Serious ? - How will Kerry frame 2004 if he runs in 2008?

[MoonRiver]

I honestly am not trying to ignite flames. I really wonder how he would deal with the issue of his "loss" (????) in '04 should he decide, as it appears he will, to run in '08.

I see several approaches to this problem, none good.

1.) He can claim to have actually lost by a very narrow margin. This is what the "official" numbers state. However, several difficulties surround this approach. First, the grass roots feel 2004 was stolen from us again, and would be infuriated if Kerry didn't back up our strong belief. Second, he would be spun as simply a recycled loser by the right. This would also be used by Democratic contenders, especially among those who did not run, and thereby lose to, Kerry, in the 2004 primary.

2.) He can say that he believes he really won, but decided not to fight for the good of the country. Well, among Democrats (and probably a lot others by now) this would drive people crazy. "The good of the country" involved getting the neocon fascists out of our government, not contesting a stolen election (a fight many of us were itching for). Of course, Repukes will simply smear Kerry with the old "Sore Loserman" meme.

3.) He can say he actually won and finally produce proof of this fact. Again, the idea that this information was not presented earlier would anger many Dems. Yes, it would also fuel the rage against bushco, but I don't know if that would help Kerry. A lot would depend on how he presented such documentation. Repukes would again apply a "Sore Loserman" spin in response to this tactic. Depending on how much proof is available and verifiable, this may or may not work.

4.) He can try to ignore the whole issue. It would come up, however, and he would have to address it one way or the other. This problem is not going away.

I'm sure I've left out other possibilities, and would appreciate learning how else Kerry might try to tame this proverbial elephant in the room.

[NVMojo]

1. 2004 election was a false election based on lies attacking Kerry's

"personal" issues and ignoring Bush's "personal" issues. The media was a whore in participating.

[MoonRiver]

2. That's true, but

you didn't address my question of how Kerry will explain what happened to voters.

[TayTay]

3. Ahm, he lost a close election

Officially it was by around 2.5%. Ohio could have gone either way and was very, very close, as was the national election.

He would say, ahm, I didn't win. I came close. I want to try again.

ARe you asking what he would say or what people in DU would say in response to anything he might say?

[MoonRiver]

5. #1 explains my feelings about how this will be spun.

Imo, that does not bode well for Kerry.

[TayTay]

9. Why?

AGain, those who don't like him, don't like him.

They have already made up their mind. He is better off doing what he thinks is right and going forward.

If I were him, I'd say to hell with them. I'll do what I think is right. If others don't like it, pick anohter candidate.

You can't please everyone. Sometimes you shouldn't even try. It's a trap and a box that puts you in someone else's argument. What is the good of that. Why should he care what you or anyone else who has already made up their minds thinks? I wouldn't spend two seconds on it.

[MoonRiver]

12. My feeling is he will be so pressed to answer questions about '04

he will be forced to take a stand.

[TayTay]

14. My point is

he already has spoken on it. And very few people outside of the liberal blogs know about the problems with the election. It didn't make the nightly news cut.

We know it's a problem. But it isn't a problem Kerry could have solved on election night. It's a long term legislative matter that will take all Dems acting in concert to fight. Kerry is on board with this legislation.

Other than that, I'd screw it off as a no-win situation.

[Mass]

15. Some of us may disagree.

He got a lot more vote that the last winning democrat, for example, and it was against an incumbent president in time of war. This is playable if he wants to play it.

[venable]

75. but he stood at the grand canyon

and said he'd vote the same way on the war.

[karynnj]

79. That has been explained at leats a million times.

He did not hear the full question (he missed the Knowing there were no weapons) and thought he was asked the same question about the vote that he had been often asked. Per the Globe, not a Kerry apologist, Kerry suffers from hearing loss due to Vietnam and the wind at the Grand Canyon affected the sound.

This makes since as he was already on record saying that getting the inspectors in was his reason for voting for it and he had said he wouldn't have gone to war. Taken as the answer to the question the Globe said he thought he was being asked - it's identical tro his response to the question. As the eye of the hurricane that was the campaign, I doubt Kerry even heard the controversy at the time. I believe this story because it makes sense when seen in the context of all his other statements.

[karynnj]

77. Right, he lost a close election

and that he was gaining momentum as more and more people actually saw him and heard his ideas. Since he lost, he has continued working for all the things he told people he believed in. Some of the people that liked what they heard but bought the Republican lies that he was inconsistent or didn't really believe what he said may recognize that he was the REAL DEAL just as he said.

Kerry has a job in 2008 that is at the same time both easier in some ways and harder in others. He will start with far more people who know who he is and what he stands for - this means he will start with a larger group of strong supporters, BUT whereas in 2004 he had to win people who knew little about him, in 2008, he will have to make more people change their minds.

[electropop]

4. I don't think there is anything he can do now.

It doesn't matter to me what he says; he has demonstrated that he is a risk we cannot afford to take. The only way we will have any chance at all is with a candidate truly unafraid to stand up against theft.

In other words, Boxer/Conyers '08!

[TayTay]

7. There's the point

To some people, there is nothing he can say. They have already made up their minds.
To others, they have decided that he deserves another chance. They think the closeness of the last race warrants that.
Others don't care and will decide based on what happens between now and 2008.

I don't get the frame problem?

[electropop]

26. I busted ass for Kerry for a long time,

based partly on his claims that he would protect our votes, had thousands of lawyers on standby, etc. Then on election night he quietly rolled over and played dead after a blatant and very visible theft. At that moment, we already knew about the insanely long lines in Ohio, and Blackwell's many (publicly visible) tricks such as the ballot weight-of-paper scam. We knew about the rigged voting machines. We knew the exit polls had suddenly flipped - all of America watched it on TV.

Was Kerry dumber than the rest of us? An RNC ringer? Too tired from the campaign to finish the job? Not as courageous as he had been in his youth? I don't know. The practical answer is that we cannot take any chances this time. The only way we can win is to aggressively pursue every single dirty electoral trick, in advance where possible and after the fact if necessary. Kerry failed to do so, so he has no chance in the primary or the general election (for different reasons).

This time around, the public is desperate for a Democrat to clean up the Republican mess. As always. The campaign part will be relatively easy. The vote-counting part is where we need a candidate who will fight tooth and nail to prevent another theft, and where the election will be won or lost.

[TayTay]

27. Your opinion

I worked for him too. Is this a 'work-off?' Did your working give you some sort of special lifetime dispensation to get him to do what you want? I don't think so.

I think he acted based on the best info he had. If you don't like it, don't work for him next time. He had mentioned, on at least 6 different occassions this year that there were problems with the vote and that Congress needs to do something about it. (Co-Sponsored legislation on this and has worked to keep it in the public eye.)

If that's not good enough for you, then pick someone else. I like the fact that he still mentions this often and hasn't let it fall off the his legislative agenda. I like the fact that he is still in the lawsuits. That works for me.

It is not compulsory on your part to back anyone. Don't like him, pick someone else. I don't have a problem with him and I think he did a good job.

[electropop]

29. I'm not giving Kerry orders. I'm wondering why he broke his promise.

It was the only one that mattered, because by breaking it, he forfeited the ability to keep any other promises.

[TayTay]

30. He didn't.

He hasn't stopped talking about it. It has come up 6 or 7 times, unbidden, in speeches this year. He has filed legislation with others to fix it.

That's not ignoring it. That's trying to deal with it.

Your problem is that you had a way fro him to deal with it and he didn't do it your way. Okay, then don't support him cuz he didn't do exactly what you wanted. Fine, pick another candidate.

But he is fighting for election reform. Good enough for me.

[karynnj]

80. He didn't break any promise he had the ability to keep

There is still nothing that constitutes legal proof that Kerry did get more votes. Was the election in Ohio unfair - Yes. Were likely Kerry voters detered from voting by long lines (with short lines in the suburbs), polling place changes etc - yes, Are votes that NEVER happened countable - No.

Kerry (and us) were likely cheated. If I promised my child to tke him to a show, and the artist cancelled, so I say can't go - have I broken my promise. The norm in American elections would have been for Kerry to concede late Tuesday night. He waited till the next day, when he was told there was no way they could win. Look at his face, or Teresa's, or especially the picture of his daughters. Kerry is by all accounts a very proud, reserved man, but when he talked about his supporters - his voice broke and he was near tears. If he saw a chance, he would have taken it.

[Burning Water]

6. If it comes up, all he has to say

is "That's in the past; I am looking to a better America in the future". The Dems that get angry and won't vote for him will contribute, once again, to a Republican victory.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Not one of us will get everything we hope for in a candidate. Not one of us. But whatever Dem we get, won't that be better than another Republican??

So I say #4. In my view it is the only intelligent way to approach the issue, from his viewpoint. Of course, the rest of us should keep it in the forefront of the American consciousness.

[MoonRiver]

10. It will definitely come up in the primaries.

He will have a very difficult problem either choosing to look like a loser, or a non-fighter.

[elehhhhna]

8. Kerry is soooo 2004. Forget him. Dems have to do better or get gone.

[McKenzie]

11. maybe best to ask his team directly

I'm not trying to ignite flames either. Anything we say here will just go round in ever decreasing circles because we are not party (no pun intended) to the real strategy yet, assuming he has one.

He is too smart to let much slip. The first rule of war is don't let your enemy know what you think...revealing your strategy at the wrong time exposes you...if you get my drift...

[Kolesar]

13. I promise you Democrats--that if you nominate me--I will be the next Nixon

First of all, I think you meant 2004 where you said 2008 in your bullet (1).

Per 2 and 3: JK will need a lot better evidence of the election being stolen than I have ever seen to avoid being laughed off the stage.

Per 1: I am in the grassroots and me and most of my "real" activist buddies who actually do real activist work in Ohio don't think the vote-count was stolen in 2004. Beyond that, I think that any serious Democrat for any office has to make fair elections, with no Blackwell-esqe pre-election fraud, into a campaign issue.

[MoonRiver]

17. Thanks for alerting me to the typo. I fixed.

It's interesting that you believe the Ohio vote was accurate!

[Kolesar]

22. Accurate, no, but Kerry could not close the 120,000 vote gap w/ a recount

[MoonRiver]

23. So, the votes he was cheated out of weren't enough to take the state?

[Kolesar]

25. The pre-election fraud may have cost him ~120,000, but we will never know

As for fraud on election day, the Dems only had a few instances of votes not being properly recorded (intentionally or not). Such would not have given JK the win in any recount scenario.

[rockymountaindem]

73. Exactly, the simple absence of votes is not physical evidence.

At least Gore had hanging chads to use.

Only if Kerry managed to dig up some kind of memo saying "steal votes from Kerry" or got election officials to cop to fraud, there isn't evidence when people don't vote or their votes are never recorded.

Hunches aren't going to win us a court case.

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. Why ask this now?

Here's an idea: what if we wait to see who runs in 2008 and how they do in the primaries?

Meanwhile, Dems will win nothing in 2006 if we don't get rid of the election fraud.

[Kolesar]

19. Let's just collectively slit our wrists, then

But after I get to read a few more threads on DU. I just love this.

[Der Blaue Engel]

70. Note: If anyone thinks I meant we should give up

you missed my point. I'm saying FOCUS on what is important right now rather than perpetuating the divisiveness that RW spin so effectively sewed in our community last year, and continues to sew.

Fight for election reform NOW before the 2006 election; then focus on the 2006 election; then start worrying about 2008.

[Totally Committed]

18. I asked this before, and it didn't get an answer...

Maybe someone here knows?

Has anyone ever run for POTUS and for the Senate at the same time? I know Joementum ran for the Senate while running with Gore in 2000, but that is a much shorter campaign than that of POTUS, and there are not all the money-raising concerns, either. Basically, a VP-nom just shows up and supports the Party nom.

How would Kerry run for both? Would he run for both? Would he just not run for his Senate seat in hopes of getting the nomination? If he tried to run for both, wouldn't it sort of dilute both campaigns? How would the people of MA take it? But, basically, has anyone, to your knowledge done this successfully -- or at all?

Just wondering. (I can't remember it ever happening in my lifetime, but I could be wrong.)

TC

[Mass]

24. I dont think it is possible in MA. There is something in the Constitution

of Massachusetts that prevents it.


Anyway, I dont think it would go very well in MA if he runs for the two at the same time. I think it is clear he will have to choose.

[Totally Committed]

38. Any ideas which way he's leaning right now, Mass?

Have you heard anything? I'm hoping he doesn't leaveit until it's too late to get a good Dem in there to run against that Swift Boater they are running from the other side.

I'd love to see Tierney run, but it's just a pipedream.

[Mass]

39. Corsi will not run as a Repub except if they really have nobody else

(he does not even live in MA and is anti-catholic and antisemitic : if the Repugs have a total death wish, they can try, of course).

I have no clue what Kerry will choose. I imagine he will say that after the 06 race as he said he was committed to helping for 06 at this point.

So, still plenty of time for one of those bloody Democratic primary MA has the secret of (Markey, Meehan, and probably half a dozen ofther people probably are ready to run at the first opportunity, anyway).

[leftupnorth]

20. I was against winning before I was for it........

just kidding, i couldn't resist.

Seriously, though, I don't really think Kerry has a chance. He's a great target to draw fire from the RW, but I really don't think he could be taken seriously. He serves the country and the party well by representing the voters of Mass. The DNC should really start floating his name, if just to mess with the Right and make their heads explode.

[ray of light]

21. It is my hope that he will have the whistle blower and the evidence

to PROVE the election FRAUD and the suppression of votes. That if progressives WIN in 06 they can deconsolidate the corrupt corporate (republican supporting) media and then he can show EXAMPLES of how the media FAILED to uphold the constitution of America by WITH-HOLDING evidence in order to ASSIST in Bush's win and that EVERYONE deserves a FAIR chance to run for office without PROPRAGANDA in the fake-media.

Go PROGRESSIVES in 06 and MAKE THIS HAPPEN! Take our country BACK!!

[eallen]

28. If we're stupid enough to nominate him, I'm moving to Canada.

I might change my mind if, prior to 2008, he successfully sues the Swifties for defamation, or otherwise shows more spine than he did in 2004.

:hippie:

[ray of light]

35. He showed a tremendous amount of spine

but the media didn't show you that.

He's in Congress NOW showing a heck of a lot of spine.

He's fighting for vets.
He's figting for peace.
He's fighting against corrupt political hack appointees...

I'm tired of the Kerry bashing.

Besides, I witnessed DEAN sitting there letting ALL DEMS be called "spineless and corrupt" AND NOT SAYING BOOO in defence of any of them. Now WHY would the KEY REPRESENTATIVE who is suppose to HELP get Dems elected not tell people to quit bashing the Dems?

HOW does DEAN's "spineless" actions help this party? Will Dean's silence help Kerry? Will it help Hilary? Will it help Clarke? Will it help Republicans and neoCONS?

EVERYONE just stop the name calling against our own progressives who are trying to hang tough against the most corrupt Republican party to ever exist in America, please! We must start supporting ALL candidates instead of bashing one or the other.

[wmills551]

36. Jezus! Now people are moving to Canada

If Kerry gets nominated? Who do you want? Dennis "that's not my daughter, that's my wife" Kucinich?

[Ken Burch]

94. Jesus! what's the age of Kucinich's wife got to do with anything?

You are heading for a banning, psycho. Every post I've read of yours is vicious, insensitive and completely inapppropriate.
Knock it off.

[emulatorloo]

31. How will Kerry frame 2004? He will take it to the Frame Store at the Mall!

He will run as the "I fscking told you so" candidate.

Who cares about 2008? I am worried about 06

[MoonRiver]

32. I'm curious because there is a lot of speculation about him running.

Most on DU know I hope he doesn't, and don't feel like he will win the primary if he does. Still, I wonder about how he'll address this issue.

And, I certainly believe '06 is the crucial issue to be focusing on. But '08 is not that far away either, considering candidates start running at least 2 years before an election anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

34. That's what Kerry is doing right now, focussing on 2006.

I wish folks would follow suit.

He's campaigning for and raising money for folks in 2006.

Problem is, at the moment, pretty much anything he says and does is seen though the "he's running in 2008" filter. I still find that distorting. It means he pretty much can't do anything without it being called campaigning for 2008.

[_dynamicdems]

85. Well said!

I couldn't agree more! He did tell us so.

Yes, we need to focus on 2006. If we don't win 2006, 2008 might be a moot point.

[emulatorloo]

89. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[_dynamicdems]

91. Thanks for the Welcome!

[LittleClarkie]

33. If he catches fire this time, he'd be better off not even bringing it up

Here is where we will find out if he learned anything.

Just as, if Gore would run in 2008, it would not make sense to rehash past history, the same would hold true with Kerry.

He'd almost have to make folks forget the past, and accept him anew.

He'd have to take that end of campaign momentum, and recapture it 4 years later.

Some folks say insanity is doing the same thing again but expecting a different result. What makes them think that either Kerry or Gore would conduct the EXACT same campaign again.

Anyway, the next election is likely to be a doozy. Whoever comes out on top will likely have earned it.

If Kerry can find a way to make folks forget 2004, he will have earned it. First stop, hire a decent campaign manager. Second, stay angry. He's pretty cool when he's angry.

[LynneSin]

37. I'm sorry but this gal here is anyone but Kerry

Seriously - he had his chance. ANd even though there was a world of campaign fraud going on, especially in Ohio - I'm not ready to see him run again in 2008.

When the Swiftboaters came out attacking John Kerry, he did little to fight back and thus weakening his chances of winning in 2004. We all know that he needed decisive wins in order to get presidency, but this weakness helped keep states close enough that the fix could be done.

Kerry is a good senator but I would like to see someone who isn't a US Senator run in 2008

[XemaSab]

40. Word

He ran a "positive" campaign, which basically meant that he didn't do a good job of telling people why Bush is bad for America OR defending himself against THEIR negative ads.

On edit: to expand on this, he could have shut down the SBVT by saying "the US Army thought I deserved these medals, and now you're questioning the ability of the army to determine who deserves a medal among their own ranks? Why don't you trust the army on this?"

If he'd said that a couple times, they would have shut right up.

But instead he let them run their mouths off....

[LynneSin]

42. He could have still run a positve campaign and fought back

His strategy was "If I ignore the Swiftboats they'll just go away"

[ray of light]

48. "many wanted to put this behind us. ..refused requests for interviews.."

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821rood,1,2328121.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[LittleClarkie]

55. Sadly, they had gone away the May before

when they started up.

But August was an empty month for campaign news. And somebody knew just when to fund the Smear Vets so that they'd have the most impact.

When Kerry realized that Cahill had been wrong and his numbers were going down, he started mounting a defense. But obsessive/compulsive Kerry took perhaps too much more time trying to put together evidence that would lay the thing to rest once and for all. Rood from the Chi Trib and the story he never wanted to relive was a part of that. Releasing his records to the press was another.

It was both Shrum and Cahill who wanted to keep Kerry from doing what he naturally wanted to, which was get angry and fight back. They thought it would only feed the controversy and take focus from the campaign. Maybe it would have been worse, maybe better. Like alot of things in this campaign, we can't know.

In one appearance I remember, VFW I think it was, Kerry had wanted to address it head on. The call came out from Shrum and Cahill "Restrain the candidate!" they told the aide.

No, DON'T restrain the candidate.

All that said, I could really give a damn about it NOW. The point is 2006. And as 2008 rolls around, Kerry will have the same chance as anyone to run again. If he overcomes that 2004 handicap, good for him. If he doesn't, well then, I guess I'll have to have a look at who won and see how to support them, same as I did with Kerry.

I know who I want. My decision is based on how good a prez I think they would make. Not on who I think will be the best campaigner.

[XemaSab]

60. But instead it looked like he had something to hide...

you and I both know he had an honorable war record, and the army doesn't give medals to flakes, but to freeptards who avoided serving due to anal cysts or never made it to training because they were too loaded, it sounds plausible that someone managed to repeatedly totally sucker all his officers into thinking he was not only very brave, but also wounded multiple times in the line of duty.

Or, since I've never served, maybe I'm wrong and the army really is run by gullible morans. Who knows? But if the choice is between "Kerry is brave" and "the army are morans," I don't get how so-called patriots could be suckered that badly into choosing the second option. :shrug:

[karynnj]

82. They believed what they wanted to believe

It was absolutely beyond logic that Kerry could have fooled them. The boats went out together. Even if Kerry wrote the report(which he didn't for either medal as he wasn't the longest seving lt), before any medals would be given, the lts of the other boats would have been asked about the mission. If Kerry made up his heroism the stories from the others wouldn't match. He certainly wouldn't have been given medals. He more likely would have been reprimanded.

The silver star was awarded before all his peers - it was the highest award given to sailors in that area. Wouldn't it have been likely that there would have been objections then.

Also, Sen Warner, who was Secretary of the Navy in the early 70s admitted reviewing Kerry's records for Nixon when Nixon was looking for dirt - Nixon was told he was a war hero and there was nothing bad in his records.

[globalvillage]

68. He did say it.

Would have helped if the media had reported it.
How much campaign time can a person spend defending himself from the bullshit? I remember something from the Rolling Stone article also. I think he called them pitiful or something similar.
Maybe he should have spent more time on these bastards, but I think it would have been more effective if the rest of the Dem leadership had stood up for Sen Kerry when he was being attacked. Mostly, they did not.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth -- they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.
But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign.
Thirty years ago, official Navy reports and every person there documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.
As firefighters you risk your lives every day. You know what it's like to see truth in the moment. You're proud of what you've done and so am I.
Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/viet...

[XemaSab]

69. Oh yeah

I'd forgotten he used to quote W all the time.

Next time I want a real democrat who hasn't wanked in a coffin with the demon seed of three generations of Bush men.

[globalvillage]

72. That's your response?

You say all he had to do was respond, I point to where he did, and now it's S&B crap?
OK. That's fair.

[XemaSab]

76. Yup.

That's my response.

I understand that Kerry said a lot of things that never made it to the MSM, but I saw and read a lot of Kerry's speeches, and he never addressed the topic.

And he voted for the war.

That's not cool.

[karynnj]

81. He did do precisely this when they came out in the spring

He said the NAVY gave him the medals and that the records are the same as they were 35 years ago, pointed out he had 2 tours of duty - not the 4 months the SBVT talked of.

[XemaSab]

83. but why didn't he

release his records until after the election?!?!?

[ray of light]

43. Actually you're wrong.

The fix WAS in and the fact of the matter is that they flopped votes in Florida by a 75% to a 25% in DEMOCRATIC areas (Like Miami).

They shut down VOTES in North Carolina. People there STILL believe that had the early votes been counted instead of discarded by the fraudulent machines he would have won in N.C.

They suppressed votes in Ohio: Toledo, Cleveland, etc...BIG votes. I WITNESSED IT IN ACTION! Hours and hours without BALLOTS for god's sakes. PEOPLE LEFT because they had to WORK! I witnessed POLICE suppression of the vote as well!!!!

They threw out Democratic registrations in Nevada.

People in New Mexico are STILL angry about the fraud there!

AND even places like Texas, Indiana, and Wyoming had EXTRA Bush votes!!!!

So people need to stop slamming Kerry for the intensive corruption of the REPUBLICANS and begin to realize had JESUS run against BUSH they would have stolen the election from JESUS!!!!!

This whole argument that "He kept it close" is ridiculous. What you mean is the corrupt Republicans ALLOWED it to look close so they wouldn't be CAUGHT.

[mattclearing]

50. I appreciate what you're saying, but Democrat is not an adjective.

Democrats prefer to be described as Democratic.

Sorry to be a nuisance, but Republicans make a point of modifying us with "Democrat," and they get a nasty kick out of it. I can't stand to see fellow Dems use this language.

[ray of light]

53. thank you.

I didn't realize the difference. And I didn't realize Republicans do that either. I will try to remember that in the future.

[mattclearing]

58. No problem.

If you notice, Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh, without fail, always refer to the "Democrat Party."

I hate to be a nag, but I like to try to let people know about it, because the term has creeped a lot further into the American discourse than I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for understanding.

[ray of light]

61. no. I don't listen to them

But I looked online and both uses come up without some sort of negative connotation.

So is it always the "Democratic Party" or Democrats..or what? I'd like to make sure I'm being correct from now on.

Is it ok to just say "Democratic" or is it always followed by party?

[mattclearing]

88. When modifying anything, it's "Democratic"

So it's Democratic Senator, Democratic Party, Democratic activists, Democratic fundraisers, Democratic landslide, Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate, Democratic World, etc.

The only things that can be Democrats are people, but only when used as a noun. I am a Democrat.

[ray of light]

46. by the way...Do you know about HAVA?

Do you know that in January 04 was when BUSH and the Republicans FINALLY started HAVA to see that our elections were fair?

Do you know that on election day, NOBODY from HAVA entered Ohio--even though there were BROAD HINTS that Blackwell was stirring trouble for Democrats. Instead, they had one of their observers touring such hard fought states as New York and Indiana and Missourri. (I believe it was MO.)

The whole 2004 election was the biggest sham. Kerry fought a corrupt media and a corrupt election system AND he's still fighting it! (BEHIND the scenes where it matters most!)

[ray of light]

49. corupt media still spewed the lies even after this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3864349

Kerry Camp Counters Negative Swift Boat Ads
by Liane Hansen


swiftvets.comRetired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a volunteer advisor to the Bush campaign after appearing in an ad.


Weekend Edition - Sunday, August 22, 2004 · As Sen. John Kerry defends his military record in Vietnam, a fellow swift boat officer, now an editor at the Chicago Tribune, supports Kerry's version of events. Ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an independent group funded by supporters of President Bush, have attacked Kerry's war record.


Repeat after me...The MEDIA spewed anti-Kerry ads even AFTER Kerry fought back.

[Der Blaue Engel]

66. "The MEDIA spewed anti-Kerry ads even AFTER Kerry fought back"

You're right...that does indeed bear repeating!

:thumbsup:

[venable]

74. as a presidential candidate

he makes a good senator

[_dynamicdems]

86. It isn't weakness.

If you think John Kerry is weak, you are sadly mistaken. John Kerry had his eye on the ball (the ISSUES) and didn't want to be sidetracked by non-issues brought up by a bunch of whining liars who were still nursing a 35 year old grudge. The Swifties were a distraction aimed at taking the focus off the issues. You would have had Kerry fight a smoke screen? It would have been entertaining, but it wouldn't have won him any votes and it would have taken even more of the focus off the real issues.

I wish I had a dime for all the times people have whined about Kerry not discussing the environment enough during the election. This guy has FOUGHT for the environment all his life but every time he tried to discuss the environment and other issues, someone would bring up VIETNAM!

What could he have done? Sue them? He was already under attack for being a LAWYER and for putting a TRIAL lawyer on the ticket. What would you have him do, whine constantly about how they were telling nasty lies about him. It would make him look like a crybaby. Now he could have done a John Wayne and punched Corsi and/or O'Neill in the nose, but people go to jail for that nowadays. How else could he have fought back to your personal satisfaction, I wonder?

[politicasista]

41. We need to focus on 2006 and look ahead, not look back

We shouldn't worry about who is or isn't running in 08. If we don't win in 06, we may not have another free and fair election again.


The REAL enemy resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[ray of light]

44. The real enemy is also the corporate media

AND the corporate media HID facts that made people vote for the bad choice--Bush. They were and are complicit.

The freedom to vote for an elected official MUST come with the facts--the truth--and when the media conspires, as this one did, to WIN an election for one person, then all of us lose.

THAT's exactly why I agree with you that 06 is as important as the media pretended to make 04. We've got to take back our media in 06 and our elections too.

[politicasista]

45. Forgot the media too. They ate the rotten cheese of *

I agree with you.

[ray of light]

47. well...we're fighting for our lives out here. And we all know it.

Somehow it seems easier for some to blame one person who is in the ditches fighting with us instead of going out there and fighting the real bullies--like the neoCONS and the fake Republicans who pretend to be moderates.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. "I voted for investigating the widespread fraud in Ohio before I voted ...

...against it"

[ray of light]

56. OMG--Dean said that!!!!

I SAW him in Chicago you know...sitting at the ELECTION FRAUD CONFERENCE at the Rainbow Push Convention just a few weeks before he and his party put out a report DENYING any election fraud!

Wow! Thanks for making sure everyone knows that too.

[D_Master]

52. Kerry Don't Waste Your Time

Seriously, if you ran a national campaign for over a year and didn't get elected, there's nothing new that you can tell the voters that will change their minds. Now maybe the Republicans will be in such disaray by '08 (here's to hoping) and whoever the Dems nominate they will win; however, I think we need a Moderate govenor to run to swing some voters over to our side which the Repubs have hijacked with all their talk of "Moral values". If we put up another eastern liberal it will be the same attacks all over again, and don't think the American people are smart enough to see through it this time, cuz they won't. I hate a lot of Republicans, but I have to give them their props on being able to smear and tear down opponents like no other.

[Mass]

54. Sure, by running a Republican, we can beat a Republican.

I stand why the notion that we dont need a second Republican Party. We need a DEMOCRATIC Party which stands for our values (and the last moderate Democratic Governor we ran did not do better than this liberal easterner. We will not have Perot next time).

[LittleClarkie]

78. You mean besides "I told you so?"

If anyone has a memory, I would think they'd remember some of the things he said in the debates at least.

Oh, I figure that most folks are allowed to try again on a task they'd never tried before, and having tried, failed. Usually it is "try, try again" not "you had your chance."

As opposed to "Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result" I think we can figure that neither Gore nor Kerry would run the same campaign again.

[_dynamicdems]

87. Like no other than the friendly fire of another DEM!

Hey, Republicans are great a smearing the OPPOSITION, but there is nothing like the "friendly" fire of a fellow Democrat. The Kerry criticism on a Democratic message board speaks volumes...and it speaks it loudest to Republicans.

Believe me: they are listening. And they have learned a lot about us. Too bad so much of it is...unflattering. Sadly, I wish I could say it were untrue, but the proof is right here for the reading.

We shouldn't be discussing John Kerry's weaknesses: we should be discussing the weakness of a group that cannot tolerate failure. Attacks on our 2004 Presidential candidate by fellow Democrats is really unsettling. There are so many examples in history about intolerance to failure. It is never pretty. There are also many examples in history of great discoveries and great advancements that have come out of a perceived failure. If Thomas Edison had not been allowed to attempt to create electricity beyond his first attempt, how much longer would we have been reading by candlelight? Christopher Columbus failed to find China but he found our future home.

I've watched John Kerry very closely since the election and I support him even more strongly than I did in 2004 because I've see what he is made of. His actions over the past months speak volumes. I have been inspired beyond words to see this 61 year old Senator hit the ground running after 2004. I couldn't even get off the couch for days! John Kerry never stopped fighting for us. How could anyone say he isn't a fighter? Doesn't anyone remember 2000? I do. It hurt like hell to be left out in the cold after the dust settled. The fight was out of me. I felt like a deflated balloon. Now I'm fighting. I'm fighting back and it is all because John Kerry has inspired me by his actions.
He's not campaigning: he's keeping his promise.

[zulchzulu]

57. He would address the issue of free and fair elections...

I would hope all the candidates do. Framing the 2004 results in 2008 may be different than most people think if there continue to be investigations into what happened in Ohio. Kerry/Edwards legal teams are continuing with the investigations that Conyers and others have been trying to get to the bottom of.

If someone has gotten caught, it would be a very easy issue to use and frame. If nothing has changed legislatively due to the Republicans shelving possible legislation, that is an issue to go after.

What really needs to happen is that we get free and fair elections with no abuse from BBV in 2006.

That is much more critical than trying to surmise a strategy with little to speculate on besides the usual, tired Kerry bashing...

I doubt Kerry would get into some whiny diatribe that he woulda, shoulda, coulda won in 2004...there will be plenty of other issues to run on in 2008.

[bigwillq]

59. Kerry just shouldn't run

imo.

Gore did the smart thing by not running in 2004. I will never "get over" what happened in 2000 and again (in some instances)in 2004 but we need to move forward. We need a candidate that can move us forward and not still be shadowed by an event that happened years ago.

[ray of light]

62. Ok..well that means someone here on D.U. has to run

because they're the only ones without any connection to 2004.

No matter who you look at people will slice and dice them for what has happened. Even Conyers would be smeared too.

[bigwillq]

63. I think everyone besides Kerry

from '04 could still run. Although I don't see me voting for a candidate that ran in 2004.
To me, I don't want the campaign and the media focused on what happened in 2004.
Let's start fresh.

[ray of light]

64. Well, for me, I intend to look at the credentials and look at the

way they handle themselves from now until then.

I want to see people who are thinking of running working to get the Congress in 06.

I want to see them fighting Bush while also fighting the neoCON agenda.

They have to have diplomatic skills.

AND after 06...I will b watching very carefully to see how they handle the Congress IF it passes to the progressives.

If they work on media reform and election reform they will earn bonus points with me.

[bigwillq]

65. It's too early for

me to think about who I'll support in 2008. So much can happen between now and then.

I will not be supporting Feingold though because he voted for Roberts.

[ray of light]

71. honestly?

I will support anyone who is progressive in the general election. But who I vote for in the primary is still mostly decided but also on a "wait and see" type thing too.

Did Fiengold vote for Gonzalez, Condi, and Bolton too? What about the energy bill, the bankruptcy bill, and the Omnibus bill?

I know of a few people who consistently voted NO to all those. AND voted no on Roberts too.

BUT..it only matters in the primary. i will not waste my vote in the G.E. on a 3rd party or on a republican. (unless "my guy/gal" IS the third party)

[usregimechange]

67. "I told you so"

[_dynamicdems]

84. The facts will speak volumes.

Something is radically wrong here: John Kerry was right and America didn't believe him! Bottom line: he was not elected because he told the truth and not enough people believed it.

Time has proved that he was right on many issues that he was ridiculed for taking a stand on prior to the election. Yeah, John Kerry was right and the proof is in the news every day. People thought the incumbent, War President would keep us safe. People thought that Bush was a good person with good religious values. You can't blame Kerry because people liked Bush. They would have liked him no matter who ran against him. We loathed him, but most of the country had a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. And his conservative, Republican base worshiped this President.

If Senator Kerry runs in 2008, he does not need to explain to anyone why he didn't win in 2004. He need only point out the previous four years of incompetence, indictments, lies, fraud, and all the other crimes and misdemeanors perpetuated by the Bush Administration.

"In 2004, I said..." "In 2005, Bush..."

[MoonRiver]

90. He's got a problem.

Why didn't he press his case enough to ensure that the worst pResident in this country's history lost in a landslide? This should have happened. Frankly, Kerry seemed more interested in posing for photo ops of him wind surfing and biking than getting down and duking it out with the lying scum Repukes. If we want to win we have to get our hands dirty. I doubt that Kerry is up to this kind of combat anymore.

[_dynamicdems]

92. People are pretty thick-headed...

When they get an idea in their heads (however false)it is pretty difficult to change their perceptions.

Our "worst president ever" was to many the "best president ever." There are still over 30% of the country who approves of Bush's job performance even after Katrina and the current scandals rocking his administration.

Let me explain something to you: John Kerry doesn't have to pose for "photo ops." There are cameras wherever he goes. This was the case before he ran for president. What would you have had him do, take up recreational knitting so wouldn't be so visible when he took some (well deserved) time off.

I think it's pretty damn impressive when a 60 year old man can best 20 year olds on the slopes and can take to the seas on a slip of foam with a sail attached. This would be newsworthy if the man wasn't a Senator who was running for President. I'd love to see our fearless leader on a snowboard or windsurfing. It doesn't mix well with the consumption of alcohol,however. And right now our President is having trouble not dropping his puppy and staying on his bicycle.

Yup, some people are pretty...

[MoonRiver]

93. There is ZERO comparison between * and Kerry.

Kerry is an awesome Senator, patriot, and American. Hands down. * is &%^$#@.

I just wanted Kerry to fight like hell to defeat these $%#@^&%s. I was disappointed with his efforts. That's why I don't want to take another chance with Kerry, regardless of how great he performs in his role of Senator. Too much is at stake.