I thought that he was about the worst candidate that could have been chosen. Not that he is a bad guy, but seriously he was a terrible candidate.

I wasn't a member here then so sue me. And I lived in Minnesota so do you really think I helped the GOP by leaving that blank and voting Democrat down ticket? Or do you know my state better than I do.

(I did vote for him, before you ask).

Kerry lost in 2004 because he insisted on running in the fall as a candidate who stood for nothing. No real difference with Bush on iraq(I mean really..."we can do it better"? what the hell did that mean) on Iraq, no opposition to Bush's trade deals, nothing pro-labor in his platform, the most watered-down pro-choice position possible(he seemed to accept the idea that getting an abortion was something a woman should be ashamed of and should be stigmatized for), no attempt to articulate any real program of social or economic change, no fightback against RW smears on his own character. Kerry wouldn't even speak proudly and unapologetically of his years in Vietnam Veterans Against The War, the years when he was a hero to millions of people across the country, the years that were the only reason he ever HAD a political career.

He lost because he let all the air out.

As a Canadian poet once wrote in response to the death of a particularly dreary former prime minister in that country:

He blunted us.

He spoke of that and serving in Vietnam in parallel as both were part of serving. In addition, his friend made the film GOING UPRIVER which is more about those protests than about his service.

That was a part of his life he never rejected. In 2006, on the 30th anniversary, he gave an incredible speech reaffirming that it was right to protest.

A big problem in 2004 is the media did not cover much of what Kerry campaigned on and the country was still to traumatized to take a chance on a better future.

his bullshit excuses about the war. This why Clinton is too much, will not do that DOMA/War excuse thing again.
I get that straights adored DOMA I just don't care. No more DOMAcrats.

Most of them are also 3rd wayers.

back then? Did you have the same screen name?

I forget when I first heard of this place. But it was well after Kerry lost the election sometime after Bush was out of office and Obama got in office or maybe it was the next election after that. But, I still didn't sign up of even lurk much until 2010 or 2011.

Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman all voted for the IWR and unlike Kerry never spoke against going to war. In fact, Dean's 2002 comments were pretty aggressive and he said he would vote for Biden/Lugar.

Kerry explained his reason repeatedly and consistently, he has also many many times said the vote was wrong. However, he also said in 2004 that he would not have invaded had he been President In his Iraq speech at NYU.

I know you were for Kuchinich, but he absolutely would not have been anywhere near as close to winning. If you look at all the people who were considered serious candidates, and looked at their positions in 2005 and 2006, it was Kerry working to propose a way out of Iraq. Dean was supporting the Korb plan that would have kept us there longer.

Kerry made a bad vote, maybe thinking it could help him and others us the UN to assure that Saddam would not be a danger when sanctions were lifted. This was the reason Biden explained. What was clear given his history is that he was neither a neo con or a hawk.

This is why I am trying very hard to not go off on how people and myself included in how people are reacting to the Paris terror attacks. I am reading and getting angry of course. But, I am also not going to get so emotional about what is going on to let it color my judgement. I did this with Kerry and I think it was a huge mistake.

after a quick search (with 2003 and 2004 in the search) I couldn't find a single OP, condemning his vote in the title line; nor, did I find any "I won't vote for him"/"He is evil personified" posts. I did find sub-threads that referenced "some" and "a few" that condemned his vote.

Maybe, that reflects the over-heated language of today, versus back then, more than anything; but, it doesn't appear that DU didn't give Kerry a pass on his war vote. Rather, it appears DU was relatively supportive, if not, ambivalent.

Why I cannot so easily forgive Kerry or Edwards for their IWR votes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x368677

Have Kerry/Edwards addressed their pro-IWR votes since Kay's comments?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x185982

Poll question: Is the IWR/Patriot Act vote enough of a determining factor for you

that, as the field narrows, you'd base your support on the candidate's votes/views on those two issues?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x268373


I also recommend 'Edwards co-sponsor IWR'.

John Edwards, too.

Other observation - Dean supporters refused to believe - even after Dean confirmed - that the invasion wasn't the problem, the method was.

and even before W/P's endorsement, there wasn't much condemnation.

I saw a LOT of people calling Kerry out on his vote here at the time.

Also...I don't know that you can say "Dean supporters refused to believe" as if all of them refused to believe the exact same thing in unison. If any started out thinking it was the method that was wrong, not the invasion(was there ever going to be a GOOD method to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq?) in my experience they soon turned against the very idea of invasion.

Kucinich supporters such as myself(who were strong enough in number at the time that Kerry supporters often sneeringly called the site "Kucinich Underground" and similar things)were always consistent in denouncing Kerry's IWR vote. A fair amount were suspended or "tombstoned" for not suppressing our consciences on the matter.

Also, to extend the time frame slightly within a year after the '04 election, anti-IWR sentiment(and criticism of Kerry's vote) were clear majority sentiment on DU(and in the country as a whole).

It was mainly Kerry primary supporters giving him a pass...and most of those who backed Kerry then are backing HRC now.

It simply isn't the case that people who gave Kerry a pass on the IWR are now calling out HRC on the same vote. And nobody here is ONLY calling out HRC on Iraq because of her gender(as some have implied). I have no idea why anyone would even think such a bizarre motivation for questioning the most important vote of a presidential candidate's Senate career. To those who would imply such a thing, I can only ask this:

We are talking about a vote to let a stupid, arrogant militarist start a war he'd been demanding for years. Why would you think anyone thinks that vote was less defensible because of the genitalia of the senator who cast it?

To do that WOULD be disgusting sexist hypocrisy

To my mind, "DU giving Kerry a pass on his IWR vote" means that you didn't hear any significant number of posts here calling out Kerry for that vote. that the consensus view here(Pitt nothwithstanding) was that Kerry's vote was fine. Some did defend it(most of whom who are now HRC supporters like yourself), but I saw a huge number posters in 2004 calling Kerry out on that vote. I myself called him out on it any number of times.

There has been a meme here in the last few days that HRC is getting called out for that vote here, while nobody called out Kerry. The implications in that are either:

1) Posters on DU are ONLY calling out HRC because of some supposed irrational hatred of her as a person; The people calling her out on the vote were just fine with Kerry casting the exact same vote; and that, if anyone ever temporarily defended Kerry's IWR vote(even if the same person later changed her or his mind)that person has no right ever to call out HRC on that vote;

or, and worse in my view.

2) Posters on DU are ONLY calling out HRC on her vote because she is a woman.

In other words, a cynical double standard, which supposedly means that nobody is actually referencing HRC's vote out of a sincere belief that the invasion of Iraq was and is wrong.

I said "Dean supporters" because YOU said "Dean supporters". It would have been different if you had said "SOME Dean supporters". Given that Dean himself is now supporting your candidate, I have no idea why you would want to try to discredit the idea that his 2004 campaign was about sincere opposition to the war. Dean's antiwar stance was the defining feature of his campaign. Why try to pretend it wasn't real?

(Also, as a slight digression, you don't actually still think we were right to invade Iraq? Even knowing that that invasion probably started the chain of events that led to the tragedy in Paris?)

After 2004, backed Obama and of the few still here, they are not HRC fans.

Anyone who defends Kerry on that but attacks HRC is a total hypocrite, but most people who backed Kerry in 2004 and then backed Obama now back HRC.

Here's my own history on this, for the record.

In 2004, I backed Kucinich and called out Kerry's IWR vote over and over again.

In 2008, I backed Kucinich at the start then switched to Obama after Kucinich was forced out because Obama was the only even vaguely progressive candidate in the race at that point.

Now, I've backed Bernie since he's been in.

My own position has been consistent, and I think the vast majority of those who call out HRC on her IWR vote can say the same.
Bear in mind that a lot of people posting here now were in high school or middle school in 2004 and likely hadn't even heard of this site.

In 2008 and there's little support for Hillary. Many are not really supporting anyone now. Not to mention it was so long ago many are not here any more.

I am one of those who have been in the JK group for a decade and I know that of the people I know from that group or those still posting, there are a few HRC supporters and many not behind her at all.

There is the similarity of being the candidate with the best resume, but Kerry had the more liberal record.

Went to Kerry for the obvious reasons and supported him, but is IWR vote stuck in my craw big time. However, considering the choices, hell, I would have crawled to the polls to vote for Kerry in the GE.

Same here on Obama.

I found this site going on 12 years this coming April -- I was well into my 50s when I found it.

He ended both his campaigns early because he realized hardly anyone would have voted for him.

And it's absurd to argue that people were obligated to refuse to vote for Obama in the fall because we hated the vote his running mate cast on the IWR. Or that no one has any right to call out HRC on Iraq if they didn't refuse to support Obama-Biden.

The vast majority of HRC'S supporters now were Kerry supporters in '04.

There was no double standard.

Friends and Neighbors: They dislike all of the Repubs and they dislike Hillary, too. What has been said is that they will pass their GE prez vote.

So sad to me that if Hillary gets the nomination, I would have to hold my nose to vote for her.

telling us the case for war was only known to be bullshit in hindsight. People are actually saying that on DU.

It's mind boggling.

Another uninspiring establishment candidate...we could have had someone who wanted to rebuild the party into a real force. We are making the same mistake again.

when he became the nominee. And I voted for him enthusiastically in the end. In my case, I was extremely angered because he was my own senator, and because a senator from MA did not need to do this: people there were very opposed. I knew he was going to be running for president, and felt it was a political move. But I always knew that he would not have started such a war.

There was too much good about John Kerry (aside from his meh campaigning abilities) to let my anger about that one issue override everything else. And now that time has receded, I can safely say the same of Hillary Clinton.

Either way you cut it, most folks were acting like politicians. I imagine almost every Democrat who voted FOR the war did just that -- behaved like politicians -- out of fear of losing elections, Clinton and Kerry included.

I mean, I knew the WMDs were totally bogus at the time, most folks on DU did, so I guess Clinton and Kerry did, too. You forgive them for that... for being politicians... or you don't.

I'm not defending what they did. I'm not even saying it was for the greater good. I'm certainly not saying, love the player hate the game. However, a lot of good people who knew better voted for that war, people who knew it was bs. I honestly can't think of many pure politicians. It's dirty business. It sucks.

Sure, some complained early on ... but he was the candidate ... and almost everyone got behind him in the general.

Was that the Howard Dean primary? Not sure?

Dean was the huge frontrunner early.

Then there came the barrage of Clark supporters who flooded DU for months. Kerry was never a preferred candidate. Kucinich probably had more support in the primaries.