Could any of the other candidates have done better than Kerry?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Could any of the other candidates have done better than Kerry?

And if you can't prove it, you have to admit it here! There better be as many proofs (and I mean proof, as in polls, not just "people really wanted blah blah...") as there are votes for choice #2!

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Dean was purposely assassinated by the media.

[LoZoccolo]

3. It was much better than /Cats/.

I'm going to see it again and again.

[LittleClarkie]

28. Yes. It was much better than /Cats/

I'm going to see it again and again.

[AndyTiedye]

16. Kerry Didn't Lose. WE GOT ROBBED AGAIN!

Remember how all the exit polls and everything were going our way,
and then they showed that wretched shot of the Boosh family sitting
around the fire -- didn't even bother with any sound this time --
and then the numbers all started changing.


"committed to helping to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio to the President"
Walden O'Dell, C.E.O. Diebold Corporation

At least with Kerry, they had to steal it. He was probably the only
candidate who could have put up as much of a fight as he did. Dean
sounds like a figher, but the media was able to utterly destroy his
candidacy overnight. All they were able to to Kerry was to keep it
close enough to make the eventual theft of the election credible.

[cestpaspossible]

2. Although my natural tendency is to vote no

I would prefer to vote: "I don't know"

[LoZoccolo]

4. I will add that. n/t

[Rooktoven]

5. Edwards, Dean or Clark...

Pretty much in that order, too.

[blm]

35. Because the media wouldn't have edited out ANY of their speeches

and the media would never allow Rove's attack on them to get more airtime than the issues.

And there would be no Doctors United for Truth about Lawyers, Vietnam-era Ski Lift Operators for Truth, or Generals and Commanders for Truth.

Face it...with the GOP controlling most of the broadcast media and most of the voting machines, there is no way any Dem campaign can be heard. ALL of the primary candidates, including your picks, were defined and taken downat times by the media'a distortions of them or by the media ignoring their campaign message.

Kerry was the only one who pulled through, even with a media declaring his candidacy dead for months to try to end his candidacy. The only time Kerry could get past the media was by winning all the debates so decisively that the media couldn't figure out a way to spin them as wins for Bush. Could you guarantee that anyone else would have been able to do the same in all three and with the media ready to exaggerate any mistake they made?

If we don't deal with the media and voting machine issues now, 2006 and 2008 will be no different.

Four Star General Jesus Christ could run and the media would help the GOP define him as a cowardly wimp with no values who wears flip-flops.

[politicasista]

40. Amen blm

:yourock:

[AntiCoup2K4]

52. Oh YEAHHHHHH

[AP]

43. I (obviously) would have liked my chances with Edwards.

Say they did attack him for being a lawyer, what do you think is more harmful to Democrats? A couple month-long reflection on the state of health care in America and about the proper role of a lawyer in a system which causes misery for people when insurance companies don't want to pay for the obvious harm their doctors cause to regular people? Or a months long debate on what kind of soldier is a good soldier?

So, that would have been fantastic, if you ask me.

However, Edwards's biggest weakness wasn't his earlier profession. It was the fact that he was so green. But even that could have been made a strength.

Hope and a focus on people's concernes about class and opportunity were the Democrat's biggest opportunity to upset Bush, and I don't think Kerry did either of those things better than Edwards.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Oh, and do not forget that Kerry actually *won*.

[Goldmund]

25. No he didn't.

Bush is in the White House. Period.

Even if he did get more votes, he did not win.

[1956]

27. You are misinformed or just?

stubborn

[Goldmund]

29. misinformed, stupid, bigoted, ignorant, racist,

and my momma's fat too.

[StudentOfDarrow]

33. Is anyone here calling you rascist?

n/t

[Goldmund]

34. Christ, some people are so fucking literal!

[StudentOfDarrow]

42. No, some people are too sensitive.

"Misinformed" is very, very separate from "bigoted" and "racist."

[Goldmund]

47. And so is having a fat momma.

[StudentOfDarrow]

48. Yes, it is.

I didn't feel the need to individually mention each adjective.

[Goldmund]

49. You're being literal again.

[StudentOfDarrow]

50. I'm a rather literal person.

[Goldmund]

51. I'm not --

so that's why we have this Communication Breakdown (it's always the saaaame)

[Ichiro]

67. Hey, you two, get a room. nt

:popcorn:

[Clark2008]

78. I love Led Zep!

And I got the joke above, too!

I'm two for two!

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

7. Yeah, the 1970s Kerry could have done better than the current Kerry,

and not at all because of the difference in their ages. But I can't prove it.

[wyldwolf]

46. Hey, I agree -- but only if it were 1974 and not 2004

[RogueTrooper]

8. This is a foolish post

sorry, but this is just an incitement too bad blood. There is no way to prove that another candidate could do anybetter. Even the production of "evidence" would be nothing more than window dressing speculation.

The entire federal Democratic strategy was wrong in 2004. The fault with John Kerry was that he was a creature of the establishment.

[LoZoccolo]

9. I am sick and tired of people saying...

...that they know another candidate could have done better, when they do not know, and thus opening old wounds. I am actually trying to end all that with this.

[Goldmund]

19. I agree.

I voted "I don't know". And I would love all the "I can prove it" votes to post those proofs and follow them up by a big "Q.E.D.".

[LoZoccolo]

22. They are the irrational wing of the Democratic Party.

"I can prove it, but I cannot prove it. Weeee hoo hoo hoo hoo! Weeee-ooooh! Wah ha ha ha ha! Yip yip yip yip yipeeeeeeee!"

:crazy:

Proof again that we should be cautious of how seriously we take certain posters on DU.

[Lexingtonian]

26. they never do explain

the exit interviews and exit polling of swing voters.

I've tried, and all I ever get is conspiracy theory theory assertions about voting machine fraud.

Or black-is-white assertions that running Dean would have won, contradicting the exit interviews saying that the Dean faction is why swing voters didn't want Democrats to rule.

[TheFarseer]

10. I think Bob Kerry would have done better than John Kerry

seriously. He wasn't even the best Kerry for the job.

[goodhue]

30. Kerrey

Bob Kerrey is Kerrey, not Kerry

[second edition]

11. This poll is nonsense!

It's all speculation and done to inflame people. The BEST candidate and most electable candidate won in the primaries and that was john Kerry. Now can we stop going back wards and try to move ahead to 2006 and 2008.

[LoZoccolo]

13. The purpose of this poll is not to tear down Kerry.

It's to show that people who think someone else could have done better really don't have any reason to say that (including the five so far who say they can prove it but still can't).

[Selatius]

12. It's over. There's no point in rehashing lost battles.

These "what if" games are nice, but it won't change the past. We can only ask questions and wonder, but that's it. What is important now is what happens today and what will happen tomorrow. Gotta keep looking forward, not backward.

If you don't like the way candidates are chosen, then the answer might be to reform the Democratic primary system so that it isn't so front-loaded in Iowa. Have regional primaries or some other alternative.

[LoZoccolo]

14. I agree.

And that is the point of this poll.

[GreenArrow]

15. Kerry was the best candidate.

He wasn't my choice, but I voted for him. I believe that he probably won. The best VP candidate would have been Clark. Together, they would have made an unbeatable ticket, even with cheating factored in.

[Mass]

17. No comment on the poll but this comment by Pariser is interesting.

My no comment on the poll comes from the fact that, of course we can always imagine that somebody else would have done better, but how can we know that (we know what happened, but cannot know what could have happened).

However, I think this comment by Eli Pariser (Moveon) is interesting. He recognizes that, besides whatever errors the campaign may have done, there were real issues in the daily life of the forces that were behind this campaign (and this problem would have been the same). This is exactly what people like him and Dean are trying to do and this type of handwringing does not help solving that.

What is important is defining a platform to fight for (that will be inclusive without abandonning our principles), regroup the grassroots, and after that the candidate that should run in 2008 should come more clearly. Let's continue on the road we are now (infighting and abandon of principles) and we are sure to have 4 more years of Bush.

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/05/09/eli_pariser/index.html

So would you be happy to just replay the Democrats' 2004 campaign against a different Republican at a time when we're not three years out from 9/11 and in the middle of a war in Iraq?

I'm a little tired of the hypothetical -- I don't know what the right word is -- agonizing, hand-wringing over what we should or shouldn't have done. When I woke up on Nov. 3, the feeling that I had was that while it was a real blow, it was also a moment of extraordinary opportunity to get some of the things right that the campaign showed were wrong. One of those things is that Kerry not only had to cobble together a presidential campaign but actually make the ideas for that campaign, all in the space of the six months leading up to the election.

All while under attack from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Exactly -- while responding to the president's punishing assault. I think he may have done the best job he could given what he had to start with. The opportunity we have now is to recognize that there's an infrastructure that needs to be built, a movement that needs to be fed and nourished and tended to that will ensure that whoever is the candidate in 2008 or 2012 doesn't end up in that same predicament.

[Imagine My Surprise]

18. Christ-on-a-cross-YES!

While I blame the "choices" on the dickweeds at DNC, Kerry could not have possibly paid Karl Rove to sabatoge a more beleagured campaign. I can't be the only mega-leftist progressive who feels this way. It was damn difficult trying to explain the difference between Bush adn Kerry when Kerry gave him yes on all important senate votes.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Which one did you vote for?

Number two, or number three?

[Imagine My Surprise]

23. Kerry...

and I'm sure my "don't blame me I voted for Kerry" bumper sticker will only improve with age.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Which one did you vote for?

Number two or number three?

[Imagine My Surprise]

20. PS

within context of the fact that I DO believe Kerry was robbed, I still stand by my earlier comments.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

31. Clark was my first choice.

If he had passed the primaries...who knows? But I can't prove it.

[Warpy]

32. Not if he were cursed by DLC handlers that were

inflicted upon him by a party that was stupid enough to think that a group that lost all 3 branches of government was going to win anything.

[dhinojosa]

36. How long ago were the primaries anyways? Can we move on?

A majority of Democrats voted him in. What do you want?

[LoZoccolo]

37. I want what you want.

Read some of my replies.

[robbedvoter]

38. Kerry won - so stupid question. But, yes, a few of them.

[politicasista]

39. We need to stop this hindsight mess

You guys got your wish. Hindsight is 20/20. Can we please stop fighting the primary wars? We have a criminal-in-chief to fight. Worry about 2006. At the rate that * is going, whomever wins the nomination (and hopefully the presidency) is going to have a massive, I mean MASSIVE mess to clean up once * leaves office. I am going to keep saying this regardless of what happens.

Enough already.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Yes, we do.

That's why I started this poll.

[dkofos]

44. Dean would have done better

To bad he pissed off the MSM

[LoZoccolo]

45. Which one did you vote for?

Number two or number three?

Not that it makes a difference.

[dogman]

53. He didn't piss off the MSM.

They pissed on him just like they ended up doing on Kerry and would have done on any DEM. They are corporate. They are part of the corporate fascists that have taken control of this country.

[kevsand]

54. There's no possible way to "prove" it.

I have opinions about how it could have gone with someone else, and suspicions that someone else may have been better, but there's no way I could ever actually prove them. Given that fact, it's pointless to spend much time on it, and you are absolutely right to say so. The best we could ever hope for is to try to identify possible mistakes, in order to avoid them next time.

OTOH, there are days when I think I could have done better than Kerry, but then I have an ego the size of a water buffalo...

[question everything]

55. Yes, anyone who was associated with the Clinton 1992 campaign

where each and every smear - true or imagined - was immediately rebutted.

[karynnj]

57. Clinton did not encounter anything like the vicious multi part

smears that Kerry was hit with. Clinton was sequentially hit with several bombs, which he defused sometimes just with charm. The press, by and large, strongly supported him. Also, most of the bombs were based on real problems (though inflated and distorted). When you know what's in your past, you can have explanations on the self that put it in the best light.

The main attacks on Kerry were on his bonafide status as a war hero - all the historical records were on Kerry's side as was the fact that Nixon looked at Kerry's past to smear him (when this his naval career was recent) and found him "sqeaky clean". Still the media balanced charges by people, some with very questionable backgrounds, and the navy records as equivilent. (using the criteria that would have been used in 1992, the media would have challanged the accusers to prove their charges.)

Once he was known as a star of the anti-war movement, he was followed by the FBI which after more than a year following him and bugging his phone, they recommended stopping surveilance because he had done nothing wrong and did not appear likely to do anything wrong.

[PresidentObama]

56. Why are we looking back?

First off one of you Deaniacs said the media assassinated Dean. Well, yeah, but the media did the same thing to Kerry from day one. They only picked up on Kerry when he started to look like the nominee. The media ruined a lot of Kerry's momentum. The swifties were no bodies before the media picked up on them.

I don't think you argue Dean would have done a better job when he couldn't control himself, and make it past round one and get the nomination. John Kerry got more votes then Clinton in '92 and 96', raised more money then any candidate in history, and energized our party. He lost to a incumbent during war time by ONE state. ONE state. Bush won with the narrowest electoral margin in the history of incumbents running for re-election. To say John Kerry didn't do a good job, and then bashing him is tremendously unfair. Kerry did a fine job, and if he wants to run again in 2008. Fine! But don't look back, look forward.

We should be looking forward. Kerry lost guys. Maybe he was cheated. Maybe in your opinion he wasn't the best candidate for whatever reason. But we need to focus on 2006 before we look forward to 2008, and look back at 2004.

[GetTheRightVote]

58. The election was rigged, * stole it this time around, hacking, etc.

suppression, oppression, etc.

Many were not allowed to vote and many more had their vote stolen on them. We did not have a fair election and the wrong guy is sitting in the WH in DC.

:kick:

[StephanieMarie]

59. the vote was stolen, remember? It didn't matter who ran against the shrub

[LoZoccolo]

60. 17 people said they can prove it, but didn't.

Like, wouldn't they want people to know the proof? There are a lot of people who agree with them but just don't have any proof...wouldn't the people who have it want to give it to the people who don't have it?

The people with proof would become the majority then, and you'd think they'd want that.

Pathetic.

[demwing]

61. Yes, no proof. BTW - KERRY could have done better than Kerry.

I don't think he ran a bad campaign - but I wish he had a taste for blood and had just cut Bush to ribbons. After the first debate it should have been over and done. Stick a fork in Bush, he was cooked.

But we seemed to have backed off a bit. Kerry should have used that debate performance to destroy his opponent.

Monday morning quarterbacking at this point...

[kerrygoddess]

62. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - The Disinformation Society

“No matter who the Democratic nominee was, this machinery had the capacity to discredit and destroy him.” - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - The Disinformation Society (May issue of Vanity Fair) - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=874

People need to understand the Republican Noise Machine and what the media has been doing.

No one, no one would have done better than Kerry.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

“Every Wednesday morning the leaders of 80 conservative organizations meet in Washington in Norquist’s boardroom. This radical cabal formulates policy with the Republican National Committee and the White House, developing talking points that go out to the conservative media via a sophisticated fax tree. Soon, millions of Americans are hearing the same message from cable mews commentators and thousands of talk jocks across America. Their precisely crafted message and language then percolate through the mainstream media to form the underlying assumptions of our national debate.”

“This meeting has now grown to include more than 120 participants, including industry lobbyists and representatives of conservative media outlets such as The Washington Times and the National Review. According to Brock, columnist Bob Novak sends a researcher. The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan may attend in person. The lockstep coordination among right-wing political operatives and the press is new in American politics.”

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=874

[NAO]

63. The Electoral Shock Troops of the Rabid Religious Reich do not listen...

to speeches nor do they read books or examine the issues with an open mind.

These "values voters" are told who to vote for and how to think by the Radical Clerics of their American Taliban Cells.

Kerry could have run the best campaign ever, and it would not have mattered one little bit.

[NAO]

64. There were few if any "swing voters" - polarized electorate voted party

The American electorate is so polarized right now candidates and campaigns don't matter much.

The Republicans could run a drunken, spoiled idiot frat boy and a sneering evil old man, and then conducted the most negative campaign in history, and they would have gotten the same number of votes. They could have run Mr. Potatoe Head, and if he had an (R) behind his name, the election would have come out the same.

Kerry was a fantastic candidate, his campaign staff was mediocre to poor, but it did not matter one little bit - his campaign could have been run 100 times worse and he still would have gotten the same number of votes...or it could have been run better and he would have gotten the same number of votes. The Democrats could have run FDR with JFK as the VP candidate, or they could have run Barney the Dinosaur (D) and the election would have come out the same.

I feel very cynical about the American electorate...like it says in the Bible, "Nobody ever went broke (or lost an election) by misunderestimating the intelligence of the average person."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. No.

Kerry did far better than I had thought possible, and came within an ace of winning. He lost because of one tactical error (which is only visible as such with hindsight) and one stand on principal (with which I wholly agree).

With hindsight, he should have stamped down on the SVfTers faster and harder, but at the time I thought his strategy of rising above them was probably the best one; I don't think it was possible to presdict quite how far they'd go.

The main problem, however, was that post 9-11 America was not going to elect any president who was perceived as being "Soft on Abroad". George Bush's foreign policy has always been "screw the rest of the world", and this suited him to a tee. Kerry admirably refused to talk about Abroad in sufficiently contemptuous tones, and this was what made it impossible for him to win.

Any Democratic candidate who had taken the same stance would have lost for the same reason, by a larger margin than Kerry, whose past as a war hero made it harder for the Republicans to play that card.

[fujiyama]

66. I love the "I can prove it" option

Anyone that voted for that must have some sort of alternate reality/psychic power....Either that or they're an idiot.

Who the hell knows if another could have done better? 2004 is old news. I'm pissed the war criminal monkey is back in, but we have to move on (atleast in terms of the bitterness). There are certainly lessons to be learned, but this "my candidate could have won" nonsense has to stop.

Our priorities should be election reform (whether Kerry actually won, I do not know, but I do know I don't have confidence in the system), judicial nominees, and '06.

[PresidentObama]

68. Amen

Agreed.

Stop focusing on 2004. All the election woes aren't John Kerry's fault so stop the bashing, and move on. If you wish to oppose him in 2008, fine.

[ChiciB1]

69. I Voted Don't Know...

I'm one of those who still think the election was "rigged"! Gore Vidal just came out with a book about Ohio and in it he has a lot of information pointing to corruption.

When you think about it, Blackwell was head of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign it makes perfect sense. Then think about the fact that here in my state of Florida, and my NOW representative Katherine Harris, was part of the election of George Bush in 2000, it's hard to believe there was any fairness at all. The coincidences are too obvious, but has anyone ever gotten anyone to open this whole thing up??? Not really!

Last night on Bill Maher, I think it was Al Franker who said "if they really won fair and square, it would seem that they would put it all out there". This makes a lot of sense. But no, this has been locked up tighter than Ft. Knox!

And just look how they are screwing us now!!

[NYCGirl]

70. BTW, Gore Vidal did not write a book. That's John Conyer's report;

Gore Vidal wrote the foreward.

And Franken, after stating that they "won dirty" said, "If they were planning to win clean, they would have insisted on a paper trail." (Just finished watching it from the TiVo — such a good show, I've not yet deleted it.)

[ChiciB1]

73. Thanks For The Correction...

I was just trying to get the "gist" of the story. I've been away for a while and just assumed it was Vidal, however I do recall hearing that Conyers had a book.

So... I just posted a thread about Franken. Do you know what he was talking about when he referred to Santorum??

[NYCGirl]

75. No problem. I just watched it off the TiVo a few minutes ago,

so it was still very fresh in my mind.

As for the Santorum bit, basically, it was a joke. There's no sexual dirt on Santorum (yet), except for that statment he made a while back comparing homosexuality to "man on dog sex" (Santorum's phrase). So the joke was just riffing on that statement.

[ChiciB1]

76. Yeah... I Got The Info Now...

but missed his quote. Someone has to kick this guy out!

[IndianaGreen]

71. Ted Kennedy would have done better had he run

Ted didn't waffle on the war!

I still think Kerry carried Ohio and that there was massive voting fraud. As long as the GOP counts the votes, Democrats will continue to "lose" elections.

[kodi]

72. yes i do. i think wes clark would have done better.

and i would like to point out that the originatror of this thread is using standard right wing freeper debating tactics in his demand for the type of such "proof."

kerry did not respond to right wing attacks as wes clark did when he was attacked by the right wing. had clark been the nominee he would have attacked back and not let up until the original attackers were bloodied and on the run.

clark has gone eyeball to eyeball with worse than bush in having to deal with milosovich and had experience with bullying tactics and mendacity from his opponents. he knew that the only way to deal with such people is head-on and not let up the pressure on them.

clark would have gone for the jugular immediately and he understood clearly what was neceassry to best his foes.

btw: i was a john edwards supporter in spring 2004, but upon reflection, it would have been better to have supported wes clark.

[Clark2008]

79. Bravo!

I couldn't have said it better had I typed it myself!

:bounce:

[LoZoccolo]

82. Demanding proof is a right-wing FReeper tactic??!! BA HA HA HA HA!

Yes, supporters of Bush*'s own party still held him to their standard of proof when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!

Bush* is the most accountable president of all, especially during his press conferences, because of the right-wing standard of proof!

Hilarious!

[kodi]

83. you know quite well you asked a skewed and slanted question

have you the intellectual intergrity i presume of you you will be ashamed of yourself instead of full of yourself.

set up psuedo-questions, with the only "proof" to be allowed value being what you demand, while a priori dismissing anything else that might support a contridictory position is "Limbaughesque" in nature, and all too present on the far right and reveal a dogmatic bent that is not seeking answers but intent on starting mud fights.

if you want details on why clark is preferable in hindsight, go off and do your own homework. there is enough out there that clark said about iraq, wmds and the errors in judgement of the bush administration that was far superior in facts and articulation than anything kerry ever said on those topics.

how about "first i was for the 87 billion ........" to offer up as the articulation of the congenitally stupid. then ducking when the swift boatees swung.

i happen to like john kerry, a lot. i wish he was president, but he ran a poor campaign that was remarkably akin to his own senatorial personality, and that was go along to get along.

election night proved that.

yet while knowing them, you ignore such things and it is the same modus operendi used by the far right, viz., ignore inconvenient facts if they conflict with a presupposed opinion.

it was the dogmatic manner of the original post that reveals a kindred spirit with the far right and a far worse rhetorical trait they have: make a statement, then instead of showing with facts supporting evidence, demand others prove one wrong. the burden, since you started this thread was upon you to prove your thesis, not for others to disprove it.

you may not think you are going to where the right wants to go by asking such questions, but if you use their methods, you are headed in the same direction.

[LoZoccolo]

85. It's so not the same thing.

When you are asking someone to prove a negative, that's one thing. What I'm asking could be somewhat proven with a poll. There were polls after the 2000 election about who the Nader voters would have voted for if they didn't vote for Nader. I would even accept a poll from the beginning of the primaries that said more people would have voted for another candidate versus Bush* than Kerry could have (the only won I know of favored Kerry). I am not asking people to prove anything that's impossible to at least substantiate. Ask all these people how they know their guy could have beat Bush* if you want to talk about intellectual honesty. I'm only asking them to cough up how they can run around saying they know. It's them making the claim, not me.

As far as dismissing anything to the contrary, I don't understand what you're talking about. Nobody has given me anything to dismiss yet.

[dsc]

74. In all honesty I feel Dean would have done better

but he admittedly was more of a risk. He might have lost with a bigger margin, though a loss is a loss and Congressionally we did about as badly as possible anyway.

Kerry gets credit for three things.

One is his fundrasing. Frankly, he got the idea from Dean's campaign. Without the innovations brought to bear there, Kerry wouldn't have raised the money he did.

Two is the war time President thing. Sorry but that doesn't wash. There were five war time Presidents eligible to run for reelection and of those only three won. The other two were so damaged they decided not to run for their parties renomination. Of the other three, two won very narrow races. Only Nixon in 72 was a blow out.

Three is the debates for which Kerry deserves full credit. I doubt any candidate would have done as well as he did there.

But for all the talk about Kerry being at fault it isn't him it is the primary electorate. Kerry, with the exception of his horrid August, did exactly what the primary electorate wanted of him. And in October he actually did way better than anyone had a right to expect at the debates. Simply put the electorate wanted a great bio who it felt it could use to sneak a trojan liberal into the White House with. Shock of shocks that failed. The lesson to learn here is that a vague notion of electability coupled with trying to take both sides of issues won't work. It strikes people as incoherent. We tried that once with Dukakis and again with Kerry. We shouldn't do that a third time.

[Joey Liberal]

77. Kerry should have been tougher and nastier

Taking the high road with these nazi-like republicans does not work. When they insulted his Vietnam service, he should have trashed Bush's service (or lack thereof). When the republicans mocked the Purple Heart Medal at their convention, Kerry and all Democrats should have protested LOUDLY. The Swift Boat morons should have been answered directly and forcefully. What will we do if they pull the same crap again on a Democratic presidential candidate? Will we let them get away with it? Why didn't Kerry challenge Bush on the AWOL issue?

[cornermouse]

80. Water under the bridge.

We can't change the past. We can only change the future.

[Donna Zen]

81. Oh please let this stop

I've noticed several pro-Clark comments and I extend my regards to those who recognized a great man. I support him to this very second, not because he is currently running, but because he tells the truth. And I agree that Clark doesn't suffer fools.

Nevertheless, none of us will ever know how any other candidate would have faired in the GE, no matter what our speculations. What on the surface appears a fine intellectual exercise has a dark undercurrent of division.

The party has people who would like to be considered as the "clear leader:" Hillary because her husband was the last elected leader; Kerry because he headed the last ticket and garnered plenty of votes; Dean because he is in a central position of leadership; Biden because he is Biden. (If I skipped your favorite, note; I also left out mine.) I am not sure what this leadership conundrum is doing to the inside of the party, but one can surely admit to what it is doing to the outer rings, an endless battle. That is why I beg for an end to this battle of the "who" and hope someday to welcome a return to the "what" and "how."

What are our values and how can we best support and advance them. If we organize around those principles, a leader that shares them will emerge. Unless that transition happens, we are easy marks for the MSM propaganda and various other forms of manipulation. Currently I see many well-meaning DUers bending history to make their chosen "who" fill the void. This sorry activity will end in another loss including that of our purpose and soul.

As for 2004--after action discussions are necessary--but those entail looking at the facts as they stand not the proposal of "ifs."

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no need of tinkers. GB Shaw.

[Blue_In_AK]

84. No one would have done better. The fix was in...

...just like going to war in Iraq.

[nickshepDEM]

86. Edwards and Clark... Maybe, Gephardt. eom