With all the difference a Gore or Kerry administration would have made

[LisaM]

in the past 8, or 4, years, I simply do NOT understand why they didn't garner the enthusiasm that Obama did. Both were absolutely stellar on the environment, and Kerry's credentials regarding the banking industry were probably unparalleled. Yet, people didn't get excited about them. Looking back, I see really wasted opportunity.

I simply don't get it. I'm glad Obama gets people excited, but I really, really don't understand the difference. Gore and Kerry both had the possibility of being among our best presidents ever. Why didn't people see it?



:shrug:

[ContinentalOp]

1. They are both really boring speakers. Kerry voted for the IWR which didn't really help him...

run on an anti-war platform. The banking industry wasn't an issue in 2004. And what were Gore's credentials on the environment in 2000? What did he accomplish as VP?

This is the first time that I've ever been glad that Gore didn't take office. Imagine if he had a two term presidency. Right now the election would be Bush vs. Lieberman! :o Ponder that one for a minute. Or maybe if Kerry had won we'd be bogged down in an Edwards sex scandal right about now.

[LisaM]

4. I didn't think they were boring speakers

and if Gore had been president for 8 years, there'd be 4000 US soldiers still alive, not to mention the number of Iraqi civilians, polar bears wouldn't be in danger, more of us could afford hybrid cars, and, IMO, 9/11 and Katrina would not have been the disasters that they were. I don't think 9/11 would have happened. I think that Gore would have paid attention to all the 9/11 warning signs and he definitely wouldn't have been on vacation.

So what if our chances for winning the election would be worse NOW? 8 years of hell would not have occurred.

[olkaz]

37. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You are asking why Gore and Kerry didn't command the same excitement Obama has, right?

I mean, yeah, it would have been great if Florida and Ohio weren't stolen, but there isn't anything we can do now. I just don't understand the connection you're trying to make.

Maybe part of the excitement is realization that many of the wrongs of the last eight years will be undone or at least, be given some long-deserved justice.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Video of Al Gore in Minnesota on Saturday.

Filmed by me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgpbGwozIJ0

[4lbs]

13. Gore had been talking about global warming for decades.

It wasn't until about 4 or 5 years ago, that people started listening to him.

Gore was even talking about climate change in his 1992 VP debate, and was hammered by Quayle and Stockdale as being just an alarmist without any scientific ammo.

15 years and a Nobel Prize later....

[elocs]

2. Gore and Kerry were, for the most part, personally uninspiring except to their fervent supporters.

[ProSense]

12. That's just not true

[politicasista]

19. Cool. Nice pics!

I am sure crickets will follow. :)

[elocs]

40. Pretty pictures of big crowds in one place do not mean a lot compared

to the millions of American voters. This time people are very inspired by Obama and his message.

[ProSense]

45. Pretty pictures? More than 59 million Americans voted for Kerry,

12 million more than Clinton.

Obama has a lot going for him, and this is a very different election.

[politicasista]

46. Thank you n/t

[blm]

30. Only 'fervent supporters' want open government? The best advocate open government ever had

and too many KNOWNOTHINGS decided they were keen judges of what's appealing and inspiring?

You couldn't get excited about the lawmaker who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history, then that says more about YOUR priorities.

You couldn't get inspired by the lawmaker who did more than any other lawmaker the last 35 years to block the fascist agenda, then that says more about your attention to this nation's actual historic record than you might prefer.

[elocs]

39. Not about me, Ace. It's about the thousands of average American voters who were not inspired. n/t

[blm]

41. Kerry won. The RNC stole it for Bush - McAuliffe's DNC sat on its hands for 4yrs and let them do it

If that election wasn't stolen, then people would be talking today about the first time they WERE inspired by what they LEARNED about Kerry and his amazing record of service decade after decade instead of all the REVISIONISM the corpmedia and its SLAVES regurgitate day after day.

[elocs]

42. "If". If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

I think Obama has inspired enough voters that he does not need to rely on "ifs".

[blm]

43. sure - in a postKatrina, postIraqCivilWar, postMountingForeclosureWorld we live in since 2005.

You think that Obama would be this far ahead in 2004, IF he ran then? Would he have inspired 70 million to vote for him in 2004?

[politicasista]

44. **crickets** n/t

[rvablue]

3. Gore and Kerry did excite people

They consecutively broke records for the popular vote.

Obama is just going to SMASH the record because there are going to be so many NEW voters.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Gore was running at a time when voters were happy with their status quo

And 2004 was too soon after the Iraq War and before Katrina. Americans really didn't wake up to the bullshit they've been handed until 2005.

[LisaM]

7. But even here on DU - and we were, for example, well aware of the environmental

ramifications alone. It's ended up worse than we thought, but I just don't totally get it.

I think a lot of people saw the banking crisis coming, too. I disagreed mightily with Kerry's IWR vote, but it was never my only issue, and I thought he would have made a fantastic president.

[berni_mccoy]

8. WE were... that's your answer. The public wasn't aware yet, nor did they care.

Now that it's hitting them where it counts (in the wallet), they care a great deal.

[LisaM]

9. But I didn't see the enthusiasm for Kerry, and I don't get it.

We'd all be so much better off if he'd been elected.

[berni_mccoy]

11. Kerry was swift-boated and didn't respond to the attacks.

It is really that simple.

[politicasista]

20. Can we stop putting down Kerry to praise Obama

And stop repeating the media lies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[berni_mccoy]

24. I'm not putting down Kerry. I was there. He chose not to respond for an entire month.

I volunteered for the Kerry campaign, I saw what happened. It's not a media lie. He did not respond well enough to the baseless attacks. We had many discussions about why he wasn't responding on the Kerry forums.

[politicasista]

25. There are people that saw things differently

Especially people (I wasn't one of them, just a lurker) who worked at the Kerry/Edwards blog would disagree with that.

I don't understand how buying into the media spin about Democrats and eating our own helps Obama. Kerry is Obama's top surrogate.

He is doing for Obama what no one did for him in 04. I don't understand why people are letting the Democratic surrogates off the hook and blaming only Kerry. :shrug:

[ProSense]

27. He did respond

He initially (on the first day the surfaced) sent out a 36-page media packet (similar to Obama's) and that stopped them for more than three months. The times were different (not like today with the blogs and You Tube), and the complicit media were able to launch a successful ambush after the Democratic Convention when Kerry was locked into spending limits.

In 2004, the media got away with hundreds of articles and broadcast reports like this. It's simply impossible to fight this kind of onslaught without a counter force, including the blogs and effective surrogates.

Notice a lot of Obama's statements still don't wind up on the MSM. They're spread by the blogs and via You Tube. Olbermann and Maddow are also a huge advantage. The would have helped to change the dynamic in 2004.

[blm]

29. Then YOU were waiting for CORPMEDIA to tell you about the counterattacks instead of backing Kerry up

when he attacked the swifts and Bush for hiding behind them. Just like the rest of the Dem blogs who didn't pay enough attention to BACK KERRY up and repeat his smackdowns. Typical - just like all the cowed and lazy Dem lawmakers too fearful of Bush and Rove at their strongest points, so they wouldn't show up on TV to provide back up, either.

Kos admitted he failed Kerry as the 2004 nominee last year. He admitted he didn't use his influence to provide the back up necessary. Most Dem blogs would NEVER admit that truth - but, just look at bartcop, kos, or DU and find the back up after Kerry's speech attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to debate their services......try and find a collective effort to back Kerry up - you can't. Not even here on DU. Aug 19 and 20, 2004 here at DU you would barely know Kerry made a speech that day. Even DUers can be slaves to corpmedia.

[berni_mccoy]

31. I suppose that's true enough... It does look like the issue was his response was not being reported

I stand corrected and it's hard to believe things have changed so dramatically in just 4 years. I believe we have made a difference in holding the MSM accountable for their lack of coverage.

It still goes on, but they can't get away with all of it.

[LisaM]

34. Thank you. You actually answered my question

and articulated some of the things I was trying to puzzle out.

[blm]

26. That simple? try... that FALSE. Ever go to DU's Research Forum, berni? Ever read the ACTUAL data

on the swifts and the response to the swifts from Kerry and his campaign?

You never KNEW Kerry used his speech to the Firefighters Convention to attack the swifts AND challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts and come out and publicly DEBATE their services during Vietnam? You didn't know that because the media REFUSED to broadcast that speech and few even reported it happened, and certainly would NOT put the videoclip into any regular rotation on their news shows.

There isn't a DAMN thing Obama did with Wright or Ayers smears that Kerry didn't do with the swifts AS IT HAPPENED. The difference is the airtime that Obama has been allowed that Kerry was refused.

[Johonny]

10. Well Gore won the popular vote

How Bush beat Kerry I'll never understand. Particularly given the polls that showed almost immediate buyers remorse once Bush started his second administration.

[Marsala]

15. Bush won in 2004 by fear

People were still scared that the terrorists were going to attack again, and they let themselves be convinced that only Bush could keep them safe. Republicans have a false reputation on being stronger on national security due to their greater willingness to make wars.

[abumbyanyothername]

38. Bush did not beat Kerry

I get so tired of explaining this to people.

When we go into places like Bosnia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and monitor elections what do we use to determine if the elections were fair or rigged?

You got it . . . exit polls.

There is no way that Kerry lost Ohio and there are a few more states that are screwy also (New Hampshire for one).

[apnu]

14. Gore had Clinton baggage hung around his neck and Kerry was as appealing as cardboard.

That's the honest truth.

For good or ill, Gore was Clinton's guy. He never got the chance to strike out and be the Al Gore we know and love today. Kerry was bland and inaccessable. He's smart as hell, a fighter, and a deep thinker, but his image is one that's stuffy. America rejected stuffy, and America rejected change in 2004.

This year its different. America wants change, and Obama has been talking about change from the very start.

[LisaM]

16. I actually find Kerry enormously appealing

and it frustrates me that others didn't see it. Whereas Bush literally gives me the creeps (so does McCain) and it frustrates me that people likewise don't see that.

[apnu]

17. Kerry had to grow on me like moss before I came to find him appealing.

And even then, I only found him intellectually appealing. I was a Deaniac and Kerry had the excitement of a sack of potatoes for me. The only thing that kept me pumped (and many here on DU) was our hatred for Bush. Remember all the ABB stuff? I do. Our nominees could have been a brick and a ficus plant and I would have voted for that than Bush/Chaney.

[LisaM]

18. I liked Kerry going back long before that

he was always great on the Sunday talk shows and I looked forward to seeing him. Howard Dean wore off quickly as far as I was concerned. I went to one of his rallies and he just kept saying, 'we're going to send Bush back to Crawford!' over and over. I swear he didn't say anything else! Tastes differ, that's for sure.

[politicasista]

21. I agree. Too bad people feel the need to slam them both to praise/promote Obama n/t

[iceman66]

22. First of all

one could argue that both actually won their respective elections.

That aside, a lot has changed between now and then.

I think in 2000 people were pretty complacent after 8 years of peace and prosperity, and no one really believed that Bush could or would mess things up this bad.

As for 2004, the economy was still pretty good, and the war was still fairly popular. The housing bubble had yet to burst, and interest rates were very low. I remember Kerry getting mocked for suggesting that the Iraq war might end up costing 200 billion dollars, and of course now we'd be lucky to get out without paying ten times that.

Hopefully by now enough people have 'woken up' to make Obama's victory too decisive to steal.

[Overseas]

23. DLC "forget the red states" style and corporate media campaigns against them.

We were still in the DLC "forget the red states" campaign strategy and lost lots of opportunities during the campaigns for Gore and Kerry. I'm so glad Dr. Dean opened people's eyes and took over the DNC and helped the brilliant Obama campaign welcome in the tons of Democratic voters we knew were there. Big relief. That has been so encouraging to me. I knew they were out there. So glad the Obama team ignored conventional wisdom and talked to them directly. That has been wonderful.

The corporate media had a major campaign going against the geeky Al Gore. I definitely want a geek to run my country. I prefer leaders who study to develop their policies rather than those who drink beer and gab and ask their buddies what to think.

But the Washington pundits really ran Al Gore into the ground. They talked up this whole exaggerator theme and pretended that he was a Washington elite and that the Kennybunkport Cowboy was more authentic. It was really disgusting. And it was really intense. Quite the echo chamber among the talking heads on the TV news chat circuit. They were pushing The Beer Guy because The Geek was a bit of a bore to them.

Kerry also didn't set up a blazing 50-state plan. He won by 51% but was pushed to concede early, even before all the votes were counted. He was a war hero but the corporate media didn't protect him like they are protecting McLiar on that front.

So, Barack Obama is a fabulous orator, one of the best I've ever heard, AND his team was smart enough to engage in a strong, 50-state strategy and that's why he's made more progress.

[Stellabella]

28. It wasn't bad enough yet.

We had to reach this absolute crisis before 'Joe Six Pack' woke up and realized the mess we are in.

[msallied]

32. It's all about grass roots, baby. The internet helped this tremendously.

Neither previous candidate REALLY used the internet to their advantage.

[politicasista]

33. The internet was not big then like it is now

YouTube wasn't around in 2000 or 2004. Plus, several of Obama's campaign staff came from Kerry's campaign.

[msallied]

35. The internet was far more established in 2004 than 2000.

And I'm not merely talking about Youtube (though that has helped tremendously). I'm talking about the innovations in the candidate's own websites.

[politicasista]

36. True

Obama has changed the internet landscape (i.e. Text messaging, e-mailing VP pick, etc).