Kerry in 08

[private_ryan]

don't bother. You had the chance of a lifetime with a idiot as an opponent, a big mess at home and Iraq, raised more money that you could spend and still you lost.

F off and let someone else who fights back run. It's amazing how he sat there and let this flip flop thing stick.

[Placebo]

1. Um, Okay...

As if you could have done better.

He was the target of an unprecedented smear campaign and one of the most negative campaigns ever.

He's a great man, who did his best, he deserve all of our respect and admiration.

[private_ryan]

3. I'm sorry

did I run for President? He didn't do his best and we all know it. When you get smeared you fight back, not make believe no one else is seeing those commercials.

[Placebo]

6. "...we all know it."

No. We all don't. If there is some blanket consensus that Kerry didn't try and do his best, please tell me.

Yes, when you're running for President in what could be and likely will be your one and only shot, you really take that time to hold back and restrict yourself from doing your best, and everything you could. :eyes:

[private_ryan]

18. I'll clarify: almost all

happy?

[jrthin]

4. He has our respect and

admiration, but in 08 we need someone who can better counter "the target of an unprecedented smear campaign and one of the most negative campaigns ever."

[Claire Beth]

5. I so agree!! n/t

[xultar]

12. AGREED!!!! New Blood in '08. n/t

[xultar]

7. That's not what he said... you missed the posters original post.

It's not whether or not the poster could have done better. Kerry knew that * would stop at nothing to smear him. * even smeared mCain one of the inner circle to steal 2000.

The poster didn't say Kerry didn't deserve our respect and admiration.

He said that KERRY is done. NO 2k8 run. Kerry has had his chance.
If by chance he didn't win this then Kerry should not run in 2008. Kerry didnt' capture the imagination of the democratic voter as well as he should. No one would argue about that.


Lighten up Francis.

[OneBlueSky]

13. he'll get no respect or admiration from me unless he stands up . . .

and speaks out about what took place in this election . . . it was stolen, plain and simple, but Kerry won't say anything unless he's sure the vote count can change enough to elect him . . . that's no longer the issue, since many votes can't be recounted due to BBV and the Republican corporations who count the votes . . . as summed up so brilliantly in this article . . .

Was It Hacked?
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/Story.asp?ID=4688

if Kerry won't stand up and tell the American people about all of this, he'll get no respect, admiration or support from me . . . and I suspect from many others . . .

[Kahuna]

21. He did do his best. I appreciate him for that. IMO, if not for the

Swift Boat Vets, he would be the president elect today. However, the SBVs have shown us they're nothing if not relentless. They chided Kerry in ads until the very end. If Kerry were to run again, they would do the exact same thing. For that reason, I could not get behind another Kerry nomination.

[Auntie Bush]

45. WES CLARK on CNN now discussing Clinton Library

[chicagiana]

41. Saddam Hussein's weapons are a threat to us ...

He was so nuanced on the war that no one could tell the difference between himself and GW Bush. As opposed to playing to Democratic strengths, the convention played right into GW Bush's hands.

There was ZERO substantial difference between the policies that GW Bush and Kerry advocated. Their plans were almost COMPLETELY identical!!! Staff up the Iraqi army and do a staged withdrawal.

Kerry said Bush should have built a coaltion and went to the UN and asked for help. Well, irregardles of how ineffectively the effort was, GW Bush DID indeed go to the UN and he did build a coalition (albiet a pathetic one).

Kerry looked absolutely SILLY on these issues. He refused to go for Bush's jugular preferrring to appear "above the fray". He refused to attack Bush's credibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people. He refused to point out that the Euros HATE GW Bush. He REFUSED to blaim GW Bush for 9/11. He REFUSED to point out that GW Bush dropped the ball and that Bush SHOULD have stopped the terrorist attacks. The INCOMPETENCE of his administration allowed the attacks to proceed as FBI intelligence agents FOUND the attackers but were denied permission to pursue an investigation by an FBI with it's priorities WAY out of wack!!!

Kerry failed to distinguish himself in any substantial way on the war. He failed to attack GW Bush as was rightfull. He failed to excite or enthuse.

Finally, Kerry failed to take a leadership role in attacking the validity of black box voting.

Kerry is DONE, he's over with. He will forever be a Senator from Massachussetts!!! He doesn't have what is NECESSARY to TAKE the oval office from the Republicans!!!

In 4 years, we'll have 5,000 to 10,000 dead in Iraq. At THAT point, we'll HAVE to run an anti-war candidate. That candidate NEEDS to have been anti war from DAY ONE!!!

Howard Dean is a possible candidate for 2008, Kerry was wishy-washy on the war. He pimped the notion that Saddam Hussein was a danger (on the basis of phony evidence) than he switched back WITHOUT admitting that he had been duped by the administration. Kerry's position will be hopelessly untenable in 2008.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. ya know smart guy

only a few more votes in Ohio and Kerry's president.
New York and California vote above their measely showings of 45 and 39% respectively and Bush has no popular vote win either.

But thanks for the helpful input anyways. :hi:

[private_ryan]

8. Kerry isn't president

he didn't get those few extra votes and Bush will appoint 3-4 justices that we have to live with for the next 40 years. Maybe that $15 million he had in the bank should've gone to Ohio...or to hire a better campaign adviser than Shrum.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. He should have killed more geese..to get the "moderate" vote.

Pandering works. Just ask the DLC.

[jjmalonejr]

10. Yeah, I agree with the others here

I acknowledge mistakes by the Kerry campaign, but I think he fought a pretty good fight considering the uphill battle we faced.

Right now, I don't see anyone better than Kerry in 2008, but it's too early to tell. We have a few years to see how the political landscape changes, so I'm not ready to predict what will be best for the Democrats then, but as of this moment I'd be ready to get behind Kerry again.

[xultar]

15. CLARK is way better than Kerry. But he's not runnin we missed our

chance with Clark.

[democratreformed]

23. Hey, xultar, check out our Clark group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[xultar]

16. Wesley K. Clark is my PRESIDENT!! n/t (cover for dupe post)

[private_ryan]

17. the last month he fought hard

but sometimes is too late. It's a horrible strategy to say "I'm going to get beaten up for 11 rounds, and fight back hard on the 12th". It just doesn't work that way, especially in politics.

[jjmalonejr]

34. I disagree with your characterization

Kerry didn't get beat up for 11 rounds and then fight back hard in the 12th.

Throughout the general election, some weeks went to Bush, some weeks went to Kerry.

Remember, this isn't just about Kerry. Democrats lost almost everywhere.

That said, I do wish that there had been more time spent hitting Bush hard on Iraq and his conducting of the War on Terror. I do wish that the Democratic National Convention had been more rough and tumble.

Bear in mind, though, that decisions like that were not exculsively Kerry's, and the pressure to retreat to "comfy" domestic issues and to play defense on divisive "wedge" issues was pretty enormous. In my view, unless you beat Bush on national security, there was no way to win, no matter how much you talked about the economy and health care.

We'll see how things evolve between now and 2008, and I'm obviously open to other candidates who have a shot at winning, but I'm just asking folks to take a breath and not demonize Kerry for the loss.

[chicagiana]

44. Uphill battle ????

The president had an approval rating of 43% percent. He was electoral dead meat!!!!!

The REAL Democratic weakness is their refusal to lay responsibility for the 9/11 tragedy at GW Bush's feet. It WAS his responsibility. He DID undermine counter-terrorism efforts.

FBI field agents found TWO not ONE separate 9/11 hijackers buying 747 flight sim time WITHOUT takeoff and landing practice. Both wanted to pursue the investigation further. BOTH were denied by Ashcroft's management structure that prioritized counter-terrorism just under prostitution and pornography!!!

Democrats are WEAK! They don't have the stomach to attack the president directly. They're afraid of looking like they're howling at the moon!!!

9/11 WAS the reponsibility of President Bush. He LET it happen. The election was lost when Democrats "stood behind" the President after 9/11 instead of excoriating him!!!!

[Joylaughter]

11. 04 or not at all

I think I kind of sort of agree with the Private here, only with the whole "F off" part.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. The Swift Boat Liars aren't going away in 4 years

Will Kerry finally address them then? I don't want Kerry to run in '08. If I have no choice I will vote for him, but I'd rather have a choice that doesn't include him.

[Joylaughter]

19. There are no choices in the 21st Century

Choices? That went out back in 2000.

[Kahuna]

22. That's right. They are relentless.

nt

[dogtag]

27. I wish he would address them now. Sue their asses...do something. (n/t)

[Kahuna]

29. We could do that. But did you ever notice the number of people..

who get exposed to the truth AFTER they have been exposed to the lie is never the same? No matter how you try to get the truth out, people will still cling to the lie. That's just the way lazy Americans are.

[dogtag]

37. Yep, I agree with you, but I would like to see

the Shitboater's lives become a living hell. Can you tell that I'm bitter?

[demnan]

20. God, yes!

I don't know why Kerry didn't run a better campaign, but he won't get another chance, that just won't happen. And it's time to put to bed any thoughts that he could possibly win in Ohio now, that's just dreaming. Let's just move on and look to the future.

[Cat Atomic]

24. No more moderates for me at all. No more holding my nose to vote.

If the Dems choose to run another moderate, I'll go back to third party. No- excuse me- FOURTH party, since the DLC has already put the Democratic Party in third place, behind the Taliban Party and the Reagan Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Kerry wore my nose out too.

Switching to Green.

[K-W]

30. Yah, an only extremists policy is a great idea.

Just because the republicans have gone insane does not mean that we should respond by running away from the majority of americans who are still moderates.

[Cat Atomic]

31. Yeah, I've heard that shit before. We lost with it.

Again. Maybe you need to rethink that.

[K-W]

35. So I should jump to conclusions like you?

And exercise horrendous logic.

Have we run moderates and lost, yes.
Have we run moderates and won, yes.

When did we run a radical and win, just out of sheer curiousity?

Can we become the party of reason, rather than just another party of silly emotional overreaction blindly running around until we fail and then blindly running the other way?

How about we put some thought into this and create a party that a majority of Americans can relate to that also presents a clear vision and a convincing argument for that vision.

[Cat Atomic]

43. "When did we run a radical and win?"

When did we run a radical, period?

Besides- you're assuming that anyone who is not a moderate is a radical. That's ridiculous.

There's alot of real estate between John Kerry and Che Guevarra.

[Fla Dem]

39. You'll lose w/o it too. n/t

[Cat Atomic]

46. Maybe we'll get to test your theory someday.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The "majority" who are moderates.

Do you mean the "moderates" that voted for Bush?

The majority who support the war?

The majority who support the death penalty?

The majority who support an end to Affirmative Action?

The majority who support "traditional values"?

The "moderates" in this country are much like the "moderates" in Germany in 1936.

[K-W]

36. You seem to be confused.

The ballot didnt list any issues, it listed names of people.

Now you can jump to silly conclusions about what Americans want from that if you like, but I dont think we should base political strategy on such conclusions.

Im sorry, I wish we had enough left wing people to win national power by running to the left, but we dont. That doesnt mean we should run to the right either.

We dont need to go in any direction, we just need to run good candidates with a clear vision and tools to sell that vision to the American people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. I agree.

Kerry didn't have a vision to sell to the people. What he did was to try to bamboozle them by pandering to the right. Starting with his vote for the war which supposedly made him "electable".

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fla Dem]

40. Yeah!! Let's go with Zell !! n/t

[K-W]

26. Yah Kerry 'let' it stick, as if he had a choice.

I love the DU'rs who still live in a fantasy world where democrats arent fighting a massive uphill battle where at thier very best the media lets them appear slightly good to the American people.

Unless you believe Kerry has some magical powers that we dont know about, you really dont have a point here.

But I suppose we could just keep blaming the democrats for losing rigged fights. That is sure to take us far. Lets blame Kerry and send another democrat to slaughter in 4 years because we are too obsessed with assessing blame on on our politicians.

[chicagiana]

32. He missed a slam dunk proposition ...

No way Kerry in 08. There were reasons that Kerry AND Gore didn't win their respective races. Those reasons will be just prevalent in 08 as they were in 04 and 00.

BTW, Oprah for Indiana Senate in 06 !!!!!

[K-W]

38. Slam dunk? WAKE UP

The republicans have a political machine the likes of which has never been seen in this country. It includes a massive propaganda apparatus, and a massive infastructure supported by massive amounts of money.

The democrats have neither the access or the money to replicate it, so we need to reinvent the wheel, that is why Gore and Kerry lost, and if we keep blaming them and expect a savior to pop up rather than doing the legwork to build a party that can defeat them, we are just going to keep on losing.

If we do our job, Kerry or Gore could win in 08. If we dont, superman probably wouldnt stand a chance.

[chicagiana]

48. True about the propaganda machine ...

We do need to get our points out. And the left is finally doing it.

Somehow though, Clinton managed to get elected .... TWICE. Clinton's strength was that he could boil issues down and simplify them to a way people could understand. Clinton withstood an onslaught of lies that no president has EVER had to endure. And he was re-elected.

And of course, Clinton was from the south. Like it or not, our candidates have to come from the south or midwest to win. The northeast is too "liberal" for red staters. The language that northeast politicians use to communicate to their home constituency is unpalatable to a large portion of the nation.

Red state Democrats are prime candidates for a presidential run. They know the language they need to get elected with the rural crowd. They've been speaking it for years.

[private_ryan]

47. winning strategy

"Shrum’s philosophy was that, post-9/11, people didn’t have the kind of tolerance for negative personal attacks"
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?040920on_onlineonly01