My response to Kos' most recent Kerry zap

I'll be the first person to admit that the Kerry campaign blew it in a number of places during his campaign. They let the Swifties do their thing unanswered for far too long. They never answered the flip-flop thing. They never came up with an answer to the $87 billion thing.

But a lot of this smacks of revisionist history. Terrible candidate? How does a terrible candidate pretty much sweep the primaries? And no, I don't buy the conspiracy theories floated here by some Dean die-hards; I've asked for proof of this maybe a hundred times, and never have I gotten an answer.

How does a terrible candidate win all three debates hands down? How does a terrible candidate come within an ace of beating a 'wartime President,' something no other candidate has been able to do ever, with the entire media establishment turned out against him and a good portion of his own base chomping on him because they were bitter their own guy lost, with rampant fraud taking place in a number of swing states?

I saw Kerry with my own eyes sit in Al Franken's living room with Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker, David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker, Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine, Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek, Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN, Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation, Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate, Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author, Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek, Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker, Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., I saw him sit there for three hours and go punch for punch with a dozen high-powered editors and reporters on whatever topics they wanted to touch on. He came out on top. That's a bad candidate?

I don't buy it.

One last bit. This: "One more note -- campaign insiders will tell you that no one loved Kerry. No one had any sense of higher purpose. People who worked for Dean, Edwards and Clark all passionately loved their man. The campaigns stuck together. Why? Because the campaigns were based in the candidates' home states. Hence, staffers had to move to work on those campaigns. They had to make a sacrifice to uproot and travel to a strange city on behalf of their guy. That commitment was real. And since those staffers knew no one else in these cities, they worked together, played together, and stuck together through thick and thin. It was shared sacrifice, and it translated to genuine affection and commitment to their candidate and their cause."

...is some bullshit. Ask Pete Daou about sacrifices, about how many times he had to move, about dedication. This bit, above all, is bitter nonsense. We loved our candidate more so he was better? Please. You don't want 'movement people' running your campaign. I saw it with Kucinich, and that's a good portion of the reason homeboy barely cracked 3% wherever he went.

In the end, failure is its own example. Sure, Kerry lost the election. But the beloved better candidates couldn't even get out of the gate.

If you look at the exit polls, it was kerry in a landslide...so how does that make him a bad candidate???

edit:typos

he won Ohio.

my certainty that he could not win in a rigged election. I am beating my head against the wall in frustration at how little this is getting attention even here.
I cannot fathom that it only gets mentioned in passing any more, though most everyone I bring it up with nods and thinks it is a given that the election was dishonest. Even Republicans seem to know - they just don't rant.

Thank you Will for writing this. It needed to be said. And you aced it.

I certainly am troubled by Ohio and feel that Kerry may have been cheated there. But he didn't even fight here. He lost this state the old fashioned way, he earned it. It may have been a wise decision, it may not have been, that I don't know. But the national Democrats all but abandoned the state for Kerry and concentrated on elected Bowles. Bowles narrowly lost and Kerry lost by a goodly amount. It is hardly surprising. It should be noted that we have straight ticket voting down here but that the President is excluded from that due to the state Democrats not wishing to be drug down by national candidates.

--the election system in North Carolina is documented as one of the worst in the nation and it is hard to say what actually happened there. Agreed the Democrats abandoned the state but the actual numbers are highly debatable. It's hard to draw conclusions about Kerry and North Carolina. Everybody has a different argument.

New Mexico was pretty close and they bungled the recount.

Just saying that NC had 40% of the state voting on auditless DREs and much obvious corruption at the local level--so it's very difficult to argue anything about NC one way or the other. As we all know in political circles, it's not only whether you win or lose. If you lose, the percentages still count--many decisions are based on that exact figure. It is not absurd to question the results in NC, regardless of Kerry's odds. People working/observing the elections in NC agree that in general the elections of 2004 were "a mess," which the state is now trying to dig out from.

The following is from a post in the DU elections forum, illustrating the issues in just one NC county which includes the city of Greensboro:
------------------------------------


Facts about Guilford County voting machines:

They do not meet disability standards for the Help America Vote Act of 2006.

Permanent loss of votes on Guilford County Machines documented.

Failure of voting machine company to communicate serious limitations with software causing it to not count votes.

Same machines which were used in Craven County NC changed votes before the voters eyes..

Voting Machine Companies ties to bribery of election officials.

Known instances of ES&S instructing employees to lie to election officials.

Current machines more costly to purchase and operate, than paper ballot optical scan machines used in 48 NC Counties

NC Study shows that paperless machines have significantly higher undervote rates than paper ballot optical scan machines

Need one say more.

Harris of Florida: During the 2000 elections "Harris" just happened to be in Jeb's home-state holding the title of "Secretary of State" AND "Co-Chairwoman of the Bush Campaign."

Fast forward to 2004 election: Ohio... Blackwell, same old song and dance. And less then half the morons bought it.

I say less because regardless of the mess we're in right now, Democrats represent more of the populace then many Republicans.

I'm waiting for the whole thing to implode. Just hoping they don't take all of us down with them.

:popcorn:

Furthermore, I can't post this at Kos but I CAN post it here. But QUIT GOING TO KOS when he's bashing Kerry or ANY DEM! He's doing it for the hits and for the controversy and for the attention.

So if you hear about another kerry bashing there (or Dean Or anyone), just come to D.U. instead. Or go to the democracycellproject.net instead. Or go to a movie, eat something from a "blue restaurant", and go for a walk. But the point is just don't give Kos the time of day.

He's hurting the party, he's hurting us, and he's hurting our chances to get rid of the neoCONS.

EEEELLLLEEECCCTION FRAUD! I still believe it!

:popcorn:

He's often given to hyperbole over fact, which imho has demolished his chances to be a 'real player' in politics - but his anti-Kerry rants top all.

I certainly didn't agree with his comments, but... do you think Kerry is really bummed that he is still the center of attention? 850 comments on that thread... it's obvious that Kerry inspires some passion.

that if you are a politician, and people are talking about you, it is better than if no one is talking about you. It's not like kos criticizing Kerry is news, and I doubt there are many people reading dKos who don't already have a pretty strong opinion about Kerry.

Let's keep eyes on the prize here.

Kos and his seemingly knee-jerk hatred of Kerry is lame, and ill-informed.

but I think a few could have done worse. Mistakes are made in every campaign. If he was the most popular with Democratic primary voters, it is hard to imagine how another candidate could have done better in the General, in my opinion.

“No matter who the Democratic nominee was, this machinery had the capacity to discredit and destroy him.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr from The Disinformation Society (May issue of Vanity Fair) - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=874

That is the opponent we have to find a way to defeat..

Well said!

Yes there were mistakes, but there wasn't a candidate in the field that would have outlasted the body blows that Kerry took and he is STILL the MOST qualified candidate we have put up in YEARS!

I hate to say it - but I don't care for Kos. For all the posts I've seen here at DU about how we should all be a lot nicer to each other - I think DU is a love-in compared to the brutal place kos can be sometimes. I didn't really come here until after Kerry won (but appeared to have lost) last November. My view (that Kerry won) was unacceptable at Kos - because of Kos. I LOVED Dean - and wanted him to be President. I didn't love Kerry nearly as much - but I HATED Bush and knew he had to go! I think Dean was too vulnerable - his team pretty much self-destructed. A couple of screaming cheers and they are down for the count? I blame the media for blowing that out of proportion - but Dean's team had no defense AT ALL!! Dean was good for the party - and we needed him! He showed the party that normal patriots are against the war in Iraq. I think Dean helped Kerry a lot. And Kerry impressed the hell out of me in the debates. And - the evidence has me convinced Kerry DID win the election.

Frankly - I have been wondering if other people have left Kos for DU? Was it only me who wanted a safe harbor to talk about a stolen election - or did he lose some thunder?

Plus - I have a dial-up connection and an older computer and for some reason the pages at kos crashed my system all the time. DU is much more modem friendly. And I love the spell checker. I really like it here a lot!!

I happen to worship the ground Skinner walks on.

I really think you misunderstood the intention of my post. I said I don't care for kos and like it much better here. I don't get your post???? I made some digs at kos - which might have been unfair - but none were made toward Skinner. I like Skinner too from what I know of him. He is much less visible than kos - hence my "cult of personality" remark. I really think you misunderstood my post.

I should have added a :D

I meant it playfully.

I only found true solace (over facing another stolen election and four more years of Bushworld) once I found DU. It seems more egalitarian here. More down to earth, more welcoming.

I prefer DU as well. KOS just seemed more of an operative type and most of the KOS community seems to go along with anything KOS says. I like the free thinking community here on DU.

If Kerry had spent his early months defining Bush and fighting off the Bush attacks, he would have won. I don't know what Kerry was thinking when he decided to use all that time on Vietnam.

"Stolen Election."

2000 Harris Florida Co-Bush Chairwoman State Attorney
2004 Blackwell Ohio Co-Bush Chairman State Attorney

I dunno. Maybe it's me.

Does anyone else see a "remarkable" comparision?

:crazy:

I would support and vote for him again.

I was a critic of the campaign cause I felt there were things that could have been done better, (i.e. the South) but the most important lesson is the let the candidate be himself. JK is still cool with me, as are all the other good dems.

I think we have to focus on election reform for any dem to be sucessful. Thanks Will.

When Gore conceded, it was because of the media.
When he discovered that the media had called it too soon, he wanted to get all the votes counted BEFORE he threw in the towel.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/gore112700.html

I can defend Gore.
I cannot defend Kerry.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=1

Right now, there is no point in voting anyway.
Diebold rules
and we will be governed by Republicans until Diebold says otherwise.
The most we can hope for is for the schism within the Republican party to fracture it completely.
Soon.

I can only now dream of a Democratic candidate
who will float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
And I ain't even thinking about John.
Or Ralph.
Or Perot.

is dealt with (paper ballots now!)

I wonder if voting really matters?

in the 1968 New Hampshire Primary causing him to drop out of the race. Truman was so unpopular during the Korean War he didn't even try for the Democratic nomination in 1952. This war time leader stuff is pure nonsense.

I will give, and have given in the past, Kerry props for the debate performance. They were three masterful things. I doubt any candidate, including my favorite Dean, would have debated Bush as well as Kerry did. So Kerry gets and deserves props for that.

All of that said. Kerry won the primary due to being what our primary voters wanted. Sadly they were wrong. That isn't Kerry's fault but the primary voters' fault. The voters wanted to sneak a liberal in the White House and felt that Kerry had the bio to do it. They didn't want to take Bush on on the issues in a direct way and that turned out to be a fatal error.

This war time leader stuff is pure nonsense.

Other than the fact that it is irrefutably true that no wartime President has lost a general election, yeah, it's nonsense. :eyes:

they are 3 for 5 when you put them in. sorry but 3 for 5 isn't all that good.

no wartime President has ever lost a general election.

There IS a distinction between facts and speculation, you know.

that is a fact. Johnson ran in New Hampshire in the Democratic primary and beat Eugene McCarthy by a few hundred votes (one percent) and got less than a majority as an incumbent President who four years earlier got 61% of the general vote. Again that is a fact.

Neither one would have stood a ghost of a chance in the general elections. It is doubtful either one would have been nominated had they decided to run.

The fact is war time Presidents are 3 for 5, which is 60%. That is hardly a great record. In most schools that percentage is an F.

The fact is war time Presidents are 3 for 5


No, that isn't a fact, it is a false and untrue statement, as you obviously are aware.


First of all there have been more than five Presidents to run for releection during wartime. Counting the ones who ran for reelection and lost, you get a grand total of zero.

Johnson ran, albeit for a month, and quit. That is being defeated. Truman, according to the famous bio of him, also was considering running, but didn't. So he quit. Again, that would be a defeat. So they are 3 for 5. Quitting is no less a defeat than losing is.

Just as repetition of the assertion that the earth is flat, does not lend weight to that argument, simply repeating the falsehood that a wartime President has lost a bid for reelection does not lend it truth.

He ran in the primaries and lost. That is losing no matter how you slice it. BTW on your other supposed falsehood, here is a link listing all of our wars and the dates of them.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM

You will note that I was correct except for one error. I forgot Madison being reelected during the war of 1812. That makes them 4 for 6 instead of 3 for 5. That is still not undefeated.

What was the primary that Johnson lost again? I thought you said he won, and then decided to not run for reelection.

You will note that I was correct except for one error.

It must also be strange living in a world where being 'in error' is in some way an indication that you were 'correct'. lol

:freak:

If you don't believe me, go to any race track, anywhere, and watch a horse race. Even if a horse is ahead by 50 lengths if he decides to stop and turn around before the finish race he loses. That is called a defeat.

it is possible to believe anything.

But I'll stick with the commonly understood meanings of the words 'win' (what every wartime President who has run for reelection has done), 'lose'(what no wartime President who has run for reelection has done), 'zero'(the number of wartime President who've lost their reelection bids), et cetera.



By the way, the horse in your hypothetical the horse actually did lose according the commonly accepted definition. But horses who never entered the race, or withdrew before it started, did not.

or he wouldn't have been on the ballot in New Hampshire. To get on the ballot, even as an incumbent President, you have to fly up to New Hampshire with paperwork and a fee. They won't put you on the ballot without it. So he did start the race and quit, which even you admit is losing. Hence Johnson lost.

Which was the election that he lost in his reelectin bid, again?

and he had to have filed in early primaries as well before Februrary. Thus he ran in, and lost, the primaries. Quitting after one starts a race is still losing.

Did it even happen? If so, it had to happen on a date. What was the date of Johnson's loss?

Thus he ran in, and lost, the primaries. You've indicated that he won the New Hampshire primary. Which was the primary that he lost?

This is one the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen on DU.

Anyone reading it knows you're right.

and according to the PMs I'm getting I'm not the only one.

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/reference/timeline.html

The NH Primary then was on March 12th. Bobby Kennedy announced he was running on March 16th and LBJ announced his decision not to run again on March 31st. There is virtually no way he wasn't on the ballot somewhere in early April of that year and thus he would have lost which ever races were held then. Even in this day and age it takes several weeks to remove a name from a ballot.

it's like the gift that keeps on giving.

Hmm, so I'm saying no wartime President has ever been defeated for reelection. You say no, you have to count LBJ and Truman as being defeated.

So, since you are saying that LBJ was defeated in his reelection bid as a wartime President, I was wondering if you could tell us who defeated him? Same for Truman... who defeated him in the 1952 election?

Both Truman and LBJ dropped out during wartime because they were unpopular. Hence the "you can't beat a wartime President" schtick is patently full of shit. To argue otherwise is to engage in semantical sophistry.

No one has claimed "you can't beat a wartime President."

However, it's been proven that it has never been done.

even make it to the GE is the height of sophistry. It's like a school claiming a 100% graduation rate because all of it dropouts left before the last semester.

people like you will twist and spin every detail to generate a favorable outcome to their position.

The fact remains, as has been stated, that no war time president has ever been defeated. Period.

We're not discussing anything other than a primary election.

Unless, of course, you really want to veer further into a logical cesspool. Then I'm sure we can find instances where a wartime president has been defeated at a game of cards, charades, an argument with his wife, etc.

a school saying that a certain number of students dropped out.

just wondering. Considering that you say my claim that Truman did not run for reelection is not true, who is it that beat Truman in 1952?

directly against the "war presidents can't be beaten" MYTH. Of course, it's sophistically "true" to state that "no war president has ever been beaten in a general election." However, given the tiny statistical pool and fact that both LBJ and Truman dropped out because they knew they were dead in the water, it's certainly utterly FALSE to imply -- as Pitt's original article did -- that an ongoing war somehow gives a sitting President some sort of inherently unbeatable advantage against his opposition.

In fact, it's the height of sophistry. If you can't admit as much you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

Perhaps you've accidently replied to the wrong post, or something.

Of course, no war president has ever been beaten in the general election. Does that fact imply "war presidents can't be beaten" ? Of course not. Similarly, I've never died -- does that imply "I can't die"? I've never gone to Africa. Does that mean "I can't go to Africa?" lol What a foolish leap of illogic!!

could you repeat that please? - surely you aren't claiming there was a loser, but no winner? lol

In fact, it's the height of sophistry. If you can't admit as much you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I see, in other words, anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid, or a liar... ok. :eyes:

Of course no one ever implied "that an ongoing war somehow gives a sitting President some sort of inherently unbeatable advantage against his opposition." LOL

Does a knowledgeable soul out there somewhere want to help me out?

Is it a negative version of "Argumentum ad populum" as in "Everyone knows (blank)"

Aside from that, I'd say that if Truman and LBJ dropped out, then they beat themselves, rather than being beaten by an opponent.

And I don't remember an almost cult-like following for either of them. That's what Bush has among several Freeper-types.

He ran in 1916 with the slogan "He kept us out of war", only to enter the war outright in 1917. He was clearly a "wartime" President and he won reelection.

No there haven't. The only Presidental elections which took place during an on going war were 1864, 1944, 1952, 1968, and 1972. Those are the five I am referring to. I will look up 1812 as I might be wrong there. But the rest I am correct on. Editted to correct date.

I can go along with that. :thumbsup:

You claimed I had left out multiple Presidents. Incidently I still haven't seen a start date for the war of 1812 so I still might be right, though likely I am not.

Leaving out that factor, what you said was more accurate.

so sue me. I honestly forgot that Madison ran in 1812, I thought he had already served two terms and was in his last year. Barring that one mistake, which I admitted myself after doing all the research to confirm it was actually a mistake (ie you provided no link whatsoever to substanctiate your claim that we had more than the five war time Presidents eligable for reelection that I said), I was wholly accurate.

Both Truman and Johnson were not reelected despite being eligable and in Johnson's case willing, to be reelected. That is defeat. Johnson outright lost. You run in a primary and then quit that is called losing.

yeah

You have repeatedly claimed that there were multiple Presidents that I left out. If that is the case then sight one of these Presidents.

You have repeatedly claimed that there were multiple Presidents that I left out

That isn't true. I did say: First of all there have been more than five Presidents to run for releection during wartime.

which as it turns out, you have grudgingly admitted was true.

But your assertion: You have repeatedly claimed that there were multiple Presidents that I left out is another false one.

I am counting both Johnson and Truman in my five. If you take them out there were actually only four. Which makes your statement, what would I call it, oh yea false. By your standard, there are only four (Madison, Lincoln, FDR, and Nixon). The only way your statement, that there were more than five Presidents who ran for reelection during wartime to be true, is if I left out more than one President. Hence it was an accusation that I left out multiple Presidents. 3 + 1 = 4, not 6 which is the first number greater than 5. So for your statement to be true I had to leave out a minimum of three. Three is multiple. Hence your statement is false. Which you evidently also did on purpose. So you purposely put a false statement out on DU.

my original comment: there have been more than five Presidents to run for releection during wartime

was just a guess, and it was wrong. There only have been five, Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, Nixon, and Bush, and they all won reelection. The War of 1812 began after James Madison started his second term, and he chose not to run again in 1816.
Source: How many wartime presidents were reelected to a consecutive term?

which was before the election of 1812 so they are wrong on that. I found that out in my search to verify your post, which wasn't presented as a guess. I would dispute the Phillipine American thing to be honest and frankly you may not want to count it since counting it would lead to counting lots of other 'wars' which would surely lead to some losers.

for pointing that out. Madison, Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, Nixon, and Bush makes six. All winners.

Bush didn't win re-election.
He was never elected in the first place.
He stole it.

He stole it in 2000.
In Florida.
And he was selected.
Not elected.
By SCOTUS.
There's a difference.

So you're wrong.
Stop patting yourself on the back.

That's OK.
We learn from our mistakes.

Don't we?

Not the infotainment that we see from CNN and the propaganda that we see from faux news.

Journalism isn't even CLOSE to being as fair as they were just back in 92.

The fascists have pretty much got it all under control now, and they would do ANYTHING to keep their guy Bush in power.

First of all, you're both right. Johnson and Truman dropped out b/c of unpopularity. The other "wartime" presidents won reelection in the G.E.

What I would say in Kerry's defense was that both Johnson and Truman were forced to reckon with catastrophic views on their respective wars. If the Iraq War were nearly as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea in 1952, there's no way Bush would have won. As it is, the public was uneasy about Iraq but didn't see it as a disaster (which it is). That makes a big difference.

Kerry was the best candidate. The biggest mistake of the campaign was listening to Carville and company on choosing John Edwards for Vice President. Carville and Begala kept saying John Edwards was giving the best stump speech, but evidently even though it was a terrific speech, and John Edwards is a terrific human being, it was not the speech the people wanted to hear.

They needed to hear that Bush was a terrible war time President, we were more in danger because of his policies, and in my mind Kerry/Clark could have blown Bush/Cheney out of the water. Chris Heinz has said that it should have been Kerry/ Clark.

At the end of the day, I guess It was Kerry who made the decision so for that I do fault him.

I love John and Elizabeth Edwards. They are exceptional people, but I don't think John Edwards was who was needed to beat Bush/Cheney in 2004.

Carville wasn't a player, that I know of, in Kerry's campaign before September. He was saying this on TV, yes, but what's the evidence that Carville had any influence over Kerry on his VP choice in July?

Just something I remain curious about.

Kerry's choice. Carville and Begala were pushing for Edwards. I guess you would have to ask Kerry if one person had more influence than another.

Someone who wanted Edwards had more influence than others who wanted somebody else. I've just seen this idea that it was Carville (or Begala) and not seen where that's been verified.

So I always ask in case someone has the answer :hi:

Edwards was a great campaigner and a charismatic speaker. Too bad that the media ignored him for weeks on end.

In the end I personally think that it was Kerry's listening to Shrum and Cahill instead of Carville and Begala that got him in trouble. Not to say that Carville and Begala are the only ones who know how to win elections, but as far as inside the beltway goes, I think that they are the best that there is.

But I think that because of the way Bush was using 9/11 to scare the people, whoever was having the most influence over Kerry should have known that we needed Clark. I fault Kerry as much as anyone else I guess. Maybe no other VP choicee would have made a difference but I will go to my grave believing that Clark would have because of the times.

We got on board with Kerry because we all wanted to beat Bush. Let's face it. That was the main objective and Kerry seemed like he was the candidate to do that. I did not like him at first but grew to like him and looked to him as our leader. I really was disappointed at the way he backed out at the end, it could of been handled differently.

Do you think he should have stomped his feat and cried "Mine, Mine, Mine" with a 3 million vote margin?

We were all disappointed.

Imagine how those of us who volunteered for nearly 18 months or a year felt?

Imagine how those of us who did indeed "love" Kerry felt.

Kos's post was a slap in the face to thousands who put their lives on hold to volunteer and work for Kerry.

US Counts Votes has clearly demonstrated popular vote total padding in a number of red states.

But it has not been proven and on 11/3 that's what the margin was. So again I ask should Kerry have stomped his feet and screamed, "Mine, Mine, Mine"?

Kerry wasn't the guy to do it, and nothing could have been done by January 2005, but dammit!! Do we refuse to investigate murders on the grounds that finding and punishing the perps won't bring the person back?

fatal flaws. The lack of response to the swiftboat liars was deadly, and allowed the corporate media and the repukes to turn middle of the roaders against Kerry. I wrote this at the time on DU. I knew in August of 2004 that it was fatal, so this is not revisionist history.

The positive things you mention about Kerry are valid. Kerry was by far superior to *, and in my opinion, superior to all the other Dems, except Clark. This is not coming from a non-Kerry supporter. I was a strong Kerry supporter, even in the primaries, and I love and respect the man. I still love him, and I still haven't recovered from his "loss."

Nevertheless, the fact that we love him, and know he is a brave, intelligent, gifted, and a patriotic statesman, is irrelevant. If he or his team coulsn't fight back and convince the red staters of that, it didn't matter.

Kerry was most definately NOT a terrible candidate - far from it.
Good points., Thanks

He was never able to articulate a coherent position on Iraq, having voted incorrectly both on authorization and the supplemental. He was less than compelling as an economic populist, and far too gentlemanly in taking on Bushco's record of incompetence and corruption. He ran barely neck-and-neck with a vulnerable incumbent and conceded way too early after the Ohio count. If he's the best the Democratic party can do in '08, we're screwed.

He did great in the debates, but fulfilled nearly every other prediction I made about how he would do in the general campaign.

Kerry won the nom fair and square by moving hard into Iowa.

There was the gate and the rest of us didn't get through it. :shrug:

However, it doesn't say anything about how another candidate might have run in the GE.

Not only did Peter Daou sacrifice as a volunteer and then staffer, but plenty of other volunteers made sacrifices as well.

I wrote for the Kerry blog (and moderated) as Volunteer from Aug 03 through the election, while running a small business and single parenting. I sure as hell didn't spend upwards of 40 hours a week writing for and moderating Kerry's blog because I didn't love him. It was pure love that drove me.

A google search STILL brings up the following:

Google Directory - Regional > North America > United States ...
... John Kerry for President Blog - http://blog.johnkerry.com/ ... Major contributors:
Dick Bell, Peter Daou and Pamela Leavey. ...
directory.google.com/.../Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/ Presidential/2004/Candidates/Kerry,_John/Weblogs/

Kerry's blog and forum were both moderated by entirely by Volunteers. The Kerry forum was a volunteer effort that many volunteers including myself had to push very hard for. The core group of Kerry's online activists were a well honed machine that stayed on message and worked with grassroots volunteers across the country.

Thanks for weighing in on this, Will!

Pamela Leavey aka kerrygoddess

I too was an early Kerry blogger and ended up being a moderator. Let me tell you all something, the people who worked on the blog were from all over the country, we were not based in Washington. We were asked to volunteer our time, and it was a complete honor for me as it was for the other Kerry moderators.

We came from afar, to work together and spread the message, because the media was so damn lame. We also were involved in the campaign in our local communities, and yes our volunteers were from the South, I for one am in Virginia, we also had Louisiana, N.M., Mich.,Calif. Minnesota, Arizona etc.

I made sure I went and saw Kerry whenever I could, I even traveled 200 miles to see him and Edwards in N.C. We had reports all the time of the rallies from the people who went, and I'll tell ya it was truly INSPIRATIONAL stuff, not only by Kerry supporters from the get go, but from others who had come from other candidates campaigns.

Volunteering for the campaign was the best thing I have ever done in my life, and I thank John Kerry for letting me be a part of it. I am now in for the long haul to help all Dems from my state to others WIN in 2006. The sooner we get started working together for elections this year (Gov. Virginia) and next year the better. That is Kerry's message NOW, lets WIN in 2006.

Thanks, Will, I remember reading about that meeting, and it was YOU who put it right. You know John Kerry mentioned in his appearance at the JFK center, that if we still had the Fairness Doctrine, things would have been plenty different during the last 2 campaigns.

aka/CarolforKerry :patriot:

Hi CarolforKerry!

While the media hyped the "other" bloggers and grassroots stories, they never bothered with the ones about the Kerry bloggers and grassroots volunteers. I got interviewed by the Boston Globe in Aug 03, and they never ran my interview in the story I was interviewed for. They left out all things Kerry in that story about in their piece on internet activists.

I flew from CA to NH for the Primary on my dime to write about the NH Primary for the Kerry Blog.

Like you, volunteering for the Kerry campaign was the best thing I have ever done in my life. I met wonderful people all over the country who loved John Kerry and put their all into his campaign because of the passion he had and the passion he evoked in them.

I'll never forget the passion with which the Clark supporters came on board when Clark endorsed Kerry and I was proud as hell to see so many people come together for change. People inspired for all sorts of reasons, many of whom after a short time said, "I never paid much attention to what Kerry said, but now that I'm here, WOW!"

The day after!

Thank you Will, well said. I appreciate your common sense.

The thing about lack of passionate support really rubbed me the wrong way. If Kerry never had any passionate support why do some people still want him to run again or just to have him around as a voice for Democratic politics? It seems instead that Kos' aim is to undercut support for Kerry by pretending he never had any to begin with. Revisionist history is definitely the right term.

People make all these comments about the campaign. In this thread, one says Kerry had all our support. Several others pick the campaign apart. The same thing happened all last year. Look at Terri Schiavo. The country rose up against that insanity. If just Democrats had risen up in the same way against the Swift Boats, that mess would have been knocked down so fast Karl Rove would have weed his pants. Instead, we attacked our candidate. Republicans don't do that. There's something strange and self-defeatist about Democrats, something masochistic almost. We're always going to have smear campaigns, always. Candidates cannot go through 6 months without ever uttering a mistaken word. Either we learn to defend them, no matter what, or we continue down the path of defeat.

This is why the Dems will continue to lose elections. I agree 100%. :)

I wish wish wish we would learn this lesson.

I happen to be one of those people who doesn't particularly like Kerry. We all supported him when he was the candidate, but he isn't the candidate any more. To say he ran a perfect campaign ignores the fact that today Bush is President and Kerry is the Senator from Mass. If you guys don't want to hear criticisms of Kerry then stop electioneering for him. Why don't you guys concentrate your energy on 2006?

We've been busy drawing attention to legislation, bad confirmations, and Bush's horrific agenda. I can't help it that Kerry is doing alot of the heavy lifting on it. If he wasn't, I'd have to write about somebody else, wouldn't I?

I dont' give a rats ass if you didn't like John Kerry. I don't have all that favorable opinion of several Democrats. You don't see me writing hit pieces on Ike Skelton or Joe Lieberman either. Waste of my time. Why does everybody else have so much time to beat the hell out of John Kerry? If they're paying attention to 2006 and all.

:eyes:

How perfectly hyprocritical.

You make some very good points and offer the most rational and accurate take on John Kerry and the election. Others have no interest in listening to us Kerry supporters, perhaps, you will be able to reach some of these "others", with your common sense.

John Kerry is an intelligent man of character and integrity who would have made a fine president--perhaps a great one. I, too, wish that he had met the "I voted for it before I voted against it" head on. Why his campaign did not, I cannot understand. The Rethugs hammered on this poorly worded JK response, and it worked.

The Swift Boat Smear continued unabated up until election day because their despicable ads continued to run--despite their being debunked. Our lazy, corrupted media, as has been the case since 9/11, did not do their jobs to speak truth to power-- and expose the Bush/Rove "anything to win" campaign run by their faithful surrogates.

the election can be summed up in: Too little truth, too much fear. (Oh and: Diebold.)

Or as the saying goes: ""Better the lies that exalt us than 1,000 truths". I just continue to hope that someday more Americans will learn to value truth over spin.

The real problem was the repub smear machine was better. Simple as that.

You wanna win, devote some money and time to digging up dirt and exposing it without it being tied to your candidate. ie swiftboat liars.

I worked for months on the Kerry campaign depending on logic to win the day. An former Superintendent of mine uses to sign his correspondence with a slogan about "feelings are facts". We teachers who deal on fact based thinking used to make fun of him. Now I can see where he was right. Feelings beat us in Ohio. I was out promoting facts, but not dealing with the feelings that the in the end brought out the republican voters. I should have taken a different approach and am still kicking myself for having my head in the sand. Logic does not win, sound bites do. We have to be better communicators on the lowest level.

I can bitch all I want about what other people should have done better, but when you come down to it, the lessons I need to learn are what I should have done better.

And I don't think Kerry lost the election.

Never Give Up. :patriot:

He was a terrific candidate. Kerry and the Dems threw Bush out on his ass, four years after Gore and the Dems threw Bush out on his ass. Kerry won.

President Kerry. Folks still keep forgetting the part about the stolen elections.

He never hired a campaign professional to run his campaign and preferred another inexperienced movement person after the first inexperienced manager failed. Most of the few people with actual political campaign experience working for Kucinch left or were pushed out by November of '03.

But, there is something to be said for the difference between a campaign staff who is working for you because they believe in you, and a campaign staff who is working for you because they think you are the most likely to win and therefore advance their personal career in Washington. That was a real problem with the Kerry Headquarters staff.

Kerry won the primaries because he had a good bio and convinced people he was the most electable. Obviously, we as a party need to re-evaluate what qualities we consider to be electable.

Most of us moved straight from antiwar vigils into his campaign. Until I got involved in the Kucinich campaign, I had not been involved in electoral politics since 1968 (I was in grad school in 1972, and thus didn't do anything for McGovern) other than voting and occasionally throwing a few bucks at representatives who supported the issues I was working on.

I don't know that this was the preference of Kucinich, but it reflected who most of us were. Organization might have done an end run around his trivialization by the media, but we surely didn't get it done in time.

A note about 'flaky" New Age people--the fact that Joe and Jane Average perceive them as such is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that they aren't a well-organized political force. The Rapture Index crowd is every bit as far out of the mainstream, and ethically sociopathic as well, but they have been working on political organization since the mid 70s, with the results we now see.

I can't at the moment find Will's article that details the success under Clinton's watch of the dismantling of the very complex Millenium terrorist plot, but it contrasts pretty starkly with the incompetence that led to 9-11. I just can't understand why the Dems didn't make an issue of that.

that consists of sincere political campaign professionals and people from movement politics and non-profits working together can be a good thing. The problem with the Kucinich campaign is that after the early stages, people without political campaign experience were put in charge and got rid of or ignored those who did have the necessary experience.

If Dennis runs again I will hesitate to support him again if I get the sense that he's going to make the same mistakes about who he chooses to run his campaign. His campaign managers were not bad or incompetent people, but they simply did not have the kind of experience you need to run a statewide campaign, much less a presidential one. Undoubtedly the media was unfair to Dennis, but he also had some breaks he didn't take advantage of because of poor organization.

And no, I don't buy the conspiracy theories floated here by some Dean die-hards; I've asked for proof of this maybe a hundred times, and never have I gotten an answer.

Your getting "proof" has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Kerry campaign with a little help from its "friends" manipulated and engaged in dirty campaign tricks or not. I saw the firsthand reports of some of it coming in on the blog -- anguished, despairing posts; angry posts; shocked and numb posts.

You surely don't need "proof" that it was Kerry Folks & Friends who paid for and ran the Osama bin Laden ad; you surely don't need "proof" that Kucinich and Edwards had a backroom deal for the Iowa primaries, do you? These certainly demonstrate that all the rest which has been charged is NOT out of character.

And this smacks of a show ploy anyway: a demand for proof when you know damn good and well none is possible. In these sitautions, what the hell kind of "proof" satisfies? One of the dirty tricks is that the Kerry campaign stole Dean's No.1 supporters list. What can "prove" that? Somebody's firsthand say so? All that info is lonnnnnnnng gone, and you know it. Most of it wasn't written up in the press, so no links. Ridiculous.

If you can't support and defend your stinkin' candidate without smearing or denigrating another, you must not have much to work with.

And some people wonder why we keep having to refight the damn primaries! Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present EXHIBIT FUCKING A?

It was Dean who had PAID Bloggers all over the internet smearing Kerry! KOS and JEROME ARMSTRONG! HELLO!

Your EXHIBIT FUCKING A is full of fucking holes!

but you knew that.

You go ahead and believe whatever you want because others know the truth.

You think Dean people weren't in the Kerry offices stealing scripts and supporters' lists? You think Trippi didn't have push calling going on? You think pooling caucus support isn't done all the time? You think Dean is the first primary candidate to have an attack ad run on him?

Why we have to refight the damned primaries. Pot meet kettle.

I think Dean people were NOT stealing stuff from Kerry, and Trippi did NOT have push polling going on (another lie about a real poll that made the rounds here). And I don't CARE if "pooling caucus support" goes on all the time, it's wrong -- it manipulates the process and is therefore totally anti-democratic and most important of all, it takes the decision AWAY from The People.

Of course, that was the whole story of this primary (and perhaps all the ones in the past, for all I know -- this is the first one I saw so upclose and personal and I'm still gagging on the experience): that the whole thing was just a micro mirror image of the "illusion" of democracy going on at the macro level with our votingh machines. It really makes no difference if it's TPTB choose our candidate ior the machines choosing our President, it's all a lie, an ugly lie that buggers democracy.

As for attack ads, this one was the lowest of the low. We can't even complain about the ads run against Max Cleland anymore because we used the very same tactic ourselves -- or rather, the Kerry people did against other Dems. It was so bad the UNIONS regretted what their money bought and they denounced it.

And yet people here want to cluck their tongues about circular firing squads. Puh-leeze. And imagine, people actually expected Deaniacs to support Kerry wholeheartedly. Unbelievable.

And as for your "Wise up, it's called POLITICS," YOU can support this shit if you want to, I absolutely will not. You think that makes you smart, savvy, sophisticated, strong, a real politico, one of the gang or in crowd or something? (Really, there's got to be SOMEthing in it for you.) It makes you pitiable (and worse) in my book.

Anyone who supports that anti-democratic shit -- as you apparently do (and so does Will Pitt) -- is no better than the people we run against. NO BETTER AT ALL. If "our side" can't be honest, forthcoming, upstanding, principled and ethical, then I don't want anything to do with "our side" and "our side" doesn't deserve to win either.

That's precisely what drew people to Howard Dean (despite the lies about him to the contrary): a man of character and integrity and said what he believed and meant what he said, who honestly wanted to give political power BACK to The People, and who wasn't just another fucking dirty politican, like some here seem okay, nay EAGER! to support. No wonder Kerry's your man. Blech.

Let me get this straight. Kerry people tell you that we know, FOR A FACT, that Dean people were stealing from our offices. You don't care, it's NOT TRUE. End of story.

I guess I can understand. You have to believe that, or it would make the rest of your little self-righteous diatribe look pretty silly.

:eyes:

and the consequences have been HUGE because of it. When we call abuse of power and manipulation just good ole politics, we throw away good leaders because we essentially tell them they don't matter and worse, we are not going to do what is right and confront the problem. It creates anarchy over time, funny, kind of like what we have now.

Don't pull that politics excuse with your fellow Dems. It doesnt help ANY one of us to deny or excuse the things that happened. It only gives a green light for wrong doing to continue and to increase in size and magnitude.

Case in point, if you were running for an office, and endured the same unfair treatment by your own fellow DEMS, you'd just laugh off 2 years of your life and say Que sera sera???

NO WAY. After all the work you'd done and sweat you'd poured into a campaign, you wouldn't casually shrug the ole shoulders and call it politics. Atleast I sure as hell hope you wouldn't. Yes it has happened before, as as a result we have lost some of the best, most qualified, most competent leaders we've ever had. That is why we are enduring a crisis shortage of good leaders now.

The same stands for anyone else, IRREGARDLESS if its Dean or anyone else.

Its W-R-O-N-G. l

If you start making exceptions is the minute corrupt actions become okay. Then you condone ammoral activity.

The minute you make an excuse for it, is when you join the other side my friend.

It doesn't do any good to deny things that happened. Unless it involves your own candidate.

Sorry, there's no room for moral righteousness in the Dean campaign. Not a speck. And while I prefer people just toughen up and stop whining, I have to add that I do not know of any stealing of any voter lists, push pulling, or anything else along those lines done by the Kerry campaign. Nothing like that ever drifted back to me during the primaries at all.

happens doesn't revolve around just you or me.

It's about the truth. We are now learning how important it is to uphold the truth and how globally destructive it is when we deny the truth.

It goes for any situation and any person.

went up in a poof of smoke, didn't it?

Nice spin on the Osama ad, none of those donors gave to Dean, right?

This is just so laughable.

...to do.

To be a sore loser is one thing. That's usually from youthful disgression.

But to trash Kerry or those that supported him with the usual tinfoil hat crybaby antics that I've seen as mere unproveable, sophmoric accusations is not only a pitiful way to live one's life, but also very dishonest.

Either come up with REAL proof or see a damn shrink.

Don't you realize that you sound as hypocritical as Republicans?

Kerry let himself be attacked. He dicked around when he should have been hammering Bush 24/7. He squandered our four year opportunity to educate the electorate at at time when Repuke depravity cried out to be attacked head on.

So now we have another loser candidate ALONG WITH a still almost completely uneducated and complacent electorate. Thanks, Kerry & Company!

Interacting with voters.

I'm sure glad YOU know how to win an election. :eyes:

Hit hard. Hit often:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/2004/10/lillian_sing_expo.pdf

Since you are so flawless.

No Skull and Bones, though.

I immediately discredit anyone who seriously brings up Skull and Bones, unfortunately for you.

There is certainly no definitive answer for how many votes were stolen in the last election. If you've done your homework, there are plenty of votes missing in Ohio, Florida and other parts of the country.

As for Kerry "not answering" to the SBVFT lies, he certainly did. There could have been a better approach, but the Kerry campaign had to sit out much of August until after the GOP convention due to only having a fixed amount of money to spend on the campaign.

Had they done the Dean approach and spent $40 Million in Iowa, they would have been BROKE by September.

Now, that would have been fun...huh.

The strategy of "hit early, hit often" also has to be approached with the harsh reality that every TV ad is a LOT of money and if the campaign has fixed amounts of funds, it has to be done strategically.

Kerry could have fired back more often in August...but based on how the MSM kept the Swift Boat story alive all through the election cycle even beyond the time the lies were debunked, it would not have mattered if Kerry had struck hard in August and risk being completely open for attack after the campaign had NO money to defend itself.

Dean got hit hard with his unfortunate scream by the MSM...Kerry got hit hard by the right-leaning MSM willing to cover for Bush and allow lies to go unanswered.

Add that the election had MANY instances of BBV and other problems and you have the formula for the 2008 election to have to same unfortunate result, no matter how great any Democratic candidate may be.

Dean & Kerry, but not when it comes to Bush & Kerry. And that's the height of hypocrisy. For example, the NH primary results were just as fishy -- hand counts (typically in the more rural areas) were highly skewed to Dean -- as the NH general election results -- the same typically rural hand counts were highly skewed to Kerry, a skewing that was not seen in the 2000 general election (at least not anywhere near the same degree).

And in Iowa, Vilsack's machine actively attempted to group any caucus undecideds with Kerry while Kucinich cut a "deal" to group his supporters with Edwards.

So is the "proof in the voting results" or not? And if so, would you also agree that any Dem that kept fighting after the 2000 election was simply a "sore loserman" who needed to "get over it"?

I can make shit up too! It's so easy!

Your tinfoil hat accusations of Dean being ripped off of votes in Iowa and New Hampshire are baseless, unproven lies. It's sad to see such sour grapes turn into even worse bullshit like making up these LIES.

I was in Iowa and observed how the caucuses were done. This claptrap about Vilsack's "machine" is utter nonsense. And what Kucinich did with Edwards didn't matter much either. The numbers for Dennis were small. Maybe Dennis was pissed at Dean for saying he was the only anti-war candidate in commercials in Iowa...

Face facts, Dean lost badly in Iowa and it was nearly over in New Hampshire. You might want to look at how Trippi blew through $40 million in Iowa WHILE he wasn't even returning Dean's phone calls. Maybe Kerry kept draining his cell phone batteries so he couldn't use the phone. Perhaps Edwards did some Southern voodoo on the Dean campaign.

Otherwise, these lies have been on the net, yet no one has come forward with ANYTHING to prove that such garbage happened. I've seen it all, from people accusing Iowans of not being able to have their votes count in caucuses (which is BS if you've ever participated in a caucus) to Kerry outsourcing New Delhi Indians to get campaign work done.

What pitiful, delusional desperation... see a shrink.

Bush supporters have the EXACT same response to Kerry and Gore supporters' accusations of fraud and/or dirty tricks.

So which is it, zz? Do reported voting results in the absence of "proof" always tell the whole story? If so, was anyone who fought for Gore or Kerry after the fist Tuesday in November a "sore loserman" or not?

(BTW, my brother -- a veggie Kucinich supporter -- was in Iowa and saw undecideds being herded together with Kerry supporters with his own eyes.)

Just like Repukes, Kerry supporters always seem to want it both ways. The only electioneering shenanigans that exist are those mounted against their favored candidates. Any other claims are "desperate" in the absense of some arbitrarily demanded standard of proof. And the corporate media only conspires against your guy -- never his competition. Kerry's general election loss to Bush makes him a noble hero, while Dean's Iowa/NH losses to Kerry make him a bumbling fool.

Damn, where can I get some of that elitist sense of entitlement? Must be nice.

You should get a job at Fox News. You make up shit. Firmly believe it. Keep repeating it even when you haven't an inkling of ANY PROOF of what you made up. Just keep repeating lies....repeat....repeat....repeat..... Good monkey!

Fox News needs people to make up shit and then keep repeating the lies, even when they have no proof, have been debunked or are viewed as tinfoil hatters with a problem with the truth. You better have good hair and not be fat.

Apply!

FOX News Careers
careers@foxnews.com

As I said before, Bush supporters have the EXACT same response to Kerry and Gore supporters' accusations of fraud and/or dirty tricks.

So which is it, zz? Do reported voting results in the absence of "proof" always tell the whole story? If so, was anyone who fought for Gore or Kerry after the first Tuesday in November a "sore loserman" or not?

OK. This is good. Stereotypically good.

Was your brother an observer in the caucus? If he saw "saw undecideds being herded together with Kerry supporters", was he:
(A) Doing Bad acid
(B) Smoking Shitty Nebraska Kind
(C) Just an idiot
(D) All the above

If he was an observer in the caucus, he had every right to make ANY statements about what was happening in the caucus AT ANY TIME. He could have brought up the issue with the "herds of undecideds" and make ANY point ABOUT ANYTHING, including his candidate he preferred or perhaps that he was witnessing some sort of alien subduction mind meld where the ever powerful Kerry supporters were "herding" the undecideds into their corner.

If your brother dropped the ball, he's a dumbass.

AND if your brother is like you and makes shit up out of nothing, I'm beginning to see a pattern.

You know, being an Oregon Country Fair idealist and all that.

Please, make everyone hate my brother for being the head of an organically grown co-op in Eugene, OR. I'm sure it helps our cause immeasurably.

to be "stolen", they weren't really supporters, now were they? Even if a list is "stolen" or "misappropriated" in some way , no one can persuade true supporters of a candidate to switch allegiance if they really feel that candidate can win. In Iowa alone Dean had 12,000 kids campaigning and didn't even carry the college votes. The kids and the academics in the University centers voted for Kerry! And THAT is a fact. Dean was a media darling but he didn't have depth to his support. It was proven superficial. No one "cheated" him out of anything. And Dean was by no means any more pristine a candidate than Kerry or Edwards or anyone else. If people were playing dirty, he did as well. I am sick of Howard being portrayed as a saint. He is a fine man but he is no better than anyone else,. He is a politician and one who had more money than anyone else.He spent it foolishly, by his own admission, and lost. End of story.

And I supported him as best I could, and I voted for him, and I was feeling pretty good that day; I didn't think there was a chance in hell he could lose, even given the fiendish nature of the opposition...
But look at the results.
I don't know why he froze up and didn't do anything to defend himself on the Swift Boat debacle, or why he didn't nail Butch on his phony war, or even why he didn't start the third debate by saying, "My fellow Americans, I can't believe I have to debate a retard here again; two times was sad enough, but this is really becoming a debased and pointless little exercise in condescension for me... sure wish I coulda stayed at home and phoned my answers in, since I've already answered these same questions about a dozen times each, both last time and the time before... besides, this idiot doesn't even know what we're talking about... Hey, what's that THING in your ear, George? What is that, a MICROPHONE???"
I don't know EXACTLY how they stopped him (and I am ever-mindful that they could be holding guns to peoples' kids' heads out there at key moments, I would NEVER put such tactics past the guys who brought us WWIII)...
I don't know how it coulda happened...



But they DID stop him. They stopped him dead, even AFTER he'd won.
So lacking all that deeper intimate knowledge of how and why and whatthefuck???, at this point, this is all I CAN know for sure:

I will NEVER again vote for ANYONE who has EVER been a member of Skull & Bones, or ANY OTHER dark scary secret society peopled by the children of millionaires and billionaires long-tenured in seats of preposterous power and privilege.
NEVER. NO. NADDA.
Guess I'll just go back to voting for George Carlin as a write-in...

On my knees right now, praying we don't get fooled again...
D

"rush" going, I had to admit Bush did better than I thought he did. I scored it like a debate (I have training as a debate judge), and I'll be danged if it didn't come out about even.

Bush had one trump card that he pulled out whenever Kerry hammered him--"he (Kerry) saw the same intelligence I (Bush) did, and he voted to go to war." Kerry had no defense against that because it was basically true.

Kerry had a chance to stand up on that day in the Senate when the whole country was mad with blood lust and say, "I stand for truth, and I say, 'no war.'"

But instead he voted with Hillary and practically all the other Democrats to say to the American people that "when it really matters like going to war, we trust President Liar."

That's why the 'flip-flop' image stuck.

I will say in his defense that it wasn't just Kerry but virtually the entire Democratic party who caved on going to war.

Reap it and sow it, heigh ho.

wouldn't get points taken off? I find it very hard to believe that all that gestering wouldn't lower Bush's score.

Right there in a nutshell. The obvious answer is that Bush said, HIMSELF, that it wasn't a vote for war. But Kerry couldn't use the obvious answer because the anti-war faction decided to skewer the Dem Party with that vote. We had an opportunity in the summer of 2003 to make the case that Bush lied to Congress. Do I have to spell out who fucked that up?

Or who fucked up our ability to use the Dept of Homeland Security?

Or who fucked up our ability to point to the beneficial aspects of the Patriot Act, some of which Kerry wrote?

It isn't Kerry's fault we lost on security.

lost the election for Kerry? Since I actually campaigned for Kerry, I won't dignify that with a response.

Maybe someone can riddle me this--why was it that thousands of posters here at DU knew that BushCo was lying about going to war (WMD's, etc. etc.) but Kerry and the Senate Democrats didn't?

I knew Bush was lying because he had done nothing BUT lie since the election--

look at how he robbed Florida of a recount, how the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" sends people like Priscilla Owen up for federal judgeship, how he reneged on CO2 emissions, how he politicised religion with "faith based" taxpayer handouts and on and on.

Not having it again. But you prove my point. BUSH said that the vote wasn't a vote for war and war was avoidable. Why'd you let him get away with saying it WAS a vote for war all last year?? What was more important, pissing on John Kerry, or holding Bush accountable for HIS lies?

And yes, I'm saying the left wing of the party did alot of things that made it very hard to run a campaign that would have battered the Republicans on security and knocked them back damned hard.

Green Party, here I fucking come.

:puke:

...but especially in the first one. Pigman Limbaugh was on the radio October 1, the day after the first debate, saying something like "it was not a good night for never-elected."

about his dismal performance as a candidate.

Hillary will not repeat the mistakes that Kerry made. Hillary will be consistent, consistently wrong on some issues, but nevertheless consistent.

Hillary also has something that Kerry is not. Hillary is a winner and she will beat whoever the GOP runs against her.

I am not a great Hillary fan. I think she panders too much to the wrong people in New York, and she tends to triangulate the issues like Bill Clinton did. But Hillary has other strong points that I can live with. You won't hear Hillary talking about a fictitious 1968 Christmas in Cambodia. There will be no campaign ribbons controversy with Hillary, and no "what were you doing during the war" machismo tug-of-war.

My heart is with Dennis Kucinich, my mind is with Russ Feingold, but if Hillary wins the nomination in 2008, as we all know she will, I will support her 100-percent.

America is due for a woman President, and a Democrat at that!

I'm not! Hillary comes with her own set of baggage, possibly more damaging then the Swift Boaters. I'm not so enthusiastic about another Clinton Presidency.I don't think the repubs are either. Can't our country elect anyone else other than Bush's and Clinton's? I'm hoping for a President Kerry.

but America is not enlightened enough to elect a woman president. Hillary would be a very risky choice and the Repugs would LOVE to see her win the nomination.

I'm not gonna revisit the primaries and all that, but at least 50% of ppl who voted for Kerry were voting against bush. The campaign was less than stellar and the convention was pure ego massaging. I'm sure Kos will address this and stand for himself.

I think if Kerry were to do it all over again, he would replace the campaign managers and advisers he had after the first week if they acted like the last bunch. The decision making and image control were simply pathetic. All during the campaign, everyone who I talked to was totally frustrated with the lack of responses to key allegations and wondering when the hell we'd hit them back. The hits never came. By never responding, it made too many fools start wondering if what the swift boat lying fucks were saying was true.

The guy lost to the worst "president" in US history. Bush deserved to be skewered mercilessly, but Kerry refused to attack Bush instead leaving it to groups like MoveOn to attack him. Leaving the attacks to MoveOn and other 527 ensured that the attacks on Bush received a lower profile in the news cycle. His Dukakis-like response to the Swift Boat lies crippled the campaign for crucial weeks forcing Kerry to use the debates to keep the campaign competitive instead of putting Bush away. Also in the final days of the campaign he forgot to apply the lessons learned in the Iowa primaries: last-minute swing voters tend to decide on general character issues. In the last days of the Iowa campaign, Kerry explicitly trumped his Vietnam heroism both in TV ads and on the stump. He didn't do that in the final days of the general election and that probably cost him among crucial swing voters.

but it was also the nastiest smear campaign in history. Unfortunately , smear works.

If 1988 and 1992 taught us anything it is that a successful candidate has to fight fire with fire as well as stay on the offensive. Kerry did neither.

..with the voting machines and the vote-counting machines and the central tabulators and the crooked republican party election officials. With a fair election, we would probably be complaining because Kerry hadn't brought the troops home yet.

Party.

Will, one of the major reasons that Dean, didn't get out of the gate was due to the Dem Establishment ganging up on Dean leading into the Iowa Caucuses. Kerry himself would never have survived the gang tackle that Dean endured.

Kos is right and dead-on in his assessment of Kerry.

I voted for Kerry as an ABB voter, and I proudly refused to donate time and money to that elitest loser.

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

including Gore and the whole State Dem Party of NJ up to the Governor and DLC
House Rep. Rush Holt.

All of the pre-Iowa endorsements worked against his insurgent campaign. Nobody likes to be told they have to vote for an insurgent front runner before they've even started to look at the choices for themselves.

And, to be honest, relying on endorsement politics to transition Dean from an insurgent to an establishment candidate was the single most damaging decision Dean and his strategists made.

hadn't had his own personal fortune, he would have had to drop out from lack of funding.

The didn't name him John FORBES Kerry for nothing.

Americans got a choice between the scion of one of the richest families in the country (George W. Bush--great grandfather, steel baron; grandfather, Senator; father, Senator, Ambassador to China, CIA chief, and President) and one of the richest men in the country also from a wealthy background married to an heiress (John F. Kerry).

Both went to Yale, both were bonesmen.

America--a place where any filthy, stinking rich white man can grow up to be president.

I really think some people are victims of their surroundings. Just because you don't know anybody who prays for Bush and believes in their President, doesn't meant they don't exist. He is one of the greatest Presidents ever, to alot of people.

The Bush campaign left their dirtiest work to 527's, so did Kerry. Do you know that the exit polls said Kerry attacked unfairly more than Bush did?

What's the difference what Kerry said about the SBV's? Half our own Democrats wouldn't defend him anyway. That's where campaign slander really gets squelched, from the people.

Kerry had his final stretch mapped out, my cousin told me about 10 days out. The ads had been bought, the hits on Bush were prepared, they were ready to rock. Then, the Bin Laden tape came out. Wham. Sort of derailed the train.

Sorry to tell you, but if you want to consider both the candidate qualities & the presidential policies, Kerry is still the best we've got. But it doesn't matter who the candidate is, it still takes everybody being on the same page to win.

I don't think posters at DU defeated Kerry. I don't think Dean defeated Kerry.

In fact, I don't know a single democrat who would talk down Kerry to potential voters. I myself, as left-leaning and as anti-war as you can get in this paradise of capitalism we call America, went to meet ups and actively campaigned for the guy. I sent him money. I sent the DNC money.

I think Kerry listening to centerist advisors defeated Kerry. He was gaining ground when he called off shore business "Benedict Arnold" corporations. He was gaining ground when he talked minimum wage and health care. And then business interests got to him and you didn't hear much of that anymore.

He didn't stop talking about raising minimum wage and health care was a central theme of his campagn. See there, you're repeating left wing crap that was never true. How could you possibly campaign for somebody when you don't have a clue what his campaign was about?

Because none of the rest of us did.

Oh right, and that's MY FAULT because I didn't educate myself. It couldn't possibly be Kerry's fault that he never had a consistent message . . .

But I am done, flame away.

:eyes:

Maybe you were so preoccupied with how horrible Bush was that it never occurred to you voters might want to be sure they were going to get someone better. So you didn't think you had to know anything about Kerry's campaign. Hmmm?

Look, the fact of the matter is this. I watched all the debates more than once. I come to DU everyday. I watched Edwards debate Cheney. I read material on their website (yawn). I subscribe to a paper that I read everyday, and my homepage is The NY Times. I also subscribe to and read The Nation, The Atlantic, Harpers, and the Progressive Populist.

Now you tell me what Kerry hoped to achieve in his first term if elected. I don't mean, "he's a vet, he's an honorable man," etc. I mean what was at the top of his "to do" list when he got elected, and DON'T look at some old website either.

Hmmm . . . it's not that easy to come up with a list, is it?

And, dude, if I can't articulate Kerry's most important issues, how is hometown America supposed to know them?

That's the real reason why Kerry lost.

And you STILL don't know?? Put the fuckin' weed down.

First, which he said so goddamned many times I can't even count them, health care.

Second, go to the UN and turn over a new leaf, cooperation and respect. Bring the UN into the reconstruction and governance process in an honest and meaningful way, with authority. Expand the Iraqi training, any way possible. Internationalize the situation to end the American boot of occupation.

Third, 20/20. Energy Independence. Hello???

Fourth, enforce trade agreements we have. Change the ones that need changing to add human rights, labor rights and environmental protection. For the sake of people and the planet as well as to make a fairer playing field.

Fifth, education. Fund the frontend of NCLB instead of punishment. A new, permanent, School Trust so funding doesn't change every year. Offer low interest loans to fix crumbling schools. Invest in early childhood and preschool. Implement 2 years work for 4 years college as soon as the country can afford it.

Sixth, close the corporate loopholes. Implement the pork commission, identify pork, put the whole package on the senate floor to one vote, no amendments.

I mean come on, where the fuck have you been???

"you're such a fucking idiot" tone. I don't get enough of that from my wife, so I come here.

Those are very good positions you cite. But having a little time on my hands, I read through the transcript of the third debate (on domestic issues).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/04debate3.html
Here's what Mr. Kerry proposed as putative president:

1. Making ports safer.
2. Having a plan for health care. No details provided.
3. Roll back the tax cut for the rich to restore pay-as-you-go.
4. Instituting a manufacturing jobs credit.
5. Raise student loans.
6. Help out-of-work workers “transition”
7. Stop rewarding corporations in the tax code from going overseas.
8. Defend Roe v Wade.
9. Allow drugs from Canada.
10. Stop so many illegal immigrants.
11. Raise the minimum wage.
12. Re-authorize the assault weapons ban.
13. Work for more affirmative-action.
14. Respect everyone’s right to practice religion.
15. Practice open government.

In his closing statements, he got as close to saying something practical and specific as he ever got with these lines:

"We can lift our schools up. We can create jobs that pay more than the jobs we're losing overseas. We can have health care for all Americans."

Good start, but unfortunately he quickly lapsed back into the politician's generalities and bland imagery:

"We can further the cause of equality in our nation. I think the greatest possibilities of our country, our dreams and our hopes, are out there just waiting for us to grab onto them. And I ask you to embark on that journey with me."

******

So I remain unmoved. Kerry's problem was not that he didn't have good ideas. He had so many good ideas voters couldn't keep track of which ones were key priorities.

If I'd been doing it, it would have been like this--

We've got a five-step plan: Within one year of taking office, I will

1. End the war in Iraq, replacing it with an international coalition.

2. Balance the budget deficit by raising taxes on those making more than 200,000 a year and cutting taxes on those making less than 100,000 a year.

3. Institute a government funded health care plan so that every child in America is covered.

4. Raise the minimum wage to its historical average and mandate that companies with assets over half a million dollars provide a "living wage" and health benefits. That would include McDonalds and WalMart.

5. Provide tax credits for alternative, non-polluting energy such as super-insulated houses, hybrid cars, wind and solar power, solar hot water, energy efficient appliances, etc.

Then I would have repeated these five points until every kid in America could say them.

Anyway, gotta go toke up the weed, man . . .

He repeated what I said, over and over and over. If you didn't hear it, I can't help you. Since you referenced your wife, I would guess it's kind of an ongoing problem....

:)

I never understood why he bashed Kerry and I told him that. Its weird. Kos is a normally level headed guy with good smart ideas but this seemed so out of character. I have a funny feeling Kerry owes him money or maybe he hit on Kos's wife.

somehow I doubt that's the reason but it sure was good for a chuckle.

I've never been able to work up an enthusiasm for Kos, so I don't know how he raises money.

How DOES he raise money?

And could this be a shakedown?

But he's coughing up primary season half-truths and rhetoric.

I posted a mini-rant yesterday about how there are several things still floating around about Howard that are unfair if you were paying attention to the guy, as in him being anti-war or too liberal when he was really a centrist.

Well, there is similar stuff about Kerry floating around still. And Kos spouted just about all of it. It ALL needs to be put to bed. It's old. Real old.

I think Kos has a closed mind on this, and he needs to get over it. He seemed almost proud of his attitude.

A bad shuttle program is one that forgets.. just a few.. essential parts. If NASA had forgotten a few heat-shield tiles, or a couple of O-rings in its job, that would mean deaths: a bad shuttle program, a bad NASA.

And, yes, a bad candidate.

The importance of each of those failures you listed stand. The fast responce team left us time-constrained grass-marchers with copious paragraphs of undigestible prose unsuitable for water-cooler rebuttles. We were left hanging in the wind. One can name-drop praise the head engineer for sitting through tough meetings -- whoopie.

They blew up.

These mistakes killed more people than NASA ever has or ever will ever combined.

Pretty much says it.

I did think one thing else about Kos' comments. He refers to the "Kerry Brigade". If the guy is so unloved, what the Sam Hill is he doing with a brigade of supporters big enough Kos felt like addressing them?

what "conspiracy theories"?

also you left out one of his MAJOR transgressions, WALKING AWAY from the fight after PROMISING that he wouldn't.

and you ask...

"How does a terrible candidate win all three debates hands down?"

he was debating an IDIOT, hello...

gore kicked has a$$, too, but it doesn't matter when the fix was in now does it?

and what kinda of BULLSHIT MSG do you send when your major disagreement with the Iraq war was that you would fight it better :puke:

if we had a true POPULIST candidate who spoke for weTHEpeople he/she would win in a LANDSLIDE the elite just don't have the guts to go with anyone like that.

till that day comes we are stuck playing reTHUG lite, IMHO.

and don't give me the bullshit about the record doesn't bear that assertion out because PERCEPTION is EVERYTHING and what do you think Clinton ran and won on TWICE? a POPULIST MSG.

he had his chance and blew it to a MISERABLE FAILURE, time to MOVE ON.

peace

We either agree to fight our common foe,...or fuck you, you are on your own.

AFTER we defeat our common foe, THEN we can be ourselves and assert our individualism and interests and passions. UNTIL THEN, it's time to STFU and unite. Otherwise, we ALL LOSE!!!!

,....goddamnit,...I am so sick of the bickering and bullshit and stupid egos at a time when EVERYTHING is on the line. If everyone TRULY CARED about the future of humanity, of the environment, of our world,...they would stop being divisive and bitchy and stubborn,...and commit to ONE CAUSE: taking these corporacratic muthur fucku's DOWN!!!! Only then, will any of us have created the opportunity to make any of our passions a reality.

Enough. We either do this together or we fail ourselves, our people, our world!!!

Very well said. :applause: :applause: :applause:

but then again, I also think Kerry won. It's nice to see a little common sense and reason, but I know now that it's really no use anymore. Some people just don't like the guy, didn't like him to start with, and never got over it. Others think he should have fought a stolen election, even though he had no proof to fight it with. Others just wanted "their guy" to win.

I think we had a damn good candidate, and, as someone else said, a better right wing smear machine (and diebold). I was an ABB who became very impressed with Kerry, and I continue to be impressed with the guy. I don't get the attacks - not on here, not on Kos - I don't understand the purpose or the agenda, and I never will. He didn't run a perfect campaign, no, but he ran a good one. He should have kicked the shrub's ass, and I think he did, but we'll probably never know for sure.

I have had a number or reponses to these attacks on Kerry at LUTD. My latest post, with links to multiple other posts (both from Light Up The Darkness and other sites, including this thread) is at:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=896

Needless to say, whether or not I address Kos directly again, these issues related to defending Kerry will be discussed further in the future at LUTD and the Unofficial Kerry Blog.

Light Up The Darkness
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

Unofficial Kerry Blog
(the first blog supporting John Kerry before the primary battles even got going)
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/

The republicans have done nothing but lie and cheat for five years, and since November we have been asked to accept the election vote totals. Well, they obviously can't be trusted. They stole a second consecutive presidential election six months ago, they stole midterms in 2002, and we have Dems going after Kerry. Unbelievable. Anger with Kerry is entirely misdirected.

I've been saying what you just said to sometimes deaf ears...it's OK...

As I have been compiling video for a documentary about Kerry in 2004 through the lens of a grassroots campaigner in the midwest, it is nothing short of very evident that Kerry offered hope to so many people and was indeed a dynamic person with lots of personality and dedication to protecting America.

I saw him up close and his message is even stronger AND TRUER now.

I am even more passionate about him as a candidate than I was even during the last campaign, and I worked my tail off for him then.

I wouldn't count him out in 2008 either. Many still have his message resonating in their heads. His message was right dead on.

He can damn close to defeating the "Rove Machine". Closer than they wanted for sure. The exit polls did NOT lie.

I will be in his corner in '08. He's a good man and would do good and thoughtful things for our country.

Thanks for the post Will. :)

I believe that the Dem Party leaders pitched the wrong image. The weak point of Kerry was on the "War On Terror". Yeah, it's stupid to wage a war on a concept but people accepted that stupid notion. Poll after poll said that in all other aspect Kerry was a winner. That is the reason the Dem Party decided not to be anti-Iraq War and cast Kerry as the Vietnam hero. Rove loved that because his strategy is always attack an oppenent's strong point. Swift boat liars got on their boat and Kerry didn't fight them fast enough and when he finally did it was weak. That and Osama appearing sunk Kerry. For those that say he won I say, if so it was by a extremey low number.

Attacking Kerry now seems fruitless to me except that trying to figure out how to win future elections may be at the core of this history of his campaign. On a personal note, I feel that Kerry is a good person. My little views are not meant to attack him personally.

Dems need to focus on '06.

btw I am in the Green Party. If all "progressives that are real unhappy with the Dems Party would join the Greens would that make it more possible for a Green or two to get elected to Congress? Just wonderin'.

"How does a terrible candidate win all three debates hands down? How does a terrible candidate come within an ace of beating a 'wartime President,' something no other candidate has been able to do ever, with the entire media establishment turned out against him and a good portion of his own base chomping on him because they were bitter their own guy lost, with rampant fraud taking place in a number of swing states?"



BINGO.

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

If it was, then Dean should not have won the Vermont primary.

Also, Dean had already lost before the infamous "scream", if that is what you mean by the "replaying" of Dean.


Since when did Clinton have a "nice" wife? I thought the freeps hate her because she is not nice and wifely? :shrug:

PS-on further reflection, Iowa really has a caucus, not primary.

:toast:

Wonder what prompted that diatribe, anyway? Not only did it seem inappropriate, I disagreed with a lot of what kos wrote.

Oh well!! Who knows
:shrug:

The notion that Kerry screwed up is completely wrong. This is nothing more than a convenient rationalization for the "electability" crowd.

John Kerry gave 110% and ran exactly the campaign the majority of the Democratic Party asked him to run.

Everyone in the Democratic leadership had to know about the swifties. Nixon invented them, and they had shown themselves repeatedly during Kerry's entire career. Why else all the pomp and circumstance around Kerry's swift boat friends? Simply stated, it was a political pre-emptive strike that failed miserably.

Having the argument at all was the mistake. However, selection of this candidate made that argument inevitable. Once begun, the argument can never be won convincingly and the more energy you spend on it, the less time you have to focus on Bush.

A hallowed old story goes that LBJ won his first race by accusing his opponent of having intimate relations with barnyard animals. Bill Moyers, one of LBJ's advisors at the time reports having told LBJ, "you can't say this, you know it is not true", LBJ is reported to have replied "Yes, I know it is not true, but he is going to spend the next two weeks denying it." LBJ did it, came from behind and won the race.

The leadership knew the opposition research on Kerry. This could accurately be called "leading with your chin".

quaker bill and Peace to you,too!

:-)

or better yet that somehow we prove he won in the first place.

I noticed everyone ranting about Kerry the other night. I stayed quiet, not wishing to get involved. After logging-off, I kicked back-not an easy thing to do these days if you're "in the know," and felt bad. I felt bad because "I stayed quiet." Sort of what my rendition is as to why the Neocon Corporate Theocracy is mutilating our country and our people.

First I wish everyone nothing but "peace." Respectfully, I whole-heartedly agree with Will Pitt. Kerry won all 3 debates, hands-down. He's known as a loner but is that such a bad thing? He is a deep thinker. An independent leader. I could go on and on.

My point is this. If everyone would head for their nearest library and read about Bush, maybe you could understand how Bush "got in."

Kerry did not lose. The election was stolen. Quite frankly, Gore should be sitting in the Oval office for the second term, but that's life in Bushland.

Recommended Lite-Reading to Understand how Kerry did not lose, rather how the election was stolen, fixed and planned from 2000 to 2004:

"BUSHED!: An Illustrated History of What Passionate Conversatives Have Done to America and the World." By Walter C. Clemens, Jr. A Pulitzer Prize Winning EWditorial Cartoonist.

Get it. Then come back and say Kerry was in on anything, or he lost. Kerry was in the Skull & Bones, but as sure as Will Pitt knows, Kerry was an outside-loner even then. In no way do I believe for 1 moment Kerry & Bush are friends-rather the extreme opposite.

If I could vote again tomorrow it would be Kerry, hands-down.

Respectfully speaking to all my fellow DU'ers. :)

Peace

hands- down".
Me to!

"Hands-down," regardless.