I am so sick of hearing

[fedupinBushcountry]

oh I worked for John Kerry in '04, oh I gave a lot of money to Kerry, and he was ...............

These little friggin whiners make me so angry. They were never Kerry supporters in the first place and they have never gotten over the primary losses and they never question why their candidate loss, only how Kerry did this or that and that is the reason their candidate loss.

I am tired of playing Mr. Nice guy with this type and am tired of their lies when in reality they never gave Kerry a chance to win in the first place, they never fully jumped on the Kerry bandwagon and they truly have never looked at why their candidate loss. They would rather keep on trashing one man, it is so much easier that way to think that their candidate didn't lose.

When they would rather trash and question John Kerry instead of the low sleazy lying swift boaters, they are beyond despicable and truly need to be countered on what they truly are.

:rant:

[ProSense]

1. Exactly! You can borrow my

Include it when responding to these habitual whiners!

[TayTay]

2. They are distancing, which is a pity.

The 2004 election was a very emotional event for a lot of people. They poured their heart and souls into the race and really, really, really wanted Bush to lose and for Kerry, as the Dem nominee, to win. When Kerry did not win, it became his loss, because Victory has a 1,000 fathers, but defeat is an orphan, as the saying goes.

It is much easier for some people to place blame than to do any real soul-searching and figure out why we lost. There are reasons. We need to look at them, no matter how painful it is, as it is the only way to get past them and move to victory. But some people are too shallow and too unwilling to do this. So they place blame on the person who worked the hardest for the victory.

Some people believe that if only they had The Democratic Messiah, everything would be okay. The Dem Messiah would arrive, be universally acknowledged as the greatest leader ever and the vote would be a mere formality. Opposition would not matter, as the DemMessiah would just brush it aside. The opposition GOTV, or strong organizational efforts or advantage in money wouldn't matter either because the DemMessiah would not have to contend with those things. Only mere humans have to do that.

This is too bad because the old saying is true: Every victory contains the seeds of defeat, every defeat the seeds of victory. You have to be willing to see it, up close and ugly as hell, in order to figure out what it means and how to get past it. Some people simply can't do that. They can't accept even a little bit of defeat, not even for their own good.

[ginnyinWI]

4. you've nailed it, TayTay.

Save it to use in the future!

There are a lot of people who are waiting for the Second Coming of Bill. In retrospect, Bill Clinton seems to have been such a great candidate. But people forget--he made his share of mistakes, too--more than JK, if you ask me--but with luck and timing made it through in a three-way race. I'm still reading George Stephanopoulis' book and am reading about the gaffs and blunders which lasted into the first part of his presidency--he truly had to learn on the job. JK would have been able to get right down to work immediately, because he knows Washington inside and out.

[politicasista]

8. It's the Bill Clinton prism

In many eyes, he was the model for how to win elections.

Rev. Al Sharpton pointed out one day that while we love him for being hip, he did make mistakes such as shunnning the late Ron Brown for SOS, distancing himself from Lani Guiner, and the tragic genocide in Rwanda that his administration ignored.



I agree with TayTay's excellent posts. :patriot:

[ProSense]

5. Excellent points!

Some of these people are still just BS artist!

[karynnj]

6. You should use that saying

"Every victory contains the seeds of defeat, every defeat the seeds of victory" Clearly the first part is true - the hubris of the second term is incredible. It could lead to rejection of RW and neo-cons for some time. (A danger is that McCain can be viewed as the one who stood up.)

The intense emotion of the 2004 election may expain the difference in treatment of Kerry vs Gore. One thing I noticed, but am not sure I can articulate is that whether in anger or support, there is much more intensity and connection to Kerry's campaign versus Gore's campaign. With some the anger is BECAUSE they had come to believe in Kerry and trusted him to win and immediately end everything bad that happened. When he didn't, they remind me of a 3 year old (I knew well) lashing out when we didn't take her to a promised show because it was cancelled due to snow. ("You said you would")

Gore's stolen win came more as a surprise. He had been neck and neck for the last several months of the campaign, but it seemed to be one of the least passionate elections of my lifetime. Many people never connected to Gore, so he is almost like a new candidate, but with the gravitas of having stood as a potential President. I seriously doubt that global warming is suddenly the biggest issue on people's minds. Gore has also spoken out against many Bush transgressions, but he really doesn't have a platform. I suspect that Gore is supported because, as Kerry was in 2004, they are placing him as the leader/father who can get rid of the bad guys. It is stunning how little some Gore supporters here really know about him.

I remember you writing over a year ago, that the key for Kerry is to be one of the five viable candidate entering 2007. He is certainly in that group. I have seen no poll where he has been below 4th - and only then with Gore in it. What is now a negative, the past intensity, can change to a positive for a subset of the group of people currently against him. There are memories of his debates and over time, Kerry should get credit for his perseverance.

The fact that we have seen many people become less negative here is very significant. I think some people may overstate their feelings on an anonymous board, because they can with no repercusions and they can't in real life. Having looked at many of the threads on the three year old DU, Kerry is far better thought of now than 3 years ago. I liked one comment where some one (not on the thread yesterday) said they still didn't want Kerry to run, but that the "Kerry fans" had convinced him/her that he was an excellent Senator and a good person. That is real progress. That is a person who after looking at the real humans running in 2008 and ruling them all out as the "DemMessiah", may decide an "excellent Senator and a good person", who they may remember with pride was an excellent debater, and who dealt with a devastating close defeat by picking himself up and working harder and who most importantly, has well crafted plans on every key issue is the best choice.

In the real world, here's a response I got after sending a relative - WWII vet, mostly Republican - a link to Kerry's last speech. (He voted for Kerry in 2004 - but it was an October decision.)

"It is a fine speech and a specific plan for moving forward in a complex dangerous situation that does not yield to the force we are attempting to apply. My heart breaks for the troops who are bravely paying for this with their young blood. {b] It is more than anyone in Washington has ever done in appealing for the support to the American people in the past twelve years.
It is a plan that will have to withstand vicious debate in the coming months, but it is a plan. That is more than I have heard emerging from Washington itself, and so I am paying attention. The debate should be revealing. Thank you for sending."

I still need to respond - and am undecided how to explain that the Democrats (lead by Clinton - who he has less respect for than I do) have not given Kerry any support as a leader - and that this will not likely be the Democratic plan. It does show that this plan and likely his Iraq plan are things that people desperate for leadership will respond to. This relative is a swing voter, Jewish, in his 80s, and a vet. (I know this person would not vote for Hillary (too Clinton) or Edwards (too slick and insubstantial). He was impressed with Gore's film, but I'm not sure he would vote for him.)

In 2008, it may come down to substance. Hillary, who is very intelligent, will have a platform - likely highly approved by focus groups - but it will be new, rather than appearing to be the logical culmination of her positions since 2000 and reflecting her whole life. Edwards will have a new stump speech that will likely have echoes from his 2004 one - which is good. Neither will compare to Kerry, where these Faneuil Hall speeches are all detailed forward leading plans on key issues that draw on his past. I also wonder if Kerry's consistent calls for civility and bipartisanship will also play a part. The next leader must heal the wounds here and abroad. Kerry may be the one best suited to doing that.

Thought of this way, Kerry may be getting the right amount of exposure - enough so the key points do get out as his ideas and so they sound familliar, but they will, as a group, still seem fresh. (I hope this last one has elements repeated by Democrats this fall - I did hear Dean echo Kerry's comments on Afghanistan. I don't see any leadership from the Clintons, who are still addressing the IWR vote - an issue that will not drive 2006.)

[TayTay]

7. Another key is to be 'a good choice' and to be in the top 2 or 3

because the top people often flame-out and then people will look at their second choice. (Happens all the time.) This is a real hidden strength for Kerry as he is perceived as being strong and as having taken stands on core Dem issues (Alito, Iraq, AFghanistan, Energy independence, Health care.)

This is also a marathon wherein you outlast your opponents. A lot of bright shining stars flame out of the process. (This is a very, very grueling process. Only those who really, really, really want it survive. There are no accidental nominees.) Ahm, Kerry really, really really wants it. Some on DU see that as 'too political' which is a strange way to describe a politician and a political goal. (See, the DemMessiah wouldn't want it and would get it because they are so wonderful that they would just take it. Ah, yeah, that's insane.)

It is no small thing to be held to be a statesman, to be smart, to have plans and to be described as someone who never gives up. This is a very long process and those assets are big helps in it.

[politicasista]

3. Nice rant!

:applause: