How many think that Kerry can't win AND that the vote was stolen

[BR_Parkway]

Poll question: How many think that Kerry can't win AND that the vote was stolen

In the midst of all these various "my candidate is better than your's" threads I've seen various posts that say Kerry can't win, he had his chance in '04. And I know that I've seen some of the same posters talking about how the election was stolen. So I'm really curious as to where everyone is at on this issue.

If you think he can't win in '08 but you think he had the election stolen from him in '04, please leave a reply as to why you think things have changed and that he can't do what you think he did 2 years ago.

[lvx35]

1. my reply.

I didn't like him in 2004, there were actually irregularities in the primaries that made him a winner with so many supporting Dean...Though I make no claims about this. (I still campaigned for him)

To answer your question, basically, I think so many people already hated Bush in 2004 that he could have been anybody...I don't think he had a lot to offer compared to Dean, and history has vindicated this opinion. Kerry supported the Iraq war when millions of Americans didn't. So yes, we could run him in 2008, but I see no reason. He has nothing on the other candidates, and the comments about troops getting stuck at the WORST possible moment pretty much lowered my opinion.

[zalinda]

2. Okay, let's get one thing straight

he did not support the war. He made a huge speech on how he didn't support a war, but was giving the President the authority to show strength and that he trusted him to use it wisely.

Now, the ONLY thing you can accuse him of, is trusting Bush with the power. The rest of the "supported the Iraq war" is a bunch of RW spin, so we would be pissed off with our reps.

zalinda

[karash]

3. Even if that story is true.

Q: Once he figured out that Bush was using that power unwisely, did Kerry stop voting to approve funding for the war?

A: Oops.

[Mass]

6. Q: Did anybody in the Senate do that? Including those who voted against the IWR?

A: Oops.

[enough already]

13. Q: Is he a leader?

A: Apparently a follower

[blm]

18. Yes - he voted AGAINST the 87 billion because it had no audit mechanism.

He voted FOR the 87 billion when it had full auditting measures and was paid for by restoring taxes on the wealthiest.

Surely you were aware of these facts if you were paying attention during that time?

[sendero]

7. Kinda like...

... folks who vote for cloture then vote against the bill.

Let's you take both sides of the issue.

Forget Kerry's war support, it is his inability to connect with the average American that makes him unelectable.

[RestoreGore]

9. He trusted Bush...

Just shows his true colors, and actually, the true colors of all the Senators who are now doing all they can to back away from the fact that they gave Bush the power that is now the HELL of Iraq, while other Senators, both of mine actually, voted against it. Now how is it that THEY were not FOOLED by it all or TRUSTED Bush?

Therefore, the idea that the rest of them were somehow deceived is imo, BS. A Senator of the experience of a John Kerry who went through the first Bush and already could see what his family was about just cannot sound credible by stating they trusted Bush to do the right thing, especially knowing that they stole an election to get here in the first place.

This is how I see it: It was simply that they thought at the time that Hussein was going to be apprehended quickly and that the people just might throw flowers and chocolates as well, and since Kerry had aspirations of running he surely didn't want to make the mistake of voting the wrong way. When aspirations take over, conscience goes right out the window.

There is no excuse for anyone of any Party to have given Bush the carte blanche authority they did to wage this war anywhere any time he wished to as a KING, and then say they did it because they "trusted" him to do the right thing. I wouldn't even trust Al Gore completely with such power, because power corrupts. It is about the principle, not the lame excuses that they thought there was bad intelligence, they were deceived, etc. They are UNITED STATES SENATORS who took an OATH for God's sake... They should have done their HOMEWORK. And it was regardless of all that BS a PREEMPTIVE, illegal, unconstitutional attack on a sovereign nation that did not attack us, and an attack that was also not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

And to make it clear before the skewerting begins, I'm not saying this because I am some political operative for Al Gore. Hell, I don't even want him to run in this corrupted system... just look at the backbiting taking place already! This IS about principle to me, about INNOCENT PEOPLE who are now DEAD because of this vote, and about my child who will more than likely have to live with the effects of this for the rest of his life. So at this point I'm not supporting ANYONE in 2008, nor am I even thinking about voting at this point if this is all we are going to see for the next two years.

This high school mentality my candidate is better than yours BS simply highights very clearly that the political process is not about principled debate, but about soundbites. So honestly in that vein, I think Kerry CAN WIN, for the very reason that he is so much a part of the secret society status quo, how could they not like him? Oh, and the fact that he is also a fellow Bones brother to Bush ( which I suppose is why he "trusted "him" and let him take Ohio) I am sure helps him along as well. So I say to him, Clinton, and the lot of them, go ahead and run, because the people of this country get the government they deserve.

[mntleo2]

4. ANDThe Two Are Related

Kerry did little or nothing to defend his "loss" in Ohio. He conceded right away and said later he did not want to look like a "sore loser." After the fiasco of 2000, he had every right and I believe he could have overcome the sore loser accusations. After all Gore won and it was known by then it was because of voter manipulation, which was well known by that time. He could have taken that opportunity to not only stand up for his campaign, more importantly he could have stood up for the right for every single American's vote to count. It would have been good once and for all for the American People to know what exactly went on in Ohio. If he had in reality lost (which we know he didn't) then at the very least he would have uncovered the fraudulent and evasive tactics that were used, not only in Ohio, but all over the country. He would have stood for US not run like a scared little boy at a bunch of empty words that had nothing to do with what the Truth was.

But he didn't. By being too afraid to be called a sore loser rather than standing up for the principals that he fought for and others died for, he showed poor leadership qualities IMO. A true leader knows that overcoming criticism in the face of The Truth is far more important and a true leader will stand up for that. For me, it wasn't just about his election or lack of, it was about every vote counting as well.

Cat In Seattle

[Mass]

5. Why so many threads about Kerry and the fact he should not run?

(or cannot win)?

If this is the case, why do you even bother posting that! Seems to me that people protest a little too much.

[quinnox]

8. Kerry lost

The margin in Ohio was large for Bush. I'm tired of conspiracy theories every time a Democrat loses, sometimes you lose fair and square. No excuses!

[enough already]

14. The evidence is overwhelming that Bush/Rove STOLE 2004 n/t

[BeFree]

24. Kee-ripes

I can't believe that anyone still doesn't grok that the only reason repukes are in power is because of stolen elections. That someone here still thinks that America actually installed this bunch of criminals into the WH.

Rove must be smiling seeing posts such as your's quinnox. You're letting him run free!

[kellenburger]

10. Monday morning quarterbacking...

If he would have protested Ohio.....
If he would have communicated better to the common man...
If he would have gotten a decent haircut..( ok maybe that's just me)

Bottom line he did a decent job. Red states put all kinds
of anti-gay crap on ballot measures to bring out their voters.

Can he win? ask me again in 2008.




I'll vote straight Dem no matter who runs.

[NEOhiodemocrat]

11. I think he can not win and the election was stolen from him

As an Ohio poll worker I spent election day of 2004 reassuring many, many voters that each and every vote would be counted. You would not believe the number of people concerned about this in a basically rural, village type area. We had a large number of provisional voters, due to irregularities in voter data; Those who had registered for this election and were not on the books. After all my "every vote will count" talk, Kerry concedes? These provisional votes were not counted. He could not hold off until all the votes in Ohio were in and counted? I have no respect for the man and think he doesn't hold a chance of winning if he is the candidate. Ohio was given to Bush.

[Mass]

12. Two poor reasons to support him or not.

1/ I do not care whether he won or not Ohio because it will make no difference for me. Bush is president. What I care though is that the House and the Senate WORK on the issue and make sure that people are confident that their vote is counted. Even if there was no cheating, the fact that so many peeople do not have confidence their vote counts is a major problem for democracy as it pushes people not to vote.

2/ Can he win or not is not a very major reason for me to vote for him? I care about where he and others stand on issues, what is their bigger vision for the country (and the world). I want to hear that from all candidates, let them make their case, and then see if my opinion is changed. Let people make their case. Make sure that as many people as possible take part in the caucuses and primaries processes, and the person who wins the primary process will be the nominee and our champion. That is the only thing that matters. (If the party chooses Lieberman or Zell Miller.

[aintitfunny]

Kerry cannot win because

he is universally not liked. Not hated, not fiercely disliked, he fails to inspire such passion - he is just not likable. I did not support him in the primary, I did work hard for him in the general, and I think there is much to admire about Kerry. However, people I knew to be Democrats, people I knew to detest G.W. Bush and his cabal, said -"but I can't stand Kerry". I told them to shut up and fake it - there was too much at stake. That being said, I do believe the election was stolen, however, the overwhelming antipathy felt toward our candidate made it easier. A candidate that connects with the electorate on a personal level can overcome swift boater attacks and the like. Look at the example of Bill Clinton. If he or she is well liked it is "water off a duck's back". If the candidate is not liked, people will look for an excuse to go elsewhere. Now that Kerry carries the label as a bona fide "loser" there is even more reason to go elsewhere.

Though it may seem silly, we must run a likable candidate - one who also stands for all good things a Democrat should. There are a lot of likable potential candidates: Clark, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama - if he runs, to name a few. More may come to the fore.

[ProSense]

16. In fact, people universally

liked him over the potential candidates you mentioned, except Obama!

[aintitfunny]

17. In reality, the Democratic Party Establishment

got behind Kerry to the detriment of other candidates and succesfully convinced primary voters that Kerry was the only one who could beat Bush. Had nothing to do with him being universally liked. It had a lot to do with the mistaken belief that he was the only choice to unseat GWB. I disagreed then and hope we do not have a replay in 2008.

[karynnj]

21. That is NOT true

Kerry was absolutely not the establishment candidate in Dec 2003, when he mortgaged his house to get money enough to continue. If he were the party favorite his coffers would have been full. It was in that time frame that Bill Clinton (New Yory magazine) was quoted as saying the only stars in the Democratic party were Clark and Hillary. In fact, in 2004 Kerry's was the real grassroots campaign. It grew under the radar and it became impossible for the party or the media to stop.

Almost up to the Iowa caucus, the media mainly speculated on when Kerry would drop out. Looking for something else, I found an article written 10 days before the caucus that was titled "Kerry in death spiral". This article was saying that even if he was able to pull off third in Iowa - the best he could do, he would come in at best third (behind Dean and Clark) in NH - so he was out. (Oddly, they said that Edwards if he got the numbner 3 position in each would be seen as possibly serious.) The article mentioned that Edwards was loved by the press. The media in fact, played the race at the end as much closer than it was between Kerry and Edwards.

If you read Walter Shapiro's book on the primary, you may be surprised to find that people who met Kerry in Iowa, NH and other primary states actually did like him. He is a nice, warm. genuine person who looks people in the eyes and connects when he speaks with them. The media distorted his personality. I have seen Kerry with a small group of people and 3 times at large speeches - in all cases he completely dispelled the myth. (Teresa was incredible as well.)

[aintitfunny]

23. It was my strong impression that it was true

and EVERY Democrat I know who supported Kerry in the primary did so because they believed he was the best choice to beat Bush. They were definately not excited about him, they in fact liked other candidates more, but sincerely believed that he was the best hope.

I do not doubt that when people met him they liked him. I do not doubt that he looks people in the eye and connects on a one to one basis. I too like Teresa - I think she is great. I agree the media distorted his personality during the general election campaign - this is all true - in fact they continue to do so. However, if so many in the general voting population has already got a negative picture fixed in their minds, it is a problem. The majority are unlikely to ever shake hands with Kerry or any other candidate. They are unlikely to get out and hear a speech. They are unlikely to be exposed to any opportunity that would change their perspective.

[blm]

19. People who hone their charisma often have something to hide - BTW - Clinton was considered a bore

in 88 and he worked to overcome it. His charisma GREW while in office as he grew more comfortable in the job.

The media also gave Clinton NINE HOURS of primetime to let the public learn about him - Kerry was given THREE hours and one of those was given to Clinton by the media, too.

In 92 Americans got to learn about the Man from Hope. In 2004, most Americans couldn't tell you much about Kerry because that is the way the media set it up.

[aintitfunny]

20. I don't disagree with any one of your points

well, perhaps the bore part, as I believe that Clinton always had charisma - it may have been worked on and "honed" , or not, but it is an inherent part of his personality. I say this as someone who does not always agree with many of Clinton's middle of the road positions.

The media is absolutely culpable for much of the antipathy felt for Kerry - they did not give him a chance and participated wholly in his swift-boating as they did in Howard Dean's scream destruction. In spite of this going against him, Kerry still took 1/2 the vote. I believe a more likable candidate would have won. I am sorry to say it must be part of the equation in 2008, and if Kerry can overcome it, great - I will be happy to have him as my President - I just don't have faith that it will happen.

[blm]

22. I am certain a DNC that secured the election process as PROMISED in 2001 would

have been strong enough to get the votes that were cast counted and Kerry would have won in a landslide.

Instead, we had the DNC's targetted state strategy that refused to make the effort to counter the vote-suppression and vote stealing tactics that the RNC employed between 2001 and Nov 2004, and allowed the collapse of the party infrastructure in too many states, including crucial swing states. We heard about the weak party structure in Ohio and Florida in 2000, yet McAuliffe didn't lift a finger in those states to strengthen the bones there.

The nominee is known in spring of that election year and HAS to be able to tap into a string party infrastructure in those crucial states. Dean has been working his butt off to strengthen those neglected states. It will take him another 18 months just to get them up to speed for a presidential election.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Am I not part of the universe?

I like him.

[ProSense]

15. Third choice means: he did win and the election was stolen!

If he won before, he can win again!

Kerry 2008!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. I wouldn't have said it before,

but after the way overblown "botched joke" debacle, no, I don't think he can win anymore. But I do think he got robbed in 2004.

[zulchzulu]

27. Other (even though there wasn't a choice)

The vote WAS stolen and Kerry CAN win...again.

[demdiva]

28. What about Kerry CAN win and the election was not stolen?

I don't think that the election was stolen in 2004 but I do think that Kerry can win in 2008. So, I assume you are asking, so what has changed since 2004?

- The Democratic Party is stronger and more unified
- Kerry has infrastructure, money and name recognition right off the bat
- Kerry was right in 2004. He was right about Iraq and he was right about the corruption in the Bush adminsitration and republican leadership.
- The Republicans were wrong about Kerry. The Swift Boat lies, the intern lies...they have nothing left to throw at him. The only thing they ever had were lies and they have been disproven.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Part of being able to win

is being willing and able to fight against having an election stolen from you.

I apologize to the Kerry supporters, but I just didn't see that fight in him, and anybody with a passing familiarity of recent history should have known that they would try to steal it, and should have aggressive and proactive steps to prevent it.