His win in 1992, which should have been like 2008, was pretty narrow. Also, time matters in terms of issues. Bill Clinton absolutely would have lost 2004. I am assuming he had continued as Governor of Arkansas. He had no military or foreign policy experience in a year when national security, war and foreign policy were big issues.
The Republicans saw Kerry enough of a threat that they attacked his genuine status as a war hero with lies -- rather than simply attacking his honorable protests. Kerry also blew out the first debate on foreign policy, having been a strong member of the SFRC for almost 20 years. (After the election, the Republican chair Lugar praised him for that debate.) Kerry over preformed all the models that suggested a very big win for Bush. In fact, had Ohio had enough voting machines, he would have pulled out one of the largest upsets.
Hillary people correctly list all that was against her, however, the media tacitly backed GWB, likely thinking he would win and afraid of being excluded from interviews -- knowing that Kerry would never retaliate in that manner if he won. In addition, the Catholic church everywhere except NE made abortion the issue, and the evangelical churches made gay rights and abortion the issue. Note that it was already known that at least one right leaning SCJ would be replaced and had Kerry won, the SC would have tilted to the left. (I actually think that this was again an issue in 2016 - 2008 and 2012 were notthe same as the likely SCJ to leave were not on the right.)
As to boring, I suspect the reason that the media gave far less attention to Kerry's biography is that it is almost too full. Note the media tried to paint him as the second coming of Al Gore - even calling him wooden. Had the media treated him and Teresa as they did Bill and Hillary in 1992, no one would now be calling him boring. Even 12 year old Kerry, taking his passport and biking into East Berlin, was an interesting person.
To give you an idea how poorly they covered the accomplishments of the wonderful Teresa, I learned big things that she led on in Pittsburgh only when Pittsburgh was chosen in 2009 to be the site of the G7 (or G20) meeting. In the 1990s when Pittsbirgh was incredibly depressed, Teresa called the other Pittsburgh area philantophists and led them in an effort to revitalize the city by an enormous coordinated effort to build green public buildings and facilities. It led to the former steel town being one of the greenest towns in the US and simultaneously was a "stimulus package" for Pittsburgh. It was for things like this that GHWB named Teresa as an NGO member of the US delegation to the Rio conference -- where she and John Kerry, who she had met when John Heinz and Kerry led the Senate earth day effort in 1990, really had a chance to talk.
I was very active on DU JK and had read everything I could find in 2004 and afterward and other than having been told by a Pittsburgh native that there much not reported that should have been I absolutely did not know that she was the key person in revitalyzing a city. I know that in 1992, Hillary was attacked for not wanting to be a Barabra (or Laura) Bush, but if anything that emphasized her accomplishments and intelligence. It completely bothers me that Teresa, unlike John Kerry, never had any visibility that would have allowed her to be seen for the wonderful person she is. Here, I think I know the reason. In Northwest NJ, where I lived, one of the best people convincing people in the general election was a former PA Republican, who unhappy with Bush, had looked at the Democratic primary. The FIRST thing that impressed her about Kerry, was that Teresa thought enough of him to marry him. Had Teresa been seen as the good, brilliant woman she is, for some she would have validated Kerry.
"
= new reply since forum marked as read
