I'm Not Supporting Kerry Again in the Primaries - a few reasons...

[Peter Frank]

Kerry dropped the ball. He could have handily beaten Bush (and beaten the curve of election fraud) if only he'd learned from the most successful and obvious model in modern times.

Clinton learned well from the Republican dirty tactics pulled in the Bush/Dukakis race (e.g. Willie Horton) -- that you don't let the impressions left by negative sound-bites linger in the ears of voters. He had a war room whose sole purpose was to study the negative ads and give him the ammunition (on an hourly basis) to debunk the elephant dung slung at him. It worked superbly.

Kerry made the perfect blunder (by Republican standards). He let the Republican crap to steep in the minds of voters way too long. He didn't have to reinvent the wheel to overwhelm Bush's political machine (and Diebold voting machines) when the Clinton model was already there.

He dropped the ball early on when he failed to address accusations in real-time. He acted conservatively and decided to buy most of his air time only after the smear-mongers' message had taken root. If he'd had gone all out in the beginning and defined himself -- Kerry wouldn't have later been forced to defend himself so much, while trying to get out a nuanced message that didn't lend itself well to a handful of sound-bites.

I can't trust that Kerry's learned his lesson here. Also, there's the fact that many voters are still brainwashed by the Swiftboat mentality. Add to that, I've heard many times from moderate Republicans that they would have voted for a stronger Democratic candidate in '04.

Kerry's a great man. I supported him from the day I heard him speak in Iowa. He's a great force in the Democratic Party; but there's too much at risk to have a repeat of '04. I'll be supporting someone else.

edit for sp.

[Skittles]

1. honestly, I think Kerry underestimated the stupidity of too many voters

that they will fall for such obvious, slimy tactics

[Skip Intro]

9. Kerry made calls, they might have worked

he, I believe, had the election stolen from him/us.


But he made the calls he made and I supported him last time and I'll support him this time as well. (unless Gore runs)

[Peter Frank]

16. What if Hillary runs? nt

[Mass]

18. Please NOT Hillary.

[Skip Intro]

19. Hillary may run if she wishes. I'd support Kerry over Hillary.

No hesistation.

[_dynamicdems]

133. Me too.

Hillary would make a good President, but I've had my heart set on John Kerry as my President for a very long time. It has always been a dream of mine to see someone in the White House who I could truly admire on both character and capability. With Jimmy Carter, we had character. With Bill Clinton we had capability. With John Kerry we would get both. I think he would be one of the greatest Presidents in history. Usually, the process itself defeats the truly good people from coming out ahead. I'm hoping all this corruption and all this hatred in our country will wake people up.

Senator Kerry epitomizes all the values I hold dear. He is simply a beautiful human being and he has the knowledge and the heart to lead us out of any quagmire that Bush gets us into. He knows how to defeat corruption. He knows how to reach out to the global community. He knows how important it is to listen. Yes, listen. He listens and he learns. That is a very rare quality in a leader. That is the difference that makes a good leader into a great leader, because the great leaders are not in it for personal glory, they are representing their people.

[babylonsister]

82. Me, too, Skip. My brother's a cop and

your neighbor in SC; I wish you could convert him because he's a repug, or used to be the last time we had a conversation in February.

:-(

[Peter Frank]

11. That's no excuse - that's one of the very reasons for my decision... nt

[Snotcicles]

63. If there is voter fraud you could run the Almighty and it wouldn't matter

[Presstitutes]

2. Sorry, my friend

you're completely missing the point of how Pre$$titution muddles the Dem message and bolsters Bush:

http://www.presstitutes.com/presstitutes/2005/09/how_the_media_s.html

[Peter Frank]

14. Clinton had no problem handling the press... nt

[Presstitutes]

20. Clinton was nearly impeached

n/t

[Peter Frank]

24. Clinton was impeached... nt

But this is not germain to the point.

[blm]

32. Yes it is. The 1998 media was nowhere near the same as 1992. By mid90s

most of broadcast media was controlled by the corporate cronies of Bush and the GOP.

By 2002, most of America believed Clinton was worse on the terror issue than Bush and still believed so in 2004 even AFTER Clinton wrote his book, toured the country and had many tv opportunities to change their minds.

But the media never discussed the substance of what Clinton said or did, they only cherrypicked the sensational aspects, just as they did with Kerry's campaign - editting out the actual issues important to the people, while promoting the Rove driven storylines.

[ovidsen]

21. Exactly. Kerry was not "proactive"

It's a horribly overused word, but it's the only one that fits. Proactive. What Kerry wasn't. He hardly even tried to respond to the despicable swiftboating, windsurfing attacks until it was way too late. Even GOP poobahs admit privately that Clinton was a genius at countering Repuklian Machiavellian tactics with equally pointed, powerful and virtually instantaneous responses. Clinton had the killer instinct. Kerry didn't. I'm leery... VERY leery of another Kerry run.

[blm]

141. Clinton was impeached for BULLSHIT because the GOP gained near total

control over the broadcast media by 1998.

Clinton was helpless to counter that onslaught and the rewriting of his and Bush's efforts on terrorism post 9-11.

Clinton's book and publicity tour were unable to alter public perception that Bush was the better president on terror.

Only now in the postKatrina and postFitzgerald world do we have any semblance of a working media again. Only NOW do the American people have the chance of hearing any truth.

And that's only because they are all busy trying to cover their own asses to prevent people questioning their complicity in BushInc's crimes and failures over the last 5 years.

[ovidsen]

146. Clinton was a GOP target

Clinton was not impeached because of Repuke media control. Polls taken during Monicagate showed Clinton had a support ranking among Americans that Chimp can only dream of. Sure, Rush, O'Malley et. al. sought to try Clinton before the public, but outside of their zombie fans, they failed.

The GOP, especially the religious right zealots, had control of the House, a domination that began in 1994 and continued, thanks to voter apathy in 1998. It was the House, not the media or the people who tried to nail Clinton. Tried, and failed, I should add, since more sensible types in the Senate never convicted Clinton.

[blm]

147. Didn't matter what polls showed at the time, media allowed GOP to define

the terms of impeachment when it should never have legally been applied at all. The media should have been explaining WHY in legal terms the GOP was off base.

MEDIA is the one who allowed lies to define both Clinton and Bush's roles on terrorism as an issue.

And there was no change in that perception until summer 2005.

[ProSense]

23. Public perception

The public didn't see anything valid in Whitewater or the Lewinsky allegations to counter Clinton's popularity. And imagine the dirty Republicans still managed to impeach him.

The public support of the war propped up Bush's support and made it harder to counter with criticism of the war. Kerry wasn't president. The drop in public support for the war, facilitated by the failures in Iraq, is what is making it easier to make a case against the war. If you can't forced legislation, you at least need public support driving the message home to those who can.

Kerry and many Democrats have been critical of the war for a long time. If public support for the war was still strong, war critics would have an uphill battle to get much media coverage.

[bananas]

40. That's why Kerry might be our best candidate in '08

A lot of people watched the debates - everything Kerry said has been proven true. People saw and heard it with their own eyes and ears, the media can't spin it in '08. I'd say it's even a big reason Bush's approval rating is so low.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. Either him or Gore, since everything Gore said has been proven true also.

I'd vote for either one.

[blm]

148. Same here. I wanted a Gore-Kerry ticket in 2000.

.

[OzarkDem]

107. How long do we keep using that excuse?

It won't get anyone elected.

Dem candidates have to get off their lazy kiesters and get busy finding out how to deal with the problem. Period.

If they can't figure out a solution, they need to go home and let someone else give it a try.

And once they've overcome the media problem, they have to remember the hard lesson they learned and NEVER, EVER let the news media wield that kind of power again.

[DesertRat]

3. I completely agree. n/t

[seabeyond]

4. i will support kerry

i disagree with most of what you say. i would willingly and hopefully support and work for kerry in 2008

[silverstateD]

5. Hallelujah!!!!! preach on my brother!!!!!

Kerry is not the one for 08.

[Mizmoon]

6. Swift boaters

I still don't understand why he didn't fight back against the swiftboaters much earlier. That's what cost him the election.

It's not that people believed the swifties - no, they thought they were full of crap. What they couldn't abide was watching Kerry get ass-raped by them without fighting back in anyway.

I'm not sure he can endure the Puke onslaught. He wasn't able to last time. I'm not sure what would have changed this time.

Who did manage to beat the Pukes at their own game? Senator Hillary Clinton. She's the obvious choice. No one has endured more at their hands yet won so often.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. I said (and still say) that about Kerry, and got ripped on this board

The SwiftLiars went unanswered, and that was the ball game.

[emulatorloo]

46. 1. kerry responded, media buried it. 2. top dems sat idly by

Kerry - 1 mentioned it in several speeches and demanded Bush denounce/stop it
2. Sent max cleland to crawford to get Bush to denounce and stop it
3. released a commercial w Kerry's swiftboaters to counter it.

media buried it all while they let o'neill run free

And I heard very few major dems come to Kerry's defence. Kerry was right there defending Murtha. But where were the major dems defending Kerry?

[Noisy Democrat]

72. That's exactly right

Those of us who were watching the campaign closely kept seeing Kerry denounce the Swift Boat Liars in speeches and demand that Bush stop hiding behind them and come out and debate their respective war records like a man. Needless to say, there were no headlines saying, "Kerry Challenges Bush to Stop Hiding Behind the Swifties." Instead, the "Kerry did nothing" meme got established.

[ScreamingMeemie]

94. Hmmmm....I was watching...and walking for Kerry.

He's a wait and see-er and always will be. A day late. A dollar short. After it appears everybody down to the juniorest senator has spoken. Funny how so many people see it so differently. Kerry's big mistake was Gore's big mistake. Listening to people who don't really have their finger on the pulse...they just think they do. I remember them referring to themselves as "Chess Players" and relegating the foot soldiers to "checker players" here on DU (If you remember Dem Strategist) boy...were they wrong.

[Noisy Democrat]

97. Kerry's was out in front

this year on calling for Rove to be fired, and on saying he wouldn't have voted yes on the IWR, and on putting forth a plan to get out of Iraq. The MSM spun it like Edwards spoke out ahead of Kerry, but they got it backwards.

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. Too little...too late. Too little, too late.

time to move on to viable candidates. I'm sick of two year old primary wars. So much was mishandled.

[Noisy Democrat]

115. I agree

I refuse to live in the past -- which is why I look forward to seeing Kerry run a very different campaign in 2008, and I'll support him then. What happened in 2004 is over and done with. I'm excited by what he's doing now, and I look forward to the future.

[ScreamingMeemie]

91. No DLC candidates for me. I agree on Kerry. He should have fought them.

Even though he wasn't my first choice, I trekked miles knocking on doors. Too many undecideds wouldn't give him another chance and would just stay home I fear.

As for Hillary, I don't think she has enough to make it. Too bad Geena Davis can't run. But too many people dislike Hillary to be balanced out by those who would hold their nose and vote.

[Mass]

92. kerry will not be the candidate of the DLC if he runs.

All you have to do is to see how the DLCers and the PNAC people are attacking him these days.

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. I wasn't talking about Kerry when I said DLC...I was talking about

Hillary. :hi:

[depakid]

7. What was worse, IMHO

Is that during the run up to the primaries, Kerry promised repeatedly and emphatically- NOT to run a Dukakis style campaign, yet once he got the nomination- from the week before the convention on until the second week of Sptember- he did just that.

Those of us who remember Dukakis (or had our hearts broken by his rollover) couldn't believe our eyes.

Kerry had his chance and he made his promise. He broke it -and he blew it.

Now, he's yesterday's news.

[JohnnyCougar]

8. My main problem with him is that he's not telling the truth about the war.

He still says a more thoughtful approach would have worked.

Wrong.

No war should have ever happened, Kerry. Just say it. We know you are totally against it. Just say it.

[Mass]

10. He said it : WRONG WAR, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME

Now, if Bush was to start this war, at least he could have done it right. He did not. That is all he was saying.

[JohnnyCougar]

42. But then why did he say he did not regret is IWR vote until now?

[Noisy Democrat]

71. Do you really want to know?

Sometimes people ask about Kerry's IWR vote just as a rhetorical point. But if you really want the answer, it's that he believed -- and said very clearly at the time -- that the IWR vote was to give Bush authority so he could pressure Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back in. And it worked -- the inspectors went back in, for the first time since 1998. Then Bush launched an unnecessary war anyway.

Last year, Kerry said explicitly that he *would not have invaded Iraq*. He also said that he didn't regret his IWR vote because he thought that giving Bush the authority *to get the weapons inspectors back in* was appropriate. But he strongly criticized Bush for misusing the authority.

Now, with the DSM revelations and other evidence that Bush was lying that's come out in the last several months, he says he would not have voted the same way on the IWR if he had known everything we know now.

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. too bad that isn't the real reason...If he was gullible enough to believe

that when people on the street didn't believe it...when I was literally sick to my stomach hearing the vote on that...then I honestly wonder whether he should even be a senator. Lame defense. always will be.

If they would come out and admit they played part in insider politics, I'd have a bit more admiration for them.

[Noisy Democrat]

96. I believed it

and I wasn't a Kerry fan at the time. Wasn't a fan of anyone in the Senate in particular at that time. But I listened to what Bush and others said, and thought it made sense to pressure Saddam.

Of course, I wasn't any kind of an insider, just a person on the street.

Later, when I found out that Kerry had been harping on the idea that Saddam was a menace since at least 1998, and that weapons proliferation is a pet issue of his, it made even more sense to me that he would've thought it was essential to get the weapons inspectors back in.

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. A bunch of us sat on the side of the road and cried as we saw senators

not representing our thoughts. It'll always be B.S. to me, but we can all have our own opinions and share this earth and work for the greater good.

[Mass]

104. And a lof of us did the same thing when your senators voted for

the Energy Bill, solding out to corporations and being potentially be responsible of many deaths and sicknesses.

Nobody is perfect.

[ScreamingMeemie]

106. Too bad when "imperfection" allows for the recordable deaths of

untold thousands..but oh well, eh. Sorry, I'm not buying what he selling. As I said to the other poster, there's room for us all, but I'll continue to lay blame on those who allowed it. I'll take Carl's voting record over Kerry's anyday.

[Mass]

110. Not me, sorry.

As long as you vote to continue our dependency on oil, you should expect other wars like that.

But of course, we can close our eyes and wait until hell starts. You're welcome. Global warming allows for the death of many many thousands too, and voting for the Energy Bill only makes it worse.

But we can look at the future or we can stay behind. I really dont care. My choice is made.

[ScreamingMeemie]

111. For the record....

You might want to check out your senator's record:

http://ga1.org/ABEC/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=1741068

and also...just for the record:

snip-

The Senate passed a comprehensive and balanced energy bill in both 2002 and 2003. Senator Levin supported both of these bills. Later in 2003, following a House-Senate conference, the majority in the House and Senate put forward what amounted to a �take it or leave it� energy bill that was drastically different from the bill the Senate passed. There was no opportunity to amend this bill, and a final vote occurred in November 2003. Senator Levin opposed this bill because it included a number of flawed provisions and the process by which it had been written was flawed. The Senate voted again in April 2004 on a pared down version of this bill, which Senator Levin also opposed. While both of these bills did contain a number of provisions supported by Senator Levin, the legislation did little to protect consumers from fraud and manipulation of energy markets, promote energy conservation, or enhance renewable technologies.

-snip

http://levin.senate.gov/issues/index4.cfm?MainIssue=Energy&SubIssue=EnergyPolicy

Nice try though.

[Mass]

114. For the record, I was speaking about the conference report 2005

Here is what I was speaking about. This conference report came back stripped of all the provisions that helped non-carbon based energies and environmental protections and full of pork for oil and nuclear companies.

Nice try, though.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

[ScreamingMeemie]

169. It would have been nice if you had clarified. Sorry, no dice.

Levin's record will beat Kerry's on any day. But, as I said before, there is room for all of us in this party...thankfully.

Most people refer to the energy bill as the vote that I referred to.


Nice twist.

[Mass]

99. He is my senator and I am happy. Thanks.

No comments on your senators.

[ScreamingMeemie]

103. My senators are Levin and Stabenow...who both voted against it

thankfully. But that still wasn't enough to keep me from wanting to vomit at those who joined hands with the Bush Cabal.

I'm glad you're happy with him. I hope he stays there, because my blistered feet were for naught last election. I trusted in him, he let me down. I'm moving on.

[raysr]

160. Kerry had his chance

and for some reason unbeknownst to us, he chose to stand down. There's no refuting that fact!

[ScreamingMeemie]

170. Obviously there are some here who think we should be buying

feigned gullibility, and that this vote was somehow not important as compared to others. I'm sorry, but human lives stand for more than that. :hi:

[Noisy Democrat]

180. It's called losing

He lost the election. It's not a reason unbeknownst to us. I seem to recall his concession speech even mentioned that the reason he was conceding was that he lost.

[karynnj]

84. Kerry came out against the war BEFORE Bush invaded

in a speech at Georgetown University (early March, 2003). When Bush invaded he was angry enough he called for Regime Change Here - and took a lot of flack for saying it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

105. too bad he took the action it allowed it. Too little too late.

[Mass]

12. 06 is far and we have a war to stop - So thanks for your insight.

[AuntPatsy]

13. Kerry had his day in the sun, he is doing more these days and I for

one am thankful for his contribution. But let us be for real folks, he proved he was unable to stand up to this bush cabal, some believe him to be in some kind of conspiracy with them, others get outraged at the mere suggestion..

bottom line, he is NOT all that we have, let him stay where he is and bring in someone who will not whimper in the back ground which was caught on camera calling them all crooks and allow the media to call him a coward without calling them on it, he had the money to get such a message out even though the media pretty much ignored him, it could have been done, no more ifs here folks, we need strong leadership, Kerry is not that...

He should have shouted his rebuttles, he didn't, politics aside, we honestly need someone who I for one can put at least ninety percent of my trust in as well as my hard earned dollars, I will stand for him to a degree but he does not have my full trust and I for one am tired of not trusting..

In times like these, such should be mandatory...

[Mass]

15. I never trust anybody fully - That is a basic rule for me.

No man is perfect.

[_dynamicdems]

134. I don't trust either and I'm not about to take these people here at

face value.

1. We don't know who in fact any of these people are.
2. We don't know in fact they are even bona fide Democrats.
3. The GOP has been known to pay people to tear down anyone who they perceive as a threat.
4. Kerry has been doing a lot of Bush bashing lately and a LOT of work for Democrats around the country.
5. Negative opinions just happen to crop up on this Democratic board every time Kerry a) campaigns for another Democrat or b)opposes Bush or his administration.

I'm just saying...it isn't a stretch to connect the dots here.

GOP talking points.

On a positive note: somebody must be feeling threatened by Senator Kerry. Bush has attacked him twice and people here are following suit. 2006 is right around the corner. Their desperation is almost palpable. We are coming for Congress and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

[yankeedem]

175. Heaven forbid anyone question St. Kerry

never mind- you're not worth it.

[Peter Frank]

28. Very well said... nt

[blm]

17. Clinton got defined by the media after he left office and even after

people WITNESSED his accomplishments over 8 years.

After 9-11, his popularity went down further and the RNC was able to push the message that Clinton was asleep at the wheel re terrorism.

A book and an entire publicity tour with many TV appearances did not convince the American people that Clinton was the better terrorism president. An entire 9-11 commission report didn't either.

WHY?

Because the media wouldn't discuss the most important matters regarding the terror issue while they kept lying to the American people regarding Bush's incompetence and failures. The 9-11 commission report got 5% of the analysis coverage that Monica's blue dress got.

Clinton is widely reported as the most charismatic political figure, yet for all those years he couldn't break through the media wall set up to protect the Bushboy on the terror issue.

Heck, the GOP drove all the media coverage of Clinton's impeachment.

They defined him.

WHY?

Because the GOP is in control of most of the broadcast media and have been since the mid90s.

It took a category 5 hurricane to counter the category 5 spin the media has used to keep the Bushboy protected.

The public is only just now seeing past all the lies.

If you think the 2004 media was no different than in 92, there's a bridge in Brooklyn.......

And further...Kerry WON his man to man matchups with Bush. The DNC was so weak that their spokespeople couldn't back up Kerry with the truth as steadily as the RNC message machine did with lie after lie to protect Bush.

The leftleaning and objective media got their asses handed to them by the RW media machine who controlled the message through sheer discipline and hubris.

And the RW controls much of the media thanks to looking the other way of the Clinton years.

If Clinton had listened to Kerry and allowed the BCCI documents to be made public when he took office, then no Bush would have been allowed near the WH ever again. But, Clinton let Greenspan talk him out of it.

[Kolesar]

136. &Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act that allowed consolidation

...that made things worse for us. I think it was 1996. I agree with your thesis, though. The media certainly was guilty of promoting a militarist propaganda campaign. Hell, Clear Channel even hosted a krieg-rally in Cleveland. Shades of Nuremberg. I was surprised and disgusted when the public did approve of the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Now I have this hunch that the support was a mile wide and an inch deep. Bring the troops home!

[NightOwwl]

22. I'm not sure you have to worry about the possibility.

I don't think he'll be able to raise anywhere near the money he brought in in 2004. He's certainly not getting any of my hard nearned money.

Dems are demanding a good candidate this time around; Anybody But Bush just won't cut it.

[onehandle]

25. Just as long as we all vote Democratic in '06 and '08.

I don't care who folks support in the primary.

In the general, vote Democratic. Kerry or not.

[peace frog]

29. Hear hear!

Hillary, Kerry, who-the-hell-ever...

VOTE DEMOCRATIC in 2006 and 2008!

[Mend]

26. Kerry proves you can be a wonderful person, articulate and

thoughtful, and still not know how to run a presidential campaign. There has to be several levels, one high one for the nice folks, and one down low and ugly to show balls. He didn't do the ugly one. We all knew he needed a wide enough margin to overcome the theft factor and he still couldn't do it. When will we ever learn?

[ginnyinWI]

153. The campaign did make some mistakes

but that doesn't mean that the candidate wasn't a good one. One mistake not often mentioned is that they basically ignored the Southern states. That could have increase the popular vote, at least--and Dean has now pledged to do 50-state campaigns from now on.

But who knew how much money was going to come in--Dems had been used to having no money--but I guess they could have changed course and gone to the South. I don't fault Kerry for this, but the strategists, who seemed to be a bit behind in their thinking.

I was in swing-state Wisconsin, which got so many visits--and I don't know that so many repeat visits changed any more minds--we stayed divided about the same and voted in about the same proportions as for Gore--and that money and time could have, in my opinion, been used for other states.

[wisteria]

27. Well, I disagree with you and I will support Kerry again.

You mention a lot of little things that may or may not have contributed to his losing, but the big issue during the campaign was the war. Kerry had a tremedious amount of misperceptions to overcome. What he did accomplish he did without much party support. Not because they didn't try, but because they were so damn unorganized and without a clear message.
The main reason Kerry lost was becasue of the war and Bush being a "War Time President". No where in our history have we ever booted out of office a President during a time of war.

Small issues accured, somethings could have been handled differently. They campaign team thought they had taken care of the SBV in April only to have them resurface in August with the backing of the media. I think Kerry has learned much from his experiece and I am confident these issues will not be a problem if he chose to run again.

Clinton is not a good example to follow here. Clinton won the first time because the Republican vote was splintered between Bush 1, Buchanan, and Porue (sp). The second time he won because he was running against the very dull Dole and at a blissful time in our history, much of what Clinton was able to accomplish.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. You are word for word repeating Republican talking points

"Clinton won the first time because the Republican vote was splintered between Bush 1, Bunchanan, and Perot" is basically right out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh.

Give credit where credit was due, Clinton was a master politician and a master of bullshit. Bush '41 was not as much of a boring old fossil as Dole was, but he was pretty damn close, which is part of the reason Dukakis was 17 points ahead of him at one point. Clinton also had some of the most brilliant strategists with Carville, Stephanopolous, and Begala. Kerry had Bob Shrum who has a record of being involved in 8 losing presidential campaigns, Kerry was the 8th.

All exit polls show that Clinton would have won with or without Perot. When Perot dropped out of the race for a short time, Clinton was polling above 51%. Clinton was going to win no matter what, end of story.

[Mend]

33. Clinton currently outpolls bush in a theoretical race 67% to 33%

which I take to mean that the swing vote still loves him...along with the rest of us liberals. Don't have the link but it was a week or two ago somewhere.

[blm]

34. Now. But not in 2003 and 2004 when media was in full protectBushboy mode.

.

[wisteria]

65. Clinton may have polled at 51%,but that wasn't the vote total.

It was 46%. I also came to my conclusions about Clinton on my own, no repub help here. No doubt, Clinton had a certain charm, but he also had a lot of baggage from "old issues" involving women. Clinton was also responsible for us losing the majority in the House and diminishing our numbers in the Senate.
I was not out to bash Clinton, my goal was to point out that Kerry gets a bad rap for losing a very tough election. Clinton never had to deal with the things Kerry had to.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. Oh there is no question that Kerry had harder circumstances

The political climate in 1992 was much more favorable to us than in 2004, there is no question about it. Even as close back as 1992, there were enough voters that didn't give a shit about a candidate's faith that one didn't have to make an exhibition of it. But in 2004, Kerry did have to deal with all of that bullshit and that stuff always plays well for Republicans.

Back in 1992 the south still wasn't fully re-aligned which gave Clinton the ability to do well in the south.

Also, there was no 9/11 and no War on Terror, the election was about the economy.


On the other hand, there are some things that Clinton didn't have...

1) An incumbent President with a war going badly.

2) An incumbent President with an IQ of 2

3) A liberal base fired up to defeat the incumbent President.

Again, Clinton did have better circumstances. Without Perot should have been able to win by about 4-6%. Kerry had harder circumstances but if he had managed his campaign well, he would have won. By a small margin, yes, but he still would have won.

And about Clinton's vote totals, he actually got 43%. There is absolutely no way that a candidate is going to break 51% when you have a strong third party candidate like Ross Perot. Bush only got 38% of the vote in 1992 which is lower than what Mondale, McGovern, and Goldwater got. Can we conclude from that, that Clinton won in a huge landslide like Reagan, Nixon, and Johnson did? My point is that it's not fair to compare a candidate's percentage of the vote on a two candidate scale when there were three candidates.

[karynnj]

88. The exit polls don't tell the whole story

In 1992, all of Perot's fire and aruguments were directed against Bush I. Clinton was the beneficiary.

Here are other differences with 2004:
- Bush I had an approval rating at leat 10 points lower than his son
- The media was far fairer
- The networks all gave many hours of coverage to the conventions, rather than 3 hours (1 each for 3 days) that they had in 2004. Clinton's Man from Hope video set a lot of the tone for the campaign. With similar time Kerry had a far more vivid, dramatic story that few learned much about.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. Your arguments about the differences are fair...

But as far as Perot goes, 1/3 of his voters said they would've voted for Bush, 1/3 said they would've voted for Clinton, 1/3 said they would've stayed home. To play devil's advocate, Clinton's theme was change. It's kind of hard to get a populace unified behind that theme when you have two guys running on it instead of just one.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

113. Thank you!! Perot did not throw the election to Clinton! They were

evenly distributed between the two candidates!!

[karynnj]

168. What about people who didn't vote for Perot because he was

a third party candidate but accepted his logic about how bad Bush was. Who did they vote for?

[stillcool]

31. I really don't have anything nice to say...

and arguing with what you 'trust' or how you 'support' is useless. Suffice it to say, i hope you live long enough to support the candidate of your dream choice in whatever year's primary that suits your fancy. Must be nice to be so perfect.

[Peter Frank]

38. Kerry was that guy in '04...

I was spellbound by his command of the issues and his vision.

[frogmarch]

36. Kerry must be getting under people's skins

for YET ANOTHER anti-Kerry thread to appear.

Maybe certain diehard anti-Kerryists feel threatened because Kerry's exit plan calls for bringing the troops home, instead of, as Murtha proposes, keeping them on the sidelines, poised to go into Iraq again and continue fighting if called to.

Maybe some find their justification for hating Kerry threatened because Kerry is attacking Bushco for having cherry-picked/ manipulated Intelligence to justify the war, whereas Murtha is not attacking Bushco on this. In fact, Murtha is a Hawk, and fully supported the war.

Maybe some actually want the US to occupy Iraq on a permanent basis, something which Kerry opposes, but Murtha apparently does not oppose.

Whatever the reason behind all the anti-Kerry threads that pop up at DU, at least they give us Kerry supporters opportunities to post in his favor without having to start another pesky pro-Kerry thread.

Thank you for this opportunity. :*

[ray of light]

37. Yes...for sure. People are acting like the rightwinged fundies

Oh well...in 07 who will they cry to becuase they were so busy whining about 08 that the 06 election passed them right by?

[Peter Frank]

41. I suggest you re-read my original message (scroll all the way down)...

You'll see, Kerry's a great man. I supported him from the day I heard him speak in Iowa. He's a great force in the Democratic Party...

[goforit]

39. He's lies to us all!!!....Skull and Bone through and through!!!

[emulatorloo]

47. huh huh hun -- you said BONER!

[Lexingtonian]

43. It's not the Nineties anymore

and it's not 2000 anymore and it's not 2004 anymore either. Don't forget that Clinton won three way contests with 43% and 46% respectively- and that Perot voters were essentially Republicans.

I know what you're trying to say, and I sympathize, but your attempt here to frame an emotional sense of powerless into events and rational things Kerry did wrong out is IMHO crap and the remedy you propose is crap too. You take what these Republicans say on its face and naively when an awful lot of them in fact voted for Bush and very deliberately took a bad faith approach to Kerry. If all had been done that you propose, I would assert that the result would be the same. These people would have voted for Bush, more ashamed and defensive and full of even more bizarre bad faith excuses than they gave afterwards, but done the same nonetheless.

There's an endless spouting of this sort of "argument" around the Internet. The people who advocate this view of Kerry never- absolutely never- have read the exit interviews or exit pollings.

What these pin-the-blame-on-Kerry assertions are is Democrats who are ashamed of and in denial about the state/weakness and brokenness in its latent conservatism of the Party from 2000 through 2004 (if not into 2005). You know what a classical scapegoat is, don't you- someone prominent on whom you impose the responsibility for the failings of the group.

What the exit polling and interviews say is this: both sides had a solid 45% each from the start, from very late 2003. Less than 10% of voters were in any form up for grabs, and 1% of the electorate voted Third Party. Kerry ended up getting 1/3 of the ~9-10%, Bush 2/3s.

These 9-10% were individually absurd to deal with. As a group the exit studies show they had a pretty darn good feel, collectively, for the reality of the country. They saw the GOP as strong but undermined by corruption. They saw Democrats as weak, not due to Kerry and the liberals but due to the Young Turk Dean-identified contingent and slew of older moderates/conservatives in the Party that would opportunistically undermine or stymy Kerry. They actually liked Kerry and didn't take all the crap allegations about him or Bush seriously either way. Their view of Kerry was affected by a conventional wisdom that Congress would stay in Republican hands after the elections, so choosing Kerry was to not have high expectations for progress. The choice came down to the priority put on issues, on which swing voters decided there were only three affected by their vote. The economy was considered Kerry's strength. 'Values' and 'fighting terrorism' were considered Bush's. They ended up split 2-1 and that gave Bush the victory.

That's a really boring analysis, but that's the reality of the '04 election.

The 'economy' vote was, of course, a sense that average people are getting nowhere or falling down materially under the present governance. The 'values' vote was all about perceiving Christianity to be in decline in this country and the medieval European agrarian mores (authority, family, fertility/abortion stuff) incorporated into it in particular, but giving it another chance to prove itself- it was a vote in favor of the past/Medievalism. The 'terrorism' vote is more complicated- IMHO despite appearances it's not really about Arabs, it's about White Middle America and its visceral fear of a changing world in which being white, provincially American, and moderately educated and moderately religious is mediocre and marginally undesirable- it was a vote about fear of the future/Modernity.

Each of our recent elections is about living in and the score kept about the Past (but ever less over time) and to what degree to embrace Change and accept Modernity's flattening out of the world order (increasingly over time). We like to pretend that it's about Bush, Gore, Kerry, Dean, McCain, or whatever. It's really just voting about who we are and what we are ready to do as a people. As it should be.

[emulatorloo]

48. thnx for this post and analysis - n/t

[whometense]

81. Really excellent post.

Very thoughtful - thanks.

[ginnyinWI]

155. you are so right about this--thanks for posting...... n/t

[EFerrari]

44. I'm a Green, and I will support the first Dem Candidate who

HAS A CLUE ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD and who ACTS on that clue.

That big gaping hole where action should have been drove me from the party but I'm 100% willing to support a candidate that will take this on.

[blm]

138. I'm a Democrat and feel the same way - If Kerry isn't working to expose

the machines then I will be very disappointed in him.

I know that he and Dean can work to do this and believe they are, but, if they don't get a handle on it soon I don't know how much longer I can maintain that faith.

I urge the DNC at every opportunity to deal with the machines. It's their duty to assure elections are fair for ALL Dem candidates.

I fear that the machine thugs didn't interfere with the machines too much in 2005 just so they could keep the Dems from making that argument when the BIGGER election comes up for 2006.

[EFerrari]

179. Yes. I had that thought, too. The Thuggery doesn't care much

about Ahnold -- he delivered on the Sec of State. That's what they wanted.

[Noisy Democrat]

45. Got any evidence that isn't a year old?

How about looking at all the things Kerry's doing, and all the things he has done, in the last year. Then when primaries roll around, you can also look at what you see from 2006 and 2007.

I don't see any reason to live in the past.

[Peter Frank]

50. I get his e-mail...

...do you?

I know what he's doing & it's good work. I didn't say that others shouldn't support him, I only said that I wouldn't & why.

His latest e-mail (which I posted yesterday) is very good I think; but it does raise the question of why he didn't stand up strong for himself against the Swift-boaters, but will for Murtha. Here's the full text:

Dear Friend,

This is our moment of truth. You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.

Yesterday, an extraordinary congressman, former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on the war in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. No sooner had the words left his lips than the vicious assault on his character and patriotism began.

Today, in a statement on the Senate floor, in interviews with the national media, and in this message to you, I am seeking out every opportunity to defend a brave American hero that the Republican attack machine has set their sights on.

I urge you to do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with Jack Murtha is irrelevant. These despicable attacks on Jack Murtha's patriotism and courage must be met with an enormous public outcry. Call your local talk radio show, write a letter to the editor, phone your members of Congress - join me in acting now to reject these "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.

Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.

The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

I urge you to join today in a massive public outcry that rejects the attempt to demonize and destroy anyone who dares to disagree with George W. Bush's aimless "stay for as long as it takes" policy on Iraq.

Please act now. Call and email your elected officials. Flood talk radio with calls rejecting these vicious smear tactics. Send a letter to the editor. Express your outrage about the tired old Rovian "Swift Boat" style attacks on Jack Murtha.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

[Noisy Democrat]

70. Yes, Kerry's fighting for Murtha

I asked about current evidence that Kerry won't fight hard. Stuff more recent than 2004. Stuff showing that Kerry hasn't learned anything -- because I think he's learned a lot. This example of how he's fighting for Murtha isn't any kind of evidence that he hasn't learned anything since 2004.

As for what happened back in 2004, he responded in the way his campaign strategists thought would work: he sent out his surrogates to do the talk shows, then he directly addressed the Swifties in his speeches and in an online video. They thought that if he played it up any more than that -- going on the talk shows himself -- it would only make it bigger. They didn't know that the cable news shows were going to go ahead and make it bigger anyway. It wasn't that Kerry was in any way afraid to fight, it was that the strategy they chose didn't work.

Again, I'd say let's look at what he does in 2005, 2006 and 2007. He keeps saying that if he runs again, he'll run a very different campaign next time, and I believe him.

[politicasista]

49. Shouldn't we focus on far more serious issues than a presidential primary?

Kids are killed in Iraq from left to right.
People are out of work.
Children are without health insurance.
The economy sucks.
Poverty is on the rise.

2006, 2006, 2006.......That's Kerry's concern, shouldn't it be ours too? I think so, but so many here can't see that.

[sellitman]

51. I was for Dean 1st...Kucinich 2nd.

Kerry was a distant third if that with me. For now all I want is someone to take Diebold & Company down. The rest will be easy.

[BamaBecky]

52. He was suppose to lose - I think that was his assignment -

from the elite

[ananda]

53. I miss the America..

.. that would have made sure that free and fair elections elected..

PRESIDENT GORE!

[Peter Frank]

57. I miss that America as well...

One can only imagine how different this country and the world would be if Bush hadn't been installed by a 5 to 4 vote -- and then again by voting fraud.

But things are what they are; so I will support who I perceive to be the strongest candidate in '08.

[blm]

139. When was Kerry for the elite? He never even took corporate pac money his

entire senate career.

Was he an elite when he was risking his life to save the lives of working class men in Vietnam?

Was he working for the elite when he uncovered IranContra?

Was he working for the elite when he uncovered BCCI?

Was he working for the elite when he worked almost 10 years to craft the Kyoto Accord with other world leaders?

Was he working for the elite when his efforts helped bring the end to three wars?

Please share with us how you are so certain of your claim against Kerry. And please answer the questions above.

[Peter Frank]

150. Great questions...

I'd like to hear the answers also.

Kerry may have had a privileged background, but he never came across to me as an elitist. If anything, he's kind to a fault.

Of all the accusations that sickened me during the campaign, the ones that hurt me most were that Kerry's service in Vietnam was politically motivated, and that the wounds for which he got his purple hearts insignificant. ...The beneficiaries of these accusations being chicken hawks, who never served one day in a war.

[Senator]

54. Only Barbara Boxer has a clear claim to leadership...

...of anyone in the Senate.

She walked the walk. It's hers for the asking.

And for those who have been Pavlovianly trained to have the word "electability" pop into their head, don't even start. ANY nominee of the Democratic Party is "electable."

ANYONE -- full stop.

It is only the Mighty Wurlitzer emanating from the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy that chants the mantra that "all we need is that last half of one percent of the undecideds."

It's just navel-gazing, masturbatory rubbish.

Don't let them sidetrack us.

---
www.january6th.org

[cascadiance]

85. I think either her or Feingold...

Russ Feingold has been a person to be counted on certain votes (Patriot Act, Telecomm Act during Clinton's term, campaign financing, questions on Iraq, etc.).

I was a bit disappointed with his votes on Roberts, but hope he'll show a bit more gonads for the vote on Scalito!

Boxer would be great in my book too, though I think it might be a bit early to "elect" a woman to president then. She might not be the first then though, if Nancy Pelosi takes over in 2007!

[Senator]

129. Feingold failed to stand up...

...on January 6th -- both in 2000 and in 2004. (See my link for more info.)

And as I said, anyone the Dems nominate is "electable" (the word itself is just a propaganda tool). Yes, even Barney Frank. Yes, even Cynthia McKinney. Yes, even Warren Beatty. Anyone.

And since you mentioned 2007, better yet would be for us to draft John Conyers to run for President right now.

His "campaign" would be based on getting him elected as Speaker after the Dems take Congress back in 2007. His "platform" would simply be the promise to impeach/remove Cheney and the bushkid to restore our national honor.

I know that sounds wild, but I think it could be made reality. And the accompanying benefits of energizing the base (and beyond) around a campaign based on the Stolen Elections and Impeachment would make the effort itself even more important than its ultimate success or failure.

----
www.january6th.org

[cascadiance]

161. Boxer also failed to stand up against the Patriot Act too...

I'm sure we could cherry pick different votes that Boxer did better or Feingold did better on. I don't want to argue too much of it. I have way too much respect for both of these senators. I just wanted to note that these are two who I've noted at times have stood up against the tide of "indifference" from the rest of the senators and have voted independently on matters that we should all be thankful for on their stances. And Feingold takes more risk too in a state which is more borderline red state/blue state than California is. He gets support from Wisconsin folk for their belief in him as a person, not just an ideologue.

If he has to worry about being single after two divorces, then I'm wondering why someone like Newt Gingrich even publicly acknowledges that he's considering the presidency in 2008, as his marital issues are FAR worse than Feingold's and he's running for a party that's supposedly far more worried about such things anyway.

[ecstatic]

55. Agreed... it was so bad that even many Dems use the same attacks on him

Please don't let that man run again!

[politicasista]

127. Are you scurred of him or something?

Just curious. :rofl:

[Justice Is Comin]

56. Kerry should be the VP on the 08 ticket

no matter who the presidential nominee is. That way he can prove his brilliance and be elected easily then to continue as president.

However if anything should happen to the president he's automatically the president.

See, easy.

[Peter Frank]

58. He may end up on the ticket...

...but I'm not sure if that would help or hurt. I guess that would depend on the political climate at the time.

[fedupinBushcountry]

73. Help or hurt?

59 million + gave him their vote. Everything he said about the Bush administration during the campaign is coming to light, he loss due to the corrupt way our voting system is run. Did you go out on the streets or to your capital in your state and demand a new voting system? How is it you put more blame on Kerry than the corrupt other side?

Imagine if you were John Kerry, would you be perfect? No one is perfect, but I tell you what Kerry did an extremely good job in the conditions that he faced.

I blame the media, cut and run media. The media that takes one sentence and blows it out of proportion. My God, the media was so biased it was pathetic. I never heard a a thing through the talking heads screaming on the right. The Swift Boat liars where promoted by the media and it made me sick, they were the ones that kept it going not on Kerry and they should be ashamed. The one thing the media couldn't hide was the debates and how John Kerry won all of them. Do you not think the right knew this?

Thats when the final round of attacks began, funny how that Bin Laden tape came out a few days before the election, FEAR FEAR FEAR. But when Dan Rather picked up on a debate of Bush and his non-service, he was quickly stifled, the material in that document never was said to be false, but no we didn't hear that. Recently the producer of that story came out, and what happened to her, the smear machine started.

I could go on and on, but with just the few things I have mentioned, it looks to me like John Kerry did a heck of a job, no not perfect, but with the odds against him, accept in Las Vegas, where he was favored, and the one who is favored has always won, he did damn good in my eyes.

You know if you are on a baseball team, and the pitcher you put in loses the game, do you say he's never going to pitch again? I don't think so.

I don't know if John Kerry is going to run again or not, but I do know he is fighting for us everyday and working his butt off to get Dems back in the House and Senate and mayors, delegates even city councilmen elected all over this country in '06. Thats what counts right now.

I think this whole discussion of '08 is meaningless, when there is so many more important issues we should be discussing.

[skipos]

59. My reason not to support Kerry: no more blue state nominees.

Surely we can find good candidates from red states that we can win. I hope we don't have to throw away the homestate advantage (about 90% of presidential candidates have won their homestate in the last 40 years) by nominating someone from a really blue state.

I hope to see a P and VP nominee from winable red states.

[wisteria]

67. We have been over run with Red state presidents, I want one that

speaks without a twang for a change.

[skipos]

68. Not me, I just want a president that is a democrat for a change.

Out of the last 6 democrats running for office:

Three best
Clinton (Arkansas) 370 electoral votes
Carter (Georgia) 297 electoral votes
Gore (Tennessee) 266 electoral votes

Three worst
Kerry (Massachusettes) 252 electoral votes
Dukakis (Massachusettes) 111 electoral votes
Mondale (Minnesota) 13 electoral votes

[fedupinBushcountry]

117. What are you trying to say

that someone from the North is not as good as someone from the South. How lame. So you like to divide us, huh? Electoral votes are no where in comparison to real votes, now where are those numbers?

[skipos]

125. Relax. Remember we are on the same side here.

While I find it interesting that you don't want to have a President with a southern drawl, but also accuse me of saying someone from the north is not as good from the south, let me clarify.

There are certain trends in presidential elections, here are a few you may know..
A senator hasn't been elected president in about 40 years.
Our best electoral performances in the last 30 years have come from the first candidacies of southern candidates. Our worst from northern candidates.
In the last 30 years, presidential candidates won their homestate about 90% of the time.
Most people feel that we lost the last two elections by one state.

We can argue about WHY these trends happen. Maybe they are flukes, I don't think so. For me it is not northern vs. southern candidates, but blue states verse red state candidates. I would really prefer to have a good dem nominee that is from a red state, hopefully with a lot of electoral votes, that we can win. I'd also prefer someone who is not a senator. All in all, I will support the most progressive candidate *who can get elected.* I think a red state candidate, not necessarily a southern one, is going to have an easier time of getting elected than a similar candidate from a blue state we always win. That's why I'd prefer not to have a nominee from New England.

I worked for Kerry, and I'll do it again if he is the nominee. I just hope that we can get some good candidates who aren't from New England. There is no need to call my opinion "lame." But if you disagree with me, that is understandable.

[fedupinBushcountry]

137. Sorry

but your rhetoric is exactly what is wrong, and I respectfully disagree.

So according to you, no child in New England or a blue state should ever think of being President because they live in the wrong part of the country, and also don't go being a Senator because you can't become President with that title next to your name.

Oh by the way Gore lost his homestate, it was those damn blue states that gave him the win.

[skipos]

140. No, according to me

someone from a winable red state is probably going to have a better chance of winning than the same candidate from a blue state. Think about it electorally. If candidate Jim Bob is an insanely popular Governor of Rhode Island (low electoral points, and we are likely to win it anyway), he is going to have more of a challenge than if candidate Jim Bob was an insanely popular Governor from Texas (2nd largest electoral points, we don't usually win). That is my opinion.

I also believe that an openly gay candidate is going to have a tougher time getting elected at this point in time. Do say no gay child should ever dream of running? No, but if you want to get dramatic, feel free to think I said that.

I am well aware of Gore's loss. That is why I didn't say EVERY presidential candidate wins their homestate. Also, I said that I hope our next candidate comes from a WINABLE red state. TN had a republican governor and two republican senators when Gore was running. Gore was also stopped being a senator(!) there for many years before he was running for president. That may have effected the usual homestate rule.

I don't think that this is an exact science or anything, they are just trends worth considering. In my opinion, someone like Hillary could come from any state, and she would have a tough time in the election because she is so polarizing to people in her own party.

That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
:hi:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

60. It seems that the Kerry Campaign did not want the Demoratic "attack

dogs" out there either. There was way too much of a playing "nice guys" with the media and the issues.

[blm]

142. That was Clinton and MacAuliffe's DNC plan. Clinton advised DNC that

no one should bash Bush at the convention because the American people would only vote for a candidate who spoke to hope and the future and they didn't want to hear Bashing of Bush.

In normal times this would have been sound advice, but this media isn't the same media as Clinton's 1992 media.

[longship]

61. I *have* to recommend this thread because it is right on target.

I also love John Kerry--as a Senator. He's one helluva Senator. That's where he belongs. He has already shown that he does not have the stomach to win a Presidential election. He let the RW machine spin dry him without any meaningful response.

The issue that does it for me is the Grand Canyon speech where he clearly and unambiguously said that he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knew then (no WMDs, intelligence faulty, etc.). Now, since he has now recanted that statement, he claims that he had at the time instructed his staff to debunk the GC statement. Even if that is true, it's not very comforting.

The Kerry campaign was a shambles. He let the Repugs define his candidacy. That's not good. It's why he lost.

[Peter Frank]

79. Sad but true...

I had great hopes for him ever since the Iowa caucuses; I was so moved that I actually got choked up. He was brilliant, and inspired me to hope that our country could return to character that I'd almost forgotten.

I still cary that with me, and thank him for that.

[ScreamingMeemie]

112. Thank you longship.

:toast:

[Snotcicles]

62. I think I'll reserve any announcement until I see the lineup. n/t

[wisteria]

66. I predict there will be less of a risk in 2008. I'm sticking with Kerry.

Looking ahead to 2006, I think we are in a better position than we have been in a long time. We are starting to get the grassroots movement going and people are starting to listen to our messages. We are getting our act together and the Repubs do not look as holy as they have in the recent past.I'm not even sure the war will be a dominant issue by then. I think we will have serious job losses displaced workers and an ecomony that is in serious need of repair. I think it will be time for a real President- one who takes the job seriously. I think Kerry can be that person.

[stepnw1f]

69. Election Fraud

Seems like we need to make a legal plan for the next election. Sure was nice to see some win elections across this country a week ago, but I still don't trust the system we currently have.

[Vektor]

74. I'm not supporting him either!!!! Until he puts out.

A little bit of the ol' "Kerry footlong" goes a LOOOONG way in getting my vote.

[seabeyond]

75. puts out?..... bah hahahah footlong? teresa may have some issue

with this vektor

[Vektor]

76. She may...

But as part of Kerry's patriotic duty he may have to do what it takes to get my vote.

I'm sure she'll understand.
:rofl:

[seabeyond]

77. you are funny

and that picture...... if i wasnt soooooo married, wink

[Vektor]

78. It's ok...

I won't tell. ;-) Go ahead. *Take a look.*

It's a holy beauty, isn't it?

[seabeyond]

80. man i wanted him as president

even more than gore. yup, it is a lovely picture. thanks for sharing. what a woman you are

[Vektor]

83. That and a whole lot more.

I'd like him as President FOR STARTERS.

:evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

86. now that you mention it, teresa does seem to be a gracious woman

[Vektor]

87. That's what I thought.

Looks like I'll be eating lunch at the hot dog wagon in no time!

[wisteria]

89. Oh my, now I have all of these wonderful visions of the "GREAT "

Senator Kerry dancing around in my head.

[seabeyond]

90. she went and did it to me too. beeetch....... lol lol n/t

[Vektor]

100. I did you a favor!

Now you have his glorious turgor to imagine.

[Vektor]

98. Revel in it, my friend...

It is oh, so lovely.

[wisteria]

120. Wow, just take a look at that picture!!! It says it all doesn't it. N/T

[_dynamicdems]

131. No woman is that gracious! : D n/t

[kerrygoddess]

116. Were you even paying attention?

I don't think so!

This thread should be locked. It's an insult to Democrats who worked their tails off for Kerry and didn't buy into the republican talking points that this post is selling.

[wisteria]

118. Totally agree!!!!! This should be locked! n/t

[Peter Frank]

119. Wrong on too many counts...

I speak my mind as an individual. Would you like me to stifle my thoughts only because they might be unpopular? Isn't that exactly what Bush is trying to do??

Do you not see yourself as being more akin to Bush than you're willing to admit to???

[wisteria]

122. It would be nice if you spoke with some credibility. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

126. I see nothing akin to Bush

except for the Rovian talking points spewed here.

The Democratic Party needs to learn to be SUPPORTIVE of it's leaders if we are to gain any ground. You are only helping the republican's with this Bullshit on a well read Democratic website - that you don;t get that is astounding.

It's not about stifling your thoughts - it's about respect.

John Kerry won more Democratic Votes than any Democratic Presidential candidate in history. He quite possibly won the election.

Posts like this are childish, base and disruptive to the Democratic Party.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass who you support in the 08 election and I doubt John Kerry does either.

Try focusing on the NOW! Try focusing on 06, try focusing on getting out of Iraq or responding to the BULLSHIT ATTACKS that Bush and Cheney leveled against Kerry starting on Veteran's Day and have continued to launch on Kerry and now Murtha.

Incase you missed it, this all started with Bush and Cheney attacking Kerry. You probably did miss it -- you're too busy launching your attacks.

[Peter Frank]

165. I see...

So free speech is OK only if you agree with what's said.

Don't you think that this a great place for Kerry supporters to make their case? Who knows? ...you might change some minds -- maybe mine.

[wisteria]

121. ON FURTHER READING THIS POST IS ACTUALLY-BULLSHIT!

ON FURTHER READING, THE CLINTON INFORMATION IS NOT CORRECT.
ON FURTHER READING, YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE KERRY CAMPAIGN.
ON FURTHER READING, IF YOU FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC, THAN MCCAIN ISN'T ELECTABLE TOO. THE REPUBS DID A JOB ON HIM.
AND WHAT ABOUT H. CLINTON- SHE HASN'T EVEN SERVED.

[seabeyond]

123. he also leaves out media role in all this which was a HUGH

factor in what happened to kerry that hadnt been set up yet with clinton. if we are going to have an honest debate on kerry with integrity, then surely the obvious bias of the media would be mentioned in the post. unless media is addressed then the same problems are going to happen to our next dem leader. then we can trash that dem leader too and lay on the blame on his feet when clearly gore and kerry were excellent candidates and kerry ran by far good campaign.

[Mass]

124. Why should I care if you are going to support him or not.

It is amazing how some people think their opinion is important.

[wisteria]

128. You know, your absolutely right! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

130. You are absolutely right.

You just plain can't argue with an elephant. These are the same arguments the GOP uses. So it is like spitting in the wind to argue with their talking points.

That there are so many people her at DU talking down another Kerry run makes me optimistic that Kerry is really getting under the Repugs skins. It is actually a good sign. Notice how Kerry's bashing of Bush is directly proportional to the anti-Kerry threads that just happen to pop up here - IN A DEMOCRATIC FORUM. Obviously people are threatened when Kerry takes on Bush. That is no surprise. And the fact that it happens here is also no surprise. What is the GOP strategy? Look around folks, do you see some of this happening here? Does the song and dance look a little familiar?

Anybody who knocks any Democratic candidate in any way (and that includes the "why I'll never vote for again" threads) is an elephant in donkey skins. Sorry, but real Dems don't do that to our own.

So, don't even bother trying to reason with these folks. You might as well try to reason with the wind.

[Kurovski]

132. K&R

I like Kerry too. He's one of our finest senators.

I think he proved himself to be a better Senator than president.
It took me a year to come to that opinion.

[Mass]

135. How can you know that - He has never been president.

Say candidate if you want, but president!!

[elehhhhna]

143. me neither. jk is soooo 2004.

[second edition]

145. Well, I would add 2008 to. Kerry remains at the top of my list.

No one else comes close. None of the other "candidates" has shown me as much enthusiasm or committment as Kerry has. I just can't figure out some people- do THEY even know what they want?

[second edition]

144. Your rationale makes very little sense and your reasoning is faulty.

Seems to me you have mistakingly taken a personal point of view and tried to add some credence to it- some merit. All this is unsubstantiated fact less dribble. Similar to the stuff put out by a childlike Republican party and a group of irrational discredited thugs. I question how you could elevate this group of Rovian cronies to the level you have and still expect to be taken seriously. Everyone else, at this point, has seen through this charade and have wisely dismissed them.
Chose whom you want to support, just don't ever think these Vietnam era, cognitively challenged, past dwellers will mean anything to anybody in 2008. There 15 minutes of fame is up.

[Peter Frank]

157. You've got that backwards...

I fervently supported Kerry. ...And for the reasons gave, I came to this personal point of view.

Yes, this is my personal choice; and as stated earlier, I'm not saying that others should not support Kerry.

[ProSense]

149. Kerry's a great man. I agree with you here. And here:

He's a great force in the Democratic Party.

The rest of it: hogwash!



Might I add, I would support such a man for president any day.

[Peter Frank]

151. Please explain...

What specifically is hogwash?

[ProSense]

152. Where do I start?

First, there was no public perception to correct in Clinton's case, his public support was good, and public dissatisfaction with Bush Sr. helped.

Kerry's biggest fight was not against public perception of his character, but of the war, which the public supported. Every statement he has made about the war over the past two years has been forcefully critical. And Bush, as a result of his deceptions and the free pass given to him by the media, was enjoying public support.

Kerry did not "let the Republican crap to steep in the minds of voters" the media drummed it in as fact.

Kerry responded to the personal attacks and, even without much coverage in the media, made numerous appearances flanked by fellow veterans with first-hand knowledge of the events speaking in his defense.

On and on...

[Peter Frank]

154. So you're saying that...

...it was not Kerry's responsibility to get his voice heard above the noise?

[ProSense]

156. No!

Kerry could have made 50,000 media-worthy appearances, in front of the camera and in public, he still couldn't overcome the media's intentional slanting of the commentary or force them to replay footage of his public appearances. The media overplayed the other sides point of view.

Remember also, Bush paid a lot of pundits to deliver his message. That's a crime he still needs to be held accountable for.

People were relying on the media for objective analysis and commentary, but they got the slant.

[Peter Frank]

158. Once again...

...Clinton had no problem with the media. Don't you think Kerry could have benefited fro a Clinton style war room?

[_dynamicdems]

163. So very true. And so very sad.

People shouldn't take the news or the spin on these boards at face value. One thing I learned from the election of 2004 and everything that has come out about the corruption of this administration since: always look at the motive that may lurk behind anything anyone says. What is their motive? I take nobody's opinion at face value anymore, especially if they are saying something negative, because negative is always the GOP strategy. This may sound cynical, but I'd rather be cynical than sorry.

They are still trying to prosecute GOP operatives for jamming NH Democratic Party phone lines back in 2003. That is only one example of them "getting caught" and it has taken all this time to begin to bring the culprits to justice.

It really makes me wonder why every single time that Senator Kerry says something negative about Shrub and Company, that there are new "never trust Kerry again" or "never vote for Kerry again" threads here in a Democratic forum. Let me tell you: this won't just be Kerry either. As soon as another top Dem starts to make threatening sounds, look out! They are waiting in the wings to feast on the bones of Senator Clinton. Wringing their meaty, sweaty hands in delight, I daresay. As soon as the sun is going to rise tomorrow, there will be hate threads about Hillary too. Probably others: depends on who decides to do what and how it is viewed in Elephantland.

Anyone who says anything negative about any Democrat, as opposed to lauding their favorite Democrat, is automatically suspect in my book. Sorry, but the elephants have infiltrated into too many areas and have wreaked too much havoc for me to trust someone just because they profess to be a liberal. Knives in the back are a very effective means of dispatching an enemy.

Sorry friends, but the time for wide-eyed innocence is over. The corruption has leaked into every element of our society. Right-wing "Pod People" are behind every rock. Don't believe it? Look around. Naive disbelief is exactly what got us into this mess.

[yankeedem]

178. You've got us, we're all freepers

How DARE we criticize another Democrat, especially St. Kerry:eyes:

[blm]

159. He was 20 years too late to buy broadcast media the way the GOP did.

I say it was the DNC's job to build a message machine that could at least show some discipline of message when they saw how it worked for the Republicans since 1998.

[Peter Frank]

162. I agree that the DNC shares responsibility...

...but ultimately it was Kerry's race. If he had won -- he would have gotten the credit, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Look, I stood by and watched my candidate get slimed time after time with little or no response -- knowing that this would seriously undermine his chances of winning.

Clinton would never allowed this. He so intimidated his adversaries with his comebacks that they became hesitant to slam him.

[blm]

164. Kerry did have counter press articles, but after they came out BROADCAST

media refused to give them airtime to discuss, and Dem spokespeople didn't have the force of personality to press the truth. The Dem machine was LAME in its broadcast appearances. Including Carville who was neutered for most of 2004 by his WHIG wife.

Clinton let himself get impeached because he had no control over the corporate media.

He was labeled a liar and people believed he was a liar, even though he was proving to be a competent administrator.

He was labeled as soft on terror and NEVER gained control over that impression in the aftermath of 9-11.

And that was even WITH his book and publicity tour. Bush still outpolled him on that.

Only now is any truth getting through to the American people with a media finally doing some of its job postKatrina and postFitzgerald.

It was EASY for Clinton in 92 with a still uncoopted media. He also had Kerry's IranContra and BCCI efforts paying off for him in headlines against Bush1 for a good long time and especially in 92 before his election.

You think he would have won in 2004 with the same post 9-11 media and with no one in the country knowing him well? With a media that was protecting Bushboy at every turn?

Your problem is that you think the media hasn't changed since 1992.

Paul Krugman, Bill Moyers, Mediamatters and FAIR would disagree with you.

[Peter Frank]

166. Moderator -- Please lock this thread

I didn't plan on stirring up allot of controversy here. My intention was only to state one man's opinion, and hear some other thoughts.

This would be the worst time to be at cross purposes. There's too much at stake right now for our energies to diluted by divisive argument.

[BJW]

167. Hey--let's stay focused on congressional elections first!!

[Peter Frank]

171. Yes, allot to be done...

...and I'll save my arguments for the opposition.

[LittleClarkie]

172. I obviously disagree, but appreciate the civil manner in which you

innumerated your reasons. This is the difference between criticism and/or expressing one's opinion and bashing, in my opinion. Not alot of people get the distinction.

We shall see... in 2007 that is. Til then I'll be working for my 2006 candidate. See you in 2007. I'll be the one in the Kerry camp.

[Peter Frank]

173. Thanks for the props...

Who knows, circumstances may change in a way that will prompt me & others to change our minds about Kerry in '08.

[yankeedem]

174. We can't afford Kerry anymore

We can't afford to find out too late that Kerry doesn't want it in 2008 either. Let someone run who wants to be president, and will do what it takes.

He's a great senator. But he campaigned in a different world than what is required to win in this environment.

I donated a lot of money to his campaign, as well as a lot of time. He promised not to give up until every vote was counted. He lied. I'll vote for him in 2008 if he wins the nomination, but I'll let someone else donate their money/time/or energy.

[politicasista]

176. Sorry, but I would rather focus on 2006 than rehash the past

We should let the voters in the real world decide if they can afford Kerry.

[yankeedem]

177. And you would let us lose again

I'm sure Ken Mehlman would be THRILLED for Kerry to win the nomination again.

[Mass]

182. No, but Melhman would be thrilled by people like you.

[roseBudd]

181. Kerry unfortunately has no charisma, he has no showbiz pizzazz

It is sad, but true, a large segment needs charisma in their leaders

[seabeyond]

188. that is the only thing they thought they got in bush and it failed

miserably

[dwahzon]

183. Okay...

and the real point of this post was????

To prove how stuck in the past you are? How little attention you've paid to the GAO report on electronic voting systems not to mention all the other research and studies out there on the voting machines and the fraud in the 2004 election?

Kerry's campaign wasn't perfect. NO presidential campaign ever is regardless of whether the candidate "wins" or not. But he actually did a damn good job and probably did win the election.

So your post is really rather pointless and even more important, it's destructive and damaging, as far as building the focus and momentum on teamwork for the 2006 elections and the focus that we need on getting local and state-level candidates into place that will allow us to assure honest elections.

[sepia_steel]

184. That's nice. nt

[Mass]

185. The OP has asked that this thread be locked three hours ago -

Why is it not locked?

BTW, thanks to the OP. I really appreciate his demand.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

187. Nice impersonation of a lobotomy voter, lobotomyvoter.

That WAS your intent, right?

[LeftCoast]

189. Locking per original poster request

OP request