To all my friends here who wish to bash Kerry.

[Old and In the Way]

Do you really think any of our candidates could have done any better considering the structural problems we face in this country? Do you really think Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton or _________ would have somehow moved the electorate to have a seachange of heart against Bush and the Republican agenda? Would any other candidate have fared better than Kerry? I really doubt it.

This election is a celebration of incompetence over capability, faith over reason, fear over confidence. The majority of Americans wish to march back into a time that never existed rather than face a future reality that presents opportunity in its challenge. This majority would rather pray for solutions instead of the hard work to make those solutions happen. They want to follow the false prophets that are willing to lie to them. And they have a party and a corporate media who are more than happy to provide them this illusion.

By all means, shoot a man that offered himself to the American electorate as a capable and honest choice to the current administration. But do you really think any of our candidates who did/didn't run had a magic potion to address the 50% who willingly chose Bush? Many think a candidate to the left or right of Kerry would have made the difference....to that, I say how? If you are one of these people, I really think you have more in common with these people than you choose to admit.

I can't really point to anything Kerry/Edwards did that says "aha, this is where they went wrong." I honestly think we offered the best candidate for our times.....the 50% that chose the hypocrites who preach "moral values" but deliver incompetent leadership will reap what they sow. That lesson takes time to learn....some of us learn it sooner, but others, apparently, take a lot longer to understand this simple truth. Sadly, we get to share in their learning curve. But, if that is what it takes to win the war...I'll accept the loss of a battle or 2.

Bush will now assume, in the simple,imperial, and hubristic way that he views his Presidency, that he has a mandate to make more profound and radical changes in our society. Soon, we will start seeing the political refugees leave the Republican Party because they will be marginalized when they start to question boy-king. No one will be allowed to question his divine authority. We know, with confidence, that neither his domestic or international agenda will work. But the only solution I can see is time. And when that day comes, I am more convinced than ever that we will finally see the complete rupudiation of this man and the Party that has enabled him. Only then will we turn back into the light of progressive governance.

[fearnobush]

1. Kerry did a great job, excellent considering the SBVT shit he was up

against. And in the end we know he really won, BBV and stolen absentees.

[jfk2004]

34. NO, HE **SHOULD** HAVE KNOWN SWIFTBOATERS WOULD DO, AND HE DIDN'T RESPOND

IN THE END, IF YOU DON'T FIGHT FOR YOURSELF, HOW YOU GONNA FIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY??????

IF LINCOLN HAD NOT DEFEATED THE SOUTH, WE WOULD NOT HAVE AN USA. IF KENNEDY HAD NOT SENT IN THE NATIONAL GUARD, WHO KNOWS WHERE SEGREGATION MIGHT BE TODAY?

KERRY NEEDED TO DEFEAT JOHN O'NEIL, BUSH AND THAT NEXUS, AND HE DIDN'T. HE LET IT GO.

[Old and In the Way]

38. Why would he have known that? They were liars.

If this was true, they'd have discredited JK back in 70.

Are you still beating your spouse?

[CTLawGuy]

2. Kerry had no selling point other than

"I served in Vietnam" and "I'm electable."

[Old and In the Way]

4. And who had more compelling selling points?

[CTLawGuy]

9. Howard Dean

"I'm consistently against the war"
"I balanced the budget 11 straight years"
"I advanced civil rights at risk to my political career"
"I provided health care for children in vermont, and Ill do it in the US."

[Old and In the Way]

19. Dean would have done significantly worse.

"Dean won't protect you. He was skiing when VietNam was underway....I was protecting you in the National Guard."
"Dean was a hick governor of a tiny inconsequential liberal NE state."
"Dean was governor of a lily-white state."
"Dean's a socialist."

They'd play Dean's "yeeeeeaaaah" moment 24/7 in the corporate media. When they were done with him, he'd have been lucky to carry Vermont.

[merh]

25. Being against the war would not have pulled more votes

those that voted for the weed that would be king voted for him because "they are fighting the terrorists over there and not here!" and "better to fight a war there than at home!"

Do you realize how many emts and police and first responders have attended "anti-terrorists" training conducted by the "government experts" that lost their "overtime" but still voted for * because they are fighting the terrorists over there and not at home? That is what happens at those seminars and schools and conferences and training. The repukes have the indoctrination and propaganda spewing down to a fines science!

[ever_green]

35. agreed

if only.....

[sandnsea]

36. Bull fucking shit

He wasn't consistently against the war and Kerry people pointed that out repeatedly during the primary. If you think we were rough, then you just don't get the pound, pound, pound of Rove. The budgets were put in place by his predecessor and there are taxes that he raised, Vermont is one of the higher taxed states in the country. Signed civil unions = New England liberal. Health care plan had major debt when he left office and had to be revamped. I could go on, but there was a ton of shit they would have thrown at Howard Dean and he would have done no better than Kerry. Probably worse because he didn't even bother to go into the Guard during Vietnam so we would have had draft dodger against the military hero.

I am sick to death of this shit. It's selfish and mean and doesn't consider the feelings of any other DUer who put absolutely everything they had into the Kerry campaign, every single goddamned day for the last 18 months.

[Old and In the Way]

39. Absolutely.....custom tailored smears for any candidate who ran.

These people will win at any cost.....even if it means destroying the character of anyone running against them.

[Blue Moon]

11. Not true

Kerry served for more than 10 years as a Senator. You don't stay a Senator that long by doing nothing. He should have played up his Senate experience and all the things he did as Senator.

[Doomsayer13]

3. "what if's" are self defeating

we'll never know how the outcome could've been different. Could X Canddiate have fought off the fundie surge? We'll never know. The Kerry Campaign fought the good fight and we can tantilizingly close. He wasn't a perfect candidate, and it wasn't a perfect campaign, but it was the best we were going to get. We can learn from our mistakes, however, and come back in 2006, and 2008.

[Democat]

5. Kerry screwed us in August by not responding to Swift Liars for weeks

The campaign turned against us when Kerry didn't have a decent response to the Swift Liars. We never regained our momentum after that fiasco.

It is pretty obvious, in retrospect, that Kerry wasn't the right man for the job this time around. Maybe another candidate would have done worse, maybe they would have done better, but in the end, Kerry lost and he didn't help us win seats in the House or Senate either.

I thank Kerry for working hard, but I think the campaign made some major mistakes and they didn't seem to understand what they were up against.

The fact that he conceded without waiting for more votes to be counted and he didn't try to undermine Bush in defeat is just the final proof that Kerry was not the right man to fight against the right wing.

[Old and In the Way]

14. And what would his response have been to Republicans who

were willing to smear a person who served honorably in VietNam? No, his crime was being a Democrat that had an honorable record. Is there a response to those that would smear his service and give an AWOL neer-do-well a pass? That is where critical thinking needs application. 50% chose not to apply any.

I wanted him to fight to. Hell, I wanted a scortched earth policy on this election. In the end, Kerry wasn't willing to lead us into civil war. And if he had won in the courts over an extended battle? He'd be leading a divided country that would remain politically crippled with nothing resolved. I think he chose to let it go and let Bush and the Republican Party put the full conservative agenda in play. When this happens, let's see how the American people embrace it.

[pretzel4gore]

23. it's a class thing, don't tell me it isn't

john kerry's closer to bush then he is to the average american, political opinions be damned....kerry, like clinton, belives if you throw mud you lose ground....and it was we lost ground, not the nazipoos

[liberalhistorian]

6. Yes, we will see the repudiation of him,

the problem is what we'll have to suffer, and the price we'll have to pay, before it's all over. History shows time and time again that men like this get into power, they start taking total control and wreaking their havoc; finally, there comes a "snapping point" where people, including the "leader's" supporters, have finally had enough and they'll do whatever it takes to get rid of him. Then everyone breathes a sigh of relief and starts picking up the pieces of shattered lives and a shattered country, wondering all the while just "how this could ever have happened." We know exactly how it happens, it's been happening over and over and over for centuries, in every part of the world. The problem is, we never learn from it so that we can finally stop it before it actually happens. People are too fucking stupid, clueless, and idiotic, as we've just been shown.

I personally think Kerry showed a lot of class and leadership, the kind of leadership we so desperately need and that not many people really display. The Boy King would NEVER have conceded for the good of the country, he would have stamped his foot, yelled and screamed until he got his way. And no other candidate would have had anywhere near the showing that Kerry did. It's very difficult to oust an incumbent president, even impossible in wartime (it's never been done in this country), and Kerry made a tremendous showing despite those odds. I take heart that half of the country, at least, sees Shrub for what he really is and understands the danger he poses.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Maybe Wes Clark.

I think Wes Clark might have had some fun with it and I still would have liked to see a face off between Graham and Cheney.

[venus]

13. I love Wes Clark but

he would not have had the Congressional and Senate support Kerry did (actually guys like Lieberman and Gephardt should have been out there more for John on the campaign trail).

Plus Wes was a disaster in debates: too nervous.

Besides that he would have had to overcome his non-experience in politics and governing. Which by the way he could have done only if he had a competent campaign team, which he didn't.

I grew to love John Kerry although I spent 5 months of my life working for Wes Clark. After he dropped out he said to follow and support Kerry and that's what I tried to do.

[digno dave]

33. 'I voted for it before I voted against it" is statement Kerry will live

to regret for the rest of his life. It totally played into the definition Bush co. layed out for him.
On Clark, I was a Clark supporter but, like you, am not so sure he had the political exp. to stand up in a long campaign.

[dogtag]

8. Excellent and well put. (n/t)

[gonefishing]

10. I have said this before...

I have said before that I thought it was ironic that we switched from Dean to Kerry because fears of Dean's anti-war rhetoric. Now it seems even more ironic because that was the only message Kerry had in the last month. I don't believe America thought he was not the right guy for that message. Kerry didn't galvanize his followers (Bush did, B Clinton did). I am not sure if Dean would have although on the anti-war theme he already had.

I don't think we offered our best candidate. Hillary was our best shot in 2004. However, I agree with most of your thread and think she will be a better candidate in 2008 for all the reasons you have listed.

[Nicholas_J]

12. Kerry did great

I know I am going to get nailed for saying this, and I really like John Edwards, but I think if Gephardt was the VP selection, our chances to take Ohio would have greatly improved. A number of polls taken just around the selection time inmdicated that Gephardt was the only candidate who could increase the vote percentages for Kerry in Ohio. Anmywhere from one to two percent. Also, had Edwards remained in the Senate, our position would have been far stronger. Our position in the house is bad, and keeping as much strength one house of the legislature would have been one more vote in preventin Bush from having his way over the next four years. Up until a week before the selections, talk has it that Gephardt was the choice, and Kerry bent to the popularity polls. I always feared the electoral college would come down to two states, Ohio and Florida. I think we might have taken Ohio.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Not from me!

But I think second guessing political calculus of which VP could done better is rather counter productive and misses the point. I am disappointed that Edwards couldn't carry his own state, though. I believed that he'd help pick off a southern state or two.

In the end, I think we had 3 things that precluded any Democrat from winning:

(1) An electorate majority, devoid of critical thinking skills, that bought the Big Lies.
(2) A corporate media with a vested interest in seeing Bush and Republicans re-elected.
(3) A voting system that was strategically gamed in the Republican's favor.

[spooky3]

17. But the campaign did not send him there consistently to campaign.

Therefore, it's a bit unfair to ask him to deliver any state that the campaign did not make it a priority for him to visit.

They chose to send him to mostly rural districts in the midwest. I cannot second guess that strategy. For all any of us knows, he made a big difference in those communities.

[Old and In the Way]

21. very true.....

[Nicholas_J]

32. If you look at the maps of the critical states

Bush swept the rural areas in virtually every swing state in the midwest. He was losing Michigan until the reulsts from the larger cities came in. Detoit alone turned Bush's 6 poin lead in Michigan in the early evening to Kerry's win in Michigan. Now looking at Ohio, Bush swept then entire South and Southwest of Ohio. A critical area Toledo ran virtually 50 perrcent Kerry, 49 percent Bush. I think Gepharts heavy support among midwest unions could have pumped up Kerry's lead in a few areas like this considerably. I wzs surprised to see Bush's strength in union heavy urban areas in the south of the state that could have easily been shore up by Gephardt. It was notec during some of Gephardt visit to Ohio that Kerry did better in polls after a Gephardt visit. Prior to the selection of Edwards, visits to Ohio by Gephardt, particulalry one on an important union celebration led to a boos in the polls for Kerry that remained intact until the election More visits may have given more staying power. Thats Monday morning quarterbacking now, but I was saying it before the Edwards selection and I pointed it out just after the Edwards selection. I felt strongly that the final wire would come down to Ohio or Florida being essential based on what I percieved of Kery's strategy. He was obvious;y going for an electoral college win. I also feared the youth strategy, as I beleived that reliance on younger voters was largely what killed Deans campaign and the transfer of this voting block would be very bad for Kerry. I was greatly concerned that in the end, the youth bote would not turn out in any greater percentages than they did in any other election. I was correct, they turned out in the same perceentages that they did in 2000. Unfortunately, they may suffer the greatest from their failure to show up when a dcraft is reinstated. I have the greatest regard for Edwards. I think he may be a natural for 2008. THe issue of expereicen may still be a problem, but given the threat of Bin Laden to destroy every state that voted for Bush, we must anticipate that they will succeed in attacking a few. Kerry's warning about Bush taking the eye off of Bin Laden and allowing him to escape will ring far more true then. And Edwards wil be the heir aprarent to benefit from Kerry's foresight and prophecy. THE blame will fall heavily on Bush and republicans if Bin Laden does succed in even one attack.

[spooky3]

20. No one can prove whether this position is right or wrong.

However, having lived in Ohio for many years, and based on the info shared during the campaign, I see no evidence at all that Gephardt would have motivated the voters even a fraction as much as Edwards did.

Ohio is a conservative state and most people are not well-educated. That's not to say that there aren't many great people there. They are just outnumbered. Gephardt was unable to win even his closest neighboring primary. I'm sure he is a good man but Ohioans do not vote on the basis of geography, Kerry already had the Washington experience, and the union movement has greatly declined. He could not have done anything to improve the results, IMHO and based on the evidence we've seen.

In a thread arguing that we should refrain from bashing Kerry, I call for us not to bash Edwards either. We owe both of these gentleman and their families a huge debt of thanks. As bad as all of us are feeling, I cannot imagine how awful they must feel.

[spooky3]

16. Well put, and I agree with all, except that I believe there is one more

factor, and that is that I do think there are some BBV problems, based on my own experience in my precinct. Another DUer identified the problem before I did in nearby precincts. The numbers simple do not make sense, and I am in a heavily Dem. precinct and district (in a red-leaning state) where I thought it would be least likely to happen. I'm going to do what I can to get this investigated. It will not change the outcome of this election, but if it is the tip of the iceberg (i.e., if it happened here it could happen anywhere), then it could change the outcome of future elections.

This tempers my view about to what extent most Americans are X or believe Y.

[Old and In the Way]

22. I totally agree with your point.

BBV, in my opinion has harmed Democrat's confidence in our election system. Either Republican's address it and put in safeguards to make sure every vote counts....or we don't have a democracy.

We may well become The People's Republic of the United States where a single party runs things. Sadly, this irony is lost on all the idiots who mindlessly call us "pinko commie traitors." Their allegience to a one party government will turn us into the very thing they despise.

[spooky3]

30. excellent point, sadly

[Clintmax]

18. The most poignant post I have seen

IS this one...along these same lines...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2586390&mesg_id=2586390

[Lorien]

24. He was not the best. He lacked charisma and a clear message

two qualities that are an absolute MUST in a modern candidate. I worked at two Kerry rallies. I shook his hand and spoke to him. I'm sorry, but despite all my long hours working for the man, I was always ABB, and never truly "pro-Kerry". We needed a candidate that truly inspired, and he was not it!

[demokatgurrl]

40. Don't buy this "lacked charisma". It sounds like Republican

spin. I've talked to the guy, I've seen him speak, I've shaken his hand, I've shared a smile with him. What the hell do people want- every candidate to be Bill Clinton??

[Flammable Materials]

26. Whatev.

Don't say you're going to fight for me if you're not going to fight for me. If you plan to roll over, then tell me ahead of time so I know not to waste my time and look like an idiot.

DISCLAIMER: Author is drunk on Belgian ale. But many a truth is spoken in a state of inebriation.

[venus]

28. We don;t have the Ohio votes. How can you fight if your 3m

votes down AND the provisional and absentees are going to your opponent? huhh?

[PATRICK]

27. On "mandate"

He knows it is fake. He figures he must rush to get the stuff done regardless soon. It will happen fast way before 2006 because there might be crap so bad they lose the house regardless of the BBV. He merely assumes he has the upper hand. Mandate? Not his worry now.

They still pray for some spectacular attack. The war agenda progresses. Hello privatization(Social Security) Goodbye Supreme Court. Should they gamble and let in a crook without question they can impeach later? No. Can the Dems hold out? No.

Hope he gets the flu.

[Old and In the Way]

29. And the media plays on......

I've heard the mandate point about 1000 times today. Since when does getting 50% of the people mean a mandate? And they'll be asking, "what happened to the Democrats?"....not looking for an answer, just asking a rhetorical question over and over.

The only mandate he got was from Diebold, et al.

[nodehopper]

31. the point is he conceded before the votes were counted.

[Seabiscuit]

37. Sometimes I think you blind rah-rah-Kerry freaks are as bad as Bush.

And I'm sick of your two year Dean bashing bullshit. Fuck all of you.
Kerry sucked as a candidate and he really and finally showed his true suck colors when he prematurely ejaculated his concession this morning. Fucking coward. Send him back to Vietnam (or Iraq, for that matter) - he seems to have forgotten how to fight, and could use some retraining.

[Old and In the Way]

41. Never bashed Dean, actually contributed to his campaign.

but I'm a realist to know he was a non-starter. Nice critique on Kerry....asshole.

[Seabiscuit]

42. I wasn't addressing you. So try to be nice.