NO, we do NOT need a better candidate than Kerry

[planetc]

I am writing this semi-duplicative post because I am so tired of reading posts here about who we should run in 2008, who might have been a better candidate than Kerry in 2004, who, in short, we might WIN with.

We WON. If you read this forum and other informed sources, Kerry won the election, or rather we won the election of Kerry. The reason Kerry is not president is that THE ELECTION was STOLEN. I just want to get beyond the endless chewing on the quality of Democratic candidates, as though what we really need to do to win the next election is find Jesus Christ and run him. Jesus Christ cannot win against Diebold.

Our democracy is broken. It is not strained. It is not sprained. It is broken.

John Kerry was an excellent candidate--a genuine war hero, a capable attorney and prosecutor, an experienced legislator, a man who might have made an fine diplomat. He would at least have been an adequate president, maybe a good one, maybe a terrific one. John Kerry is not the problem, John Edwards is not the problem, Wes Clark and Dennis Kuchinich are NOT the problem. Maybe Joe Lieberman would have been a problem, but ANY of the Democratic candidates, INCLUDING Mosely-Braun, would have stood head and shoulders above the incumbent. America went to the polls and we was robbed.

The problems that confront any American not in a state of worship of the Bush-state are several, and they are major, but the QUALITY of our candidates is not one of those problems. Spiderman, Superman, and Harry Potter are fictional characters. Michael Jordan is probably not electable. If we could elect anyone at the moment. Our candidates are fine. Our system is broken.

The problems confronting us at the moment are these: somewhere around 80% of the population knows that the gang in charge in Washington stinks, but we have not had mass demonstrations. We need to have mass demonstrations, as soon as possible, to get these people out of the White House and into the various courts where they belong. To have mass demonstrations, we need a group with an existing national organization to name the day, name the issue, and DO IT. The Democratic Party would present itself as an obvious entity to organize us. They have not made an effort to do so. We need to know why they have not. If they cannot be persuaded to organize the second American revolution, we will have to find somebody else. The apparent desertion of our leaders is a major problem. We have to try harder to communicate with them.

The mass media are a major problem. They have contributed mightily to the current mess we are in. But if we give them news, THEY WILL REPORT IT. We have given them no news, except for the estimable John Conyers, and the estimable Harry Reid's little revolt last Tuesday, and the estimable Cindy Sheehan. THE MEDIA will sit up, take notice, and do their job if we lead them by the nose, beat them with two-by-fours, threaten their livelihoods, and otherwise explain to them what their job IS.

There are enough of us; we know what we want. Let us please focus our energies on what needs to be done, not on analyzing our faults. We have faults, but they pale in comparison with the historical blindness, the disdain for the constitution, the mass manipulation of a trusting public, and the moral destitution of the people who now hold power in this country.

Please excuse my shouting at you in capitals--I just get so enraged sometimes. But all of our Democratic Party leaders have phones, faxes, letter openers, and some wits. Let us try them first. If they continue to pretend that we should be conducting business as usual, let us throw them to the wolves of history and do it ourselves.

[MojoXN]

1. Recommended...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I agree that the election was stolen, but if Kerry isthe best that we can do, we're in some DEEP shit... Just my $.02.

MojoXN

[RC]

7. We're in very deep shit...

Way too many people think we can win elections set up and run the by the "win at any cost" criminals running the show right now.
Kerry folded the day after the election, while the vote count was on going, with no clear winner. So why keep bringing him up?

[venable]

17. But Edwards wanted to count the votes

so, a little appreciation for that would be in order.

[robbedvoter]

56. For wanting? Then appreciate me too!

[venable]

147. fine, you're appreciated, but Edwards

was in a position to argue for counting, he did argue for counting, and he was overruled by the top of the ticket.

that's my point.

[janedoe]

28. If our democracy is broken...

Kerry sure isn't going to fix it! He did an excellent job in proving that to us. Edwards couldn't over-rule Kerry and was a victim, too.

If you want to look at past candidates, look at Gore. He at least wanted to stay in and have the votes counted.

Remember, we aren't just cheerleaders for a political football team. And, it isn't a boxing match between the candidates. The vote should be about the will of the people, not the will of the candidate. The vote is about OUR choice. If the one we're trying to elect doesn't care about our choice (and doesn't want our votes counted), then we obviously picked the wrong person.

[Mr_King]

50. Okay this is getting old...

This is what I don't get

-The Ohio Republicans in power stole the election (TRUE)

-There were long lines in the mostly Democratic areas (the cities) and no lines in the mostly Republican areas (the suburbs and rural areas) and many people in the cities didn't get the chance to vote (TRUE)

-The "new" electronic voting machines didn't leave a paper trail in case of a recount. The new voting machines that were "suppose" to keep what happened in Florida in 2000 from happening in Ohio in 2004 but didn't (TRUE)

Or is it...Kerry gave up to early?

If Kerry had kept going, then what would have happened? Could Kerry have somehow found a way to get enough votes that were STOLEN electronicly? Mind you he had to prove all this before the electoral college met and overcome the party in power.

It's easy to blame Kerry a year later.

Kerry won but yet he wasn't good enough to win in 2004 and that is why he lost??????? That makes no sense.

Democrats need to make these reforms part of their 2006 election platform:
-Make the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November a federal holiday
-Have early voting in all 50 stats and in D.C. (atleast a week before the election)
-Allow ex-convicts to vote
-Have election day registration in all 50 states and in D.C.
-Make it a law that all types of voting machines must leave a paper trail

Those are just some of the things that will make the playing field level and make it harder for Republicans to steal elections. But that won't happen until the Democrats control atleast control one of the bodies of Congress (either the House or the Senate). The reforms that were made after the 2000 election didn't happen until Jim Jeffords switched parties and the Democrats controlled the Senate. Just imagine the reforms that would have been made had we controlled the Senate and/or House after the 2002 elections.

[helderheid]

101. applause!

:yourock: :applause:

[Mr_King]

135. Thank You

All this Kerry won but he lost crap is old. He won that's it we all know it. Bush stole another election. That's why tomorrow's, 2006, and 2007 elections are importanat.

[Imagevision]

149. Kerry promised all of our votes would be counted - this wasn't the case!

Instead Kerry makes this pathetic comment on MSNBC a few days after 04 elections that; "I believe it was the Bin Laden tape released days leading up to the election that did me in" -- that's a quote!!

Anyone believe that?

[planetc]

8. Actually...

Actually, I've been around for awhile, just lurking mostly. But thanks anyway.

My main point is that we cannot find, and do not need Superman or Martin Sheen, to have a perfectly fine presidential candidate. Neither genius nor sainthood is required. We have some fine politicians to run, but at the moment we cannot elect anyone, because we cannot elect anyone.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. John Kerry is not a chickenhawk John Wayne "hammerhead",

he's a war hero, and you are complaining about that? You're in the wrong party! You could even be in the government, if you had the right connections! Perhaps you should have been put in charge of Katrina or the war in Iraq. I suspect even you people couldn't have done worse, but I don't think you'd have done a whole lot better.

Great post, planetc.

[dapper]

Can I have an Amen?

Amen!

[Vektor]

2. Finally - a voice of reason and an an ounce of sanity!!!

Lately DU has been a quagmire of scapegoating, blame-laying, and gossip-mongering about whose "fault" the whole mess that is now our democracy is. Frankly, it's goddamned ridiculous.

Let me be the first to recommend this excellent and well thought out thread.

[BlueIris]

18. My thoughts exactly. Lets have more of that sanity, please.

Dislike Kerry if you want, but please, learn about election fraud. Learn about the role the media played in securing it. Figure out what you're prepared to do to prevent it in the midterms and in '08 and in any elections in your area. I'm sorry to be glib; in some ways this post is easy for me. I live in a state with clean elections and a smart gov/sec of state who are going to keep them that way. Also, I've never had any true doubt about Kerry. For those still doubting, maybe you should step back and take an honest look at his record. With an open mind. Just one last time. But whatever you do, stop hating, ranting, or believing lies about how we got to this place (ie; "because of Kerry"). This mess is just as much our responsibility as it is that of anyone else.

[planetc]

31. Second all those sentiments n/t

[Punkingal]

3. Bravo!!!!

:thumbsup:

[AX10]

4. recomended!

:hi:

[napi21]

5. I agree with you on the media problems, but I don't want Kerry again!

I don't post slamming messages about him, and I don't intend this to be one either. I am just stating my preferance.

I still believe we need to have a candidate who is a Governor. There's a reason the last President to be elected out of the Senate was Jack Kennedy over 40 years ago!!!!!

[planetc]

12. I'm sure...

I'm sure there are some lovely governors out there. How're you gonna get them elected if they're not Republicans? That's my basic question.

[napi21]

16. The same way we got Clinton elected.

A good candidate will get elected because he's GOOD at campaigning, and has a good past record.

[planetc]

29. So, your candidate who is ...

good enough to beat Diebold is? As near as I can tell, 1996 was the last presidential election they were afraid to fix.

[napi21]

37. I think if the majority is big enough, it will bypass the problems with

the voting machines!

[sellitman]

84. That is ridicules!

All they have to do is hack their own computers to prove you wrong. They have twice already. What makes you think exit polls will matter next time?

[John Q. Citizen]

52. I hate to point this out to you, but Clinton won in 1992 with Ross

Perot getting 19% of the vote.

Clinton got 44% of the vote. Without Perot in the race, it's quite possible daddy bush would have won.

In 2000 Gore got 49+% percent of the vote. In 2004 Kerry got 48% of the vote.

The OP's point is we won in 2000 and in 2004. The OP is correct, I believe, in pointing out there is nothing wrong with our candidates; but there is something seriously wrong with our election system.

(edited for spelling)

[purji]

89. thank you!

I have been trying to make that point for a few weeks,but no one seems to want to hear it.

[blm]

86. Clinton got elected because IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate were weighing

Bush1 down. People lost trust in him.

Clinton wouldn't have won if Kerry hadn't pushed through his investigations of IranContra and BCCI and Henry Gonzalez spoke out every day about Iraqgate in 1992.

The economy was on a downside, but just coming out of it at election time - Bush1 could have survived that except there were just too many headlines about the corruption that added to it and dragged him down.

And then, of course, Clinton does get in and keeps the books CLOSED on BCCI, taking Alan Greenspan's word over John Kerry's who wanted all the documents made public.

Had Clinton sided with Kerry, the American people would never have allowed ANY Bush near the White House again and there would be no 9-11 and growing global terrorism - many of the characters involved today would have had full exposure then.

The press back then was actually more balanced. It was in the 90s that the RW machine took hold and increased its media strength by leaps and bounds. By 2000, Bush's GOP cronies controlled almost 90% of the broadcast media.

It took a category 5 hurricane that the media could not possibly spin into their 5 year storyline that Bush was a great commander-in-chief and a strong leader - Bush was stripped of his media front line that protected him.

[joeunderdog]

154. WRONG...the media will not and do not report news.

That's how you can pull off a stolen election. That's THE essential element of the whole thing. Without the media playing ball, we would have had an open and honest FRONT PAGE debate about the election irregularities, blatant crimes, computer errors and systematic disenfranchisement of voters. NOt a blip on the screen.

Big business is running the country, and the only reason we are seeing any print on negative stories about ShrubCo is that the economic hardship of *'s f-ups is effecting the bottom lines of the people in the compainies who own our consolidated media. The war is not helping most of them make money, Exxon is taking their slice of pie, and foreigners burn anything that says "made in the USA."

Politics is just the long arm of big business--not the other way around. Public policy is nearly a means to acheive business objectives and the politicians and voters are merely pawns of the system.

...not to sound too synical.

[MH1]

6. Damn straight. Fine post.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[noahmijo]

9. Damn Straight Thank You

I campaigned for Kerry back when he was a nobody to anybody ouside of Mass. and to this day I am proud that I did.

[wisteria]

10. Thanks for the kind words for Kerry and other Dems. n/t

[Peggy Day]

11. Sorry, I voted for him but he had his chance

and didn't stand up for all the voters that voted for him. Now we have idiot brain in there (unelected twice).
What would be different this time? Nothing. I really wanted him to be president, but hope he doesn't try to run. Maybe others feel betrayed also.

[_dynamicdems]

24. His chance?

I just love how people say he had his chance. ROTFLMAO! As if you are breaking up with a boyfriend who wasn't up to snuff. That's it! He's had his chance. No more from me. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist.)

Senator Kerry wasn't in the election for himself. What part of trying to help America don't you get?

Oh, I feel so used and betrayed. Senator, how could you? I trusted you. I...I...sniff...voted for you!

How I long for the good old days when there was such a thing as a bedtime.

[janedoe]

34. Yep. I agree.

We gave Kerry a test drive, and he failed. He didn't want to stand up for us. If Kerry is the candidate in 2008, we may end up with Jeb Bush (or some other Repug.).

[Seabiscuit]

70. Agreed in full. JK + Diebold + 2008 = Jeb Bush

[ray of light]

185. Any democrat + Any Republican +Diebold= Any Republican

The original author nailed it on the head!

Jk won and unless we take over in 2006 and MAKE the democrats kick out the cheaters, then we will never see a Democrat majority congress or a Democrat in the W.H.

[sendero]

13. Nodoby seems more ....

.... like an anachronistic politician living in the past than John Kerry.

We don't need anyone better, as long as we like having no fucking power whatsoever.

[karlrschneider]

14. You are confusing candidate with person. He was a TERRIBLE

"candidate", POLITICALLY anyway...because he's far too intelligent to generate enthusiasm from the average idiot Amerikan. I'm willing to bet and give big odds that his intellect turned off way more people than it attracted.

That, and the apellation of "New England Liberal" that was so gleefully thrown at him, and of course the ...er, 'influence' of Diebold, were more than enough to insure him losing.

Even so, he SHOULD HAVE raised HELL...but he didn't...he caved in while dragging out dozens of 'promises' to 'do something' for far too long.

[Poppyseedman]

26. Kerry's wife turned many people off.

A candidate wife is an important part of why people vote. Hillary is a large reason wifes are more important in today's election process. You know the "two for one" idea.

How many people pulled the lever for bush simply because they liked pickles better than Teresa.

I bet a lot more than will admit it

[globalvillage]

30. I believe that's true

and it's very, very sad.
Teresa is a wonderful woman. She believes in this country, she believes in Democratic ideals, and she believes in John.
But sadly, some people would rather have a plastic stepford wife than a real first lady.
It's sad, really.

[karlrschneider]

33. Absolutely. Theresa is too smart to appeal to Joe Sixpack or his wife.

...

[seabeyond]

47. i liked her though. i really liked her. i miss not getting to see more

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. Are you serious?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

146. Remember, in general, people vote for President, not V.P. or

anything else. So when they say that they voted for Bush because of Pickles, I have a hard time believing them.

[seabeyond]

46. how can a candidate be terrible and win against an incumbent

war in process president, with christians on his side. this is a fable to say he was a terrible candidate. cant be a terrible candidate and go against bush, media, christians.

[Iowa]

72. I agree - he was a terrible candidate...

I don't believe he is all that intelligent, however. A truly brilliant person is bright enough to relate to others in a way that doesn't turn them off. He is clearly a bright guy in some respects, but his brilliance is a rather cold thing that shimmers without much warmth.

I disagree with the OP - I think he was a seriously flawed candidate in many respects.

[Joe Chi Minh]

98. I couldn't agree with you less.

People who vote on the basis of bar-room congeniality, instead of policies deserve this government, not a Democratic government!

[Iowa]

113. Yes, that's true...

Anyone who would vote on the basis of "bar-room congeniality" is clueless. But that's an overly simplistic analysis of the impact of the candidate's personality on individual voting decisions. Most people here at DU would vote on the basis of issues alone - this is a bright group. But candidates must also secure votes from clueless voters who trust their "gut" - and there's a great deal more to communicating with that type than "bar-room congeniality". There are things like integrity, trust, vision, self-sacrifice, and shared experiences, pain, and dreams - all things a candidate must communicate. And there's also the small matter of igniting a fire in the hearts of the faithful so they're motivated by more than their hatred of the alternative. That's why it makes sense to have a candidate who can communicate in a way that connects with people and engenders trust. Policies AND the ability to connect; those who think that's asking for too much in a candidate deserve to lose elections.

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. Well, I can't imagine [b]anyone[/b] not being fired with fantastic*

hope and enthusiasm by Kerry and Edwards' speeches at the Democrats' Convention. I had never understood the ballyhoo, before, but it really made sense to me after that. To say that they were inspiring would be the grossest understatement. And I believe you had to be academically educated to understand them.

[Joe Chi Minh]

116. Well, I can't imagine [b]anyone[/b] not being fired with fantastic*

hope and enthusiasm by Kerry and Edwards' speeches at the Democrats' Convention. I had never understood the ballyhoo, before, but it really made sense to me after that. To say that they were inspiring would be the grossest understatement. And I believe you had to be academically educated to understand them.

You're in effect just pushing a Republican talking point. I'd love to know the identity of the first author of that nonsense about Kerry failing to connect. What were those massive crowds that went to hear him? Scotch mist?

*In the light of the stolen election, the word is replete with the bitterest irony.

[Iowa]

136. You're arguing with yourself here...

You say that you can't imagine "anyone" not being fired with enthusiasm by the speeches at the convention. And then you say that the only people capable of understanding those speeches had to be "academically educated". I don't buy into the notion that only academics have the wherewithal to grasp those convention speeches, but even if that were true, the fact remains that most adults of voting age do not even possess a college degree (roughly 73% do not). So if what you claim is true, you're actually making the point that connecting with the masses isn't one of Kerry's strengths. And that's essentially what I'm saying. He has many good things going for him - connecting with the common folk just isn't one of them.

Regarding your comments about "Republican talking points"... The Republican agenda is intrinsically evil, as are the strategies they use to accomplish their ends. Anyone with a working brain should be able to see that. The last thing progressives should be doing is following their lead by conforming to political "talking points" dictated by hired political hacks. If I think the guy who presumes to represent my interests is a dud - I'll be damned if I will check the Republican play-book to determine whether it's "safe" to say so. I don't let Republican manipulators dictate what I will or will not say.

[Joe Chi Minh]

152. You're right. But I meant to say precisely the opposite!

You didn't have to be academically educated, I meant to say! Everyone could understand what Kerry and Edwards were saying - contrary to the Republican talking point I was criticising, that he couldn't connect with people.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're your own man, talking points or not. I'm not making a political connection here, but it's what I like about Buchanan.

[Montauk6]

77. So far, karlrschneider makes the best point.

And let's not be too naive; forget Diebold for a moment, we know that it IS the best CANDIDATE who wins not the best person.

That said, I would be interested in seeing how a Second Chance Johnny would play it.

[_dynamicdems]

15. Wonderful post!

We're supposed to be the intellectual party, but lately I've been beginning to doubt. Thank you for restoring my faith! THANK YOU!

:toast:

[DanCa]

19. I like senator Kerry first time i contributed to the campaign however I

wonder if there was something more i could have done to help get him elected. Could I have pushed harder, bad mouthed him less, or donated more? Kerry is a war hero his post and pre war activities war amazing. The only thing that really did weigh on him is the fact the he is a senator and had a long paper trail for the repukes to pick apart. That is why I perfer not to see another senator headding the ticket in 08 regardless of who it might be. With that said I will vote for the party nom however it is.

[A Simple Game]

20. I agree with most of what you say, we have some major

problems that need to be fixed.

But was John Kerry a excellent candidate? If I had a D behind my name and with ABB, and with the money Kerry had, I could have gotten almost as many votes as Kerry got.

I don't believe all of the polls were that far off, the election was close enough to be stolen. It shouldn't have been that close.

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. The fraud figures contradict your thesis. Kerry won massively.

[IronLionZion]

21. we can do better

you're damn right the system is broken. I like Kerry, but he got the Dem nomination with that system, and he was robbed in the election with that system.

It was obvious to everyone paying attention that the Dem nomination was his to lose. It was his turn, but that is a different discussion.

What disgusts me is how the deck is stacked against any Democrat. It's not just the rigged voting machines and corporate media. The Republicans have a highly organized system of propaganda that goes down to the lowest levels of grass roots to the highest levels of corporate board rooms and government agencies. They have so much more money than we will ever have. They have the lobbyists, and the majorities in congress, and deals with Saudi oil suppliers, and control of the high-ranking officers in our military, and all kinds of power and influence.

Reforming the elections and media are necessary and will be an ongoing process. The first major goal we should fight for right now is real campaign finance reform.

Here's Russ Feingold's latest campaign finance reform bill:
On July 14, 2005, Feingold introduced a bill to the Senate that would ban lobbyists from giving gifts to senators and impose a $50,000 fine for violating the ban; force lawmakers to sign statements saying that lobbyists did not pay their travel expenses; bar congressmen, staffers, and executive branch officials from serving as lobbyists for two years after leaving office; and require that lobbying reports be disclosed on a quarterly, rather than semi-annual, basis. At the same time, Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who co-wrote the House version of McCain-Feingold, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois introduced a similar bill in the House. Neither bill has yet come to a vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

[longship]

22. I like John Kerry, but he was a very poor candidate.

Too many focus-group tested words. But even with that, he could have won by doing one very simple thing. All he had to do was to put out an unambiguous position on Iraq. That may have turned enough additional voters to swing him.

Iraq should have been the major issue of the campaign. The extent to which it wasn't is the extent to which the Repugs controlled the debate. Kerry's campaign people managed to keep him away from one of his best strategies, making the campaign all about * failure war in Iraq.

No, I cannot support Kerry in 2008. He has shown himself to be weak.

[mondo joe]

23. But we DO need better. Even if we won, the margin was slim enough

that a little fraud here and there could shift it.

We need an unquestionable win.

[planetc]

38. Yes, we need ...

an unquestionable win. But the latest figure I read was that Kerry won by a million and a half votes. The poor, the minorities, the students, the first-time voters, all were targeted, and all were rooked just as badly as the rest of us.

We had a slim win in 2000.

In 2004 we had maybe a 1.5M margin, but because the 2000 margin was so slim, the thieves created an apparent 3M margin for their puppet. And that was one of the things the sleeping media used to refuse to investigate what happened.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the means to give themselves any margin they think will convince the dunces at the networks.

We need our democracy back before we can hope for any win at all.

[autorank]

111. The fraud was huge. Look at the exit polls, which are used all

over the world (but not here for some reason, duh). It showed a substantial win.

Kerry was an excellent candidate, he won big, and we'll know that soon I suspect. People are so pissed off at * that they won't tolerate the polling companies and networks keekping the original exit poll data a secret much longer. The proof is there and in on the ground evidence, and with the Diebold whistle blowers that the press WON'T COVER.

Imagine that! They won't cover people saying Diebold rigged the election in many places. Wonder what their motive is?

[girl gone mad]

25. The media is a problem,

but I do not think that Kerry was an excellent candidate.

When I saw Going Upriver last year, I longed for that John Kerry to emerge. The one who stated his position clearly and concisely. The one who had the courage to criticize our political leadership for dragging us into a costly and unnecessary war. The one who spoke truth to power.

Unfortunately, the John Kerry that ran for office last year was a fading shadow of that younger man. Someone who acted as if telling the truth was too politically risky and rolling over was the safest option.

Maybe the strong Kerry would have lost, too, but somehow I doubt it. We've had two candidates in a row who played it safe, and they both suffered about the same fate.

[seabeyond]

48. i agree. have you heard one positive thing about democrats.

one positive thing about kerry. yet we hear repugs family value, morals, fiscally responsible, a party for the business poeple. bush.... straight talker, honest, a good christian man we would all like to have a beer with.

not a single positive with a dem or kerry. i challenge anyone to tell me something positive about a dem

[politicasista]

27. I agree 100%

Not directed at the OP but...

Remember the Bush?
Rememeber the Cheney?
Remember the Pickles?
Remember the Rovian man?
Remember the Scooter?
Remember the Condi?
Remember the Rummy?


Probably not because we are so busy focusing on the past, who betrayed us, was a terrible candidate, who didn't fight, and about the far future instead of the present and the year 2006!

Repeat 2006, 2006, 2006, 2006!


None of us know what will happen three years from now. People pushing for 2008 need to beware that whoever wins the nomination and hopeflly the presidency is going to have a huge, massive, I mean MASSIVE mess to clean up once this evil administration is out of office period.

It's the party and the corporate media stupid!

[occuserpens]

32. and I am the Spanish King

<We WON. If you read this forum and other informed sources, Kerry won the election, or rather we won the election of Kerry. The reason Kerry is not president is that THE ELECTION was STOLEN.>

If Kerry is an excellent candidate and he won then why he never insisted on this?

[Laurab]

42. I think maybe because of a little thing called "proof"

Evidence, REAL proof, not common sense, circumstantial proof. The election wasn't close enough in numbers for him to contest it - he would have looked like an idiot, and the RW media would have been happy to help with that. He would have been a joke.

You cannot just say an election was stolen, particularly if you have no proof, and want to have a future in politics. There is STILL not enough real proof, at least that we know of, although all signs point to it having been stolen. Nothing that would hold up in a court of law. Maybe we never will, no paper trails, no Diebold employees coming forward.

Perhaps the man didn't want to destroy his future? I'm not so sure it would have been great for the country either, contesting an election you knew was stolen, but had no real proof. It would only have hurt the man, and the party, IF the party had gone along, which I doubt they would have. Evidence is real important - there wasn't any.

[ProSense]

35. Kerry did win and was the best candidate.

Here some of the counter arguments to Kerry's position as the best candidate:

He was a terrible candidate. He won, but wouldn't fight. He had his chance.

I voted for him, but it wasn't until after he won and wouldn't fight that I realized he was a terrible candidate because he voted for the war resolution.

I voted for someone else in the primary, but I was forced to vote for him because there are only two parties.

If he's the nominee in 2008, I'll vote for someone else.



I think we can all agree Kerry won!

[LWolf]

36. There's winning, and there's winning.

I can agree with this much; the election was stolen. That's as far as I can go. I didn't appreciate Kerry's nomination, the pro-war flavors at the convention, or his candidacy too much, but I still voted for him. Even though I knew that a "win" wouldn't be a win for the issues that I care about. Why do I know that? Kerry spent his time as the nominee telling us that Bush did it wrong, and he'd do it "right." I didn't want him to do Bush business at all; I wanted him to abolish it. There is no "right" way to manage GWB's policies, imo.

Working on election reform is great; I'm right there with anybody who will. But not because of Kerry. Because we need the chance to elect good candidates in all races.

I hope Kerry is doing something worthy in the senate these days. I haven't followed his votes or speeches this last year, so I can't really say.

What is he doing re: universal health care
ending the Iraq mess and bringing troops home
dealing with the federal budget mess
defending my students and my profession against
the atrocities embedded in NCLB
election reform
supreme court judges


I could go on, but those are a start. Is he taking action?

[globalvillage]

40. I believe he is.

This is a good link to press releases. Most of your questions are answered here.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/press-statement.cfm

[LWolf]

92. I've read the press releases.

I meant, what is he actually doing? Not saying, but doing.

Has he introduced any legislation? Done any committee work? Cast any votes to impede the Bush agenda?

[YvonneCa]

53. Yes...

...he has been relentless. Try listening to his Georgetown University speech on the way forward in Iraq. You can access it on C-SPAN's website (listed under Iraq).:patriot:

[Justice Is Comin]

39. You're going to have to get over the stolen votes

and remember the 30 million votes that weren't stimulated to come to the polls. If he had not used the same old tired language every candidate has used for eons--"we can do better...let's get it done, and on and on--and started ripping Bush up one side and down the other, he would have not needed to worry about Diebold.

Instead he leaves you scratching your head, why doesn't he get some passion? He had a golden chance to say clearly he wouldn't have signed onto the IWR if he knew the intelligence was cut and pasted. And what does he say? He'd vote invade again. And don't tell me he didn't hear the question.

He's probably the best president we'll never have. Because you have to win the presidency before you can take the office. He doesn't know how.

[rolleitreks]

41. Crap. Kerry was a weak candidate and we lost.n/t

[Seabiscuit]

74. I think Diebold had something to do with it, at least in Ohio, but you're

right about JK being a weak candidate - he was running against the most vulnerable incumbent in U.S. history and he blew it. He should have won in such a landslide that no amount of Diebold mischief could have changed the results.

I got myself permanently banned from JK's blog during the election contest because I had the nerve to offer constructive criticism - go after those Swift Boat Liars now! Why the delay? Get tough on Bush on Iraq - admit your vote for the IWR was a mistake, that you were deceived - why sound like Bush lite? Pile it on about the deficit, job outsourcing, etc., etc.

And you know what? The on-board die-hard JK fans on his blog all piled onto me and said JK knows best, he doesn't need the likes of me trying to run his campaign for him. Lot of good they and their kind did, because JK really blew it on those and other issues. He was lulled to sleep with that kind of support. It didn't take them too long before they got me banned. JK's campaign never got another nickle out of me. He didn't really get my vote, either. I just voted against Bush. He just happened to be the only alternative.

Every now and then I get bashed by the same kind of people on DU, who seem to blow a gasket every time anyone says the slightest thing critical of JK.

The irony of it all was that it took about five tries to get the Kerry campaign to stop sending me messages after I was permanently banned from their website.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

78. Self delete. Wrong place.

[ohtransplant]

43. Kerry was an excellent candidate.

and could be again in the future.

1)2008 is too far off and many things will transpire between now and then.

2) No one has kept up the pace or worked for as much legislation as Kerry since the 2004 election.

3) Like a smart leader, he has worked his butt off raising $$$ and campaigning for colleagues ( even Hillary), state, and local candidates - building the democratic party at its base.

[pansypoo53219]

44. in my mind we do

04' should have been a LANDSLIDE. poor advice from campaign 'experts'. IGNORING the swift boat vets.
save 'presidential' for after.
this was war, and he didn't act like it was. they LET them steal Ohio.

[seabeyond]

45. i think that is why i continue to stick of for kerry, it is sticking up

for all of us. first campaign i spent my life in 24/7. i saw what we all did. and that included kerry and edwards. there is just no way i am going to make that experience less, our candidate less the people that rallied behind kerry/edwards

yes to your post. i would equally be able to through myself into a campaign of edwards, conyers, dean, boxer, biden, (even hillary,Lol), clark, durbin, .......

we have good smart people

[stevedeshazer]

49. Your sensible post on this matter is timely and appreciated. n/t

[Darranar]

51. If our election was stolen, then Kerry needlessly capitulated.

If our election was not stolen, then Kerry ran a horrible campaign, because he managed to lose against Bush.

Or, most likely, both.

[Goldeneye]

55. non sequitur

If our election was not stolen, then Kerry ran a horrible campaign, because he managed to lose against Bush.


Either Kerry did or didn't run a lousy campaign. It doesn't have anything to do with stealing the election.

[robbedvoter]

57. Not really. However he run the campaign he won. And gave it away.

helped them cover up with his silence.

[Darranar]

59. No, it doesn't, it appears you misunderstood me.

I am not arguing causality, that Bush not stealing the election caused Kerry to run a horrible campaign.

I am arguing correlation, that the fact that a candidate loses against an unpopular and obviously incompetent incumbent indicates that that candidate did not run a very effective campaign.

[Goldeneye]

60. It's still a non sequitor. Maybe I should've thrown in the first part.

Your post says

If our election was stolen, then Kerry needlessly capitulated.

If our election was not stolen, then Kerry ran a horrible campaign, because he managed to lose against Bush.

Or, most likely, both.

Whether the election was stolen or not, Kerry ran either a shitty campaign or an acceptable campaign. When you go on to the second part, you're saying that he only ran a shitty campaign if he really did lose to bush. So I guess my problem was with both the "if" parts together, rather than the latter one.

[Darranar]

63. "if" does not mean "if and only if." n/t

[Goldeneye]

65. depends on what the definition of " if" is.

:)

[Seabiscuit]

76. Don't forget it also depends on the daffynition of what "is" is.

And why can't I use my definition of "sexual relations" instead of the judge's??? Because the court issued an order? That's all? Who cares? I'm sticking to my definition, like it or not.

[noiretextatique]

82. how about both and vs. either or?

kerry ran a shitty campaign AND still didn't lose to bush because the election was stolen...AND he capitulated needlessly.

[Goldeneye]

87. there we go....

I don't agree with the statement...but at least it seems logically consistant.

[YvonneCa]

54. I agree...Great Post!!! n/t

[robbedvoter]

58. A better candidate would have SCREAMED: "WE WUZ ROBBED"

In that sense Kerry was bad .

[karynnj]

73. and the media, the courts would have done what?

If the a well known Washington Post could take a good natured Kerry joke at Georgetown a few weeks ago(Saying when a student said she was from Ohio and voted for him, "Why couldn't more of you have been from Ohio?" - or somethig to that effect. He made a similar comment in NJ when he was thanking people for there support saying we did everything humanly possible, except move to Ohio - he was grinning and he got laughing and applause. ) and majke an issue of it - what do you think would have happened.

The courts in Ohio are controlled by the Republicans. A simple recount wouldn't do. DU aside there is still no compelling PROOF that the election was stolen.

[robbedvoter]

127. At least everyone knows 2000 was stolen, Why? because Gore was

less preoccupied about image and more about democracy. kerry, in spite all the grassroots support, money & lawyers let us all down. NO EXCUSE!

[mzmolly]

61. I'm heartened to see all the "newbeez" speaking on behalf of Kerry.

Stick around folks.

Thanks for the post! :toast:

[Zhade]

62. ...in your opinion.

It is noted. I choose otherwise, but thanks for the input.

[sepia_steel]

64. Recommended. nt

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Maven]

67. I agree 100% on the media strategy. But "mass demonstrations?"

No.

No.

No.

We on the left have got to get over thinking that mass protests mean dick these days. They don't. Not at all. They've been totally delegitimized by our media and the right wing. Half the time the different factions that participate are all railing for a bunch of disparate issues. So no political legitimacy, and no clear message. And this is coming from someone who has taken part in countless demonstrations. Believe me kids, they're useless except as a catharsis for the people taking part in them. In fact, they only ever work in the local setting, to give small-time politicians the opportunity to pledge their support for a particular issue (e.g., women's rights). But on a national level? Forget it.

The real fight, as you rightly point out, is a media battle, and can be won by creating the sort of spectacles and fake controversies the right has used to their advantage for the last two decades.

As for the voting issues, I agree 100%.

[Malikshah]

68. We Won?? Ahh...who's at 1600 Penn Ave??

The old moral victory don't mean much except to the MoreOfTheSame ConventionalWisdom folk

So what's next...are we waiting for the next....Chess move by Kerry?

Give it a rest folks. Kerry bailed as did many others.

A fighter is what is needed someone with brass balls and/or ovaries.

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. In the special services in Vietnam were we?

You talk a great rumble.

[Malikshah]

105. Mumblerumblemumble

Yup. A good old rumble.

Wow-- so service is now a criteria for whether one should be able to critique or not. Thanks for the update.

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. Well you've got some nerve, impugning Kerry's courage!

[Malikshah]

121. If that's the case, it's probably good that you don't have my nerve

in your tooth when it comes to my views on McCain.

Courage is a muscle that must be continually flexed. It is clear in my opinion that Kerry and McCain selectively chose to flex their muscles and they atrophied.

[Joe Chi Minh]

132. Well, it's good to get the lowdown on courage from an authority.

Thank you for your input.

[Malikshah]

139. Sarcasm isn't becoming in some..they don't have the coloring for it

But, hey, life's rough all over.

Let the chess players continue their "More of the Same"-"Conventional Wisdom" game while the rest of us try and figure a way out of the mess.

[Joe Chi Minh]

150. We're waiting with bated breath.

[Joe Chi Minh]

151. What made you think I was being sarcastic? You mean you

really aren't an authority on courage? At least in comparison with Kerry and McCain?

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. PS: I feel such a fool not having made the connection between

pigmentation and sarcasm, before. But I'm going to keep it as our little secret. It's too precious to be shared with the "mutable rank-scented many", isn't it?

[Malikshah]

166. Wow--asking for personal background materials

changing the nature of the discussion...making the other person reveal information about themselves...attacking the poster more than the post...and all this with multiple responses (a la the "and another thing..." game)

Wow.

Just...wow.

There's an old adage that's been bandied about a lot around here.

One should never wrestle in the mud with pigs--for two reasons.

1) You both get muddy.

2) The pig likes it.

Enjoy--I know I have--it's like a side show at this point.

[JVS]

69. Can we please have one who will win and take office?

[EnfantTerrible]

71. I agree with much of what you say here

with an exception or two...

The media hardly covered any of the efforts by Conyers and did only slightly better by Reid.
The anti war protests at the run up to the invasion- which were the largest political protests in history and on a global level- were glossed over and misreported by our media. There is no longer a free press to report the news you'd like to give them. There is so much news for them to report right now and yet they are silent (GAO reports anyone?).

As far as I'm conscerned Kerry is nothing but a careerist. If he truly felt wronged he would've stood up for himself or better yet, as the public servant he's supposed to be, for this Democracy, instead of worrying about how he would be perceived in the media and the subsequent effects on his political career. Candidates like him are complicit in the breaking of the system by their silence. The DLC will never allow a mass mobilization in their name because they profit too much from the very system they should be trying to fix.

[karynnj]

75. The problem is you assign your beliefs in terms of what happened

to him and complain he doesn't say what you would say. He has many times talked about Fraud and irregularities. He has spoken very emotionally about the very long lines in Democratic areas. He is one of 4 Senators working on legislation to try to fix this. (Clinton is the named Sponsor - Kerry, Lautenberg, and Boxer are the others.)

[EnfantTerrible]

85. You're kidding, right?

What you have written here barely makes sense...
Nowhere do I mention what I would say. Kerry himself said he would count every vote. He folded in a matter of hours...

I don't even know how to respond to "...you assign your beliefs in terms of what happened to him." Beyond supposing an awful lot about my beliefs, what that hell does that sentence even mean?

They're working on legislation to fix the long lines? Who cares! The election was flat out STOLEN... they should be screaming from the roof tops but with the exception of Conyers none have made a real fuss. All are too worried about how that would make them look instead of the fact that they are there to serve the public and the public was robbed.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

79. Sure. Maybe next time he can John McCain for his running mate too.

[fujiyama]

80. The problem really wasn't Kerry

or moreso Kerry's background. He had a great resume and there was no real reason he couldn't have won (actually there is a strong possibility that he actually did)

It was his inability to articulate his message clearly enough, especially on the war. Kerry himself COULD have won this thing. While I can certainly see why Kerry's personality may have turned sme off (I personally find such people shallow and idiotic), it was the APPEARANCE that Kerry (and Gore as well for that matter) couldn't make strong decisions.

This probably touches on the media bias. This however, was something we should have known already. No one expected the media to be friendly. Here it takes someone truly skillful to outmanuver a dishonest media that will spin the situation as positive as it can for any republican. Only now has CNN changed its tone a bit, because the scandals are so blatant and Bush's approval ratings are so awful.

[seabeyond]

88. the problem wasnt kerry couldnt articulate his message on war

he did just fine. i was able to follow and comprehend. the problem is not often, hardly at all did msm show what kerry had to say on the war and then when they showed a clip they then tore it apart with their own interpretation of what he said, ignoring his actual words, and presenting a story line to the american people, leaving them unable to follow, purposely.

[Joe Chi Minh]

106. "It was his inability to articulate his message clearly enough,

especially on the war."

You Kerry critics always studiously avoid the obvious conclusion that the livelihoods of most people - even rednecks - had become so imperilled, that they voted for Kerry first and foremost because of his promise of a New Deal. Voted directly on that.

Of course, there are a million and one ways in which they have impoverished the country (to their own profit), the war in Iraq being right up there; but Kerry's phenomenally high numbers in the election were down to his New Deal.

The war and everything else were lower down the order of priorities, because everyone realises that, however much they could contribute, none of those priorities, on their own, would necessarily lead to the "number one" priority - a fairer, more prosperous and sane society.

Such notions as Kerry being inarticulate, lacking empathy, folding when the chips are down, all these kind of half-baked criticisms are actually Reublican talking points. You're really doing well. Keep up the good work. IF IT AINT BUSTED DON'T FIX IT! FIX WHAT IS BUSTED. THE ELECTIONS!!!!!

PS: Oh and I forgot, Kerry should have married Bush's wife! "Sadly,...", one of the magic words!

[_dynamicdems]

191. Nobody expected the media to be friendly, but nobody

expected the media to be bought and paid for either. And with our tax dollars for insult to injury!

[Stand and Fight]

81. Recommending and bookmarking to distribute tommorrow.

Outstanding post and dead-on target.

[henslee]

83. Sadly, I I dont see America embracing Mrs. Heinz Kerry as a first Lady

[lynne]

90. I don't think we'll get the chance to vote for Kerry again -

- because I don't think he'll get the nomination. Too much history and too much baggage to risk Kerry, IMO.

[Alpharetta]

91. Regardless of whether he won, he doesn't represent the wisdom

of the Democratic Party who stood in the Senate and refused to be intimidated into voting yes on the rush to war.

[corbett]

93. I've Predicted A Kerry/Clinton Ticket In 2008 And I'll Reiterate It...

During the 2004 primaries, I supported Gephardt, who recently went public in saying that he was wrong to vote to invade Iraq. When he and Dean canceled each other out in Iowa, I was happy to move my support to Kerry, who had been my second choice all along.

Needless to say, I was despondent when he conceded to the shrub, especially since there was election fraud in my home state of Florida in addition to Ohio. To this day, I wish that Kerry would fight harder in Ohio to bring the truth to light but trust his judgment.

As for 2008, I have hard-right, ardent Bush supporter friends who have told me that they already have accepted the truth that Hillary will be unbeatable. I like her overall, even if she is too cozy with the DLC. However, since Kerry already has run a tenacious primary race, I envision him beating her for the top slot on the ticket and then choosing her as his running mate.

That would be the best choice, especially since McCain will win the Republican nomination and then pick first brother Jeb Bush for veep.

[SharonRB]

94. Excellent post

I totally agree with what you've said here.

And, welcome to DU! :hi:

[lateo]

95. We DO need a better candidate than Kerry.

We need one who will FIGHT tooth and nail for the win...and not just give up.

[helderheid]

100. PLEASE submit this as an editorial to your paper - it's brilliant! K & R!

[movie_girl99]

102. fantastic post!!!!

Thank you so much for posting this. Many of us feel the same way but you nailed it on the head.

[second edition]

104. Nice post- I recommended it!!! n/t

[BJW]

108. We Need to Be Our Own Heroes

I'm weighing in here on the side of Kerry and his supporters. The OP wrote:

++++
<snip>
We WON. If you read this forum and other informed sources, Kerry won the election, or rather we won the election of Kerry. The reason Kerry is not president is that THE ELECTION was STOLEN. I just want to get beyond the endless chewing on the quality of Democratic candidates, as though what we really need to do to win the next election is find Jesus Christ and run him. Jesus Christ cannot win against Diebold.
<snip>
+++++

The Greens (and Libs?) actually did contest the election results. But to this day, the fraud that occurred, and the systemic potential for gross fraud in the future, hasn't been properly addressed or resolved.

The practical effect of Kerry contesting the election would have been absolutely nill. The Supreme Court had set a legal precedent in 2000 that they had the right to stop recounts and install a leader. I believe they would have done it again.

Now, with that said, I also feel disappointed, betrayed, and unhappy that Kerry wasn't an "extreme hero" and didn't fight and keep fighting until the bitter end. I'm like most people in that more than anything, I want a real-life Captain American hero to come along and save our democracy from the forces of evil.

And, maybe Kerry could have been that hero, and maybe he should have not capitulated quite so quickly, which would have made me feel better about him. But he's not Captain America. He's not a perfect hero. He's a human being and a decent man, and I think that he did what he thought was best for the nation as a whole at the time.

The election was stolen. The outcome was rigged. The ultimate end was wholly predictable.

Setting up people as our heroes is easy. Tearing them down and discarding them for not being perfect heroes is easy too. When our heroes fail us in some way, it is far too easy, and admittedly satisfying, to wholly disown and condemn them for their flaws.

What was Kerry's central flaw as our Hero? He didn't give us a chance to be vicarious heroes through him. He didn't fight the noble fight we wanted to fight. He didn't vicariously give us our voice of righteous indignation and outrage. He didn't scream and keep screaming and refuse to shut up, which is what we wanted to do.

Heroes and saviors exist to personify and give voice to our feelings of powerlessness. Any Hero or savior who doesn't follow this program risks being summarily condemned and crucified.

But, oddly enough, wanting, and believing in, and expecting other humans to be our perfect heroes ultimately keeps us in a powerless position. We want the hero to do the work for us, and to fight for us, and sacrifice for us, while our risks and inconveniences are minimal, and we can go on about our lives.

We all could have been our own heroes and maybe stopped the installation back in 2004. But we didn't take to the streets and demonstrate in record numbers and refuse to go home. We didn't go on strike and give up our wages and our jobs and refuse to work.

Truth be told, most of us didn't do much of anything except maybe post something here or there, or write a letter, or put a bumper sticker on a car, or make some public comments. (This is not to say that any of these gestures are worthless--they are collectively valuable, but ony to a point.)

Continuing to vicariously emotionally invest ourselves in heroes only to knock them down when we are disillusioned and dissatisfied, without actually taking real risk and being heroes ourselves, simply means that this state of affairs will continuously repeat.

We need to stop investing in heroes "out there" to represent us and start being our own heroes. We're the ones that need to take serious risks, and make full-on commitments to save our democracy.

Ask yourself? What am I willing to sacrifice to save our democracy? My free time? My job? My money? My future? My family? My freedom? My life?

If we're not personally willing to make major sacrifices ourselves it is disingenuous to expect that our heroes will also make these major sacrifices. Human beings aren't perfect heroes, as much as we want them to be. They're just like us. And, like us, the degree of our commitment and personal heroism to saving our democracy is a complicated balancing act.

Captain America is a cartoon character, not a human being. Kerry is not and never will be Captain America, and neither will any other political candidate. Neither John Kerry or Captain America can save our democracy for us. Only we can do this.

[planetc]

144. Seconding all of your comments, and

agreeing with them about 300%. It's not our leaders, it's us. We employ them. If they are screwing up, it's up to us to straighten this mess out.

[BJW]

165. Thanks for Reading it!

I was hoping it wasn't going to get lost in the overwhelming number of posts on your thread. I was thinking I might edit it a bit and then start it as a separate thread. Thoughts?

[Lannes]

109. I thought he would make a good president

But I doubt that red staters would admit they were wrong and vote for him in the next election.Yes he won the last one but I believe we need someone who can provide a larger margin of victory to counter any funny business by the GOP.It may not be enough anyway.

Its still too early to say that Kerry is our best hope for 2008.It may come to that point but right now Id like to see some other Dems make their case before we proclaim him as our best candidate in 08'.

Yes,Kerry was an excellent candidate but he wasnt an excellent campaigner.There is a difference.I put alot of that on the doorstep of Bob Shrum.Kerry better not come within a 100 miles of that guy if he wants to run again.He needs some new blood.

[autorank]

110. SIMPLY OUTSTANDING!!! Appologies for not showing up earlier.

You said it all. Kerry was good enough and would have been an excellent president. The CM (corporate media) doesn't report and the people have to take much time to find out the truth. Now the vast majority know.

Those who reap the wind shall inherit the whirlwind. The Republicans can anticipate a windy couple of decades.

When it all shakes out and when we have enough time to study the Livermore facilities undeniable study showing a 40 degree increase in temperature by 2300, THE PEOPLE WILL BE IN A FURY.

No appologies necessary for using all caps. One of my favorite DU users of all time, favorite internet posters of all time, used to do it all the time. Also, at Telenet, the original internet (before the name was around), the convention was to use all caps all the time (too much coffee;)

[wiggs]

112. Magnificent man. Great American. Flawed candidate.

I'll even say he would have made a very good president. I worked in my local dem office for him before the election.

However, he should have been able to turn Bush into jello in the debates, should have been able to articulate his positions more clearly and forcefully so that the average person could relate, should have been able to distance himself from the worst president ever, should have used the environment issue, should have had better advisors, should NEVER have said he would make the same IWR vote if he had it to do over again (should have said that given what he now knows about Bush he would never give him authority to make any decision, let alone one about war), should not have taken the high road against an administration with so many misdeeds, should have voted against Ohio elector certification, should have battled against Swift Boat liars in outrage or at least have rallied his dem colleagues to his defense. I will say his campaign was one frustration after another for me.

Even if he actually received 2-3% more votes than Bush per exit polls (which I believe), it shouldn't have been close enough for voter suppression and vote tampering to work.

Still...great guy.

[Jim Stark]

114. Sorry, I don't like John Kerry

He's filthy rich, living the filthy rich life and therefore out of touch with reality. I also loathe the Hollywood left except when they are marginally useful to us. Mostly I find them an embarrassment flying around in private jets, living in multi million dollar homes and eating
45.00 dollar salads at the Ivy. They make me sick.

[NYCGirl]

119. I find the fact that your screen name is that of one of main icons of

Hollywood (James Dean's character in "Rebel without a Cause") to be painfully ironic considering your ill-advised rightwing rhetoric — although you seem to be more to the left than McCarthy; but only a bit.

[Der Blaue Engel]

138. This sounds like a parody

of a Bush voter. Are you serious?

[andyhappy]

117. kerry was awful

He didn't have a message. He is republican light. He was so focused grouped that he couldn't take a stand on anything. AND he backed down when he should have fought that bogus election and he will do it again if we run him again in 08!

Why on earth are people still defending him? I mean, were you people always kerry supporters or did you 'fall in love' with him in 2004?

He was a war hero but that war hero is 25 years old and in the past. Kerry is a product of being a politician in washington for too long. People do not want that. I do not want that. I want a regular person. Someone who has conviction and isn't afraid to have an opinion!

I agree that the election was stolen, and something needs to be done about that, but Kerry was a failure as a candidate.

These are two different subjects!

Kerry had his shot and he blew it! I want my money back for all those lawyers they had waiting in the wings in ohio. I want my time back for all the phone banking that I did for his campaign.

When I think of that concession speech I still want to scream! He broke my heart and I cannot forgive him for that!

[saracat]

123. Republican light? Do you even read any of his speeches? You call the most

member of the senate Republican light? Read Kerry's voting record before you hurl this allegation! I find it really troubling that some are charging this against our most 100% liberal Senator. It is a very suspicious thing to say, and troubling.

[andyhappy]

126. please...

I am talking about the election in 2004. The one in which I was reading everything written by and about Kerry and hanging on every word he said!

I am not talking about his voting record in the past. I am not talking about what he did in viet nam. I am not talking about what he did when he got back from viet nam.

I am talking about 2004. His message WAS republican light. He wasn't talking about pulling out the troops. He wasn't talking about getting rid of the tax cuts for the rich. He couldn't even come out and say he was for a womans right to choose without dancing around actually saying anything you could understand.

John Kerry would take 15 minutes to tell you the sky is blue.

classic politician.

....remember the move when like 2 days b4 voting he put on the full camouflage outfit to go hunting? Pathetic...so lame.

[confludemocrat]

153. Most liberal senator? Not true

here's a TINY sampling of his real record:

ratings by public interest groups:

ACLU 60%

Public Citizen (consumer advocacy) 27%

League of Conservation Voters (environment) 53%

want more?

[Marleyb]

125. 51 million for recounts

From the Center for Public Integrity...

"Under Federal Election Commission rules, both candidates are allowed to use remaining funds from their primary election committees to conduct recount activities, which in Kerry's case amounts to just under $45 million. That compares to just more than $16 million left over in the Bush/Cheney primary election committee's coffers.

Those funds, combined with the cash on hand each campaign reported for accounting and legal costs, give Kerry a total of $51.6 million that could possibly be used for potential recounts, according to the campaign's pre-General Election filings."
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=418&sid=200

[Jim Stark]

131. I agree!!

This is what I'm saying!!

[andyhappy]

134. I just got slammed...

I started a post asking why so many people backed and boy nelly did I get taken to town!

I guess this site is Kerry country!

[confludemocrat]

155. They fall silent when you repeat the facts to them, though

You'll get sophomoric and sarcastic taunts, they will trash anyone and every one who voted opposite to Kerry on big issues he blew it on like the IWR. E.g., by calling those who voted against it pacifists or some other perjorative words while out of the other side of their mouths condemning any critique of Kerry's calculating opportunism as "eating our own". They have Kerry in their screen names. They are a tiresome lot, but Scotty Dog McClellan/Karen Hughes-level stubborn against all reason.

[saracat]

174. I don't fall silent. Your attack is beneath contempt. Here are some "facts

ADA lifetime voting records -- Boxer 96 Kennedy 90 Kerry 92
http://www.adaction.org/sen.htm

Americans For Democratic Action, liberal lobbying group

from thier "about page"

<snip>

ADA is America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization. In the spirit of the New Deal and ADA founders Eleanor Roosevelt, renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey we lobby through coalition partnerships, through direct advocacy, and through the media. Our lobbying philosophy is based on democratic action - motivating our grassroots members to lobby their senators and representatives as constituent-advocates. With 65,000 members nationwide, numerous state and local chapters, and its headquarters in the District of Colombia actively engaging in the political process, ADA continually strives to push for democratic and progressive values and ideals in American policy. Our founders included Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter Reuther, economist John Kenneth Galbraith, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

[confludemocrat]

175. So, bigfoot liberal orgs only count? ADA is trotted out again

I am familiar with this line of attack, but the relevancy of the ADA kind of faded with the demise of Paul Douglas and the earlier Viet war-compromised position of Hubert Humphrey.

some more of his real record (wonder how the white shoe ADA accounted for this in their score):
Voted for the Telecommunications Act

Author and driving force behind 1999's "Plan Columbia" spewing toxic herbicides over 300, 000 acres in that country to kill cocaine; didn't work

Voted for Scalia

Voted for the Welfare Reform Bill, 1996

IWR, Patriot act

supported the Gramm-Rudman "deficit reduction act"

Voted against the 1990 Gulf War, then endorsed the invasion

"Liberal" according to the ADA which seems a shell of its former self considering its forebears and that tghis rating is based on selected issues.

I got more, but bringing this shit up being already "beneath contempt", there may be no point with the likes of you, who fit the profile of Kerry rabidness.

[saracat]

178. And I have my suspicions about from whence "your"

particular brand of rabidness hails.Perhaps there is NO Dem who is "perfect enough " for you? He still has the best record among the Senators.And his recent votes have been spectacular. No one else is doing as much for small business or the poor or for , yes, voting rights as Kerry. Too bad you are unable to see that but prefer to complain.

[confludemocrat]

201. Yes, he's tried to clean up his act lately, but he's not Prez material

that's always been my point to the Kerry fawners. I was for him in June 2003 being one among the 15% in the Move-On straw poll done then who voted for the guy, I contributed $500.00 either to his campaign directly or Move-On messages that pertained to helping his campaign. I based this on his performance against Weld in what, 1990 or earlier, I forget. Then when he threw in the towel last year, with $15 or 51 mil. left in his coffers, I began to look into his record. He really sucks.

[blm]

190. Can you post some of those please? Or point to the thread where that

occurred? Can't imagine that you were called names like that. Did you hit alert on the offenders?

[confludemocrat]

202. I never hit the alert button against anyone but have had posts deleted

when factual stuff was used in exchanges with Kerry people! And no, I don't keep an accounting of such things. I sometimes save crazy moonbat posts and will look there for what I'm talking about. When Cindy Sheehan was more in the news I recall that the usual Kerryites seemed quite equivocal to skeptical to dismissive of her, then they tried aligning themselves with her right before and after she put him in her "hall of fame" , but after she gave an interview saying she would never vote for or support him they reverted once again.

[WildEyedLiberal]

189. You've got to be kidding.

You admitted yourself that you were an asshole in that thread and the moderators locked it AT YOUR REQUEST.

You admitted yourself that you were "only joking" about your personal slurs against Kerry in your OP of that thread - only now you're defending said smears, and claiming you got "taken to town"?

Are you that disingenuous, or just very forgetful?

This post proves that you have NO REAL INTEREST IN LEARNING WHY PEOPLE SUPPORT KERRY and JUST WANT TO MAKE SNARKY, DIVISIVE POSTS.

I'm sorry I took your apology seriously the other day. It's clear you didn't mean it.

[geek tragedy]

118. Disagree 100%

Kerry was a terrible candidate--he was pegged as a flip-flopper by Howard Dean.

He's a liberal Northeast Senator, and an awkward speaker. His statement that he didn't regret voting to give Bush the authority to go to war was a horrific blunder.

And he's far from the brightest bulb in the Democratic chandelier--he got the same college grades as Dumbya.

I also don't think the election was stolen. Not a popular sentiment around here, but the fact is that we need to do better next time and not let delusions of 'stolen elections' paralyze us.

[WildEyedLiberal]

195. That you could even compare Kerry and Bush's intellect

Shows how disastrously shallow your understanding of either is.

[Swamp Rat]

198. Yep

;)

[derby378]

120. I was a Howard Dean supporter in 2004...

...and I still believe that Dean was our best shot at the White House, but he refused to kiss Al From's ring, so From got pissy and directed some DLC 527's to shut down Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That said, I supported John Kerry's bid more than I've supported any other Presidential candidate's bid in my life. I built yard signs for him. I designed, sold, and gave away bumper stickers for him. I cheered him on in the Presidential debates. I worked as a poll greeter to help encourage people on Election Day to vote for Kerry. All this and more I did in order to help him get elected to replace Nero in the White House.

We could have done a lot worse than John Kerry. But we can do better, too. If Kerry really was all that and a bag of chips, his campaign would have shut down the Rove smear machine, and Kerry would have pulled in all the independents and fence-sitters for a nice little 60% at the polls after Diebold and ES&S operatives threw the switch.

We weren't playing in 2004. We damn sure aren't playing in 2006 and 2008. But we can do better than John Kerry. Unless, of course, he decides to stop playing, too.

[Marleyb]

122. If we know they used electronic voting etc to steal the general election

How do we know they didn't steal the primary election for John Kerry?

He has the same friends in high places.

I know he wasn't the best we have to offer.

[SeanQ]

124. While I disagree with the subject of your post,

I do strongly agree with your primary point.

Kerry was not my pick in the primary (he wouldn't have even been my # 2 or #3 picks). Which doesn't mean I didn't like him or didn't think he would do a fine job as president. I campaigned for him as the Democratic candidate. I was disappointed with him a few times during the campaign, when he did not fight back when he should have, did not speak simply and clearly enough. That's the downside to running a career Senator, particularly one of Kerry's caliber - they have a hard time not being diplomatic when it's appropriate. I was very disappointed when he conceded the election so quickly, after promising to fight. Even if it was a lost cause, probable fraud was obvious. Even if it was just a few weeks fight to bring attention to how bad the problem is. ...

Because, in the end, I think you are correct. For all we know Kerry should not only have won, but won by 2-5%. We have no way of knowing. And until that problem is fixed, whether we run a good candidate or a great one, our chances of winning are slim to none. The fix is in, and nothing short of a landslide victory of historic proportions is likely to overcome it.

Hopefully we do still have a chance of winning back one or both houses in 2006, and can fix some of these problems before 2008. And it definitely should be a central point in the party platform! What American citizen (discounting bushbots) in their right mind could really argue against fair, verifiable elections?

[robbedvoter]

128. STOLEN, but Kerry helped hide the fact - so we DO NEED A BETTER

candidate than kerry - one who has his/her priorities right: Democracy is more important that self-image.

[young_at_heart]

129. Completely agree with you.....wish it had been Clark

My husband and I were behind Clark 100% but our state's primary is late in the summer so our votes never counted. The system needs to change!

[MadHound]

130. No, we don't need Kerry

Though I voted for the man, I was uncofortable doing so for one very good reason, he was in favor of continuing this illegal, immoral war. And sad to say, despite his pious mouthings of late, his actions betray the fact that he is still in favor of continuing this illegal, immoral war.

Next election we need somebody who in unapproachably, unequivicly against the war. Not somebody who talks the anti-war talk, but continues to give the nod to war funding bills. We need somebody who not only voted against the IWR, but somebody who by words and actions has demonstrated that they are resolutely against the war and will bring the troops home ASAP.

Anything other than that will spread all that much more innocent blood on the hands of the Democrats, and will assuredly lose the election for them.

Sorry, but Kerry most certainly does not fit that bill.

[Helga Scow Stern]

133. You can say that again!

I like that line, "throw them to the wolves of history."

[sepia_steel]

137. Recommended.

I am VERY weary of this crap as well. Thanks for the post.

[Mme. Defarge]

140. So, does this mean

that help is still on the way? If so, it's kinda late, isn't it?

[Martin Eden]

141. planetc, your post contradicts itself

NO, we do NOT need a better candidate than Kerry

--snip--
The Democratic Party would present itself as an obvious entity to organize us. They have not made an effort to do so. We need to know why they have not. If they cannot be persuaded to organize the second American revolution, we will have to find somebody else. The apparent desertion of our leaders is a major problem. We have to try harder to communicate with them.

Being the Democratic candidate for president, did that not make him one of the leaders you accuse of "apparent desertion" who have "not made an effort" to organize us?

I agree with most of your post. Our democracy IS broken, the MSM IS a problem, and we need leaders who will organize the second American revolution.

But unless you can make the case that Kerry is the leader to do it (which his performance in 2004 does not indicate) then I submit that we do in fact need someone BETTER.

[planetc]

143. Yes, it does...

contradict itself. Kerry appears to have deserted us. Also, Dean, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Shumer, and any other high-profile Democrat you want to name. The only heroes so far are John Conyers and his gaggle of Representatives and Cindy Sheehan.

And where, I ask myself, were all those Democratic leaders when every newspaper in the country was attempting to turn Bill Clinton into roadkill? Where is Al Gore? We did not arrive at our present depth of deepness overnight. The national media were once mildly trustworthy.

Where the effin heck are they?

The point I started with is that simply trying to find a better candidate than Kerry is futile. I am not sure what we have learned since the 2004 election about what's really going on in the Democratic party, but I know I haven't sent them a dime since the election. But I once read up a little on Martin Luther King's life, and I realized that at moments, his movement led him, not the other way around. And I persist in believing that if we really believe in democracy, rather than a sort of national football game, we can lead our leaders to do what has to be done.

[Martin Eden]

145. Fundamental change

is what we seek. The question is whether or not the Democratic Party is the instrument for effecting that change. On the one hand it is the only political organization sufficiently large and powerful to take on the powers that are destroying our democracy, and there ARE some worthy leaders in the Party. On the other hand the Democratic Party is very much a part of the established order and hence part of the problem. It has squandered opportunities to mount effective opposition, and let itself be pulled further to the right.

Taken in that context, the title of your post can be construed not as an endorsement of Kerry but rather as an argument that the problem isn't with that candidate but with ANY presidential candidate the Democratic Party as presently constituted is likely to nominate.

Our challege is finding a way to improve the Democratic Party or, failing that, organize a viable alternative. Given the stranglehold of the two-party system on American politics, the former still looks like the better bet.

That a neofascist cabal like the Bush administration has been able to sieze and hold power in this country illustrates how dire the situation has become. Ironically however, the depths of this disaster just might shake an apathetic brainwashed citizenry out of its slumber. The winds of change are in the air, but we're still looking for a captain to harness that wind and set sail for a new course.

[NobleCynic]

142. Kerry? You're kidding...

Couldn't we have gone with anyone but Kerry? Really now. I was for Howard Dean myself. He might have lost, but at least he would have said something! And Wesley Clark, despite the fact that he was practically a Republican anyways, at least he would have won, and by a large enough margin that it couldn't be cheated away. John Edwards actually brought up the one issue where Democrats CAN win: poverty and the economy. Al Sharpton? Sure we would have lost, but it would have been bloody hilarious. Could you imagine Sharpton debating Bush? Actually I think the Democratic Party would be better off if Sharpton had gotten to debate Bush. Anyone with a backbone and four brain cells could have debated him into a weeping little fetal ball. But Sharpton would have done it with bad puns too.

America needed to see someone different from Bush. Not a bloody classmate. What did Kerry say? What did he do? I know he differed greatly from Bush but how could you tell? A dead gerbil could have run a better campaign for crying out loud. Actually, now that I mention it, he kinda looks like a dead gerbil...

[planetc]

148. using your post to remind you ...

others here that the purpose of the original post was not to argue that Kerry was the best possible Democratic candidate, or the best possible campaigner, but that until we can restore integrity to the voting system, it doesn't much matter who we nominate.

What my argument is is that the business-as-usual approach will not work if the elections are fixed.

The Democratic Party appears to be set on business as usual except for the occasional brief moment of symbolic hope, like the Reid rebellion. We need the Democratic leadership to recognize how dire our present straits are, and to organize an effective popular and legislative rebellion against an illegitimate regime. If the Democratic Party doesn't think there's anything to get EXCITED about, we have to convince them. If we can't convince them, we have find other means.

[confludemocrat]

157. But you came up with Kerry at random to put in the subject line, I guess

a man who inspired the now-famous "Fuck You, John F Kerry" post on Nov 3 for his retreat on his "count all the votes pledge", while bringing this subject up, let me remind YOU. Interesting.

[planetc]

161. I persist in believing

that I did not bring up the subject you insist I brought up.

Nor have I ever read the "FU,JFK" thread. In fact, if I had seen that as the subject line, I'd conclude it probably didn't offer much substance, and skip it.

I put Kerry into the subject line because he was the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. If Dean or Kucinich or Sharpton had been the candidate, I would have named him.

[hfojvt]

158. a better candidate might have made elections

unfixable.
As bad as this pResident is, why did so many people vote for him? So many of us were ABB before the election we would have voted for his dad if that had been the Democratic candidate. In Kansas in 2000 Gore got 399,276 votes and Nader got 36,086 votes and yet Kerry only got 434,993. Even Dukakis got 422,636 votes in Kansas when there were 200,000 fewer voters.

Some of that was because of the triage way he campaigned, but that allowed his opponent to triage campaign too. Gore took Iowa, and Kerry didn't so what is up with that? I think he shot himself in the foot by not differentiating himself on the issue of Iraq, and also did he ever defend his senate voting record?

I was so disgusted by the Cheney-Edwards debate. Cheney kept attacking Kerry's senate voting record and Edwards kept ignoring it and talking about Kerry's debate performance. That was not an effective counterpunch or even a block IMO. He should have said strongly "Kerry has a voting record to be proud of, one that has been on the right side of helping ordinary Americans, and you have been attacking it by distorting it!" If anybody has a record that could not be defended, it was the Bush administration, but it seemed like we were playing defense.

[LandOLincoln]

160. You may be a noble cynic, but you're certainly

an ill-informed one:

"And Wesley Clark, despite the fact that he was practically a Republican anyways,..."

That's utter and complete bullshit, and I'm afraid Howard Dean proved himself to be just another dirty politician when he tried to use that line against Clark in the primaries. Shame on him for that, and shame on you for perpetuating that tired old lie.

[radio4progressives]

159. Separating the Issues

You nailed the problem : our system is broken and yes we were robbed.

But making that very critical and important point under the banner of how "we don't need a better candidate than Kerry" convulutes the important message regarding our broken system, and stolen election.

Our broken system revealed a great deal of what happened and what must be fixed, and how vital it is to our democracy that these issues are discussed and detailed front and center before floating presidential candidates for the '08 elections.

And because among other even more important reasons (or possibly as a consequence of learning what happened in '04) - was that Kerry FAILED us all - by not leading the way to addressing these issues in the public fora and in the legislation.

It certainly does not do this critical issue the full benefit it deserves when it is framed around whether or not the quality of Kerry as a candidate was the problem, because we all know that wasn't the problem, despite Kerry's campaign flaws.

With an honest 2004 election, Kerry would be occupying the white house right now, of that there is no doubt in my mind.

But he is not the candidate I will support in 2008.

[planetc]

163. Thanks ...

for reading my post. Yes, I was trying to divert attention from wrangles over who a better candidate might have been. If the election process has no integrity, the quality of the candidate does not matter. But quantities of people here and in the media persist in spending time and energy discussing who we should run, and what kind of campaign they should mount, and why we lost the last election.

I just feel that we need to be able to prove whether we won or lost before we can usefully discuss strategy for next time.

[ecstatic]

162. True, but we need a candidate who everyone will know was the clear winner

In the event of another stolen election. We can barely get everyone on our side to agree about Kerry, much less the general public. We need a dynamic Dem to challenge the next 08 Repub so that if the election is stolen again, we can get as many people as possible demanding answers and an investigation.

[planetc]

164. Dean was dynamic, and

do you remember what happened to him? The media decided that he had been "hysterical', over-the-top, and generally unsuitable for the presidency. This was the Bush campaign talking point; the media ate it up, and the Dean candidacy was over.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

167. The Democrats tried to bury Dean too.

[Kurovski]

168. Kerry won, and yet he didn't care.

I'm returning his sentiments in kind.

So are many of the electorate who spent time, money and worked their arses off for him.

He's a great Senator--a very great one indeed--and should remain one.

[planetc]

169. I would submit

that we don't yet know how much he cared, or what he cared about. We don't have a full explanation from him or any of the Democratic leadership. As good followers, we owe it to him and the others to hold our judgment until he's explained.

[Kurovski]

176. I used to feel and think that way. I even defended Kerry

here on DU with similar arguments.

[pox americana]

170. He won, and I think he cared, but what he didn't have

was a case, or as he put it Wednesday morning, the votes. In the eyes of the law he lost and there's nothing I can think of that he could have said or done other than what he did.

What do you think he should he have said that day?

[Kurovski]

177. He could have said many voters were cheated,

particularly black voters. "While I do not believe I would have won the presidency, we as Americans cannot allow even one vote to be suppressed. I'm making it my quest to see to it that no American has to ever again doubt that their vote will be counted, or fear that they will be turned away at the polls.

Had he said that, I'd have followed him almost anywhere. It's what a strong leader would have said, and then quickly followed with action.

Kerry is superb in the Senate. His achievements are stellar and important. He just doesn't have the right stuff needed for the presidency, IMO.

[pox americana]

179. He could have, and he could have called Bush a racist liar.

But I don't think it was the right moment for that, do you?

[Kurovski]

180. The moment was ripe to confront the election problems.

As for Bush being a racist liar, actions speak louder than words.

The day will come soon when saying that aloud is not so shocking to hear. The "liar" part is now breaking into America's consciousness daily.

Katrina has given many Americans second thoughts. It all takes time.

But as for election problems and the degree to which they have grown, it was indeed time, and after a year I can see that Kerry for whatever reason(s), has let that moment pass.

As was mentioned on a thread by HamdenRice, there was the perfect cover and backup to discuss election problems with the recent release of the bi-partisan GAO report.

That was his last chance. He lost my confidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5273598

[pox americana]

182. Possibly. But we know what happens when we don't concede graciously

don't we? :)

[Kurovski]

183. He could have done both.

And I thought that he was at the time. Edwards certainly wanted to.

If he ends up being a candidate in 2008 I'm not going to pout about it. I'll vote for him.

I just don't trust him or his abilities for the presidency given his performance over the past year, and I don't think he's the best choice.

I think the democratic party is moving to a position where we don't have to stand in the corner republicans paint us into. Regarding the worries of what the repubs will say to trash and stomp us when we don't do what they want, we can afford a touch of Cheney's "Go 'f' yourself attitude.

The message is clear from the repubs: "Graciousness be damned"

[pox americana]

188. I don't see how.

Accusing your opponent of cheating doesn't sound very gracious.

[Kurovski]

193. It's not Bush who would be accused.

That booze-addled idiot couldn't swing such a thing. No, he wouldn't even have to know and likely didn't.

No decent American would accept any office where evidence of fraud was present. True graciousness would demand an understanding of the situation on behalf of the American voter.

But discussing "graciousness" or "being a uniter" is only so much bullshit to use in a passive-aggressive manner against an opponent. (Usually R's against D's) As an example, see today's petticoat-rustling against Reid from Cheney--this from a man who on the floor of the Senate told a member to "go fuck himself."

Cheney and members of the republican establishment have so much contempt for the very people who vote for them that they all but place a postscript on the news release saying " We know our followers are such gelded dimwits that we in fact hope they ENJOY this recent bit of claptrap we've served up today." And they'll be right. the "true-believers" will huff and puff over Reid's plainly stated comments in the hopes of having Reid SHUT THE FUCK UP about Cheney's possible role in the Plame/ White House treason scandal.

They will try to suppress and stymie the truth with their bullshit, whiny-weepy little cries for "graciousness."

Graciousness officially left the political arena the day Trent Lott stood on the steps of the capitol and declared a culture war against democrats.

(I'm 95% certain it was Lott speaking on behalf of the R's.)

I'm well done with being in a nervous sweat over how I appear to Republicans. I have my own concerns and know full well that Republican pols don't care a bit, nor hold one flash of graciousness for the likes of anyone but the wealthiest, most useful members of the now fully corrupt, rude, and murderous Republican Party.

[LittleClarkie]

171. He almost broke down during his concession speech because he didn't care

Nah, he cared.

Just couldn't prove the damn thing.

If he didn't care, he wouldn't still be involved in the GLib lawsuit.

[mandyky]

172. Unfortunately we won't have the unity we had in 2004.

because Bush can't run again. I think we can do a lot better than Kerry.

[stepnw1f]

173. I Agree

I think the last election was incredible, and I think yet, I still believe in a better turn-out. But I want all others who worked for Kerry to remember, that "We" have something great to work from. To build on....

[WI_DEM]

181. If he won why did he concede the next day?

Gore fought all the way to the Supreme Court. If the election was stolen, and it may have been, he should have contested it.

[blm]

192. The evidence is erased immediately on the machines. This will be proven

in the not so distant future.

Are you certain Gore would have continued if he was the PERCEIVED loser of the popular vote?

The two cases don't even compare. Gore's votes were physically there to be counted. Kerry's were in machines many of which couldn't be recounted.

[Fescue4u]

184. Well he has been an excellent President so far

Oh wait....

He lost. Ergo he wasnt good enough.

Even if you believe it was stolen, then he wasnt good enough to prevent it from being stolen.

[Kurovski]

186. Even after assuring us there would be no repeat of 2000.

It seems he just meant he wasn't going to challenge fraud with the same seriousness Gore did.

I guess we should have asked for more details from Kerry. Oops! Our bad. :-)

It was Lieberman who turned into a noodle in 2000, while Edwards had more gumption in 2004.

Gore/Edwards would make a good team.

[rockymountaindem]

187. This thread is *not* about Kerry, although some of you think it is

I think the OP meant to use Kerry as an example. The OP isn't arguing that Kerry should run again. Where does the OP say that Kerry should run in '08? Since it's not anywhere in there, why do so many of you insist on talking about it? Why are you putting words in planetc's mouth?

Y'all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. This thread was supposed to be about the elections process and the media. Too bad so many of you missed out on that. Oh, and the number of newbies here to rip on Kerry is odd, I think.

[Kurovski]

194. The OP is about a number of issues, and we are free to

discuss any of them, sans shame.

You may not like where it leads, and of course are free to say so.
But please refrain from wagging your finger in everyones face as though we were caught tossing a child out into the cold without a coat or a coin.

The "elections process and the media" are daily discussed hear at DU.

This particular thread appeared at a time when members were seriously discussing Kerry and his failures.

And so that having been said, my best wishes to you. :hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

196. Because having anotherKerry flamewar is somehow productive?

He could cure cancer, and some here would still feel the need to participate in a daily flame Kerry thread. They will be countered by those who find their constant bellyaching juvenile and unproductive. If you feel the need to continue the cycle, don't expect others not to call it out as the unproductive crap it is.

[Kurovski]

197. I do not see daily "flame Kerry" threads.

As a point of fact, Kerry curing cancer would in no way indicate any ability to be president.

I do not hold the opinion that people are flaming Kerry here.

I see a discussion of his sore points and failures.

It caused me great sadness to come to my current position on Kerry. I felt betrayed after over a year of defending him, even making up possible scenarios as to why we should hold out for Mr. Kerry.

Maturity was with me every painful step of the way toward my decision, as I see choosing a president as a serious matter.

So you may have already guessed that your post has caused great offence. So be it.

You can hit the alert button when you see actual "flaming" and may even find that the Moderator agrees with your assesment.

[_dynamicdems]

200. You are so right!

The flame burns brightly despite the lack of oxygen.

Perhaps the only cure is to throw some Vector on the flame. Is she perhaps writing more haiku for us, WEL?

[TankLV]

199. Anybody but Kerry - except Anybody but a Repuke.

Kerry's yesterday's news.

There are MANY better than this lame campaigner/loser.

Sorry - if he's the nominee again, I'll sit out this dance.