Is Hillary Going to Be Kerry 2.0

[illinoisprogressive]

Danger. Danger. Hillary is walking into the Kerry Trap.

* Email
* Print
* Comment

A long, long time ago -- the Democrats swaggered into 2004 supremely confident they were going to throw the bums out.

The Primary process was a series of compromises and shrugged shoulders. Ok, so maybe John Kerry wasn't the candidate they'd hoped he'd be. Maybe he was a flip-flopper. Maybe the Democrats couldn't figure out what they stood for.

But it was all good.

Kerry would win because he was a Democrat, and after 4 years of George Bush the polls said that his unpopularity and the quagmire of the war in Iraq would sweep him out of office.

Democrats were enthusiastic about winning -- but lukewarm in their support of John Kerry.

And it wasn't just average folks.

I spent the better part of 2004 directing a documentary about the Kerry campaign that you haven't seen.

We had two camera crews on the airplane, on the press buses, and living inside what political insiders call 'The Bubble.'

What we saw, and videotaped, was deeply troubling.

And since then, I've kept most of that footage in a desk drawer. I was afraid that releasing it would somehow be unfair. Like kicking a guy when he's down. After all, 2004 was a close race. But then, I began to think about 2000, and 2008 - and it began to eat at me.

Now I've decided its unwise to keep what we saw and we we heard concealed.

Secretly, late at night - in hotel rooms and in campaign vans - the opratives at the highest level of the campaign didn't much like the candidate or the platform.

Mike McCurry - brought in as a seasoned pro to fix the deeply broken Kerry press operation - ruminated about how he'd signed up because "when the candidate asks you to serve, you don't say no." But then - with the resignation of a political war horse who can see the future in a crystal ball - he said: In the end, we can introduce him to America, but "in the end you have to connect with people, and thats one of the things thats harder for John Kerry to do."

more at the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/is-hillary-going-to-be-ke_b_71075.html

[Double T]

1. Yes.

[MethuenProgressive]

44. An anti-Clinton post with an Obama logo. Gee, what a surprise!!

Got anything positive to say about your candidate? At all? Ever?
:boring:

[live love laugh]

82. AbSOlutely. She is being set up for failure--a strawman candidate if I ever saw one.

But then, it's been obvious to me all along...just like it was obvious to me that there were WMDs or any other reason to invade Iraq.

[Carrieyazel]

2. She will be, I agree. She can't connect with people.

She brings a lot of the same flaws into a general election as Kerry does. And she may not even win a couple of the states Kerry narrowly won, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And unlike Kerry, she brings a lot more polarization even among Democrats.
Maybe worse than Kerry.

[mystwoman]

26. She connects with Dems

Hillary is a great communicator. And she hasn't originated sending unnecessary soldiers into harm's way, like some "leaders", to draw a veil over his lack of preparedness, indecision and leadership following 9/11. The public was growling for action and growling for accountability, she pursued both. That's connecting.

However polarizing Kerry may have been among Democrats, he didn't win and didn't have anywhere near Hillary's buzz. If Rudy Giulani has enough national security credibility, then so does Hillary Clinton. What I do notice is Republican critics of Hillary looking very carefully away from the sitting mess at Pennsylvania avenue. Their mess.

I don't remember the "clean slate" entitlement rule the GOP seems to be operating under. If you mess up the country and have an embarrassment for a President, you can ride into the next presidency. Bush has blood on his hands. I'd rather he had a stained blue dress in the closet for every soldier lost in Iraq and their life returned that any stale impossible, ambiguous untenable mirage of victory could ever achieve.

Bush is about as connected to the American people as J. Edgar Hoover to Mother Teresa. And if GOP's can overlook Rudy's stand on abortion to support him, That stray Dem whose values don't line up with Hillary's platform may be able to take it until their loved ones come back safe and whole from the Persian Gulf area.

And frankly, I don;t need Hillary to connect with me. I need her to be able to read an estimated security threat report.

[XemaSab]

27. People did not have a preconceived idea about Kerry

:P

[JDPriestly]

65. Actually, she connects better than Kerry, but not as well

as Edwards, not as well as Obama.

[karynnj]

70. If Edwards connects better than Kerry, why did Kerry

slaughter him in the 2004 primaries.

[JDPriestly]

73. Because Edwards was an unknown and because Kerry is

a master debater, probably a better debater than any of this year's candidates. Also, I think we Democrats thought that if we backed a very reasoned candidate, one with lots of experience in government, we could prevail. We did not appreciate the importance of the personability factor, the need to be able to connect with people. I think Edwards has improved in this area over the past four years. Just watch his videos. He has lots of them on his website. Watch what he is doing. Give him a fair chance and make up your mind for yourself. I respect the fact that people may watch him and reach a different conclusion. I think, however, that this is the time to be critical of our candidates. We simply cannot afford to compromise and get a candidate with a flaw that ruins his or her chance to be elected or worse yet, means that the candidate will not do a really top-notch job as president. We cannot afford another loser. We cannot afford another incompetent, vicious president. Too much rides on this election to compromise and make "nice" about the primary candidates.

[karynnj]

75. I've watched Edwards' videos

I was first Kerry or Dean, then Kerry early in the race, but I did watch Edwards in 2004. I was impressed with his 2 Americas speech - until I saw it on CSPAN for the third time or so. It bothered me that it was so rehearsed. Where I felt connected to Kerry from the first time I saw him speak in 2003 on CSPAN I never connected to Edwards. (I had connected with Kerry even when I was a college kid in 1971)

I loved Kerry's speech on alternative fuels and the environment. The enthusiasm and respect for science and innovation was something that I really loved - maybe because I worked for a company that in the 1970s - 1980s earned a large percent of the countries patents. What I liked was that he had the same focus on the problem that Gore did (and I had read Earth in the Balance in the early 1990s.), but with an American ingenuity hopeful optimistic point of view. I loved the way he wove the big inter connected picture of how doing this would provide good new high quality jobs creating technology and products, would lead to a cleaner environment, thus better health. Then throw in less dependence on the unstable middle east. He also had the best healthcare plan one Edwards then said was too expensive - a fact that Kerry, who sits on the prestigious Finance committee disputed.

In 2004, I was disappointed in Edwards' convention speech and then underwhelmed by many of his campaign experiences. In 2006 and 2007, Edwards changed so many of his positions that I worry that those changes could be used against him. In terms of personality I found that I liked Kerry more as I saw more of him. With Edwards, I like him less - I just don't trust him.

[Richard Steele]

3. No- they had to STEAL the election to beat Kerry.

They'll beat Hillary based on actual votes.

[CyberPieHole]

14. And you got the Clinton information from your "crystal ball"...hahaha

[Richard Steele]

24. My, what a fact-based and well-reasoned rebuttal. Now I'm just all devastated and stuff...

:eyes:

[CyberPieHole]

31. More fact based than your OP...

[Richard Steele]

33. Pfft. Why don't you just say "I know you are, but what am I?" and be done with it?

I find it SAD that you are entirely TYPICAL of her supporters.

Y'all never seem to offer any facts, or even OPINIONS...
just childishly transparent attempts to squelch discussion.

If you truly disagree, then tell me why you think she'll win.

Do you even know? Or have you been too busy clinging onto the
"Hillary is Inevitable" bandwagon to actually think about it?

[CyberPieHole]

38. Because I posited YOU'D say it...and you lived up to my expectation...

[Tesha]

46. You can feel it, can't you?

> Y'all never seem to offer any facts, or even OPINIONS...
> just childishly transparent attempts to squelch discussion.

You can feel it, can't you?

Against all warnings, they've signed onto the ship,
but they know that the captain isn't going to get
them all the way to their next port. But rather
than jump ship, they just put their fingers in
their ears and hum really loudly. No content,
just humming.

It's a shame we're all going to sink with them. :(

Tesha

[mth44sc]

4. I was a Kerry supporter

come hell of high water.

I'm not interested in repeating that mistake. Senator Clinton, I fear, is a swift boat in the making.

If only she brought something special to the table...

[oasis]

71. Hillary's candidacy "a swiftboat in the making". Nobody swiftboats Hill better than DUers.(eom)

[derby378]

5. Will Hillary ignore Texas the way John Kerry did?

All those yummy electoral votes that Texas sends to the College every four years - and Kerry just walked away from them. Not cool.

[mystwoman]

30. return on value

Or did he just assess they would stay loyal to the local kid?
Hillary may make the same assessment.

[DFW]

39. I don't think so

Texas was not looking likely in 2004. Many Texas Republicans have since taken off the rose-colored
glasses as far as their leadership is concerned, and I feel the state is in play this time where
we had no chance last time.

[Clark2008]

40. Kerry ignored the entire South and Great Plains states...

He thought that by adding Edwards to the ticket, he wouldn't have to campaign in the more rural-based states. It never occurred to him that we didn't like Edwards much to begin with. His popularity was all media hype simply because he stayed in the race well after everyone else with any sense saw that Kerry was going to clinch it.

[karynnj]

56. Hillary will pursue Texas's electoral votes when the Republican's

pursue those of Massachusetts.

Kerry did go to Texas - before the general election. The 50 state theory makes sense to have House of Representatives and Senate candidates ready if the Republicans fall apart.

But, if you think that Kerry should have taken a day away from any swing state and spent it in Texas, you would need to justify why that makes sense. How many days in Texas would Kerry have needed to convince the state to vote for him? My quess is that it was more than the total number of days in the campaign. Therefore, there is no possible gain for Kerry to go to Texas. Now, is there a cost? Sure, that date could be spent in any swing state - especially if the campoaign could put together appearances wheere he would meet thousands of people and get local coverage. (local coverage was always more positive than national in 2004.)

[JDPriestly]

66. Romney is a Massachusetts favorite son.

You are not making any sense.

[mystwoman]

68. Teddy K

How did that work Presidential wise for Teddy Kennedy?

[karynnj]

69. Romney will not get Massachsetts if he is the nominee

Do you know what his approval ratings were before he left office?

Kennedy and Kerry have been Massachetts' favorite son - Romney, in the general election I doubt it.

[JDPriestly]

74. Good. I'm relieved to hear that.

[Mojorabbit]

6. This isn't going

to help the party. It will be a gift to the right wing. If he wanted to help he could have sent this to each of the candidates.

[MADem]

9. It'll help 'the party' all right--the Republican Party.

How long before he gets invited on all the Fox news shows, at a healthy appearance fee, to discuss this matter, ad nauseum, and show the viewers his clips.....mmmmmmmm???????

But oh, he's doing this because 'he cares.'

Yeah, and I just won the Nobel Prize!

[More Than A Feeling]

7. John Edwards' theme is economic populism, Obama's is post-partisanship

Chris Dodd's is the Constitution, Biden's is foreign policy.

What's Hillary's? "The 90's were great"? That would be ok except that this isn't the 90's, so it gives us no guide towards what she would do under these new circumstances.

[Mass]

8. Thanks for promoting this idiot. I guess that criticizing Hillary is all that matters.

This guy is an idiot, but if it serves your purpose, why not do it? No surprise Dems cannot win.

[Mojorabbit]

10. This doesn't really

have anything to do with Hillery to me. It shows a horrible choice of people running the Kerry campaign and reflects on the party as possibly being incompetent( to the right wing). I had never seen these videos and they are pretty devestating. If you want to blame anyone the filmaker who is stirring up shit right before the most important election in this century.

[KittyWampus]

49. The movie shows NO SUCH THING. You haven't seen the movie and just read what the director wrote

this is an old movie, it flopped already. The director now wants to put some spin on it to try and get some publicity.

It does NOT show what the director alleges.

[Mojorabbit]

50. No, I only

saw the clips posted in the HP article and they alone are devastating and yes, I agree the director is looking for his 15 minutes.

[karynnj]

57. Explain how the Kerry team ran a great primary campaign

This film shows that some of the top Democratic pols did a lousy job - this is what BLM has posted whenever McAuliffe attacks Kerry. Their JOB was to support the nominee. (It was not the job of the candidate to morph into Bill Clinton.) The videos are not of Kerry. Many are very low level people no one ever hear of.

The party had a stellar candidate - a man of proven character and integrity, a public servant since adulthood, a genuine war hero and - in case it wasn't obvious from the debates, a very serious man with great ideas on every issue. He deserved the support of his own party after he won the nomination. It is sad that the Dean supporters basically put their disappointment aside and supported Kerry, but the jaded party elite didn't. Who exactly to they represent?

[mark414]

11. Clinton is our only potential candidate that will totally energize a demoralized right wing

it's as simple of that

she would be a good president, but she is a risk, and too big of one at that.

[Richard Steele]

29. Exactly. A Hillary candidacy is their only hope.

Anyone else could CAKEWALK into the White House
just because they have that (D) after their name.
But Hillary is gonna inspire some record-breaking
voter turnouts: The RW will see record numbers of
voters,and NEW voters... and we'll see record numbers
of folks who stayed home.

I agree that she'd be a decent President; I only oppose
her nomination because SHE WON'T WIN.

[karynnj]

59. I think we can lose if we think it will be a cake walk

no matter who the candidate is.

Consider that they need one more justice to overturn Roe vs Wade, do you think that the Catholic church and evangelicals for whom this is an issue, had a problem just with Senator Kerry? In fact, the New Yorker, in an article on Guilliani had a quote where the bishop who led the effort against Senator Kerry tried to explain why he wouldn't attack Guilliani. It was beyond convoluted - he said that Kerry appeared to be a good, practicing Catholic, so people could mistake his position on abortion as a possible Catholic position, but with Guilliani, he doesn't cast himself as a good Catholic. In reality, that makes no sense. The likely reason is that Guilliani will appoint SCJ that overturn Roe vs Wade, Kerry wouldn't have. Nor would JRE, HRC, BHO etc Do you think that words could make it right or that because they are not Catholic they won't be fought?

Consider that they can play the security card again. JK had way more credibility on national security as the man, who warned about terrorism in the 1990s, a man with 20 years on the SFRC and a highly decorated war hero than JRE, HRC and BHO.

Consider that they will attempt to play the immigration card - and as the economy becomes worse, more people fear their own jobs the more this increases.

Consider the media. Anyone notice how quickly many stations followed Clear Chanel in saying that Limbaugh's multi decade support of troops (!!!!!!) meant he should get a pass on his phony soldiers comment. Less egregiously, remember that McCain was given a pass on the "wasted" quote, and in 2004, Guilliani blamed the soldiers for not guarding the ammo dumps - and got a pass. Consider that PBS is even more to the right. Did you notice the difference in republican and Democratic debate questions. The questions pushed Democrats to hit each other.

I think IF the filmaker's contention is right that top democrats dragged their feet in 2004, they may really really regret it as the world has slid into greater turmoil and 2008 may be harder than it looked. Without that drag (if it occurred), Kerry would now be in office.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. The Bubble is how I describe the environment that Clinton supporters operate in

That's exactly what it is. They are party insiders and people who think they are picking the winner. They have no concept of the real world.

[JDPriestly]

34. You are so right. I really wish Hillary would drop her candidacy.

She may be ahead in the primaries, but she will not win the election. We cannot afford to lose this time.

[snot]

13. I admire H.C.; but

I agree with the "bubble" characterization. Kerry had no more charisma than she (neither has much); but he was infinitely more electable.

I'm a woman, I wish I could say otherwise; but I'm not sure this country is ready for a woman Prez., and even if it is, I don't think H.C.'s persona is the one that will break that glass ceiling.

C.f., on the other hand, Madeleine Albright.

[elfin]

15. Oh Yes - She will not come close to Kerry's numbers -- her "fans"

will eventually not vote because they are younger and will not navigate the thicket of proper registration from the college base in sufficient numbers. PLUS she cannot "connect" with tried and true voters as to their seasoned support, due to her lack of overall impassioned "message."

The dissatifaction (hatred) of Bush will not automatically translate into enough votes from the middle for her.

Yes, I am of the generation that does not see the virtue of of a woman candidate just because she is a woman -- even though I was a huge supporter of Shirley Chisolm in days gone by.

Of course I will vote for her in the General if need be -- but will not support her otherwise via money, working, talking up or even a simple yard sign.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. so who's fans will?

Obama's? Edwards'?

I find these arguments fascinating - the argument that Clinton somehow is different from the others in these regards.

[JDPriestly]

35. I'm with you. I just do not like her as a presidential candidate.

She has a bad temper and is unsuited to be president. She is too bitter. We need a problem solver, not a pouter.

[karynnj]

61. Kerry is all of those things more than anyone else I can see - and

he had a hard time. I saw the Inside the bubble exerpt on TV. Kerry had the coolest temper of anyone I ever saw. Even in screwups - he did not - even in the least attack or yell at his staffers. He is a problem solver by nature - and that is why he is good getting people to accept solutions - whether it is the Cambodians in deciding to accept a Kerry brokered compromise in the format of the tribunal to try Pol Pot era war crimes or the cable stations in making out of area baseball games available.

I don't think anyone ever saw Kerry pout.

[JDPriestly]

64. Kerry was not assertive enough.

You may be right if you think I am hard to please here. I believe Edwards has the right balance. He is level-headed. He keeps his cool, but he is also assertive and fights hard in a rational way. That is what years of litigation, years of courtroom battles do for a person. It either breaks or makes you. It has made Edwards. This is precisely what I like about Edwards. He neither under- nor overinvests in his ideas. He does not take challenges or attacks personally. He handles them with his intellect. That is the healthiest way to deal with these things.

[karynnj]

67. I'll believe it when I see it, I wish I saw more of that in 2004

It was Kerry who leveled the hardest deepest charges at Bush. Edwards didn't in either the primaries or general election.

Kerry spoke of letting OBL go free because the effort was outsourced to Afghan warlords. He also spoke of US soldiers being killed and maimed by ieds made from ammo from KNOWN ammo dumps that we failed to secure. Just 2 of Kerry's charges - what were Edwards two biggest charges in 2004.

[johncoby2]

17. You mean Kerry/Edwards?

[MonkeyFunk]

18. No

Clinton will fight back harder than Kerry. And she will win.

[mystwoman]

19. Hillary's got teeth

Kerry ducked his head. gore went home with a cold. Hillary has a lot more scratch and growl in her. i am dying to see Ahmehinjahd (that was not a spelling word in school when I was a kid) have to sit eye to eye with her. Giulani is too personal, too close to home. he has not done anything on a national scale except project from his own state. on that basis, elect the more camera ready Ah Nuld.

Hillary needs to get Obama and Edwards to get their greedy eyes off the candidacy. because if she were a man and they were behind that far, They'd be doing Key West by now. Hillary needs to pick a running mate and plow the primaries. By now the campaign should be already at the playoffs level. Yes, we do get Bill with the package, nice.

Hillary is varsity material. Obama is the favorite who got to play early on in the top league but has a ton of service room left on his record before the chair in the Oval office gets warmed for him. By assuming Oprah friendliness means entitlement to the White House I am really turned off. And frankly, for problems like Iran you are going to need a mean broad like Hills instead of Kennedy wannabe Edwards and touchy feely Obama to get er done.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I dislike your characterizations of her opponents

They're not greedy, and if Hillary had testicles, it would make little difference in their standing against her (read whatever you want into that).

I agree that Obama is going to be a player for many years - and will be President one day. I just don't think it'll be next year.

But for the rest of your post, I can only say welcome to DU and enjoy your stay, however long it lasts.

[mystwoman]

22. It's not her standing I questioned

I wish you would have read this post more carefully. I did not question or surmise if Hillary would have bene scoring higher in polls or in ratings if she were a man. I said if she were a man and had the scores and the majority she does toward the Democratic primaries, and she was a man,(with those credits), Edwards and Obama would be moving on and saving their campaign dollars for when they really count.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Your characterization of her opponents

was, imo, misguided and unnecessary.

[mystwoman]

28. u already said that

Were you interested in answering my points and comments or just criticising to discourage others?

[JDPriestly]

37. It isn't enough to have "teeth." You need to be persuasive and believable.

Hillary is neither. She seems a little unbalanced.

[karynnj]

62. We have yet to see HRC really fight anyone other than other Democrats.

Isn't it way too early to defiantly post this?

[politicasista]

83. Kerry fought for her when she was attacked.

Too bad she didn't do the same when he was smeared.


But hey, it's all Kerry's fault instead of the people that should have been doing the most work or stayed silent. :sarcasm:

[Major Hogwash]

21. Pakistani police are beating protestors in Pakistan - as we speak!

If Hillary has any good in her at all, she will call for Musharaff to step down immediately!!

[MonkeyFunk]

23. And what

have Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, Obama, Edwards and Gravel had to say on this issue?

[rufus dog]

32. NO - HRC will not be the nominee! n/t

[sandnsea]

36. Connecting Hillary to Kerry???

Okay this is a weird one. Is this supposed to help Edwards or Obama?

[Perry Logan]

41. Big difference: Hillary won't roll over like Kerry did.

[politicasista]

79. Yes, let's just tear down good dems by promoting Hillary n/t

[Inuca]

42. Another big difference: Kerry has a strong moral compass, Hillary...

... not so sure.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

[OKNancy]

43. There are so many things wrong with this OPINION so

let's me take a stab at a few.

The first sentence is wrong. The only Democrats swaggering and thinking we were going to win were here and other pro-Democratic sites. Most people realize that beating an incumbent in a time of "war" is very difficult. Public opinion at that time had not turned like it has now.
I mean really, in 2004 people were still confusing Afghanistan with Iraq, Saddam with Osama, and
Iraq and 9-11.

Yes, people were lukewarm about Kerry and he didn't help himself one little bit with his stumbling campaign. He did pretty good considering, but he saluted at the convention and based 90% of his campaign on Iraq.

There are many difference between Senator Clinton and Kerry too.

1. Her ties to the south and some goodwill because of it
2. Her spouse. Theresa Kerry, bless her heart, is not Bill Clinton. People may not like it, but
Bill is a huge asset.
3. Her gender. Again, you can't deny it. She will get a lot of votes just because she is a woman.

Nope, no Kerry trap for Clinton because it's such a different environment and a different personal history.

This writer, I guess is saying Hillary Clinton can't connect with the people just like Kerry.
We shall see, but I think he is wrong. Wait until the convention and the campaign to make such a prediction.

[TheFarseer]

45. is your point that:

people predisposed to voting Democratic will vote for her and people predisposed to voting GOP will vote against her and there will hardly be any cross-over? I think that's accurate.

[Stop Cornyn]

47. IF she wins the nomination, she'll be Kerry 2.0, but I think Obama or Edwards will beat her.

[ProSense]

48. I've met Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and

Hillary Clinton is no John Kerry. The man is brilliant and right on the issues!

[BlueIris]

52. :-)

[BlueIris]

51. Must. Not. Post. Thoughts.

:mad:

[karynnj]

53. Nearly all your assumptions are wrong

In late 2003, Bush was in the high 50s to 60% in approval ratings. People like HRC opted not to run, even though running was always in her plan. The was was about 18 months old and even among people - less than half, who thought the war should not have happened, most thought that we could still "win" and make lemonade out of lemons.

Kerry was NOT a flip/flopper. He had one and only one position on whether to go to war (NO) and on what his plan was to get out. He also in 2004 had only one position on his vote - which was to explain in the very terms he used in casting the vote and adding that he had honored his pledge to speak out if Bush abused his promises - which Bush did and Kerry did speak out before the war. (Even Obama called Kerry/Feingold "cut and run" before putting out his own proposal that was very close in form to Kerry/Feingold 6 months later.)
http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2004/09/27/PittCision/Despite.Accusations.Kerrys.Position.On.Iraq.Has.Been.Consistent-1789042.shtml

Kerry was the very clear winner of the nomination. People did vote for him - even in Iowa when the media was mainly discussing when he would drop out. Do you think that the Clintonistas running the party would have done more for Dean (2004) or Obama (2008)? Don't you get that 2 of the people, who as early as March - when Kerry won the nomination - pushed the idea of ABB - which had usually been a phrase used in the primaries - were Carville and Begala. In 1992, Bill Clinton was not my favorite or second or third, for that matter, but when he won the nomination, I read his book and supported what I could about him. That is what usually happens. In 2004, which most of us thought was a very important election, these 2 men - the most prominent Democrats on cable TV - pushed this idea and did nothing to positively define Kerry. (This really hurts as the entire party spent 8 years defending Clinton often when he was indefensible.)

If this op-ed is taken at face value, it shows that Kerry did not get the support OWED to him as the nominee of the Democratic party. In reference to McCurry, maybe if the same party officials whing that they didn't want Kerry had looked through his record and platform and each found even ONE thing that they could highlight for the media as something good -instead of complaining about the campaign, it could have made a difference.

They should be able to find something - Kerry's healthcare and alternative fuels/environmental platform are reflected in all the 2008 platforms. His accomplishments included everything from having really pushed in SE to get the remains - of people like Dean's brother back and being a key person on the reconciliation with Vietnam, to being the key person who got the first cap and trade program for acid rain as LT Gov of MA - this became the prototype for that part of the Clean Air Act to having authored the precursor bill to S-CHIP. Three major Democratic issues - major accomplishments, if non of these interest Begala, Carville et al, it tells you more than you want to know about them.

Also, I saw the "Inside the Bubble" shown on TV, a point that was made was that in October, Kerry was connecting and connecting as a rock star in personal appearances. He won Iowa because he was very effective meeting one to one with people. He actually came across as very likable in the footage with his staff - when things when wrong, he worked to fix them instead of lashing out at the staffers. He often seemed like he went out of his way to be putting them at ease. One difficulty Kerry had was that the media did not show the huge crowds Kerry was drawing or much of his inspiring rallies. It is very hard to get a message out when filters are blocking it.

[Inuca]

60. Thank you Karyn for the wonderful and cogent post

All I can add is that I WISH Clinton were Kerry 2.0. But unfortunately she is not, and in some ways she is his very opposite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. To Paraphase Tolstoy

All winning candidates are the same...All losing candidates lose in their own way...

[rockymountaindem]

55. Who the hell was "supremely confident" in 2004?

I wasn't. The only time I thought we were going to win was an extremely hopeful two days before that last Bin Laden video was released. The rest of the time I was sure Bush would win.

The whole "Kerry is a loser" meme is predicated on the idea that the 2004 election was ours to lose. It most certainly was not. The Republicans held the upper hand the whole time and the chances of us winning were always, *always* between slim and none against an incumbent "wartime" President.

[sampsonblk]

89. The 2004 election was ours to lose, definitely

Bush had just taken us into Iraq to capture WMDs that didn't exist. And the more our candidates hammered him, the lower he was dropping.

Being a wartime president wasn't an asset to Bush. Just the opposite. He was having to constantly explain himself and make excuses for his many mistakes. We were in Iraq because he chose to invade them, and thousands of Americans had paid the price for his mess. The world had seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and David Kay had already said 'we were wrong' about the WMDs.

Somewhere between the winter and fall of 2004, we dropped the ball. Big time.

CBS: Poll: Iraq Taking Toll On Bush
President’s Popularity Drops To New Low; Kerry Moves Ahead
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml

USA Today Poll: shows Bush dropping like a hot potato as Dems pile on

"Bush, whose job approval was a robust 60% just three weeks ago, faces a more difficult landscape and some sobering history. Since World War II, only two presidents have trailed challengers early in the election year. In 1948, Harry Truman was behind Thomas Dewey but won in November. In 1976, Gerald Ford was behind Jimmy Carter and lost."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-03-bush-kerry-poll_x.htm


Any reasonable Dem could have won this thing. It wasn't that complicated.

[rockymountaindem]

91. Yes it was that complicated

Low popularity or no, the Republicans had everybody in permanent fear mode. I knew plenty of people who honestly thought that if anybody besides Bush were President, we'd be attacked. They thought he was like some magical totem protecting us from the evil eye and there was no way to convince them otherwise. Nobody could have won against that.

[NMMNG]

58. Nah. She's got bigger balls than he did.

:shrug:

[cuke]

63. More right wing drivel from an Obama supporter

[ShortnFiery]

72. You got that right! But will the party learn from running DLCers for President ...

or will 2012 be ... Wash. Rinse. Repeat. with running another losing candidate? :crazy: :(

[beachmom]

76. Yuck. Gee, when will Obama admit to borrowing his ideas on Iraq and healthcare from Kerry?

The fact that Kerry is being used as a punching bag for the '08 campaign is disgusting.

[Major Hogwash]

77. Did Kerry copyright all of his ideas - or he is the only liberal you've ever heard of?

I can't believe you think Kerry was the ONLY one who had those positions.

Of course, when Kerry said he was against the war before he was before the war, and then didn't change his stance after no WMD's were found - that was purely a Kerry patented position.

[karynnj]

81. Kerry was never for the invasion - ever

Three things were intentionally conflated by the media
1) The IWR vote (The Grand Canyon was a case of not hearing any if phrase - oddly the question was not recorded and differs in various accounts. His answer was his stanadard one though.) He seemed to at that point to have made the strategic decision to answer questions on the IWR by saying (as he did on Letterman) simply that he would not have taken the country to war.)
2) Going to war - which he spoke against and said was the wrong decision
3) What to do given we were in a war.



Did Kerry "copywrite" his ideas? Of course not, but where a plan is taken nearly completely, a good self assured person would acknowledge it. In fact, one thing that always impressed me about Kerry - in 2004 and since is that he is the most likely person I have heard in DC to do this.

In this case, Beachmom is right, in January 2007, Obama's new plan was very close in structure and form to Kerry/Feingold, which only 6 months before he called cut and run. Kerry/Feingold was mostly Kerry's April 2006 resolution incorporating some of Feingold's 2006 resolution. In terms of the healthcare plan, Kerry had an extremely innovative 2004 plan. Part of the reason is that he and Kennedy produced the basic plan for the last major increase in health insurance when they wrote the bill that became S-CHIP. Kerry in 2004 suggested to the people creating his plan that they create a re-insurance pool to cover catastrphic costs. This idea was a Kerry solution to a problem that small businesses have. If one of their employees gets very ill and incurs high costs, their insurance costs sky rocket and the employer can't afford it for anyone. Kerry as the chair of the Small Business Committee approached this problem from an angle that others hadn't. That provision was called the single most innovative idea of 2004. Obama has included it - probably because Kerry convinced him too. (or because a former Kerry strategist convinced him it was good sense.)

Part of the frustration is that the media hid Kerry's platform which was quite innovative anbd reflected his long term committment on major issues.

[Major Hogwash]

85. "Intentionally conflated by the media"? That's horse hockey!

Speaking of Kerry's press conference at the edge of the Grand Canyon, that was the day that Kerry fucked his own campaign - that very day!!

". . . oddly the question was not recorded and differs in various accounts."

That is pure, 100%, adulterated horseshit!
Not only did I see the press conference Kerry gave that day, his little speech was televised on every single tv station we have here!!

The media didn't do a damn thing to conflate Kerry's speech that day - they just handed him the mike - and he fucked his own campaign that very day!!

[karynnj]

87. I didn't say that that Press Conference conflated things

I said that the coverage over the entire interval did. I saw the press conference - and at least in the coverage I saw, the only thing I heard from the conference it self was Kerry's answer. That was replayed. The actual reporter asking the question was not. I looked back to find the actual question - because even in 2004 - it was stated differently in different accounts and I wanted to know the actual question. It was not a "Kerry speech" and the damage was from what the question was. The answer was the same answer he gave for over a year - and it didn't make sense given the context that was stated, because Kerry was saying every day that he would not have gone to war as Bush did. In the Boston Globe account by Oliphant - it was said that Kerry did not hear any if question. Once it was out, Kerry opted to deal with it by stating more clearly that he would not have gone to war, rather than continuing to speak of the vote.

As to it destroying Kerry's campaign - it didn't. Kerry got the anti-war votes. He got 10 million more votes than any previous Democratic candidate. There were very few third party votes. These two facts make it unlikely that there were large numbers of people who switched to someone else or didn't vote due to that comment. It did possibly mean some were less happy to do so. All through September and October, he shifted to not speaking of the IWR - just that he wouldn't have gone to war - this was in rallies, on Letterma, in the NYU speech. By November,no one thought that Kerry was more likely to get us in another war than Bush.

I do think this was one of only 3 missteps over the entire primary/general election that Kerry made. Bush was allowed by the media to step away from many many misstatements - as if they didn't happen. Kerry was not - it is likely that his campaign should have found a way to correct this - if Kerry simply didn't hear part of the question because of the wind and a hearing loss or because it was mischaracterized. But, I think the issue became bigger AFTER Kerry lost, than before. It would have hurt him more in 2008 in the primaries than in 2004.

Also - you said that he was FOR THE WAR - that was never true -and was not true even in the botched statement at the Grand Canyon.

[politicasista]

78. You are not helping Obama by continuingly tearing down other Dems

I remain on the fence unless Gore jumps in. Sorry.

[wisteria]

80. This is nonsense from a man who is trying desperately to make money off of a very bad film he made

in 04. This was marketed before as a hit piece on Senator Kerry and it bombed because the few times this loser got close enough to Kerry to film something the film show a very likable senator who comes off as friendly and natural- which he is.

Ask yourself this, why should anyone listen to this guy? Who the h*ll is he anyway?

Check out this footage from the locker room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD5ZlRxCRyk

[BenDavid]

84. No dem can ever win with bob strum associated

with a campaign in any shape, form or fashion. HRC is no John Kerry. HRC comes from the Clinton War Room mentality, and we all know how the bill clinton war room turned out. uh huh beat the first war hero bush and then the second war hero dole and the first dem to be re elected since FDR. HRC is a fighter, and knowing she will not take all the crap that Kerry did in 04 I am more then confidant that HRC and her war room folks will fight and fight to win....I have all the confidence that HRC will be the 44th president of the U.S.

Ben David

[Major Hogwash]

86. Is Hillary for gay marriages?

I've never heard her say she was, so I'm just wondering if she supports gays getting married.

I remember when Kerry got all caught up in the gay marriage issue and claimed he was a Catholic, avoiding the question altogether.

[sampsonblk]

88. No, the Clinton's will run a professional campaign instead.-nt

[Czolgosz]

90. Only if we are short sighted enough to nominate her.