Why did Kerry lose the election?

I am a Kucinich supporter.

I don't really see a whole lot of difference between the other candidates. I also don't see any of the other candidates being all that much different than Kerry.

Maybe Kerry could win this time because the people are so disgusted with Bush, but the GOP may somehow find a palatable candidate.

I think if Kucinich were somehow nominated, this election would be about the issues. I think if anyone else is nominated we will have another election on character.

Diebold.

Kerry and Gore didn't lose. It's documented.

Heres what I don't get- where are the torches and pitchforks? Where's the outrage?

We have hard evidence that election fraud was committed, and Bush sits in the WH whistling merrily while selecting his prostitute for the night.

Am I the only one seeing a problem here?

But vote stealing didn't originate with Dubya. It is in fact as old as America itself. And it's never caused a revolution before. It's just that with Bush it's so glaring because the election was so close that it definitely made a difference and Bush's presidency has been so abysmally bad. We'll always be left wondering, "what if?"

The one thing I do take heart in is the resurgence of traditional liberal values. Even in the 90's under Clinton liberal was pretty much a dirty word. Now, more and more people are identifying themselves as liberals all the time. That's where the hope lies. Convert the ones that can be converted (and there are many of them). Oppose, antagonize, resist, and stymie the ones who can't. That's the type of revolution we need.

I do get called a loon quite a bit less, lately. And our history certainly isn't pretty.

It just bugs me, because I can remember times when we threatened to invade nations because of "possible voting irregularity"

I think what we have qualifies. Yet we get a Yawn.

I don't get it.

That's what it's going to take, unfortunately.

Nothing short of armed revolution will cure this shithole country's ills.

do not even know about the theft as the media will not run the story. Our biggest enemy is the media. Until we win that battle we will not really win anything. Plus there is no glaring smoking gun piece of evidence. I know because I've read lots of books and articles on the theft but they are not in the mainstream and no paper of record will review the books.

Only a tiny portion of the electorate even suspect the elections were rigged. This is because the corporate media has hidden the truth. Why do some oppose the Fairness Doctrine? The Fairness Doctrine is our only hope.

John Kerry did not "really" lose. I know it as sure as I'm alive.

Probably Florida as well.

It was stolen, and god knows why he didn't contest it....

:shrug:

it was a very strong fix --

I think as we begin to understand the workings of this organized fascist movement controlling our elections, somewhere we have to expect that someone is going to have to open up about it and make what's happening known in some way. Hillary once spoke about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" --
She was right, of course.

Presumably, that was an inner-circle reference.

Should we expect that someone like Ted Kennedy should sacrifice his family, perhaps, to tell us the truth?

Some say yes -- because it is a nation at stake -- more important than one family.

I agree -- and I disagree.

not a good political strategist.

Why Kerry lost.

1.) Windsurfing during campaign season
2.) He said, "I voted for the $87B before I voted against it."
3.) Extremely delayed response to Swift Boat attacks
4.) Dem convention was before Repub convention.
5.) Dem convention was so focused on being positive that they consciously avoided chances to slam Bush.
6.) He dressed up in camo and went duck hunting right before the election.
7.) Photo op in that stupid space suit that looked like a condom
8.) He and his VP both voted for the war
9.) Both Kerry and Edwards said they would vote to invade Iraq again, even knowing then what they knew today (2004).
10.) Just like Gore, Kerry took the high road too much; didn't criticize Bush's Nat'l Guard desertion and other issues
11.) He didn't fight for the votes in Ohio

The rest are not his fault. I lay the blame squarely on the Bush ass-kissing media for those.

In December 2003, Bush polled 12 points above generic Democrat - and 20 points above Dean. Kerry was able by April to have pulled even or slightly above Bush - but those polls were registered voters.

Kerry's convention had to introduce Kerry to the country. He had only 3 hours of network time, unlike the 9 hours Gore had and the higher number in earlier years. The convention succeeded to some degree in doing this - but obviously not enough to make people feel they knew him well enough to completely reject the despicable SBVT.

Speaking of whom, a balanced media would never have given them the credibility of covering them as news. (It wasn't the ads, but the he said, she said nature of the coverage.) The SBVT had first surfaced in April and were swiftly debunked. Kerry then put about 140 pages of Naval records on his web site, including all but mediacal records. There were fitness reports that spanned the entire interval - all glowing in their praise, many signed by SBVT. After Vietnam, Kerry was assigned to an admiral in Brooklyn. From those records, his command in Vietnam requested a higher security clearance for him that was need for the Brooklyn job. If the thinks they claimed were true 35 years later were, what does this say of them?

In August, the SBVT came out with a book that had hundreds of conflicting accusations - you could call it a cluster bomb. The Kerry campaign immediately gave the media about 30 pages debunking accusations. As accusations were debunked, the SBVT switched to other accusations. Even though the SBVT had been caught in lie after lie after lie, they were given time on tv to speak. (Contrats this to the Rather case)

Kerry, himself, has said they likely should have responded with ads, it would have been a tough decision - he had to stretch his general election money over 13 weeks, while Bush had to stretch his over 8.

Kerry never said vote for "war" he always said vote for the authority. He spoke out against going to war before the war and clearly said often in Sept/Oct that it was the "wrong war" and that he would not have gone to war. (The exact question asked at the Grand Canyon is not known, but from Kerry's answer (the same one he gave to the question with the part about "if you know there were no WMD") it sounds like he didn't hear any conditional phrase.) At any rate, he clearly said he would not have gone to war many other times.)

was too cerebral for the sound bytes crowd - as Gore was and as Obama is heading.

Unless you have the floor to yourself for a whole hour, and a captive audience, you cannot afford to build the case for your point and to provide a dissertation of where you stand and why.

This is why Clinton is leading, why she is winning the debate. She has mastered the art of answering a question, of expressing an opinion in very short direct sentences.

Sadly, this is the political reality.

As for the convention, it just concentrated too much on the past.

Yes, he was a war hero in Vietnam - which opened the gate for the swifters. It was Bill Clinton in 1996 vs. Dole who concentrated on the future, not on the past. I think that mentioning Vietnam should have been the spring board for the future but the whole convention was about a war that, let's be honest - most Americans would rather not talk about.

Why not list the media, they played a major role in supporting Bush and misrepresenting Senator Kerry. Yes, there were some mistakes, every campaign makes mistakes, but much of what you list did not contribute to his loss. Actually, many people believe he won, I have come to that conclusion also.

Ossama released a video just prior to '04 election so to scare people to vote for the guy Bin Laden wanted win -- Bush.

exactly right

The problem was that the Dems went a month earlier when they should've gone a week earlier.

I don't know enough about the scheduling process to know what sort of options they had, or how much say the Kerry campaign had in the matter, but setting the date for the Democratic convention that far ahead of the Repug convention and of the general election itself certainly didn't seem like the wisest strategy.

Kerry was actually the choice of the majority. Robert Kennedy Jr.'s article in Rolling Stone shows it plainly.

Why didn't he get a theft-proof majority? Because of relentless lying on the Right. They kept scaring the people with colored alerts and other scare tactics. Fearful people can't think rathionally.

Also the media never really got behind Kerry, for whatever reasons. Coverage was pathetically slanted on the cable networks, and all but absent on the broadcast networks. If you wanted to see Kerry you had to catch him on C-span.

Then even some in his own party beat up on him, and right before the election, too. And those on the far left only reluctantly endorsed him--like The Nation magazine for example. Disunity among the Dems is never going to get us anywhere.

There is plenty of evidence to back up everything you said. It is indeed sad.

Whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2008 will face the same Machine...and had better get good and ready for it.

There is no "whatever reason".

The Failure Fuhrer's re-election meant the occupation continues until the Earth crashes into the sun. The occupation means continued profit for defense contractors and compliant media cheerleaders.

We can't have some moonbat dem stop all of this profit.

They did everything in their power to discredit Kerry, including giving a voice to the Swift Bastards for UnTruth.

Newspapers went tits up for the Failure Fuhrer as well; many of them are run by the corporatocracy (see Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins).

Must've worked, because somehow they conned Middle Dumberica into a close election, which they stole with the help of Repuke-supporting Diebold and Ken BootBlackwell, the GOP Grand Cyclops.

Anyone who voted for Bewsh twice needs a Buford T Justice kick DEAD in the ass. End of sentence.

It's about corporate and big money control of government for the most part. The elites against the rest of us. But I said "whatever reasons" to be able to include other random media/journalists who maybe had other reasons, such as wanting Hillary to run in '08 for example. I call all of them unpatriotic and immoral.

That's what these last two elections were all about. Bewsh's installation was the culmination of everything they've been striving for since the early 90s, and he made all of their needs come to fruition.

two, his campaign manager had lost all of his campaigns, as I recall?

I could support Kucinich if everyone decided that would be the way for Democratic liberals to go --

I don't think the party should entertain the idea of supporting any candidate who is a member of the DLC -- ????

Greg Palast points out that the Republicans didn't challenge the sometimes razor-thin victories by Dems . . . and he thinks it looks like -- contrary to what they usually do -- they were afraid to because behind it was so much stealing by them.

Anyway, Palast then suggests that the Democratic win was much bigger -- a bigger majority in both houses.

Of course given the votes of this summer, I'm not sure what that would have gotten us.

people are simply disgusted with the republicans.

The disgust wasn't nearly current levels in 2004. I think Katrina was a big turning point.

* he should have jumped on the Swift Boat Liars and bitch-slapped their lying asses down

* he should have smelled the coffee and talked about getting the hell out of Iraq by highlighting with neon the epic arrogant dishonesty and incompetence of this administration

* he should have challenged and pressed the vote count in the aftermath

on edit: this is my opinion, that is all, FWIW

than al gore

IMO if Gore had run the same type of campaign Kerry did, he would have won by a landslide! Kerry was certainly no Bill Clinton, but he far exceeded my expectations. people forget there was still allot of support for the war in 2004, Bush was the incumbent, and considered by many to be "the hero of 9/11".

but I expected Kerry to do as badly as Mondale or Dukakis, I was impressed when Kerry almost defeated Bush for re-election! if Kerry made a mistake, it was his failure to make the connection of Bush's supreme failure to carry out his duty as Commander in Chief on 9/11. this would have destroyed the Republican claim that Democrats are too weak on national security issues, while making Republicans unelectable for decades to come.

Republicans were the antiwar party during the Roosevelt years, and only Eisenhower had the credentials in the 50's to convince voters that they were no longer isolationists.

In 2004 there was still a lingering patriotic fervor going on for * as Commander in Chief, and they made the most of it. I remember all the rallies with military in the audience. They were still holding together a veneer of competency in Iraq, because the public didn't know the worst of it at that time. The Abu Garaib thing was just the work of "a few bad apples" in 2004. Rumsfeld was still able to scoff at the nay-sayers and sound halfway credible to mainstream America. And on and on.

If Katrina had happened in 2004 instead of 2005, the "scales" would have "fallen from the eyes" of many more Americans in time to vote the clown out of office. The true incompetence and apathy for Americans would have been impossible to miss.

He was perceived as aloof and senatorial, not presidential.

The Bush administration lied and cheated, the media covered the lies as Truths. Then they set about to discredit Senator Kerry's record in te Senate, suppress other parts of his life and fabricate character flaws that actually weren't there. The senator is a caring and warm man, who is very personable.

:puke:

You really should look into writing Harlequin Romance novels. Just make the hero a tall, dour east-coast Senator and the rest should write itself.

Why?

And by the way, I'm pretty sure the poster you're throwing up at has actually met Sen. Kerry and would know first hand if he is a warm and caring person.

Several in the Kerry group have actually \spent some quality time with the man. You know, the beer that everyone thought they could have with Bush? Well, they actually had that beer with Kerry.

Since 2004, I have seen any number of threads when the Senator has appeared somewhere for the book tour or on the Colbert or the Daily Show - and people have registered surprise that he is quick witted and personable.

Also consider that TV shows what it wants to show.

Here's a little cautionary story. Several years ago, while visiting LA, my young daughter and my husband and I were invited to be in the audience for the taping of the second show of American Idol Junior. What we saw in the interaction of the kids sitting in the audience was 180 degrees different than what was shown on TV after editting. An older girl, who was clearly a kind person who was we could see comforting some of the younger kids was shown only looking pretty disgusted and annoyed. A younger girl, clearly the family princess, pouted when her sister was selected as the first to join the band. At the end of taping, the director said they were going to re-film some reaction shots that were "missed". One reaction shot that was "missed" was shot of this girl's face lighting up with a surprised smile and then a shot of her running over and hugging her sister.

This may be more extreme than 2004, but in 2004, they edited out the huge enthusiastic crowds, Kerry got at the end. They also played down any funny or kind thing that he did while running. If you watched C-SPAN or read the Kerry blog's links to local newspapers - which did a better job than the major media, you saw a pretty nice person, which he actually is.

On the other side - they excepted the best 4 or 5 minutes of a canned, pre-screened appearance, deleting all the worst moments. They hid that he was a person whose own staff delayed for a day telling about New Orleans because they were afraid of his anger if they suggested cutting short his vaction.

...thinking critically...why he didn't come across well on TV? Having watched him several times at public events, there is no doubt that he relates well to people. In fact, the audiences I've observed treat him like a 'rock star' ...only smarter. :7

I had only slightly above average political engagement prior to the 2004 election, and he certainly made a strong connection with me - he seemed VERY presidential but also full of integrity and the values that matter to me. I also met many other people in my area who felt the same way.

Speaking generally (not about you necessarily), I think many people take an easy out by blaming Kerry for supposedly "not connecting" when they should be looking at themselves and their own decision-making regarding presidential candidates.

OTOH, given that my red county went for Gore and even stronger for Kerry, it may be that the media in this area differs from the national norm just enough that people get a different picture of the candidates from it.

I think any serious analysis of this question would look closely at where people get their information and why, and how that influences their opinions. Why did my county break blue in the last two presidential races but stay deep red at the lower tiers until 2006?

If someone as unappealing as Bush or Nixon could be elected, I don't think we should put too much of the blame on the candidates when they don't.

All in all, a pretty sad showing.

And, there was nothing to fight right after the election. He tried.

Just one of many acts of political incompetence that Kerry subjected us to.

But who cares? These kinds of threads aren't going to help the candidates running now. How many gaffes and media snafus (including starting a international incident that lead to a warning from the State Department -- smooth) have they committed since January now, 10 to 20 each? Focus on their campaigns.

Remember this thread.

I do so look forward to when the current candidates hit their stride. They almost came close to his fund-raising record.

or that there was actually media coverage of the convention?

(I know the answer to both, I'm just curious to see how much you're willing admit to)

Every time the supporters of the candidates we're forced to settle for want a diversion they mention Kerry in the title of the thread. The premise of this one being: All the candidates are like Kerry (they wish) so Kucinich should win.

He criticize Bush a lot so the answer to your question is it's all BS!

Gotta say, you've got some impressive angular momentum.

Yes or no: Did John Kerry allow speakers to criticize Bush at the Democratic National Convention? If yes, you should be prepared to show even one example of a DNC speaker doing so.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
    -- George Santayana

There is plenty of criticism of Bush in it. It also laid out various the outlines of many issues Kerry wanted to run on. The speech was actually highly praised at the time.

Kerry only had 3 hours of Network coverage - down from Gore's 9 hours. The only things covered were Clinton's speech, Edwards' speech and Kerry's speech.

Going into the convention, the CW was that Kerry had to come across as Presidential and likable - and he did both. The comments of the black minister who had been a Kerry crew member were very affecting - and, in speaking of Kerry as a caring and careful jr officer, he made the case that Kerry as a President could lead us out of Bush's mess. His daughters also gave extremely good speeches - leting us see a dad who would save a hamster from drowning. If you remember, Bush raised the terror level the day after the convention.

As to no criticism of Bush - go re-read Carter's speech or Gore's or Sharpton's. What Kerry did not allow was for protestors to turn his convention into their forum. Had that happened the story would have been that if he couldn't run a convention, how could he run the country.

If Kerry and the other speakers would have morphed into Michael Moores, he would have lost by a landslide. The Democrats bashing a sitting President would have looked unseemly or unfair to the uncommitted in the middle. Those were the people Kerry needed to win - the people who hated Bush were already going to vote for Kerry. Remember this was befoe the Republican hate fest.

Consider the madia role. In 1992, Bush was hurt by the obnoxious speeches by people like Marilyn Quayle and Pat Buchanan. The media's near universal view that this was ugly was part of the reason this happened. The far nastier 2004 speeches received no such reaction from the media. It astonished me that there was no outcry about the purple heart band aids - rather there were non-judgemental reports that seemed to find them clever! This was the media essentially saying that Kerry's real sacrifices in his war service could be mocked. No one even called out Bob Dole saying that "Kerry never bled", which is kind of hard to believe as he still has scrapnel in his leg.

(If you don't think the bias is extreme - Consider the difference in treatment Dole has received after losing badly to that given Kerry and Gore since Bush was declared the winner. He is a respected elder, even after his Pepsi ad where he lecherously oogled a 19 year old Britney Spears. Can you imagine the outcry if Clinton, Kerry or Gore would have done that ad?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5517902/



Trying to "soften the edges" against the worst president in US history is simple political malpractice. Whiile Kerry pandered to the idiot swing voters, the Rethugs were printing up purple heart band-aids.

As far as no one calling out these shameful actions, what did Kerry have to say about it? Why didn't HE go after Bob Dole?

He said that Bob Dole knew better than that. I also remember Larry King asking Vanessa about this and seeing Now Dr Kerry's revolsion at the thought that what these people were doing.

All Democrats - pundits, religious leaders, veteran organizations etc should have called out the purple heart thing - Kerry doing it would have been the least effective - he needed back up and the party was pretty weak in this. It is not typically the candidate who plays the attack dog role - though Kerry attacked Bush far more in 2004 than his VP did.

The Gore speech as given was critical of Bush. I have no idea if earlier speeches were torn up or not - what I commented on was the speech that was given.

I am old enough to remember 1968 - Kerry might have delighted Dkos and DU with an all out bash of Bush, but he would have won no one he didn't already have. There were few third party votes and Kerry got about 8 million more votes than Gore - these 2 facts kind of show that the far left did not stay home or vote third party in huge numbers. Kerry did win over some people in the middle during the convention and more during the debates.

I never understand folks who argue both sides of that. Either it was lousy, and he lost, or it was not so bad, he had it won, and it was stolen. Because if it were stolen, it means he won, and so the campaign couldn't have been that bad, right?

to make it so.

The MSM would drone on and on about his size, funny looks, "trophy" wife, weird "Vegan" diet, his overuse of the word "peace" (they'd call him a "fringe peacenik" because he harped in 2004 about a nebulous "Peace Department" to replace the Defense Department, and keeps peppering his speeches with the "peace" word, to the point that he's even alienated supporters like myself), etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Any attempts by him to discuss issues would be derailed in the MSM.

Most Americans only follow the MSM.

Therefore... kerplunk!

People were only slightly less disgusted with Bush in 2004. Yet all it took was stealing about a million votes in Ohio for him to maintain his occupancy of the White House.

This election hinges on how successfully Repuke candidates manage to separate themselves from Bush while appearing "strong on national defense".

This country went down the tubes when Reagan got elected. It's been in the shitter ever since. It's hardly worth fighting for any more.

If I were young and could expatriate tomorrow, I would leave in a New York minute, whatever that is. At least from any other country (except Iraq) I would be immune from this facist regime's transgressions on civil liberties and domestic tranquility.

"keeps peppering his speeches with the "peace" word, to the point that he's even alienated supporters like myself..

What about peace could be alienating?

Please, do not take this as a flame. Just asking.

(1) plays into the hands of the right-wing MSM media bobbleheads who will ridicule him for it and invites them to paint him as an ultra-leftist fringe pinko-commie-hippie-freak, you know, all the words they use to marginalize anyone on the left.

(2) The "Peace Department" statements he used in the debates in 2004 (he talked about replacing the Defense Department with a "Peace Department) were never defined, and left everyone scratching their heads wondering either what on earth he was talking about, or what kind of weird drug he'd smoked just before the debates.

(3) Sure, "peace" is what we want, if you have to think up one word to express it all, but in a national debate forum, where audiences want to hear as much specifics from a candidate on various issues, nebulous words like "peace" just frustrate everyone's expectations, especially when over-used, and included in several answers in one night. It makes him sound very idealistic to the point of simplistic and unrealistic, and invites the MSM to paint him as a simpleton.

Otherwise, I have nothing against the word "peace" or DK. He's a fine guy, but I just wish he'd wake up to how his overuse of that word is being perceived by others.

He was painted a certain way, and didn't even attempt to change that image until it was too late. A decorated vietnam vet was painted as a "weak leader", and that perception stuck.

I knew what he meant.You know what he meant.But damn,that was a gimme for the Repubs,and they milked it for all it was worth.While I believe the election's validity is in question,that was a major,MAJOR,score for the Repubs.The first time I saw that ad I knew he was dead. :(

It was on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart started yelling "Are you trying to lose??"

but it was Kerry they preferred.

But what really made him "lose" was his cowardly unwillingness to stand up to the republican ELECTION FRAUD. I'll never forgive him for that part.

Especially points 3, 5, 9, 10, and 11.

For all of you who say it was stolen, all I have to say is this, it shouldn't have been close enough to steal in the first place!

If you really believe that, you have lost faith in America.

It blunted, rather successfully, his Vietnam war record. And there are a lot of Vietnam veterans who just naturally linked him with Jane Fonda. That's poison right there.

1. IWR.

2. Shifting positions in general.

3. Insufficient response to attacks. I mean, how could
a wounded Viet Nam veteran have allowed a draft-
dodging AWOL deserter to trump him on "patriotism"?

4. So "the most incompetent campaign in recent memory".

But he was the annointed one, right? No stopping him
or the train wreck we all knew was coming. (Does
anyone see the similarites to a current contender?)

Tesha

correct the image.

They also did that to Gore, Dean, are doing it here for Edwards and Obama, and will do it for the next Democratic nominee.

Some here like to believe this is the true image, though they whine each time their candidate is getting the same treatment.

If, as Democrats, we cannot understand that the blabbering media class will depict nastily anybody who is not leaking their boots, we deserve to lose the elections and we will do so again and again.

It is a very sad thing when people here are swallowing the image that the media give of ANY Democratic candidate, as it only helps the right. Unfortunately, it will continue and we will lose whoever is the nominee because Democrats accept to fight in the media and RW frame. The answer should be easy:

-Edwards is not an hypocrite,
-Obama is not naive and inexperienced (sure Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are MORE experienced, but we do not need to use a negative to say so),
-Clinton is not RW, though there are candidates who are more progressive than she is.

And, do not worry! If Kucinich would be the nominee, the same people would lash out on him being angry, the fact that he does not look presidential, the color of his shirt, or whatever other stupid thing they would find, and most democratic voters would think it is true because nobody in the media would defend him effectively.

Kerry would not have lost if it were not for the corrupt machinations of Bush's best lap dog. I am sure Karl will be rewarded for life.

as a matter of fact, it was the Ohio Greens that first filed a lawsuit.

Let's not challenge elections (or whatever else) lest we offend GOP sensibilities!

Diebold was hardly in Ohio at all.

Kerry didn't lose, but he didn't win by ENOUGH so that it couldn't be stolen. He represented nothing new, just the same old capitulation politics.

They got not very bright working class whites to vote against their economic interests by using wedge issues. They have been doing same thing, w/ different issues, since late sixties.

Next question please.

.

"Why did he not take the office he won on Jan. 20, 2005?"

Just because election fraud has become institutionalized,
does not mean that its fraudulently obtained results are
suddenly reality.

A lot of people got the impression he was trying to pander to their interests, and many got the impression (rightly or wrongly) he was less than sincere.

He would have been better off being himself.

The corporate media did him no favors, neither did ex DNC chairman McAuliffe.

The Democrats sat on their behinds and did nothing while one of their candidates was viciously smeared. Bush had Rove, the GOP, the right leaning pundits and the media do his homework for him.

With hindsight, he should have rebutted them as early and as forcefully as possible, rather than refusing to dignify them with an answer and trying to ride out the storm.

It's easy to be wise with te benefit of hindsight, though.

The label of "flip-flopper" did a lot of harm too.

Just enough scare was put out there in October to move fence-sitters for vote for *.

It so redundant.