To everyone crying for a southerner in 2008

Let me put 2004 in perspective...

We had a candidate who got 55 million votes nearly purely on anti-Bush sentiment.

Kerry's seemingly only selling point was that he served in Vietnam. He never talked about his time in the senate or as lieutenant governor.

He had NO credibility on Iraq, becuase he voted for it. He missed an opportunity to fan anti-war sentiment into the populace that a Howard Dean could have taken advantage of. Kerry was reduced to saying "Bush, you ran the war wrong." The problem was people were willing to forgive bush for messing up the handling of the war rather than risk handing it over to an unknown quantity like Kerry. The prudence of the war itself could never be questioned.

Kerry was for repealing the tax cuts for only those making over $200K, which allowed Bush an opening to call him a tax-raiser. Bush responded to Kerry's desire to keep the middle class tax cuts by saying "why did you vote AGAINST the tax cuts if you're in favor of them?" Sort of the worst of both worlds there.

The bottom line is, despite Kerry's severe limitations as a candidate, he still got 55 million votes. A candidate without those limitations, no matter where he or she was from, could have had a good chance of pulling off a victory.

of repealing the entire tax cut would have worked?

I agree that Kerry made a convoluted argument regarding Iraq. It definetely wasn't very clear.

That said, I don't see any reason to believe Dean of all candidates would have won this election. This country is in a psychotic religious fervor. I don't think anyone would have won this.

because it isnt inherently self contradictory. Dean could have said that a balanced budget is more important, or that the tax cuts were really unfair and they should be done fairly.

Kerry's plan looks like pandering. It gives credence to Bush's tax cuts in the first place, making bush look good, and it also gives bush an opening to call kerry a tax raiser. the worst of both worlds.

is that it would bring into play the "D" word — Dukakis. The campaign may not want to have gone there (IMO).

my god look at the flaws Chimpy has. The point is in having an organization that can operate in a modern, attractive way. We have to figure out how to get the Kerrys of the world elected, not try to make Kerry more perfect.

I am not criticizing the Dems efforts this year, the work people did was heroic. But we can't just toss an organization together in a year or two and take on 30 years of Repug networking.

Bottom up, not top down.

We need to either pony up more (read: NEW) voters, or we need to run someone who WILL take a red state.

We need that insurance so that the election doesn't come down to hoping and praying for a swing state to swing in our favor.