I think back to 2004. Did we work hard enough for Kerry? Even I didn't expect this.

Our nation laid waste by George W. Bush and the Republicans, with the calm acquiescence of the Dems, and now Harry Reid finally pledging to get tough - on Barack Obama. I wish I had worked harder for John Kerry. So what if Kerry wasn't perfect: He was and is a good guy who would have made tough decisions that would have saved our nation from being in this position (although tough times were inevitable).

Maybe it didn't matter what we did; Rove had plans, and the only one who could reveal them has now been killed in a plane crash.

I am not sure what will happen in the next nine days. I fear it won't be good. As I look at the economic and world landscape, I so very much want Barack Obama to be my president. The legitimate criticisms pale against the stakes.

I think we underestimated how hard the other side would work against Sen. Kerry.
It was a lesson that helped us win in '08, and that's what's important now. If it wasn't for '04, we might not be where we are in '09. We've learned a lot in the past four years and we have a great new president and a very blue Congress to show for it. We need to celebrate that.

...right about underestimating the other side. And about this... "If it wasn't for '04, we might not be where we are in '09."

The Dems picked the wrong candidate in 2004, IMO....AND:

We didn't fight corruption in the election process nearly as hard as we might have.

If we'd have had Dean as the candidate AND fought the corruption, we'd have won.

I'll never get over how Howard Dean was run out of the race.

as party chair. Why do you think Dean wanted to be party chair and so many of the 2004 primary candidates backed him as party chair? They saw firsthand that collapsing party infrastructure all around the country and in crucial states like Florida, Ohio and NC was stupid and shortsighted. The Dem party was not prepared to win those states and more in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Dean would have been stuck tapping into the same weakass infrastructure that Kerry was stuck with.

in the 5 months they have till election day.

The DNC has 4yrs to secure the election process for ALL candidates in two election cycles - somehow McAuliffe managed to weaken that infrastructure in the four years he had after 2000s theft.

There are so many horror stories I've heard about no national support for party basics and necessities in so many states that go back as far as 1995.

Guess nobody can explain that question. :shrug:

Kerry stood against the entire power structure and fought to expose BCCI. There were NO corruption issues with Kerry. Dean, used Trippi rhetoric in February 2004 when he was losing to attack Kerry. The fact is the attacks were neither fair or true. They did lead to one good thing - Kerry, in response to the charge on lobbyists released the details of every meeting he had had with lobbyists since 1989 - and said he could defend all of them. (As to corporations - Dean himself was less pure - in one word, Monsanto )

You also ignore that in December 2003, when Dean was polled against Bush - he did less well than generic Democrat did. Kerry, polled in early 2004 did considerable better than generic Democrat.

Dean is a good guy - and did a great job as DNC head, but he was not a better candidate in 2004.

Kerry was the most electable.

Dean would have lost easily.

And I don't know where this poster gets the notion that Dean would have fought corruption but Kerry wouldn't and was some how corrupt.

John Kerry is corruption free, and is known for exposing corruption.

I don't understand why so many Obama supporters think it's cool to attack Kerry to praise Dean and Obama.

It's interesting that no one can answer how Obama would have done in 2004 compared to 2008. He would have made it close too, but he was only a rookie running for the Senate from Illinois.

We picked the right candidate in 2004. John Kerry and Wes Clark were the most electable.

That's how he lost and it's how he would have governed.

disappointed with the nomination of Kerry in '04, I think I still would have been somewhat satisfied with him as president.

The wrong choice, imo, was made in '08. In January of '08, to be precise, when we were left with 2 very similar centrists that "won" us a center-right administration for the next 4 years, minimum.

that "loss" was likely way before January 2008. Edwards was not a strong candidate, though he spoke a good progressive line in 2008. The problem was that it was at odds with everything he did in office and his 2004 run. None of the second tier could have made it - Richardson was pathetic in interviews and the problems that eliminated him as Commerce Secretary would have likely surfaced earlier. Dodd was likely the left most running, but the Countrywide loan would have killed himm in September - even if not really wrong. Biden never amassed the support needed.

So, was there ever a more progressive candidate, if not Obama? Warner, Bayh and Vilsack who opted out were conservative Democrats. Gravel and Kuchinich could never have won.

In fact, the person who really was the most anti-war, supporting Kerry Feingold; having a 3 decade record as an environmentalist - and married to a woman who led on green building as effectively (though quietly) as anyone; who had already tweaked his excellent 2004 healthcare plan to provide access for all rather than 95% of people and who was already speaking in FDR terms in a speech written in 2006, given in 2007, a man who was among the first to say "no torture period" and to repeat a call he made in 1966, 1971 and many times since for a new foreign policy?

Who - none other than John Kerry - who the Clinton allies started smearing as soon as the 2004 election was over.

Of course there were.

Whether or not any would have "won" is a different question. Perhaps none would have "won," but if Democratic Primary voters would have thrown more support their way, made it competitive, they would likely have had some influence on the eventual platform.

That didn't happen.

I agree that Edwards' progressive line was a big change from '04, and from his time in the Senate. I think the hope that his supporters had, though, that his shift was authentic, is more valid than the "hope" that they eventually invested in the centrist Obama, who never exhibited any liberal/progressive tendencies.

Even the "against the war from the beginning" bullshit was nothing more than rhetoric. He gave a speech before he hit the Senate, criticizing the war. Once he got there, he supported the war every time it came up for a vote until the primaries were in full swing, when he swung back to "not supporting" it. He doesn't get any points from me for that transparent bullshit.

Dodd? He was never on my short list, because of his support for NCLB. While I'm not a single-issue voter, I AM a teacher, and I take that one personally. Enough to move Richardson and Biden higher on my list, even though they weren't a strong match otherwise.

As far as your question, "Was there ever a more progressive candidate than Obama," I have to wonder what version of "progressive" you are referring to. If you mean the "progressive" of the DLC's "Progressive Policy Institute," I'd have to say you are correct. Obama is, and was, an even better fit than DLCer HRC.

If you mean "progressive" as in "liberal, left-of-center," then Kucinich in '08 and Dean (even though he is a centrist, he's not right-of-center like Obama,) Mosely Braun, Kerry, Sharpton, and Kucinich in '04, were all significantly more "progressive" than Obama.

I think it hurts liberals to narrow the choices down so that there is no liberal left on the ballot before 44 states get to weigh in.

I don't think they would have won the nomination. But with enough support from voters all the way through, we might begin the new administration with more liberals in the cabinet, and better positioned to move the nation to the left, regardless of which centrist "won" the nomination and the election.

... he was running a national campaign and building a national movement when you have to win state primaries and caucuses to be the nominee. If Dean concentrates on Iowa and New Hampshire and does it earlier, he wins those two states and rolls over the rest.

interest in working hard for 2002 or 2004 and wouldn't spend a dime to help build party infrastructure in states they had left to collapse since the mid90s - states like Florida, Ohio, NC were abandoned by national Dem party by 1998. Dean had to work his ass off 24/7 to rebuild the party all over the country. THAT is why the 2006 and 2008 candidates were able to not just win, but get their wins COUNTED - unlike 2000, 2002 and 2004.

the theft so easy, but he did win.

He didn't have the rapid response team that Obama had and he doesn't have Obama's "cool", but Kerry did win and did a tremendous job given McAuliffe's poor management.

I hope that McAuliffe has as much support as he gave others as he runs for the gov of Virginia. Karma baby.

Nobody can have Obama's cool. He is just a natural at that. :hi:

DNC made sure there was no strong party in the states they didn't care about winning. Go Hillary2008, eh?

...the DNC sucked in 2000-2004.

History repeats itself, as Terry McAuliffe ran Hillary's campaign into the ground as well.

He's a poor manager. I like Terry McAuliffe and probably will donate to his campaign if he wins the nomination for Governor of VA, but he's a piss poor manager.

I know that I wished after the election that I had done more - though Kerry easily won NJ and I had never really thought of trying to help in another state. He was and is the candidate I most believed in - though like everyone else he is not perfect. The hard part was that, in spite of the deck being stacked against him, he very nearly won. (This may be why - in so many places where Kerry has thanked people saying they did everything they could (long list of things) except move to Ohio - there seems to always be someone who calls out that they would have.)

After the defeat, Kerry was possibly hurt by how good he really was. The disappointment was higher because people really thought that he had pulled off what would have been a major upset. Had it been more hopeless or if Kerry hadn't convinced people that he could win, it would have been less bitter. In December 2003, generic Democrat polled double digits behind Bush. Dean, the only candidate polled then, was nearly 20 percent behind. By March, given the coverage of the Democrats - mostly Kerry - in the primaries, Kerry briefly polled ahead of Bush. He also was slightly ahead before and during his convention - in spite of the fact that he lost the spotlight in June to Reagan's death coverage and in early July to the need for Americans to learn that Monica happened because "I could".

Kerry was hurt by the RNC hatefest and the SBVT. The thing that frustrates me the most was that Clinton's "war room" is held up as where he was better than Kerry. In fact, Clinton did get a response out within less than 12 hours for each accusations - the problem was that on most issues, he had to backtract and change the response each day for up to 4 or 5 days - before he often admitted that 1) his initial response was not the full truth and 2) there was some truth in the accusation. Kerry got the TRUTH out each and every time within the same interval. He met the standard of the earlier time - but things had changed. The difference - the media. The Kerry experience was different than anything that preceded it. It is still mindboggling that no one in the media asked the SBVT for even a shred of proof given that it was they who disputed a 35 year old official record, not Kerry.

I recently found the USA Today link for the Gallup at the end of the 2004 campaign. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm That it was a difficult year is an understatement. Look at question 7 which is a variant on the normal "is the country on the right track" question. It is actually a better designed question as it allows people 4 categories rather than the two extremes. Shortly before election day, 13% said "very well" and 46 said "fairly well" in response to "How well are things going in the country". When you consider the country was a year and a half into the war, a factor that would make people reluctant to change Presidents without very good reason, and 59% say that things are going at least "fairly well", you see that Kerry was convincing enough to win some people over who were not that unhappy with Bush. (Contrast this to Obama's situation, where the number thinking the country was going in the right direction was less than 20%. Different question, but the situation is so night and day - it doesn't matter.) Also, consider that Kerry for decades had called for change in foreign policy. Where 2008 was a year where change was strongly desired, in 2004 the majority had not begun to demand any change - much less drastic change. (Obama ran using Kerry as his chief foreign policy surrogate - so I hope he believes in things Kerry has been an advocate for for decades.)

Then look at question 8. Bush was seen favorably by 53% of the voters and Kerry by 51%. This in spite of the media repeating the Republican POV on all issues. (Every speech Kerry gave on Iraq had reporting in the AP ending with the AP saying it was the same as Bush's position - even though it quite obviously wasn't.) They also used the strange criteria that Kerry Senate work only counted if he was the first named sponsor - a criterion they didn't apply to HRC (who would have been left with nearly nothing). Add to that the way the media handled the SBVT. Just reading the AP, you would think there were more questions on Kerry's than Bush's service. AP is important as it is the source in many local papers.

listening to him speak was almost painful...and he' was just another in a long line of well-connected, wealthy , middle aged white guys..

Obama excited the the "it's about time" part of our brains.

People forget how much he kicked Georgie's ass, especially in the first two. And I will take any middle aged white guy if he is the right person. Al Gore and Kerry were both good guys but Karl Rove manipulated people and of course helped to steal two elections in my opinion.

speeches than Obama's. Kerry has been an incredibly eloquent speaker since he first became famous in 1971. Kerry's 2008 speech at Obama's convention was called the best non- acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in over two decades by the NYT and was widely praised elsewhere - ane he wrote it.

Calling Kerry "well-connected, wealthy , middle aged white guys." is as belittling as attributing Obama's success to being "younger, exotic and Black". Many people meet each criterion and few are as praiseworthy.

The fact is that Obama was helped more by mentors - in Chicago and in the Senate than Kerry ever was. The fact of the matter is that though Kerry is a descendant of the first Governor of Massachusetts, as a politician he is a self made man. He was NOT the party's or the media's choice when he won the nomination (and election) as lt Governor or Senator. He also was not wealthy until he was in his 50s (and married to THK)

EDIT: Oooooh - waitaminute. Maybe you MEANT it as a joke. My apologies.

The fact is that of all the current politicians, other than Obama, Kerry is the only one who has given a speech that will be remembered by history 3 decades after it was given.

People will always find a way to tear down or put down Kerry to praise Obama.

and he DID win, as far as I am concerned....

BUT the "question", as I understood it was why Obama got the support that Kerry did not.. It's style..

Yep. Let's just pile on Kerry some more just to celebrate Obama's inaguration. That's really productive.

over some anonymous person "accusing" him not not being "all that"..

Sheeez..people...Obama "caught on"..Kerry did not .. (even though he did win)..Perhaps if he had gone the Al Franken route, he's be getting ready to serve his 2nd term..:shrug:..who knows?

I don't "keep score", so I'm not sure if y'all are from the anti-Obama gang from the primaries.. but hey.. lighten up.. :hi:

talk amongst yourselves.,.I'm done here for the night:)

I support Obama, just like Kerry does.

And you're full of shit.

I supported him in the primaries before he won Iowa. Donated to his campaign as a first time donor of any politician.

I am not a part of an Anti-Obama brigade. Never have, never will. I am just voicing an opinion to what I think is wrong, so I don't need to lighten up.

Tearing down Democrats that cleared the way for President Obama, just to praise him does not help his cause period. Yes, there were missteps in 04. No, I don't see Kerry crying his eyes out. It's all good he is where he is in the Senate.

But apples and oranges is fun for many here I guess. :shrug:

Maybe get the ear wax out of your ears. He speaks with passion. He speaks with wisdom. He knows the issues and how to vocalize them. By the way, communication is an important part of a Presidency. But it's not the whole damn thing, not even close. Kerry is a great speaker, and most importantly he's experienced and right on the issues that matter to our party.

and it's a valid one - Kerry on talk shows was sometimes boring, but Kerry at the debates, and at his rallies (I was at 4) was a different person. This country just bought into the bullshit lies that Rove was feeding it a little too much still in '04, and although Kerry nearly won the presidency, with Ohio being the downfall despite huge lines to vote for him late into the night, it wasn't enough - I believe granny above made a great point - we learned a lot, and primarily the RIGHT people (Obama's team) learned a lot.

is proof that the corporate media has done its job defining what is exciting to the public.

This is an American-Idol like America we live in now. The media hasn't done it's job talking about that issue, therefore, it's being put on the back burner (for now) as opposed to personality, likability, and other perks.

Yes, people ought to know more about open government. The problem is they don't know what it is and all they see or hear is that president or candidate is gives the right message, or just comes across as likable or personable, and nothing else.

In addition to those qualities, we know that Obama can be serious about getting things done and wanting to have some dialogue. He is a natural at some things. However, people at DU don't mind letting the media off the hook.

I'm glad we have Obama in the White House.

But it never should have gotten to this. And Gore and Kerry would have been better.

But they more than made up for it this time around. :)

The fact is that Dean was already slipping in NH a few weeks before NH. People who had been for Dean moved to Clark and then many to undecided before Iowa.

Kerry was the strongest candidate on the issues that faced us in 2004. The deck was completely stacked against us in 2004 and with any other candidate it would have been a Bush landslide.

from Dean. Never mind that they have both done good at laying the foundation for Obama. It's always about putting down one good Dem to praise another, that's what this thread is about.

...some DUers want to bash a very good man because of 2004.

I think the OPer brings up a great question: Did we fight hard enough for Kerry?

No. We didn't.

We didn't fight hard enough for Kerry or Gore. And after 2000, we tried harder in 2004. And after 2004, we tried harder in 2008.

We finally got what we wanted, and what the country needed.

Yet some want to place 100% blame on John Kerry.

And you bring up good points. I just don't know what there is to gain by bashing Kerry to praise Obama.

Yes, Obama brought out a lot of new voters, young and old that never voted and/or paid attention to politics before until now, but had it not been for Kerry or 2004, we would not have President Obama or a Blue Congress. (Dean deserves credit there too).

I am just beginning to think that no matter what Kerry says or does, it will never be good enough for DUers or anyone.

Especially since Kerry helped extraordinarily in electing Democrats in 2006, and then was one of the first and most important endorsements that President-elect Obama got in the primaries.

And to answer your last comment, it is true no matter what Kerry says or does...some will still attack him.

Even though he'll work closely with the Obama-Biden team as the SFRC chairman, and is bringing global warming to the plate in the SFRC....some still want to attack him.

It doesn't make much sense.

It doesn't make any sense 4 1/2 years later. Was Gore attacked this bad? (I am sure he was).

A lot of the Gore haters have hushed up because a majority of DU supports Al.

Glad I wasn't here until after the 04 election.

I began reading DU in 2003. Didn't register till after the 04' election when I launched the first .com website in support of Kerry for President in 2008.

That was nasty, but we have persevered. :hi:

I didn't follow DU too much till I joined in 2005.

But yes, 2008 was nasty and yet always interesting!

I started out for Kerry. Then Gore. Then Clark. Landed on Edwards for about a year. He drops out two days after I go to his rally in Missouri. Then I vote for Hillary. And finally Obama.

URGH!! It was a long campaign season :P

Thanks goodness we are almost to Obama Inaguration Day! :hi:

FINALLY!!

leaders we have. Yes there were missteps in '04, but I still don't think he gets the credit he deserves. Not only for that race (in which he did very well,at least considering all the shit that was thrown at him by Rove and his ilk), but as you pointed out, afterwards and to this day. I love Obama and am thrilled that he's now about to be our President, but will always wish (as with Gore in 2000) that Kerry had pulled through that one; a great opportunity for the country missed. :( I will always be so proud that I voted for him, though, and that he was my first ever vote for POTUS ( I was 18 at the time :)) A heartbreaking election night or day after (it all seems to blend together in retrospect to be honest, like one long day..) for sure. Made this last one even sweeter, though.

I couldn't have worked harder.

I don't think you can blame the activists on that one. Kerry would have been an excellent President but he had faults as a candidate. People should pay attention to how Obama is different and try to remember eight years from now when we pick another nominee.

So did Gore.

So did Obama.

So did Clinton.

My point is most on DU blame Kerry 100% for 2004.

They don't look at the piss poor job done by the DNC. They don't ask themselves whether or not they could have worked harder. Yes, you worked hard. I did too. But it's fair question for some, especially those attacking him.

I don't look at Kerry's loss in 2004 with rose colored glasses. I know he made mistakes, and Kerry has admitted he did.

But those who STILL attack Kerry and blame it 100% have not moved on, and some still attack Kerry no matter what he does. Including helping getting many Democrats elected in 2006, endorsing Obama early, and campaigning hardly for Obama.

All fair points. I don't think Kerry was an ideal choice in '04 but I think he did better than Dean and the other primary candidates would have done.

I'll make three observations about the differences between the Kerry and Obama campaigns that I think people should remember in eight years.

1) Campaign financing and a single campaign:
A lot of resources were wasted in '04 by many outside non-campaign groups duplicating work and reaching the same people over and over. Many of them took funding that prevented them from directly saying "This is why you should goo vote for Kerry." One of the best things Obama did was bypass matching funds. It allowed him to have a single, well coordinated national effort.

2) The northeastern liberal elitist:
Sorry, but there are many things about Kerry that made him an easy target for this old conservative faux-populist meme. You can argue that it's unfair but it did hurt us and in the future we need to think about candidates who appeal to ALL parts of America beyond the east and west coast. Obama took some shrewd steps to avoid the "liberal elitist" stereotype, including Michelle talking about her $100 dress on a talk show the week before Palin's shopping spree hit the news.

3) The flip-flopper:
Like Wellstone said, conviction politics worse. Once again, fair or not, Kerry lost the general election the day he voted for the IWR. Republicans have used the flip-flopper meme at least since 1996 and it's about time we ran a candidate who knew how to effectively respond to it.

Then again, politics may be completely different in '16, but those are things I hope people will remember the next time we pick a new Democratic nominee.

Of course, the DNC was a mess as others in this thread have pointed out. Terry Mac responded by saying, "Yeah, but look at all the money we raised!" He was clueless, but Dean understood that he was in the business of winning elections, not raising money for the sake of raising money.

In fact, I'll say that its possible that the entire problem was one of infrastructure. Polls consistently showed that people agreed with Democrats more on the issues, but for some reason they kept voting Republican, even in the 2002 blood bath. Once Dean got the infrastructure in place, our fortunes turned. And then along came Obama, who ran an improved version of the Dean model for his Presidential campaign, and the rest is history.

As for Kerry, the will was there, but the means were not. We had a lot of undirected energy that the powers that be never provided any guidance to. Herding cats might be challenging and frustrating, but in an election year, somebody needs to do it. Kerry would have been a good President, but his people let him down, and I would question the wisdom of picking Bob Shrum for his campaign, given his perfect losing record in Presidential races.

So really, there's plenty of blame to go around, and that probably includes the grassroots, but I'd say that by and large "we" could only do so much without real leadership at the top.

I guess my point is that we needed to do everything and anything to prevent a second Bush term, although I don't disagree with your analysis. I thought the second term would be a disaster, but now look at our nation laid waste and realize I "misunderestimated" the amount of harm he and his cronies would do.

At any rate, the fix was in. Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000.

Only after 2004 was serious funding put into VoteBuilder. We were way better organized this time. The interfacing of the national campaign with local Dems in my state sucked in 2004, and was excellent this time around.

We missed good opportunities with both Gore and Kerry.

Dean learned the lessons, and made the DNC into a highly effective machine.

but that doesn't mean I won't call bullshit bullshit. This Warren thing is bullshit. The FISA thing is bullshit (and an ominous telling as to where this man stands regarding our rights) and I will take a 'wait and see approve to bullshit like that.

It stinks too much.

...and not responding to the Swift Boat Vets garbage. If he had responded in the way Obama responded to the Rev. Wright stuff, I think the last 4 years might have been very, very, different.

With Obama, the media allowed every rebuttal to be aired. I do agree about Cahill and her passive attitude. Plus, the Obama campaign was very good at media discipline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

And gave Bush every advantage possible.

the smears against him he looked weak and when just starting a war you can't look weak. even if the war was a lie, not alot of people knew that then. i did but most americans didn't.

I think if the kerry who went to congress after viet nam and fought to stop it and threw his metals down had run he would have won hands down, but he wasn't that person any more. Too much of an insider.

I like kerry, but being a senator has changed him, and money too. He needed to be closer to the little people.

I thought he was a truly sucky candidate, ran such a lame-ass campaign, and I will never, ever get over how quickly he threw in the towel. Still, I knew what a horrible thing it was to have little boots and dead eye so I worked endlessly for Kerry. All but abandoned home and family for that cause.

Never again. I learned my lesson.

Julie