Open letter to Jeffersons Ghost., a response to John Kerry.

[killerbush]

When the 2004 election came around, I was proud to cast my vote for John Kerry. I couldn't wait to get to the voting booth, and do my duty. I saw very well what the previous 4 years of the Bush administration had done to the country. War based on lies, tax cuts that sent the deficit ballooning, no health care for 44 million people, just to name a few of the issues I was livid at the Bush administration for.
But as pumped as I was for voting for Kerry, I also had some trepidation. Living in New Hampshire at the time, (I since have moved to Ct), I would see all the Boston channels. From time to time, the local channels would have a sort of on the spot interviews with Boston, and national voters. The reporters would ask how Kerry was doing, and the answers were always mixed. Some loved him, others hated him. As I listened to the voters, I became increasingly nervous because I sensed that Kerry wasn't connecting with the voters. Positions would come out of his mouth. He would criticize Bush, but ne never "wowed" the audiences when he spoke. He lacked the charisma of a Bill Clinton. The Bushies attacked with the swift boat cowards, and when he didn't respond fast enough, some of the garbage stuck. Next came the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper. He would say one thing, and then change his mind. That too had an effect, mainly because the mainstream media bought into it. When it came right down to it, critics said that Kerry's message was weak, and the Republicans portrayed him as a big northeastern liberal who would raise your taxes, and was weak on national security issues. Plus people in the south, and intermountain west are more conservative, and Kerry could not break the solid red states.

Now Kerry is thinking about running again, and again the same problems gnaw at me. You say he's learned from his mistakes. Saying he has, and proving he has are two different things. Going on the Sunday morning talk shows are far different that a presidential campaign. Secondly, Kerry is a known quanity. All the Republicans have to do is redo 2004. Kerry is going to have to change tactics. He needs new blood, and not the old guard he had in 2004. 3rd, he has to convince voters that didn't vote for him last time, to vote for him this time, and that's a hard thing to do. Impossible, no, difficult, you bet.

In my book, John Kerry won the 2004 election. He's just not in the White House. Kerry is a great man, a war hero, and an inspiration to me and millions of others. if he is the nominee to the Democratic party, I will have no trouble voting for him a second time, but the questions I had in 2004, are still with me, and they will not go away until John Kerry makes them go away. Can he? yes, will he? I still have my doubts.

[tomreedtoon]

1. Kerry may also have issues with Democrats.

To my mind, and I think to the minds of others who think 2004 was stolen, Kerry didn't fight hard enough to demand a recount. It might be that the DLC told him what the Republicans told Nixon in the 1960 election; "let it go and get them at a later opportunity." Or maybe he didn't think it was "decent" to contest the election results.

I'm also irritated that, just because I contributed for his 2004 campaign, he's still sending regular e-mails to me claiming that he's committed to various moderate issues. It's like he's been running for the party's nomination for the past year and a half, or just trying to remind us that he's alive. I wouldn't be as impressed by this as I would be by something done in Congress or on the stump. (And no, it's not the MSM who's suppressing him, because I get my news from Internet sources who've kept up with other Democratic and progressive causes.)

I get the sinking feeling that Kerry may become the Harold Stassen of the Democratic Party, a guy whose nomination every four years from now on will become a standard joke.

[killerbush]

4. The DLC had no influence on Kerry

Kerry is too liberal for them. I know, I'm a DLC member.

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. You are a DLC member?

:rofl:

[killerbush]

20. Been a DLC member since 1991

:woohoo: Have a problem with that??

[fedupinBushcountry]

29. I don't think so

You are telling me that you are on the Democrat Leadership Council, do I have that right ? :rofl:

[killerbush]

49. No, I'm not telling you that

I'm telling you I've been a member since 1991. How long have you been a jerk??

[MH1]

7. Getting emails you don't want - simple solution

"unsubscribe"

Actually I'm on his email list and most of the emails I've been getting lately are asking me to support 2006 candidates. I think there was one about ANWR recently too. Hmmm, guess he shouldn't be using his email list to reach people and ask them to contact their congresscritters about votes?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

35. exactly MH1

He's pushing some fellow veterans hard in my emails... One of them a lagless lady jus won her primary and she's stronglooking in the general. More Dems in Congress has a nice ring doesn't it?

[blm]

56. It was the DNC who didn't believe in machine fraud and didn't take steps

to secure the machines BEFORE the election. Kerry had nothing to do with that aspect as the elections are run by states and it's the BOARDS and the Dems on those boards who control what happens, not any candidate.

The biggest problem that ALL Democratic candidates have is that there is no Dem election team in place ANYWHERE dealing with machine fraud.

Blaming Kerry seems like the thing to do but it takes the pressure off those who are ACTUALLY responsible for counting the votes in a state.

[babylonsister]

2. Please review these threads for additional knowledge

Kerry is 'the man' and has been; he's been working at breakneck speed to help our party. That's good enough for me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=603777

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

[killerbush]

3. He maybe the man to you

But he doesn't have to prove anything to you. He does with the voters who didn't vote for him last time.

[ProSense]

16. So this is about the people who didn't vote for him? n/t

[babylonsister]

24. He's working and making a difference! Check those sites out, and

then get back to me. :eyes:
Also, tell me who has done as much?

[killerbush]

50. That's not the problem

I have no problem with Kerry being a hard worker, but that's not what the voters are looking at. They could care less that Kerry gave legislation to this issue, or raised money for that issue. John Kerry has to make a case to the voters who didn't vote for him last time. He's already got you, and me, and Jeffersons Ghost, and Kerry Goddess, and probably most people in here. He has to get Joe Schmoe's vote deep in the heart of Texas, or in Ohio, or in Colorado. I just don't know if he can do that.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I'm still trying to figure out why we had to

"watch what we said at the Democratic National Convention" ?

What in the fuck was that about, and who put that order out?
In my mind it started the uphill downward spiral of that election.

[blm]

53. That was Terry MacAuliffe and Bill Clinton who put that word out.

They would have said that no matter who the candidate was, and Terry Mac ran that convention.

Terry Mac is also the one who chose that early convention date LONG before any candidate was chosen.


Kerry gets blamed alot for the decisions made long ago by the actual HEADS OF THE DEM PARTY throughout 2003 and 2004 - the same guys who let the Ohio Dem party collapse in 1997 and never lifted a finger to help organize it for 2000 and 2004.

[Neil Lisst]

6. John Kerry is running.

And I'd say he's got about a one in three shot of getting the nomination.

[killerbush]

8. he's got to get past Hillary first.

[babylonsister]

9. BFD. What has she done for you lately? nt

[Neil Lisst]

10. No, he's just got to get in front of everyone but Hillary.

His strategy is to make himself the only viable candidate to stop Hillary.

[blm]

55. Let's see who does best in the debates.

.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

36. spot on Neil as they say in Blair Hell

As many of you already know, when Gore made his ass-kicking speach I got the word out and defended him at all costs... When Dean presented the Dem platform he got all the passion that I could pen, as I put his planks before you... When Russ came out to censure, I was right in his corner and defended his actions to the max... Now Big John is on the attack and I'm right there with him... If Hillary would get off her ass I might get to write something inspiring about her... Is anyone seeing a pattern?

[Neil Lisst]

38. I'm very philosophic about it. Candidates fight for it, and someone

manages to put together a winning hand.

Whoever wins, I'll back.

Hillary is the front runner if the public is the appropriate measure, but it's not. Try party regulars in Iowa.

As the election approaches, there will be many who will back the candidate most likely to best Hillary. Kerry aims to be that guy, partly by appealing to the Russ Feingold fans, partly by being out there on issues.

[karynnj]

45. I agree with your analysis

In a way, the answer to the OP is twofold:
To be the candidate second to Hillary, he needs two things: that no other candidate gains both credibility and excitemant and to demonstrate is that he has learned from 2004 and that he would do at least slightly better. The changes needed aren't huge - he nearly won against a stacked deck. Kerry's positions look better all the time. His biggest problem is that the media which helped Bush in 2004 is unlikely to help him at all - as it exposes their complicity in the nightmare brought to us by the Bush administration.

The rise of another candidate is beyond Kerry's control. One of the known possible candidates or a currently unknown candidate could explode into a superstar, probably courtesy of the media jumping on the bandwagon of some candidate. If none ot these alternative to Hillary candidates can survive in the hot focus of media attention, Kerry who remained credible in 2004 under both Republican and media attacks could be the alternative.

As to whether he can win more voters, I think he could. Some people in the middle who still believed Bush in 2004 who now know Bush lied, may be open to voting Democratic. So, it may well be that, as some politicians thought in 2003, 2008 might be a much better year for a Democrat to run than 2004.

[killerbush]

51. Hillary is not going to get off her ass

Because she is keeping a low profile. If she starts going after people now, the Republicans would love that. She has gone after Bush on his corruption, and dishonesty, but for now, she's holding back. Look what the censure resolution got for Feingold? Kerry, Kennedy, ans a couple of other Democrats backed him, but basically no one else. Hillary will come out of her spider hole, but not now.

[greenbriar]

11. Gore/Kerry 2008 POETIC JUSTICE

and Kerry is a gentleman

[AusGail]

12. An outsider's point of view

I feel there are two major flaws in your political system. One has to be extremely wealthy to run for office. That narrows the field dramatically. Also, your conventions before the main election are too stage-managed. When I see it on the news here. Everybody seems to be holding up the same identical signs and their is no individualism. This is just an outsider's point of view.

[killerbush]

52. Your right, and welcome to DU

[neoblues]

13. Kerry... just isn't "likable", "attractive" or "charismatic"...

Poor Kerry, he has the looks of "Lurch" (Adams Family) without the personality. He's anything but attractive. While he is able to make sentences, very, very long ones, he just isn't what I'd call eloquent (and maybe not even articulate--if considering average audiences anyway). He's not someone who can appear to be "a man of the people" owing to his background. He has the charisma of a pile of wet newspapers.

On top of that, he's not very effective in a political/strategic/tactical sense--at least not with regard to running an election campaign for President. All that ammunition and nothing but feeble, dull, 'blah' speeches. Is it an absence of aggression?

Actually, I don't even agree with him on a number of issues--while even so I may agree with him on those same issues far moreso than I do with Republicans, it just doesn't stimulate me to want to support him (unless he's the final candidate).

I remember having to actually try to convince people I knew who actually were liberals (if not Democrats at heart) to vote for him. They disliked Bush and thought his record wasn't very good (when it was ever so much worse than that), but they just felt Kerry wasn't trustworthy--and the label of "waffler" seemed to fit Kerry so well because he was utterly ineffective in explaining why the quoted votes weren't actually thoughtless flip-flops while failing to point out Bush's huge number of serious and contradictory flip-flops. He just didn't explain why he changed his mind, he didn't explain that negotiated changes in votes and seemingly contradictory votes at different stages of a bill were normal, common and appropriate for a Congressman/Senator (but not for a Governor or President--and that being different jobs, his performance and decision making would be different and appropriate to the job). It was as though he wasn't even trying to win.

Then, at the end, he promised to fight to ensure our votes were counted--and then simply didn't. Now he actually bothers to say talk of impeachment is a waste of time (and even if it is, HE doesn't need to make that point--let the Rethugs say what they want but don't give them aid). Again and again I haven't been happy whith his approach, actions, reactions and remarks (though I'm having a hard time remembering any more examples).

As you say, though, I too believe Kerry did win (or would have if the votes had been counted properly) the 2004 election against Bush. I also believe that he is generally a good senator and has done much for the Party. Even so, I want a better choice for President (actually Congressmen/Senators in general don't really make very good candidates for President, again owing to so many people not really understanding what the job of Congressman/Senator is (shocking, but true)).

Alas, therefore I seriously do not want to see him as the next candidate (if he is, obviously he gets my vote). Not sure who I do want though; I wish somebody new would come to light--someone aggressive, incisive, attractive (sadly, in modern times, people are somewhat shallow and are affected--some subconsciously, some consciously, by appearance) and charismatic (really). Oh, and a "real" liberal/progressive Democrat who will stand up for our ideology while making the best/most rational and effective decisions he can--for the benefit of the people first! Apparently, even a small fraction of those qualities is asking too much.



I'm liking Russ Feingold more and more. We'll see when it come time.

[killerbush]

14. Feingold has his own problems

Even his own party has abandoned him. doesn't bode well for running for president/

[neoblues]

23. True enough...

That's why I said it'd wait until it's closer to that time and we get to see the real line-up. As for being abandoned by his party; sadly, that's as much a negative reflection on them as on him (though, you're right that it make be a weakness in a future run--then again, if attitudes are that the party should have stood up, it may be a plus; one can't know just yet).

[sandnsea]

25. Who sent you?

With your list of bullshit? Kerry was lauded by the media as the charismatic addition to "Al Bore" in 2000. Funny how quickly they turned on him in 2004. Anybody who repeats this shit is suspect to me. Supporting Feingold is just a sham to give an excuse for posting divisive garbage. I don't buy any of this crap anymore. Real Democrats on this board don't play these games.

[neoblues]

30. Real Democrats have their own opinions.

So you disagree.

[sandnsea]

41. #327

In the number of excuses I see posted to bash Dems. Try again.

[karynnj]

46. Amazing that someone who is not even articulate,

much less eloquent - has had a speech of his included in some books of greatest speeches of the twentith century.

Kerry was impressive whenever the media let people see him. If the media had wanted to portray Kerry in a favorable light it would have been easy - Kerry has lived a "bigger than life" life and has a huge range of interests.

As to attractiveness, I don't think a President has to look like Robert Redford or Brad Pitt. Kerry looks Presidential and depending on the lighting in a photo he can look like Lincoln or pretty handsome, not even considering that he is 62. He also has a great smile. (The Lurch nonsense was a Republican slam.) I note that your profile says you are male, maybe you should ask some of the women in your life their opinion.

I find him charismatic - because of the unique combination of his character, gravitas, activism and his statesmanship. In fact, other than JFK, when I was 10, Kerry has been the most charismatic Democratic candidate. Bill Clinton was charismatic too, but there was always a feeling that he didn't have a strong moral center - with Kerry, part of what made him attractive to me is that he is a principled man who I could trust as President. (with Bill, I'm not meaning Monica, but his willingness to compromise any principle if it was not popular.)

[blm]

54. Your post sounds like a byproduct of mediaspin.

,

[ProSense]

15. Some facts because these arguments are all over the place.

He never wowed the audience:

He would criticize Bush, but ne never "wowed" the audiences when he spoke. He lacked the charisma of a Bill Clinton. The Bushies attacked with the swift boat cowards, and when he didn't respond fast enough, some of the garbage stuck.

But he won:

In my book, John Kerry won the 2004 election. He's just not in the White House. Kerry is a great man, a war hero, and an inspiration to me and millions of others.

How is that possible?



Still going during the debates Kerry wowed the audience and the pundits:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/29/pundits



Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555



Connecting with voters:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E10FC39580C758CDDA80994DC404482


Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6



Polls, it was Kerry:

CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. N=546 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
"Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2004: , or someone else?" Names rotated

2/24-27/04

Kerry 57%
Edwards 18%
Sharpton 4%
Kucinich 1%
Other (vol) 8%
Don't know 12%
Dean n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 19-20, 2004. N=391 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 6.
.
"Which of the following four Democrats would you MOST like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year?" Names rotated


John Kerry 54%
John Edwards 19%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Howard Dean (vol) 3%
None (vol) 2%
Don't know 16%

"If the Democratic presidential race comes down to a choice between John Kerry and John Edwards, which would you rather see as the party's candidate this fall?" Names rotated
%
John Kerry 63%
John Edwards 26%
Neither (vol) 2%
Don't know 9%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004. N=426 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.
.
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ." Names rotated

2/16/2017

John Kerry 65%
John Edwards 19%
Howard Dean 8%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Al Sharpton -
Other/None/No opinion 6%

University of Connecticut Poll. Feb. 12-16, 2004. N=474 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic. MoE ± 4.5.
.
"Three main candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are still in the race. Who would you like to see get the nomination for president -- would you say ?"

John Kerry 64%
John Edwards 16%
Howard Dean 8%
Other (vol) 1%
Don't know 11%

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=377 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Thinking ahead to the 2004 presidential election, if you were asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee for president today, which of the following Democrats would you vote for? . . ."
2/5-6/04

John Kerry 43%
John Edwards 18%
Wesley Clark 11%
Howard Dean 8%
Al Sharpton 6%
Dennis Kucinich 5%
Other 1%
Not sure 8%
Joseph Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=383 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Now I'm going to name six Democrats in the race for president. After I read you their names, tell me which ONE you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year. Here are the choices . . . ." Names rotated
2/5/2006

John Kerry 48%
Howard Dean 13%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 9%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Other (vol.) 0%
None (vol.) 1%
Don't know 14%
Joe Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 28-31, 2004. N=420 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.8.
.
"Now I'm going to name seven Democrats running for president this year. After I read all seven names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president this year. Here are the choices . . . ."
1/28/1931

John Kerry 42%
Howard Dean 11%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Don't know 14%
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a


"If you had to choose, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Howard Dean or John Kerry for president this year?"
1/28-31/04

Kerry 64 %
Dean 23%
Unsure 13 %

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 18-20 & Dec. 1-3, 2003. N=539 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.
.
"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."

Howard Dean 18%
Wesley Clark 14%
Richard Gephardt 14%
John Kerry 13%
Joe Lieberman 10%
John Edwards 6%
Al Sharpton 4%
Carol Moseley Braun 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Other/None/Not sure 15%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm


Kerry's got my support.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Hey....all those polls cited was after Iowa and the 24/7 news reports

on Kerry as the Electable one......as Iowa gave Kerry beaucoup momentum....while they played the Dean Scream for the entire week after Iowa, and rarely mentioned any of the other candidates other than Kerry and Edwards.

Kerry steamrolled out of the Iowa caucus ....and coverage was either him and Edwards, or Dean screaming.

However, if one looks back prior to Iowa....a state that Clark didn't even contest, you'd see very different poll results....

Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote: ?" If "Not sure," ask: "Well, which way do you lean?"

January 10-12 2004
Howard Dean 24%
Wesley Clark 19%
Joe Lieberman 12%
Richard Gephardt 11%
John Kerry 7%
John Edwards 5%
Al Sharpton 5 %
Carol Moseley Braun 3%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
None (vol.) 3 %
Other (vol.) 1%
Not sure 9%
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Polls mean not much, IMO. Iowa picked Kerry (Clark wasn't there)....and the rest is history. That's the way the primaries were designed; to be front loaded.

Number 1 & 2 out of Iowa became Nominees for Prez and VP...with enough media to pressure Kerry into picking John "Hope is on the Way" Edwards to hang a moose.

Far as I'm concerned, the primary front load, along with the media pushing the front runners from one primary into everyone's faces was too much for the "sheeple Zombies" to resist.

Edited to add....so yes, John Kerry won the nomination, but you citing those polls don't really mean much (since in most that you cite Clark had already dropped out (no publicity given to him) or was just about to.

[ProSense]

33. They fluctuate. There are others before that w/Kerry in the lead.

The point is Kerry obviously had appeal.

[FrenchieCat]

37. They don't fluctuate much until after Iowa.....

Kerry had appeal in Iowa...compared to all of the others who were there, that is undeniable.

But it is also true that Kerry was consistently near the bottom of the pack nationally, until Iowa....

The point is that much of Kerry's appeal came from the media blitz that came with winning Iowa....and the front loaded primaries made his "appeal" unescapable....cause no one else was being discussed except for John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean's scream.

I'm not saying that Kerry didn't win fair and square....I'm just saying I don't know if his primary win was truly generated from personal appeal as much as political shrewdness and over-exposed reporting on only the Iowa Winners. I believe the catch phrase of those days was "inevitable".

You've got to remember, I was in the Clark camp at the time....and from where I sat, I know exactly who got the media publicity in spade....and it wasn't Wes Clark; that's for sure!

But you know...I don't even want to relive the primaries. They are done and over with and Bush is still in our White House. So I don't think this rehashing is helping anyone one bit including me! LOL!

I won't be responding to these types of threads for a while...cause it's not constructive for my sanity...at all.

[karynnj]

47. Clinton won after losing both Iowa and NH

While the others were mostly in Iowa, Clark spent a huge amount of time campaigning in NH. NH is a place where it is possible for a candidate to meet a huge percent of the voting population. The value of NH is that a lesser known or less well financed candidate can succeed. NH is also a purple state - this is the type of state Clark should have done well in.

After all that time and one to one contact, Clark got 12% of vote. (Kerry got 38%, Dean 26%, Edwards and Clark at 12%) Clark got very very positive press when he first entered the race and was said to be the only star in the party other than Hillary by Clinton. Kerry did get positive press when he won Iowa, which he deserved. (If anything, he got less than typically goes to the winner.)

After NH and Iowa, the next step was the 7 primaries and caucuses on the first multi-state day. All but Delaware were rural, southern or southwestern states. In 1992, Bill Clinton swept a large number of Southern states after losing Iowa and NH and became the front runner. In 2004, Kerry won 5 of these contests, losing South Carolina (where Edwards got 45%, Kerry 30%, and Clark a poor 7%) and Oklahoma (where Clark won - he and Edwards had 30% and Kerry 27%). It was after this day that Kerry really was considered to be very likely to be the nominee.

Results from:

http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

I do agree that the media and party officials pushed Edwards as the VP.

A better argument for Clark would be that he had never run for political office and he started late. The argument that Kerry ever benefited from good press is not really fair - they had to report that he won primary after primary, but other than that much of the press dragegd their feet rather than give him the momentum that comes each campaign with primary wins.

[FrenchieCat]

57. This will be my last comment on this because 2004 is long gone, but

look up "front loaded" primaries, then look up primaries for 1992(Clinton) and for 2004 and check out the spacing of time difference. It made a difference.

also see polls for NH, a week before the Iowa Vote--and you will see how things stood prior to the Iowa whirlwind -- See Clark's poll numbers vs. Kerry's poll numbers--

Kerry is from New England, Clark was not......

and yes, Clark came in late, didn't contest Iowa and was new to politics-

[Jeffersons Ghost]

17. Please allow me to introduce myself...

Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man quite poor, with taste
I’ve voted Dem for a long, long year
Gave to candidates who broke my faith
And I was ’round when Feingold cried
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that bush got bashed
Washed my hands of him and called him trash
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around in early years
When I saw it was a time for a change
Protested Nixon and his ministers
Rose Mary Woods screamed in vain
I rode a plane
In a war so insane
When Vietnam raged
As bodies formed a train
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with shame
While they slew name
and then became Jeffersons ghost
If the fools ev-er win again
I catch the last train to the coast
I shouted out,
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was some right-wing sleeze
Let me please introduce myself
I’m a man quite poor with taste
And I'd endorse a troubadour
If he'd just get in their face
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what’s confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every crook is Republican
And all the Dems are saints
As heads is tails
Just call me true blue too
’cause I’m in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politics
Or I’ll lay your thread to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what’s my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what’s my name
I tell you one time, you’re to blame
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What’s me name
Tell me, baby, what’s my name
Tell me, sweetie, what’s my name
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who

[killerbush]

19. Let me introduce myself, what the hell are you talking about??

[rockymountaindem]

26. It's a take off on the Rolling Stones' song Sympathy for the Devil

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. I got a great idea!

Why doesn't EVERYONE GO Check my Kerry thread with the picture of a SWIFT BOAT... I noticed you on my threads... I bet others did as well killerbush and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows your true colors. Fly away now and have a safe flight back to your home site.

on edit: here's a link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2560780&mesg_id=2560780

[radio4progressives]

39. Great Re-Write on the Sympathy for the Devil!

Rolling Stones would dig i think! :shrug: I do anyway! :hi:

[AndyTiedye]

42. You Should Add This Post to Your Journal

I assumed it would be there, but I didn't see it.

[karynnj]

48. Nice parody

Getting phrases that fit must have been hard.

[sandnsea]

21. Nobody is loved by 100% of the people

There's people right on this board who hate Oprah. Why is the Democratic Party such a bunch of wimps. The second somebody says anything negative about one of our candidates, WE quiver and cower and fear being ridiculed. Others will believe in John Kerry if YOUR belief is 100% solid. That's the way it works, for any candidate.

[neoblues]

31. Nobod is loved by 100% of the people, but...

You're firm belief, no matter how firm, can only influence others to a small degree. That's the way it works.

[AndyTiedye]

27. Any Candidate We Run, No Matter Who He Is...

...will face a virtual media blackout by all the TV networks and major newspapers
...will have trouble getting his message out and connecting with the voters (see above)
...leading to the pundits spending more time talking about THAT than talking to the candidate
...will be "Swift-Boated", and then further criticized for "not fighting back enough"
...will face full-bore electioneering against him by the Catholic and many Protestant churches
...will be slammed day in, day out, by every pundit on every TV network in the country
...will have millions of votes stolen by the Diebold Republican Electing Machinez
...will have the media ready and waiting to explain away yet another inexplicable Republican "comeback"

What happened in 2004 had little or nothing to do with John Kerry.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

32. eer did you mean he or SHE?

you're absolutely right other than that and the SHE might get slammed even harder.

[AndyTiedye]

40. There's A Whole Extra Page Of It If Our Candidate is a SHE

[neoblues]

34. No doubt it was an uphill battle in every conceivable way.

It doesn't look like it's going to be much better anytime soon; our best chance is to make the best of this year's election--we might get at least a fighting chance after that...

[AndyTiedye]

43. Of Course, We Need to Make the Best Of Our Situation

There is nothing that could happen in the forseeable future that
would turn the right wing media against the Republicans.
Everyone who gets all their news from TV votes Republican.
How do we reach these people?

In 2004 we saw the biggest Democratic advertising campaign in history
buried in a sea of network editorializing in favor of the Republicans --
the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar Repub advertising budget.

There is also the unofficial role of the media in declaring the winner
in our elections. That was vital in 2000, where Bush**'s cousin, who
worked for FauxNews, was first to call the election for Bush**. They
also have had the role of getting the public to accept election results
that grow more improbable every year. They have had to be ready to ditch
or modify their exit polls on que, and did so in 2002, 2004, and 2005.

The reason they have had to do this, when exit polling had been so
accurate prior to 2000, is because they are stealing millions of votes.
They have deployed thousands of Diebold Republican Electing Machinez
to turn Democratic votes into Republican votes. The newest machinez do
not have any paper ballots, so there is no evidence left behind if votes
are stolen. Even paper ballots do not offer much protection against
massive central tabulator fraud. If they steal enough, the losing
candidate usually can't get a recount, and what good are paper ballots
if they can't be counted?

All the friendly media in the world couldn't keep them in power if they
were not stealing elections. We must focus on that. voteraction.org
is taking legal action to stop more Diebold machinez from being put into
service. http://www.voteraction.org . Russ Holt's bill, HR 550, would
impose legislative requirements for auditable elections. Both of these
would help combat fraud at the voting machine level.

Central tabulator fraud is much harder to combat and has much greater
impact on the election. Poll watchers have been prevented from monitoring
central tabulators more often than not. New legislation which would mandate
transparency of the entire process seems like the only way to combat fraud
at the tabulator and above.

[sendero]

44. I will...

.... just say, I've never been excited about John Kerry, and America will never get excited about a blue-blood northeastern "liberal" who has already been in the senate too long.

He might win, but why pick someone with a handicap right out of the gate?

I'm not going to enumerate my numerous problems with Kerry here, it's all been said before, but of this much I'm totally 100% sure - we can do better.

The problem we have is now that the Republicans have made a cock-up of everything, every Dem pol in the country thinks there's an easy ride to office. It's not going to be easy because while the Republicans are going down in flames, the Dems never even got off the ground. We really cannot afford an old tired Hillary or Kerry who have had 20 f*cking years to impress Americans but have been largely unable to do so.