but I do see the similarities in that people not committed to either party had difficulty warming up to Kerry. He was at times awkward and wooden while rightly or wrongly Bush was the guy who was anointed with the "who would you rather have a beer with" mantle. Kerry also had a bumbling campaign which did not help matters. Romney seems to have similar issues in his campaign only much worse.

That being said Kerry has been an excellent senator and despite his weaknesses as a candidate damn near pulled it off despite their efforts to screw him at every turn with Diebold etc. Especially in Ohio.

He would have been a superb president

And I agree he would have been a great president. My point was that he was at times perceived as wooden and awkward on the stump and was also felled by blunders within his campaign. I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" in this case.

Remember that this is the man who at 27 was able to impress the country with his eloquence and purpose. He is also very good with small face to face meetings with people open to ask anything.

His one weakness is that he did not play to the press. One author of a book on the primary wrote how Kerry was different from most politicians in that he warmed up when the cameras were gone continuing to relate to the people around him. (He contrasted that to Edwards - who had a huge smile for the cameras and then was disinterested when they were gone.)

Go look at the presidents stump speeches. Look at Howard Dean in 2004 or Hillary last cycle. He was far from being a natural on the trail. Doesn't make him a bad guy and it doesn't mean he would have been a bad president but by any objective analysis he was a vastly inferior nominee on the trail than the President.

Dean had far more money, more media support and LOTS of online support, but was nowhere as good winning people over in Iowa. Go look at the media pre-Iowa. Kerry won based on his own in person efforts.

Here is a DU2 link with lots of links to Kerry in Iowa. The first has bits of all of the candidates. I know everyone has there opinion, but Kerry had the most crowd reaction. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x150257

As to Hillary, she was no Bill Clinton on the stump and was nowhere near as charismatic as Kerry was. Consider that she was the favorite of much of the media and had Bill Clinton behind her - and she lost!

Romney's campaign is one of the worst in history.

New Poll Puts Mitt Romney In The Deep End (ABC/WaPo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021094258

Kerry never fumbled his responses. Sure there was media spin, but Kerry wasn't a laughing stock.

Offensive

He let the other side define him

When asked about his Iraq war vote he explained it beautifully with Al fraken(sic), but he never articulated that well in the media

Anyway my point is we can never let down our guard and not let charges go unanswered

The msm has not been kind to Obama, but he does not let that deter getting his message out

"Yes he kicked bush's ass in the debates, but he didn't go on the Offensive"

...did, but that's besides the point. This isn't about Romney not being on the "offensive." Romney is fighting back hard, but he's also a lousy candidate with nothing but lies to back up his assertions.

"When asked about his Iraq war vote he explained it beautifully with Al fraken(sic), but he never articulated that well in the media"

You are using the same stupid spin the media use to make the flip-flopping claim stick. It was one friggin incident, which has already been acknowledged as overhyped by the media.

To draw a ridiculous false equivalency between Kerry's campaign and Romney's based on that single incident is absurd.

I mean, are you seriously trying to compare Romney's campaign to Kerry's after Mitt's overseas trip?

And then it was,too late

He also had trouble answer direct yes and no questions

In the debate, he beat bush, but as I recall he nuanced to much

I find similarities the way the campaigns were run

I knew where Kerry stood on the issues, but I do not think most people did, because he let the repukes define him, and his campaign didn't fight hard enough

They did not have the boots on the ground that we were assured by the campaign they would have in the key states

The reason I am bringing this up is to contrast it with the way Obama is running his campaign, in spite the media pushing the republican script for Romney

Anyway I hear you point, and I will consider if I am misrepresenting the thread

for far too long because he thought the charges were ridiculous. They were, but you don't ever let that crap go unanswered. He also did allow himself to be defined. He is an excellant man, and an exceptional senator and a damn good debater but he was awkward, and seemed uncomfortable around people. He spoke in government "senate-ese" and just didn't connect well with average voters.

Still, he came within a few thousand votes in Ohio of being elected.

At least what I saw and heard, those resources were not there

I would like to think that Democrats have learned their lesson

The problem in Ohio was that things like not putting enough machines in Democratic strongholds suppressed the vote. You can't count votes not cast. Here the problem is one that we may face again this year - a Republican Secretary of state in Ohio doing things to prevent a fair election.

In 2004, Kerry's team caught some of them - like when they ruled that the voter registration forms printed in a local paper were not valid due to paperweight rules - even though the paper did this for decades. They did not catch the number of machines being placed. This really was something the local party should have caught, but didn't. In fairness to them, I doubt anyone thought of this type of cheating.

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It is not enough that you think it was a poor run - and Romney's is a poor run. That does not make them the same.

Kerry was out there fighting 16 hours a day in the campaign - as was his family and many good surrogates. In case it was not obvious to you, the Bush team was monitoring Kerry 24/7 and his nuance was because he had to say PRECISELY what he meant or it would have been distorted - and would have been fodder for thr RW echo chamber. He actually gave them very little.

Incidentally, in 2008, Kerry's brother Cam headed the lawyers on election day in Ohio for Obama and Kerry spoke of speaking to that team early in the morning when the media interviewed him as he went to vote that day at 8 am.

the election. I remember how frantic we were hoping he would wipe the floor with him as many of us were doing all over the internet. Everything they said was a lie, yet those lies were never challenged until it was too late. I don't blame Kerry so much as I blame those who in the Party who thought that ignoring these morons was the best way to handle them.

Looks like maybe they've learned a lesson that you can never ignore liars, they need to quashed and used like dust mops as the public in general doesn't generally know that they are lying unless those lies are pointed out.

Why do I remember nearly verbatim this:

He did not secure the known weapons depots that were the source of the ammunition used for the IEDs "killing and maiming our kids and innocent Iraqis"

Do you realize that he is accusing the Bush administration of negligence and incompetence leading yo the death of Americans?

Seriously, Kerry morphing into Michael Moore would have caused a Bush landslide - where had everyone been able to vote in Ohio, Kerry would have won.

OBAMA IS PRESIDENT - he has a platform Kerry did not have to get his message out.

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Roms can't be swiftboated. He's his own worst enemy.

and the photo op where Kerry bought a jock strap with press in tow was a pretty bad idea but Kerry won at the ballot box. Factoring that Ohio was stolen after the voting, Kerry actualy won. Romney is not going to come close to that.

I think that the Right sees a lot of similarity between Kerry and Romney but their campaigns are VERY different.

Romney is trying to do nothing but attack Obama while saying nothing about what he would do differently. Romney's SuperPACs will be comparing Obama to Hitler and all that stuff for the next 3 months. Kerry never did that. On my scorecard Kerry talked too much about policy and not enough about how bad Bush was.

Churchill used to say: "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can gets its pants on."

These days, with a cellphone, you don't need pants.

If Kerry would have called CNN during the broadcast and said "let me ask them some questions. let me discredit this BS" then CNN would have to put him on.

Rapid Response is crucial as we approach November and Team Obama is doing a great job.

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:16 AM - Edit history (3)

We praise Obama for taking the high road, yet Kerry gets berated and hated on by Dems/liberals for the Swifty mess.

Maybe you should blame those who sat on the sidelines and allowed their nominee to be seen still today as the unofficial IT Dem for not fighting back.

IJS.

and the dynamics of media driven campaigns. Not hating on anyone.

Kerry and Schrum admit it was a mistake to not fight back sooner and harder on the swift lies. Maybe you think they made no mistakes but THEY do and I agree.

Of course Kerry made mistakes. Every candidate does. Obama did to, but he had some Kerry people, his own people, and the talents to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors.

The password is surrogates.

Not only does he have a bigger platform, but he has progressive shows (i.e. Maddow, LOD) and social media that didn't exist until after 2005.

It is very telling that the OP and others bashing Senator Kerry can not answer basic facts and continue to ignore the factual posts this thread to suit their anti-Kerry spin in hopes of making Obama (and Clinton) look like the perfect Democrats who know how to fight the GOP and media and every other Dem is a "loser" that looks dumb and weak. Kerry seems to have hit a raw nerve with some.

If the post was harsh, apologies, but that is how me sees it. Kerry has not done anything to Obama and is helping, not hurting him. It speaks volumes that Obama is respectful to his surrogates, unfortunately some so called supporters, (even some Dems) can not see that. Their problem, not his.

The Senator is out there helping Obama, whether those like it or not.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

Here is what the media had BEFORE The SBVT came out in August.

It was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

In addition to all that, the campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

The media condoned a character assassination of Kerry to protect Bush's re-election.

It is from this background that makes me want to throw something at the TV when people like Blitzer and Erin Burnett speak of the attacks on Romney as unprecedented - even though his own attacks on other Republicans and Obama are worse - and as to personal, it can't get more personal than what they allowed the SBVT to do to an honorable man who risked his very privileged life as a 25 year old to save others.

What happened was shameless.

and kerry did`t have david axlerod

he wasn't a laughing stock. The media manufactured and kept up on him in regards to the switft boatiing--including Chris Matthews, who had a man crush on W at the time. The only thing I thought that Kerry didn't do well was selecting a VP (but then Gore didn't handle that one too great either). Edwards, in my view, added nothing to the ticket and couldn't even deliver his home state. He should have gone with somebody like Bob Graham of Florida.

Mitt Romney has run a campaign of lies - Kerry throughout his career has been an unusually honest man

Mitt Romney won the primaries by having his super PACS spend incredible amounts of money on attack ads and his campaign against Obama is the same. Kerry had less money than Dean in Iowa and ran a positive campaign.

Unlike Romney, Kerry won all but 4 contests in the primaries and by big margins. Therefore the idea that Democrats did not warm to Kerry is just not true. It is true that there were many online people never happy that Dean lost. Not to mention, if you look through DU and Daily Kos, as people learned more about Kerry, people did become happier with him - there was a Daily Kos thread that spoke of him saving a group of Villagers in Vietnam and of saving a Republican who was choking and there was pride that he was our candidate. In addition, every Democrat I know was proud of his debates. That is NOT happening with Mitt

Kerry's rallies broke records that were set by Clinton by huge amounts. Romney is not generating that excitement.

Unlike Iowa, Kerry won - in spite of the media favoring almost everyone but him, with less money spent than Dean. He won by winning people over face to face - something no one has credited Romney with in any state.

Kerry did not need to go anywhere to enhance foreign policy credentials - they were developed over 20 years on the SFRC where he won the respect of both the Democrats and Republicans on the committee. The Obama administration has used Kerry's diplomatic skills in some of the most delicate tricky situations - and he has been superb. (Consider that Kerry was able to cool the Pakistani anger after Raymond Davis, allied with the CIA, killed 2 men. The Pakistanis were calling for the CIA etc to leave Pakistan - and this was a few months before we got OBL. Romney was a complete disaster with no diplomatic skills creating problems wherever he goes.

Even Kos (of Daily Kos) - no Kerry fan - has pointed out that he never had higher unfavorables than favorables. Maybe because when Mitt's kids talk of him they speak of a dog on the roof of the car and pushing their faces in butter - and Kerry's daughters and step sons spoke of a kind man always there for them - including rescuing drowning hamsters.

The fact is Mitt has FAR more media support than Kerry - where many TV Democrats were still more attached to Clinton - and even with it he is not being seen as a good person. The media has whined about any attacks on Mitt including fair ones - yet they condoned a chacter assassination of both Teresa and John Kerry.

You might have noticed in many articles on the Ohio voter suppression that is being attempted this year, the DNC itself is quoted as saying that far more voters gave up when faced with 4 plus hour lines in Ohio than the margin of victory. Winning Ohio would have made Kerry President.

This would have happened in spite of the bonding Bush had with many people due to 911 and complete media bias in Bush's favor. Very little of Kerry's rallies actually were shown - unlike when CNN has left Obama speeches to cover Romney in full. This would have been a very major upset and one the party really did not expect the year before when Bush was at 60 percent in December 2003. It was also done with many in the party doing less than they could and a VP candidate who once picked refused to do what the team wanted.

I know what you're saying and I've talked about this in the past.

You're right, John Kerry was a great guy and for the wealth he had he was at least up front about it, released his tax forms and actually was comfortable around people of all classes.

To me, 2004 was the first presidential election where the use of the Internet really exploded mainly with new social network websites and especially the Meetup websites. I know for me previous elections I would volunteer thru my local democratic office but 2004 was the first time I organized with people thru a social network (Meetup). I mean the internet has been around for awhile but politically it really kicked in for the 2004 election.

So for the 6 months leading up to the first primaries, on the internets it seemed that polling wise the most popular candidates were Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark - all 3 gathered big followings that were organized by internet social networks. I know Kerry and Lieberman, also candidates, had similar setups but they weren't as well organized. Also posting here at DU and other Liberal websites, Dean, Kucinich and Clark had massive following - it really seemed like we could build a grassroots effort to get a lesser named candidate competitive in the democratic primaries.

If the only voters in the 2004 democratic primaries were internet savvy voters then Dean would have won in a landslide. But I think Kerry had the bigger appeal to voters not as computer savvy where Kerry had the much bigger name recognition than Dean, Kucinich or Clark. I remember here at DU we were all stunned that Kerry pulled out the win. I know alot of people had issues with Kerry because he voted with Bush on the Iraq war (although technically the vote was to give Bush authorization should the UN agree, Bush abused that vote).

So in the end and especially here at DU - we had alot of people saying they would vote for Kerry because he was 'Anyone But Bush'. And I think when you have a candidate who people are settling for there is just alot less enthusiasm than when the candidate is the first choice. A candidate needs to have the charisma to reach out and inspire voters.

Think about the elections these past 30 some years. Carter was losing it in 1980 and was beaten by Ronald Reagan, a man who as a good actor was able to appeal to republican voters. Mondale didn't stand a chance - he was definitely an 'Anyone but....' candidate which ended with Reagan winning in a landslide. Bush Sr was able to win in 1988 basically riding on the coattails of Reagan but Bush Sr really never had much appeal to the voters and when someone as charismatic as Bill Clinton came along, Bush Sr didn't stand a chance. In 1996 Clinton was mired in all the 'scandals' that the GOP tried to toss at him but Clinton's charisma was a much stronger appeal than Bob Dole, who was a poor choice for the GOP and another 'Anyone but.....' candidate. As for the 2000 election, Gore did come across pretty stiff but he did win that election until the Supreme Court took over. Votes don't mean shit when a GOP leaning court has the final say. And I think we could have won 2004 if it wasn't for Ohio but had Kerry been a stronger candidate he could have pulled in votes to overcome the tampering by GOP controlled states.

Romney was never the first choice for the many republicans. Hell the owner of Free Republic posted that he would shut down his site before endorsing Mitt Romney for president. Romney, for many right-wing teabagging GOP voters, is essentially 'Anyone but Obama'. He will lose and closer to the November election the RNC will focus on keeping the US House and winning the US Senate.

I honestly think that there were many way better candidates that could have run for the GOP presidential nomination but felt it would be easier to wait until 2016 when the office will be up for grabs. Joe Biden is already in his 70s so I doubt he will run (but if he did he's a strong candidate) and the GOP is hoping they can control congress again like they did in 2000. I do see your Kerry comparision but honestly, Mitt is more like Bob Dole - just no appeal to the voters, not really the first choice to run and really just a candidate to say someone ran then to just give the seat to the democrats.

I doubt Romney can out debate Obama they way Kerry did Bush. But the Swiftboating damaged Kerry and he did not fight back enough. Romney is similar in that respect but I doubt he is as intelligent as Kerry is.

is completely silly. It's an opportunity to hit Kerry for personal reasons like being upset that he didn't fight back hard enough against a media ambush complicit with the Swift Liars and that he didn't count the votes in Ohio.

There is absolutely no similarity between Mitt and Kerry's campaign.

Romney's campaign is one of the worst in history.

New Poll Puts Mitt Romney In The Deep End (ABC/WaPo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021094258

Kerry never fumbled his responses. Sure there was media spin, but Kerry wasn't a laughing stock. He wouldn't have been able to overtake Bush and retain high favorability and likeability numbers if he ran a campaign as inept as Romney's.

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 05:42 PM - Edit history (2)

One of the many DU voices of reason.

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:39 AM - Edit history (4)

and will do anything to link him with a selfish dope in Romney just to praise Obama.

Kerry did nothing to Obama. He did nothing to Democrats or Progressives. Nothing.

He is out there helping Obama/Biden and Dems get elected and re-elected and you and others in this thread berate him for it.

Team Obama would be very appalled at the responses in this thread.

Senator Kerry still getting hate from the so-called Dem, liberal base. How productive. Beats going after Romney/Ryan and the GOP.

from mistakes they are doomed to repeat it

So if you think Kerry's campaign was amazing, just watch the Democrats lose again if they follow that approach

Obviously, you didn't read my post, because it wasn't against Kerry, it was against the way his campaign was run, and for that matter the way Gore's campaign was run also

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Romney is like a daily running national joke.

Anyway, the 2004 election was stolen in my thinking. Not sure if that's considered creative speculation or what. But thousands of voters were detered from voting in Ohio, virtually all Democrats. The voting machines had issues too.

instead of going away. The Senator has hit a raw nerve with some and they can't deal with it. JMO.

Had Kerry sold out and become soft? Yes.
But Romney was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple. He is a criminal, truth be told, with blood money in his off-shore accounts.

The GOP memes are

Kerry supported the North American Free Trade Agreement and Most Favored Nation status for China,
Kerry voted against ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.
Kerry voted for S. Amdt. 5685 known as the "bailout bill."

rather than people who are carrying a grudge because he beat the favorites.


Point is that Obama doesn't hold grudges, that's not is style and I respect that he can look beyond titles (who is liberal and who isn't) and send the people out to help him get the job done.

BTW, Uncle Ted would take exception to you complaining that Kerry isn't liberal enough. Sounds like you have been listening to GOP spin and Faux news. They said Obama was just like Bush and Gore was no different that Bush too.

... to shut out info that doesn't fit what you already want to think.


sounds like you watch TV news still. you even know what the crazy TV news is saying. this news junkie fought the MSM for decades and no longer watch the crap.

i suggest- watch DemocracyNow! and citizens' media instead of TV news

Amy Goodman rocks

Heard of Ms. Goodman. She aight, but she can keep her Skulls and Bones theories and stop attacking Dems saying that they are all sellouts (which you have said about Senator Kerry), Liberals, and President Obama.

No, I don't watch cable TV news, but Senator Kerry has more integrity in his bare hand than most of these so-called know it alls ever have.

Kerry DID vote for Byrd/Hagel 4 months before Kyoto, which had some principles they thought needed in the Kyoto treaty. The two main ones were that China, India and other countries have some commitment as well as the developed nations because without that it would not work and they called for a provision that would penalize (by tarriffs) countries not participating because otherwise the US ec0onomy would be disadvantaged. Gore himself said there was NO ONE better 0on the environment than Kerry.

This passed nearly unanimously, but it can not be called a vote against Kyoto which was not yet finished.

The bailout bill was needed - and without it the world's economy would have gone off the cliff. It is true that it would have been good to add some penalties to the banks and some regulation, but that was NOT the bill before them.

But I agree. His campaign was tantamount to political malpractice. Obama is not making the same mistakes. Romney is.

Kerry's team working on his 08 campaign. At least Kerry took responsibility (while his VP looked the other way) and abuse from people who should have been out doing what he is doing for Obama.

Interesting that people attack Kerry, yet let the rest of the Dem party off the hook.

that's how he ended up winning even though media whores said his campaign was over. unlike Romney who they propped up as the frontrunner any chance they got they ignored kerry and only reported negative things. even after he kept winning in the primary(including easily winning in many southern states) the whore media did not treat him as a frontrunner as they did with Romney who lost many states.

for those who us who paid attention there was no surprise that Kerry won. he was rising in polls even in New Hampshire BEFORE the iowa caucus.

the media gave swift boat thugs free air time while they are defending Romney on Bain and not releasing his taxes. asking if Democrats are being fair and anti business by going after him on that. notice they don't have on the people who worked under romney and criticize him as they had on those lying thugs. the media has even gone as far as to call attacks on romney "swfitboating" which is very offensive coming from them as they gave free media airtime to them to bash kerry. and now that everyone agrees those were negative unfair attacks trying to claim the attacks on romney are the same.