Reply #13: No one since maybe JFK is close to Obama in the magic of his campaign,

[karynnj]

but there is a lot of rewritten history on Kerry's 2004 campaigning. There were two groups of people and their media allies with reason to do so - the Clinton and the Edwards people. After losing, Kerry was a threat to both for 2008, which is why he was belittled continuously by their media allies from the moment he lost.

Kerry's win of the nomination was an amazing accomplishment. He was being written off by the media weeks before his Iowa win. That win was because face to face with Iowa voters, Kerry was the most impressive and won people over. (This year shows that having Cindy Vilsack (like HRC) and having the firemen(like Dodd)didn't guarantee a win.

Even after Kerry won 16 primaries and Edwards won only SC, the NYT published an op-ed saying the Democratic nominnee would be named John, but it was not clear if it would be Kerry or Edwards. Kerry clinched the nomination the next week when he won all but VT in superTuesday, where polls showed him ahead double digits.

Kerry's speeches are excellent and easily beat anyone other than Obama. (I actually prefer Kerry) As to rallies, people forget the incredible rallies of fall 2004 - that were so good MSM did not show them - and CSPAN (my favorite channel then and now) is not watched by that many people.

What I do think is that Kerry got it right when he endorsed Obama, fair or not, it will take someone who was less involved in the events of the past. By this, I don't mean the IWR vote, Kerry was against invading and he led on Kerry/Feingold. But, it may be that fight plus the 1971 fight that made him the messenger to many people who did not want to hear that we were not winning. Also, voting for Kerry many people would be admitting they were wrong in 2004. Obama doesn't have that burden.