standing up and saying that Bush LIED? No, he parsed words and said Bush mislead or misrepresented blah blah blah. He did not want to win, and he didn't.

[marcologico]

76. $14 mil, and it's that much less he'll need in three years. n/t

[TLM]

79. What, so he can lose again? He could spend NOTHING and do that.

That man ended HIS campaign with 45 million left, then gave some to the DNC and to other campaigns, and currently has about 15 million left.

Why didn't he spend that money on BEATING BUSH? WHy because he's a fraud who took a dive.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-17-kerry-nest-egg_x.htm

Kerry had roughly $45 million left in his primary campaign fund as of mid-October, according to his Federal Election Commission report, and could use that as seed money for another presidential bid.

His final report is not due until next month, but officials close to Kerry said he has $15 million to $17 million in that account, with no outstanding debts, after giving the DNC about $23 million and state parties about $9 million since the mid-October report.

[Democrat Dragon]

11. Waddaminit...Is Soros a businessman?

Cause if he is, then instead of just giving a butload of money, he should have lended some business and marketing strategists to the campaign or at least have them give advice.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Gotta love the finger pointing

Kerry had his failings.

Some people didn't like that Soros was trying to buy the election. Throwing money isn't always the answer. And Soros was part of the anti campaign that made some people defensive enough to support their candidate in a more strong way than they might have. Soros, in other words, was part of the "Dole-ing" of the candidate.

Don't try to support that which you don't support. The negativity doesn't help.

And to be fair, I think we can all go look in the mirror. Did I do everything I could have, and in the best way? No.

Did the media give Kerry a fair enough shake to get his message out. No.

And what about the rampant suppression and in some cases localized fraud (jury still out on wide scale fraud). Kerry started with a deficit, most likely. The other side had to play some pretty blatant dirty tricks to beat him, if indeed they did.

Or perhaps Soros was too far to the left for the rank and file voter. I'm not sure HIS openly anti-war stance swayed people who didn't already feel as he did.

And Kerry would mention his anti-war stance. He didn't hide it, but he didn't play it up either. I was surprised to even here him mention it sometimes right in the middle of the Swift crap.

If nothing else, we knew about it from the Smear vets. And what they considered a bad thing is the reason some of us rather like Kerry. "Going Upriver" is another example of how Kerry's stance wasn't hidden, and I don't know too many who walked away from that movie unmoved.

Unless you were a freeper, in which case I hear one or two mocked the band of brothers. Even as a woman, I think I would have decked that person.

Great huh? Street brawler girlie for peace.

[montana500]

27. Soros needs to put his money where his mouth is...

...and start buying up radio stations and tv stations across America.

[Contrary1]

29. Nah...all Soros really needs to buy

is Diebold.

[marcologico]

50. Damn good idea. If GOP types have one weakness, it's greed.

They'd sell their mothers if the price was right.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Repukes would just buy from another equally bad company

What we need is to pour money into Secretary of State races.

[BlueInRed]

33. Can you imagine a Bill Clinton campaign with Soros $ (in contrast to 04)

The thing is that the issues Kerry got hit on were exactly what I said they'd be (to friends) back in Dec 03. I know that every candidate had their weaknesses and problems; I'm the first to admit the GOP would attempt to smear EVERY candidate. That goes with the territory. But, just imagine for a minute a more articulate and personable candidate, like Bill Clinton, with that kind of big money to get his message out. A candidate like the Big Dog supported by Soros money would have wiped the floor with *, vote rigging notwithstanding.

It seems to me that the ability to articulately and consistently frame your message and to reach people personally are probably the most important attributes that will let you overcome the predictable GOP media attack machine.

I have my own opinions about which candidates would have stood up to the onslaught better, but rather than starting a flame war over that, it just seems that a messenger like the Big Dog with Soros money would have been unbeatable no matter how many machines they rigged. I took that to be the basic thing Soros was saying. JIMO.

[bklyncowgirl]

34. All candidates are flawed candidates.

What Bush had going for him was a tightly controlled message and a media that was primed to carry it for him. He was also to use any means at his disposal to win.

The Republicans have been at this for years.

Democrats have to develop the ability to get the message across that the Republicans have. That means developing spokespeople, talk radio and tv hosts.

Will they do it? Probably not. As long as we keep deluding ourselves that next time we'll get a better candidate, without making the sort of changes necessary, we will continue to lose and that will be tragic for the country.

[DemDogs]

36. True enough

But even those of us who worked hard to get Kerry elected got frustrated that he didn't take control and insist that he be accurately described. Whether Soros has it exactly right or not doesn't really matter, except maybe for 2008.

[zulchzulu]

40. Soros could have helped out a little with the Swifty bullshit...but...

...he decided to go the over-the-edge route with MoveOn ads that were already painted firmly as "Bush is Hitler" ads, hence giving them no meaning...I know the drill about the MoveOn contest and how it was only a contestant thingie, but Soros could have spent some loose change on exposing the Swifties in multiple ads when the Kerry campaign counld not spend money (the entire month of August).

Soros doesn't get it. But hey, keep spending the money on AAR...but a fucking TV channel, dude!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Kerry could have helped with the swiftboob bunch..but..

He decided to run as a war-hero instead of being an anti-war hero. He made himself a large target by strutting his medals.

[marcologico]

48. He'd have been a bigger target if he'd talked sense. Welcome to America.

"We support our boys and girls" etc etc etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. So, he played the BS card and lost.

He gave up the one issue that Bush was weakest on. Not even good politics..let alone ethics.

[marcologico]

52. Except that it's also the issue Bush WON on, don't forget -- 9/11

and his "strong response" to it. Like it or not, that's what people believe, and that's the field Kerry was playing on.

[zulchzulu]

56. So being the "anti-war hero" thing in a time of war would've been better

THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING REASON WHY MOST OF THE SWIFTIES ATTACKED KERRY...

Soros misses the point and is off the mark.

[sampsonblk]

46. Isn't this an outrage?

You are blaming the people who helped, because they should have helped more???

An average campaign would have been enough to defeat an unpopular president. Bush's campaign wasn't even conducted that well. And John Kerry had boatloads of people and groups out there trying to get him over the hump.

But Kerry was so bad, not even that was enough.

[LittleClarkie]

65. Was that your attitude during the campaign?

That he was "so bad"? How did you campaign for someone you considered "so bad"?

I'm blaming everyone. Me, you, Soros, Kerry. No fair excluding oneself and just pointing a finger at the candidate.

If Kerry lost, and I'm not convinced, then it wasn't for lack of trying. But in some cases, it was the wrong kind of help. It was negative help, not positive.

And I think that you are underestimating Bush's popularity among the freepers. He is unpopular to us, but then our vote was never in question. Some of the freepers around here just love the damn fool. God knows why.

I think Bush's numbers have been sinking since the election because, unlike during the election when he waved his little flag and shouted "9/11!" the electorate is actually getting a gander at his agenda. And it's scaring the peepers out of some of them. Others love the idea of privatizing social security, because they think they can invest it well.

Kerry indeed had a boat load of people. And if he did lose, those who were trying to help who didn't really believe in Kerry, but instead campaigned against Bush, have learned a valuable lesson. Negative campaigning doesn't work so well. It makes the other side defensive. It also doesn't give a reason why a person should vote FOR our candidate. Sometimes the devil you know, and all that crap.

You DOLE-D my candidate. Damn you. Damn you all to hell! (/clinteastwood)
Oh great, now I'm picturing Kerry buried up to his chest in sand on a beach somewhere. Makes sense in a way. After all, we DO have an ape overlord, don't we?

[LittleClarkie]

66. He and moveon.org were doing their own thing really

and in a way were conducting a parallel campaign. I know they couldn't coordinate, but a few days into August and anyone could see there was a problem that needed a response if they cared to cough one up real quick.

That's the trouble with an ABB campaign though. It gives you a hundred reasons not to vote for somebody, and almost no reasons why you should vote FOR the other guy. I don't think the negativity helped. And they were over the top for most voters who don't know what we know.

So it muddied the message of a campaign already having message problems.

This whole campaign, what with ACT and Moveon and the 527's was a wapatuli cluster fuck. What an utter bloody shambles. I hope we never see such a mess again.

But I still maintain that more than one person needs to look in the mirror and take their fair share of the responsibility for that blame. It just seems arrogant to me for someone to say "Well, I know I was right. So it must have been the candidate's fault." Sorry Soros, not everyone sees it your way. But then that's democracy for ya, sorta, when it's workin' that is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Soros is right. Kerry ran away from the issues that mattered.

Kerry tried to run a "tough on defense" campaign by flaunting his "hero" image. It only made him look hypocritical and weak. Which is actually true.

[marcologico]

49. Wrong, he won the primaries and half the country in the GE.

Playing the protester would have left him in the cornfields with Dean.

[CTLawGuy]

54. no, he

won less than half the country, that's why he's not in the white house.

His strategy of "I served in Vietnam, and by the way, I'm not Bush," was awful.

[TLM]

77. Wrong... can't win anything when you take a dive.

And Kerry took a dive big time.


He ran as Bush-lite, and we see time and time again when voters have a choice between a republican and a dem acting like a republican, they pick the republican. All Kerry had to do was hammer that Bush lied about the war and now our boys are dying in the sands of Iraq for a lie... stress that he had been in combat and knew what it was like to be sent into combat based on some politician's lie and our boys deserve better... etc.

THAT was Kerry's strongest position and he never used it. He never put Bush on the defensive about his qualifications as a war prsident... in fact, he backed them up time and time again. Kerry is not a stupid man, so I can only figure that he wanted to lose. He took a dive.

I knew this is what would happen before the primary... which is why I supported Dean, who presented a real alternative to Bush. Kerry supported 95% of Bush's policy, then turned around and opposed it come election time. People saw him as dishonest and two-face and they were right.

[karynnj]

81. The idea that Kerry didn't want to win is ridiculous

Anyone who watched the various rallies and events that Kerry did, saw that he worked extremely hard to win for at least a year and a half. He had to know going in, that the Republicans and their allies would attempt to destroy him, just as Nixon tried to. I think he was very sincere when he said this was the most important election of our lifetimes and talked about the need for the US to be respected in the world again.

Kerry did not "support 95% of Bush's policy". As far as being two faced and dishonest, I think there's a MUCH better case to make for the argument that he is more of a statesman than a politician who goes with what is popular.

Kerry running to be the person who would lead the war needed to deal more with what would he do - and his position on that was clear and consistent (from last spring to last Sunday) When he did say things like "wrong war, etc" and talking about taking the country to war only as a last resort, these comments were thrown back as how can you lead a war you think is wrong. I really don't think that a stronger anti-war statement would have increased his votes. What's interesting is the moderate Republicans who since the election have proposed the same path to getting out as Kerry (without crediting him).

Kerry's view of war and diplomacy is known for an incredibly long time period - his entire adulthood. I can't think of anyone else who is on record for that length of time. His view over that time is actually very consistent considering that this is nearly 40 years.
Ironically, his war and antiwar experiences coupled with his intellectual and moral honesty in questioning what happened in Vietnam, probably made it harder for him to talk about Iraq in black and white terms.

Kerry lost. Anyone who watched his concession could see that he was devastated and that he felt he had let people down. Trying to identify how Kerry could have won is fair and productive, thrashing him because he lost is unkind and counter productive. Since the election, Kerry has used his Senate position, his visibility and his intelligence to try to be one of the Democratic voices against Bush. If he is doing things we agree with, we should strongly support him. The more successful he (and others are), the better off the party will be. (Signing his petitions and pushing ideas (if you agree), does not mean that you support him in 2008 - it may strengthen a good Democratic voice that will ultimately help whoever does run.)

[TLM]

83. wanting to win and TRYING to win are two different things.

Kerry did a good job of going through the motions. But when two guys are fighting and one just stands there taking punches without fighting back... that's called taking a dive.

And Kerry voted for the no child left behind crap, the war, patriot act etc. He attacked Dean for opposing the war and wanting to get rid of W's tax cuts.

Then he flip floped and was against the war he voted for and attacked Dean for opposing. People did not trust Kerry because he changed positions with the wind... as soon as he saw the support Dean was getting.

[karynnj]

86. I think he tried

Not voting as YOU think he should does not mean that he didn't try.
- The NCLB was a Kennedy bill and it's ideas are not bad, its funding and its implementation have been disastrous -but it was considered a good bipartisan bill when it was enacted
- The Patriot act contained some bad provisions which Kerry (and many others Democrats, conservatives and Libertarians) want changed, but it contained some important features including some provisions to track terrorist money that Kerry had proposed and fought for since his BCCI days. It was a bill that was done too quickly in a time of panic, but only Feingold voted against it.
- Kerry explained his IWR vote a million times - in the summer of 2002 when the first hints of the war surfaced, Kerry and others argued against a unilateral war without approval of Congress. The IWR resolution was argued as needed as leverage for the UN effort. Kerry explained his vote on the Senate floor, but no matter how he voted he would not have been able to stop Bush.


In terms of fighting back, did you notice that we had little of the media on our side. The only unfiltered exposure Kerry got was the convention (with 3 hours of network coverage rather than the 9 of recent years) and the debates where he blew Bush away! Even a few years ago, Kerry providing ample proof of his own record, their lying and the connection to the Rep, would have caused the whole thing to backfire on the Republicans. (Note how sanctimonious the media was about the "unfairness" of Dan Rather.(A basically true story, good circumstantial backup, questionable documents (TANG) vs obvious falsehoods that contradicted official records). Imagine if your own (beyond question) documents were questioned - Did you really get mostly A's in your major - well, this guy sat next to you and he says you never got above a C - you must have somehow changed the record? prove you had good grades, 30 years later - Although people could question the relevance of Kerry's war record or his anti-war activities, but what was done (and supported by cable and radio) was well beyond the pale -

For Kerry, this is the second time that people associated with the administration in power has tried to completely destroy his reputation. What's amazing to me is that he is still working to try to make this country and the world better. (With the connections, education and intelligence he had, he could have simply decided the US wasn't worth it in 1972 and moved with his wife to Europe, where both had connections. His desire to serve this country is inspiring.)
Kerry is on our side and he seems to have been a good person for the last 30 or so years, so even if you think that he would be the worst choice for 2008 there is no reason for the left wing to attack him. (The right seems to still be attacking him so he must be doing something right.)

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[sampsonblk]

44. Duh! This isn't even news, is it?

This stuff is obvious.

[sarahlee]

45. Gotta say

I agree with Soros.

[zulchzulu]

58. Soros has the money but not the political foresight

The reason many of the Swift Boat Assholes went after Kerry was not his war record, but the fact that he was against the war after he came back. From this fact, you can see that Soros' opinion is a house of cards.

Had Kerry played the "anti-war" candidate (which he was if you really do your homework and looked at his full record and reasoning with the IWR-Let the UN do its job and go in Iraq as last resort with much larger UN force), he would have played right into Rove's hand with the war, which was somewhat popular at the time with most polls.

The Swift Boat Assholes and Karl Rove knew that the Kerry campaign was going to have to sit out August to save limited funds until after the GOP convention. Anyone who has done their homework knows that.

That's when Rove, the White House and the SWVFT launched their ads and did interviews for the willing right-leaning media. Nearly all of the energy these people bestowed was based on Kerry being a anti-war candidate during the Viet Nam war and even used Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War as a reason he shouldn't be President.

If you look at Soros' assessment, it show he didn't do his homework and (while it's great he's throwing money around for left causes), he's full of shit.

But hey George, keep the money comin'.

Granted, there is life outside most of DU's members whose small and fringe interpretation of Kerry's record and the war are pretty tiny to the electorate.

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

61. Everybody's Got a Theory, Who But Kerry Really Had A Shot at Winning? n/t

[whirlygigspin]

64. lessons for next time

remember to pay the press for positive stories, cause damn it they work so hard...it's just nice to be appreciated.

and

Elect someone like Swartzennegger,
who cares about policy?, he's so popular!
and we won't have to deal with any of that ickky serious stuff.

...so remember Sorros --just give your money directly to the press next time and pick someone like George Clooney, he's so handsome!

Add some pretty blond cheerleaders to back it all up and bam!

The all America winner

It may be vapid & superficial, but it works.

yours, Monica

[CWebster]

67. True

Kerry is a loser.

[IndianaGreen]

68. I will say that it was Soros's money that corrupted the process

Kerry did not have a financial interest in toppling the Yugoslav government as George Soros did, so whatever policy disagreements I may have with Kerry (and they were many), they cannot compare to the sleaze of Soros.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Is there any evidence that Kerry changed ANY of his policy positions

due to Soros dumping money into the anti-Bush movement?

[theboss]

78. Some good points, but I still don't fully trust Soros

Any mult-billionaire trying to influence the political process concerns me, whether he is a "liberal" or not.