Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No more Kerry's... [View all]politicasista
(14,128 posts)87. Nope it hasn't
It's been dodged, but that ok.
You are too busy screaming at Kerry to notice the factual posts in this thread.
Those close to Senator Kerry and DU Kerry group have told the factual stories. Some of those are/were self-described progressive, liberals. Hopefully they will continue to be heard over the screaming.
Guess Kerry's stance on the environment or other important issues doesn't mean squat either.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
128 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Kerry was never a strong candidate and our campaign was basically 'Anyone But Bush'
LynneSin
Nov 2012
#29
So true. It fed into their portrayal of him as an elitist, moneyed and effete coward.
zonkers
Nov 2012
#106
If Kerry would have been given what the media usually gives all candidates, he would have won
karynnj
Nov 2012
#115
Strange how so many in this thread are letting Edwards, MSM & MIA Dems off the hook n/t
politicasista
Nov 2012
#125
Kerry came close, he made some mistakes that if he could go back would give him the win
JI7
Nov 2012
#3
Who ever is best for the job will be nominated, no matter ethnicity or regionality.
lumpy
Nov 2012
#5
No answers coming, it seems. The OP threw this out there 2 hrs. ago and hasn't been seen since.
Indpndnt
Nov 2012
#25
FDR was rich, won 4 different terms and by good numbers too...he was white and IN TOUCH with working
uponit7771
Nov 2012
#19
Kerry still would've made for a hell of a president. He's a damn fine man! n/t
cynatnite
Nov 2012
#22
Progressive Dems had crossed anyone who voted for Bush's war off their list in 2004.
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#62
I don't care what you 'would rather' believe. I have stated facts. Kerry was at 3%
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#67
Kerry was higher than 3 percent before he went down to 3 percent with prostate cancer
JI7
Nov 2012
#69
You know nothing about me. I was on an independent news site as a moderator at that time
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#80
and i was on the ground and talked to other people on the ground in iowa, nh and elsewhere
JI7
Nov 2012
#81
And I was on the ground also and it is a fact that Kerry and any candidate who voted
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#89
The primaries were not nasty then at all. They were exciting and hopeful. We had so many
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#72
That question has been answered. People like me who supported candidates who had
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#84
You are too busy conjuring up motives for people that you are not paying attention to
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#90
and most people didn't think Kerry wanted war, just like most people don't blame Obama for the
JI7
Nov 2012
#83
If Kerry didn't want war, he should have joined Kucinich, Byrd and all the other Dems who
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#86
Thank you for your response. I knew about Dean's statements. Which is why my choice
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#122
Clark absolutely opposed the war. He made some confusing statements only once. That
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#124
Remember the definition of marriage crap that got put on ballots across the country?
cynatnite
Nov 2012
#50
I'm the OP, and I'm sorry I offended anyone, but that's just my opinion...
piechartking
Nov 2012
#41
I think Kerry would have been a great Prez, will be great in the Cabinet...
piechartking
Nov 2012
#56
We should focus on holding Congress seats and making a few pickups in 2014.
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#64