Democrats doesn't seem to have great presidential candidates

Do you agree? I think it's hard to blame Iowans or the primaries producing the Kerry candidacy. It's all the best they could pick from among the 10.

Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards...they are all good, but no one seems to be perfect or excellent to run against Bush.

Why? What's the solution?

JK was a wonderful candidate. Now Goodbye.

president in US history.

Even if there was fraud, about half who voted chose to keeep the worst president.

I write for a friend's site called www.votersagainstbush.com . Shortly after the election I gave this some thought. After going over the initial reports regarding possible election fraud, I wrote the following:

Further Thoughts on this Moment in History

Beyond this election though, there is the greater question of what to do overall. Someone asked me where the great liberal leaders of our time are. I told him that they are dead. Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy Jr., John Lennon, and more recently, Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone…the people who could have continued the golden age of liberalism (or at least stopped John Ashcroft, in Carnahan’s case) keep turning up dead before their time. Even Bill Clinton was marginalized by his own penis, something that I wish people would have thought of before JFK and MLK. At least we would still have had them a while longer.

Conspiracy theories aside, Barack Obama and Bobby Kennedy Jr. would do well to watch their backs, stay faithful, and avoid air travel.

The fact that our elections are untrustworthy and our leaders keep turning up dead leads me to a conclusion I cannot accept: The United States of America is no longer a place for passionate liberals. This conclusion requires that conspiracy, bad luck, God, or some unfortunate combination thereof, have it in for us.

Yesterday another person said to me that our candidate didn’t do so well. I replied, “Well, either way you look at it, half of America can’t be wrong.” Many have said that the Democratic Party needs to learn how to talk to people of faith, to heartland voters, and that is true. I would add that the Democratic Party also has to take back the passion and the language of social justice and idealism that has fled the party for the Green Party and the likes of Ralph Nader.
Many reasonable Republicans I know say that Kerry/Gore/Clinton were bullshit artists who simply were not what they claimed to be, and could cite numerous valid reasons for that. Unsurprisingly, the passionate liberals that bolted the party in 2000 for Greener pastures and Nader, like Michael Moore and Cornel West, said many of the same things. The majority came back to Kerry and held their nose because of the stakes.

They are all absolutely correct, though. The only way to put this country back on track is to find better people, more heartfelt people, people who embody the ideals that not just liberals or Democrats, but that all Americans crave in a leader that we wish to serve us in the White House, or any public office. When someone in John Kerry’s place polls 65-35 against the incumbent because the righteousness of his speech is undeniable, the courage of his convictions unimpeachable, and his failure to win unthinkable, only then will the kind of fraud I am alleging in this election be impossible.

For now, though, I’m not sure what happens next. When we win, we lose. When they win, we lose. Leaving the high road is not an option. God only knows what will be done in our name from here on out.

...on Bill Clinton... I believe he was marginalized by the left as well. The left just didn't support him as much as we could have. Will Pitt wrote a great piece on this.

Thanks. I've been lurking here for awhile, and have been giving this a bit of thought.

I find it somewhat depressing when I watch the debates, or talk to fellow democrats, and feel like I have a better understanding than the people I vote for or watch argue our side on cable news of why progressive policies are morally and economically superior to conservative policies.

That basic understanding, which most moderate, and thus "electable," Democratic candidates lack, is the lynchpin in why nonpartisan people think our guys/gals equally untrustworthy to the other side. The candidates don't seem like they believe their own philosophy.

I am a fan of Bill Clinton. I got My Life signed at the DC signing he did in Upper Northwest. Having read Saracat's infamous post and the full thread about the possibility of a bipartisan fix, and having given the "alternative" news media's suspicions regarding the Clintons' allegiances some thought, I am not sure how to feel anymore.

I am ashamed of his willful indifference to the plight of our people, waiting in 10 hour lines to vote. Jim Crow is proven alive and well at the voting booth well north of the Mason-Dixon line, and the most notable public supporter of racial healing in recent memory ignores that but congratulates Bush and company on a job well done?

I can tell you right now that I expect I will fight tooth and nail any attempt to put Hillary on the ticket in '08. If that's what this callous indifference to our "loss" is about, then sorry, I can't support that.

-- with frickin' welfare 'reform', NAFTA, and a rather nasty little prequel to the PATRIOT Act.

Many people believe the statement that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had." There are a great many facts to back this assertion, but it begs the question: If Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had, why did the Republicans work every night and every day for eight years, why do they continue to work to this day, to destroy him and the economic legacy he left behind?

The answer is complex. Clinton is labeled 'Republican' by the Left because of the passage of NAFTA, of GATT, of the Welfare Reform Act, of the Telecommunications Act, and for a variety of other reasons. In many ways, however, this does not tell the entire story. The passage of these rightist packages came, in no small part, because Clinton had no hard-core activated base pushing him in the proper direction. After twelve years of warfare against Reagan and Bush, a massive swath of the progressive community saw Clinton's victory in 1992 and felt like they had at last won the fight. They threw their activism into neutral, leaving Clinton with no army to back him up. One can hardly blame them for doing so after such a protracted struggle.

But this left Clinton exposed. The onslaughts of the right pushed him inexorably in their direction, because there was no powerful progressive network there to push back. Only after the impeachment mayhem broke loose did the tattered threads of progressive activism come back together again, but by then the damage had been done. Certainly, there were many progressives in America who fought the good fight every step of the way, but there were not enough of them. Progressives in 2003 who label Clinton as 'Republican' should take a long look in the mirror, and remember what they were not doing from 1993 to 1998, before casting final judgment. I am, sadly, one who has trouble facing that mirror.

An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

This was why he had to be destroyed.

The rest is coda. The impeachment, funded by right-wing activists and business interests, stormed along by a mainstream media whose Reagan-era deregulated status led to a complete breakdown in journalistic ethics, and all buttressed by years of unsubstantiated scandals pushed along by congressional zealots with subpoena power, left the American population exhausted enough to vote against their own best interests in 2000. Too many didn't vote at all. The "Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!" drumbeat that lasted over 2,000 days drove the voters into thinking a change was required. Though Gore won the election, the margin of victory was small enough to be exposed to theft by a partisan Supreme Court which, by rights, should not have come within a country mile of touching that case. A corrupted news media, again, pushed the whole farce along.

thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1789799

--though I'd call that in part a disdain by progressives for electoral as opposed to issue-based politics.

The Rethugs went after him because no amount of compromise on Clinton's part would have satisfied them.

Shrub was the genuine article and could they cite the reasons they thought so? I could cite hundreds of reasons why he's not.


"Many reasonable Republicans I know say that Kerry/Gore/Clinton were bullshit artists who simply were not what they claimed to be, and could cite numerous valid reasons for that."

People can be tricked, brutalized moved up and down. The leadership comes form the boob tube which is why such total dweebs and nonentities such as the corporate Repukes keep dishing up(because that is ALL they have) win. No one leads outside the box. They get shrunk and re-packaged so that even Dick Nixon can come even with Kennedy and even Kennedy recover and have a chance by upstaging the definition.

What you want is some great wonderman who can defeat the box, maybe just enough like Kennedy.

What I want are leaders who won't accept the box trap to begin with, get cheated and accept the stupidest punditry and ideas as gospel because THEY rule the box.

Kerry was great. Edwards was charismatic. Dean was populist fire. Kucinich was the right interpretation of the future that sadly the human race still is not allowed to even see. There are other fantastic, sincere and smart people. And they are all doomed if they dance to the trickster's tune because they are playing a meaningless game that is fixed.

I want just one of them just to GET IT for once and not get enamored of the political game and the myths as if nothing else matters. Greatness is genius in enveloping and destroying the strategies of fixed foes. And our foes are fixed around us as they see the neat little party plan. I truly fear the longer we WAIT for such a Duhhhh moment, the sooner the GOP will find someone cleverer than a dolt and a hack(Bush and Rove) and more charismatic than stewed prunes. And still be evil.

Our people ARE great, but not if they allow themselves to be dutifully slaughtered in such a way as to deprive the nation of mere hope. We need competent politicians- sigh. It is not THAT hard. People are people. Good leaders will ennoble them. Bad will brutalize and divide them and rob them of participation(no matter WHAT their persuasions). We would not even be having this doubtful discussion about people IF the system were not UNJUST to begin with!!!!! What chance do ordinary people have under this soft tyranny and ambient fog.

Most Bush voters have to believe in lies. That is a devastating weakness that deprives greatness of any validity and Bush of any legitimacy. The ONLY legitimacy Bush has is what is NEVER mentioned. Those who shrug and don't vote because freedom doesn't matter that much.

who got incredibly bad advice from his DLC handlers. He came across as weak, which he is not. He came across as unwilling to fight, which he has never been. Worst of all, he let the Smear Boat liars walk all over him, thanks to the rotten advice of his handlers, when he should have slapped them with a libel suit as soon as that book got released.

The problem isn't the candidates. The problem is the gang of party hacks they get surrounded with who water their message down so far that it's hard to tell where they leave off and the GOP starts.

The party desperately needs some self examination and a housecleaning of the worst offenders. Will they do it? Hell no. My guess is that milksop Vilsack will be anointed party head and they'll go about their business of losing all the congressional races in 2006.

who advised Kerry not to hit the Swift Boat Liars hard or else he'd look bitter.

Bob Shrum was 0-7 in presidential races when Kerry chose him, and he's now 0-8.

Bob Shrum needs to find another occupation.

He's certainly owed gifts of gratitude from them.

find another party hack. Ultimately, it's the candidate who chooses which party hacks will surround him and give him advice. It's the first important decision that a potential president makes.

Surely there must be some better ones out there, or we need to can some of them and bring in some new blood. As long as our candidates keep hiring the same losers, they will continue to lose.

That last line about going about the business of losing all the congressional races is too funny.

I just don't feel it with Kerry. If you listen to audio of Martin Luther King or Jack Kennedy, they sound like they mean it. I would love to compare audio of Kerry's oratory high points with either of them.

Clinton, I felt inspired when he spoke about the issues that mattered to him. Not so much with Kerry. And I liked Kerry a lot.

I think he was a great candidate on paper, and I am amazed to think a guy with his background probably won the presidency. Kerry is a liberal American hero, he protested the Vietnam War and exposed Iran-Contra. If you thought losing to Clinton pissed off the Bushes, I can't even imagine how they would have taken losing to Kerry.

there was no connection between Saddam /OBL (just as he continues lying about it) , say one day that the war on terra cannot be won, the next day changes his mind....Only W can say he never said Osama who? with impunity.
Only W can have news about robbed explosives in Iraq and appear as the guy who keeps us safe....
How can any mortal being compete with that?

but only because we have Republicans who supply the voting system.

Kerry was a great candidate. His strategic error was running a high road campaign. He actually thought the vast majority would vote for intelligence, courage, and integrity. I'm convinced the majority did....but not enough to cover the voting fraud.

I think now we have to go through a complete breakdown of our country before that vast majority comes to it's senses. It didn't have to be this way, but too many people who voted stupidly with Bush (not the 20% or so "hardcore" - I've written that bloc off a long time ago) will reap the fruits of what they've sown. Unfortunately, the rest of us will, too.

Your post implies that either Bush is perfect/excellent or that we would have stood a chance with some other candidate. Not so.
Any one of those candidates were a billion times better than Bush. It had nothing to do with the quality of our candidate, if it did Bush would be done. It's election fraud, media bias and 40 years of the Republicans perfecting their bullshit.

What PaisAn said.....

I think Bush is an idiot concerning his domestic and foreign policy. Pure and simple. The admin of Kerry, Edwards, Clark, or Dean would be 10 times better than him should one of them be the president. And Kerry no doubt was the best among the 10 democratic candidates.

But I just feel that there seems to be something missing concerning the word 'perfect' and I try to figure out what that is...

IMO, it's just that we need to take care of the things I mentioned or nothing else will matter. Nothing and no one is perfect. To try to look for the "perfect" candidate that can beat these evil people will be futile unless we fix these things first. If we can the system (election fraud being # 1 priority)we'll win. If not we're wasting our time looking for the perfect candidate. They don't play by the rules.

BTW, I like and fully supported Kerry but don't necessarily feel he was the best of the 10. Still hands down better than Bush.

this concept that seems to be prevalent among both the media and Du'ers, that Iowa "chose" Kerry, for the whole Dem party. All that happened caucus nite was that Kerry got a little over 1/3 of the available delegates from Iowa, Edwards got a little under a 1/3 and Dean and the others split up the rest, with most of that going to Dean. That is the reality of what happened, the fact that others later in the process usually chose much the same way is in no way an indictment of Iowa Dem's and to suggest so is an insult and a slap in the face to all the other free-thinking Democrats that chose by their own free will.

The Iowa caucuses do not determine a winner for the party as a whole, at best, all that happens is that the field is narrowed some..to the most electable and those that have put in the hard work to get organized. That is not a bad thing.

Any clues as to where this fallacy was generated from and why it keeps being perpetuated?

after the Iowa vote was this.....the intense media's focus on only Kerry and Edwards (the 2 top winners in Iowa.....no one else got any positive free publicity from this point on ....Dean got the negative for his scream, Clark for allowing Michael Moore to have his say)combined with the "great brain fart" of the DNC to have the primaries compressed, New Hampshire; one week after Iowa....the next multiple primaries aka mini Tuesday, one week after that....that's how we got to Kerry and Edwards.

The media had the scripts and the parts already written out...once Iowa voted: Kerry was the "Oh so electable one" War Vet; Edwards was the charismatic southern guy who was a "hell of a campaigner" and could talk owls out of trees; Dean was the screamer who's supporters couldn't deliver Iowa during the "not so Perfect Storm"; Clark was the "Not ready for primetime" bad campaigner (Dems should love a Lieutenant but not a General anyway...since 1968 is soooo much more recent than 2000); Sharpton was the protest vote, and Kucinich was the ....."Kucinich who? Oh...That weird guy".

When you have the media and their endless propaganda polls leading you into the voting booth....telling you Kerry won Iowa because he was most "electable" and he is leading everywhere....voters are going to go with the winner...is all. The media did allow an alternate option in Edwards (see--media needing a horserace).

So between the media, their polls and the voting machines....Dems never had a chance in 2004. The primaries and the general election were controlled at all times. It would have taken superhuman strength for voters to have gotten through that garbage and to have come up with another primary winner......and don't get me started on the generals.

Our last crop may have not been stellar, but they were exemplars of statesmanship and experience compared to the chimp.

Gore wore orange makeup to the debates. He rolled his eyes. He sighed! He sported a different personality in each debate! And he was a serial liar.

Dubya was in turn a bewildered doofus, a raging madman, and a happy stoner. Did you hear much about that on national TV? All I heard were comments in the vein of "he seems to be finding his footing, much better than his last outing." Were he and Cheney tagged as untrustworthy for their brazen lies in the debates? Hardly.

GeeDub announced a major policy speech pending in the last days before the election. The networks broadcast it. It was a boilerplate campaign barnburner. Suckers! He did it again. The networks gave him airtime again. Dumbasses.

Any Democrat who challenges a Republican is going to be swimming upstream in a river of CheezWhiz in this corporate-interest shilling media environment.

Democrats is plural, therefore, adverb or adjective (?) should be singular. (BTW, I am not always perfect, either.) Correct sentence is "Democrats do not (or don't) seem to have great presidential candidates." Got it? Mayhap the following is a better example:

Girls do not (don't) have penises.

or

Girl does not (doesn't) have penis.

I do apologize. I don't come out very often. Please forgive.

because I treated the word democrats as a whole, so I used the verb "deosn't". Sorry about the confusion.

:-)

Jim Hightower in 2008. Populist with a twang.

And Kerry ran the table. He was our choice. I don't believe we were wrong, either. And I don't think anyone realized the magnitude of the problem with our voting system.

For 200 years, we've had a reasonably successful democracy because, for the most part, we allowed the will of the people to be served. The new Republican Party has shown its incomptence to lead, but they've gamed the entire system to serve their interests.

When I said that "they are all good, but no one seems to be perfect or excellent to run against Bush." probably I meant to say that the candidate that democrats put out there seems to always have something imperfect to be picked on by their opponents.

For example, for Kerry - "the most liberal from the most liberal state" (remember Bush kept hopping on that?); for Dean, "mental instablity"; for Edwards, the "greedy trial lawyer", etc...

I think that's what I meant.

So next time can democrats produce a "perfect" candidate who is free of this type of easy preying stereotypzation?

I think this has been a distraction for American people to focus on the real election issues. And Republicans are getting away with this dirty trick.

They have money, the media and Karl Rove. I understand what you're saying, maybe find someone they have less to criticize about. Just don't know if it could be done. This was a small part of why I supported Wes Clark.

it's sad that when Clinton was in the WH, he had had a sexual encounter with a young female intern. That really damage the democrats' causes, imo.

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

Where have you been?

Gennifer Flowers, Whitewater, Travelgate, Troopergate, Paula Jones, Billing Records, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Charlie Trie, Lincoln Bedroom, White House Coffees...

Republicans ginned up an incessant tide of shit against the man, beginning before he got into office. Lewinsky was the only thing that they could make stick. He was hamstrung from day one.

But have democrats given up the idea of finding a perfect candidate that disassociates with these "incidents" that you have mentioned?

I think they shouldn't.

Somehow, you're not getting this.

Al Gore was long considered a straight arrow in Washington, a regular Boy Scout. Conventional wisdom was that Republicans wouldn't be able to tar him.

You know what happened.

(Or do you?)

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

and the media repeats their lies, that can't easily be controlled.

I wish Clinton didn't give them that ammunition but honestly they were determined to get him no matter what he did or didn't do.
I hope you agree that it's nobody's f'ing business what Clinton did with his personal life. That was a witch hunt and the Republicans were and are heinous.

You see, Virginia, sliming by the thugs doesn't need to have anything anchored in reality , or even make sense. The hatred is there, give them a handle to foam, then let Diebold do the voting. Get it?
Being Democrat is the imperfection. Heck, look how imperfect Arlen Specter is just becoming! Or Richard Clarke, or Joseph Wilson - who are GOPers.
get it?

What do you mean?

The challenge is - Can democrats do better than imperfection?

I think the voters' asking of a perfect president as a role model is very reasonable.

Democrats should listen to them.

Peeance Freeance!

I think the voters' asking of a perfect president as a role model is very reasonable.

What, like *ush? The only voters I've seen saying a candidate approaches perfection is over in freeperland (BTW, *ush does NOT walk on water). It's infantile to demand (or ask for) perfection from any candidate - no such human exists. We have to accept that everyone is flawed & decide if the 'imperfection' they exhibit is acceptable to our own personal code, then vote accordingly. Therefore, your statement that asking for a perfect president is unreasonable.

Democrats should listen to them.

Aww, never mind, pointless to argue - why bother!

The country has NEVER had a perfect president.

Presidents have owned slaves, slaughtered Indians, gotten us into colonial debacles and illegal wars, and shamelessly abused their power, and they were all womanizers (except Jimmy Carter and the gay one).

Demanding that a candidate be "perfect" is pure insanity. It simply doesn't exist. Name one single president in the history of this country who was "perfect".

And the fact is, even if we had "perfect" it still wouldn't be good enough. We could have run Jesus Christ himself this election and he would have been turned into some sort of monster, or weak kneed terrorist appeaser by the corporate media.

Stop living in a fantasy world, and figure out how a human being running as a Democrat can get his or her message out effectively, and avoid being defined by the well oiled RW propoganda machine.

but WE don't count the votes --

The case being built for vote fraud on behalf of bush by DU researchers is awesome. Every way there is to block dems from voting was used.

Our field of candidates were ALL superior to bushie -- and had the vote been counted honestly -- Kerry would be the next prez.

Dems are superior to evil GOPigs in every way -- except cheating at elections.

to have great presidential candidates."

Any Democrat is better than that scumsucking creep in the White House.

it should say "democrats don't seem..."

I apologize for the incorrect grammar usage.

1) We lack a good party base. We don't have an effective national message, and we look weak on national security. Those are party label problems and we need to work to change those impressions.

2) Few of us were wiling to admit it at the time, myself included, but the truth is that historically, if one were to look at the indicators, they showed that this was always going to be a more uphill race than most challenges that win (i.e. '80, '92). The 50%-mark is often cited as a cutoff point, but Carter and Bush I's approval ratings were in the 30s when they lost. W's were in the mid-to-high '40s, more similar to Truman's. On election day, I think his approval rating was 49%. Plus, there were the residual effects of terrorism and 9/11. Bush was still more trusted on national security than Kerry and many voters made an emotional connection with him after 9/11. Kerry tried valiantly to correct this, and maybe had we started aggressively tackling Iraq and terrorism earlier, we would have eked out a win.

But the indicators in that respect pointed to a bare "re"-election, ala Truman. It's true that the right-track/wrong-track numbers were bad for Bush, but many people in polls didn't seem to blame Bush for the general feeling and many were scared. If people are fearful, they will vote for the dog they know.

None of this is to say that a Democrat could not have won. However, it would've taken a very strong, near-perfect campaign. Clinton/Gore '92 was the exception, not the rule. Such effective campaigns are rare, and we suffered for that reason.

Personally, I think Kerry was probably all-around strongest, although Clark, Edwards, and maybe Gephardt and Dean might have had a chance as well. Any would have made excellent Presidents and any would have a tremendous opportunity against a slightly weaker president or in an open race. Personally, I think that Kerry would have been the indisputed winner in 2000 had he been the nominee instead of Gore (I realize Gore probably did win Florida and won the popular vote. But he didn't become president, and the key word in the passage is "indisputed").

Kerry was the worst candidate this time around, not the best. We chose him because we thought his military experience would make him safe from attacks of democratic weakness on the military. How well did that work out? His big flaw (and some of us said it over and over during the primaries) is that he would not commit to a clear position on ANYTHING. He's the guy who could stand on both sides of any issue and then bore the crap out of people explaining why.

The voters told us at the exit polls, they DID NOT TRUST KERRY. They didn't know what he believed. They thought he would stand around being nuanced while we were attacked.

You can blame the republican attack machine, but Kerry should have been able to counter. He is the one who chose to follow the advice of his handlers. Did he learn nothing from 2000? It was when Gore shook off the DLC and started to sound like the populist he has always been that he started climbing in the polls...but Kerry didn't have the sense and frankly he doesn't have the heart to appeal to the average voter. He IS an elitist.

Kerry was chosen by the party. It was "his turn". I'll never forget Barney Frank saying that to Gore. Not Barney's smartest moment.

This fantasy that was chose the best candidate and that he could have done better than Gore in 2000, is just that...a fantasy. The fact is he did much worse than Gore.

And you know, it might be all about the voting machines, but in that case where was Kerry and his recount millions? He folded like a cheap suit and left everyone else to fight his battle for him.
If we find out there was fraud in Ohio and by some miracle there was demand for a revote...I'd want a new candidate. I don't think Kerry has earned our energy or our loyalty.

Someone who fights for our vote and isn't afraid to look foolish is the one who deserves our loyalty. Bev Harris, Eloriel, HeddaFoil, Andy...Nader, Cobb (and I am not a green member or even a believer in third parties) those are the people who care about our democracy. Jesse Jackson, the is the activist leader willing to step in. Dean...the politician who ran this year willing to talk about BBV. DK, the only candidate who ran, who is now urging a recount.

I like Kerry, I think he did a great job in the debates. He is clearly smarter and more qualified than the chimp, but he wasn't up for the fight.

Do you honestly think the Republicans had a good candidate?

The first poster who said "we just don't own the voting machines" was right on target.

And you'll find out all the dirt on Jesus. And you'll believe it too, cuz it's on the teevee.

And horrible is a kind word. More like incredibly fucking incompetent.

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

who want to make a difference (for good or bad) in the lives of Americans, and they have to work really hard to convince people to vote for them, and we reward them for their hard work.

Why do we continue to "buy into" the Right's dysfunctional babble that we lost (which we didn't by the way)...because of something that is "wrong" with us, or our candidate.
That's the same kind of dysfunctional crap that the Domestic Violence Batterer hands his wife as the excuse why he has to beat her, or degrade her, etc...that she "did" something wrong, or was "wrong" at everthing she is or does.
We lost because of FRAUD...just like the Ukraines. And the Right did NOT blame the Ukraines for the loss; but ACKNOWLEDGED Fraud immediately...because they HAD to deflect (or "project") their Election 'guilt' here at home.

Think about it, Kerry STILL got over 49,000,000 votes after ALL the SBV garbage and the constant attacks,lies and misleading remarks made about him. If not for that, Kerry may have seen historical numbers and a huge win.

I was getting exhausted reporting the various documents that disproved so many allegations, and those "other board" bozos still didn't "get it".

I really do think he would have won easily if he would have immediately addressed the more damaging allegations.

Also, I think he was the candidate with the most intelligence and intellect in addition to a lot of compassion. He would have made a fine President.

Hopefully, there is a miracle brewing somewhere. I refuse to give up 1005 about the voting irregularities not being dealt with.

I'm just saying, to quote a prominent Democrat who should know, we can do better. Kerry didn't have the courage of his convictions on Iraq. When he spoke, it was largely uninspiring. He is a good man with good intentions but he's not the best messenger, and had some terrible advisers and lacked the judgment to ignore them or replace them early on.

Kerry seemed to vote for the Iraq resolution because he knew he would be disqualified for the presidency if he seemed weak on defense. It's a decision that seems crass and totally out of place with the rest of his record. I think he would have been better off had he simply said, "I know what it's like to fight in a war based on false pretenses. I would have removed Saddam Hussein if the inspectors found weapons, and I will do what is necessary to secure Iraq and leave as quickly as possible now that we are there."

However, he couldn't say that without looking kind of silly, because he endorsed the resolution that basically said, "It would be nice if we had international cooperation on Iraq, but go ahead and invade anyway."

Someone with his position and history should never have voted for the resolution, and I think most people realize that. He was afraid to stand up for what he believed in, and didn't inspire confidence that he meant what he said as a result. Ambition trumps sincerity and gives us a damaged candidate.

but if the election is rigged, it WOULDN'T MATTER.

For the record, I think Kerry was a great candidate and would have made a KICK-ASS president. For that matter, so would have Dean. Or Clark.

raygun, a blithering cretinous lousy actor in the throes of full-blown Alzheimer's?

Or George the First, the original effete faux-aristocratic mama's boy.

And now the little bushturd, a syphillitic, monosyllabic, drooling retarded towel-snapping fratboy loser shitstain?

Give me a fucking break. We don't lack candidates. We lack marketing and voting machines.

Clinton and Carter didn't seem to be especially wonderful candidates at the beginning of the primary season, but they both won and represented us well in the White House. In my opinion, Kerry came out of the primary season stronger than my two examples. Why he didn't win is a topic for much discussion, but I definitely think he was a terrific candidate and Dean and Edwards are two who were at least as strong as Clinton and Carter early in their primary seasons.

I watched Clinton and Carter's candidacies from their birth...


They were both things of beauty...


Carter captured the tenor of his time when he told the American people who were disillusioned by the lies of Watergate and Viet Nam that he would "never lie to them" and give America "a government as good as it's people".

Clinton's charisma and his ability to stay on message, "it's the economy stupid." were extraordinarily effective...

He was finally able to get on message after a very rocky start in the primaries. The Gennifer flowers thing and draft dodging accusations came during the primaries. He wasn't the front runner right away and he hardly looked like an attractive candidate with these potential controversies swirling around him. I do not remember this as being a fun, particularly hopeful or slam dunk time for being a Democrat. Clinton's political skill, on point message about the economy and plummeting Bush approval numbers all worked in his favor on election day in 1992.

In my opinion, the election of 2004 should have been a better set up in that we had a president in trouble (or should have been had the media been doing their jobs) and we had a candidate who was a good, honest and moral person of the highest integrity with experience at the federal government level and who had a vision for a better future for our country and the world.

As I said earlier tonight in another thread, I'm not sure if we were out campaigned or "out-media-ed" during this election. I do think we had as good a candidate as we have ever had.

if the topic, grammar didn't tip you.

Before they are elected, they seem flawed, but afterwards they seem golden.

It's not about our great ones against their great ones.

ANY person about the age of 50, who is successful, has made enemies..many of them !!!

Campaigns are about minimizing YOUR candidates flaws, while magnifying those of the opponent..Pure and simple.. That's IT !!


Their side has mastered the codespeak that reverberates with the masses who are used to commercials and snippets of information delivered in 30-45 second chunks..

Their side spent THIRTY YEARS aquiring media sources, and making them very "friendly" to their opinions and philosophies..

Their side is expert at "masking" their spokespersons. Any glance at tv tells you that.. They have cultivated attractive, well-spoken tv-genic people who are the opposite of what they appear to be, yet speak in dulcid tones, so that the viewers can actually believe them.

Their side is better at using a cohesive tone, and convincing their more radical members to "cool it" until after the election.

Their side picks a few controversial issues, morphs them into HUGE issues, and divides the electorate. Nixon taught them that lesson, and it works every time.

So.... It;s not that we have lesser candidates... We just lack the organizational skills and the venues to present our candidates.

From DAY ONE of any campaign, our candidates are on defense, because in the lead up to the election or choosing of the candidates, the media has already defined the range of the campaign...and they have defined it from a rightward position, so ANY deviation form that stance is views as "weird,controversial,or just plain wrong". Our candidates are asked to justify their positions, because those positions are pervceived as wrong from the get-go..


Georgie was the candidate from HELL, yet they polished him up like the Hope Diamond, and no one from our side was ablt to get the message out that he was a $10 Diamonique....

Best of debate
We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means.
. 
Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer -- the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, is in prison.
 We're modernizing our borders. 
And there's going to be an Arab summit, of the neighborhood countries. 
Well, actually he forgot Poland
My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. 
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. 
But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
 First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. 
: I'm trying to put a leash on them.
In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.
It's-and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
We're making progress. It is hard work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debateref...

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

agenda into the media and better at marketing techniques. Clinton was the only democrat who came close to doing this and he won twice despite high negatives just like Bush

no longer a nuisance.

Look who owns big media. Not regular Americans, but a few ultra-wealthy Repugs who own big media through their ownership of the biggest corporations on the planet.

Every single one of the Democrats who ran are great candidates.

or they wouldn't have worked overtime to knock Clark out of the race.

From what I read so far, most of you seemed to blame on the external factors like bad voting machines, biased media, or republicans' smearing campaign, etc...without offering a winnable solution.

But these unfavorable external factors are not going to fade away any time soon. So what are you going to do? Just sit here idly complaining forever?

I think finding a perfect candidate is to play their game:

The voters believe in God? Give them an Almighty worshiper, a Bible-thumping church goer;
The voters want family values? Give them a perfect father, perfect husband, perfect wife;
The voters want homeland security? Give them a war hero, a seasoned soldier, or a battlefield commander;
The voters want moral values? Give them a homeless shelter volunteer, give them a non-smoker, a non-drug-user, a happily-married heterosexual guy;

Give them a perfect candidate in order to get back to the White House.

"perfect" candidate? Dream on... there will never be a "perfect" candidate, especially as long as we have fraudulent voting machines.

Go back over to freeperville...:eyes:

"The voters believe in God? Give them an Almighty worshiper, a Bible-thumping church goer;
The voters want family values? Give them a perfect father, perfect husband, perfect wife;
The voters want homeland security? Give them a war hero, a seasoned soldier, or a battlefield commander;
The voters want moral values? Give them a homeless shelter volunteer, give them a non-smoker, a non-drug-user, a happily-married heterosexual guy;"

Okay, Bush had the Bible-thumping thing on Kerry.

Bush's family is freakish (Laura's got a creepy smile, IMHO), but for argument's sake let's call it a tie.

Kerry has served in combat. Bush went AWOL.

I don't know much about the volunteering thing. Call that a tie.

As far as I'm aware, Kerry doesn't smoke, isn't an alcoholic, and doesn't do drugs, and is straight. Bush is a coked out sot with a DUI; his wife smokes like a chimney, used to deal pot, killed her old boyfriend, and is stoned out of her gourd; and his daughters are everything the parents are and tramps to boot.

Final score:

Bush 1
Kerry 4

At the very least, with a hell of a lot of benefit of the doubt.

Values are an empty word signifying nothing. We gave them what we thought they'd want, and it didn't mean anything, because we were playing on their field.

If you haven't, read "Don't think of an elephant."

JFK: Intelligent, likable, best hope during a crucial period in American history.

LBJ: Follow up to JFK, post assassination brings LBJ to forefront. Casts him as best alternative, as he rides JFK's memory to to WH. Tries to jumpstart Civil Rights movement, and Domestic agenda; gets mired down in Vietnam.

Nixon: Promises 'Peace w/ Honor', not done in 4 years, so voters give him 4 more (wtf?). Rides on LBJ's causes and continues Civil Rights and Domestic agendas. Sets up China as an indentured servitude state, so goods are sold here exceptionally cheaply, but Chinese laborers are treated worse than chattel.

Ford: Sacrificial Lamb; nice likable guy, but set up to fail.

Carter: Here's where the tests become a little better, and the true tests begin. Carter is one of the few Naval Officers that passed through the "Nuclear Navy's" crash course on Nuclear Physics. This is no easy task. They took a four year degree and compressed it into an 18 month brain buster. Every week, people were washed, yet Carter made it through, so we know the brains were there. He had a 'folksy' way about him, which was 180 degrees from the paranoia we saw in Nixon. Carter was plains spoken, and generally a nice guy, things seemed to be going well for the US when Carter went into office, but there were dark clouds on the horizon. Say what you will about the Carter years, there were some things that were out of whack during that time. Oil tankers sat off NY harbor, waiting to get to Jersey that sat low in water, because they were full. But the price of crude went up by the hour, why unload at the refineries when you could to the profit margin?
I blame the "Oil Elite" in this country trying to undermine the the Carter Administration. The "gas Lines" were bad enough, but there was more to come, culminating w/the Iran Hostage situation.

Ronald Reagan: Oh Shit. When all else fails, go into enemy turf and drag a defector over to your side. This was the first neo-con adventurist. Reagan was stolen right out of the vegetable bin at the local GOP grocery store. Like celery, he looked good, but was mostly water, and could not think. He had good posture, and was crispy when he came on on board, but wilted w/time. We all know his fiscal policies broke the bank, and we still pay for his foolishness today.
No sense rehashing that crap.

GHW Bush: Town Fool, tried to follow Reagan, and got sucked into a Black Hole one it became apparent that RR's policies were disastrous to the nation. Another choice from the vegetable bin, but I have to admit, it was a step up from celery, perhaps up to cabbage. He was sour, but at least he had more substance. He still couldn't think, but he made a good slaw after his first and only term.

Clinton: Looked Good, spoke well, had a vision, a scholar, married another intellectual who was a great partner. The GOP played for 7 years to crush him, but just couldn't do it. Whitewater was a sham; and the Lewinski red herring was a dud, "lying under oath"?
If I remember correctly, bush took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution", something he immediately proceeded to shred, beginning w/the First Amendment. I see nothing about an impeachment for him as a 'traitor'!
I could go on about Clinton, but suffice it to say, under the circumstances of constant harassment from the RW/neo-con arm of Congress, he did remarkably well for all the pressure he was under.

gw bush: Oh Shit again, back to the vegetable bin. For this bush, I will go with a small mushroom. Be advised, I like mushrooms, but not this kind. It is an evil mushroom disguised as one that is edible, but if you get too close, the spores will cause death within minutes. If you were unlucky enough to actually eat one, you would die within an hour after having gone through horrid hallucinations, a heart that would diminish to 1/50th of normal size and become icy cold, and a brain that would implode from a sudden decrease in functional ability.

Never before, have we had a senior official with such a penchant for NOT learning anything new or pertinent to the office he was elected to. It is as if we could have put a can of stewed prunes in the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office, and no one would notice the difference.

If there is a bright side to all of this, Orrin Hatch has made it painfully obvious to everyone who has heard his note on amending the Constitution. According to him, the ONLY Republican that is worthy of running for president in 2008, is Arnold Schwarzenegger, So out of ALL the Republicans in the US that were BORN here, including Hatch himself, this is what they come up with?

Yes, there is a God...:D

Just face it, we were out smarted and out manuevered. I am afraid that with another 4 years, this administration will keep putting their ducks in a row, like they are doing now, and we are going to be in real big trouble-freedom-wise. I see it in the daily papers, how this freedom or that has been curtailed, a little bit here and a little bit there.

My thoughts about how Kerry could have done better aside, I have no doubts about who more Americans intended to vote for on election day, despite the obstacle course that our electoral process set before them.

Kerry won the debates, and presented a strong case for change. His voters were challenged by poll watchers, and forced to wait in lines for hours with a shortage of voting machines in Kerry-friendly districts in Ohio. Thousands of votes in Gahanna from thin air. Systematic replacement of the vote totals in Volusia County. Touch screens that register Bush when Kerry is chosen. Thousands of votes missing in North Carolina.

These are just the reports that have been validated by the mainstream media. God only knows what really happened on Nov. 2nd, when exit polls indicated that voters collectively believed they had elected John Kerry in an electoral landslide.

Our system is broken and exists only to make Democratic national representatives extinct.

Outsmarted and out-maneuvered? No, we have been invalidated and ignored.

It is Bush's only claim to legitimacy (which is of course ironic, seeing as it is the worst failure by a President in the history of the US) and it is the one thing keeping to public to terrified to think for themselves.

And its not like anyone can come out and call them on it. Look what happened to Cynthia McKinney

Cynthia McKinney got elected again. There is hope.

The democratic candidates have been fine. The difference I believe is commitment. Say what you will about republicans they are willing to burn the house down to get their way, scorched earth all the way. Steal the election? No problem. Tell slanderous lies about a good man? When and where. Attack the strengths of a dem candidate with lies? I'm in. I dont know what to do about that. I dont want to see the dems using the same tactics, yet they work. As long as the GOP is all about either we get our way or we go nuclear, I think the only answer is to show thats whats going on, to raise the awareness of everyone. Thats tough since the media is so loathe to call them on their lies. I mean Bush lies like most people breathe but the media wont even call him a liar. We need passion to get our message across and as long as the dems run from economic populism to run after corporate dollars how can they talk about class issues? Its uphill for dems but we did win three popular votes in a row. The peoples values are on our side. The only thing I can say is call the GOP bastards on their lies and underhandedness every time till it sinks in. Never let a lie pass.

hardly seem like cherries to me.

I think we do better than they do anyway though FDR's seem few and far between.

The Repukes have won the framing of the debate and have bullied most Dems into using Repuke ideans and language to debate values and issues. As long as Dems use Repuke frames, Dems will lose.