Kerry's a loser whether he won and refused to fight, or actually lost.

[MoonRiver]

There's no way around these two realities. And I don't want a loser losing again in 2008. There may be nothing we can do about bbvs, but a proven loser just doesn't cut it, regardless of how much the odds are against us. It's time for us to find a new Dem candidate in 2008.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. That's the spirit!

NOT.

It's self-destruction.

Have a little faith that we will select the strongest candidate.
All this "loser" crap around here sounds more like teen-age backbiting than reasoned political discourse.

--p!

[MoonRiver]

3. So, you are saying he didn't "lose", however you define the term?

Just asking.

[Dogmudgeon]

66. Sounds like this is a personal, not political, thing for you

Just saying.

--p!

[mattclearing]

71. Truth hurts, don't it?

Kerry's a great guy.

He either underestimated the e-vote threat or the Christian vote.

Either way, it goes to his judgement.

Next!

[natrat]

78. he is a loser and so is any other dem

who doesnt recognize and speak regularly about vote fraud----talking about anything else is a distraction

[Cleita]

2. You know Hillary is going to run in 2008.n/t

[MoonRiver]

5. I'd rather have her than Kerry, and she's far from my first choice.

[bullimiami]

11. mypetrock i agree completely.

[MoonRiver]

16. Thanks! I knew I'd get flamed for this but I am sick of the non-stop

Kerry propaganda here. We who dissent must speak up.

[Cleita]

25. No flames here. My original post was

to point out to you that Kerry isn't even going to be blip in the next election. Water under the bridge I'm afraid.

[MoonRiver]

26. Sounds good. I'll respect him a lot if he doesn't run again.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. And quite a few of us are tired of the people who can't see that the....

...NeoCons have taken control of the country by rigging the elections. People like you continue to believe that voting is the key to regaining control when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Quit blaming others for the crimes of the fascist rightwingers.

Wake up.

[cidliz2004]

75. Why didn't Kerry see that the elections were rigged? And even more

so, why didn't he DO SOMETHING???????

[rockymountaindem]

99. Like what, make accusations with no evidence?

Make claims within the first days and weeks that he couldn't prove with unassailable evidence? Ruin his own career? Become known as a crackpot conspiracy theorist? Be the target of ridicule by everyone?

Yeah, those are great ideas. "DO SOMETHING"; let me give you a piece of advice I often give to the Bush lovers in my life... don't confuse motion with progress.

[cidliz2004]

119. Why did he have to make a concession speech at lightening speed

timing. He didn't wait at all. He seemed like he couldn't wait to proclaim a Bush victory. The votes were not all counted AND there was no real chance for claims of problems with the voting system that had just BARELY taken place. He had the world stage to focus attention on any allegations of inpropriaty with the voting practices, but, he bascially shut it down and walked away before the problems could really surface. Be in denial all that you want but at least Gore fought some before he conceded. Kerry knew 4 years ahead of time what had happened to Gore, Kerry knew what the hotly contested states would be, Kerry knew on election day which states were slam dunks for Bush and which states were slam dunks for Kerry. Kerry knew that Ohio was razor thin close and he gave the process NO TIME to expose or to allow people to come forward with complaints. Excuse me, but it is EXTREMELY obvious that he had no intentions of fighting for us in this election when it really mattered. Your attitude seems to be - unless you are caught red handed cheating, don't bother investigating and standing your ground when there seems to be discrepancies with the voting process. Sorry, but I want somebody who has better judgement than that.

What is so hard to understand, it was all plainly laid out for him (the very recent history of the Bushco stealing an election when he in fact had lost it) and he did NOTHING except to give up and walk away - handing the election to Bush.

[SoCalDem]

86. Amen..n/t

.

[LittleClarkie]

112. Labeling that with which you do not agree "propaganda" is a lousy tactic

We disagree. I have facts that I've pulled from several sources. I use them in rebuttal often. It is not propaganda. It is the truth as some of us see it. Others disagree. I would never dream of labeling their pov propaganda.

[Trajan]

4. And that Walter Mondale ! ...

What a fucking loser ! .....

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOZERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ! ....

[Dave Reynolds]

6. Okay, here we go!

:popcorn:

[Mr. Flibble]

7. I think we need to look toward the future.

Kerry ditched us.

The DLC foreclosed on us, what with their recent meme of "anti-war (lunatics)" and such...

We don't need another loser, but what's the point of having a winner when the DLC's paid him (or her?) as much as the corporate sector?

[MoonRiver]

9. I don't know what went down when Kerry threw the election.

Whoops, maybe I do have an inkling.

[bullimiami]

8. he said he would fight and he folded like a deck of wet cards.

i was done with him when he conceded.

[Cleita]

20. He was never my first choice.

He too was marketed to us. I asked a local Pol Sci. professor why he became the choice and this prof, a Dean supporter like myself, really couldn't answer. All he could talk about was Kerry's personality as a very cautious politician and quite different from the candidate many of us envisioned as the one to go to war up against BushCo.

[KittyWampus]

81. "Dean Supporter Like Myself" That Says It All.

Funny how some are attracted to flamebait like this like moths to a flame.

[UTUSN]

10. So WIN or LOSE He Was a Loser, eh?

All the "losers" in this second row are smarter, more decent, more well-intentioned, CLEANER than the "winners" who "beat" them. Why would any Dem member here call a Dem a "loser"?-----eh?

[MoonRiver]

14. You "lose" de facto when you throw a contest, even if you really won.

Get it?

[UTUSN]

18. The **Timing** of Your Insight Is Ringing My Chimes - It's Your Call n/t

[MoonRiver]

22. What?

Care to elaborate a bit?

[UTUSN]

35. What Needs to Be Elaborated?

Why are you raking up your negativity at this particular time?

Did you vote? Did you SUPPORT KERRY? What else needs to be elaborated-----------NOW? How about YOUR elaborating?

[MoonRiver]

37. I voted and worked for Kerry, including having a house party.

Kerry has bitterly dissapointed me and caused great damage to the Democratic Party and our nation by folding in record time to the fascists. He was trying to cover his arse, imo, for 2008. I don't trust the guy anymore. Do you need more of an explanation? Now, how about explaining your cryptic posts.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Right. Let's blame Kerry for the crimes committed by the NeoCons....

...great idea.

[MoonRiver]

41. I blame him for not fighting them, not for their crimes.

JHC. :eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. And what was he supposed to do? The voting machine software has....

...absolutely NO independent monitoring oversight. They didn't even have any paper receipts to prove how citizens cast their votes.

Without any way to track how those votes were changed, how was Kerry supposed to fight this in court? Where was the evidence?

[natrat]

79. let's blame the dem faciltators

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. Oh, so taking a rational approach to the issue makes "Kerry fanatics"....

...out of the people that oppose your point of view?

Fascinating.

[UTUSN]

53. Just Noticing You Labeling "Kerry-fanatics" and CAUSING TROUBLE

We're DEM-fanatics, not INDIVIDUAL-fanatics. It tells me you don't know.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Get this....the election was rigged just like it was in 2000....

...now who's the "loser"?

[seeker4ever]

24. I'd call a dem a looser if he lost and

ran away like a bunny.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Would you call a Dem a "loser" if he ran against a stacked deck?....

...You have heard about the rigged electronic voting machines haven't you?

[CTLawGuy]

70. if you're talking about a candidate

who based his entire campaign on the fact that he served in Vietnam, and VOTED (and/or AGREES) with his opponent on major issues of the day (war, tax cuts, Patriot Act) and who is utterly unable to articulate anything he actually stands for in a concise manner...

I will be hesitant to blame his loss on a few crooked voting machines in a couple counties in Ohio.

(that being said, I think all irregularities should be investigated and that Congress should work to prevent them from happening again.)

[thoughtanarchist]

51. Expecting a coup?

we have due process in this country and it's the same due process that kept Kerry from taking the WH that keeps BushCo from clamping down on the public in a more blantent and aggressive manner.

Are you expecting an orange revolution?

Are you out there yelling?

[seeker4ever]

12. Let's keep on with our current WINNING strategy!

Fucking N O T !

Be careful what you say around here. Many Dems are married to this fantastic strategy that has brought us so far.

See Kerry was a real dynamo, just what we needed to fight this weak administrsation. Never fear, it's clear, we know what we're doing.

I think we should really shoot for the middle. I mean you don't want to offend anyone.

ANDY! IS THAT YOU?

[MoonRiver]

15. Maybe "winning" isn't the point anymore.

I'm really starting to wonder about this.

[seeker4ever]

27. I know what you mean...

let's be nice, be polite and watch America go doun the shitter.

[MoonRiver]

31. Guess it depends on the payoff.

After all, this is a dog eat dog society anymore.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Yes it is....and the NeoCon dogs are eating very well these days....

...especially well since they figured out how to rig the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections.

[Blue_In_AK]

13. I guess that makes Jimmy Carter a loser, too, huh?

Remember, Reagan did beat him the second time around.

[forgethell]

32. Didn't Reagan beat him

on their first go around?

[Blue_In_AK]

45. Right. I meant Carter's second term. n/t

[MoonRiver]

49. WHAT second term?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[MoonRiver]

63. Losing = Loser

Whether you voted for him or not!

[justice4all_1]

17. Not a "loser", but should not try again

I'm not going to call Kerry a "loser." However, I don't think that Kerry will be running in 2008.

I'll go a little further. I don't think that Kerry should run again. You don't get too many chances to represent the party, and I don't think that Kerry's performance in 2004 earned him another shot.

I'd rather see H.C. or J.E., to name a few.


- T

[MoonRiver]

19. I hope you're correct.

He should preserve some dignity and not run again. He's an excellent Senator, but a lousy presidential candidate.

[UTUSN]

28. You're the First--and Only--Questioning His "Dignity" n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

21. Where the hell did THIS come from?

Just feel like bashing Kerry?

As far as I know, he's not running in 2008, so what's your beef?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. You don't get it do you?....

Anybody that runs against the NeoCons and their rigged election machinery is going to lose. Anybody that tries to unseat the chosen NeoCon Dictator is going to lose.

Understand now?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[UTUSN]

38. "Kerry fanatics" - "I smell a rat" -------------Me, Too n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Oh, I get it now! Kerry KNEW the election was rigged!....

...Yeah, that's it...that's your story and you're sticking to it no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

Great.

I smell a rat, too....but it's not Kerry.

[MoonRiver]

44. Whatever. Yes, I think he threw the election deliberately.

He could have fought like hell, ala Al Gore, but he took the easy way out. They might have done the same shit to Kerry, but he wasn't going to risk his future political ambitions, ala Al Gore, and decided to go along to get along.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. Right. Threw the election deliberately. Sure. Whatever you say.

[zalinda]

54. He could have smelled a whole army

of rats, but if he couldn't produce one, the world wouldn't believe it to be true. He did what he knew he had to do, and I'm sure it wasn't easy for him. What we know to be true, and what we can prove are two different things.

What a let down it had to be for Kerry. I don't know if I could have expended that much energy running for an office, and then have it stolen from me, and be as graceful as he was. I am sure he was bone tired at the end of the election race, and yet, I think if there had been ANY way to PROVE that the election was stolen, he would have fought for another 6 months. There wasn't anything he could really point to and say, that's where the election was stolen. And, this is where the problem lies, everything is circumstantial, it would have a slight chance to have a jury say guilty, but not the American public.

zalinda

[LittleClarkie]

58. Who ever said that?

I think the Kerry supporters believe as much as anyone else that it was stolen. I know I do, and so do several others.

How much Kerry could have done about it is the bit that's in dispute. But I don't know where you're getting that the Kerry fanatics didn't think it was stolen.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Well there's still one left

still a court case to be settled and at least on lawyer having at it.

What record time? It was the second slowest in my lifetime. We can't drag them all out a month. And Kerry wasn't even in as good a position as Gore was.

Do people who say "conceded in record time" think that repeating it will make it true?

What was he going to wait for? They finished counting, then they recounted. Still lost. It was rigged very, very well.

By hook or by crook, Bush was winning this election. Losing was not an option. They even thought to have a major battle right after the election to further styme dissent. How could Kerry keep fighting through a major Iraqi assault. My God they'd have torn him apart.

[Dawgs]

73. Right on...

These people that attack Kerry can't get over Dean not winning. "The chosen one" would have beaten Bush by 20% points.

Just look at some of the Dean threads. They think this guy is God.

[rockymountaindem]

103. The other day someone said

"I like Dean because whether or not you agree with him, you at least know where he stands."

Now, I agree with some of Dean's positions and I think he's doing a good job of running the party, but the above is a piss poor reason to like someone. When people say "I don't agree with Bush but at least I know where he stands", that makes us all very frustrated. Why should we accept the same mindset from Deaniacs? Having a clear position is good, but having a good position and being able to enact your plans is a lot better.

[sendero]

29. Amen brother...

.. or sister, whatever the case may be :)

[saltpoint]

47. I do not consider Senator Kerry a loser. Period.

[LittleClarkie]

56. We lost, we're the losers, or at least we share it with him

We need to figure out why WE lost, if we did indeed, of course.

We'll see what Kerry can do after 2006. Right now, even he isn't really all that focused on 2008. He's got to get rid of Romney first, not to mention pimp slapping Bolton and other fun things.

So far we have unknowns and some folks who have been presmeared who MIGHT be running in 2008. Gore's made noise, as well as Kerry. Hillary will have an uphill fight on her hands. Feingold might have a chance, if he can charm the country as he does us maverick-lovin' Wisconsinites. I dunno.

I do know who I will support in the next election. But then I'm a stubborn Norweigian. I'm not chasing after the next guy I think maybe can win. I've found someone I think would make an excellent President, and I'm sticking with him until he either makes it or doesn't.

I got mine, you get yours, and I'll meet you in 2007. We'll see who comes out on top. Til then, I could give a damn.

[wisteria]

57. I don't agree with you at all!

And what a lame theory. How much do you really know about John Kerry? You obviously don't know much about him at all. Just because he lost a close election to a war time incumbent president doesn't make him unelectable in a future Presidential election.I hope he decides to run in 2008. I haven't seen any candidates mentioned in the DU that I would make me change my mind. My vote is for Kerry in 2008 if he runs.

[napi21]

60. Kerry lost for a lot of reasons.

One was that a lot of people just didn't like him. I know, that's a very stupid reason to vote or not vote for a candidate, but it's the way most people respond.

Another reason was that he based his whole campaign on Vietnam. There's a lot of mixed feelings on 'Nam, and there will be until that generation dies. Those feelings were there, and still are, even if there had been no Swift Boat liers.

A WNNING politician has to know how to be NATURALLY friendly, both on and off camera. People have to believe he's a "nice guy".

Sure, policies matter, but the NICE GUY will win every time!

[Sydnie]

61. I'm not sure that's it

I listened to the callers to C-SPAN tonight at the conclusion of the Bolton hearings. Those that were in support of his nomination stated that they supported him because he was a "strong personality" who, basically, would kick ass and take names in the UN.

I think blivet**'s push of the "you know what I stand for" had a lot to do with swinging some votes. The devil they know and all that ...

I think Kerry was a great candidate. I think he would make a great one in 2008 too. He will continue to do what he does best ... bringing the truth to the table on all these neocons and theocons. The more the public gets fed up with the blivet** shuffle (Social Security anyone?), the better for us.

I look forward to working for him in 2008. He has and will continue to make me proud.

Rock on Kerry. I can see by your actions today and in the past that you still have my back. I still have yours too.

[Dawgs]

74. Wrong... Kerry lost because of how he was portrayed in the media...

Most people in America do not pay attention, and we all know that.

Kerry was represented as a flip-flopping, turncoat, anti-american liberal who loved gays and abortion.

Bush was represented as a strong, kick-ass, save the world fun kind of guy who was against gay-marriage and abortion.

That's it. Nothing more.

You can blame Kerry all you want, but most Americans didn't have a clue about John Kerry.

Being bitter because your guy didn't win is a piss-poor trait. Get over yourself and the election. Pay attention to what Kerry is doing now.

[autorank]

62. Kerry should not run. He did the best HE could but lacks a populist apeal

[MoonRiver]

64. I completely agree. It's time for somebody new.

Kerry is and always has done a good job in the Senate for MA. But he can't hack it on the national level. I think that has been adequately demonstrated.

[blm]

77. No. GOP controlled MEDIA said he had no appeal. The PEOPLE said Kerry won

all three debates but the media then said debates were not important, and, btw, here's another Bin Laden tape and you know George Bush can't be beat on the terror issue.....hey, Kerry's healthcare plan might get discussed, let's interview more Swiftvets and get more lies out there.

If Kerry WASN'T doing so well with the people, then BushInc wouldn't have had to exert their control over the media to spin him into a traitor, rig machines and manipulate access to the voting process.

The ONLY time the media couldn't interfere was during the debates, themselves, and Kerry was the decisive winner. ON HIS OWN, unfiltered.

The media was ready to portray ANY Dem as a loser matched against Bush, and any mistake would have been turned into a Bush win.

If the media and the voting machines don't get exposed for being under control of the GOP and its corporate allies, then NO Democrat will win the presidency again.

[Snivi Yllom]

91. the 1st debate was the high point of Kerry's campaign

He looked and sounded good, and crushed Bush. That made the race competitive and gave him the opportunity to win. But it wasn't enough.

[natrat]

84. they kill the good populists-wellstone

they deny the good poulists-the mayor of mexico city
no the only way in is if the mob lets a dem in

[DemonFighterLives]

65. It wasn't just the fold at the end

It was the courting of the mysterious center and not responding to the swifties and not hitting B*sh hard enough.
B*sh was AWOL for crying out loud.
Our DLC along with who knows who got rid of Dean with a amped up scream and installed Kerry. Kerry is a great Senator, but he bowed to the neocon and BFEE agenda.

[cleofus1]

67. there are no winners or losers

the game is still being played...

it's OK to vent..but try not to denounce your fellow Dem's if they disagree...

Kerry had bad handlers and the re pugs and the media were insidious...the re pugs are in charge today, but we only lose if we give up...i'm not giving up....so we are still in the game.

[seaglass]

68. Dean is a loser, Clark is a loser, Gephardt is a loser, Edwards

is a loser, Mosely-Braun is a loser, Kucinich is a loser, Lieberman is a loser, Gore is a loser.

Maybe we should just hang it up we have so many damn losers in our party.:eyes:

[mopaul]

69. good point

we need a winner

[candice]

83. And Gore was a winner

...but what does it matter if the elections are rigged. Only special interests win. What about those fools who voted for BIG OIL? They are the ones with the SUVs and the shrinking paychecks (if they have a job). The USA is the biggest loser now.

[Larkspur]

104. Unlike Kerry, Gore won the popular vote

and Gore did it by turning to populism.

[Mass]

117. He was the sitting VP \nt

[Larkspur]

108. Actually Dean is a winner. He won the DNC Chair position after losing

the primary. His victory as DNC Chair affirms that his vision for the Dem Party was the right one, not the Repuke-lite one of the DLC.

Since he's DNC Chair, he won't be running for the Prez position, but the work he does as chair will be more important to the future of the Dem Party than what any Dem Prez nominee will do.

[seaglass]

113. Many of them have both won and lost. n/t

[Dawgs]

72. So, who do you support?

It's really easy to call someone a loser, especially all alone in some room behind a keyboard.

Between you and John Kerry I will take his side. He is actually fighting for us now. You are starting threads that attack our own(or my own).

When he stops fighting for us let me know. Until then either leave, start attacking the other side, or support those that are our on our side.

[ArkDem]

76. Where would Harold Stassen have gotten with that attitude?

[mzmolly]

80. I'll let the chips fall where they may in 2008. HOWEVER, Bush was the

incumbent president and he was at war. The fact that (in spite of the shenanigans by diebold) etc. we came close to winning is something to appreciate.

[KittyWampus]

82. If I Were Intent On Causing Disruptions On DU, I'd Start A Thread

just like this one.

[natrat]

85. democracy is the loser

the empire is on the down elevator ...will it go up again

[Snivi Yllom]

87. You got it right

And he did lose.
from another thread:

if you don't win the election you can't effect the change you want

at least not in meaningful manner. We have an imperfect political system that is subject to corruption and tends to be swayed by money first, individuals last. However, we still have to work within it's boundries, and to effect real policy change, we needed the White House. Instead the DNCs strategy is currently about playing defense;I rather be on offense.I am hopeful Dean will change this and SOON!

I'm not so much antiKerry as antibadcandidate. Yes he was a bad candidate because he allowed majorly poor decisions, and off message gaffes to influence the campaign and distract it's potential. Just to name a few examples, the $87 billion statement, ignoring the Swift boat garbage, his Grand Canyon statement saying he still would have voted to authorize use of force. All of these were not just tactical, but strategic mistakes. Kerry unfortunately surrounded himself with people who allowed him to go off message and make these mistakes. Some were mistakes by his own action, some were by his lack of action.

Yes, turnout was up, but turnout would have been up with any of the other candidates. People were outraged, fired up, and they wanted Bush gone gone gone. The people did not want a repeat of 2000. But Kerry failed to close the deal. feel comfortable putting the blame where it squarely belongs.

The rose colored glasses attitude you wish to view kerry's lose through is a poor decision IMO. Ignoring the glaring mistakes and not willing to be critical is not the way to win future elections.

* ran a better campaign than him and WON the election this time outright without the assistance of any Supreme Court justice. Our election day mobilizationw as great, their efforts were better.

[earth mom]

88. The election was STOLEN-how does that make Kerry a loser?!

Yeah, Kerry should have fought the rethugs over it, I was majorly disappointed in him for that. I got over it because I eventually accepted that he must have had a good reason not to-I remember reading that his daughters life was threatened if he tried to investigate-which may be the reason. Maybe someday we'll know the truth. :shrug:

But one thing to remember is that * & Co are some evil dudes...would YOU want to go after them? Probably not. So, Kerry played it safe, let the chips fall where they may, and went on to do some very good things since the election-unlike * and his reign of terror. :scared:

I DO hope Kerry runs again.

[rodeodance]

89. Kerry is on c-span2 now--fighting for the Military Bill of Rights Byrd up

next--He (many Dems are fighting for National guard and other units to have health benefits). I am proud of him.

[UdoKier]

90. Kerry may have been Diebold's pick for the nomination.

I don't remember ANYONE being excited about Kerry before the primaries. It was ALL about Dean and Clark. I have always been suspicious of his win in Iowa.

[blm]

93. Baloney. The "media" manipulated Dean's numbers in Iowa, when it was Kerry

who was running strongest on the ground there. It was the MEDIA who kept proclaiming Kerry's campaign as dead to dry up his financing nationally. It was the media that had cameras and tons of reporters covering Dean's campaign while Kerry's less than a handful of reporters had to fight to get airtime for their reports. Why did the media pull this charade should be the question from any Democrat.

Your post also shows you have no clue how the primaries work in Iowa. Iowa CAUCUSES. Which means people SHOW UP in person at meeting rooms and homes and there are NO MACHINES that count the vote. It's HUMAN DEMOCRATIC BODIES.

I am just sorry that over a year later and ignorant bullshit like that is still spread to keep the left divided and suspicious of each other.

[UdoKier]

94. Fair enough.

Then Iowans think very differently than democrats I knew. None of the democrats I knew in Florida, Texas or California were remotely interested in Kerry. In fact, they were all crazy about Clark (and at the time I was trying to persuade them to go for Dean).

So what the hell did Iowans see in dead fish Kerry?

[seaglass]

95. Kerry was campaigning in Iowa, in person, and the people

there liked them. The people in Iowa aren't different from people anywhere else.

Oh, you're a Dean supporter. That explains it.

[UdoKier]

96. Clark and Kucinich supporter as well.

YOUR guy threw the election, so don't spew your hostility at me.



"I voted for the $87 bil before I voted against it"

"Knowing what I know, I would vote for the Iraq War Resolution again"

Kerry ran a SHIT campaign and lost to the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[UdoKier]

109. Yeah, whatever.

I hope the next dem candidate doesn't hire Shrum, Cahill, or YOU to run their next campaign...

[Mass]

116. Or you for the matter!

[seaglass]

114. Just noting that you were a Dean supporter and with the

exception of Bush supporters, the most hostile and vicious towards Kerry.

I could come right back at you with a nasty comment about Dean but I don't think I'll stoop to your level.

[blm]

101. Iowans are very serious about the primaries and READ everything they can

about a candidate. They also personally go to hear them and see them more than any other state.

Kerry held townhall meetings so people could grill him incessantly and he also has the most admirable record of service and accomplishments over three decades than any lawmaker in modern history. Anyone who spends the time to learn about Kerry comes away impressed and wondering how and why the media overlooks his work.

The media tried to make Kerry out to be a dead fish because if they talked about his actual record and his actual plans on important issues, then their corporate masters would have them for lunch.

[UdoKier]

107. I was impressed by his work, totally unimpressed by his awful campaign.

And I was also aware that his Vietnam-era activities would be a major obstacle for him.

[Larkspur]

106. The Iowa Caucuses are a Byzantine ordeal favored by Party hacks

The Iowa Caucus is like being in a Middle Eastern bazaar where candidates' supporters haggle for their candidate. This format favors Party hacks and extroverts. Neophytes and introverts would feel bullied and outmanuvered.

I think all Caucuses should be abolished and all primaries done by secret ballot. CT uses a secret ballot primary, which allows voters to make their decisions in the privacy of a ballot booth. I don't oppose campaigns putting literature and staff 75 ft from the polling stations so that voters can ask last minute questions, but the Iowa Caucus format isn't really democratic.

[Telly Savalas]

92. Who did the GOP run in 1960? How 'bout 1968? Who won each time?

[UdoKier]

97. So we can look forward to a Kerry presidency some day?

That's sad. How about a democrat that can talk straight to people, one who actually wants to win?

[Telly Savalas]

118. Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm just saying that rejecting a candidate solely on the basis of them being a "loser" in a presidential election is silly since history suggests that given a second chance a candidate could succeed.

As far as my opinion of Kerry goes, I think we could do a lot worse and a lot better. I'd like to see Senator Feingold get the nod, but 2008 is still a long ways away.

[rockymountaindem]

98. Just realize the implication of what you're saying.

You're implying that all the 2004 candidates are also losers because they didn't make it out of the primary. That rules out Clark, Dean, Kucinich and Edwards. If you're supporting any of them, then you're supporting a loser; isn't that what you're saying?

That kind of attitude won't get you many friends on DU.

[politicasista]

100. I wish the moderators would lock this thread

It's flamebait and people refuse to get over the primaries. :grr:

[UdoKier]

110. I disagree. If the next candidate doesn't learn from Kerry's "mistakes"

We will be royally screwed next time, too.


I don't see anyone saying "I hate Kerry". It's valid criticism of a badly run campaign.

We've gotten over the primaries. It's Kerry's lack of interest in winning the general election that is bothering some of us.

[Larkspur]

102. 2004 GE proved that Kerry was UNELECTIBLE!!!

Kerry won't be able to use that innane argument that he's electible during the primaries. Kerry lost to the worse president in American history. He doesn't deserve another chance. He should just fade away.

[LittleClarkie]

111. A majority doesn't seem to think so

History will have to prove us right. Some of my Repub friends think he's the best president ever. Goes to show how fractured this country is. Some very decent people I know got a wistful look on their faces when I asked who they supported and why.

If you're paying attention, he's the worst. A vast majority does not pay attention. I still remember being a sheeple. It's not that obvious from out in lala land. And the media doesn't help.

This isn't about who "deserves" another chance, though you might say that potential candidates can earn the right to be considered again between now and then. Anyone who wants to run can and should if they can get up the backing.

He's still a Senator. He is not fading away. And Massachusetts wouldn't want him to I'm sure.

And several folks here have expressed similar sentiments. They are grateful that he has NOT gone away. Why would you want anyone who is still fighting the Bush agenda to fade away. That would mean one less fighter, and we can use all that we have.

Until the next election, it is counterproductive to continue these primary wars. It might not even be the same slate next time.

There are alot of potential candidates that I don't support for prez, but if they do something good, I'm not going to cut them down just because I don't want them for president.

Someone yesterday said that Kerry had the most unified party ever behind him. Look around. DO WE LOOK UNIFIED TO YOU! The unity was superficial and quite transparent. And also fleeting.

[Mass]

115. electible?