Why John Kerry should not run for president again.

[vinnievin777]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I supported Kerry because of what he did after the war and his peaceful stance on issues as well as his compassion for the common man. However now that the election is over I will list the top five reasons he lost:

1) The I would have voted the same way on the war comment. (If he had some intelligent advisors they would have told him to change one sentence and say, "I would have voted the same way on the war.Unless the president was one such as George Bush.

2)The second reason was the media coverage of a bogus swift-boat swine ad that went for the whole month of August.

3)The idiots on the right who listened to right wing media outlets.

4)The idiots on the left who gave a sense of validity to the idiots on the right.
(IE. I defended Linda Ronstadt's right to free speech in words and writing when Aladdin kicked her out and she turned around and said how horrible Christians are.)

5)His failure to bring to light the real issues facing Americans and his focus on being a hawk.


Why would anyone want a guy who should have won the presidency and lost it to run again?


Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[maddiejoan]

1. actually..

He didn't lose.

[confludemocrat]

7. But he acted as if he did

A failure of will in attempting to appear "statesmanlike" when we needed him to fight. He had no surrogates as Bush did in 2000.

This was not about being "above the fray", he needed to be "in the fray" whether or not he planned to run again. he silently walked away. OK, he has revived of late, but for me, who was among the 15% who voted for him in the June 2003 MoveOn straw pole, too little, too late.

[ginnyinWI]

68. I wonder

How is it that you know that he was trying to appear statesmanlike? Failure of will? For what?
How do you know he was trying to stay above the fray?

I think he is acting as if he did win the election--just my opinion.
But a good prosecutor never tries to make a case without enough evidence. He knows what would have happened and made the right call.

If wishes were horses... but we must live in the reality based world.

[senseandsensibility]

2. I disagree

It's way too early to know who should run in four years. The only thing the swifboat crap taught me, and I said this at the time, is that you go AFTER "people" like that that smear you. The entire Dem party should have gone after them en masse. As for Rodstandt. she's a blip on the radar screen.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[vinnievin777]

8. I support your right to free speech as well.

Have another drink on me.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Old and In the Way]

9. I'll have another

To stupid threads - :toast:

:-)

[Warpy]

4. He had his chance

but he listened to the DLC, ran a stupid campaign, has STILL not sued the Smear Boat guys for libel, and wimped out on the recount. He enabled the GOP to steal another close race.

Leave him in the Senate where he can still do some good.

Let's have a non DLC candidate who will fire all those corporate lobbyists turned campaign handlers and build his own damn team and won't copy his economic plans from the DLC website and who might offer the working class base something besides all the dumb policies that have killed them financially for thirty years.

[LiberallyInclined]

5. my feelings too.

i will NOT vote for another DLC lackey.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Bite me

Respectfully.

[LiberallyInclined]

54. can't argue with that logic...

:eyes:

[paulk]

35. if you think Kerry is a DLC lackey

then you haven't been paying attention.

really...

what a monumentally stupid thing to say.

[LiberallyInclined]

53. ??????

there are none so ignorant as the truly un-informed.

:eyes:

[ginnyinWI]

69. Kerry has never been anyone's lackey

And he never will be. ;)

[bunny planet]

77. You got that right.

Kerry '08

[Old and In the Way]

11. Hey Warpy

Here's to Kerry....may the rest of the voting public figure it out before 2008. :toast:

[BlueIris]

28. That's what I say. n/t

[Stand and Fight]

6. Well, this is flame bait if ever there was such...

:eyes:

[MoonRiver]

12. He's voicing an opinion. Why is that flame bait?

[Deja Q]

49. Reality check at 6 o'clock:

Did this main post incite flaming? Probably. But that's politics; the very nature of is FLAMING.

And self-centered actions by the part of those who win.

They've urinated on the Constitution so many times; we're hardly a government by, of, and for the people. It's by, of, for the corporations and by, of, and for only those who get elected. And oddly enough, they all gets mass sums of money FROM corporations.

Business entities are NOT PEOPLE. And there needs to be a cap to limit the interests of the very few. For the current system is not just a urination on the Constitution, it's a great pile of steaming shit. Fresh, too.

[MoonRiver]

10. I definitely do not want him to be our presidential nominee again.

By contrast, I would love for Al Gore to run again, but I doubt he will. Gore fought for us and was undone by the SCOTUS traitors. Kerry folded before the preliminary counting had even ended. There's a HUGE difference between these two in terms of whom I can trust and support. Gore, yes. Kerry, NO.

[maddiejoan]

15. Oh yes

Gore's brilliant tactic of getting fat, growing a beard and pulling a Howard Hughes for 3 years is in stark contrast to Kerry's cowardly in-your-face tactics currently being employed on the Senate floor.

[MoonRiver]

19. Did ya take a left turn by accident?

[maddiejoan]

22. No.

I just found your post completely absurd.

[merh]

41. Yeah, it was simply amazing how Gore stood up to Bush after

he stole the election in 2000. I remember all of those great appearances he made and interviews he gave holding the weed's feet to the fire, you know that "told you so" circuit he did after 2000.

But wait, that wasn't Gore, that is Kerry today!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1670679

Gore's battle was easier than Kerry's. Gore won the popular vote and lost the Florida by a few thousand and thus electoral college vote. The theives stole both the popular and the electoral college votes from Kerry. In Ohio, the day after the election it was estimated to be by 300,000 plus. After things settled down, it was by 118,000 or so. The difference in the numbers is huge.

[Skip Intro]

14. oh man, you're so way off

1 - Kerry didn't vote "for the war" - he actually did vote to give the "president" the power to go to war. I'm not happy with the vote and never was and was hard on Kerry during the primaries. I know that there were other forces at work, hard circumstances and a media/bush regime molded atmosphere in this country, at the time of that vote, and what Kerry actually said at the time of the vote, that do, no matter how lacking, give me the ability to accept his vote, and, combined with his actions and statements since, not have it as a litmus test. This was not always my position, but I do not hold this vote against Kerry now.

And your characterization that he "voted for the war" isn't exactly accurate. He voted for a process.

2, 3 - How do you blame Kerry for the media coverage and what the loons on the right believed. The right would have crucified Jesus all over again had he dared appear and run agaist the precious w.

4 - Never heard that from the right about LR saying how horrible Christians are. You really should include her quote, there, imho. I, for one, don't know about her saying that.

5 - I agree the message of Kerry and all Democrats, as one, should have been, "here's where we were when bush took office, here's where we are now" or something equally powerful, and then hammered it home every breath they took (and then offer change, or better yet, a return to prosperity).

If Kerry lost, and there was no election fraud - a stretch for sure, then he only lost to a "wartime president" by a small margin.

Beyond all that, there are reasons Kerry SHOULD be the nominee in '08, not the least of which would be the same reason Gore should have been the nom in '04: The sheeple of America would be confronted with a rare (recent) moment for Democrats, who can say, "we were right in 2004 (plenty of proof by 2008), we had the right candidate in 2004, and we're standing by what we offered the American people then, only now its more urgent .

Kerry again would represent a consistency that I think a lot of Americans would recognize and be drawn to. Gore would have had the same effect in 2004.

Imho.

eidted to change "had the right candidate in 2008" to "had the right candidate in 2004."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Great post...thanks

[XanaDUer]

21. Bless you.

Well put.

[vinnievin777]

24. Okay

#1 is my point exactly-- and he should have said that he would have voted the same way again to give the president the power, except if that president was as arrogant and single minded as Bush.

#2 I listed the top five reasons he lost and yes they all were not his fault but I did not want anyone to lose sight of the multiplicity of cooperating factors that resulted in his losing.
That said had he clarified his position and had come out and said what he stood for back in the seventies --I believe he would have gained the same respect that I have for him for speaking out against atrocities.

#3 I agree with you on that but it still doesn't alter the fact that some on the left gave validity to the "godless democrat" label the right was trying to give them by stupid anti-Christian actions that should have been anti-Bush actions.

#4 while you were sleeping they invented search engines (just kidding)

#5 um I think you agree with me on that one right?


Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Old and In the Way]

25. Thanks....you said much more coherently than I could.

Those that disagree, can, well, bite me.

[Withywindle]

37. Exactly, thank you!

Beautifully put.

Look, the Democratic Party is criticized for seeming to be a weathervane, picking up and dropping platforms and people just to win elections. I don't think that's actually true, but I can see how it could seem to be true to a casual observer. If that's an image problem we have, with a grain of truth to it, then discarding former candidates like garbage, like "losing" once makes them smell funny or something--well, it doesn't get much more unprincipled and disloyal than that, does it?

Gore wasn't a perfect candidate, but I'd have supported him in '04, because I think he would have been a very good President. And I also think John Kerry would make an excellent President. Too soon for me to say who I'm gonna support in '08; too soon to even care very much. We have a loooooooong way to go, and the '06 elections are the ones we should be babbling about nonstop.

But if I thought Kerry would be a great President five months ago--and I did!--none of the fighting he's done since, a considerable shitload, has diminished that impression in the least. Quite the opposite.

[NewJeffCT]

50. Point 5 is 100% correct, disagree slightly on point 1

And, I agree on Jesus being crucified again if he ran against *...

But, the main thing is a consistent theme. As soon as Kerry clinched the nomination, every fracking message from the Republicans was either "Kerry is a flip-flopper who can't be trusted with protecting the country" or some variation on that one theme. It made it easy for rank & file Republicans to pick up on the theme and hammer it home with Letters to the Editor in local papers, calls to local talk shows and just around the office water cooler.

On the other hand, organizations like MoveOn, ACT, the DNC, Michael Moore, etc all had devastating commercials and exposure... but, it was with 101 different messages - (Iraq, Al Qaeda, Deficit, Environment, tax cuts for the rich, etc, etc. No one message stood out as an overall theme that us rank & file types could hammer home in those LTTEs, calls to talk shows, or around the water cooler. Bring up item 63 from the list, the RW response is, "well, Kerry's a flip-flopper who can't be trusted with national defense..." bring up item 32, and their response was the same. It was not until we got the "Two Face of Bush" theme on DU that we actually had something we could pound home. But, the 2 Faces theme didn't come up until October when we needed in 9 months earlier!!!

However, on point 1, while I agree with you technically that is what John Kerry did, he did a fracking awful job of explaining it... and, he knew it was basically an authorization for Bush to go to war. Saying, "well Bush promised to do this" comes off as whiny and wimpy... It also doesn't explain why he voted against the more justified Gulf War in '90 or '91.

(Sorry for all the fracking, just finished watching Battlestar Galactica)

[ohtransplant]

16. We need a decent, intelligent person for our President

for a change.

I was one who knew little of John Kerry before "the scream". The more I learned, the more I came to believe he was our man. This guy is the real deal. That feeling never left me. As I learn more, I'm more convinced. Is the guy perfect? No - and few are.

I want a President who is smarter than me - smarter than most of us in fact. I want a President who thinks before he speaks - who choses his words carefully and skillfully. Kerry might not be the only one to fit that bill but he certainly fits the description.

Were there mistakes made in the GE campaign? Certainly, but I'm sure we wouldn't be talking about those mistake if he'd been sworn in on 1/20/05.

Has John Kerry been standing up to * and the pubs since his return to the Senate? Has he been gathering support for Dem causes at the grass roots level? Yes and Yes.

Is it too early to rule anyone in or out for 2008? Absolutely. There are key elections in 2006 and we all know anything can happen in the next three years.

Since anything can happen, I'm keeping an open mind but if I had to choose for 2008 right now, he'd be the man.

I feel better now...

[politicasista]

17. You supported him? Yeah right

Like someone else could have done so much better. Fairweathered people. Nothing changes.

[vinnievin777]

26. Did I support him

Yes --
You should probably be upset with those who advised him.
And He should have won -- but it was partly his fault he didn't.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[politicasista]

27. Why don't you blame his managers/advisors then?

I do. Plus, at least he is visible? Where is Gore and all the others?

[vinnievin777]

29. Yeah I know

I really think he is a good guy. But if you blame the advisors then we are in agreement.
Despite all the factors against him the people were against Bush.
It was his election to lose and he lost it.
So I can only blame him as he listened to his advisors.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[politicasista]

30. Than you can blame the others for listening to their advisors

and not hold Kerry to a higher standard. I am glad he is visible. Where is Gore? Where is Nader?

[Lexingtonian]

18. That's all trivia and circumstances

Try harder and come up with a real argument for or against the man. What you list is stuff you didn't like- but that doesn't make any of it what decided anything.

Yeah, I know you're trying to articulate an argument, but those are all superficial or misinterpreted. For example, #5- dang did he try, but swing voters didn't actually care. Get to the heart of them, see what the real substance of the perceived problem(s) is. Have a hard look at the explanations swing voters gave for voting for Bush or against Kerry- seriously, figure out what really made them decide. First.

It's three years until any of this discussion has a point. The political ground shifts a lot between campaigns at present. Monday morning quarterbacking is not the solution for '08.

[vinnievin777]

32. well

Well Monday morning quarterbacking is necessary when you are first and goal and you punt the ball.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Lexingtonian]

34. not true

Why not consider the facts, not your impressions?

Yeah, I know that would be hard, and it would be work.

[vinnievin777]

38. On the contrary

I listed facts and you listed impressions
That said I would be happy to hear some facts
Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Lexingtonian]

43. Nope

I'm sure you would happy to hear some facts, since you can't be bothered to research them yourself.

So, what was the usual swing voter response to why s/he voted for Bush rather than Kerry, in the main? Not to be confused with the most common answer.

[ruggerson]

23. Just compare Kerry to Gavin Newsom and that's all you need to know

[kerrygoddess]

31. NICE ROVIAN TALKING POINTS!!!! N/T

[vinnievin777]

33. Good One

Now I am Karl Rove cause you don't agree.


Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[merh]

52. Now see, you cannot even comprehend the post you responded

to. The poster did not call you Rove, the poster observed that your post is full of rove talking points. Two totally differenct concepts. Your post is full of the other guys talking points in my opinion.

After reading your OP, one would think that the OBL tape and the fact that we are in a war has nothing to do with the fact that many (not most) voted for the weed. Sadly, many americans believe that war to prove the greatness and strength of our nation is good. It makes them feel patriotic to say they support their war president. Go look at the polls, a majority still believe that SH had something to do with 9/11 and that he really had WMDs. They, like you, appear to fall for the talking points and fail to recognize the truth.

[chieftain]

36. I'm all for Kerry running again but that does not mean that

I would necessarily vote for him . I am for as many Democrats out there that want to run to get in the race . I hope they don't waste their efforts on W but rather attack the Republican Party which is a force for a return to the days of the robber barons . Whoever gets the nomination needs to understand that they will be up against character assassins of the most vile nature. Of all the things I read about the '04 campaign that made me scratch my head in bewilderment was the report that Kerry's advisors were stunned by how vicious the Republican assault was on his character . Anyone that hires key operatives that believes that Republican campaigns will be anything other than a bundle of lies and scare tactics does not deserve the nomination . So John Kerry , come on in I am prepared to support you again but this time drop at the door the naive notion that you are dealing with a foe that fights fair .

[elshiva]

42. Did he really believe Bush fights fair?

[chieftain]

56. I don't know what Kerry actually thought , but

I read that his advisers were stunned by the ferocity of the GOP attacks . This would go along way to explaining the lack of counterattack against the Swift Boat Liars . They thought it was a distraction that the MSM would ignore rather than part of a coordinated effort at character assassination .
BTW thanks for the picture of Barbra Jordan on your post . I will always remember her magnificent speech to the Democratic Convention . I still get goose bumps thinking of it .

[elshiva]

65. Which Barbara Jordan speech? The 1992?

[wisteria]

39. Why wouldn't we!

I want to see him run again. John Kerry would make a wonderful president. Most of your arguments against Kerry are old ones and have already been addressed before. It's easy to go back after the fact and criticize the person who lost. Sure the Swift Boats hurt, but so did the Iraq War. People who voted against Kerry and for Bush were not willing to trust a Democrat-any Democrat with the handling of the war. Democrats as a party have a reputation for being weak on defense. This may be an unfair assumption, but many Americans still believed in WMD and were frightened about terrorists attacks taken place again in the US. He also faced the mostly uncovered (by the MSM), but effective smear campaign waged by various religious leaders. People were actually told a vote for Kerry would be immoral and sinful."I am voting my morals" was a common statement in the area where I live. I received many negative e-mails at work detailing how John Kerry would ban the Holy Bible and would seek to ban religion altogether if he was elected. John Kerry is correct when he says the Republicans had four years to plan for this campaign he had only 4 months. I think he managed to run a close race against a war president given the time he had to pull it all together.Will the same mistakes be made again? I'm betting no way. Will the republican smears work as well another time around? I don't think so. He has an opportunity to keep his name in the new and demonstrate his abilities to lead. I would be proud to offer my time, money and my vote to him if he decided to run again.

[delija]

40. nixon

"Why would anyone want a guy who should have won the presidency and lost it to run again?"

I agree with the entire post. Yet somehow Nixon won under the same circumstances. Although he didn't run in the election that followed the one he lost.

Peace,
D.

[OneBlueSky]

44. the reason I won't support Kerry is . . .

his refusal to fight for the election he legitimately won, and his subsequent failure to make election fraud his central issue . . . because if the process isn't changed by 2008 (and it likely won't be), then they'll do the very same thing to him they did last time . . . since he doesn't seem to understand that this is the ONLY issue of real consequence, and since he isn't raising holy hell about it, I have to seriously question his intelligence and/or his judgement . . . or maybe he's just bought and paid for like he rest of them . . .

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. I agree. n/t

[PresidentObama]

45. Wow How Pathetic...

"His failure to bring to light the real issues facing Americans and his focus on being a hawk."

^ Last time I checked thats EXACTLY what he did, it's not his fault W was running from the issues and scaring people with fear.

He voted the way he voted because he thought it was the right vote to make, if he would have voted against the war he would have had a hard time selling the American people the notion he was going to fight a better war in Iraq. Then he would have gotten yet ANOTHER flip flop charge.

You failed, all of you, to point anything Kerry accomplished. He helped leave the DNC in incredible financial shape, raised more money then any candidate in the Democratic parties history, got more votes then any Democratic candidate in history, and energized the party and garnished more votes then Al Gore was able to win in 2000.

John Kerry says he still has our back, but instead of still watching his you guys head for the hills because everything in this election was Kerry's fault. Yeah Kerry made mistakes, but he owned up to them as well. Give me a break guys, John Kerry is a respectable man and will make a fine President. Stop the bashing, and give me a actual logical reason you don't like him.

[vinnievin777]

66. I didn't say I didn't like him.

Just that he failed to win when he should have won and we should let some new blood in there.

I think what he has done particularly for a politician is commendable.
I think losing a Presidency he should have won is because he was scared of saying what he believes is deplorable.Maybe he was worried about how the media would twist his words but he still should have came out of the gates tough. He should have said from the start that the war in Iraq was wrong. Give someone else who isn't a Washington politician a chance in 2008. If he decides not to give in to Warmongers and Veterans with a guilty conscience then I will support him again.


Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Riding this Donkey]

47. I would vote and work for him again if he was the nominee, but I think

I will push for John Edward in the primaries.

It is too early to tell tho right now!

[Deja Q]

48. His quick concession was bad enough. Never mind his bad campaign.

Especially during the debates.

But now he and his wife are only finally addressing the PAPERLESS voting system, devised by a corporation in the BANKING industry no less - where they would DEMAND paper at every turn.

Kerry is laughing at us; any sot could have been put next to * and wipe the floor with his "compasionate conservative, YOU FORGOT POLAND!, flip-flop, THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT SO LONG AS I'M PRESIDENT" dialogue.

Kerry's currently laughing.

How long before he starts slapping our faces?

Or has he done the both at same time?

I will not vote for him and I'm hard pressed to even be bothered voting next time. I do not trust the Dems in power. Too many people think that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Bush (get real, good grief). Fuck 'em. I'm not wasting my time in an unethical, unbalanced, system that's been reduced to a joke.

They need to convince me they're worth voting for.

I am not the problem. They are. It's a one party $y$tem. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to seriously look outside the box and re-evaluate.

[New Earth]

51. um, Kerry really won

time to hide this now :hi:

[LiberallyInclined]

55. um...no, he didn't.

sheesh.

Gore did get more votes, but he didn't "win".

Kerry just plain SUCKED as a candidate....NEVER again.

[New Earth]

57. um ok

if you say so.

[LiberallyInclined]

61. i do.

[PresidentObama]

58. LiberallyInclined, Kerry got more votes...

...then Gore. Even Gore supporters will tell you that.

[LiberallyInclined]

60. and bush got more votes than kerry.

i don't buy into the widespread fraud thing this time around- they won by using the gay-marriage issue to get out the religoid vote in battleground states.

[vinnievin777]

67. And that's another thing

Kerry could have won the election but when he was ahead in the 3rd debate he played right into the right wingers hands.
He mentioned he had a friend who was gay and the way he bungled it, it sounded like this "friend" was some swine who couldn't admit he was gay so he ruined a poor woman's life too by staying in a marriage-- what the hell was that all about?

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Mass]

81. Sorry it was perfectly clear,

for most people I would guess.

He was talking about the fact that people were raised in a way they were pushed to ignore and deny their sexual orientation until it is too late. This is fairly common or at least was, unfortunately. I know people that had the same experience that the person he described. Believe me, the life of the other person in the couple is ruined, but it is not the fault of the homosexual person, it is the fault of society that taught him that homosexuality was a choice and something inatural.

But I guess you will find something else. Why dont you simply wait until it is primary time (2006) and then support the candidate of your choice. In the meantime, a lot needs to be done to increase the number of Democrats in the House and the Senate.

[saracat]

73. Keep believing that and we will continue to "lose".

We can't fix what we don't realise is broken!

[madison2000]

59. yyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[Laurab]

84. and YYYYYYAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN

boy those yawns are catchy!

I thought I caught all the kerry bashing posts this weekend, but I guess I missed this one til now. If only I'd known, I'd have a standard answer filled with facts that I could just cut and paste over and over (and over and over) again.

I can't wait until we find that perfect candidate who will do everything right, and who everyone will agree with, although if diebold is still running our elections, lots of luck. In the meantime, why oh why do we keep doing the rethugs work for them?

Kerry most likely WON the election, did not have any PROOF, therefore had nothing to challenge. Ran a great campaign, at least if you are a thinking person. Made a mistake or two, but who doesn't? I mean, the person he was running against can't put a coherent sentence together on his own, yet must have run a great campaign to "win" like he did. If Kerry keeps working against these idiots the way he is, there should be no reason in the world he can't run again and win, unless of course DIEBOLD is still counting our votes. '08 is a long ways away, and there's so much to be done before then. Hopefully by then, our votes will count. At this point in time, I see Kerry as the most viable candidate.

I refuse to bash any democratic candidate who is fighting against the evil empire. I don't understand what people get out of it, or what cause it serves, but it is getting so very old. Kerry is a good man, who would probably have made a great president. He does not deserve the constant attacks from people who say they "supported" him. With "support" like that, who needs the rethug party?

[kaitykaity]

62. He didn't want it bad enough.

He was too much the senatorial stateman and
not enough the blood-and-guts fighter.

Give me a governor like Vilseck or Richardson,
somebody outside of the incestuouos Washington
beltway. Somebody with even a small amount of
charisma.

Though I guess my sig gives me away, eh?

[ginnyinWI]

71. what???

Not a fighter??? :shrug: Now that is really funny!! Not enough blood and guts?? Please read a book called The Candidate. Then read Tour of Duty. Then come back and tell me that! LOL That is rich!

[kaitykaity]

74. I guess you didn't read the papers.

John Kerry conceded the fight the morning following
the election.

He might have been a fighter when he was a young
man. I even admired him for that.

This time, present time, he walked away. Unlike the
Bushies in 2000 who grabbed onto the prize and refused
to let go of it no matter what, John Kerry folded his
tent and walked away.

He didn't want it bad enough.

[ginnyinWI]

79. The Candidate covers the primary season

That would be 2002-early 2004, not so long ago.

[kaitykaity]

80. What does that have to do with anything?

:wtf:

[saltpoint]

63. I think Maddiejoan's right -- Kerry didn't lose.

A political commentary in 1992 asked readers who were somehow unable to decide ideologically on whether to vote for Bush, Sr. or Gov. Clinton, to then decide on the basis of which of the two men they'd rather take a cross-country car trip with.

That seems almost quaint today, since the comparison in 2004 was between a man who genuinely understands the spirit of public service and has served long and well & who traffics in history and ideas on one hand and on the other, an incumbent who is a liar and who only appears to lie less when standing next to the rest of his lying cabinet, who lie more than any adminsitration in American history.

If Richard Nixon can lose a national election and run again and win, certainly anyone else can.

If Kerry is our nominee in 2008, I will be first in line to vote for the man.

[ginnyinWI]

72. And I'll be standing right behind you!

I can think of no better-qualified Democrat to become our next president. He has the perfect temperament for it and is very well qualified.

[TayTay]

64. Just let the primaries come, and run their course

It is too early for this stuff. We have a ton of Gubernatorial, Senate and Congressional races to come up in 2006. (And local races for Statehouses across America.) We need to unite and fight in those races. It would also be nice to have a Democratic message to take to people in those states.

Kerry will run if he feels it's the right thing to do. Then the people will decide. That's Democracy. Nothing said here is going to change or affect that one way or the other. (Partly because it's too early.) Kerry is doing a very good job this year in the Senate. I hope he keeps it up. And I hope he assists where he can in the 2006 races. After that is farther than anyone can see at this time. All it seems to do is make one group here miffed at another. To what end?

[Hippo_Tron]

70. 6) He trusted Bob Shrum to win him an election

[Mass]

82. Well you point at something else here

The need to find new strategists for the Democratic Party. There is nobody right now that I would like to see direct a campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. No, they need to use the good ones

Kerry could've easily asked Carville, Begala, and Lockhardt to run the campaign from the beginning. But he didn't, he used Shrum and Cahill because they won him the primary. He then figured out that Shrum sucked by September and hired Lockhardt but by then it was too late.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. No Kerry

You get one shot at the big dance.

DTH

[saracat]

76. Franklin D Roosevelt didn't believe that. Too bad for us , eh?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

85. Sorry, When Did Roosevelt Run for the Presidency and Lose?

Regardless, things are different now, compared to then.

DTH

[seito]

78. Ahhh, the obligatory "Just Say No to John Kerry" post

Didn't we already have one of these this weekend?

:boring:

[Swamp Rat]

86. He didn't lose the presidency. The election was stolen. n/t