If John Kerry had responded like Obama did...would he be President right now? YES/NO

[rndmprsn]

Poll question: If John Kerry had responded like Obama did...would he be President right now? YES/NO

Obama stood up tall and proud, took his nameless/faceless accusers head on and rose to the occasion, do you believe John Kerry would be President today if he responded in the same manner to the swift-boat liars for bush?

[Why Syzygy]

1. He wasn't trying to be president. He was a place holder for Hillary. Nothing more.

[blm]

7. Bullshit - Kerry was backstabbed constantly by Clintons - and his speech was REFUSED by the networks

If Obama's speech had been refused by the networks and ignored by the newsmedia while they repeated the Wright remarks ad nauseum THEN there would be a similar scenario to compare.

[democrattotheend]

15. What speech was refused by the networks?

Did Kerry try to make a speech responding to the Swiftboaters and the media refused to cover it?

[blm]

16. Yes - Aug19, 2004 to the FIREFIGHTERS Convention. He challenged Bush to stop hiding behind

the lies of the swifts and to publicly debate their services during that time.

You would think that would be HUGE NEWS - but the networks refused to broadcast that speech, and few reported it happened and none of them discussed it indepth on the various political shows that were currently airing then.

Read the info gathered in the Research Forum here at DU. It contains the chronology of events and how they were countered, and the blatant complicity of the media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[anonymous171]

38. Luckily we have youtube. The media must compete with the free service.

[blm]

39. good point - networks HAD to seem responsible or YouTube would've outed their

complicity.

[Catherina]

11. Kerry was too corporate but you're wrong. They back-stabbed him

Just like they back-stabbed Wes Clark.

I think Kerry missed his time. He should have run shortly after Vietnam when he was young and fresh and still fresh in the minds of voters.

[blm]

12. Kerry was the LEAST corporate nominee we ever had - one of the reasons the corpmedia

protected Bush at every turn.

He was also the lawmaker who uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history and THAT is why the Dem party powerstructure joined with the GOP to undermine Kerry throughout that campaign.

How some of you forget that Kerry spent years uncovering IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning and that he was obstructed by not only the GOP powerstructure, but the entire DC powerstructure including powerful Dems.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

34. Most important reason I am supporting Obama

is because what happened to Kerry. BTW people...Kerry did win...it just wasn't reported by the Corporate media!

[democrattotheend]

14. That's ridiculous

The Clintons may have viewed him that way, but he certainly did not. Why would he have knowingly agreed to be a sacrificial lamb? And if he was so loyal to the Clintons that he would willingly do that, wouldn't he have endorsed Clinton instead of Obama?

[blm]

18. Plus, he turned over the use of his own national political network to Obama and has

been acting on his behalf for far longer than the 'endorsement' made for public view.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Yes. Yes I do. n/t

PB

[blm]

3. Kerry DID in his Aug19 speech to Firefighters Convention, but networks REFUSED to broadcast it.

And few even added the report to their news rotation that day let alone discuss the speech for the week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

How would the issue be going for Obama if all the networks REFUSED to air his speech and few even covered it, and would not give his counters or defensive remarks anywhere near the airtime they gave the Wright videos and the views of Obama's opponents? And did so for 4 months straight?

THEN you would see a situation more equal to what Kerry faced in 2004.

[virtualobserver]

4. The whole Democratic Party should have stood up.....

and compared Kerry's brave service with Bush's.

[globalvillage]

6. exactly. n/t

[blm]

10. Many in the Dem party were busy defending Bush repeatedly instead of Kerry.

Including the last Dem PRESIDENT who used his high profile book tours to defend and support Bush's decisions on Iraq instead of siding with Kerry's views that criticized Bush's decisions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[RazBerryBeret]

13. I feel that's the problem...

NO one stood up. we allowed ourselves to be pushed around -- by the gov't , by the media.. I think that's why some are afraid of Obama, he seems to have struck something in the American Public...I think we're ready to stand up now...I'm hoping! I'm ready!

[rockymountaindem]

5. Neither of your options is correct

Had Kerry responded, he still would have lost, but not because of the attacks themselves. In 2004, most people were just not ready for change and were too respondent to the many wedge issues and the specter of terrorism that the Bush campaign continually trotted out. No matter what, it was just never in the cards for any Democratic candidate that year.

[leftofcool]

8. Exactly

[blm]

45. It was IN the cards - the voting machines were allowed to be under GOP control thanks to a DNC chair

who didn't think there was anything wrong with that as he sat on his hands for four years after 2000s theft.

[azmouse]

9. I'd have to answer 'maybe'.

The election would still have been stolen with the voting machines.

[iamjoy]

17. They Just Weren't That Into Him (Kerry)

Kerry came across as unlikeable - even if he had responded vigorously to the Swift Boating, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The media decides who we like and who we don't and if a candidate is not annointed by them, good luck.

They didn't really like George H.W. Bush, but they liked the other guys running that year even less. They like Bill Clinton. They didn't like Al Gore (they do now, but only because he isn't running for anything). They like George W. Bush, although some of this has faded. They don't like John Kerry. They like John McCain. They don't like Hillary Clinton. They like Barack Obama.

In one of their debates, Kerry reminded Bush that Bush had said he (Bush) wasn't that interested in bin Laden in 2003. Bush denied it, mocking Kerry. The thing is, it was true. But rather than reminding Americans of that, showing the recorded clips of Bush dismissing bin Laden, they focused on Kerry's lesbian comment.

If the media likes you, they will go easy on you and even when you mess up, be sympathetic. If they don't like you, they will make much ado about your littlest missteps. If you try to defend yourself, you are defensive, hostile, belligerent, etc.

Sometimes, they like some one, but something just so juicy comes up, they can't resist - sex (I don't mean gender) and race baiting.

[blm]

21. Dan Rather had a different take - he admitted that corp media NEEDED to protect Bush for the

favorable rulings they expected in his second term.

And Kerry was known to be AGAINST the ownership expansion for media - your view doesn't factor in the NEEDS of the media to PREVENT a President Kerry.




KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCC’S “WRONGHEADED VOTE”

COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a “Resolution of Disapproval” as a means to overturn today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America’s small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC’s decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today’s media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC’s decision, Kerry said:

“Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today’s wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

“Today’s vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public’s access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today’s vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.”

[iamjoy]

37. OK - So I Missed That

But I think still think there's something to be said for who they like and who they don't. They have been pretty hard on Hillary Clinton and until recently, fairly easy on Obama. You would expect some one like Hillary Clinton, who many Democrats see as very corporatist, would be loved by the MSM if it was only a matter of favorable rulings and laws on their behalf.

If I had my primary to do over, I'd vote for Obama instead of Clinton (I voted for Edwards before). But I still say they've been nicer to him than to her.

[invictus]

19. Kerry should not have voted for the Iraq War! n/t

[lligrd]

20. Not Only Would He Be President But He Also Would Have

reminded the world about how wrong the Vietnam war was and the misery it caused and focused attention on the similarities between it and the Iraq War.

[NJSecularist]

22. He did respond. Multiple times. His problem was that he accepted public financing.

It was ultimately the biggest mistake his campaign made. By virtue of public financing, you can only use the money you generate from the convention. I believe it was around an $85 million dollar limit. Bush used the same limit. The difference was that their convention was held 5 weeks later than ours. Thus, our $85 million had to be used over a 13 week limit while theirs was used over an 8 week limit. If we spent too much money on combating the Swift Boat attacks, we wouldn't have enough money to spend in Florida and Ohio on the final days before the election. Kerry and his advisors took a risk that the Swift Boat accusations would go away and they never did. There wasn't much Kerry could do once he committed to his spending limits.

Contrary to popular belief, Kerry did respond. Many times. He just couldn't afford to put ads on the air combatting the accusations.

[blm]

24. Obama isn't using ads, he used a SPEECH that networks broadcast. They REFUSED to broadcast

Kerry's speech against the swifts that also challenged Bush to debate their services - a pretty historic challenge, actually, but the corporate media downplayed the speech or ignored it happened altogether while they gave the swifts every bit of airtime they could want.

[NJSecularist]

25. If the Rethugs use 527s in the general election, Obama is going to need a lot more than a speech

He will need to fight the 527 accusations by spending money on TV spots. You can't rely on the media to do your dirty work, and there is no guarentee that the media will cover his speech.

[blm]

28. True. But let's be realistic about the differences from then and now. Getting your BIG

counter speech broadcast in its entirety and repeated in heavy rotation as a news story AND a discussion topic is a huge help.

[NJSecularist]

29. No question it is a big help. But can we really depend on the media to do that?

We all know who they are rooting for.

[blm]

31. Exactly - and those ads WILL be made. The money will be there and there will be

a DNC and a team of Dem lawmakers out in front for Obama - another thing that Kerry didn't have as too many Dems were looking to pass on 2004 as they set their eyes towards 2008.

[frazzled]

23. Many reasons Kerry didn't quite (possibly) make it

(1) His vote against the Iraq War-- he really bungled trying to defend his vote for that war and his opposition to its execution at the same time.
(2) Failing to respond to the swifboating (giving a speech at a firefighter's rally is not enough--try, try again).
(3) Too long-winded.
(4) He always kept saying "I have a plan" (on everything)--but we never knew what the hell the plan was.
(5) Assuming he could win on National Security because he had served in the militlary during Vietnam. When you're a Democrat, that's not enough.
(6) Should have picked a running mate with kickass national security credentials. He picked one who had none.
(7) No large message to the campaign.
(8) Most important--if Katrina had occurred BEFORE that election, he would have won in a landslide. The blinders hadn't been yet taken off the peoples' eyes.

John Kerry would have been a superb president. I respect him greatly. But he was a lousy candidate, and ran a lousy campaign. We don't want that same kind of old style Democratic, "I have a plan" type campaign this fall again.

Campaigns matter. Style matters. Charisma matters. Message matters. Every little thing matters.

[blm]

26. There were MANY significant counters to swifts - they are included in the link above

but the Firefighters Speech was significant in that it was NOT broadcast and barely covered.

If Obama's speech was never broadcast and barely reported at the same time the Wright videos were aired in heavy rotation along with analysis from opponents that went unchallenged by the majority of newsmedia for months THEN you would have a similar circumstance.

[frazzled]

32. Look, the swiftboating, the media were horrible ...

I know Kerry tried. But there were many other problems to his campaign. I don't want to re-fight the 2004 primary, because it's over. But I said it then and I'll say it again now: he had great experience, great character, he would have made a great president, but he was a truly awful campaigner. As a constituent of his, and having been in the room with him long before the primaries started, and having talked to him in person, I formed that conclusion early on. In retrospect, I doubt any of the other candidates could have done any better. Post-Katrina, any of them could have won.

It remains the case today that our media is vastly unjust and full of double-standards. It will happen again (look, it's happening already with the Wright clips--and yet no tapes of Hagee or Parsley). My hope is that Obama's other qualities and his sharp campaign staff and appealing style can overcome the slime this time: maybe they can't. Maybe the damage is too deep and too ugly. But I really don't think the swiftboating is the only thing what done Kerry in.

I had a whole list of them above.

[Vinca]

27. Not with the Diebold Company delivering Ohio. nt

[depakid]

30. Kerry would have had to hit back a little harder

but, essentially the answer is yes.

[David Zephyr]

33. I respectfully disagree with what you have written. Ohio was stolen. Kerry won in 2004.

No one has ever stood up as tall and proud as John Kerry did as a young man. I know. I still remember his challenging the U.S. Senate on the Vietnam War.

His entire career has been one of standing tall and proud.

Kerry is a hero.

We don't need to make these sort of comparisons.

And we don't know what evil will still be done to our young candidate, Barack, who Kerry has worked for and endorsed.

[katandmoon]

35. Kerry would be president PERIOD if the repukes didn't steal Ohio

[Sensitivity]

36. Kerry was really BADLY ADVISED by managers. He could have show his OUTRAGE and got

the MSM to pay attention to a major rebuttal of the smear. The advisor wanted to go low-key so as to not give the smear more attention -- but it did get all the attention while Kerry waited for it to die.

[jlake]

40. No. In the GE they would have struck back against JK, as they will against Obama.

[LittleClarkie]

41. We don't even know if Obama will be president

Right now his numbers are going down. We don't know if his response even helped.

And he has months to rebuild. Kerry had weeks.

[2rth2pwr]

42. If Kerry responded by saying "typical white person" my guess would be no.

[ecstatic]

43. It's not clear. I think most people knew the swiftvets were lying

and distorting the truth.

So addressing the smears would have only served the purpose of showing how macho he could be. Maybe that type of thing is important to mainstream Americans?

Rove, Bush, Cheney were more powerful than the swiftvets were in painting Kerry as this overeducated weakling, who "flip flops." Most of their campaign strategy involved teasing and belittling--an appeal to the worst parts of human nature (bullying).

[Eurobabe]

44. most likely

Sad thing.

[LWolf]

46. Other: John Kerry would be president right now

if there were no election fraud.