Michael Moore: "We didn't pick the best candidate"

[Generator]

Another one for my trash bin. In another few days, I don't think there will be anyone I respect anymore. It's not just what you say but when, how and where.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6665034/

In the final analysis, Moore said, Democratic presidential nominee Kerry was “not the best candidate.” President Bush “had a more compelling story to tell and the Democrats didn’t, and that has to change.”

[JohnKleeb]

1. He did pretty good considering what we were up against

We only lost by one state, we gotta remember that.

[dolo amber]

2. Sounds about right to me

:hi:

[Sugarbleus]

3. Me too.

it's all too obvious now....

[serryjw]

4. Sorry, But I agree with MM..........

We are the LABOR party. How do you get working class people,minorites and young people to REALLY support a man that comes from ultra wealth and is a 'sick in the mud'? IMHO?

[politicasista]

5. Had Kerry won, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

:cry:

[Florida_Geek]

6. Kerry did win

that is the problem

[InvisibleBallots]

111. no, Kerry LOST

Was there election fraud? Probably. Does that surprise anyone? No. Did Kerry know ALL ABOUT Diebold and the rest before he ran? Yes. Did he do or say JACK SHIT about it? Nope.

Kerry LOST - more than that, Kerry GAVE UP.

[Carolina]

117. oh so true

I have been battling one of those Kerry lawyers locally who repeatedly, defensively says they did all they could do. Yet he's mute when I bombard him with all the stuff about voting machines and has been since 2002 when I first told him about Bev Harris. HE DIDN'T KNOW then and still won't acknowledge the strong possibility of fraud!

I went to a meeting last week of local Dems, including former DNC chair Don Fowler, and they're still stuck on the ideas of courting the religious groups, framing a message and other navel-gazing. I angrily pointed out that we're dealing with fascists who will DO ANYTHING (lie, cheat, steal) to gain and retain power; that we need to look at the media (what good does framing a message do if you've no vehicle to get it out and trotting out a message during election cycles does nothing to counter the ongoing, relentless repuke message on hate radio); and that we cannot allow the privatization (into Repuke corporations) of the vote tabulation.

These local party people all dismissed me as "tin foil" afflicted. They are so old school. They still want to make nice and run political campaigns like it's 1992. I give up. We need fighters.

Kerry was my first choice until his IWR vote. Then I became a Clark person. Part of me feels that with a Clark and Dean team there truly would have been NO Surrender, NO Retreat

[Florida_Geek]

122. Myself I would have loved a Clark / Dean team nt

[okieinpain]

141. now this I agree with. but I also have to say in kerry's behalf, that

he was probably our best candidate. but I think he really screwed up letting that swift boat shit go unanswered. I think more then anything his staff is to blame for that, this layed back liberal shit has got to go.

carville is the prototype that we need to install into the leadership of the dems.

[JohnKleeb]

7. no we wouldn't

we'd be buying the stuff for the victory celebration. I dont know if any of the other candidiates could have done better but I do realize something that people seem to forget, its that we were far from slaughtered.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

41. yeah, far from slaughtered...we won! but president kerry conceeded!

the problem is, why did kerry conceed instead of calling fraud a fraud? the ukrainians are getting a new election because the last one wasn't fair, why aren't we? we aren't because, our guy conceeded.

[JohnKleeb]

62. I really dont see any proof of fraud as I did in 2000, sorry but I dont

and they are fighting it, I got an email from McAulife today.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

66. oh there is just so much proof, its overwhelming

just today a computer programmer in florida announced that he wrote a program for them to cheat. his life expectancy has just nose dived, i am sure.

[JohnKleeb]

71. my point is you're not hearing about massive discrimination like in 2000

Its not as open as it was in 2000.

[qanda]

126. Are you kidding?

Turn on the hearing and listen to just how much discrimination there was. If anything, there was even more discrimination this time around.

[Leilani]

76. "We didn't get slaughtered"

No, if slaughter is Nixon/McGovern...

but we lost seats in the House & Senate...Kerry had no coat tails...in fact, he hurt candidates in tight races.

And if you look at the Bush record, & what we have been through in the past 4 years, it shouldn't have been close.

And I believe it was as close as it was due to grass roots work, not the campaign or the candidates. Dems were competitive financially...it wasn't for love of Kerry...it was hatred of Bush.

[IrateCitizen]

114. Our strategy succeeded brilliantly -- yet we STILL lost...

Personally, I find this result to be much more damaging than those of McGovern and Mondale -- primarily because the primaries produced the candidate that seemed to have the "electability" consensus, we raised almost as much money as the Republicans, we succeeded in our GOTV efforts... and STILL, we lost.

What that says to me is that everything, yes EVERYTHING must be reconsidered. I'm not talking about embracing anti-gay initiatives or ignoring reproductive choice or anything like that here. I'm just saying that, in a most general sense, EVERYTHING about the Democratic Party and what it supposedly stands for must be evaluated and reconsidered. We almost need to start from square one again.

[Blue Wally]

166. Most of the senatorial candidates

Ran ahead of Kerry. They pulled in a bigger percentage than Kerry did.

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. And also remember...

...had Kerry not conceded (I refuse to say "had he won" because he actually did win, just it was taken from him as it was Gore) then we wouldn't be having the trashing of Michael Moore either.

In stead people will be saying how MM helped us with his F 9/11 etc. But right on cue as always what do we do in the face of despair? We turn and ferociously tear each other apart.

Is that going to get the job for '06 or '08? I don't think it will.

[JohnKleeb]

61. I want to believe it was stolen but its so different than it was in 00

[foreigncorrespondent]

67. Oh I understand where you at Kleeb!

The only difference between '04 and '00 was '00 it happened on a much smaller scale, this time it happened in small numbers, but in a much larger scale. Think of skimming a little from here, and skimming a little from there. :)

Take care, John. :)

[JohnKleeb]

70. I'll try but its really hard tor me to see fraud like I did last time

I'll try to believe it but I dont see the parrellells with 2000.

[foreigncorrespondent]

102. Awwww, John!

You don't have to believe in it if you don't want. I totally understand that. You got bitten, and you don't want to hold on to something that may not ever be proven. :)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I had to go to work. LOL

[Sterling]

68. Yes this time they had Diedold

And there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it. It's probably better if you ignore it.

[serryjw]

64. Disagree....

whether Jk won by a million or lost by a million is not the issue. With all that Bushit did for 4 years we should have won by 30 EV. We should have had a 1992 election. We will never have a worse opponent
again.

[JNelson6563]

101. There it is

Should have been a landslide. Beyond steal-able. But that didn't happen. Why? We won't get an asnwer from the Bots, that's for sure.

Julie

[leftofthedial]

153. If little green monkeys would fly out of my ass every time

I pass wind,

I'd be far more entertaining than I am now.

Kerry didn't do shit about being screwed out of the election and then he quit at the first available opportunity.

I probably disagree with Michael Moore as to whom would have been a better candidate, but I am SORELY disappointed in Kerry.

[shesemsmom]

8. Agreed

but how did *hrub do it.... he did it using FEAR. I'm afraid that none of us knows fear for what it really it yet

[Toby109]

31. Fear was, indeed, the deciding factor, IMO.

Fear got the Patriot Act passed. Fear got Bush his IWR vote before the midterms, which was crucial. Fear got it passed. Fear won the Repubs the midterm elections.

[shesemsmom]

34. And fear will turn it around in 2006

mark my words and wait to see. They will know what to really fear by then.

[tsuki]

119. Kerry came off as weak on defense. If you can't hold your own

against a bunch of Gravy Boaters, how can you defend the country.

He should have struck back.

Americans have a 'kick ass' mentality, Bruce Lee-Chuck Norris-etc. They don't understand withdrawing from the fray 'cuz it is ungentlemanly.

[LittleClarkie]

146. Why would we want Kerry to try to "out-cowboy" Dubya

He sure didn't seem week on defense in that first debate. That was quite humorous, the Republicans making that the first debate topic, figuring he'd be weak in that area. Instead he mopped the floor with the guy. Ah, memories.

I think when he started fighting back properly was about five seconds after the Repubs National Convention ended. Freaked them out, it did. They didn't quite know what to do with that midnight rally.

And the Temple speech, that was quite good. I was always tied to the computer at work though, so I don't have any idea how well or badly it was covered. Seems to me CNN had mysterious techie trouble about then, though. It was amazing how they'd find reasons to cut away from Kerry but show major "9/11...9/11...vote for me!" speeches in their entirety from the Shrub and bill them as important policy speeches.

Then there was that lovely press conference, but again I don't know how well that was covered. I wish Kerry would have done more than a couple of those too.

The Smear vets went away in the spring, I guess they expected them to do it again, as they always had in every Kerry campaign. But then, I think if Kerry hadn't featured his Brothers in the convention, they could have come out later during the Smear vet month and countered the bastards more effectively. They wouldn't have been old news by then themselves.

But I do agree in part. Kerry wanted to fight back; he shouldn't have listened to his advisors. He should have gone with his gut.

[tsuki]

148. To many it was not a matter of "out-cowboying" Dubya, it was a

matter of standing up to O'Neill. O'Neill is still out there getting press with the other gravy boaters, claiming they lost jobs and "speaking out for the truth" took a "personal" toll.

It's okay for us to know the truth, but the majority saw him not answer back forcefully, and that took a toll.

Maybe it's because I live in a Red area that I feel he should have said more. Everytime we tried to talk to people about it, they said that the allegations must be true or Kerry would be speaking out.

[Generator]

12. Hello-the young, the working class and the minorities did support

Kerry. I guess being rich disqualifies you to be a Democrat. That logic is assine.

I guess Bush is dirt poor-oh wait and he had a Daddy for Prez-that just got all the labor people to swoon.

[loyalsister]

152. Where?

The white poor and working class in Missouri- (THE bell weather swing state) was probably split. I talked to many who voted for Bush.
Unfortunately, Kerry didn't talk to them. He never said "not only do I want to help the middle class, I am also thinking about how this health insurance plan will benefit the working poor. I want you IN THE RED STATES to vote for me because I care about your economic interests." Not once did he sound like a populist.
Bush has the shell of a populist that people relate to. It's effective. They appeal to that demographic without policy offerings.
Kerry could have combated it, but the campaign didn't even make an effort. It was all about the middle class.

We were in the unfortunate position to be running against a dispicable human being, horrible, incompetent president, yet stellar candidate.
It makes for a race where we are in a position where we may believe it's all obvious that he should lose based on performance. But, that's not what campaigns are about. Get over your naivette, people. It was just a terrible race to have to run, and we were in a rotten position when searching for a candidate. To say that Kerry wasn't a "good one" is not so much a comment on him or what kind of president he might have been. It is commentary on how well he matched up against another guy's candidacy NOT presidency.
Bush was not running as the president, he was a candidate. It was all personality. People still like the guy. He gives me the creeps. But, there's a huge number of people who relate to him because they might have trouble pronouncing that word too. They like how he slouches, and how he looks like a tough guy sometimes. etc.
His body language is very everyman.
People pick up on that stuff and they LOVE it.
It's a terrible thing to have to combat in a campaign.

[Blue Wally]

171. I fully agree

"Bush has the shell of a populist that people relate to. It's effective."

"We were in the unfortunate position to be running against a dispicable human being, horrible, incompetent president, yet stellar candidate."

"It is commentary on how well he matched up against another guy's candidacy NOT presidency. Bush was not running as the president, he was a candidate. It was all personality. People still like the guy. He gives me the creeps. But, there's a huge number of people who relate to him because they might have trouble pronouncing that word too. They like how he slouches, and how he looks like a tough guy sometimes. etc. His body language is very everyman. People pick up on that stuff and they LOVE it."


I was in and around the Arny in opne form or another for 37 years of my life. I go from Eisenhower to Clinton. I have seen numerous DOD and DA cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries inb action as well as a large number of generals.

Draft-avoiding (not dodging) and National Guard failure to perform (not-AWOL) George Bush in his carrier landing and his Tahnksgiving surprize was far more impressive than fellow Vietnam vet John Kerry "reporting for duty". Bush knows how to "play the role" and John Kerry doesn't. Sometimes, you have to give the devil his due.

[K-W]

15. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy

Stick in the mud is a rather subjective term so I will ignore it.

You run a campaign in america as a liberal and just try to come off sounding good. They highten your flaws and focus on them.

The problem with this election was that the match was rigged in multiple ways and that the democratic message is wrong.

The candidate was not the problem. Had John Kerry gotten equal time and had a good message he would have won every state but Alabama.

[lateo]

28. Me too...

I remember some over-zealous Kerry supporters prior to November acting a bit extreme. Have they had their crow yet or are they still standing by there man?

[LittleClarkie]

79. Here's your answer:

I'm still standin'...



To 2008... and BEYOND!

[barb162]

39. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth too and got

"elected" (through vote fraud) despite being Mr. AWOL. I think Kennedy got the support of these groups and he was rich too. And look at FDR.

I wish Kerry had kept his messages shorter. I think he came off a lot better when he did and he came off clearer to a lot of people. When he won the Iowa primary he was fired up and magnificent. If he could have kept that level of spark (and maybe not listened to his handlers on the swifties) he'd be in.

[tsuki]

149. I thought it was around his neck.

[paulk]

52. The same way the Republicans did

They used the media to portray a super wealthy/son of privilage/dumb as a post/alcoholic/Ivy League graduate/faux cowboy/sadist as a jesus lovin' good ole boy you'd like to have a beer with...

But we don't have that kind of control over the media, so I guess we're just fucked.

It also doesn't help much when our own side buys the right wing spin and calls our candidate a stick in the mud.

[frankly_fedup2]

128. One question please. Do you really believe that those extra . . .

voters standing in the long lines were the Evangelical Christians and they gave Bush a mandate? Exit polls, which sometimes they use and sometimes they do not (I cannot understand what is the decision for them or not for them).

In the 2000 election, 12% Evangelical Christians voted. In the election of 2002, 12% Evangelical Christians voted. Also, in the election of 2004, AGAIN, 12% Evangelical Christians voted.

Now Falwell, every Sunday on the Old Time Gospel Hour brings up that Bush owes them (literally uses the word "owes"). He "owes" them for getting him placed in office. I think Rev. Falwell needs to understand that the Evangelical Christians did not get Bush
(s)elected, it was, again, voter disinfranchisement.

An example that has really stood out for me is the point of a particular country or 2 or 3 or 4, etc., in Ohio had the following irregularities.

(These are not the exact figures but can give everyone an idea of the extreme differences).

In Franklin County Ohio (for example -- which is Columbus), there are a total of 90,000 registered voters. When the counts were finalized, Bush had 90,000 votes while Kerry had 6,000. How can 100% of the votes of registered voters all go to Bush, and then 6,000 votes go to Kerry when there are not that many registered voters? That is a total of 96,000 votes. When you have 90,000 registered voters, the totals added together for Dems, Republicans, Independents, etc., cannot exceed the total number of registered voters. Something stinks here, don't you agree?

[K-W]

9. Because the media let Kerry make his case.

And the media didnt polish and shine Bush's case.
And the votes all got counted, especially the minority votes.
And Bush didnt have WWWWWAAAAAYYYYY more money.
And there werent plenty of voters this country who never heard an actual word out of John Kerry's mouth, but thought they knew what he was all about.


John Kerry was a perfectly good candidate who did a good job.

George W. Bush may have been the single worst presidential candidate of all time.

Our problem was not the difference between the abilities of the candidates. It might even be the last problem we have right now.

Our candidates are ideologically corrupt, they are still good politicians.

[mogster]

92. Good reasoning! n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I have to agree with him on that.

Sorry if I offend anybody.

[xultar]

16. Ditto

[Florida_Geek]

11. the only thing I have against Kerry

is HE should have been ready for the Swift Boat Liars, and hit them hard.


IMHO, Kerry was a very good candidate.

[K-W]

19. Kerry Followed the old rules of politics.

He did it far too often, but its hard to blame him. The republicans have thrown everything into a tailspin.

Normally you dont respond to an attack like that. You know it isnt true, you let your serogettes make the case and they squash it because its bullshit. You never give it the credit of a response.

But the media lied to the American people..

As the media gets worse and worse, the democrats are going to have a harder and harder time finding any way to respond to attacks.

[Maccagirl]

27. Yes, Kerry should have hit back hard

I guess he gave the average American voter too much credit to actually NOT believe lies. Then there was (as everyone has correctly pointed out)-the 'fear factor", a compliant media (all they ever said about the disinfomation campaign coming from Rove was Damn he's good!)and on and on. Michael Moore is wrong when he says that Kerry didn't have a compelling message and Bush did. The people that grabbed Kerry at rallies and told him their stories had compelling messages!

[InvisibleBallots]

112. so, we are blaming the voters now?

That's a winning strategy :eyes:

Kerry is a seasoned politician, richer than God, and knows all about Republicans. If he's too much of a "gentleman" to win elections, send his sorry ass back to the Senate and tell him to shut the hell up.

[AP]

13. MM may be right, but Kerry was the best one who ran.

[xultar]

25. That's for freak'n damn sure!

[GodHelpUsAll2]

45. What we need

to ask ourselves now is, If Kerry was the best one to run and we couldn't pull off a win against the worst ever then what do we do the next time and the next and the next.

Bush stole the election, the media is biased, they have more money, etc. etc. etc is not a sufficient reply. We have had 4 very long years to prepare for what we all KNEW (or should have known) was coming. The swift boat ads, the lies, the electronic voting machines etc. If the best defense that can be presented for the defeat Kerry seems to have readily accepted then we need to take a few steps back and take a long hard look in the mirror and recognize who is really to blame for the continual defeats. That would be us.

After 2000 we knew we could no longer trust the voting to be tallied honestly. We knew that Bush and his crew could not be trusted and we knew they had ass loads of money. However, Kerry managed to raise just as much and even have some left over so the money issue does not wash. Yet here we are in 2004, Bush is in for another 4 years, and the excuses for defeat are flying fast and furious. "He did pretty good considering what he was up against". "The media was not nice enough to Kerry and too nice to Bush". "Bush had more money" "Bush stole the election". And the list goes on and on and on. My few questions to those who use these reasons for this defeat.

1. Were you awake for the last 4 years? If so, how long did it take you to figure out Bush was not going to play by the rules?

2. When you did figure it out, what did you do to help combat it?

3. When you realized the media could not be trusted, did you from that point of realization on disregard EVERYTHING they were advising or did you pick and choose what was truth and what was not?

4. When did you realize electronic voting was a really bad idea? And what did you do to try and prevent it?

And that list of questions is very small. There are far more.

[LittleClarkie]

81. The weird thing is

Some of the more hardcore freeps I know think Bush is going to turn out to be the best president ever.

I think 9/11 did strange things to some people's psyches. I think being in the middle of a war resulted in the kneejerk "we can't change horses" response.

I get preached to an awful lot on the phone when I was phone canvassing. Granted Wisc. is a fairly strong pro-life state. But those were hard calls. There was no talking to some people.

Plus the folks I ran into here who kept calling all Dems socialists and communists. I don't think I've ever run into that before. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

I actually got called a Communist for supporting Kerry. I asked the guy if he wanted a one party system. He said no, he'd accept the Republicans as the left wing party and another party farther to the right of that. Frightening. The Freepers are scary people, and I was shocked to find out how many I live next to. And if you go to swiftvets.com, you'll see how many of them were on that bandwagon too. The Scary Kerry people are just strange. I don't even recognize their reality.

One of the bartenders at the pub just loves Cheney, for example. Thinks he's a tough son of a bitch. Another guy, a goth who plays roleplaying type games, wants to just nuke the Middle East. Crazy people. I live next to crazy people.

Of course, I do know some Republicans who are repulsed by their own party, but there aren't nearly enough of them.

How do you reason with crazy people.

[E_Smith]

87. Swifties did it?

My Dad is a Bush voter and Repub, and try as I might I couldn't get him to even give Kerry a second look. As bad as Bush was and is, there is no way in hell he would vote for Kerry based on the Vietnam stuff. He bought the swift boat liars hook line sinker.

I don't know how big of an effect the swifties had but I think many right wingers bought into Kerry the Commie.

[LittleClarkie]

95. Alot of them didn't need the Swiftees

He was already "Hanoi Johnny" as absurd as that was.

The scary thing is how many rank and file Republicans just fell into line with the far right talking points because they're, well, Republican and Bush is "their guy."

Bob Dole sold out a fellow veteran because Bush was "his guy."

I kept thinking, "There is no Republican truth and Democrat truth. A lie doesn't become the truth because it's being told by 'your guy'" Which is why any time the chickenhawks around me started joking about Kerry's medals, I'd blow a gasket. At least the veteran Republicans I know had more sense. The two I can talk to both say that Kerry served honorably. One has major issues with "The Testimony." The other doesn't even have problems with that, saying Kerry earned the right to say what he thought about the war considering he'd seen it first hand.

I couldn't believe how upset I got at my chickenhawk friends, or anyone who would say "Support the Troops!!" and then shit on the record of a war vet. I had no idea I felt that strongly about the issue. But then I'm the daughter of a Navy vet. And that Navy vet died this year. I think part of me has linked the two: my dad and Kerry, the Navy vets. I'm sure that's part of it. But the utter hypocracy just blows me away.

And yet there were "Veterans for Kerry" in every city. I'm starting to think it was an "enlisted guy" vs "the officers" thing. Kerry was one of very few officers who listened too and stood up for what was happening to the enlisted guys. And, being the little guys, I guess they also tended toward Dem.

Sadly, sometimes the Vets for Kerry were even on the outside looking in. In Mass. they would save his ass from attacks to his record. Nationally, they weren't enough. In fact, sometimes I wondered if they were looked at as being "less veteran" somehow, as if a "real vet" would never support Kerry. That sounds absurd, I know. But I watched at our State Fair as the vets opposed to Kerry got two tables, and the vets supporting Kerry weren't even invited to the "Veteran Day at the Fair" festivities. They just sort of hung out by the tent, wandering in every once in a while to engage the tent vets in discussion. I felt good standing by them that day, and watching them man the Democrat booth inside the main hall. But still it was sad to see the MIA people so dead set against "Hanoi Johnny."

I wish Kerry didn't have that baggage. But I'm also grateful for what it brought to the Iraq discussion. It was good to hear folks apply his famous quote to Iraq, and I heard more than one person call it "another Vietnam." I wondered if discussions about Iraq would be the same without that input. I don't know. But I think it was a valuable comparison.

I think that's why "Going Upriver" hit me so hard. There are some images in that movie that screamed "Iraq!" right down to a smiling face and a thumbs up next to a dead enemy.

It's late. Sorry if I'm rambling again.

[E_Smith]

127. good point

yes that's correct they didn't need the swifties, but they certainly reinforced everything they felt, and picked the scabs of vietnam to bring all those feelings back to the surface. My uncle is a war vet and despises Kerry. There is definitely a military code of honor that to many Kerry violated by what he did... there is just too much emotion there for some people to step back and see the big picture- that Vietnam was wrong, and Kerry was really fighting for the vets not against them. Even as history has validated Kerry's efforts, people from that era will not forgive. They would rather be wrong w/ honor than right. Isn't that sick?

[bunkerbuster1]

161. Spot on.

In many ways, the 2004 election was about Vietnam.

I recently read a chilling LTTE in my local hillbilly rag from a pig who acknowledged that Kerry's loss was "sweet revenge" for all those years of having to deal with all those uppity war protesters past and present.

I think we've underestimated just how important a factor this really was. I don't say that to dump on Kerry AT ALL--I still feel he was the right man to nominate of those who were running. But we were, collectively, naive about just how vocipherous the military brass would be about this uppity war protester. That's all they saw in Kerry--he was frozen in time, 1971, and this would not be allowed to stand.

I recall sometime in late spring, encountering a diehard Bushbot online claming that he'd heard rumbings from some of his VFW buds that there'd be information out that'd destroy Kerry. He was confident of this. I actually ridiculed him by saying it was an "empty threat."

I was so very wrong, and I wish we could've headed that off at the pass.

Not sure what we can learn by it--we don't get a do-over to fight the last battle, alas.

[bunkerbuster1]

160. Whence the context of this suspiciously short quote?

to wit: "Kerry was 'not the best candidate.'"

C'mon. Why are we falling for this SCLM crap? Enough wtih the circular firing squads, people. MM worked his balls off for Kerry. End of story.

[xultar]

14. Michael Moore Supported ---------CLARK! don't mean to offend

but he did. I think MM is right in this case.

[Sparkly]

17. Whether we did or we didn't, we picked a GOOD one

and any one of our candidates was wayyyyy above George W. Chimp!!! Kerry WAS a good candidate, imo.

[xultar]

20. Agreed! n/t

[Generator]

24. Yes and I think it's absurd that we expect

to find the perfect candidate. It isn't going to happen. Be realistic and dammit support your own-especially when we are down. I'm still looking for a recount in Ohio-though with little to no hope at this point.

Some of us aren't ready for our "own" representives to be kicking us in the teeth just yet. I would never say something bad about Kerry if I was a public Dem merely a month after losing. Why now? He can't wait...we have four fricking years to lose again.

[sendero]

107. I DID support Kerry...

... despite not being happy with his selection. I sent him money, I put up his signs.

But he failed. I don't support him any more. I would absolutely not vote for him in 2008 - he had his chance and does not deserve another IMHO.

Personally, out of the entire field I think Clark is head and shoulders above the rest. If he runs in 2008 we might have a chance. If Hillary or Kerry or another other "me too" "have a 20 year legislative record to distort" candidate gets the nomination you might as well not waste your time.

We need to break the mold and no establishment Senator is going to cut the mustard, that much I am absolutely sure of.

[barb162]

42. totally correct, but my cat is also a better candidate than shrub

[InvisibleBallots]

18. He's right - Kerry is a Loser

Kerry had everything going for him, and he screwed it up. If I was a more cynical person, I'd start talking about PNAC and Skull & Bones - but I won't.

Kerry FAILED, simple as that. It was up to him, he let us down, and then he gave up the first chance he got.

[xultar]

21. Let's not be all CRAZY now, Kerry isn't a loser n/t

[Redleg]

22. Typical b.s.- let's crucify the Dem candidate for not winning.

Kerry will soon be forgotten just like Gore.

[InvisibleBallots]

32. I'm not going to crucify Kerry

Kerry couldn't even be bothered to spend the hard earned money we gave him to try to win - he decided to keep it "for next time"?

Uh huh, sorry. Kerry lost, he is a loser, and he needs to stay in the Senate and let serious people run for President. Perhaps he can go windsurfing or something in his spare time.

At least Gore had the guts to FIGHT for a few weeks. Yes, he did conceed like a whimp, but at least he changed his mind and got back up to fight.

[Redleg]

57. Kerry put up with a bunch more shit than most of us would dare

put up with. I don't call him a loser.

[sendero]

108. I don't think of Kerry as a "loser"...

... but the talk of another run in 2008 rankles me.

If we as a party are that goddamned stupid we deserve to lose.

I wish Mr. Kerry a long and distinguished career in the senate.

[LittleClarkie]

84. The very least you could do is have your facts straight

He has coughed up money so far for Washington and Louisiana recounts, and his people are backing the Glibs in Ohio. He and his campaign have at least met with Madsen. Whether they believed his report is another matter.

He'll be setting up a PAC to help out other candidates as well in 2006, and to work for the issues that were important in this election, such as health care and social security.

He'll be going to Iraq in January.

He may have lost (still debating that) but he is not a loser. He was a serious person. Some said too serious. Apparently we want a good ol' boy dumbass we can have a beer with. Oh yeah, the Republicans ALWAYS pick serious people to run for President. That was the problem, uh huh ... uh huh.

(letting the windsurf crack lay there, as there is no civil way to address it without the top coming off my head)

Gore may have had guts, but his method got nowhere. Yeah, let's go that route again. Worked SO well last time.

Racing from candidate to candidate looking for the one who will win makes us look like we do indeed have no base values to hold on to and we just want to win. Well, if Kerry was my guy in 2004, then I see no reason to change for 2008. He's still a good man. And he would STILL make a magnificent president. And I STILL want to see that happen in my lifetime.

[InvisibleBallots]

113. are we all forgetting something here?

"He has coughed up money so far for Washington and Louisiana recounts, and his people are backing the Glibs in Ohio. He and his campaign have at least met with Madsen. Whether they believed his report is another matter."

Talk about a day late and a dollar short. Where was he BEFORE the election?

"He'll be setting up a PAC to help out other candidates as well in 2006, and to work for the issues that were important in this election, such as health care and social security. He'll be going to Iraq in January."

He's setting up a PAC with our money we donated to him? Okay, does he want a medal for this? He IS a politician right? Isn't this his JOB, isn't this what we pay him for?

"He may have lost (still debating that) but he is not a loser. He was a serious person. Some said too serious. Apparently we want a good ol' boy dumbass we can have a beer with. Oh yeah, the Republicans ALWAYS pick serious people to run for President. That was the problem, uh huh ... uh huh"

He is a LOSER - he LOST the election, and as far as I can tell, he barely even tried to win.

"(letting the windsurf crack lay there, as there is no civil way to address it without the top coming off my head)"

Fuck Kerry for looking like a fool during the campaign, what an amateur idiot.

"Gore may have had guts, but his method got nowhere. Yeah, let's go that route again. Worked SO well last time."

Uh, and Kerry's "method" is working so well?

"Racing from candidate to candidate looking for the one who will win makes us look like we do indeed have no base values to hold on to and we just want to win. Well, if Kerry was my guy in 2004, then I see no reason to change for 2008. He's still a good man. And he would STILL make a magnificent president. And I STILL want to see that happen in my lifetime."

Stick with a Loser, in other words. No wonder the GOP controls the WH, Congress, the SC, and most of the state governments.

[Redleg]

130. By your logic, Bush must therefore be a "winner."

Your reasoning is flawed.

[InvisibleBallots]

133. yes, Bush is a "winner"

He is the President isn't he? We can bitch and complain about cheating all we want, he's going to get sworn in again, and I'm sure Kerry will be there to shake his hand and congratulate him.

Did Bush cheat? Probably. So what are we going to do about it?

We know what Kerry is going to do about it - NOTHING.

[Redleg]

135. I can't see into the future as you can.

I am a bit disturbed at the simplicity of your winner versus loser argument. Must everyone be judged on the outcomes they receive? Do actions and intentions play no part in determining who is a winner or loser?

[InvisibleBallots]

139. when January 3rd comes...

If Kerry does anything worthwhile until then, I'll come right back here and apologize. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Redleg]

140. You may not be around here January 3.

If you get my drift... ;)

[InvisibleBallots]

142. sure, whatever

Republicans run the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and most state legislatures and governors. Democrats LOSE, over and over and over again. Maybe, just maybe, Democrats are doing something WRONG?

Yeah, bitch at me - like *I'm* the problem. Don't forget to tell American voters how stupid they are too - that *always* works.

[Redleg]

143. I never said you're the problem or that American voters are stupid.

I do think that many people who supported Bush were mis-informed about many fundamental issues. Of course, watching Fox News will do that to a person.

[LittleClarkie]

132. Still a bit reality challenged there, dude

Well, more than a bit, actually.

Let's see now...

"Talk about a day late and a dollar short. Where was he BEFORE the election"

Lining up 17000 lawyer volunteers to fight a 2000-style voter suppression and fraud fight. The problem is, if you believe Madsen, they should have been criminal lawyers. But hey, you don't get to pick and choose volunteers. Some say that Kerry has a blind spot when it comes to conspiracy theories. His eyes would glaze over when someone would talk about the election being stolen with the Diebold machines. I think he gets it now.

They were prepared, but for the wrong thing.

"He's setting up a PAC with our money we donated to him? Okay, does he want a medal for this?"

No, but if you could take him down off that cross, he's surely appreciate it.

"He IS a politician right? Isn't this his JOB, isn't this what we pay him for?"

It's not his job to set up a PAC. It's his job to be a Senator. The PAC is just a signal that he will continue to fight for the issues he considers important.

And he is NOT setting up the PAC with money we donated. He CAN'T set it up with money we donated. It has to be FRESH money. It won't be your DONATED money unless you DONATE it again. He's using money we donated for Washington and Louisiana. Ya got a problem with that?

"He is a LOSER - he LOST the election, and as far as I can tell, he barely even tried to win."

Uh huh. He worked his ass off. I was in one of those battleground states. Trust me. He worked his ass off. Don't go all revisionist here. Mistakes I can believe, but don't tell me he wasn't trying out there. He was. I saw him bounce from Wisconin to Ohio and back again in two days, among other things. If you didn't see him, it's because the press wasn't reporting it, not because he wasn't out there.

"Fuck Kerry for looking like a fool during the campaign, what an amateur idiot."

(must. not. get. deleted.)

"Uh, and Kerry's "method" is working so well?"

Jury's still out. And the time frame for success is not before January. It's before the next election. Hopefully 2006, but if not, then 2008. Info gathering followed by election reform is what I'm looking for at the very least. That's probably not going to happen in a month. I'm not expecting it.

"Stick with a Loser, in other words. No wonder the GOP controls the WH, Congress, the SC, and most of the state governments."

What the hell, it would be a novel approach. What do you mean "no wonder." We never stick with a "loser." We always race from one candidate to another, looking for a winner. If we ALWAYS stuck with a loser, and we always lost, you'd have a point. You don't have a point here.

He. is. not. a. loser. He is a good man, with a lousy PR department. And I'm sticking with him. Do what you like.

[Redleg]

136. Excellent rebuttal.

EOM

[InvisibleBallots]

137. talk about reality challenged

All I'll say is this - when Kerry shows up with Bush in January's inauguration to congratulate him on his "win" - well, you stick with the loser okay?


"Fuck Kerry for looking like a fool during the campaign, what an amateur idiot."

"(must. not. get. deleted.)"

This is the most important part, here. I want to say it again, clearly. FUCK KERRY for looking like an idiot, and for playing into the media's hands. If Kerry didn't want to look like an idiot, he shouldn't have invited photographers to snap pictures while he cavorted around in Martha's Vineyard. If Kerry didn't want to play the "symbolism" game, he didn't have to - but he did, and he looked like a fool.

Besides, what evidence is there that Kerry is a "good man" anyway? He is a decent Senator, but that doesn't mean I'd invite him to my house or anything.

Different values, is all.

[LittleClarkie]

144. It better not be the most important part

because if windsurfing mattered more than people dying, we're really in trouble.

I like the rebuttle I found here:

http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001859.html

"'He should stick to windsurfing analogies...' (said) Jennifer Millerwise, a Bush campaign spokeswoman. A Wisconsin professor even got in on the act: 'It sort of plays into the perception, right or wrong, that people think John Kerry is an opportunist who when he is not out windsurfing comes in to try to be a regular guy,' said Ken Goldstein, a professor at the University of Wisconsin.

...so what the hell's the deal with wind surfing? When did it become some sort of elitist endeavor? The Bushies obviously haven't spent any particular time around any common windsurfing locations and have apparently picked up this windsurfing theme from the Travel Channel, where only the beautiful people are shown traveling to exotic locations and doing exotic things. They are, of course, nuts, but they may get away with it because there are a lot of places in the country (one would suspect Wisconsin is one of them) where people don't go windsurfing, don't know much about it because it's a relatively recent sport, and probably view it as something only rich people do in exotic places....

...which is, of course, stupid. Just a couple of driving hours from this keyboard lies the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon/Washington border, considered to be one of the premier windsurfing locations in the world because of its reliable winds. Even a cursory review of the various riverside parking lots where the boardheads gather would lead even a Republican operative to one of two conclusions: either the weathly patrician class trends heavily toward the use of small used imported cars or a motley collection of vans for their transport, OR windsurfing is actually a rather egalitarian sport attracting people from across the social and economic spectrum, kind of like... oh,... say... SNOW SKIING. That is really what wind-surfing is, a summer extension of skiing for those who have access to areas to do it. The equipment cost isn't excessive and there aren't additional costs (like lift tickets) to add to the burden; the cost even compares quite favorably to expense incurred by a well-turned-out Republican NRA-supporting hunter....

...I mean, c'mon, pinheads; Kerry skis at Aspen, too. Why not make fun of that, or are you afraid of upsetting all the rich Republicans who engage in that pastime? Smarmily smug spokespersons really should take care in how they frame their comments; there are way more windsurfers than there are cheese heads and, while they don't give a damn about Lambeau Field, they just might take exception to you characterizing their outdoor entertainment as some sort of snooty patrician indulgence..."

The beginning of the rant started with the "Lambert Field" gaff, which is why the author talks about Wisconsin. The only thing I would add is that, with all the lakes we have, there are plenty of windsurfers in Wisconsin too.

If the press had crawled up Bush's butt with the same microscope that they used on the Kerry campaign (ew...) it would be different. But Kerry couldn't get an even break. If he didn't have the press around, they balked. When he did have him around, they looked for ways to make him look like an elitist. No win.

On the elitist talking point: I was just reading a letter from an Iraqi War soldier, the nephew of a co-worker who puts his emails out for us to read. They said morale was a bit down because they've been extended a month, and that it's getting cold over there. Some have the flu, so they're nursing themselves with green tea. Why, those damned elitists! Green tea??!! How dare they flaunt their patrician upbringing! :eyes:

[Redleg]

147. And what an honor it would be for Kerry to visit your house.

Ohh- that's a bit harsh, isn't it.

[The Flaming Red Head]

26. I actually liked and respected Kerry until he conceded

I think he won. Mike sounds like he's running for office now. What office, I'm not sure, (maybe mayor of Holly-weird) but he's starting to sound like all the rest of them and that's not good.

[Generator]

30. I know and I agree with his basic premise

Moore did us far far more good than harm. I want MM fighting for us. But he could have used the time in the interview to point out the many failings of the leader we have..or the media..or whatever..but he personally put it on Kerry.

[The Flaming Red Head]

56. Kerry won all the debates. He was good. I wish he had stayed in it.

This was NO mandate, this was the most rigged election in history, and I am surprised that it's only US little people who realize it.

[Caution]

29. Moore came out for Clark well beforethe primaries started

so why would this statement surprise anyone?

[SmokingJacket]

33. I love MM.

But come on. We NOMINATED the guy. Several guys were up for grabs. We picked KERRY.

Ugh. Too late for monday morning quarterbacking.

Anyway... what STORY is B** supposed to have told?

I think MM is either on drugs, or he's telling a story because something else is going on.

[karlrschneider]

35. From a sort of unique perspective, from Oklahoma, I agree somewhat

my state is...how can I put it?...weird. Mostly nowadays "dixiecrats" I guess. Wes Clark won the primary big time, and I THINK he very well may have carried the vote on the prez ticket. Not that I have anything against Kerry, (look at my yard signs) but his persona didn't resonate with Oklahoma voters, D or R that much...there were -very few- signs up around here (eastern OK, Wagoner Co) for either side. Chimp easily 'won', as predicted, but I haven't found very man people actually admitting to have voted for him.

All of which continues to leave us with a :wtf:

[JohnKleeb]

88. actually your state primary was quite close if you recall

Now I think Clark coulda possibly done better in Oklahoma, I doubt he could carry it though, pretty tough task, I dont know, and we won't know.

[Selatius]

36. Any candidate against Bush was GOOD, duh, people

Whether or not Kerry was good is not the issue. The issue was the campaigning and electioneering itself. Kerry got blown out of the water with the Swift Shit Ads. He froze in the headlights, and he had to rely on the debates to bounce him back, but at the end of the day, the fact that he froze when the president says we need somebody who is firm and decisive probably made him lose the election by 3,500,000 votes. Jacking 135,000 votes in Ohio won't change 3,500,000. Want to know why he won?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

There's your damn answer.

[nascarblue]

165. Nice quote, that IS the answer... (Nazi expert Dr. Rice knows too)

All you have to do is read about Germany in the 30's and 40's to know where Bush and Cheney are going. After all, wasnt it COndi Rice who wrote a book about post war Germany that got her Dr. moniker?

[suka]

37. MM

How come on Leno, MM said that Bush won because he got more votes????
How come he's not vocal about the recount?? He's almost silent??
Any guesses?

[Pastiche423]

38. I agree 100% w/Michael

What was Kerry's story? (Besides not being whistle ass?)

[tjdee]

43. Oh my word, we're agreeing again.

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

53. lol!

Kinda scary, ain't it?

[K-W]

44. Kerry's story was clear and generally right.

Kerry was a war hero with a long career representing the American people. He told a story of a good nation being led down the wrong road. He pointed out the mistakes made by Bush and critisized him strongly. He talked about returning to fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. He talked about removing the tax cut for the very wealthy. He talked about making the military more efficient and fully funding education.

He talked about alot of things. The media didnt really mention that many of them. It twisted them, lied about them, and misstated them until even in the heads of most democrats Where There's Smoke There's Fire Syndrome convinced them that while the media was bad, something must be really wrong with Kerry too.

Edit: His message was bad, but the platform was bad. It wasnt him as a candidate that was the problem. Face it folks, Kucinich just doesnt work for most of America right now. Weve got to resell liberalism to alot of the nation.

[tjdee]

50. Why did he vote for the war,then say wrong war/whatever Bush harped on?

I know why, you know why, but whatever you tell me will be MUCH better than what he said whenever he was asked.

He never, never, never gave a "clear" answer to that or most of the Iraq questions, it used to drive me up the wall.

I do figure most folks got it, because I do believe he won narrowly, but I guess my point is that Kerry wasn't the clearest guy in the world on every issue.

[K-W]

58. How many times was Bush's message confusing?

Yes, on that ONE issue the particular course of events left Kerry in a rhetorically difficult position.

Bush changed positions by the audience he talked to.

The media talked about nothing but Kerry's confusing vote (which anyone one tv should be more than educated enough to understand) and never mentioned the fact that Bush was just talking out of his ass.

He wasnt perfect.
Maybe a different candidate could have won, we never know.
He was a great candidate.
He did a very good job.

His party was ideologically rotten and the entire playing field was massively rigged against him.

He was more than good enough to beat Bush, we need to fix the playing field and we need to fix the party. If we do that we wont have to worry about finding a superman to run for president

[tjdee]

40. That's why a number of us supported other candidates, duh.

We didn't find him to be the best candidate.
But he was leaps above Bush. But then, so is a block of cheddar.

As for the more compelling story, that's pretty funny. Bush told some stories, alright.

[Geek_Girl]

46. Kerry was a good candidate but

I don't think he had the best team. If we want to do better we have to have the best team possible behind the candidate, it's not enough to just have a good candidate.

If you look at the machine that keeps W. in Power it's pretty amazing it's not just the RNC, it's the GOP, Corporate America, former Washington officials with a lot of power and money, it's the religious churches, Priest and Pastors stumping from the pulpit, the NRA, a 24 hour cable news channel pimping his policies, a small army of hate mongering political pundits.

What do we got a crappy DNC, some union endorsements, couple of 527's Michael Moore, and rock the vote. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.

[Taxloss]

47. I agree with MM.

I was aghast when you picked Kerry, close to saying so here, then I saw how someone else got flamed for doing so and appreciated the need to support the candidate. I have never once, until now, criticised Kerry on DU. But the man was clearly wrong. As Charlie Brooker said, he spoke "like a haunted tree". If Bush mangles his sentences, Kerry wrecked them with over-qualification. Plus, he was the perfect Liberal stereotype, but would never be drawn to defend the fact that he's a liberal!

I am no fanatic fan of MM, but I think most Democrat sympathisers in the UK would say the same thing.

Oh, Lord, and all those awful pictures of him in lycra and cleansuits and so on ... Bush's bruises from mountain biking just make him look more manly to the rednecks. Kerry wearing protective equipment made him look effeminate. I know that's fucked up, but that's the way it is. You would never get a British prime minister or leader of the opposition into lycra or a cleansuit. Never. Although there is a hilarious picture of the DPM in a wetsuit ...

[Generator]

55. I'm sorry you never saw him in person

He didn't speak like a tree. Also, sorry, but Kerry standing next to Bush makes Bush look like a child-pipsqueak comes to mind. But that's all terribly subjective.

I think mainly it was the propaganda. It reeks. Bush manly???

And unfortunatly, he wasn't the perfect liberal sterotype. That was more spin, more propaganda. He wasn't for gay marriage, he voted for the dreaded Iraq War resolution. He hunts. He actually went to Vietnam. (Clinton nor Dean did) He was unique. And frankly, I'm still admiring Kerry more than I like most of my "fellow Americans."

The fact that anyone voted for Bush shows the caliber of intelligence in this country. I used to think America was great. I don't anymore. It's in denial. And nothing is worse than someone in denial.

[October]

59. Really...I agree...no comparison!

Michael Moore is off the mark here.

Bush had a more compelling story to tell? Story? Lies, maybe!!!

More Monday morning quarterbacking.

[InvisibleBallots]

118. I've seen Kerry in person

He does speak like a tree, he's is boring as hell, and has zero charisma.

"And frankly, I'm still admiring Kerry more than I like most of my "fellow Americans.""

That's interesting. I admire my fellow Americans over politicians generally. Different values I guess.

"The fact that anyone voted for Bush shows the caliber of intelligence in this country. I used to think America was great. I don't anymore."

"Blame the voters" - yeah, that always works :eyes:

[Generator]

138. Yeah if the voters pick a lying, idiot warmonger

Then they get what they deserve don't they? Glad you are happy with the voters choice. If they actually picked Bush-I call them at the very least uniformed-if not dumb. What do you call them?

Yes, I do blame people for their actions. George W. Bush is not worthy of the presidency. He is the illegitmate choice from 2000-a man that would never have won the presidency on his own inteligence, courage, or vision, or have gotten into Yale, or gotten out of going to Vietnam and possibly dying if his Daddy wasn't rich and wasn't well connected in politics.

Will you still being admiring your fellow Americans if we are involved in countless more wars, if this country is bankrupt and the middle class disapears to be replaced by a ruling class that I'm sure you have no chance of ever being a part of? If the air, the water is so polluted your children are dying of diseases for which they don't even recognize yet?

Hell yes, I blame you if you actually voted for George Bush. You shall reap what you sow.

[LittleClarkie]

150. How close to the election did you see him?

When I saw him in June on C-Span, he bored me to tears. It got gradually better the closer he got to the election. By the time we got to late September and into October, he kept me awake quite easily.

I saw him in person too, on November 1st. I was impressed by how he tried to stop and listen to each person who wanted to speak to him as he went by shaking hands. I got a quick squeeze, but then I was a row or so back. One woman next to me asked him to help get her son home from Iraq, and he said he would. When I turned around, she was in tears.

btw, he may be a politician, but he is ALSO one of your fellow Americans.

We don't blame all the voters, just about 50% of them. You have to admit some people vote for president based on the flimsiest of reasons.

[bvar22]

48. TPTB in the Democratic Party fielded the candidate....

...that would least offend the republicans and DLC, and would help furhter the goals of the CorpoEstablishment should he get elected.

[lenidog]

49. I have to agree with him

Kerry was not the best candidate. There isn't anything wrong with him there just isn't anything great about him. He was medicore.

[deminflorida]

51. He's right, Clark was the Best Candidate...and after Dean's blow

up in Iowa, Clark would have been the logical choice for Democrats in New Hampshire as well.

The liberal side of the party tried to over-reach. I they couldn't have Dean, then the New England Liberal would have to do.

Kerry did well, and I supported him. But in the end, he had too many angles for the bastards to attack. The Jane Fonda bullshit I saw coming a mile away.

Oh well, we were bitten in the ass. Moore is crazy like a fox. He was on the right guy's bandwagon from the beginning.

Clark may be our only hope in 2008 as well. However if we don't win back some Senate seats in 2006, there may be no hope for us for a generation or so.

[Columbia]

72. Dean did not blow up in Iowa

The media over-amplified his mic and filtered out the audience screaming.

[nascarblue]

170. Yeah, that was a dirty trick they pulled on Dean (NT)

[Moloch]

54. Oh God...

Maybe we should have nominated Michael Moore instead?

Kerry did a great job, and he WON.

[politicasista]

60. I want to scream and rant.

:argh:

[goodboy]

63. It was a KERRY landslide VICTORY...bush stole it...that's it. (nt)

[Cookie wookie]

65. I disagree, but maybe Moore is just

reeling from the way he's being treated by the Democratic leadership. They are being hideous to him. And he was a Nader supporter in 2000.

Moore is still a hero in my book and always will be, but I do think of all the candidates Kerry was the best and also that Kerry won.

[UpsideDownFlag]

69. remember, MM endorsed CLARK. he never said he was a kerry man.

he was, in my opinion, THE figurehead for the ABB vote.

[zeek]

73. What needs to change is who we let speak for Dems

The fact that Michael Moore is thought of as the face of the modern democratic party is the problem.

His "story" was not entirely factual, wholly one sided and correctly dismissed as propaganda by the most voters. Getting more to do more for the part will not help.

[Cookie wookie]

99. He wasn't "speaking for Dems"

He was telling the truth about * and the war, when there was almost no voice whatsoever about it.

He was fighting for and standing up for average Americans (and for peace in the world), like he has always done.

Who thinks of him as the "face of the modern democratic party" except those who are influenced by propaganda written by the lying bloody corporate media or Karl Rove?

He may be what I wish the modern democratic party was about, but their leadership thinks they should be *-lite instead. We wouldn't be haggling about whether Kerry really won the election if what Moore has said and done was the true face of the Dem party, if they really represented the people and fought for our civil rights and protecting our vote and preserving our Constitutional rights. Kerry would have gotten so many votes that his win would have been overwhelming.

And what "story" by Moore "isn't factual?"

[mb7588a]

74. All this from a former Nader supporter.

Hush up, Mike. Stick to bashing Republicans, not us.

[T Town Jake]

75. I think Kerry was an excellent candidate...

...I don't really know what I believe about the voter fraud investigations at this point. Much of the evidence is troubling and should be looked into; OTOH, a fair number of the folks whose claim to fame is supposedly investigating such fraud have turned out to be frauds themselves, IMO (i.e., Bev Harris).
But I think snarking on John Kerry is neither fair nor accurate; he ran a damn good campaign. Whether he just fell short or was cheated - or some combination of the two, which is the most plausible scenario to me at this point - remains to be seen.

[LittleClarkie]

97. Yes, and I think other saw it too after the first debate

We were overrun by volunteers that hadn't been there the day before. Kerry HQ was a freaking zoo that day, full of people volunteering and grabbing yard signs and other swag. It was wonderous.

After a slow start, he looked like a winner. He didn't feel like a Dukakis; He felt like a Clinton. We were so damn sure.

I think it was a combination of hate-mongered GOTV in the form of DOMA amendments, suppression of the Dem areas with use of the provisional ballots and fewer machines despite everyone knowing turnout was going to be insane, and in some cases either faulty or tweeked electronic machines. Machines that stopped counting at a certain point, or that defaulted to Bush (and those were the obvious bits) make me wonder if they were just buggy as all hell, or indeed designed that way.

I think Kerry got gamed, and that only part of those votes lost are recoverable. The votes not cast are not recoverable. The votes flipped won't be recoverable until we can get more concrete, non-circumstantial evidence.

All in all, I think to flip the results would be just about right: 51% Kerry, 49% Bush. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Overall, I think Kerry was a wonderful candidate with the world's worst PR department.

[agincourt]

77. The repigs could run an onion and a turnip,

and we could run a Washington-Lincoln ticket and still lose. The candidate cannot carry the whole weight of the campaign against the tidal wave of RW sewage. My God, Bush is an empty suit surrounded by pit bulls, for crying out loud. It's parties and media that control the message, that win elections, not messiahs out of the blue mist.

[JI7]

78. Bush didn't have any compelling story

he made empty statements like "you know where i stand" "i say what i mean" and other emptly meaningless shit.

yet when asked questions about things like Iraq it was Kerry who was most specific and talked about additional troops while Bush's answer was things like "the Generals haven't asked me about it".

[SemiCharmedQuark]

120. YES! Geez, why hasn't anyone else picked up on that?

Bush has a more compelling story? Only in that it reads like a crime novel (see Kitty Kelly's book). That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. If people had really listened to his "story" he would never have been elected.

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. MM is right....

Wes Clark > John Kerry

[E_Smith]

89. YES

I supported Clark in the primary simply because I KNEW he had the best chance to beat Bush. If electability was the factor everyone was looking for, why would we pick Kerry? Clark is from Arkansas and is a war general... what was so complicated about this.

Clark screwed himself by not running in Iowa. Then Michael Moore calling Bush a deserter on stage with Clark didn't help IMO. Clark refused to distance himself from Moore after that and it seemed like that might have hurt his momentum.

[Robin Hood]

82. I saw Moore on Leno recently.

And he was shoving that garbage then. He is provong to me that despite his best efforts, he is just as big of a babboons ass as his jilted lover Ralph Nader. With friends like these, I don't need no enemies.

[Dorian Gray]

83. Wow...

Just, wow...

Why didn't Moore say this before the election?

[LittleClarkie]

86. You're kidding, right?

He should start campaigning for Bush right before the election? "Yeah, we don't have the best candidate, America."

Oye.

[babylonsister]

85. You people are so wishy-washy!

Dammit! Days before 11/2 Kerry mighta/coulda/shoulda/ and MM was at the forefront of the effort. Regardless of who ran and who won (which remains a ? in my mind), the message was there and 1/2 of America wasn't buying it because of this war, religion, whatever. They will rue the day they decided on their candidate. MM is not the know-all, see-all savior of us. He made a terrific effort as did many Dems, but hopefully lessons have been learned. In any event, I think in 4 years Repugs will be screaming for some realism in their political lives, because the truth will also effect their lives in general.

[ever_green]

90. I agree with him.

We didn't pick the best candidate. Dean was the best, but we didn't have a say in who got the nomination. It's pretty clear to anyone who lifts off the blinders. I think we've gotten so used to defending Kerry that we've lost sight of what matters. Kerry was pro-war. During the election, I convinced myself that "we have to stay in Iraq...etc.." but now, I'm seeing things more clearly.

[jonnyblitz]

91. I agree.

oh well.

[ecstatic]

93. Had Kerry been a *strikingly* good candidate

The American public would have picked up on the voting machine fraud and raised hell. But since Kerry was a lukewarm candidate, we can't even get our own Dems to acknowledge that the machines were most likely tampered with.

[The Traveler]

94. Kerry was not my first choice either

I would have preferred Clark or Dean. Kerry was quite a good candidate though, and while I have serious doubts about certain elements of his staff and the party apparatus supporting him I thought he and Edwards did a pretty good job.

And every day, the "mandate" looks smaller ...

Even eliminating the prospect of voting fraud, even assuming we legitimately lost how can we say we did not take it to the ruling party? An incumbent President damn near lost this thing. We didn't win, but only an idiot is blind to the opportunities made evident in the manner of our loss.

We need to turn our focus NOW to getting ready for the congressional midterm elections. We need to keep working on the fraud issue. We need to consider the observations of people like Moore who know how to get their message across and learn from our mistakes. We need to stop tearing down progressive Democrats who dare to express themselves. We need to keep discovering and telling the truth.

Dean is right. We won't get anywhere (except possibly the wrong place) by becoming more Republican.

[Q]

96. Moore was very supportive of Kerry during the campaign...

...but like all of us...he has a right to his opinion after the fact.

Hell...I watched the campaign very closely...and even I was unsure of Kerry's message. He was sending conflicting messages on several issues...including the Iraq 'war'.

[sadiesworld]

98. I agree with MM...

but he should have kept the criticism to himself.

OTOH, knowing our liberal media it was probably in response to a direct question (during a lengthy interview) and, of course, the reporter lead with the statment.

[harpboy_ak]

100. Moore is right, Dean should have been the candidate

sadiesworld:

"I agree with MM but he should have kept the criticism to himself.
OTOH, knowing our liberal media it was probably in response to a direct question (during a lengthy interview) and, of course, the reporter lead with the statment."

Michael has as much right to free speech as anyone. When he was talking to Leno, he was responding to an off-hand question "why do you think bush won?"

And he's right. Wrong candidate, wrong message, too damn much waffling and trying to be Repuke Lite. WE NEED CANDIDATES THAT STAND FOR SOMETHING instead of trying to be bland.

[LittleClarkie]

145. It would be more fun for me if Dean had been the candidate

Then I'd be the one saying "Kerry should have been the candidate" and you could be the one saying "But Dean didn't lose! It was stolen! He was a good candidate! The media was against him!"

He wasn't TRYING to be Repub lite. Don't blame him if you nominated a New Democrat hawk. He am what he am.

[DemonFighterLives]

103. I agree with Moore

It is not just about Kerry being not right. We had to swallow his War vote. We had to watch Dean get shot down. A Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket would have had much more jomentum.
Dems had to answer to every flip-flop and try to explain the nuanced war vote/funding no-vote. We had to sit back and watch the swifties poke him in the eye and the AWOL* story just died. Top it off with a quick concession and now it appears that we are stuck with *.
I'm sill waiting for the election fiasco to come to light-Conyers on C-span this morning.

Moore also stating that the righties were arrogant in their "win" and that they will overreach. Can't wait. Everyone loves hollywood- Arnold=the most rediculous excuse for changing the policy of foreigners to be able to be president.
Guess I'm on a little roll here, sorry.
B*sh s*cks
Arnold s*cks
Kerry much better.

[Catchawave]

104. I supported Edwards....

...then went ABB, but eventually warmed up to Kerry and gave him my 110%.

[Killarney]

105. I don't think anyone else from the primaries would have

done better than Kerry did.

Was he the best candidate from the Democratic Party? Probably not. Was he the candidate with the best chance from all those who ran? Yes.

All the candidates had their pros and cons. The only thing I hold against Kerry is that he waited to long to respond to the swifties. Other than that, I think he/we did our best.

We may think that Bush is an idiot warmongering loser, but half the country worships this guy. They think he's the best president ever--president cowboy, out killing the terrorists every day. No matter who we put up, there's a large segment of the population that's just fucking stupid and would never vote for a Democrat if their life depended on it.

[loyalsister]

154. I totally agree

I don't think we had anyone in the primaries who could have done it. It makes me sick that so many people buy his routine.
As Moore said, one of the reasons not to slit our wrists is that he can't run again.
Now is the time to focus on getting 2006 and 2008 right.

[OneTwentyoNine]

106. Instead of trashing Kerry how about a documentar on rigged Voting machines

Eh...Moore?? I think that would be energy better spent.

[IrateCitizen]

124. Yeah. Then his film might reach a whole audience of...

... the few thousand people who actively follow this issue.

It might make you feel good, but it will do little to reach those normally not exposed to ideas outside of the mainstream media.

Moore's strength is that he is able to push ideas that aren't covered in the mainstream to people who exist completely insulated by the mainstream. Judging by his results, I think he knows a bit more about bridging this gap than an anonymous poster on an internet discussion board.

[Amaya]

109. Shoveling shit against the tide

nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Mike's right. Kerry was a weak candidate corrupted by his IWR vote.

Not to mention a lousy and pandering campaign.

[MadHound]

115. Moore is right, Kerry wasn't our best bet

We need a real change in this country, and Kerry was another cookie cutter candidate, corrupted by the two party/same corporate master system of government, and voting with the 'Pugs on too many important issues(IWR, Patriot Act, etc etc ad nauseum). His attempts to justify this collaboration left him vunerable to the label of "flip-flop" which just about closed the deal, and his inaction on the Swift Boat Liars simply nailed the door shut.

I truly think that Dennis Kucinich would have won for the Dems if they had gotten behind him, but sad to say, the Democratic "leadership" is too rife with corporate corruption to even consider somebody who is genuinely offering a change, and whose position on issues is slightly to the right of FDR. In fact I think that if FDR ran, these modern Dems would disown him, sad to say.

Moore is spot on with this one, and it is nice to see some people still telling it like it truly is. The Democratic party hasn't done that for decades, in fact the very opposite, and that is what will lead the party to ruin.

[Tinoire]

116. Moore's totally correct

Democrats hell-bent on maintaining the corporate status quo, justify this and future wars/occupation, foisted a candidate on us who put too many people to sleep.

If you can't fit your slogan on a bumper sticker in this country forget it! And not only couldn't we do that with Kerry but you needed an encyclopedia to decipher all his flip-flopping crap that his supporters kept insisting was clear "code-speak" that they bent over backwards to translate into what they thought people wanted to hear depending on which audience he/they were speaking to.

Hate Bush all you want people but recognize that Bush had the WISDOM of showing himself doing "common-man" things like splitting wood. Kerry? Windsurfing. Hunting. Water-skying. Oh great! Windsurfing is just what will resonate with the ordinary man at a time when people are working harder than ever to keep less than ever before.

Go Mike. You got that one exactly right!

[leesa]

121. Well the corporate media picked him for us, so it's no surprise

He ran a good campaign though despite the RW propaganda stating the contrary(which most Dems seem to fall for every time they do it). So instead of being proud and working on the tremendous gains we have made by shifting left, we beat ourselves up and try to appease our RW masters by becoming more like them. Who do you suppose that benefits? In many ways, by shifting hard right, the Dems have allowed the neocons to take over because we have made fascism more trendy.

[Lost4words]

157. I agree leesa, the media engineered JK getting the nomination.

I truly think Dean or Edwards would have done better. And after watching JK's reaction to this mess I am sure he was the wrong one.

We need a fighter not an establishment weenie. Kerry has so much god damn money he has no fucking idea how bad things are getting down here in middle/working/poverty class land.

John Kerry owes us an apology IMHO!

8643

[Javaman]

123. What compelling story? All he said was fear and terror.

If he actually had something relivent to say, I would have listened, but the guy just talks in sound bites.

[IrateCitizen]

125. Are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

The #1 need is SECURITY. It trumps all else. Although the narrative engaged by the Republicans seems irrelevant to those of us who know better, it still resonates among the majority of the population, who do not have either the time or inkling to investigate issues as much as we do.

[rman]

129. How good a candidate do you need to offset a rigged election?

Does MM really think Kerry would not have been elected instead of Bush if there would have been no election fraude?

[VOX]

131. Note to MM: As long as the right wing controls the media...

Where will a Democratic candidate catch a break? Faux? CNN? MSNBC? The networks? Remember what Viacom's (owner of CBS, MTV, Paramount Pictures, etc.) CEO -- self-defined "liberal Democrat" Sumner Redstone -- said before the election: "From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal, because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. I vote for what’s good for Viacom." **That's** the prevailing media climate, and it's inherently hostile to Democrats.

The Swiftboat Liars got a ton of shrift on the cable-news outlets, as did the trumped-up charges of "flip-flopper." It was almost all anti-Kerry, all the time. It was difficult to deliberately seek out some **neutral** coverage on Kerry during the campaign. It got to the point where any noodle-brained Wal-Mart shopper could recite the GOP talking points in his sleep.

Does MM, or anyone else for that matter, believe that Wes Clark, or John Edwards, or Howard Dean (good men all), or whoever, could have survived this relentless and deliberate non-stop shredding process?

The Democrats could have run Jesus Christ himself, and the right-wing media would have spun him into a crisp.

[Lost4words]

159. Carl Rove knew that shit would stick to JK

like his post anti Viet Nam stuff. ( which I respect him for BTW)

His wifes money, his money.

Dean, Clarke and or Edwards would have fought back. Kerry has been around too long with too much history and more vulnerable to attack than the other candidates, even if the GOP attacks were untrue.

I voted for JK and supported him 100% after the nomination. The outcome was no surprise to me.

[mike_c]

134. I was never impressed by Kerry...

...and in fact did not vote for him. Personally, I think choosing a candidate that was terminally compromised on the war issue was foolish.

[bullimiami]

151. BUSH IS AN IDIOT.

Kerry was a billion times better candidate.

Its the emporers new clothes for sure. Even MM apparently cant acknoledge it.

[The Minus World]

155. Kerry was NOT the best candidate.

The best candidate is probably working somewhere far afield of the political track; shaking his or her head at the state of American politics, and bemoaning the fact that our presidential races have become nothing more than insubstantial processions - like torch-passings from one pro-free market, supercapitalist candidate to another; each man possessing superficially partisan features which can be used to distinguish himself from his opponent.

In a truly Democratic system, the race would not be restricted to a competition between two popular parties - both of which can attribute their "popularity" to PR campaigns and donations alone - with both candidates making a complete mockery of their respective group's core principles.

Don't get me wrong - the more I learned about Kerry and his hand in exposing BCCI, the more I liked him. Sadly, I believe that Moore is correct; however, his bluntness may be misconstrued by the right (and many on the left) as a sign of weakness and unsureness with his party's direction overall, which falls into the Democrats have obviously got it all wrong narrative you're seeing in the media today.

[RobinA]

156. What I Can't Understand

is why the obvious reason for Kerry's loss seems to get lost in the wailing and garment-rending. It's really quite simple - More people like the Bush way of doing things. End of story.

The discussion always seems to be "If we did this that or the otehr thing differently, we would have won." Why is the obvious so unthinkable? People like the moron. THAT'S what Dems need to get their heads around.

[Mistra_Know_It_All]

158. I agree with Moore that it would have been worse without f9/11

And Hollywood celebrities pitching in.

[gingergreen]

162. I am so sick of Micheal Moore

we need a new Democratic 'hero' to fight in the mainstream

[nascarblue]

167. Why are you sick of Moore? He did so much for all of us and...

...he's been getting fried in the media. Do you think most regular people would have known about the Bin Ladens relationship with the BUsh's otherwise? What about the situation with the 2000 vote and no senator standing up to volunteer a vote after all those members of the house filed? Micheal Moore did a hell of alot more real fighting than Kerry did.

[gingergreen]

168. Yes I agree he fought more than Kerry

but he has done virtually nothing since the election except publicize 911. Does he not care if the election was fraudulent?

[nascarblue]

163. what happened to Kerrys 17,000 lawyers and 50 million?

Kerry was a plant. Like Ive been saying all along and getting flamed for it. Now I see people are more and more thinking the same.

He made so many illogical mistakes. Dayglo spandex,snowboarding, windsurfing, his war stance, etc. How can anyone who's been in politics for 30 years start ahead 10 points, and just before the debate be down 10 points? That takes a real f-up.

[LWolf]

164. We didn't pick the best candidate.

I didn't need Moore to tell me that.

I'm not criticizing Senator Kerry when I say that; I supported him after he was nominated, and I recognize his attributes.

I never thought he was the right, or the best, candidate. While I supported his candidacy, the convention itself illustrated the weak platform the democrats went into the general election with. Trying to out "prowar" the republicans was foolish. All just my opinion; it was my opinion all along, having nothing to do with MM.

Now, if you "trashbin" all the democrats like myself who are of the same opinion, will it help you win the next election?

[rniel]

169. The press says

Americans always hate it when hollywood starts talking about politics at the same time they were trying to showcase it at the Republican Convention with every movie star they could get to make an appearance. i.e. Ron Silver.

The only reason we believe this lie is the press keeps saying it so it must be true.

[nascarblue]

172. Yeah, the only celebs they could get was Silver and Arnold...

They had a couple articles I read about how they tried really hard to get celebs at the RNC but no one would do it. Including Britney Spears!