Wanna know why this is not 2000 or 2004?

[Alter Ego]

People like Obama. They just like him. They find his personality agreeable and his smile warm and genuine, and even though his rhetoric gets lofty in big speeches, they can FEEL his enthusiasm at rallies. He talks TO them, not AT them.

It really boils down to our guy being the much more likable of the two, and McCain is the angry old man attacking a genuinely nice guy who some folks just happen to disagree with.

That's why the negative ads are backfiring, and that's where McCain's polling troubles come from--and it's why we're gonna win in November.

[BklynChick]

1. I think he's a lot tougher than our candidates in 2000 and 2004 also.

[blm]

5. No - he's actually similar - he has better SURROGATES not cowering from Bush and Rove the way most

Dems did in 2004 while many of them supported Bush on the big issues of terrorism and Iraq war and did so PUBLICLY, including Biden, and especially Bill Clinton who used his summer2004 book tour to vigorously defend Bush's decisions at the same tome Kerry was criticizing them.

And WHO has been one of Obama's leading advisor and surrogate? John Kerry. A role that Obama couldn't have even performed credibly for Kerry in 2004.

[IndianaJones]

8. no...he's a LOT better. nt.

[blm]

11. No - Dean's 50 states strategy worked on for 4yrs is a LOT better than McAuliffe's collapsing

of party infrastructure in states that were crucial to ANY Dem nominee - no matter WHAT their name.

[IndianaJones]

14. no, he's MUCH better. WAAAY better. out of their league better. nt.

[blm]

17. You just hate any Dem who has a historic record that actually made a difference in this nation.

And if not for Kerry and his unheralded work behind the scenes, Obama would never have won the primary - and THAT is why Clinton loyalists continue to try and dog him.

[IndianaJones]

18. its much easier to just say "I hate the Clintons" ya know? nt.

[blm]

20. Easy for YOU to side with secrecy and privilege - not so for us open government Democrats.

Fortunately, OUR numbers are on the upswing while those Dems who side with closed government privilege's numbers are....not

[politicasista]

29. Exactly. People are still missing that point n/t

[politicasista]

34. Good question that no one wants to answer, I guess

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

31. Quite the opposite of the "Obambi" crap we got from the primaries, eh?

[msallied]

32. Yeah. That feller has a glass jaw, remember? LOL

:)

[unpossibles]

2. I agree that is one aspect

I also think some people are starting to see through the veil which the right has blinded us with.

I also find it amusing that the right tried to blast Obama for his charisma (rock star, etc.), yet they often said that Kerry and Gore's problems were that they were too stiff. And then when they nominated their own "charismatic" person (barf!), they did the same things they falsely accused us of.

[blm]

3. Baloney - the Dem NOMINEE won this in August2005 - and it was further put away by mid2006

when Iraq was in Civil War - and further put away in 2007-8 with the US going through RECORD Home Foreclosure.

Plus - and VERY important - Dean has worked for nearly four years on strengthening party infrastructure in states that had been left to collapse by earlier chairs.

Obama could NOT have won in 2000 and 2004 because he was likable. However...Gore or Kerry WOULD be in the WH with a stronger DNC who worked to STRENGTHEN party infrastructure in states like Florida and Ohio instead of the DNC we had which sat on its hands and let the RNC and GOP officials gain control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

Try some CONTEXT.

[IndianaJones]

4. he is an immensely better candidate than the ones in 2000 and 2004. nt.

[blm]

6. And Obama would have won in 2000 and 2004 with DNCs targeted state strategy set up by Clintonites?

And Gore and Kerry STILL would have lost even if they had a DNC that had been strengthened in every state so that the RNC and GOP officials could NOT control the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted?

Do tell.

[IndianaJones]

7. Obama would have won in 2000 and 2004. In 4 years you'll be spouting the same crap about him. nt.

[blm]

13. You have no sense of CONTEXT or history.

.

[IndianaJones]

15. I know your history and look forward to your indictments of Obama letting the Bush family slide. nt.

[blm]

19. I don't think Obama will pull a Bill Clinton and side with the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes

instead of with open government. After all, Kerry is Obama's close advisor and the Bushprotecting Bill Clinton is.....not.

[Alter Ego]

12. There's strategy too. You have to admit that Kerry's strategy, while conventional,

did end up hurting him.

[blm]

16. Revisionists say that, anyway. Kerry won. RNC stole it for Bush and DNC sat on their hands for 4yrs

and let them do it.

Gore or Kerry would be in the WH today if the DNC had done ITS job in the four years before each of those elections. Then would you be saying they were bad strategists? Obama also had the luxury of the faithless Clintonites removed from the Dem pool of workers while they were aligned with HRC's campaign, so he was able to run his campaign MINUS the saboteurs.

[karynnj]

22. Kerry had $75 million

and a party where the state parties in many critical states were in shambles. His strategy was likely the best available strategy - and had the Ohio GOP not used every way they could think of to cheat they would have. Tell me where you would have had Kerry cut to spend time or money elsewhere.

Kerry actually had floated a clever idea of not accepting (but agreeing to accept at a future date) the nomination. This would have given him 5 more weeks where he could spend primary money. Instead of working with Kerry and explaining the flaw in the (then new) McCain/Feingold law and why this was needed to keep a level playing field, people like McAuliffe, who chose the date in the first place, ridiculed the idea.

[LisaM]

26. I don't agree with that. Gore and Kerry were both exceptional

though relatively unheralded, even within their own party. Either would have made a good president.

I think that the problems begun by Reagan in the 1980s began to achieve critical mass starting with Hurricane Katrina, and the fact that government had divested its operations to the extent that there weren't enough agencies to cope with the problems - let alone the disregard that led to the failure of the levees in the first place.

Had Katrina happened a year earlier, GW Bush could never have won in 2004.

Katrina was like those frogs who are indicator species. It was the unmasking of a failed strategy - and the problems have snowballed since then.

IMO, Katrina was the tipping point. The only reason I couldn't have wished for it to have happened a year earlier was that I would never wish for the good people in the Gulf to have experienced an additional year of suffering.

[politicasista]

35. Exactly!

Sick of people tearing Gore and Kerry down to praise, promote Obama. Obama is different, gifted, and smooth in his own way. No need to eat our own.

:)

[LisaM]

36. Which is why they didn't have more resounding victories in the first place

Either one could have been a generational leader, had they been allowed to govern as they saw best. Imagine eight years of reversing the environmental damage done before 2000. I cannot believe Al Gore would have caved on anything environmental. Imagine the strength of the banking system under Kerry.

However, I think Obama is wise enough to ask for, and listen to, advice from both.

[politicasista]

37. I agree with your post

I think both areas would have been stronger with either in office. And apologies to anyone in every thread I post in, but I am glad Obama is wise enough to listen to their advice. :) I just don't understand what is there to gain by slamming Gore and Kerry, both good, decent men to praise Obama.

Obama is glad Kerry is his surrogate. Obama is glad to have Gore for advice. Thankfully, he knows who has his back, and who the real deals are. It's unfortunate that we are rehashing their campaigns and other revisionist history to promote or praise Obama (aka the apples and oranges game).

I am not a concern troll or anything, but this game is tiresome. Gore and Kerry deserve kudos for paving the way for Obama, not insults and scorn.

[DevonRex]

9. I dunno. Because it's 2008? Sorry. Had to be said. :)

[DrPresident]

10. I really do hope the Democratic party as a whole realizes what a gem they have in Barack Obama

A man like him doesn't come by every day. We should be immensely grateful to him that he's decided to take on all this.

[karynnj]

21. You seriously thought Bush more likable than Gore or Kerry?

I know the media repeated that ad nauseum in 2000 and 2004, but think about it. The media actually KNEW Bush when he was the mean drunk black sheep when his dad was President. They created the likability myth for Bush.

Then think of the number they pulled on Gore and Kerry. So, much so that I would be rich if I could get a nickle for every media story on either that now mentions in shock how nice either is as a person. In 2004, Jorie Wilgorin in the NYT defended herself after her comment that Kerry was a social loner was taken to the public editor - her defense was that this was her impression after speaking to 20 friends of his who knew him since college. How many people, at near 60 years old, have 20 (or more - I doubt every life long friend of his spoke to her) friendships of that duration? How many could reasonably be called "social loners". Neither Kerry or Gore are super extroverts, but they are from many stories very nice, kind, compassionate people.

Thank you for buying this because Obama comes out well - in a different year, we would not have been able to see him for what he is.

[politicasista]

33. Sounds like it and Democrats who complain about the media

then buy into everything they fabricate about Democrats.

[Arugula Latte]

23. I agree. And that is one huge reason I wanted him as our nominee.

I know the Hillary fans will object, but I know too many liberals (let alone the rabid conservatives) who just don't like her and told me they wouldn't vote for her if she got the nomination. I would have voted for her if she'd been the nominee, though.

[Hamlette]

24. one more reason, Hillary...yes, the long primary blunted the "attacks" they are throwing out now

Ayres, Wright, all that stuff. If it were being brought up now for the first time would be MUCH harder to fight.

Also, having Obama on the stage throughout the primaries gave everyone the opportunity to solidify their opinion of him before McCain got started.

In some ways, it was a brilliant play on our part (at the time, I was against it, pissed at Hillary for not dropping out etc) but McCain couldn't start the attack early so he couldn't destroy Obama before the convention like they did Kerry.

As for 2004, Kerry just didn't warm up to the public and vice versa. Tragedy because he is a great human being.

We won 2000.

[4lbs]

25. Anyone know the break down of how Independents voted in 2000 and 2004?

It seems to me that Independents were more evenly split in 2000 and 2004 in their support of Gore-vs-Bush and Kerry-vs-Bush.

This time, they seem to be really supporting Obama over McCain. Something like 58% to 38%.

That's why it will make it difficult for the Republicans to steal this election. While they can suppress and cage Democratic voters, the Independents are less easily to "track down" because they don't live in poorer neighborhoods like Democrats. Many Independents live in the same neighborhoods as Republicans, and thus trying to intimidate them and other such things risks doing it to Republican voters.

[blm]

28. Independents went for Bush in 2000 and for Kerry in 2004. But Bush still had to STEAL both elections

.

[sampsonblk]

27. Yep, here's a great example

AFter the last debate, the audience almost swarmed Barack and Michelle. These were supposedly undecided voters. There is something special about Obama that was desperatly needed in 2000 and 2004. Obama is actauly interesting to listen to, he has great ideas, and he's a likeable guy. Unlike Kerry and Gore, Obama is cool, for lack of a better word.

[blm]

38. You have to be cooler than ice to chase after a guy with a shoulder rocket aimed at your crew.

And to expose yourself to machine gunfire instead of racing away when you know there's a fellow American in the water with bullets raining down on him.

And to stick to an investigation for 5 1/2 years when the entire DC powerstructure and the powerful in your own party are trying to stop you.

That's REAL NERVE. And damn few have those kind of guts AND cool. The MTV generation's idea of cool is OK, and this year may be a benefit to the Democrats....but, don't DARE try to pretend that men like Gore or Kerry haven't made a huge difference to this nation over the last 3 decades just because YOU help the corpmedia promote the idea that Bush was cooler than they are. Gee - let's not deal with strengthening party infrastructure in ALL the states for four years the way Dean's DNC is doing - all we needed was to get a candidate cooler than the GOP candidate.

Besides, I highly doubt Obama considers himself to be 'cooler' than Gore or Kerry, but no doubt he considers himself luckier politically to be running in 2008 instead of 2000 or 2004. He's SMART enough to know that.

[politicasista]

39. Ouch. That's deep n/t

[sampsonblk]

40. You are going to spin yourself dizzy

People love Barack Obama. There is genuine nationwide enthusiasm for him, personally. There was no such enthusiasm for Gore or Kerry. They were boring candidates that did not come across well, even though they were right on policy.

But don't take my word for it, look at the polls.

[blm]

41. Sure - people had the chance to get to know Barack. Few even knew Kerry or his record at all.

Those who do know it well, RESPECT HIM MORE than any lawmaker in DC. YOU have Kerry to thank for being the ONLY serious obstacle the fascist agenda has had the last 35 years - not to mention for helping Obama be exactly where he is today, instead of as an also ran to Hillary.

And if you actually believe that Obama would have easily won 2000 or 2004 because of his 'likability' you are the one who is seriously dizzy.

I use CONTEXT - what was actually happening in each election year and the 4yrs before election day - you rely on corporate media spin as if every election happens in a vacuum and the previous 4years are not a factor.

[sampsonblk]

42. I don't think anyone could have won "easily" in 2004

But that election was definitely winnable.

[politicasista]

44. Obama shows more respect for Kerry than most ever will n/t

[blm]

48. It was won. RNC stole it for Bush and McAuliffe's DNC gave them the room to do it.

.

[politicasista]

43. Yes. Obama himself would resent the insults directed at Kerry just to praise him

It is really sad that this comes from Democrats.

[sampsonblk]

46. Oh come on

Sounds as though some folks have an emotional attachment to Kerry.

[blm]

47. Sounds as though YOU have no clue what risks he took against the fascist agenda the last 35 yrs

tp protect OUR democracy, even against the wishes of powerful Democrats who would have delivered the whole Dem party to the fascists long ago.

[sampsonblk]

49. Yep, that's definitely an emotional attachment-nt

[blm]

53. I'm anti-corruption and open government...I support those lawmakers who care about those issues.

You call it emotion and I call it knowing how to comprehend serious government reports, especially with democracy at stake.

You can't comprehend that, can you?

[sampsonblk]

54. Are you able to look objectively at the quality of a candidate's campaign?

What does a candidates campaign skill and likeability have to do with government reports?

There are plenty of political leaders who have great policy views, but that doesn't mean they could run a winning presidential campaign. And that doesn't make them likeable.

[blm]

55. Explain the US attorney scandal and why Rove had been setting it up since before 2002.

According to you Bush won without any vote suppression, without any vote purging, and without corrupting the votecount, because he was just so likable, and cool, and ran a great campaign.

If Obama was treated like Kerry he wouldn't even be the nominee. Imagine if Obama's speeches addressing the Wright issue were NEVER BROADCAST. THAT would be similar to Kerry's siuation. Imagine if there were terror alerts whenever Obama had a positive gain or a positive story. THAT would be similar to what Kerry faced.

Try CONTEXT, sampson, CONTEXT of the actual times and the differences between the PLAYING FIELDS.

And, btw....some of us who DO read and know our nation's ACTUAL history DO consider Kerry a most important figure, and to the anti-corruption, open government Democrats he IS The 'rockstar' of those causes.

You can't NAME one lawmaker who has done more the last 35 years to block the march to fascism than Kerry has - a march that so many other Dems were happy to go along with and accomodate in exchange for their own piece of power.

[sampsonblk]

56. Go back and reread what you just wrote

You are about to blow a gasket over John Kerry. Surely, you do understand the point of the OP, which was limited in scope.

And here you go arguing Kerry's life history to me, when its really about the quality of the campaign we are seeing now vs the ones we saw in 2000 and 2004.

Surely you can see why those extraneous issues you raised are not relevant to the discussion.

However, since you have called me out, I will be glad to discuss it with you. I'll have that fight any day of the week. Please start another thread.

[blm]

57. You don't get it - if Kerry had the history of nonthreatening service that a Clinton had, the

powerstructure WOULDN"T have worked so hard against him. Kerry's efforts and his accomplishments had a LOT to do with the GOP and some powerful Dems aligned so mightily against him. The GOP got away with it then, and they are unable to now BECAUSE of factors they COULDN'T control, like Katrina, Iraq falling into Civil War and Record Home Foreclosures brought about by decades of GOP policies.

It is not JUST the candidate Obama, though he is running a good campaign by all accounts... The Dem candidate SHOULD have won in 2008 with no question about it. And thanks to a stronger Dem party infrastructure, the Dem candidate can get more of his votes counted that were stolen in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Had the election process been secured in past elections and party infrastructure STRENGTHENED instead of collapsed in crucial states, we'd be saying goodbye to President Gore or re-electing Kerry. And none of you would be claiming either ran bad campaigns and were unlikable.

[sampsonblk]

58. I am calling you out right back

Let's argue this on the first Wednesday in November. Right now, its unity time.

[YvonneCa]

59. And the ability and skill to project likability and run...

...a good campaign doesn't necessarily predict a quality president. :7

[politicasista]

51. No, I am a full Obama supporter

who is tired of people putting down, bashing, and using RW smears insulting, and trashing two good and decent men like Gore and Kerry to praise or promote Obama. Obama appreciates their support. He has reached out to them for advice and I say good for him. That says more about him than most here. He is a class act. I respect that. It's too bad some don't.


No emotional attachment to anyone.

[politicasista]

30. Why start a thread to slam Gore/Kerry to praise Obama?

Bad enough people are still insulting Kerry aka Obama's best surrogate. Obama himself would resent this revisionist history talk. It does not help his or the Democratic Party's cause. But thankfully, Obama knows who the Real Deal(s) are.

[Blue_Tires]

45. you have a point

because bush was outdone in the debates by gore, and kerry absolutely CRUSHED him in 04 to no avail

[crossroads]

50. Obama actually has a HEART and it shows... people like him! k&r

[Clintonista2]

52. Tried-and-true Republican tactics aren't working

This is due to, as you mentioned, Obama's personality, and its also due to the economy. Republicans never win on issues, so they always lose when the issues are front and centre.