one year later, it's time to ask-- was John Kerry the best...

[mike_c]

...that the democratic party could offer?

I'm continually astounded when I ask that question of the republican party and the Bush candidacy. Was George Bush the best that republicans could offer in 2000 and 2004? Most especially in 2004, when his ineptitude had already been demonstrated endlessly?

I cannot believe that's true-- there must have been much better potential republican candidates-- but if it isn't true, we need to face the question of what part of the candidate selection process excludes worthy, qualified leaders-- even republicans-- and instead favors the inept and mediocre. I don't think there's any doubt that's what happened to the GOP in 2000.

Are democrats immune to this procedural flaw that elevates the bland and mediocre above the dynamic and accomplished? I certainly don't see any reason to believe that they are, and that leads to the question of whether Kerry's candidacy was also the result of this race to mediocrity? Is it just the tendency to seek the political middle? Bush's presidency would argue against that, because he is quite radical, or at least the neocons he's surrounded himself with are radical. But Bush himself-- the candidate, and then the president-- is a fumbling idiot who has never succeeded at ANYTHING on his on merits. His hallmark is not centrism, it's mediocrity. The neocons run the government precisely because their republican president is a joke, the ultimate success story of mediocrity prevailing over accomplishment.

So was Kerry's candidacy the outcome of similar convergence on some least common denominator? Was John Kerry the best that the democratic party could offer in 2004? If not, why did they shoot themselves in the foot by selecting him? More to the point, what needs to be done to insure that it doesn't happen again? The stakes, as I'm sure we all agree, are too high to avoid taking a long, hard-- and brutally honest-- look at that question.

I'll say up front-- I don't think Kerry was the best the dems could offer, and I'm disappointed they didn't run a candidate whom no one could ever accuse of bland mediocrity. Those of you who know me at DU know that my opinion on that matter is no secret. I won't offer my thoughts on who such candidates might have been-- that's not material to this discussion. The 2004 election was one of the most disappointing in my memory-- both major parties ran a loser, IMO (as did the Greens, for that matter, but their selection process is different and not really relevant to this discussion either). The 2000 election followed more or less the same pattern. I want to know whether DUers think the process that produced the Kerry candidacy is inherently flawed-- and if it's not, how did the republicans end up with dubya? Or Bob Dole, for that matter?

[jedr]

1. Did you vote for Kerry because you thought the he;

brought something to the table that was important,or because you wanted rid of Bush ? The later for myself.

[mike_c]

2. actually I didn't vote for him at all....

I voted for David Cobb, who was at least forthright in his opposition to the war against Iraq.

But regardless of why anyone might or might not have voted for them, the question remains-- were Bush and Kerry the best that the two majority parties could offer America? That's scary. It really needs to be addressed before 2008, IMO, because the republicans are going to be acting like wounded animals.

[jedr]

7. More to the point;

* was there because of global money ( Corporations)and had the money to win at any cost. I feel that Kennedy had something to do with the demise of Dean and still wonder if the "skull and bones" issue didn't come into play. Neither were the best of their party,or for the good of the country.

[bryant69]

12. politics is about compromise

holding out for an ideal candidate seems counter-productive.

For one thing, people have different ideas. You obivously didn't like Kerry very much, but many people did. Many people still do I'd wager.

I do, for example.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mike_c]

15. do you think he was the best that dems had to offer in 2004...?

eom

[bryant69]

46. Yes I do

[jedr]

20. What you say is true,

I'm a vet and I was deeply disappointed that Kerry didn't respond in a more forceful manner to the "swift-boating"....It has left me with a bad taste for him as it has left all Vietnam vets without any validation for their efforts.

[GreenArrow]

3. John Kerry was a winning candidate

He wasn't my choice, but given the competition, he could have won. Maybe he did. It's certainly a lot more comforting to believe that the election was stolen from him, than that the majority of voters chose the other guy. I was condfident he would win until he chose Edwards as VP. Doubts began to creep in at that point. He would have done better to choose Clark as his running mate; we didn't need a ticket with two pro-war Dems. Not that I'm a Clark fan, but he would have been a winner.

Kucinich was the best candidate on terms of the issues, presenting a vision, etc.; hell, he was right about nearly everything, but the poor guy looked like a Martian. He got the least air-time, had the least money, and was marginalized and ignored. Given the group that ran, Kerry was probably the best bet. Unfortunately, it likes like the same sorry group of status quo-ers is lining up for 2008.

As for the process, money talks, bullshit walks.

[elehhhhna]

4. I swear I thought we were Diebolded in to Kerry--

evidently not but who knows?

I'd have voted for Harry Carey against Bush, but cripes. Lurch? Ouch.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Kerry WAS the best candidate, IMO

Besides Kerry, the field we had was:

1. Howard Dean
2. Richard Gephardt
3. Joe Lieberman
4. John Edwards
5. Wesley Clark
6. Bob Graham
7. Dennis Kucinich
8. Al Sharpton
9. Carol Moseley-Braun

Of those, who else was qualified? Obviously, it's not an open-shut question and I think a case could be made for many of them. But my reasoning, and the reasoning of lots of primary voters to whom I talked was similar to what I will say next.

If we exclude Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton who weren't viable candidates we are left with Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Graham.

The important thing to note is that ALL of these candidates had strengths and weaknesses.

Dean: Strong grassroots support, clear position on the war, genuine excitement among his partisans. But he never broke 20% of Dem primary voters and though it wasn't true, he was seen by much of the country as a left-wing nut. Though that was unfair, that would have become the narrative in a race against Bush - not flip-flopper but LW-looney who was soft on defense.

Clark: Strong on defense, against the war, nobody could question his patriotism. But he lacked campaign experience had some ineffective advisors, and had a lot of military rivals who were already swift-boating him during the primary campaign. Plus, given statements of support for Bush when he was more apolitical and some conflicting statements on the war, he was also vulnerable to the flip-flopper accusation.

Edwards: Charismatic, with a strong populist message but a lack of experience on national security issues and like Kerry and the remaining Democrats vulnerable on the war issue because of the IWR vote. Questions of experience would dog him during the race as would his trial-lawyer background.

Gephardt: Strong labor support and perhaps electorally strongest on paper. But in race after race Gephardt looked good on paper but failed to perform. He simply did not excite people and he has genuinely shifted positions on so many issues that he was even more vulnerable than Kerry on the flip-flopper charge.

Lieberman: No base support among the Democratic base and far too much of a war hawk to challenge Bush on that issue. No excitement for him either.

Ultimately, the calculation of many was that Kerry combined intellect with military service, lots of government experience and the qualifications to be President. You can certainly disagree with that, but it wasn't an unrational calculation.

At the same time, how do we select candidates that we can all be proud of? The truth is there are very few out there that are going to satisfy everybody. Plus, there is an essential difference between Democrats and Republicans in that Republicans fall in line and generally aren't cynical about their candidates. Most liberals and Democrats are more cynical about politics (which is probably a good thing) and don't fall-in-line in quite the same way. Liberal pundits and individuals are far more likely to criticize a Democratic candidate than conservatives and Republicans are to criticize a Republican candidate. And pleasing everybody in the Democratic Party is very difficult. Historically, even Bill Clinton, FDR, and JFK faced lots of suspicion and skepticism from other Democrats.

Some have argued that the answer is actually to go back to the smoke-filled rooms, where party leaders select among the most distinguished national leaders to lead the campaign. While it would make conventions more interesting, it is inherently undemocratic and I don't think people are going to go for it in this day and age, even if it may have delivered good candidates in the past.

I do think we need to reduce the stranglehold of Iowa and New Hampshire on the process. Large regional primaries would perhaps reduce the retail politicking, but in preparation for a national campaign, being able to craft a media-friendly appeal is important. Perhaps we could shift to some kind of IRV for primaries to indicate second and third choices. However, we would have to get rid of the proportional-representation aspect to current primary voting, which has its own strengths.

[mike_c]

11. would you also agree that Bush was the best candidate...

...the republicans could offer, either in 2000 or 2004? I cna't tink you would, but you've not offered any reason to suspect that dems are not susceptible to the same rush to mediocrity. Frankly, I disagree with you about Kerry, but if he WAS the best of the field-- as you suggest-- then I'm still left asking why we couldn't do better. The same is true of Bush-- as a liberal, I'm loath to support a republican president, but as an American, I'd rather have strong leadership from a republican with a record of significant accomplishments and a vision for improving the future than fumbling idiocy or mediocrity from someone else, no matter what letter appears after their name. Not that either attribute necessarily applies to John Kerry-- he's certainly an intelligent public servant with a long history of liberalism, but he almost went out of his way to distance himself from his own reputation during the campaign, as though he himself were seeking some sort of mediocre political anonymity.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. No, but I do think the GOP far more than the DP has "anointing"

Whereby party bigwigs back the person they like best. For all the accusations, I really wasn't seeing it with Kerry. He had some early establishment support after Gore backed out but then his campaign seemed to collapse. A number of prominent officials backed Dean and you had the Clintons subtly backing Clark, while everybody else was divided.

But that said, I have to admit I'm at a loss to say how we can quite get the politics that you want. Because people often feel this way in every country, regardless of voting methods or selection. The fact is politicians are human beings who have flaws and aren't going to please everyone. Even leaders like Lincoln and FDR had plenty of critics and were accused of mediocrity in their day. Often leaders that are inspiring in the campaign stage wind up being utterly mediocre or unable to get anything passed when they become president (or governor or mayor or senator, etc). And other times you have quietly effective leaders who haven't inspired people but ultimately have a strong record of accomplishment.

Personally, I'd like to see a system where we have easier third-party ballot access, some degree of proportional representation in the House, IRV for senate and governor races and a direct popular vote for president either with a 40%-runoff threshold or IRV.

But I'm not going to pretend it's going to dramatically make our leaders into saints. Or that everybody is going to be inspired. Politics is a messy business just like any field. Ultimately if you want a leader that inspires you you'll have to find one that appeals to lots of others as well. It's a rare leader who can be inspirational to an entire nation and often that legacy only comes with hindsight.

If you didn't like Kerry, fair enough. The important thing is to find a candidate in the next election who DOES inspire you and work hard to get them elected. But be aware that what you find inspiring may not inspire everybody else.

[mike_c]

18. excellent response-- thanks....

sorry if that sounds a bit too "you get a gold star"-- I'm desperately trying to prolong a rest break in a day of exam grading, so that's the mode I'm in. :hi:

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Ha! I'm desperately trying to prolong a rest break in a day of STUDYING

For an exam that I absolutely need to do well on and on which I'm quite behind. So I really shouldn't be on DU. C'est la vie.

[peacetalksforall]

27. Bush was an excellent candidate for the right wing.

1. He has not done much on his own. He has always been a front man. Those who run the party needed someone they could boss - dictate to, groom, and guide. They couldn't have anyone who had thoughts of their own. However, they appear to have given him leeway to call acts of personal revenge when loyalty was breached.

2. He was the perfect foil to build, maintain, and grow a voter base of born-agains, bigots, those with a false sense of patriotic drama, those who are incapable of recognizing hypocrisy. He appealed to the gun lovers in addition to the fetus lovers and was accepted by the reverends for a variety of reasons.

3. They could go into Iraq and use the appeal of righting the wrong of not taking out Hussein in Gulf War I.

4. Oil friends keep oil friends for the profit of a few.

5. He is the son of a President - a President whose history is not well known to many people - Iran-Contra, CIA, Carlyle, possible Kennedy connection. in spite of two campaigns and four years of reigning.

6. He would be accepted by many of the more educated, pearl necklaced-suit and tie, country-club Republicans who probably trusted in the people who run their Party for the selection.

7. He was given the entire mainstream media package of support.

8. He retained support because of ignorance about the reasons why Moslem opposition to the U.S. simmered and proliferated in activism.

He was more or less perfect in 2000 and was helped by a false sense of fear and patriotism and utter ignorance in 2004.

Evidently, you can introduce a new form of reign and imperialism and will be allowed to abandon and destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights quite easily in the U.S. of Corporations and get any marionette to stand and give a speech.

[mike_c]

45. hmmm-- this advances a more cynical view of what is "perfect..."

...in a presidential candidate. You've made a good point. I suppose I meant "was Bush the best republicans could offer?" in a less cynical sense-- was he the best in a sense that we might all recognize as having leadership qualities, vision, etc., even if we don't all agree on the political direction he wants to take? But your response suggests that isn't really what motivates political parties. Might that be as true of the democratic party as the republican party?

[peacetalksforall]

54. I don't think it should be as true of the Democratic Party as the

Republican Party because the Democratic Party isn't orchestrated. If we were we would be standing behind the DLC and DNC. We would be out there grooming judges, lawyers, editors, journalists, guest experts, civic employees, teachers, educational and corporate leaders, etc. The Dems are definitely not organized - they are too spread out to be narrowly motivated.

That's why I always say that Republicans are exquisitely organized because they brought the pearl necklaced blue haired ladies together with born again reverends and their loyal and blind flock. Together to support a corporate-military (fascist-imperialist) regime.

They have a war machine in operation against we, the other citizens. Dems to not have a war machine. Dems don't even have enough think tanks. Dems don't have a mainstream media. Dems don't have hundreds of foundations that groom judges, lawyers, editors, journalists, guest experts, civic employees, teachers, corporate leaders to march in lock-step with Dem leaders. Dems are not blind sided.

Dems don't have a C-Span.

Dems can't protect the airwaves.

Dems can't protect veterans.

Dems are the 'can't party', but could be the 'can party' if they wanted to. They are just beginning to appreciate the desperate need. There are good signs of organizing.

But, it is necessary to look at Dems on three levels:

1. Leaders
2. Major citizenry and loyalists/semi-loyalists.
3. Disenfranchised citizenry who are disenfranchised because of the leaders - too much sameness (giving recognition, but not degree, to Nader's preachings).

I am disappointed and mystified by Dem leaders, including especially the Clintons. A few others are horrors as leaders, in my book. Some are heroes and heroines because they have guts - a commodity in need of more passionate, wise, and unafraid hosts. The first decade of the 21st Century is off to a horrible start because Dems find it difficult to recognize our status and get moving. Thanks to those who are moving and leading.

The disenfranchised have good reason to be who they are.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. IMO, it's a crapshoot. What are the people looking for in a given year?

And who will the press take a shine to. George W. Bush should never have been nominated by one of our two major parties for the Presidency of the United States. Our press should never have given his candidacy credence, much less constant support. He was chosen not by the nominating process, but by a group of Texans with a lot of money. When McCain surfaced, he was quickly destroyed by the raw power these people can exert, aided by the "religious" Right.

John Kerry, on the other hand, was eminently qualified for the Presidency, by experience, intelligence, and character. He was a decorated war veteran. He won three Presidential debates by a country mile. But his campaign was not the best, and the press didn't like him. So many in the public decided they didn't like him. (Still, it took chicanery in Ohio, Florida, and, IMO, New Mexico to beat him.)

As long as the public wants a good-ole-boy President, instead of an intelligent, thoughtful one, Democrats will be at a disadvantage. Bill Clinton had the enormous gift of both incredible intellect and equal political skill. Those in our party who might have this combination, I'm afraid, are relatively new to the political arena. Barack Obama? Wesley Clark, although his lack of political experience sometimes hampered him? The Mayor of Los Angeles? Paul Hackett? Who?

The Republican smear machine has damaged Hillary. I don't see any of our long-serving Democratic Senators lighting a fire among the electorate. I don't see Bill Richardson doing it either, even with the advanatage of his Hispanic heritage.

To echo the Big Dog, it depends on what the meaning of "best" is -- and it's a problem not only for our party, but for a nation badly in need of leadership.

[BobRossi]

8. Kerry worst thing for Dems since Dukakis.

Wishy-washy no substance wannabe. We were all punked by the DNC/DLC.

[Critters2]

30. I agree

I couldn't believe how hard he had already campaigned by the caucuses. The number of Kerry buttons and signs at my caucus was stunning, and I was sure he couldn't win. He had REALLY worked with veterans' groups. I tried to sway people at my caucus (I supported Clark--who didn't technically run in Iowa, which didn't help), but they kept saying he was the only one who was "electable". Nothing about his positions--just "he's electable". So much for that.

I was sure he couldn't win, and I was deeply upset that we were likely to nominate someone who voted for the war resolution. I actually went home from my caucus and cried. Not long, but I did cry.

:cry:

I cried again on election night. Let's focus on positions, not "electability" next time. Please!!!

[Mass]

32. Which is why he did better than Clinton 92, Dukakis 88, Mondale 84, and

as well as Gore 00.

[sandnsea]

55. He did better than JFK in Massachusetts

I have just learned. So much for the bs that Massachusetts didn't even like him.

He was a great candidate. He made 2 gaffes, and had a swift boat attack. It's sad that the Democratic "grassroots" doesn't have the spine to stand up to that little bit of adversary.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. Having read your additional post #2, I must respectfully...

add to my own previous post. While thanking you for your thoughtful OP -- and not wanting your thread hijacked to another subject -- I must share my opinion that, given the realistic choice before us, John Kerry, and our country, needed your vote.

[mike_c]

13. I appreciate that....

The democrats had my vote until John Kerry voted for the IWR, and refused throughout his campaign to repudiate the war against Iraq. There were other matters that disturbed me about his candidacy, of course, but I simply could not vote for ANY prowar candidate, no matter what party they represented. That was the first time I've voted non-dem since 1976. I struggled with that decision considerably. Now I consider myself a Green, but my history is solidly dem, and I look forward to returning some day.

That's one reason I asked this question. I don't want to be in the same position in 2008.

[sandnsea]

56. wrong war, wrong place, wrong time

He did repudiate it, in so many ways. I don't know why you didn't want to hear, but it was a problem with your ears, not his mouth.

[peacetalksforall]

10. I am one who has been impressed by Kerry as a Senator (to the best

of my ability since I'm not from MA and I don't follow all the Senators). But, he had some honorable moments in his life and career. (And I love Teresa.)

I was very disappointed when Kennedy backed him and I kept asking myself what he knew that I didn't. I was already left with the opinion that Kerry was not the strongest candidate and I had two extremely important issues with Kerry that I won't repeat because I've already stated them on DU about 85 times.

I never doubted that I wouldn't vote for him because I was an ABB. I was euphoric the morning that I voted and all day long. Perhaps it was because of the area where I live; most of us voted for Kerry.

Now, to the point. I was utterly convinced that Kerry was selected - overnight - and I didn't know how it happened, but have since figured out, with the help of DU, that it was most likely a decision by the DLC and DNC with the help of the media. It was a very quick dramatic announcement. Dramatic, because I was still trying to figure out who would be best and the other candidates seemed a little stunned and I felt they were left hanging out and around the backyard.

Now, with the help of the media? The DLC and DNC with the help of the media? The right wing media? Why would I feel that the media helped in the announcement transition? That is still a most unsettling suspicion and it angers me. I saw their methodology leading up to the announcement and subsequent to it - AND THEN near refusal to cover him as each day passed. Why did the media seem to aid his selection and then drop him? Was this another one-sided betrayal? Perhaps this has all been covered in many articles that I haven't read because I was still trying to get over the loss and the early concession.

I saw firein Kerry, but not the fire that burns hot and importantly. I heard mostly politicalese.

It wasn't good enough for me.

Traditional campaigning is lacking in this era.

Action, not politicalese, by all Dem leaders is the only way to help a Dem candidate.

Getting Republicans out of the ownership role of our vote is a most essential first. Introducing a bill (CEVA) in a Frist empire is not going to do it.

We are in desperate times and traditional blandness is not going to help us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. He was a mediocrity in the best tradition of politics as usual.

Hopefully, he has been consigned to the "who was the failed Democratic nominee in 2004?" trivia questions that he so richly earned when he voted for the war and caved at every opportunity.

But..he did bag a goose!

[EFerrari]

26. Ouch.

John Kerry, as far as I can tell, did not have great people around him.

Donna Brazzile (sp?) all by herself could have tanked his run. Donna, who claims that Karl is a good friend.

I won't comment on Kerry or the Dem leadership in general because I'm not one. My deal is to first secure our election process and then, to get these criminals out of our government.

So, as you can see, I already have hands full. lol

[knitter4democracy]

16. I'm still miffed.

Dean was such a great candidate and would've destroyed Bush one-on-one. He wasn't perfect, either, but he had a great record as a governor and got more grassroots going, at least in our Republican-dominated area, than Kerry did early on. Here in Michigan, it seemed like Kerry was picked by the party higher-ups and that most of us lower-ranking Dems preferred Dean with the next biggest group going for Clark.

[mike_c]

22. personally, I'd have sold my soul...

...for Dennis Kucinich, and would have worked hard for Dean-- and would have voted for him, of course. My personal threshold was opposition to the war against Iraq-- I left the democratic party when it nominated a pro-war candidate. My only alternative would have been to sit out the election. I simply cannot vote for anyone who supports the war against Iraq, democrat or otherwise. It is as impossible as voting republican, frankly. I will likely sit out the next California senatorial race for that reason, unless a green candidate runs against Feinstein.

[knitter4democracy]

42. We had a strong Kucinich contingent in town.

I've always liked him. We lived in Cleveland for a bit, and it was such an honor to vote for him. He may be a bit odd, but his heart and strength are in the right place.

It was hard for the Kucinich people to switch over to Kerry, and not all of them did. Heck, it was hard for a lot of us Dean people, too. We'd all worked so hard and lost because of the powers-that-be. *sigh* It sure opened up a lot of eyes, let me tell you, and I think it lost us a few votes.

Frankly, the Party needs to get their heads on straight. We can't out-Republican the Republicans. Okay, Clinton could, but he is the only one. It's time for a real Dem again.

[kentuck]

21. Kerry won the primaries...

and we went along with the wishes of Democratic voters, even if we were supporting Howard Dean or General Clark at that time. Who were we to question the will of the people?

[mike_c]

29. well I suppose that's the point, kentuck....

Is it "the will of the people" to select mediocre candidates for the most important leadership position in America? The evidence would seem to suggest that it is. I find that enormously depressing.

[kentuck]

43. But what choice did we have after the voters Iowa chose Kerry?

I think most people here at DU thought we should coalesce behind the candidate and that was the best chance to beat Bush and the Repubs. Kerry lost when he did not respond adequately to the Swift Boat ads. That is what cooked his goose. But, their machine would have rolled over whomever we put up, I tend to believe. Look what they did to Dean with "the scream"...

[knitter4democracy]

44. I'm not so sure.

Our very popular governor came out for Kerry, and so did all the higher-ups in the party. We were all told to vote for Kerry, and many did without really looking into the differences in the candidates. I did phone banking for Dean, and many had never even heard of him. If they felt like listening, they were suprised at all the things he'd done as governor and sounded like they liked him, but they eventually voted for Kerry because of the pressure.

[MrBenchley]

23. Too fucking funny...

Kerry's a Vietnam war hero who lbecame one of the leaders of the anti-war movement in the 1970s. He prosecuted the mob in New England and busted Iran-Contra open in Congress.

One wonders how flamboyant and excellent somebody would personally have to be to describe Kerry as bland and mediocre....

"how did the republicans end up with dubya?"
His daddy pulled strings, dummy...

[mike_c]

33. sure, but the Kerry of the 1970's is not the one who ran in 2004....

But I presume your response to my OP question is that Kerry was the best the democratic party could offer in 2004? Fair enough.

[MrBenchley]

41. I sure don't see much wrong with him....

and he was fairly chosen by the voters in the primaries.....

[upi402]

24. Kerry was fine, the media is neocon owned

Progressives will regain the democracy when there is a liberal media outlet on cable TV 24 hrs, everyday and one broadcast evening news.

[tjdee]

25. NO he wasn't the best.

:thumbsdown:

[upi402]

36. Wellstone, Conyers, Jackson-Leigh (sp?) -Maxine Waters is my choice

just don't fly. Kucinich was great too!
Can I see BushCo free and on the streets if Kucinich was in power? Nope!

[MasonJar]

28. Well, now it is clear that you chose to vote against the dem...your

choice of course, but it definitely leaves me without any intention of listening to your criticsm of the candidate I voted and worked very hard for. If you want an honest election, work for a transparent election...not Diebold, etc. machines. Kerry won Ohio or would have if the chairman of Bush's campaign had not also been in charge of the election. Kerry is my kind of man...pro-environment, pro-worker, pro-education. etc., etc.

[mike_c]

35. fair enough-- and you did answer my question, I think....

I'll assume you DO think Kerry was the best candidate that the dems could run in 2004.

[Mass]

31. delete

[mike_c]

38. I've been a democrat all my life-- voted dem since 1976...

...but I could not vote for a pro-war candidate in 2004 under any circumstances. The alternative would have been to sit out the election, and frankly, the Green party got the message right in 2004, so why shouldn't I vote for Cobb instead of simply staying home?

Arguing about who I should have voted for really doesn't address the central issue, however. Do YOU think that Kerry was the best the dems could do in 2004? I obviously didn't-- so much so that I was compelled to leave the party. I'll face that same decision in 2008-- as will you.

on edit-- I hope you didn't delete your remarks because you feared I might find them uncivil-- I didn't. I completely understand your concern.

[bklyncowgirl]

34. Kerry was the strongest compromise candidate

I was an early Kerry supporter--I admired him for his activism against the Vietnam War and his role in investigating the Iran Contra scandal. I was disappointed in his primary campeign. I took a look at Dean and liked what I saw. Lord knows the Democratic Party needs innovation and excitement and Dean supplied just that. In addition, I believed that even if he lost, Dean would go down swinging--not the worst thing in the world.

The Democratic Party was not ready for Howard Dean----we can argue till the cows come home about whether the DNC kneecapped Dean--or whether he'd pissed off the mainstream media--or the GOP decided to make a pre-emptive strike on him or maybe whether Howard Dean was not ready to run for President any or all of the above may well be true. The question was who would be able to unite the party.

The anti-war faction was not going to accept Lieberman. They were not going to accept Gephardt who'd stood grinning behind George Bush as he signed the IWR. Edwards was inspiring but inexperienced. Clark had all of the military and foreign policy experience in the world and a strong anti Iraq war position but little political experience. That left John Kerry. A candidate who'd expressed enough reluctance about the war at the time to be acceptable to the anti-war faction but the fact that he'd voted for the IWR made him acceptable to the pro-war faction.

Would Howard Dean have been able to galvanize a populist uprising--we don't know. Would Wes Clark have been able to avoid the political pitfalls--and avoid the inevitable slander of his military career--we don't know. Would John Edwards have been able to charm voters into ignoring his inexperience--we don't know. We do know that Kerry made many mistakes but still came very, very close and if suspicions about the voting machines are true, may well have won the election.

Under the circumstances--given who was running--he was the best candidate.

[Critters2]

37. There's no question

The DNC and the DLC killed Dean's candidacy. And, I AM a member of the "anti-war faction", as you put it. The party may have to actually listen to us next time, what with our having been right an' all. I NEVER considered Kerry "acceptable" precisely because he voted for the war. The playing with words afterwards didn't help.

If the party can't come up with anyone better than Kerry, God help us. Dean could have won, if the DNC and the DLC had backed him.

[upi402]

39. Dean could have, but the neocon media slandered his ass

I may be a tinfoil hatter, but it seems that there is a cancer in the facade of the media that's more sinister than people want to look at.

A propagandistic media is the first weapon of an authoritarian regime.

[janx]

40. The emphasis on things military

and the preoccupation with trying to out-military the Chimp was a real mistake and downfall.

Yes, everyone was in full love of things military, but as Dean used to say, you don't beat the right-wing by trying to be like them.

The nomination of John Kerry and the emphasis on the military ultimately led to the whole "Swift Boat" mess, among other things.

[boobooday]

47. I voted for him but . . .

I was very disheartened to hear him, during the debates, assert that he was just as willing to kill kill kill as Dubya, just as religious, etc.

That is definitely not what we need.

[NVMojo]

48. sigh! the freeps must be laughing at us ...they smeared him and we are.

[mike_c]

50. but should we be doomed to repeat history simply because...

...we don't want to air the laundry?

[Rex]

49. No but whatca gonna do?

IMO he was not the best choice (Wesley and Dennis were my pic) but he was the Man at the end of the process, so I backed him all the way.

[globalvillage]

51. Yes.

He represents my values. Did then, still does.
I think he was our best choice.

[Catrina]

52. This is how I feel about it

We had a list of candidates, all of them had merit, imo. As soon as the campaign began, and the primary debates, the protective wall that had been around Bush began to crumble. For the first time, it was okay to criticise him openly.

I took off the list of candidates, anyone who voted for the IWR. That left, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely Braun and later, Clark. I love Kucinich, but knew he couldn't win and I decided to support Gen. Clark who I thought, made Bush look like the AWOL coward he was.

As I recall, during the period of the debates, Bush's poll numbers began to drop. I thought at the time, that by the time the primaries were over, (which I thought would take several more months after Iowa) Bush would have been so publicly thrashed, that whoever won the primaries (and I thought that would be an anti-war candidate) would easily beat him.

When we got to Iowa, Kerry was at 3% ~ Lieberman around 1%, Gephardt admitted he could not get around his war vote, but did jump a little when he criticized Bush very strongly.

The people's choice therefore (democrats, and many moderate Republicans) was clearly NOT a candidate who voted for the IWR. I never even considered Kerry, knew nothing about him then, other than his war vote mostly.

So, I was stunned when he won Iowa, then NH and it was all over!! We in NY did not get to vote in the primaries, as was the case with other states. Iowa decided for the country!! It was such a let-down. I wondered WHY the Democrats would want to end the primaries which were very damaging to Bush. It was the first time in four years there had been ANY anti-war sentiment expressed by respected politicians in the MSM.

I was especially disappointed that here in NY we had no chance to express an opinion. That there were months left now for the rightwing to attack a candidate who represented a base that was anti-war and who now had to try to balance his support for the war, against the base who virulently opposed it. The right was in limbo before the choice. I liked having them in that position. They were ready with the smear campaign for either Dean or Clark, (but some of them told me that Kerry would be the choice, and 'we're ready for him') I laughed at that then.

So, imo, Kerry was not chosen by the people, the base of the party. He was chosen by they party leadership ~ regardless of how we felt. The DLC is pro-war. The rightwing is pro-war. We were ignored. I rallied and learned about Kerry and came to respect him, but was always frustrated that he could not outright condemn the war, as Dean could have and did and Clark, and neither one got much flack for that, even in the media.

I kept waiting for Kerry to say, as Rockefeller, and Edwards did in a debate, that had he known then what he knew now, he would not have voted for the IWR, over and over, I was disappointed. I had a hard time in debates with rightwingers, defending why I supported him.

What I think now is that he was meant to lose, that Bush was to be left in place, that the people played no role in the last election, not even the rightwingers, except to give it legitimacy. What Kerry's role is, I don't know. But was he the best? No. How can someone who supported the war, said little about the torture, be the best?

Next time I will not compromise ~ it didn't work anyway, so I feel free to stick to my principles and find a candidate who is opposed to the neocon agenda this time.

[mike_c]

53. great response!

:toast:

[sendero]

61. We have to STOP..

.... letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick our nominee. That's where we went wrong IMHO. Apparently, the primaries will be different in 2008. Thank god!

And, I do not think JK was the best possible candidate. And "electability" is in the eye of the beholder, and some folks' idea of what is electable is utter nonsense.

[Noisy Democrat]

57. Kerry was the best

and still is. Kerry inspired me and a lot of people I know who'd been feeling totally burned out on politics. He gave us back a sense of patriotism and faith in this country. He fought incredibly hard, too, against an unbelievable attack machine. The only thing he needs is better campaign advisors.

[laureloak]

58. dupe

[laureloak]

59. It was not well thought out. Kerry had waaayyy to much

baggage, just like Hillary. The "Kerry Hate" and "Hillary Hate" are too strong to overcome.

[RazzleDazzle]

60. Bland mediocrity.

Yup, that's him.

Very nicely written.