How many still believe we lost 2004 because Kerry was a bad campaigner?

[Atman]

Poll question: How many still believe we lost 2004 because Kerry was a bad campaigner?

Now that Jack Abramoff is helping to expose the depths of republican corruption, now that new research pretty clearly proves Gore won Florida by some 175,000 votes, isn't the picture becoming quite clear? Do some demographic research...the summer before the election, news stories were not hard to find about how the GOP was an endangered species because of the shifting demographics of the American population; more hispanics, more immigrants, which are traditional Dem voters, were making democratic dominance in American politics all but inevitable. Yet, despite all these shifting demographics, despite all the research, despite all the polling, despite the TRUTH, we were told a band of right-wing crazies took over the American government because some farmers in Kansas were afraid of homos, and some fundie whack jobs in the old South hated abortion (while some 80% of the population concurrently believes it is none of the government's damned business).

So, "weak campaigner" advocates, what do you think now?

Were our losses in 2000, 2002, 2004 still due to WEAK CAMPAIGNING, despite all evidence to the contrary? Are we ready to fight again, or will we continue to blame ourselves?

[skipos]

1. How about both? Kerry could have been much better & there was fraud? nt

[madmunchie]

2. Amen to that!

[Atman]

3. What difference would it have made?

He could have been the real return of Jesus, but if the machines were rigged for BushCo, he still would have lost.

[skipos]

5. VA, CA and NJ 05. It may be an uphill battle, but we can win elections.nt

[deutsey]

112. That's my choice.

[Nutmegger]

134. Yes, I agree, it was both. n-t

[radio4progressives]

139. I would have voted if there was a "Both" Option...

but it isn't there, and I wonder why?

I know there was Election Fraud - and I know the verdict has already been decided by the court of public opinion (democrats)that Kerry ran a terrible campaign - and some even say it was a milktoaste platform, to boot.

But in the end - Kerry lost to Election Fraud.

[Atman]

151. Everything isn't a conspiracy.

Wonder why there wasn't a "both" all you want. But there was no ulterior motive there. There was no "both" because the two are mutually exclusive. Kerry might well have run the worst campaign in the world. And Bush still stole the election. Do you believe Bush stole the election or not?

Kerry could have run the best campaign in the world, and perhaps you never felt the election was stolen. Just vote that way. This wasn't an essay question. If you believe Kerry lost because he ran a bad campaign and that allowed Bush to steal the election, BUSH STILL STOLE THE ELECTION! Do you think he did, or not? As I've posted a few times already, if Bush was not a crook, he would have conceded if he lost by only one vote. The fact that it was close or Kerry ran a bad campaign does not in any way forgive a theft.

So...do you think Bush stole the election -- even by one lousy vote -- or not?

[radio4progressives]

166. Didn't I make it clear? the evidence is in: Bush Stole the Election!

for crying out loud - he ran a really lousy campaign, but Bush Stole the Election.

Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election
Bush Stole the Election

there I have voted over a dozen times, Bush Stole the Election.

AND

he ran a really lousy campaign.

but bush still stole the election..

[Stevepol]

176. If Kerry won by 5M votes at least, how does this show a bad campaign?

As the exit polls indicate, Kerry won by a near landslide, at least 3% or about 5M votes, and that's probably an minimum estimate.

If that's true, Kerry must have run a good campaign. In fact, IMO, he ran one of the best-organized and effective campaigns in American history. If he is to be blamed for anything it's just that he didn't acquaint himself with the voting machine scam and refuse to concede, standing firmly for recounts and investigations after the election showed so many statistical anomalies, etc.

I might mention that along with many thousands of others (many of them here at DU) I predicted the results of the 04 election: that Kerry would win the exit polls but lose the election because of the voting machines (and other chicanery). We knew he stole the election before the election occurred.

[skipos]

186. Even Kerry regrets the way he handled the SBVT

After he let the SBVT do their damage for a couple of weeks, that was the first time I saw pre-elections polls with double digit leads for Bush. That was one of the biggest mistakes in the Kerry campaign.

A solid majority of the people who were voting "against the other candidate" instead of "for their own candidate" voted for Kerry. In my opinion, that indicates that Kerry wasn't inspiring people as much as he should have.

[Rodger Dodger]

223. I Agree

Gerrymandering takes a lot of money,and they got more than a lot. Some under the table and some through the back door, as we're now learning. They've dug themselves into a hole and it wont be easy to climb out. Conservative,wont be able to hold their heads high, compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron-moron:they knew it then and they know it now.

It takes a lot of cash to obtain justice in a timely manner. Particularly in a capitalist country, which claims to be a democracy. Cash rules in a Lais-sez-faire market economy, it will trump any democracy if the people continue to ignore the importance of being active in politics and vote.

That is if the Judicial is not corrupted. When that happens there is no ware to go to redress your grievance's, except hit the bricks in protest.

[LWolf]

180. That's the one. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

182. Precisely right.

Didn't run a strong campaign and had the election stolen from him. Of course it doesn't help that the mass media is owned by principles in The Cabal either.

Corruption, incompetence and criminal behavior. I think that sums up '04.

[Mutley]

196. My choice as well.

[mattclearing]

4. Even if you don't buy the BBV theft, you have to admit that

the corporate media completely ignored Kerry and Edwards, unless they did something stupid (space suit, hunting trip, calling out Cheney's gay daughter).

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. Exactly right! nt

[wixomblues]

97. I disagree.

Kerry got plenty of attention. Besides, he was a bad campaigner. Read the newsweek accounts of the campaign.

That being said, I'm not closed to the possibility of the election being rigged. But I have yet to see something that makes me think it was. The whole blackbox concept, alone, is inherently condusive to corruption, and makes me nervous.

Using a little logic, let's say it was rigged. It would have to be in the software, right? Don't the States have to approve the software prior to the election? All of the sites I've been to on this topic claim that the fix came in when Diebold sent patched to the progrms, without the States screening them. So, I conclude from that the States must have to screen all software. So, the States are screeining the software, and we know about the patches, if you were going to defraud an entire country, wouldn't someone spot the program or the language in the program that does this? Wouldn't a programmer at Diebold come forwrad, like the whistle blower in the NSA? Where are these people?

Like I said above, I'm not ruling it out, but it seems pretty implausible at this point. Please point me to facts/links that would indicate otherwise. And not that blackbox site.

[Atman]

104. No no no no and no.

You are coming from an angle of TRUST.

Don't states have to approve of the elections software? No. "Election software" is new. Most election machines were mechanical at the time and required no software. Yes, voting machines are open to inspection. But Diebold et al claimed that their software was proprietary and could not be inspected by anyone. You need to become more cynical, really. You trust these bastards far, far too much. Doing the right thing is what makes you a democrat, but they don't play by those rules.

[wixomblues]

117. Ok....

so what about the patches? Why were people upset in Ca that the state didn't get a chance to approve them?
And it's not a question of trust. If it was, I'd be on board with you. I think people want to believe the elections were stolen, but I'd love to see some sort of evidence. I'll dive into it now. Thanks for the links..I think. You had links somewhere. Cool.

[Atman]

119. SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE?

They locked up Scott Peterson with less "evidence!"

[wixomblues]

128. See my post to you below,

I'd like to see statutes governing voting and voting machines, and information about the process that gopverned the programming of the machines, and a breakdown of the results in each county they were used.

You seem like a nice chap, but I don't know you from a sack of potato's, so I can't take what you say as "evidence". I'm a big time lurker here, but I haven't really dove into any threads about fraud, but enough people here talk about it with such certainty, they don't have evidence on hand to back it up.

But like I said, I'm invested now. I am going to try and find all of the above info, unless you have a ready source.

[Imagevision]

138. Any evidence Kerry did his best to have all votes be counted?

Kerry knew well in advance of Diebold interference yet he went on to state on MSNBC that: " I believe that the bin laden tape released days in advance of the election that did me in" - that's verbatim!

He flat out said all of our votes would be counted this time -- which we now know simply wasn't the case and he didn't stand up and for the more then 50 million who voted and believed in him.

Mr. Kerry actions still do speak louder then well scripted words...!

[wixomblues]

143. So....Kerry was a GOP plant?

If he "knew" about Diebold, why would he do nothing? Makes no sense.

[Imagevision]

141. Kerry didn't win because all of our votes were counted as he promised

they would -- turned a deaf ear on irregularities in Ohio which decided his fate!

Kerry, showing up skiing on a windsurfing ? on skiing trips tooling around on a Harley, I mean what could have his people been thinking but the word got out that these were all Kerry scenario's.

John Kerry found out that it just wasn't that "cool" - what was he trying to do? best Bush's tricycle moments?

Dis you know that Johnny boy actually said to MSNBC in an interview days aftyer the election that; " I believed the Bin Laden video released days before the election is what did me in? And yet this is never brought up -- going with Kerry again/ -- it falls under the; " fool me once shame on fool me twice? well you know the rest!

[mattclearing]

107. Try the election reform forum.

The patches are not generally reviewed by the states. But the issue is more complicated than you have implied.

The bulk of the voting irregularities happened when precinct totals were compiled by the Diebold GEMS central vote tabulator software, which is basically an unsecured Microsoft Access database.

Basically, anyone with access to this central machine can alter the vote totals with impugnity.

[wixomblues]

118. So who had access? And is there a map that shows which Precints and states

used Diebold?

[Atman]

120. TRUTHISALL, where are you!

Someone light up the Bat Signal!

[Stevepol]

205. TruthIsAll now posting on ProgressiveIndependent.com BUT

Here's a TIA link with plenty of statistical evidence, massive evidence, and this is only the tip of the iceberg:

http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=47.topic

The erd forum on DU is a constant source of info about the continuing fraud.

Google this: Koehler initiatives Ohio

Or something like that. Find the article that Koehler has written about the recent fraud in the November (two months ago) initiatives vote in Ohio. If that don't convince you of machine fraud, you can pick up your brain at the door and find a more suitable place to browse around (Not you Atman, the guy you've posted to). Best wishes.

[mattclearing]

126. I believe there was one a while back.

Like I said, the DU Election Reform forum is good for this sort of thing.

A lot of the tabulators were maintained by county and state elections officials. These were of varying political party, but there have been indications that some of them were definitely acting strangely. There was an Ohio district where a woman named Sherole Eaton said that a technician for Triad, the company that maintains their voting machines, posted cheat sheets with "correct" vote totals so that the machine-tabulated recount they undertook would not go outside of the 3% margin of error needed to trigger a manual recount.

If you donate to DU, even just a little, you get the yellow star next to your username, and will be able to search the forums. I'm not plugging it per se, but it may help you to find the answers you're looking for.

[mike_c]

6. this is an awful poll...

...so rather than voting, I'll simply state my opinion: John Kerry was simply the WRONG candidate. He did a pale imitation of Bush on the repigs signature issues (national security, terror, win the war in Iraq, terror, 9/11, terror, gay marriage, terror, gun control, terror, etc). Dems needed a candidate who proposed ALTERNATIVES and got people excited about them.

[Greyhound]

Tada! fascist vs. fascist lite is no choice.

[KittyWampus]

13. Kerry's Policies Were Totally Different Then Bushes. WTF Are You Talking

about? :shrug:

His proposals for National Security, Terror, Iraq etc were all completely different AND GEARED TOWARDS ACTUAL SUCCESS IF IMPLEMENTED.

[Atman]

14. He obviously believed the talking heads and not Kerry

Kerry's positions were on his web site, even as the punditocracy parroted the official talking point "Kerry has no ideas!" I guess he fell for it.

[mike_c]

20. the WOT is a scam, Iraq is illegal, immoral, and unwinnable...

...9/11 was a freak event, not the belwether of a tidal wave of terror, Kerry's national security proposals accepted the Bush administration's premise that some form of secutity state needed to replace America's open democratic society, and so on. KERRY BOUGHT THE LIES, AND SIMPLY SPUN THEM DIFFERENTLY. He did not have the courage to call bullshit on ANY of the main republican issues-- he simply tried to reframe them. He never had the courage to repudiate his IWR vote. He failed-- against one of the weakest dumb asses to ever stand up in a national debate for the presidency. In the end, Kerry offered only alternative flavors of the same sad fare.

[bananas]

23. He called bullshit over and over

One example - during the debates - Kerry spilling the beans on Bush's secret plans to destroy Social Security - Bush campaign denied it - after the election Bush said he was going to use his political capitol to destroy Social Security.

[mike_c]

28. see #20 above....

The post you replied to. Bush's social security "reforms" were dead in the water from the very beginning-- there was huge popular opposition. Tell me one time-- just one-- when Kerry told the truth about Iraq rather than something along the lines of "I have a plan to win in Iraq," tell me one single time when Kerry said "the U.S. should stop the war on terror nonsense, and here's why...," or one single time when Kerry said "the best way to secure America is to stop trying to use a secutity state to bolster a corrupt foreign policy."

Kerry most certainly did NOT "call bullshit over and over." All he really did was respin the republican propaganda to try and make it look all polished, new, and Democrat.

[bananas]

57. Great - one of those discussions.

You say Kerry never called bullshit on Bush.
I give an example, and you say it doesn't count because "there was huge popular opposition". There was huge popular opposition to Iraq too, that didn't stop Bush from doing it. Did Kerry call bullshit or not? He did, admit it. And I contend that one of the reasons the opposition to SS reform was so effective is because people remembered Bush lying about it during the debates.

He called bullshit on Iraq during the debates - said Bush was planning 14 permanent bases. Until then, there were people on DU saying it was a tinfoil conspiracy theory.

Kerry wasn't a liberal or a dove, and he never has been. So his policies weren't going to be the complete opposite of Bush's, and if in your mind that means he had the same policies, too bad. If you look at his record in Congress, he's never been an advocate of a police state, and he's always been concerned with terrorism and national security issues.


Tell me one time-- just one-- when Kerry told the truth about Iraq
"In a harsh assessment of his rival's policies, Kerry told an audience at Temple University that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48716-2004Sep24.html


tell me one single time when Kerry said "the U.S. should stop the war on terror nonsense, and here's why...," or one single time when Kerry said "the best way to secure America is to stop trying to use a secutity state to bolster a corrupt foreign policy."
"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
"When John Kerry in a recent speech refocused his campaign by targeting George W. Bush's war on Iraq, he pounded Bush for having "misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking." Answering critics who have claimed he has no plan for Iraq, Kerry once again touted proposals he has been pushing for months. His "alternative" essentially calls for internationalizing the mess in Iraq by coaxing or pressuring other nations to participate in an accelerated reconstruction program, to provide more financial assistance and debt relief and to engage in various security functions, such as protecting the United Nations mission in charge of the upcoming elections and patrolling the borders. As President, Kerry said, he would convene a summit of major nations and Arab states to move others to share responsibility for rebuilding Iraq. He would push NATO allies to become more involved in training Iraqi security forces. He would de-Halliburtonize Iraqi reconstruction by employing more Iraqi contractors and by offering companies in other countries greater opportunity to bid on contracts. He would press for long-term power-sharing arrangements among Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/corn

[mike_c]

72. OK, lets talk about your examples....

He called bullshit on Iraq during the debates - said Bush was planning 14 permanent bases.

This one almost doesn't need a reply, but since you raised it, I'll respond. It's not relevant. It simply does not address my criticism that during the 2004 campaign, which is the topic of this thread, Kerry NEVER SAID THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ SHOULD BE STOPPED, OR SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED. Spin all you like-- he was an unabashed war supporter. In other words, he mirrored Bush's position on the invasion of Iraq.

"In a harsh assessment of his rival's policies, Kerry told an audience at Temple University that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48716-20...

That article is about Kerry's support for the "war on terrorism" and his disagreement with how Bush was prosecuting it. In other words, he supported Bush's objectives-- fighting a perpetual global war on an abstraction-- but disagreed with his methods. That same article goes on to say:

The Democratic nominee promised to destroy terrorist networks by going after their arms and financing; to revamp and enhance the intelligence apparatus to ferret them out; to build up an overstretched military by 40,000 troops; to support Middle Eastern democracies; and to increase funding for homeland security and for more intense cargo inspections at ports and other points of entry.

That tells me that Kerry bought into the WOT just as thoroughly as the Bush admin. Again, Kerry CONSTANTLY repeated the notion that his approach could "win the war on terror" sooner than Bush's. That's participating in the scam, not repudiating it.

"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcrip...

This is a transcript from the primary debates when Kerry WAS still hinting about some of the root causes of terrorism. The next line after the one you quoted is:

And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

This is the closest Kerry comes to questioning the root causes of terrorism rather than simply proposing alternative ways to "win" against it. But he never came close to mentioning the U.S. role in maintaining those economic, social, and cultural conditions that foster terrorism, and more to the point, once he was nominated, he referred to "winning the war on terrorism" at every opportunity. Even in this primary debate, he still accepted the basic premise of the phoney "war on terror."

He also said:

I will tell you, and I think General Clark will share this, that those who've been to war know that the words "last resort" are important. And I intend to hold him accountable in this election, because the American people's pockets are being picked to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and our troops are at greater risk than they needed to be. And we deserve leadership that knows how to take a nation to war if you have to.

Again, I'm not certain how to interpret this-- is he saying he's opposed to the war, as the first sentence implies, or just angry with the way it's being conducted, as the last sentence suggests? The last sentence-- "if you have to"-- accepts the need to invade Iraq.


Finally, from the same article as your last example:

With this plan, a collection of steps designed to achieve increments of progress, Kerry and his aides signal that they realize Bush has created a predicament in Iraq with no obvious solution. Still, they believe the United States should remain militarily engaged in Iraq and take a stab at producing a reasonably stable country that would not be home to large swaths of uncontrolled territory suitable for use by anti-American terrorists. They argue that a new administration more committed to internationalism would have a brief window of opportunity in which the United States could persuade allies and Arab nations that it is in their interest to assist a US-led effort to avert the further destabilization there. But Kerry's plan is not a bold and daring counter to what George W. Bush has done (invade now and ask questions later--or not). It is not a withdrawal. It is not a six-point program promising peace and democracy in Iraq and the swift return of American troops.

[bananas]

100. Like I said - "One of those discussions"

This one almost doesn't need a reply, but since you raised it, I'll respond. It's not relevant. It simply does not address my criticism that during the 2004 campaign, which is the topic of this thread, Kerry NEVER SAID THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ SHOULD BE STOPPED, OR SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED. Spin all you like-- he was an unabashed war supporter. In other words, he mirrored Bush's position on the invasion of Iraq.

First, the topic of the thread is whether the election was stolen. Maybe you think that if we had an anti-war candidate, the corporate media would have given him a fair airing on tv and radio, the republicans would not have engaged in all the vote suppression they did, that all those voters in Ohio standing in line for hours in the rain would have magically had brazillions of accurate voting machines.

I voted for Kucinich in the primaries - but he was too liberal for most democrats, so he didn't win the party nomination. You really believe that a candidate who "SAID THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ SHOULD BE STOPPED, OR SHOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED" would have had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidential election? Sorry, no. As H. Rap Brown said, "Violence is as American as apple pie". The republicans laughed at Kerry because he wanted to treat terrorist acts as crimes instead of lashing out blindly and bombing the hell out of whatever country is convenient.

If you really think that Kerry's policies were identical to Bush's, there's no hope of having a rational discussion with you. You completely mischaracterize Kerry's policies, then you accuse me of "spin all you like". Bye.

[Atman]

102. Thank you thank you thank you!

Finally someone gets it!

[bananas]

131. God I hope I'm not the only one! nt

[blm]

136. Of course not. ;)

/

[KittyWampus]

your entire post consist of vague, empty attacks. Fact, we are in Iraq.

Fact, Kerry had proposals to deal with that situation vastly different then Bush's.

Fact, our borders, power plants and ports of entry aren't secure because Bush was ignoring them.

Kerry had proposals to deal with lack of attention to securing our National Security.

And on and on.

Kerry had proposals to deal with REALITY.

[mike_c]

30. good god, you have really bought their lies....

You really think we are in some kind of global war not of our own making? Those were all republican talking points.

[karynnj]

35. Kerry's believes on terror pre-dated 2001

After spending 5 years investigating BCCI Kerry knew more about the dangers of non-state terrorism than any politician in either party. His speech at the University of Philadelphia spelled out what his policies on the Bush named W on T.

By the way, he has repeatedly repudiated his IWR vote - because he now accepts he should not have trusted the President of the US's word.

[mike_c]

36. when he formed his opinions about "terror" is irrelevant....

He still shares--with the Bush administration-- the essential belief that the U.S. must fight against international terrorism. This is a fundamentally dishonest position because it ignores the truth that U.S. foreign policy is largely responsible for creating the conditions that foster terrorism. We don't need to fight terrorism-- we need to stop creating it. Kerry's position-- at least during the campaign (I don't know whether he's changed it since)-- is simply another spin on Bush's national security state approach to "winning the war on terror"-- a phrase Kerry used REPEATEDLY during the campaign. And if that's not a Bush administration rallying cry, I'll eat my hat.

As for his IWR vote, I disagree that he's EVER truly repudiated it-- his recent admission that it was a mistake is a slippery thing designed to deflect political blame by disavowing responsibility for knowing that the reasons for the IWR were specious, and that it was in violation of international law in any event. We can argue about the NATURE of the IWR elsewhere if you like. But the important point is that during the campaign, Kerry stood by his IWR vote 100 percent, not even going so far as to admit it was a mistake (but not his fault). Find me a link that suggests otherwise if you can, but I know you can't.

[kenny blankenship]

48. he never even said BUSH LIED to us in the Senate

as a defense of his vote.
He refused to distinguish himself from Bush on key points regarding Iraq and the phony War on Everything--and predictably, he came in second.

[blm]

55. BULL. Kerry said terror needed to be dealt with as a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue

and he suffered alot of criticism for his stand.

I swear some of you have poor recollections of the facts from 2004.

[mike_c]

58. that's just spin on the Bush approach....

Bush says terror must be dealt with militarily, Kerry says with law enforcement-- both buy the starting premise that terror needs to be dealt with without changing the conditions that foster it's creation-- U.S. foreign policy. Kerry simply wanted a different approach to the same bankrupt objectives. International terrorism is like disease. Neither killing the sick nor locking them up for being sick-- the military and law enforcement approaches respectively-- address the root causes for disease. Terrorism is no different. Kerry's proposal that we could "win the war on terrorism" by ANY means was just more of the same old same old under a new veneer. And NO amount of boosterism can erase the fact the he used that precise phrase in nearly every speach he delivered during the 2004 campaign. Do you honestly think that Kerry had a prescription that could "win the war on terrorism?" Do you?

[blm]

61. BULL. Kerry specifically stated that the ORIGINS of terror need to be

addressed.

Kerry STUDIED for many years about all religions and their effect on governments and their cultures.

That was why he said one of his first acts would be to bring together the leaders of EVERY religion into a summit where they would work together to come up with ways to address the growing terrorism threats from within those cultures. He's been saying this since 1997, and not as some political reaction to 9-11.

You obviously never even bothered to study the facts about Kerry. You just stick to a cartoon version that appealed to you and won't budge from it.

[mike_c]

75. you know, simply dismissing comments you don't agree with as bull...

...isn't going to get us anywhere. Have a nice day. :hi:

[blm]

77. I did more than that and you ignored the entire reply because it's TRUE.

You have no answer for the truth, and try to dismiss its information about Kerry's efforts and its worth as merely an attack.

[AZBlue]

90. Sometimes there's just no point in trying.

But you made an excellent attempt! :D

[Noisy Democrat]

212. Yes, Kerry stood by

his IWR vote -- and by his position that nevertheless, it was wrong to rush to war. That's because he's not a flip-flopper.

I love the way Democrats rallied around him to point out to the media that he was steadfast on this and not a flip-flopper. /sarcasm

[yurbud]

56. that's something tough to get around: War on Terror big lie

It is clearly a cover for an economic hegemony agenda.

The hard part is how you explain that to the average person without sounding like a conspiracy theory nut.

[mike_c]

60. nonetheless it is a big lie, and Kerry repeated it at every opportunity...

He had a chance to tell the truth, but chose to repeat Bush's lies instead. The WOT is a scam.

[yurbud]

68. Sadly, a lot of Dems joined him in that. To his credit, he did say

that he wanted to reduce terrorism to a nuisance, rather than an all-consuming theme for our government.

[blm]

91. Kerry said no such thing. You can't read any of his speeches on terror,

national security or the environment and not realize that Kerry has connected them all and would approach the terror issue completely different than Bush and address its origins in oil policies and religious fundamentalism.

[wixomblues]

98. Bush understands the orgins in Oil and religion.

That's why he's currently killing all things Muslim, and taking away their pesky oil.

[blm]

105. EXACTLY. They use what they know to instigate Holy Wars in their push

for global fascism.

Kerry would apply what he has learned about other regions to promote greater understanding between cultures, fairer distribution of regional resources and compensation, environmentally sound alternatives and, ultimately, greater peace.

[wixomblues]

122. LOL!!!!

And Kerry would fart vanilla pudding for all the hungry children. Kerry would be better then Bush, but he wasn't anything special. A bad choice, evidently.

[blm]

127. Then you don't know Kerry like you THINK.

Kerry was talking about these things LONG before 9-11.

I was agreeing with you the REASONS that Bush does what he does. But, if you examine Kerry's 20 year record on terror and energy independence that PRE-DATES 9-11 and in fact, exposed the first terror network that linked Bush cronies with terrorist groups, there is no way you could make that statement of Kerry being just not as bad as Bush.

So, my guess is that you haven't read the National Security Archives much. It's a good place to read the REAL history of this country and what the media has suppressed for the most part over the last 4 decades.

[wixomblues]

132. I confess, I haven't read the National Security Archives much.

Kerry had 20 years in the Senate to make a name for himself and formulate change and legislation. Sorry, he's a bland guy. IMO. Not a bad guy, not a great guy. He, like most people, say lots of things, and get behind noble causes now and then. But in the end, so what? He wasn't the guy for the job, and we're stuck with the shrub. Yeaaa. No use crying over spilled milk. I'll get on the NSA readings.

[blm]

135. Uh... one of the things you'll learn when you read the NSArchives is that

Kerry was the exact opposite of what you describe. The media downplayed Kerry's Senate record because it was devastating for THEM, as well as BuahInc.

It was Kerry who spent a YEAR investigating and uncovering IranContra. He then spent FIVE YEARS investigating BCCI - the biggest corruption scandal in US history. In fact, all the secrets to what happened on 9-11 and our oil policy and wars could be found in the BCCI story.

Media used the fact that Kerry was a junior senator who didn't get his name on much legislation as a talking point against him - knowing full well that SENIOR senators get naming rights on bills.

Kerry has only investigated and exposed more government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history. But, for media to talk about that, they would have to acknowledge that THEY were part of the massive coverup by a press that purported to find the BCCI case "too difficult" for Americans to understand.

Pure bullshit, of course, since after 9-11, I would say that MOST Americans could GET that the funding of terrorism is a bad thing - and be appalled that the Bush family was a big part of the international network that was doing the funding for all these years.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

144. Think so, huh? Try researching Bush, BCCI, Bin Laden, Pakistan and Kerry

see what pops up.

BCCI was not just bank fraud - it was about the international network of financiers funding global terrorism and moneylaundering arms and drugmoney THROUGH the BCCI bank.

Many of the same characters in BCCI pop up today in current affairs and especially current policy.

If you think it was simple bank fraud, I don't blame you, the media didn't exactly cover it honestly.

But. if it was mere bank fraud, why on earth would Bush1 and his WH stonewall the investigation as much as they did? Why go to court to declare so many of the documents that Kerry wanted made public as National Security secrets?

[wixomblues]

148. Yes, drug dealers like Noriega used the system....

Criminals need banks to. Plus, when you start an account with hundreds of unmarked bills, you get a free toaster. And everyone likes toast.

I'm sure some of the same characters will pop up. There are only so many billionaires in the world. And not all of them are nice.

What this has to do with out current President supporting and funding terrorism I don't know. If anything, it's going to be a tenative connection where you show me that someone in the Bush family uses the same bank or something as a terrorist...you know, meaningless facts. I'm also confused as why the MSM would ignore all of this, but has no problem writing stories about the National Guard AWOL days of Bush, the cocaine use, the NSA wiretap program, the massive illegal fundraising scandal, and everything else!! We've got him by the balls on three different things, probably, and the press has no problem telling the "people" about it. They just don't care. Say it with me. They just don't care.

People like good news, and don't want to believe they're president is a crook and a liar. They want to like him. And, well, they want solutions, not finger pointing. How does making Bush look bad make us look good? Well, it helps a little. But not much. So, that being said, I don't believe that the Main stream media is in anyone's pocket, news is news.

[blm]

154. Maybe a refresher would help -

This reporter during the campaign at least tried to understand better than most. Most wouldn't even try.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3915.html

John Kerry: What His Record Says About Him

Gail Russell Chaddock, in the Christian Science Monitor (March 3, 2004):



>>>>>>>
Colleagues credit Kerry with doing much of the heavy lifting himself. Mr. Blum adds that pressure to back off the BCCI investigation was intense: "From Day 1, there was never a committee that took such an unmerciful pounding from the White House. Kerry said: 'Just ignore it.' "

Later, he turned his investigative attention to how to spend the "peace dividend" after the end of the cold war. Kerry warned that a more dangerous war was already taking shape, with global crime organizations that corrupted entire governments, especially the "Big Five" - the Italian Mafia, Russian mobs, Chinese triads, Japanese yakuza, and Colombian drug cartels. "It will take only one megaterrorist event in any of he great cities of the world to change the world in a single day," he wrote in his 1997 book, "The New War: The Web of Crime that Threatens America's Security."

Nearly absent from Kerry's watch list are Islamic terrorist groups, including those affiliated with Osama bin Laden, who reconstituted a network for terrorist money laundering in the Sudan after the collapse of BCCI.

But by then, Democrats had lost control of the Senate and Kerry had lost his mandate for pursuing investigations. As the Kerry operation wound down, Blum says Kerry wanted to get into "the whole bizarre relationship between US intelligence and Muslim radicals who were training in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but time ran out. And on both the Democratic side and the Republican side, there was no stomach for it, because we were winning the cold war. It turns out that was a grotesque mistake."
>>>>>

So, it was TIME and a GOP congress that stopped further investigations - Kerry's book was written in 1996 and came out in 1997. Al Qaeda began forming after Bin Laden settled in Afghanistan in 1995. Kerry's efforts in BCCI had already had put Bin Laden's brother, Salem, under arrest. And Bin Laden, himself, lost millions when BCCI was closed.

[blm]

159. BTW - a junior senator DOES write bills, too, but if a SENIOR senator

decides he wants on the bill, then he replaces the junior senator. For example - both Kerry and Kennedy crafted the SCHIP bill extending health care access to children, a point rescued from Hillary's original healthcare plan that the two senators thought the senate would pass.

Hatch eventually wanted in on the bill when it was ready to come out, so Kerry's name was dropped in favor of the senior senator from Utah. Kennedy was already the senior senator from Mass. who was also a prolific legislator, so Kerry pursued another useful track.

He still got in his share of good legislation, though.

[karynnj]

161. Oh, health care

The largest expansion of government health care insurance was the S-CHIP program. The bill was initially written by Kennedy and Kerry. After Hillary's health insurance program failed, this plan was resubmitted - when Hatch was persuaded to sponsor it, Kerry's name (he was a junior Senator) was dropped. Kennedy however credited Kerry with writing a substantial amount of it.

[blm]

167. BTW....BCCI is still important in other countries as well.

Remember the recent AQ Khan revelations? And that Bush administration wasn't pushing Pakistan for further investigations even though Khan was responsible for spreading WMDs and nuclear secrets?


Saturday, January 07, 2006

Kerry’s coming, Delhi hopes he will soften on n-deal

Visit Will meet PM on Jan 11; he was among first to warn of A Q Khan

PRANAB DHAL SAMANTA

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 6 Amid debate in the US over the July 18 nuclear deal with India, former Presidential candidate and high-profile US Democrat Senator John Kerry will make a brief visit to India next week as the Bush Administration prepares to approach Congress for an exemption to take the deal forward.

Kerry, edged out by Bush in a closely fought election last year, is slated to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on January 11. He is currently also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Considered an ardent advocate of tightening non-proliferation controls, a supportive view by Kerry will count in building a positive climate for passing the India-specific legislation that the Bush Administration plans to table soon. The proposed legislation, which will grant full exemption to India from US non-proliferation laws, needs to be passed by both chambers of the Congress.

While Kerry has always emphasised on strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, he has not openly opposed the Indo-US nuclear deal. To that extent, New Delhi will look to impress upon him the logic that the deal will actually strengthen multilateral efforts to realise long-term non-proliferation objectives.

Kerry is far from a learner on these issues. Back in December 1992, Kerry was among the first few to raise the finger of suspicion on the clandestine dealings linked with the Pakistani nuclear programme. He named A Q Khan in his report on the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) affair and identified the matter as one that must be fully investigated in the future.

“BCCI provided $10 million in grants in the late 1980s to finance an officially ‘private’ science and technology institute named for Pakistani President Ishaq Khan, whose director, A. Qadir Khan, has been closely associated with Pakistan’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The institute is believed by some experts to be the headquarters for Pakistan’s efforts to build an Islamic bomb,’’ he had said then. South Block officials feel that Kerry’s understanding of the issue runs deep and that he has indicated in the past a greater role for India in curbing the clandestine spread of nuclear weapons.

India has already argued in the IAEA for a more detailed investigation into unraveling the A Q Khan network that, it feels, lies at the heart of addressing the Iran nuclear issue. This was also partly reflected in the last IAEA resolution in the matter.

>>>>>>>>>

[Lydia Leftcoast]

190. Then why didn't he blow his own horn?

He did not promote himself well enough.

[blm]

197. Does Bush promote himself or do the RNC and GOP pundits do it for him?

Kerry WON his matchups with Bush - he beat him in the debates and developed the far better platform and policies on every issue.

The DNC spokespeople and leftleaning media pundits got their asses handed to them on a daily basis by the RW message machine.

Dem spokespeople schooled in defending Clinton for 8 years knew little about the Dem candidate, his record or current issues.

[Griffy]

206. Exactly.. its the PROPAGANDA stupid.. thats why we are even discussing...

who won. We have no fourth estate and no oversight.. so no investigations into anything! Some ppl here said.. "Show me evidence.." BS!!, you dont want to know, if you DO want to know, just read "Fooled Again" , by Mark Miller. It will answer your questions, or you can try "What went Wrong in Ohio" by John Conyers. There is no way a blurb in a blog can SHOW you the EVIDENCE that DOES exist. The PROPAGANDA has brianwashed all of us in some degree. They infect the entire stream of news, they have greatly reduced the number of JOURANLISTS and replaced them with reporters.. reporting what they are told. No vetting, no filtering, no fact-checking and rampant rightwing opinions sold as news.

It is REALITY that is under attack, and Kerry won is the reality, I urge you all to seek the truth... if you REALLY want to know, it will take a few hours of study and reading... it takes work, and that why most people dont know. (but they know about the girl missing in Aruba, because that info was drummed out daily, or Peterson, or M. Jackason.... )

[blm]

226. EXCELLENT POST. I'm afraid too many will miss your words.

Please retool it for a thread of its own. People should hear what the real battle is that we are facing. Their energy should go to the REAL battles. Distraction battles only help BushInc.

[karynnj]

157. Kerry was never bland

Did you have the courage to stand up against Nixon's paranoid administration and speak the truth?

Did you have the courage to astop the Contras from drug running in the US when Reagan (very popular) was President and his administration turned it's head?

Did you have the courage and integrity to fight for 5 years to bring down a terrorist bank - even though it meant exposing top Democrats as well as Republicans? He was a pariah in the party through most of this.

I've never met you, put few men or women, would have the guts or strength of character to do one of these things - let alone all 3.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

191. So why didn't we see THAT Kerry in the campaign?

I sure didn't see that in his two appearances in Minneapolis.

[lyonn]

92. Yup

[Lorien]

116. Agreed. n/t

[Greybnk48]

7. My sister still parrots this idea.

it drives me crazy.

[Greyhound]

8. That your poll is too skewed. n/t

[Atman]

12. Explain

My comments before the poll may point to my personal bias, but the poll does no such thing. The do you think it was stolen or not, and have you always felt that way. Explain the bias.

[Greyhound]

21. Personally I think he was a bad campaigner that did such an awful

job that the election was close enough for the re:puke:s to steal.

[Atman]

26. So then, you believe BushCo stole the election

See, nothing "skewed" about that. The question isn't about Kerry's style, although you can certainly post a poll to that effect if you'd like. The question is about whether or not you always felt the election was stolen, never felt it was stolen, or have recently begun to believe it was stolen after hearing the steady drumbeat regarding the depths of Bush's corruption combined more recent research. Pretty simple.

[Greyhound]

29. So just ignore the first part of my opinion, that'll get support. n/t

[Atman]

31. I am ignoring nothing.

I am not ignoring the first part of your opinion! Don't be silly. I stated a very clear fact: you said you believe Bush stole the election.

Or don't you?

Which is it? That is the only thing I commented on!

[Greyhound]

41. He was a responsible for his campaign, which was so bad that it made the

rigging plausible. That's why they're going to get away with it.IMO it is ingenuous for you to deny that you poll is skewed.

[Atman]

45. You continue to miss the point.

I asked if you believe BushCo stole the election. You said "yes, but..."

The "but" doesn't enter into it. Even if Kerry only won by 1 vote and that allowed Bush to steal it, BUSH STILL STOLE IT. How much he stole it by cannot possible be used as a mitigating factor. If Bush was honest, and he lost by one vote, he'd have conceded the election, not stolen it. Why do you want to give Bush a pass simply because Kerry didn't win by enough? I don't get it.

[Greyhound]

50. IRL it is a mitigating factor. The fact is that the people that crave

power, and it doesn't matter what letter is after their name, are driven to acquire it and will not hesitate to do whatever it takes to get it. Every administration this country, or any other for that matter, has committed crimes in the exercise or pursuit of power.
I'm not interested in giving * a pass, in fact I'm all for throwing his worthless ass into the darkest hole in Texas forever, but that doesn't change the original point. We have rigged elections in this country and always have. They will continue to be rigged in a variety of ways until the sheeple stand up and fight for their rights, which, being sheep, they never will.

[karynnj]

163. Did you see a rally live or on CSPAN?

I thought he was as good as ANY campaigner in my life - and I've voted since 1972.

[rucky]

9. Why can't it be a combination of many factors?

you know, NUANCE

[blm]

15. Nuance is a treasured trait in every civilized nation's leader. US media

has turned nuance into an undesirable trait and too many lefties seem to want to accomodate this turn even while pretending they are not easily led by the rightwing media.

[KittyWampus]

10. I watched here on DU as the exit polls inexplicably shifted.... like magic

as all voting machine errors were for Pro-Kerry votes.
as Ohio voters either couldn't vote or had to wait for hours.

And then I watched, here on DU, as DU'ers came out en masse the night of the election trashing Kerry unmercilessly when the mediawhores refused to report the irregularities and dubbed Jr. king.

It was so easy, if you supported Dean or Dennis, to lambast Kerry for a shitty campaign and claim your guy would've done better.

Kerry made a few mistakes, but IMO the Swift Boat crap wasn't all that influential. Most of those it influenced wouldn't be voting for him to start with.

It just gave the Mediawhores the rationale to explain away another election theft.

And Kerry's performance in the debates was beyond outstanding. He won all three debates, remember?

He had vast, huge crowds showing up to hear him speak, remember?

[blm]

11. We're fighting the Dem powerstructure on this, too, Atman. They claim Dems

lost because Kerry was too far left, and THEY have just the solution to win in 2008 - move the party to the right.

I think the problem we have is that our Dem bench STINKS. Dean needs to clean it out some more. Every time Kerry gained as in the debates, some DNC or Dem pundit would get their incompetent ass kicked in by the RNC or rightwing counterpart. DAILY.

Our frontline in the daily media wars were weaklings, schooled for 8 years in defending Clinton, and completely unschooled in defending any other current Democrat and ignorant of their actual record.

But the STRATEGIST class pays their mortgage by coming up with HOW to win, and isn't it interesting that they don't notice the GOP control of the broadcast media or the voting machines - instead they want the party to move right.

[KittyWampus]

18. BLM, would you post this as a seperate thread? About STRATEGIST Class

of Democratic Party.

There's a lot in your short post that has me really thinking.

[txindy]

16. Kerry drew massive crowds everywhere he went

The Cabal stole the election.

[leftofthedial]

17. the bushgang stole it, but Kerry was mediocre at best

the real problem is he quit too soon, as though scripted by the repukes. I no longer trust Kerry.

[blm]

25. Yeah - distrust the one guy who has done more to expose corruption than

any other Dem in modern history - and whose efforts helped to end three wars. That's the way to treat Democrats in this country. Use the media to further the lies against the man, too.

Good way to draw conclusions. Blame a no-win situation on the victim, without taking in the entire history of the man's work.

Smart - really smart.

[leftofthedial]

65. thanks

for the hyperbole

[blm]

94. answering in kind - trust is earned over years and decades.....

he earned the trust over 3 decades and 1 no-win event he couldn't control shouldn't obliterate a lifetime of good works.

To me, it's hyperbolic to suggest he isn't to be trusted now based on something he had no control over.

[leftofthedial]

101. he quit

right on cue

wen the fight couldn't have mattered more

that weighs more heavily with me than his stand against Viet Nam.

His political record since has been pretty good, but he's also been part of the comfortable Dem establishment that allowed the repukes to take control of the Congress.

[blm]

110. THAT'S where you are dead wrong - The establishment was AGAINST Kerry

and ostracized him for years in DC because of his investigations that exposed IranContra and BCCI.

His work on Vietnam was NOTHING compared to the work he did to uncover the greatest episodes of government corruption in the 20th century.

The entire DC powerstructure lined up AGAINST Kerry, especially on BCCI. Kerry had the Dem powerstructure working with the GOP and DC media against him, as well as the FBI and CIA as per Reagan and Bush1 administrations' orders.

Some simpletons on the left try to claim Kerry as some empty suit cartoon - it worked for the naive and those new to politics and governance, but the National Security Archives tell a whole different story.

[stray cat]

19. I don't know

The campaign could definitely have been better, I think some level of fraud happened. However, I haven't seen sufficient hard core evidence that would hold up in court. I believe it was rigged at some level but that belief doesn't make it so.

[Touchdown]

22. No campaign is perfect. Kerry stumbled in spots.

...but a lot fewer spots than Gore, and a Helluva lot less than Dukakis. I'm reading "Fooled Again" by Mark Crispin Miller. 2004 was rigged long before we made our choice for him. Kerry never had a chance, and on the morning after election day, he knew it.

[WI_DEM]

24. I vote both. Kerry didn't go over with rank and file dems and Bush

also stole Ohio.

[blm]

27. Cuz DNC Dems were not smart enough to handle their RNC counterparts as

effectively as Kerry handled his matchups with Bush.

Why is everyone AFRAID to tell the TRUTH?

DNC and the LEFT-leaning media got their ASSES HANDED TO THEM EVERYDAY in the broadcast media by the RW message machine who controlled the daily message.

Was Kerry on TV everyday for hours - NO. It was the DNC spokespeople and the Dem pundits who were supposed to be the frontline in the battle. NONE of them were effective because none of them knew how to do much but defend Clinton on HIS issues. They didn't know HOW to support any other Dem and knew very little about Kerry's actual record and its import to this nation's history.

[kenny blankenship]

32. JK=doomed choice, bad campaigner AND the Nazis stole it in Ohio

and it should go without saying, also in Florida. I don't Kerry even tried for Florida because he knew it would be rigged.

It was always about Ohio.

Kerry ran like he didn't need to do much of anything but not be Bush. It almost worked--that's how bad Bush is. But the ace up Bush's sleeve is that he fights dirty, and that should have come as no surprise to the Kerry people.
But it did and they fucked up by not attacking Bush hard enough, nasty enough and soon enough. Rover went negative first and straight in Kerry's face AS HE ALWAYS DOES TO OPPONENTS. That put Kerry on the defensive starting in the middle of summer and he never regained his momentum. He was always defending and trying to re-balance himself, instead of nailing Bush's coffin shut like he should have been.

[bowens43]

33. Not enough choices.

Kerry WAS a horrible campaigner. The GOP DID steal the election.

The bottom line is that if Kerry had been even a mediocre campaigner, the GOP would not have been able to steal the election. It should have come down to Ohio being the deciding state.

In my opinion Kerry's soldier boy routine lost it for him. Once he made that the primary focus of his campaignb , it was over. M

[progressivebydesign]

34. I was thinking about the biggest rally Kerry had with Springsteen.

I thought about that yesterday, and how I felt there was NO WAY we would lose it. It was stolen. And let's not be so foolish as to ignore the fact that somehow, the corruption that is being investigated now, is somehow involved. Follow the money.

[Sydnie]

37. And the ones before that

He did reach the rank and file and they came out to support him everywhere he went.

The news of a connection between Abramoff and Diebold should put all the questions to bed, imho.



He knew.

[Atman]

38. While Bush's rallies were always small and hand-picked.

For christ's sake, people, how about a little common sense? Popular, electable presidents don't have to hide and pontificate to a room full of loyalty-oathed campaign contributors and invited guests!

[Sydnie]

43. exactly!

[HughBeaumont]

39. I was at the Cleveland one.

50-60k people. Moreso than any rally the Dim Son had in Ohio.

What made me pig-bitin' mad was the fact that the election was as close as it was and they just let this bastard steal another one, even after 4 years of vowing it would not happen again.

[LSK]

54. that event is in the cspan archives available online

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. He was a weak, pandering, candidate running on a pro-war platforrm.

He offered nothing but the usual DLC "not as bad", "I'm not really a liberal", crappola and lost.

As for the "stolen" election, get back to me when the culprits are indicted.

[Atman]

42. Oh. I didn't know you had to be indicted to commit a crime.

My bad. I thought the indictment part usually came after investigations. I guess there are no criminals in America who've committed crimes and not been caught. How silly of me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Accusations don't equal crimes, either.

Apparantly, those doing the investigating haven't found any, or enough, evidence to indict.

[Atman]

64. "...those doing the investigating haven't found any (crimes)."

And who might those be?

I just pointed out that those doing the investigating HAVE found crimes. But they aren't in any legal position to do anything about it. The people in a legal position to do anything about may not be investigating, but that does not mean that it hasn't been investigated. Every time it is, it appears, the investigators find that Bush stole it. That is why you won't find anyone on Bush's side doing the investigating.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Why aren't they in a "legal position" to do so?

Last I heard, if a citizen is aware of a crime, he may report it to the authorities and have the criminals arrested

If they have found that "Bush stole it", why aren't they filing charges against those who did it?

I, too, wish that evidence could be found that the election had been stolen, but so far, there hasn't been anything creidible or provable that that was the case.

[Atman]

124. *sigh*

*double sigh*

[fedupinBushcountry]

111. Bull crap

I am so sick of this baloney. Get off that DLC shit, Clinton was DLC bigtime, he actually wanted Kerry to side with the marriage amendment put in almost every battleground state, Kerry refused.

You know its about time that people get over their primary losses, and face up to reality. This bashing of one candidate, while in someway somehow they think their candidate would have won, is totally childish. Damn it, if they were that god damn good why didn't they win the primary, and don't give me Kerry played foul, another lame excuse.

You want to know why Kerry won the primaries, because he woke up people like me, he gave me a reason to fight, he brought out why I am a Dem, and cares not about the insiders in D.C., but about we the people.

Your pro-war analogy is also totally crap, I was anti-war, as was my son who voted for Nader in 2000, as my other son and daughter and my husband whom served 20 years in the military including Vietnam, we all proudly voted for Kerry.

In fact my son who voted for Nader to this day thinks that Kerry is the most trusted and honest candidate in Washington, and as my son says,
the corporate knew he was to good and did everything in their power to fight him.

I'm am sick of these posts that bash with nothing to back it up just plain rhetoric, that is very,very, very old and not substantiated.

:rant:

Am happy to put you on my ignore list, for I know what I just said will not go through your closed mind. :nuke:

[depakid]

44. I think he was a bad campaigner

and I think that's why he lost, but you weren't honest enough to put that as one of your responses- even though that's the heading of your Thread!

Had he not run a Dukakis style campaign (after repeatedly promising not to) he would have covered the spread and Diebold, et al. couldn't have stolen it.

(incidently, this is another good example of why no one should trust cheap media polls).

[Sadie5]

47. Bush debated badly

Can't say Kerry stole the show, but he was better than Bush who stuttered and stammered at questions from the moderator. And he wore a wire too. Yet the morning after the debates ALL the talk shows etc. were saying what a great debater Bush was.

[kenny blankenship]

78. Kerry would win the judges, but not the crowd

Debating in public isn't always, or even primarily, about being best able to support your positions logically. It depends on the audience of course but in a wider forum, successful rhetoric is 80% emotional appeal. Kerry left a lot of people cold even while displaying poise as a debater. Bush expressed his consternation with Kerry's mental gymnastics and showed a dogged belief in the idiotic things he believes.

Kerry followed in the Democratic Party tradition, now unbreakable it seems, of nominating candidates for President tending to hail from northern states, with educated, urban/urbane accents, with dark hair, restrained demeanors, candidates who can thread a needle with complex sentence constructions while speaking extemporaneously, but who seem to lack passion for their own beliefs, or whose passion marches far behind their intellect. In short, they lack the common touch. Think about the last Democrat to win and how different he looks, speaks and behaves compared to the Kerry-Dukakis-Gore-Mondale standard. Bill CLinton was called "Bubba" and never hid his pofolks accent.

If there's one thing ordinary Americans believe about leaders it's this: any guy who's smart enough to talk his way out of a labyrinth is smart enough to trick them. When Americans learned to distrust Clinton it was his smooth talking manipulation of language that became the central feature of their dislike. In campaigning, Bush never risked looking "too smart" or trying to be clever in speaking; Kerry seems to revel in it. That's great at school and maybe it works in Massachusetts, but it's not working with the American electorate as a whole. Getting rooked out of their hard earned money, getting taken in schemes is the ages-old and common American life experience. Americans loathe and ignore fine print and curse it when, as a million times before, it snares them and empties their purse. It's no surprise then that they prefer someone who seems to lead with his heart instead of his head, or even an idiot who could never hope to rule his heart with his head. Someone who can speak reams of fine print all in proper syntax and grammatically correct, is simply not to be trusted. Even if they don't mistrust you for speaking that way, whatever point you're trying to make is going to be lost on them. It's OK to be smart, but don't forget that last point: keep it simple and lead with your heart! Americans vote mostly according to their identification with the candidate. This is often referred to in shorthand as the "values" that appear to be embodied in the candidate's "character." John Kerry comes across as a typically melancholic Democratic "egghead." With his dark complexion and craggy brooding features he even appears melancholic literally. He seems to always be in his own head, always trying to see "nuance", addressing three sides of an issue--squarely coming down on 2-- always tripping himself up in the complexities of things and the difficulties of saying exactly what one means. (Or talking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on whether you find him sympathetic or not) Knowing how the head can make itself dizzy when it turns in upon itself, Merkins want somebody who's more outgoing and unreserved, someone who leads with their heart over their head. They themselves have never governed their hearts with their heads, and that's the kind of political man they can identify with. Conforming to the Democratic "type" as strongly as he did in appearance and manner, a type which is at odds with whitebread America out there in what is nauseatingly referred to by Fascists as "the Heartland" of the homeland, John Kerry was doomed almost from the start.

We ran Hamlet (again) against Fortinbras, and the rest is silence. Personally I'm getting really fucking tired of these repertoire performances.

[depakid]

86. Kerry lost by not fighting back

both during the convention (no Bush bashing) and afterwards (allowing himself to be characterized by the swiftboaters- AND not standing up to Bush's challenge about the war).

In short, he looked weak- just like Dukakis did. In fact, Mary Beth Cahill was the perfect incarnation of Susan Estrich in 1988.

By debate time, it was too late to muster enough support to overcome Republican dirty tricks and cheating on the voting machines.

A Dean/Clark ticket would have won that election easily, by a 5% margin. Too bad they let their egos get in the way.

[Atman]

88. Dean/Clark by 5%? Then the rigging would have been for 6%

You people that think it is just a matter of getting more votes in order to overcome voting machine fraud completely miss the issue. They didn't cheat to almost win. The skimming would always take a certain percentage of votes and keep Bush winning. If Kerry had been winning by 80%, the tallies would have given Bush 81%. It has nothing to do with who was running...only who was running the voting equipment. All republicans, republican opperatives and republican donors.

[depakid]

89. I don't believe that's true

and it's counter productive. A lot of people who believe that simply won't bother to vote.

Had the various pre-election and exit polls showed THAT wide a deviation- even the corporate media couldn't have covered it up. In a much closer race- they can and very likely did.

[Atman]

96. They're covering it up now.

When was the last time you saw polling numbers for Bush?

You won't, for quite some time now. They'll be verbotten on the Cabal News and the "MSM" until there is a plausible way for them to say Bush has an approval rating within the margin of error. It is far more about the polling than about the voting machines. They need each other.

[depakid]

106. I don't buy into cheap media polls for an instant

Because their methodology is seriously flawed and they're relatively easy to manipulate. In a biased sample or equivocally constructed poll, you can give the corporation that hired you pretty much any result they want. I certainly could. The stats (like the margin of error) mean nothing if your data gathering sucks- or is purposefully skewed.

The internals used by the campaigns are a lot more expensive- they have to be to do accurate research.

However, that doesn't mean that in the aggregate- especially as to trends over time, the media polls completely without merit.

[bananas]

129. Yup - or Tommy Thompson would've issued another orange alert

another bin Laden video released
another 100,000 voters disenfranchised
some more swift boat infomercials disguised as the evening news
knock the percentage back enough that the vote tally isn't too unbelievable.

[karynnj]

201. Is that the same Dean who under far milder criticism

whined about not wanting to be a "pincushion". Kerry did far better against a stronger candidate than Dukakis did.

If the Democrats don't get that anyone would be hit by swiftboating. Kerry DID fight back and pages of details on that have been posted. (consider - 1 element of the Tang story was suspect - 5 people were ultimately fired and the entire story rejected, Official Navy records and genuine first hand observations were the basis of 30+ pages of provable lies in the SBVT book and the reaction was that there were still other charges. THe media continued giving free time long after they knew it was false.)

[karynnj]

165. That is absolutely not true

after the first debate even Republicans conceded Kerry was better. They then argued it wasn't really important. NO ONE said Bush was "great".

[Atman]

69. Not HONEST enough?

Christ, where do you get off? Can't you understand the question? It has nothing to do with whether or not I was honest enough. The three choices are the three choice. Think about it...you may well think Kerry was a terrible campaigner, but that Bush did not steal the election. In which case, you'd vote "I still think Bush didn't steal the election." You might think Kerry ran an absolutely stellar campaign, but still don't believe Bush stole the election. In which case you'd vote "I still don't think Bush stole the election." You may think that Kerry was outright, unequivocally ripped off by a massive conspiracy of the right wing machine. In which case you'd vote "I always thought Bush stole the election." Or maybe you only recently came to that conclusion after reading the latest research (linked to in several places on DU over the last few days). In which case, you'd vote for the middle choice. How can such a poll allow every individual's personal misgivings, beliefs, doubts, experiences, be conducted?

Of course we all have our reasons for believing what we believe. If you believe Bush stole it BECAUSE Kerry was a terrible campaigner, then you believe Bush stole it. Write a post explaining your opinion. But that does not, in any way, change the fact that you believe Bush stole it. Period. Likewise, if you believe all of us "Bush Stole It" people are nut bags, then you don't believe Bush stole it. Vote that way.

What is so hard about this? How would mitigating factors change it? Are you saying that if Bush stole it because Kerry was a bad campaigner actually means Bush didn't steal it? If he stole it, he stole it. He wasn't honest. He didn't allow the system to work. HE STOLE IT. If Kerry simply lost the race, then Bush didn't steal it. Those aren't even the central questions. The central question is whether or not you always believed one way or the other, or whether you've changed your mind.

The only flaw in my poll is that I did not ask whether you once thought it was stolen, but no longer do. I didn't think that was even a possibility, but I should have at least offered that choice. Otherwise, all your poo-poohing of my poll choices are misguided.

[depakid]

87. That's about right

Where do I get off? By understanding something about how to construct accurate, valid and reliable measures.

As I implied- your questions were equivocal- a bit like push polling- and designed (whether purposefully or not) to elicit the response you wanted.

If it were really about Kerry's campaign- then think about it a little and try to formulate appropriate questions. If it's about whether Bush stole the election- then say so in the title of the thread.

It's not all that hard.

[Atman]

93. What response do you think I wanted?

You're projecting.

I editorialized my own personal opinion in my post, but my post was not the question. The question was whether or not people have changed their minds about voting machine/election fraud as a result of the current crop of scandals and new research.

Read it again, for what I said, not what you think I said.

This is DU, not a cross-section of America, so to a degree, by it's very nature the poll is "pushed."

BTW, what I "wanted" was just what the poll is designed for...to see how many people have changed their minds regarding the election fraud issue. It appears that 75% of us ALWAYS believed Bush stole it, 22% NEVER did, and a few percent have changed their opinion. You're trying to skew my poll to be about what you want it to be about, when if you'd just read it, you'd see that it is quite clear in what is is asking.

Believe it was stolen?

Don't believe it was stolen?

Didn't believe, but now do.

Capiche?

[depakid]

108. Then just say that

Believing it was stolen doesn't necessarily equate to Kerry running a good or bad campaign. They may be related- but that's not the same thing.

BTW: I typically enjoy your posts- so try not to take too much offense at my criticism.

[yurbud]

46. Both--it could have been an unstealable landslide if he spoke plainly

and fought back against the smears.

he did neither and even committed one of Bush's sins: took a vacation at a critical moment.

[slackmaster]

49. Agreed - It has to be close to be stealable

:popcorn:

IMO we may never know whether or not it was in fact stolen. It may be that the R's made efforts to steal it but would have won even if they hadn't. There will always be people who are convinced it was stolen, and people just as sure that it was not.

[Atman]

73. Which is why Gallup, Rasmussen, etc, are just as evil

If they're playing with Bush and doing push polling for him, we're fucked. But that, imo, is exactly what the game is. Bullshit polls which make EVERY race -- coincidence, eh? -- every race a "razor thin" margin or a horse race. It makes it exciting for the masses and gives the media something to broadcast every night, but more importantly, it makes it impossible to say one way or the other. If Bush was polling at 22%, like he probably really is, then they could not possibly pull of an believable election theft. But, as long as they can keep every important race within the polls' margin of error -- the ultimate strategy -- then stealing it is childs play. The polls are far more insidious than you might think. We keep crying about Diebold...Gallup deserves just as much scrutiny.

[Atman]

71. How could it have been "unstealable?"

My kids could write a script that would consistently keep one candidate X number of votes ahead of the other, no matter how popular either candidate was. Do you honestly, for one minute, believe that the Diebold (et al) programmers would rig it so Bush could skim votes only if the exit polling didn't go their way? Come on! THINK! If you're going to rig it, you rig it to win.

[oneoftheboys]

51. Kerry was good in the debates but lousy on the stump.

However, I believe the reason he lost had more to do with the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives than anything else.

Moreover, "hispanics, immigrants and traditional Dem voters" all favored these initiatives.

[karynnj]

202. Did you go to any or see them on CSPAN?

The crowds were huge, enthusiastic and motivated. He broke attendance records (including Clinton's) in many cities. Some rallies are archived so if you doubt what I say, watch one. (If you now want to say he wasn't good in small crowds watch last year's road to the white house - I've never seen a politician speak so easily with so many people or get so many hugs.)

[Noisy Democrat]

210. Kerry was awesome on the stump

I went to several rallies and was blown away by his charisma. So was everyone around me. Too bad the MSM kept up the "no charisma" chant until people who hadn't seen him started to buy it.

[LSK]

52. does this look like the crowd a bad campaigner draws?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

192. That's the anti-Bush crowd, not the pro-Kerry crowd

There's a difference.

He was unable to turn an anti-Bush crowd into a pro-Kerry crowd, one that would not only go through the motions of doorknocking and phone banking to get Bush out of office, but also be inspired by him and run around unable to contain their enthusiasm for him,not just against Bush. That's what captures undecided voters.

[Little Star]

53. He sure

as shit stole it!!!!

[Blue_In_AK]

62. GWB is not a legitimate president...

He stole BOTH elections.

[Yollam]

63. Your poll is worded so it's impossible to answer.

Kerry ran an atrociously bad campaign. He ran it badly enough so that it was close enough for Bushco to steal. I don't doubt that there were all kinds of shenanigans, but even if the election had been 100% fair, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had won by a small margin in Ohio, and he did win the popular vote by a large margin nationwide.

I'm open to the possibility that fraud did swing it, but there is no compelling proof of that, just early exit polls that don't match up with the results. I very much want the election system to be fixed with paper trails, etc, but I also don't want to let John "Ringer" Kerry off the hook for the HORRIBLE way in which he, Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill ran his campaign.

Thanks for the biased poll anyway...

And I wouldn't lump in 2000 and 2002 with 2004.

2000 was CLEARLY stolen. Thousands of blacks were DELIBERATELY disenfranchised in Florida. All independent recounts showed that Gore won that election. If he had asked for a statewide recount, we would not be in this mess today.

There were very suspicious results in 2002, most notably in Georgia, but again, without paper trails and a democrat majority willing to investigate, it's nigh on impossible to prove.

There were clearly injustices committed by the Ohio SoS in 2004, but I don't believe they were enough to change the results (even though he was clearly a crooked Bushco crony)

Too much of the talk about election fraud seems to be aimed at letting dinos and seems who throw elections like Kerry off the hook, and not enough about getting the process fixed.

[Atman]

74. Then just vote what you believe. Not impossible at all!

Why is this so fucking hard?

Do you believe Bush stole 2004 or don't you? You hem and haw and offer lots of mitigating factors and woulda/coulda/shouldas and maybe's. But they're not germane. If you don't believe he stole it, vote that way. If you believe he did, vote THAT way. If you believe he stole because we allowed him to, then you STILL believe he stole it.

[Yollam]

81. Sorry, I'm not a republican, so I don't think it's either/or.

I had to vote "no" because I'm not convinced that he stole it. But do I believe they probably committed fraud? Yes. Is there proof? No. Does the unverifiability of the electronic machines need to be addressed for us to carry on with ANY pretense of democracy? Hell yes.

Do we agree, or disagree? You tell me.

[Atman]

82. My response to you was too harsh.

My apologies. As I explained in another post, the only thing I see wrong with this poll is that I didn't offer an "unsure" option. Clearly, many people are still on the fence.

[Nikki Stone 1]

66. Zogby had Kerry winning on election eve. Exit polls had Kerry ahead

Regardless of his campaigning skills.

Of course there was fraud.

[deutsey]

113. We heard from people "on the inside" on Election Night that exit polls

had Kerry blowing Bush away.

I believe there was fraud, too.

[Nikki Stone 1]

215. I am not surprised. Exit polls are quite accurate.

.....

[deutsey]

224. I'm not going to drop any names, but these people are very seasoned,

experienced, high-profile Democratic campaign strategists, not some guy sitting at a computer screen speculating. You'd know the one person I'm talking about immediately.

In fact, I've been quite disappointed in these folks for not being more vocal in pointing out the fraud. To my knowledge, they haven't said anything about the "irregularities" despite their joy when they assured us Kerry had won in a landslide.

[Balbus]

67. Isn't there another forum for these wacko stolen election posts?

Lest I remind people that it's been only Democrats that have been indicted and convicted of 2004 election fraud.

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/news/local/12017344.htm

Doesn't it seem a little silly to be accusing someone else of stealing the cookies when it's our faces covered in crumbs and our hand stuck in the cookie jar? We need to strategize for future elections - not cry over the past ones.

[Yollam]

80. WTF? I think you owe the poster an apology.

I don't entirely agree with the whole premise of the OP, but there was clear election fraud in 2000, to the degree that Jeb Bush was forced by the Florida Supreme Court to reinstate 50K illegally disenfranchised black voters onto the rolls.

That the Diebold & ES&S electronic voting machines are extremely hackable, and do not have a voter-verifiable paper trail is also a matter of fact. Where do you get off calling people "wacko" for questioning elections THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED.

I feel strongly that we need to hold our candidates accountable for poor campaign management, but people who question election results that are highly questionable are NOT WACKO. Where do you get off with this kind of name-calling?

The OP is talking about legitimate questions, not claiming that UFO's made off with the vote tallies. You really should retract and apologize.

[Balbus]

84. I didn't call people wacko, I called the post wacko.

And maybe you need to re-read the OP yourself. He/she was talking about the 2004 elections, unless I'm mistaken and Kerry ran in 2000 also. And, by the way, there has been no proof as to this point that there was any malfeasance in the 2000 elections either.

So I will not apologize, I still maintain that the post/poll is stupid, and if it would've been posted in the forum it should've been I would not have commented at all.

[Yollam]

85. I have problems with the poll too.

But just because I disagree with someone's take on something doesn't make them (or their opinion) "wacko". There is such a thing as civil discourse, isn't there?

[Atman]

99. Don't you read DU?

There was "proof" offered just this weekend. Gore won Florida in 2000 by some 175,000 "overvotes," those who both checked Gore's name AND wrote it in. No ambiguity as to their choice, Gore. But all 175,000 were thrown out, NEVER COUNTED, as the media ran us down the hanging chad rabbit hole.

[bananas]

137. Do you have a link to that? nt

[Atman]

140. Linx

Florida State University

From Research in Review Magazine, Florida State University, Fall/Winter 2005:

Battlefield Florida

Al Gore really did beat George W. Bush in 2000. Six years on, this is still a problem?

by Julian Pecquet

After spending 36 days in the fall of 2000 in thrall to politicians, pundits and the press, Americans probably thought they knew all about the hanging, dangling and pregnant chads that helped decide the presidential election.

Turns out, those chads only distracted attention from much more grievous breakdowns during the 2000 election.

At least that’s what longtime Florida political observer Lance deHaven-Smith believes. His most recent book, The Battle for Florida (University Press of Florida, 2005), looks at the twilight of democracy in Ancient Greece and draws disturbing parallels with the institutions in Florida and the nation during the 2000 election and up until today…

For this book (his ninth), deHaven-Smith compiled legal documents, statistical analyses and public records…

Research in Review caught up with the professor while he was waiting for people to check out his book—and simultaneously sighing in relief that it’s hardly garnered any attention, yet.

“I think if it would have come out a year earlier, it would have,” he says. “I’m kind of glad it didn’t, though, because of all the right-wing critics.” —J.P.

RinR: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000…

[bananas]

147. thanks - I agree with the last paragraph in the article

I used to say that we were watching the rise or fall of the American Empire, but I wasn't sure which. Now I'm pretty sure.


RinR: Finally, I’d like to go back to the “big picture” theme of your book. You call for an unflinching search for truth in the tradition of the Ancient Greeks who questioned everything. But Socrates, the top truth-searcher of the day, was put to death for constantly prodding citizens to examine whether their convictions were grounded in a firm foundation of facts—suggesting he was “too democratic” to live in a Republic. Two thousand and some years later, what makes you think a majority of Americans—or anybody else, for that matter—want to stare their democratic shortcomings in the face?

LdHS: I’m not sure that they do.
After Socrates was executed, Plato, his student, went out to the countryside to buy a piece of land. He bought it from the family of a war hero named Academus. … And the academy today is called that by virtue of this decision. The reason Plato went out of town is, he realized the town people didn’t want to hear that their beliefs about the gods were myths, that their institutions were founded somewhat arbitrarily, that they didn’t know what they were talking about when they said they wanted justice. You’d like to hope that in the 21st century people would be mature enough, but I don’t know. This is a turning point potentially for us. If we don’t recognize the disorder, I don’t think we have many years left of democracy in the United States. I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not too late, even as we speak.

[Balbus]

146. When do the indictmets start?

If there's "proof" then there should be indictments.

[Atman]

149. Have you read ANYTHING?

Can you show me "proof" of an atom, beyond what you've read in a book somewhere?

[Balbus]

152. You said there was proof of stolen elections.

Being at atom is not a crime - stealing elections is. So if there is proof that a crime has been committed, especially one as heinous as this, explain to me why there are not any indictments. Or are they coming? Or is this "proof" you keep referring to more mere speculation?

[Atman]

155. *sigh*

Here we go again. A thousand books and articles describing in detail the election theft. Maybe twelve disputing same. I post links to the latest research. But you won't buy any of it until the republicans in Congress bring themselves up on charges.

*quadruple sigh*

[Balbus]

160. And you avoid answering my question.

I guess we're in an endless loop here. I've provided a link that would indicate if there was real proof of election fraud there would be indictments and convictions. And before you even start with the "we can't do anything with repubs in power," tell that to Fitzgerald. It's a losing argument before you even start it.

No indictments=no proof which leaves me to believe no fraud. Let's move ahead instead of looking back.

[Atman]

162. "Let's look to the future!" The republican meme...

...every time they get caught.

"Oh, sure we might have lied the country into war, but now we have to look ahead to how we win that war. Why look back to our lies?"

Well, obviously they don't want to look back. But how do you look into something that has ALREADY HAPPENED without looking back?

Sorry, I'm not saying you're a republican. I'm saying you sound like one. You're using their arguments. Unless we indict someone, it means they did nothing wrong. But THEY control the process. THEY have to indict themselves.

There are a million criminals in the United States who've never been caught. Yet. And they don't even have their own "party" on their side.

[Balbus]

168. Why is it up to them to indict themselves?

Why is Fitzgerald succeeding, then? And if we continue to refer to strategizing for the future as the "republican meme" is it a wonder we lose elections? You're not making any sense to me at this point. Posts like these are the reason I stay out of that screwball of a forum - it's like beating your head against a wall. There is no proof!! If there was proof there would be indictments!! It doesn't matter who is in power!! Was it Republicans that brought Jack Abramoff up on charges? Was it Republicans that brought Delay up on charges? Was it Republicans that brought Libby up on charges? Was it Republicans that brought "Duke" Cunningham up on charges?

All of the above are examples of Republicans breaking the law in a Republican control government. Why is election fraud untouchable with all this so-called proof.

[Atman]

169. That thumping you hear on the other side of the wall...

...is ME, also beating my head against it. You come into a thread, post multiple replies, then call people "screwball" for not agreeing with you. You are in the serious minority here, at least according to the results of my very unscientific poll. I'm glad you have such faith in the people who benefitted most from the fraud that they'll expose it. It wasn't just Bush that benefitted, remember. Oh, never mind. "Remember." You'd have had to be following the facts in the first place to remember them.

[Balbus]

185. Well, since the facts are on my side, I'm comfortable with that.

And, again, I didn't call people screwball, just the OP and the forum it belongs in. And if you would have posted this original tripe in the proper forum to begin with, you'd have gotten 99.9% of the people patting you on the back saying "Great job, Atman" "You nailed it, Atman" "Post of the year, Atman" blah, blah, blah. But thankfully in GD, there's more people without blinders, and people who don't like to wallow in an echo chamber.

And you still haven't answered the question about this so-called overwhelming "proof" and no indictments or investigations. But I expect you don't have one.

[Atman]

188. I don't really feel any need to respond further to you, Balbus

You copped a 'tude. You seem to think I was just looking for some stroking. I've posted links to some of the new research, which WAS posted elsewhere on DU, so I know you're not just ignoring me, you're ignoring that which you don't want to hear.

I am tired of wasting my time arguing with fellow DU'ers who treat any poster who doesn't agree with them as some sort of nut case.

The GOP is right...we are our own worst enemy.

[Balbus]

219. Good idea.

Because you're not really saying anything but *sigh*

[rman]

179. you're saying the majority of DU-ers is wacko?

nice move dude.

here's more evidence of DU's wackiness:

Do you adhere to the possibility of CIA drug trafficking?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x91091

95% yes

[Balbus]

218. No, just 209 of them.

(as of this post)

[clixtox]

70. The limited choice of positions offered in this poll suck

Kerry and Gore are, were and always will be, losers. Born losers. That is a period at the end of the previous sentence. The fact that neither of them were not able to strip off more than a tiny sliver of the patina of gloss, into which GWB had been dipped, indicates just how weak they both are/were as candidates and intellectuals.
The additional fact that they were so afraid of Nader that they both spent money and political capital shutting him out of the race was nuts. I am pretty sure that if Nader had been included in the "debates", (Don't get me started!), he would have hung Bush out to dry by actually confronting him on his feeble grip on the real issues. Nader as a potential winner, or even as a spoiler, was not a real option or worry for Demos, especially if the Democratic candidate had a message that resonated with the people.
No one, and I mean, no one, expected that GWB would be able to actually win in 2000 as the campaigning started. GWB was nominated to just take the loss, a viable Republican would be put up after the first Gore term to take advantage of the situation if the economy tanked or something else bad happened. Gore had it all set up to win, with the economy, and everything else, going incredibly well (in hindsight).
Despite Gore's strong position and momentum, he managed to somehow squander all of it enough to make the result close enough to create the opportunity for the possibility of election theft.
Who knows for sure if the election was stolen either of these two times. One thing is for sure though, both of the parties will steal an election if they possibly can! And they both have, according to many folks...
Not until the Democrats actually nominate a candidate that will fight for, and represent the working people of the USA, will they generate enough votes to keep the margin large enough to make the result manifest. Check the current situation in Bolivia for what could happen even here.
The main reason that so few poor and working people participate in the political process is because there are not any candidates that honestly give a damn about them or their difficult and too often, desperate lives. No one that is so altruistic stands a chance, it seems.
Greed rules!

[Atman]

79. Do you believe Bush stole 2004 or not?

I should have added "NOT SURE." There seem to still be a lot of people who aren't sure. To them I say, do the research. You won't find too many books explaining how exit polling was screwed so badly for the first time ever. Consistently for Bush. Only during Bush's term. At a time when the demographics of the American population is veering decidedly to the left. But hey, call me a cynic.

[Uncle Joe]

125. I hope, we continue to get "Born Losers" like Al Gore

so that enlightened people such as your self can bestow us with your sage advice. I am just thankful that "Born Loser Al Gore" found a brief moment in his life not to be a loser and champion the technology that would enable us to enjoy your pearls of wisdom. It's true, he was trashed and slandered by the corpwhorate owned MSM for giving us this power,(remember how he "invented the internet")but a Born Loser deserves no better, right? Sort of like Prometheus in ancient Greek Mythology, who stole fire from heaven and gave it to mankind, only to be chained to a rock by an angry Zeus for this loss of power, and have a vulture eat his liver for all eternity, losers all.

Personally, I think Al Gore has been and will always be a born and self made winner, the only losers since the coup of 2000 are the American People.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

193. Thank you, clixtox

For all the vitriol directed at Nader voters in 2000 (and even now!), Gore's participation in the efforts to marginalize Nader did nothing to convince Nader supporters to vote for Gore.

[rodeodance]

83. bad campaign is a RW lie that dems believe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

194. No, "bad campaign" is a conclusion I came to myself by actually

watching the campaign. There were so many missed opportunities and missteps that I decided to stop following it so closely for the sake, of my own mental equilibrium.

[TheFarseer]

95. There is a difference between

buying an election and stealing an election. I think it's pretty clear they bought it like they buy alot of elections.

[Atman]

103. Still, 1/4 of DUers seem to think Bush didn't steal the election.

It has been consistently about 25% since the poll started. That is a topic of discussion all by itself. How do we convince America that she was hosed if we can't convince our own party?

[Yollam]

109. If you did the poll about the 2000 election the results would be different

I imagine that at least 95% of us would agree that that was stolen.

2004 was more complex than black and white.

I can't say for sure whether or not 2004 was stolen, but I don't think Kerry's poor performance helped any. (Sure, Kerry won the debates hands down, but he CONSISTENTLY lost or defaulted the spin control leading up to and following the debates. I've never seen a democratic candidate allow himself to be smeared like that without responding, and put out so many contradictory messages.

[wixomblues]

114. Is DU the norm for the entire party?

I don't think seventy five percent of the Democratic party believes this.

[Atman]

115. Not at all, that's why I point it out

It actually is more a general response to another post. I know we're not the norm. If 25% of DU'ers don't believe the election was stolen then I'd guess about 5% of the non-DU population feels the same way. And that is probably generous.

[wixomblues]

123. I want to believe......

(big X-file fan).

So, I think i told you above, I'm going to jump into the matter, and see what I come up with. Some criteria I want to determine:

1. If the State's had purview to the software in blackbox machines.
2. Which Counties used Blackbox machines(and the results)
3. What process of review did the machines go through?
4. What security measures were put in place in the programming to prevent or allow access?
5. Who had access?
6. Who wrote the code?

[Atman]

130. Okay...

1 - No

2 - Don't know. Truthisall, time to check in!

3 - None. The makers said they were proprietary, and thus not open to review.

4 - None that has been published, that I'm aware of. The manuals were published online, and of course, Diebold sued and tried to get them removed.

5 - Diebold and those whom Diebold chose to allow access. Remember, they are proprietary systems.

6 - Diebold. Although it's basically Microsoft Access with some hacks. And we all know how secure MS software is.

[wixomblues]

145. Here is a copy of a Michigan Statutes

Which were easy for me to find. If you review them, you can see that a mystery process would be illegal, so Diebold couldn't "fix the election here. I guess the next question is to check Ohio, since that was the key state.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-chap168.pdf

[eomer]

184. It is not that simple.

You need to allow for a bit more complexity in how things work or your research is going to be meaningless. In effect what you just did was determine that it is against the law to steal an election in Michigan and then treated that fact as proof that the election wasn't stolen there.

Try starting with an assumption that if they did steal the election they probably did something not actually permitted by statutes and/or regulations. You need to look into what they actually did -- not what the rules say they should have done.

To get you started in Ohio, here is a discussion about evidence of fraudulent purges of voter registration rolls there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1297

[wixomblues]

225. Sorry, I prefer logical progression to assumptions.

The question is how Diebold could steal an election, not how the Republicans, or anyone else, could. I'm curious as to how theyt could write software that nobody saw, and use it to count votes in favor of one candidate. Michigan Law forbids blackbox voting, and any programming and tabulation method has to be understood by the state election commission before it's implemented, and it has to be open. So, the blackbox theory wouldn't apply to Michigan, and furthermore, We're a blue state, so if the election was stolen, I guess we're guilty.

So, the original method of research was to look at states where people claim the election was stolen, examine Diebold's role in the process, and see if the State's had laws requiring certain procedures for voting machines that allowed access to the programming.

Since no one can provide this information, I'm guessing it doesn't say what the believers want it to say. I don't see how Diebold "stole" anything.

As far as fradulent registrations or purges, yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. But I'm more concerned about machines that count votes, since if those are being used illegally, we're fucked for life.

[American liberal]

173. careful about extrapolating to the entire DU community

that's one of my biggest pet peeves about the reporting, in general, of polling results. About 175 people have taken the poll. Can you call it fair representation of DU? No! Doesn't matter if it's been 25% since polling started...

It's like the wingnuts claiming they have a mandate. Won by 3% of the popular vote, according to MSM (I know in my heart there was fraud and the election was stolen), but I think about 60% of the voting public turned out (which was actually pretty high and what made me SURE that Bush was not going to win--the voice of the people and all), and then the wingnuts claim that 51% of the American people had spoken. It's bullshit. skewed bullshit. be careful about falling into the same trap. It takes research and statistics to make a claim like yours. And I would venture to guess you have no idea what percentage of DUers even participated in your poll.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Peace,
AL

[opihimoimoi]

133. I believe both camps(Gore and Kerry) had moles in them...The Pub Kine...

The Pubs are clever at spying as we are finding out these days....and lets not forget sabotage....read Sabato's book...Dirty Secrets

[Surya Gayatri]

175. I believe the wiretaps were

functioning at full tilt during the whole campaign--every tactical move by the Kerry camp was anticipated and quickly countered. SG :scared:

[EFerrari]

183. Yes. And they were probably annoyed that so many Dems

slugged it out in the primaries.

The list, when it's released, will not be a huge surprise.

[Imagevision]

150. Why did Kerry tell Theresa she was paronoid because of Ohio irregularities

in voting desrepencies? GUess she got a new lesson about amreican politics that day.

In the grand scheme of 2004 election, John Kerry turned his back when more then half of the country was in back of him -- it has always given me doubts -- unless personal threats were made which makes this a moot post!

[ultraist]

153. I believe the election was stolen but...

I also believe a lot of mistakes were made during the campaign.

Kerry was not a horrible candidate, imo, he did do very well during the debates, for instance, but he had some troubles, particularly connecting with regular voters. His speaking style is not well suited for campaigns.

[Left Below]

156. Kerry is a boring stiff

His heart is good, but he has Zero charisma....

[Atman]

158. I agree with you.

So what? I'm not electing a drinking buddy, how about you?

Oh...

and WELCOME TO DU!

[EFerrari]

181. I agree. But people like me voted for him anyway. More than that.

We worked for his campaign, too. I would have personally given him a piggyback ride, from MA to D.C. barefoot over hot coal if it meant getting rid of Monkey Boy. lol

[blm]

227. The media said he had no charisma to downplay his import to real history

over the last three decades.

To counter his considerable charisma while leading the antiwar movement, they said he was aloof and planted words like "phony" in the press.

To counter the import of his investigations into IranContra and BCCI, they said he was grandstanding and named him "Liveshot" completely ignoring the matters he (alone) was exposing.

To counter the actual strength of his ground support in Iowa, they said for months his campaign was dead in the water to dry up his donations.

To counter his actual role as the lawmaker who investigated and exposed more govt. corruptiom than any other in modern history, they said he was an "empty suit" with a minimal senate record.

No surprise that their three decade long campaign against Kerry has colored the discourse against him in today's media and even today's Democrats.

[oasis]

164. N.Y. Times sitting on NSA story. Voters would be pissed about Bush spying.

The Times was also lax in debunking the Swiftboaters.

[mirandapriestly]

170. hmm, those aren't quite the percentages I recall. ;) nt

[AntiCoup2K4]

171. How Kerry campaigned, and how the DLC deliberately mismanaged his campaign

....are factors in the loss, and to deny that, you would have to be blind.

[LittleClarkie]

174. The DLC deliberately mismanaged his campaign indeed

People he thought were on his side were not. He could have been better. But then again, he sure did start to look like a winner toward the end there. Scared the peep outta my local Republicans. They were hatching bricks election night.

God, I gotta tell you, I live around some real doozies. I got called a Communist more than once. Frightening people.

[tinrobot]

172. It's gotta be close so it can be stolen

Kerry let it get too close because of his dour, lackluster campaign.

Then they stole it in Ohio.

[EFerrari]

177. Not really. Not any more now that they have

the electronic, democratic vote eating machines. Numbers don't mean anything any more.

Read Mark Crispin Miller's book. It will set you back.

There is no way Kerry lost that election. None. Zero. Zip. I haven't seen such a broad coalition mounted to defeat a republican EVER. And sustained, too, for over two years.

[rman]

178. Both - but there's a fair chance Kerry would have won

if there would not have been election fraud.

If Kerry would have been a better candidate then he probably still would have lost due to election fraud.

[Lerkfish]

187. I believe it was a compilation of problems. diebolding contributed, but

Kerry still missed opportunities to deflect swiftboating.
I believe he got bad advice from the DLC.

but, like I said, a lot of things contributed, I thinks its a false dichotomy to say that if the election were diebolded, therefore Kerry ran a successful campaign. one does not preclude the other, if you get my drift.

I think Kerry's platform was fine, his rallies were great, etc.
The strategic error was to ignore for too long the baseless negative attacks. To ignore how the right was framing all the issues, and the Kerry campaign was reacting to the framing reflexively.
Diebolding was out of our control, and in my mind its a given.
However, what WAS in our control was how the campaign was run, and frankly it had room for improvement.

The way you combat Karl Rove is not to run from his false accusations, or even waste time responding to them. What we should have done was expose Rove for what he was with all the evidence that was ALREADY OUT THERE, and every swiftboat attack, point out "oh that's Karl again". Put THEM on the defensive and expose their dirty tricks.

I'm no strategist, but I clearly saw that. Whoever was running Kerry's campaign mistakenly felt ignoring Rove was going to work.

However, IN SPITE OF the mistakes in campaigning that I saw, the country was ready to kick out Bush and nearly did anyways, even against ohio election kidnapping and diebolding.

I don't think its wrong to turn a critical eye to things we have control over and figure out how to control them better, do you?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. I'm in the "both" camp

With an opponent demonstrating an unprecedented mixture of corruption, incompetence, and callousness, Kerry should have been able to toss the Bushboy aside like a piece of rubbish. A competent campaigner would have brought about a result similar to Johnson's landlside win over Goldwater.

I saw Kerry in person twice. Whatever his record, whatever his talents, all he did was appeal to people who already hated Bush. In the place of specific positive reasons why the undecided should vote for him rather than for Bush or for staying at home, he gave the crowd vague platitudes a la Al Gore and turgid policy wonk papers on his website.

Without Bush to bash next time, the 2008 nominee will have to appeal on the basis of what positive benefits will come to the nation by voting for him/her instead of just against the Republicans.

Basing one's appeal on "I'm not Bush" (Kerry) or "Me, too, only not quite as much" (Gore), is a sure way to make the election close enough to steal.

The 2008 nominee should study the great campaigners of the past. You'll find that they did more than bash their opponents, although they certainly did that. They went beyond "not scaring" the undecided voters (the DLC approach); they reached out to and inspiredthe undecided voters. Inspired voters can be counted upon to talk up their candidate among their friends. I saw this happening among the Bushbots who lived in my apartment building in 2000.

I wasn't able to do that. I really mistrusted Bush, but I was underwhelmed by Gore, and I couldn't think of one way to convince people that their lives would be better if they voted for him.

Why were there still nearly 1/3 undecided voters before the 2000 election? It's because Gore was afraid to scare the moderates, so he kept saying "Me too" to everything Bush said, except on choice. Ironically, to the typical uninformed voter, he did not appear to be a choice.

[YOY]

195. I think it is a combination of the two

Kerry didn't respond to that swiftboat shit fast enough (no matter what anyone says) and yes, Bushco was stealing the election anyways.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

198. Both

I don't think that Kerry ran a BAD campaign, although he should have tackled the SBVT allegations quicker and harder. However, according to the "official" election results Kerry DID come CLOSE unseating Bush, who only won by 2% points (more of a "mudslide" than a landslide IMHO!), once again according to "official" election results. Frankly, given the "climate of fear" being constantly generated by Bushco around the time of the election not to mention all of the negative stories that the press, for one reason or another, "chose" not to run until AFTER the election, I'm not sure any other Dem could've won. I'm not even sure Jesus could've beat Bush! I'm still not sure that the election was STOLEN although I have serious concerns about electronic voting and the people making the machines pledging to support one party over another. I also think that it is very suspicious that the election once again centered on a single state, this time Ohio, where the person certifying the vote was (surprise, surprise) a Bush campaign operative. Frankly, I don't understand how it can even be LEGAL for people responsible for certifying votes and voter registration to serve as partisan campaign operatives for Presidential elections. Does this strike anybody else as wierd? It would seem to me to AT LEAST be a serious conflict of interest.

[ecstatic]

199. We lost the media/public opinion war due weak campaigning by Kerry

but it's obvious the machines were tampered with. The fact that none of our media outlets seriously questioned the discrepancy between the e-voting machine tallies and the exit polls shows that we did lose the public opinion war.

[MH1]

200. Kerry was a good campaigner. The media was bought.

Just like it was in 2000. Most if not all of the stuff that "pretty clearly proves Gore won Florida by some 175,000 votes" was available immediately or shortly after the 2000 (s)election. The media buried it.

Just as they buried every strong appearance and statement by Kerry (and there were plenty), and trumpeted, twisted, and trumpeted even more, everything that could be twisted to be used against him.

Poor campaigner, my ass.

[ClassWarrior]

203. Let's not forget the likely WIRETAPPING of political enemies.

NGU.

[Initech]

204. There's no question he stole it, but I think he stole it a different way..

And that way can be summed up in two words: Swift Boat.

They were so desperate to win that they campaigned based on a book of LIES.

[baldguy]

207. I think Bush was spying on the Kerry campain with the NSA...

AND the machines were rigged AND people were prevented from voting.

America is not a representitive republic anymore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

208. both. campaign wasnt great and was retroactive and not proactive

also bushco are corrupt motherfuckers

[Luftmensch067]

209. Kerry was a kickass campaigner. And the election was stolen.

Both of these statements are my considered opinion. I find it so frustrating to read through these entire threads and see that people actually connect and talk to each other only a small percent of the time. The OP was worded in an interesting way -- for me the key part of it was the last sentence: "Are we ready to fight again, or will we continue to blame ourselves?" If you are indeed Democrats, Liberals and Progressives who want to rescue our government from corruption, heartlessness and institutional dismemberment, shouldn't this be a question you really want to discuss in General Discussion? Atman, I would imagine you posted this to raise the issue of what we need to do to win in 2006 and 2008, right?

What good does it do for people to continue castigating Kerry and screaming about how much they despise him -- does that unite our party, does that help us to win next time? Does that truly examine the problems of election-tampering and dirty tricks we KNOW happened, whatever we can or cannot currently PROVE about how it was done? I think those here who get on every Kerry thread and just whine about his perceived faults are being incredibly lazy.

This is what I want to say to those who blame Kerry: I heard all that about how Kerry was wooden, uncharismatic, elitist, and couldn't connect with a crowd of "real people" all through the primary and, like you, I didn't want to dig any deeper. It hurt WAY too much after 2000 to try to believe in democracy or a single politician again. Then I watched Kerry's acceptance speech at the DNC and I was blown away by the sincerity, grace and emotion I heard in his words and his delivery. I had been afraid to watch -- the wooden, unattractive Kerry could never win. But that's not what I saw when I really looked at him.

I researched his platform, his history, and his family. I found a great husband and father, a courageous and honest politician, and a fighter who has never backed down in his life. And I was not lazy. Not only did I give every moment I could to his campaign (and I know many ABB volunteers did, too!), but I watched EVERY SINGLE RALLY C-SPAN covered, which was quite a few. :-)

I don't think his campaign was perfect, but I don't agree that it was because he was a poor campaigner. Quite the opposite. I think it was because he thought he had to use the party machinery and party advisors in order to win and we have since seen that many of these people were not really loyal to their candidate. What I also saw was that because the MSM wouldn't cover his rallies, he was essentially mounting a pre-television campaign. Like the great stumping campaigners of the past, he and John Edwards and their families made a superhuman effort to reach every person in every swing state by crisscrossing the country 24/7. When I watched those rallies, they had HUGE, cheering crowds, and when I watched Kerry on the ropeline after his speech, I saw a fantastic campaigner -- seemingly tireless, deeply charismatic, really connecting with everyone who wanted to talk to him or shake his hand. No one who didn't watch a good number of C-SPAN rallies or GO to the rallies in person saw much of Kerry on the MSM channels on TV. They just wouldn't cover him or, if they did, they did everything they could to lie about the power he showed to enthrall those huge crowds. John Kerry could NOT have worked or campaigned any harder. I think there were some mistakes made, mostly in terms of internet presence and the advisors he picked, but I defy anyone here to go into their first national campaign and not make a few missteps. Let us not forget he campaigned well enough to win the primary and *nearly* well enough to unseat a wartime president who had numbed a nation into a state of cowering fear. He accomplished this with almost zero help from the MSM. Also, I believe that anyone who only campaigned AGAINST Bush and not FOR Kerry really wasn't giving the campaign their all -- that made for some weak campaigning, if you're looking for it.

I doubt that the really closed-minded here will do this, but if you have seen anything in my slightly incoherent rant that makes you curious, I would urge you to do a little more research. Dare to watch some of those archived rallies and look at how fired up the crowd is by Kerry and how much they want to connect with him on the ropeline. Dare to read some of his speeches and see how truly exciting they can be. Not all of them, but lots. And even when he had a less than stellar speech, the fire and passion were there when he started to get going and talk about how much he cared about healing America's many wounds. No one who has such intense love for his country and all of its people and who wants so much to be able to make things better could be a bad campaigner.

Our party cannot triumph if we are too scared to look in our souls and see where this bitter talk is coming from. We cannot be so divided that we have to attack someone like Kerry who worked his ass off and his heart out in that fight to take America back. We should be thanking him for his courage in that hateful battle in which his career, his health and his family were constantly under attack. We should honor him for the sad wisdom he had to summon to concede the election after a long night of examining the possibilities, and we should hold him up as one of our greatest Democrats for the fight he began right after that to defend our election process, our civil liberties, our children's health, and the very balance of power upon which our government rests.

Think about that. Could you fight a campaign with such courage, stamina and passion? While you were being constantly smeared not only by the RW thugs, but also doubted by members of your own party, could you have the bravery to keep going, day after day, rally after rally, speech after speech? Could you do what John Kerry did and keeps doing? When you can show me that you have that kind of guts and honor, I will listen more seriously to your opinions. Meanwhile, thanks to Atman for trying to point out that we have to face some facts if we're going to win the battles ahead of us.

[Noisy Democrat]

211. You're right

Kerry was dynamite on the stump, and crowds loved him. Too bad that didn't get reported much in the MSM. And he kept going despite all the crap that was flung at him. He's awesome.

[politicasista]

213. Two cents

We all need to take responsibilty for what happened in the 2004 election. Yes, mistakes were made, and we all could have done more. Our goal is find ways to make things better for 2006, then we can worry about 2008.

Instead the goal of many is to rehash the 2004 election instead of focusing on the Bush's and the GOP Congress' troubles, the fall of 2006, election reform, and other serious issues that are facing this country.

This is flamebait period.

[Atman]

217. I think we owe you some change.

Flamebait, eh?

It was a legitimate question. It has nothing to do with REHASHING 2004. The initial premise of my post addressed NOW, what people think NOW who may have previously thought Kerry lost only because he campaigned poorly, in light of the all the corruption coming to light NOW. The flamebait is your post. Yet still, that doesn't invalidate the points you made...we DO need to find ways to make things better for 2006/2008. The two conceits are not mutually exclusive, though.

[politicasista]

220. I am NOT posting flamebait

I believing in posting things that will help us, not divide us. I have no problem with your OP. It's just that threads like these tend to bring out the Kerry bashers/haters who care nothing about the issues or what you're saying. They just want to attack Kerry cause they think it will make them and the other candiates feel superior.

I agree we need to create ways to make the next dem campaigns better. What's wrong an honest observation?:shrug:

[Atman]

221. "What's wrong an honest observation?"

Not a thing is wrong with an honest observation. But you called my post "flamebait," when it was no such thing. I didn't expect to still be discussing this 225 posts later...it obviously is a hot-button issue. But as I said, my intent was to poll those who might have previously thought Kerry lost fair and square, but have changed their minds. I'm actually quite surprised that so few people picked the middle choice. That was unexpected.

[politicasista]

222. No, it's all good

I think the election was stolen as well. I didn't like the concession either. As far as the campaign, I was a very harsh critic of the way the it was managed. I thought things could have been done differently by Kerry, Edwards and everyone else, but no one is perfect. Hopefully things will be better for the Dem nominee in 2008.

[jenndar]

214. No. n/t

[bluestateguy]

216. He was a bad campaigner

Damn good fundraiser, but that's about it.

When you limit your campaign to 22 states you don't leave much room for error, do you.

The next nominee should run a 50 state campaign right up to election eve. In other words, I want the nominee campaigning in rural Kansas in the last week of October.