Why Kaine's Victory, although great for Dems, makes me sad

I have been feeling down since last night, when I saw on the TV that Kilgore was conceding. I couldn't sleep last night, as I asked the same question over and over. Why did Kaine win and Kerry lose? Kerry is SUCH a better candidate than Kaine with an incredible life story, a lifetime of public service, and amazing character.

These are the things that are bothering me:

1. I had taped a Book TV event from this last weekend featuring a British author (his name escapes me) who wrote a book called "Steal Your Vote". I was really interested because I had seen the Diebold machines, and his lecture only confirmed for me the inherent problems in using them. But within his talk, he said that because Kerry had trailed his fellow senators and congressman in many states (i.e. Boxer and Obama did infinitely better than Kerry in their respective blue states), he thinks that * won. This is consistent with my precinct where our local Dem, David Ashe shared 5% of his votes with * voters. The author went on to say that Kerry was a "lousy candidate" who was riding on the coattails of more popular local candidates, even in blue states. Obviously, "lousy" was his opinion which I don't agree with, but numbers don't lie, and on that he has a point.


2. I was listening to NPR where one of the commentators talked about how Kilgore went too far with negative campaigning, yet negative campaigning was highly successful last year against John Kerry. He said that the GOP was successful in branding him a "flip flopper" in the spring and to question his war heroics in the summer. This was when I realized that we fought the whole SBL thing wrong. They weren't really trying to prove their case (any scrutiny to their accusations caused them to break down), only to cast a reasonable doubt that Kerry was a war hero. They didn't have to prove that he was a traitor or a war criminal or a liar. Their goal was to simply cast doubt about his heroics. And they succeeded in spades among the electorate.

3. A friend of mine here, who was a swing voter, swung for * last year, but this year she voted for Kaine. I swear I only need to poll her to know who is going to win. She is typical of many Americans in that I think she picks the more "likeable" candidate, the one who better entertains you on TV (she loves watching a Clinton speech). She didn't really like *, but Kerry said something on Election Day on Good Morning America that annoyed her (??!!??) so she voted for *. I think she didn't think he had a sense of humor.

Here's what I am asking of you guys. First, please talk me out of my gloom (or even refute some of the info above). Secondly, do you think Kerry will be able to change his TV persona enough to win over swing voters like my friend? Because I think he is right on the issues, but when he gets, you know, "senatorial", people tune him out. But the way he was at Georgetown, especially the Q&A at the end, was just awesome. I still need to listen to that radio interview (the audio on this computer doesn't work) and this "voice" you guys are talking about. But I heard a different voice from JK at Georgetown when he said the death of American soldiers was bigger news then "Nick and Jessica's breakup". There was a way he said that, which I want to hear more of. He was funny, yet still dignified, and most importantly, very natural. Oh yeah, and toward the students and Naval Academy grads, he was actually a little intimidating. There was no way anyone was going to get away with disrespecting the Senator. I REALLY liked that presidential aura a lot. I just really want to have hope that the problems from '04 can be alleviated, and he can win in '08, and I'm looking for some encouragement. Thanks for listening to my lamentations, everyone!

KATRINA

To me what happened during and after Katrina opened up the Pandora's box and most importantly opened up the eyes of the media who had been embedded with this President. They could not hide what the cameras showed. he truth came out in living color.

Another thing is the unraveling of the WH. Once Fitzgerald came out and he spoke truth to power, I think a lot of people perked up and started to listen.

This past year has been an eye opener for many, and yes I do think many know now they voted wrong last year.

You know its funny, but listening to the campaigns not just here in Virginia but all over, they were pushing the same message out that Kerry said last year, and some even used his exact words. :shrug:

IMO the media screwed Kerry last year and Bush used every tactic in the book, remember they had control, not just of the media but the House and the Senate, and they made sure nothing got out, and stonewalled anything in their way. The examples are many.

And how can we forget Terra Terra Terra, its the fear game. Thank God I never bought into it, not one minute of it.

Also there is still a game being played out there in punditry world. They haven't figured out how to handle a politician who doesn't go into a cave after a loss, but instead keeps on truckin.

I could go on and on, but I will stop. One last thing the reason I chose John Kerry was for his character, integrity and most of all his values,and not one pundit could take that away from me no matter how much they spun.

Just my 2 cents.

When Kilgore ran those Hitler ads (a la Swift Boat) about Kaine, every single newspaper in Virginia came out against him, even the right leaning ones, saying that he had crossed the line. You know, it's interesting but Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the main Republican Noise Machine -- well, I guess they must have been engaged in this governor's race but I never heard anything about it. Perhaps because it was just a governor's race, the huge Machine wasn't as engaged.

It's probably true that if Katrina had happened before the election (with * doing the same bad job), the media would have turned against him. That was what was missing last year. EVERY SINGLE news outlet should have come out to condemn the SBL as the disgusting liars that they were. But instead, they decided to be "balanced" and say it was a "he said he said" story when that wasn't the case.

When it comes down to it, it was, in fact, the print press in Virginia who debunked and took down Kilgore for his out of control negative campaigning. And, I'm sorry -- but what was done to John Kerry last year was FAR WORSE than what was done to Kaine. Where was the outcry last year? I think the media owe John Kerry an apology for serving as a conduit for GOP propaganda. Had the media reacted as strongly and quickly last year as the Virginia papers did this year, the SBL story would have been dead and buried in a week. I may add that a lot of people on dailykos blasted Kaine for "not fighting back" when the whole thing first happened. Kaine had a commercial but I would say it wasn't hitting back any more than the Kerry campaign did. (Maybe it was quicker) And see, it worked out for Kaine because the Virginia press stands for decency in campaigning. When will the national media decide to police the worst offenders of slander in campaigns?

and I think people haven't really looked at the quantity of slime thrown at Kerry. The first two times the SBVT people came out, they got pounded. Then in August when they came out they had their book which had hundreds of charges - some of which contradicted (he was aggressive and out of control AND he always ran away) Kerry's team carefully debunked the substanitive charges. The surrogates had a hard time because if they answered one thing - somthing new was thrown at them.

Contrast to the Rather thing - he PROVED several things, but the entire thing was thrown out and people fired because one piece of evidence was non-verifiable. Kerry proved many things were lies in the SBVT book, but the attitude was Ok, but what about this? The funding and motivations were obvious - but large segments of the media continued to play with it. This cost the Kerry campaign a tremendous amount of time and effort.

And this wasn't even the only attack on him.

There were many Swift Boat veterans who just wanted to stay out of it, who weren't interested in politics. But the lies were so bad they had to speak out (like Rood, the Chicago Tribune reporter). There were also veterans who had earned medals on the same day as Kerry, so their credibility literally "sunk" with his. Although I thought the Hitler ad was dispicable it talked about Kaine's philosophy about the death penalty. The slime against Kerry was about something that happened in his life, that in fact had caused him a great amount of suffering, and then just opened up the wounds for everyone involved.

I mean, why would you run for president if lies about you, AS A PERSON (as opposed to a policy or vote), will be openly told on the media with no mediation to whether it was in fact true or not.

Teresa, who is clearly a very classy, brilliant, wonderful person who was extremely well reguarded as a Philanthopist and a Republican Senate wife was treated as if she were crazy and weird. I read Julia Kerry's comments that to her politics was (I think these were two of the words) anger and hate and she couldn't live with it. After reading that her baby, Alex, could have been killed when a rock thhrown through a window landed near her, I absolutely couldn't blame her. Reading this, I couldn't help but think how additionally painful it must have been to see the Republicans gratuitously hurt Teresa. (Then yelling that Teresa didn't accord Laura proper respect because she didn't mention that Laura was teacher and librarian for a small number of years in her twenties.)

Even now the press continues mistreating Kerry.

And perhaps the fraudsters didn't have as much of a stake in taking this one.

I know that it's not the popular opinion in here, for some reason, that Kerry really won, but no one is going to convince me he didn't win, and win by a healthy margin, until I see a hand recount of all votes in the contested counties.

Perhaps he could have reached more people than he did, but I don't think we'd even be worrying about or entertaining that thought if it hadn't been for the fraud.

We also took losses in the House and Senate last year, so it wasn't just Kerry. I don't see too much emphasis placed on that point anymore; it's like the Congressional losses have been utterly forgotten and all that people think about is the White House.

I don't see any point in arguing anymore (not you and me personally, but just Dems in general) about whether 2004 was stolen, at least -- as Der Blaue Engel said -- until there is something really definitive and unarguable said about it. A case can be made for both sides. I am inclined to believe that Ohio, at least, was stolen, and New Mexico looks really fishy to me as well (it's heavily DRE/electronic). Florida -- I don't know. The national popular vote -- I don't know. But anyway, one thing that most Dems can agree on is that the election system needs an overhaul.

But that aside, there was something last year about Democratic candidates that resulted in less appeal than we'd expected almost across the board. Not just the Kerry campaign. We lost a number of Senate seats in Southern states. And I do not for a minute believe that it was "negative coattails" of Kerry. I live in the South and there is a mentality among certain types of Republicans that they will not vote anyone with a D behind their name for state or national office, just local (if that -- some of them are even more partisan than that). Kerry had nothing to do with it. It has been going on long before he ran for president.

for) on the local candidates. But I used to be an Independent (which means I spent less time studying politics), and I would vote Dem for president (always have) but split my votes down ticket to "balance" it. Okay, guys, don't laugh at me, but when you're young and irresponsible, you're young and irresponsible. There is a pervasive view among many people, that if you vote straight for one party, that you're somehow mindless and blind. Obviously, I think that's a stupid argument and have now discouted it. So the question is why did so many people vote for * and then vote for a Dem further down the ticket. Maybe, it's because they did pay attention with the presidential election, but blew off the rest, then thought they ought to "balance" their ticket like I used to do. Just a thought. It still doesn't answer why they made such a horrible mistake in who they voted for president.

As far as the election being stolen or not, I actually think I am in the minority here on the JK forum. There are certainly many here who think Ohio was stolen. I was an accountant, and I am very exacting about things, and all I will concede is the system is messed up and unreliable, but I can't definitively say whether that affected the results of the election. That British author said that there are dirty precincts around the country, and states vary as to how corrupt they are. He did mention Florida as being a very corrupt state that you shouldn't trust. But he said that voter fraud is less the problem. It's more about the mentality of the people who work to put on elections. They are not focussed on holding accurate and clean elections. They are only interested in having elections that look accurate and clean. In a word, they're lazy. And Diebold is wonderful for that because there is no paper trail, and therefore no messiness. This actually makes me want to work an election, since I am quite anal retentive, and would NEVER try to steal votes for Dems, as this goes against my fastidious ways and, of course, my ethics. I also am very annoying as far as making sure things are done right, instead of cutting corners.

She's not very political, although she does think it's important to keep up with the news and to vote in every election. She's more inclined to talk shopping than politics.
She stopped by my office this morning to get info on "that whole CIA leak thing". She is starting to pay attention to what's really going on.
We talked a bit about yesterday's elections, and voting in general.
Then she asked me who I thought would run in '08.
I told her I wasn't sure, but I hoped Sen Kerry would give it another shot.
Her eyes lit up.
"Do you think so?" "He will definitely win if he runs again."
She is your typical voter. She's not a pundit or a blogger or someone trying to sell a book or a supporter of any particular candidate. She's just a voter.
I'm gonna trust her on this.

But ya know, Kerry didn't have any appeal to anyone. It was just ABB. :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, that's awesome! I love anecdotes like this. They make me feel good. :)

She also recognized the media attacks on Teresa. She said, and we all know, that they left a very bad impression. I know that sounds weird, but there are a whole lot of women out there who actually identify with the first lady, and the (totally unfair) picture painted by the (whore) media was, as we know, not flattering.
I'm convinced that we need to promote (the very fabulous) Mrs Kerry, especially to women. Regardless of Sen Kerry's intentions for '08. I just love her, and it's painful that many women don't know the truth about our THK.

think of that. He did make some comment - I think around the time she gave the Heinz awards that people just did not understand either the quality of the work she does and the quantity of it. (He has to be aware of the personal attacks - but may feel more comfortable just saying that.)

I loved the 2 pictures from MIT - the one of them holding hands was so real and beautiful. I agree with you that she seems a fantastic person and it would certainly help Kerry if people could see that.

Sometimes, other than you wonderful folks here, I feel utterly alone in something as simple as finding Kerry likeable!!! Not only do I want him as president, I would be honored to have a beer with him. If I had a non-alcoholic beer with * (wouldn't want to tempt him with the real stuff), I don't know what I would talk to him about. The weather? No, that might lead to hurricanes, Katrina, touchy, touchy. Parenting? No, doesn't sound like he's that much into his kids. Obviously politics and religion are out the door. I don't know, I just have nothing to say to that man, and would be afraid that he would be mean to me. But with JK, I would start out by telling him how much those e-mails have meant to me, about how my grandpa worked as a volunteer for John F. Kennedy, about what's going on in Europe, about how when I tell Germans about the fact that 11 million children don't have any health insurance in the U.S., they look at me in utter disbelief. I would tell him what it's like to live in a very red city, with Pat Robertson living right around the corner. About how I heard of someone from the military here who committed suicide recently in part because he got addicted to heroine while he was in Afghanistan. And, of course, I would even feel comfortable talking to him about my kids, who we're raising to be bilingual. So much to say, so little time. That's why I'm so frustrated that people don't realize how that "rich Senator" gets it. He understands what the average American is going through, and is prepared to fight for us for as long as it takes. I'm not saying he's perfect or that his ego doesn't get in the way sometimes, but at the end of day, he wants to do good works for the people in this great country.

Why did Kaine win and Kerry did not?

Short answer: Because an apple is not an orange. (not snarky, true.) Every election is different and lives in a different time with different things that impel voters to the poll. It has been slightly more than a year since the last Presidential election. The Bush agenda has been revealed for the lies, fakery and bait-and-switch game that it always was to us. More people now know this. They voted accordingly. (And these were local elections that turned on local issues.)

Kerry was a 'lousy' candidate

Right wing and lefty freeper talking point without validity in fact. John Kerry received more votes than any other person whoever ran for President in American history. Save one. His campaign more than hit their voter marks in spot after spot, including Ohio, with or without voting problems. He was not a bad or lousy candidate. He lost the closest re-election race in American history to a war-time President in a time of unease and after the largest terrorist attack on American soil in history. He was not a lousy candidate. That is unfounded revisionist history. Democrats do not put up lousy candidates. We put up highly qualified people who would make excellent Presidents.

People who are spreading this meme are trying to offload all responsibility for the loss to John Kerry. This is not only stupid, it's dangerous. It delays a real evaluation of what happened last time and how to fix it. It supposes that all Democrats have to do is find 'the perfect candidate' and all our troubles will be over. There are no perfect candidates, there are only human ones. John Kerry was a great candidate and he nearly won. (This is why the liberal blogs are so hard on Kerry. If we can offload all our problems in elections on to him and make it personal, then we don't have to change our ways in order to get more votes. Hey, it was his fault, not ours. This is not only stupid, but in a democracy, it's also dangerous.)

What is your opinion on all this very recent commentary blaming Kerry for the loss of the election? Usually this stuff starts right after the election. I speak of the MSM and Washington insiders. I have been wondering if there was concern amongst some insiders and the media that he may still have to much support for an additional run because he wasn't effectively criticized for losing back in 2004 and they are trying to discredit him and dishearten his supporters now.

There were Democrats who never liked Kerry. (It happens.) There were Democrats who backed other people in the primaries and they bore a grudge that came out after the election was over. There are people who don't want him to run again and they are pulling out all the stops, including blaming him for whatever election fraud occurred, instead of the perpetrators of the fraud. (Whatever else happened, John Kerry did not sabotage election machines.)

There is a lot of selective memory going on now. I just heard a panel on Larry King or something (it's background noise as I type here) that was sqawking about the SBVT episode again. True, there was some damage from that. True, Sen. Kerry did fall in the polls from mid-Aug to around mid-Sept. Then he refound his footing at the VFW speech (and the NYU speech, which was unbelievably great and 'the real Kerry,' IMHO.) He came back in the polls. He came all the way back in the polls after the debates. All the way back. It was dead-even then all the way up to election day. Again, the people who think SBVT took Kerry out are ignoring facts. They are ignoring the fact that this was an amazingly close race.

There are some people who want Sen. Kerry to go away. There are always people who are thinking about running who would like other potential cnadidates to go away. (That's the game.) They will be there up until something definitive happens in the race and the actual voting starts.

The election fraud is no longer about John Kerry. It's about the people whose votes were either not cast or not counted. Making it about John Kerry and not the people who were wronged will come back and bite these people in the arse. It's a bad idea and a bad way to frame the issue and won't help to make voting cleaner.

SBV remark. At least two on the panel were quick to jump in and claim that those allegations were somehow permissible because it came from another source- not the media, They failed to acknowledge though, that the media played it all up without checking facts and having documented proof which was just as bad as presenting the Bush story without checking sources and verifying documentation. Then Gurgen (sp), whom I generally like, said that it really hurt Kerry and he didn't respond quickly or defend himself against the allegations clearly enough. I think we all know thats not entirely true.
Oh, and how about that panel, three or four men to refute and discredit one woman. Talk about over kill.

Beyond everything else - the recent who would you vote for now poll would have Kerry winning easily if the election were held now. The Kaine election WAS held now. Figuring out if Kaine would have won last year is impossible - but I would bet the Bush appearance would have helped rather that hurt Kilgore. Also, last year the press didn't call anyone on negative ads.

We had a lot of 'dumb stuff' in the election last year, including the idiotic idea that we have to be comfortable having a beer with someone in order to make them President. I think this led to some (minor) mistakes by the campaign last year. If I was to suppose John Kerry running again, then I would try and not make those mistakes again.

Who is this guy? Why did 59 million people vote for him? I don't think it was because he was photographed in hunting gear or because some consultant tried to make him seem like something he is not. John Kerry's positives and competency ratings went up when he was portrayed as, well, John Kerry, a smart and capable man with years of experience in public affairs with a deep and abiding knowledge of foreign affairs. This man is a heavy weight in government because he stone cold knows his 'shit.' This is a man who risked his political career several times to do what he thought was right in investigations and in rooting out government corruption and waste. His best hand has always been that he is a tough former prosecutor who retains a sense of outrage when government fails to do what it says it is going to do. That's who he is. He is an honorable man who tries, even at great cost, to do the right thing.

Sell that next time. (Yuck. I also hate the idea of marketing in politics, but it is what it is.) Some of my favorite 'John Kerry moments' in MA have come when this complicated and thoughtful man has let slip some intimate experiences he has had and he reveals both his thinking and his heart. Find a way to let that happen. (Don't hide this guy again.) He is at home speaking about poverty and about economic issues because they are part of who he is, as is the sense of moral outrage. (That is what got him his first recognition on the national stage after all.) Push this guy because it's true, it's authentic and it's real. Throw me a commercial once in a while about the prosecutor who put bad guys away. Throw in something about the years of fighting terrorism by fighting who finances it and hides the money from it. And so forth. Cuz, that's who he is. (Why does everyone find this cold? Victims of crime don't generally find then people who put bad guys away cold. Putting bad guys away and exposing corruption is what Kerry has spent a lifetime doing.)

How's by you? Who is John Kerry and how do you imagine him running again? What do you want to see next time?

She is not a Republican, but makes up her mind hours before she goes to vote. For her, it's like cramming for an exam. Her husband HATED Kerry, said he was a phoney, said * was a great leader, blah, blah, blah. That may have influenced her.

But basically speaking, she didn't LIKE Kerry. That's what it came down to. And there are a ton of Americans who vote that way, too (you know, prom king).

Alright, it's risky, but I want the real John Kerry to run in '08. The real John Kerry will do what is necessary to speak better, learn the issues better, be able to throw in more about his religion when relevant to policy (and in a way he is comfortable), do all the things necessary to get his message out. But I like the non-staged Kerry SO much better than the staged Kerry. The truth of the matter is he's a lousy bullshitter. That's why some thought he was phony because when he was made to do something that wasn't him it showed. I mean look at that "Inside the Bubble" scene where he's waiting to be interviewed. And then when he started doing the interview, I don't know, he was back to the Senate kind of speak. If he can just be John Kerry, not Senator John Kerry, sitting in your living room, talking about what is important but talking in that softer, more conversational voice. That voice that says, "yeah, I know where you're coming from", then he would appeal to more voters. He needs to shorten the distance between himself and the voter (I am talking primarily about TV), and he will unfortunately need to do some sound bites that can be covered in the 2 minute news reports. But it was Karynnj who mentioned that when she saw him in person in NJ that she was struck how nice his speaking voice was. That it was a gentle voice. I'm not saying that during a speech there are moments for a booming, no doubt about it voice, but bringing it down a notch would show the thoughtful, considerate, gentle side of him. Yes, this is style, but with TV, it isn't just what you say but how you say it. People want to think -- okay, can I stand listening to this person for the next 4 years? And with all of this, I am not asking him to do an act. I am asking him to be himself. I don't think it is impossible for him to do this.

On the issues it's about security. Social, health, national. Competence and anti-corruption. He has it all. Sure I like Warner and maybe a couple other contenders. But next to Kerry, they pale in comparison.

the articulate man who can answer a complex question in two minutes or less in a way in which the average viewer can understand. (He did win those debates by overwhelming numbers.)

The classic way to run a campaign is to have a 'message of the day.' (It's a focusing tool, not intended, usually, as anything deceptive. It's just a way of announcing to the press what the topic to be covered is for the day.) Most of these seem to have been effective for Kerry. Polls after the vote showed that he (and the DEms) overwhelmingly won when asked about the issue. All except terrorism. (What a difference a year makes.) Do you think Sen. Kerry was good at this?

It is also helpful to keep in mind that you will never get everyone. (There are no 100% votes for one person in a true democracy.) When Tim Kaine won last night, he had an overwhelming victory at 52% of the vote. There are some people who don't like John Kerry. You will never get these people. It's a waste of time. Go for the people who are 'gettable.'

Yeah, I know. Some people are more interested in somebody they think they can relate to, who doesn't judge them or they feel completely disconnected from. They want that all the time. What I consider stepping it up for the occasion, they consider putting on airs. Since that was the voter we were trying to get, he probably could have skipped alot of the deep policy speeches. And yes, "can I stand listening to this person for 4 years" is about it in a nutshell. I found myself asking that about Gore on more than one occasion. And my answer was that thank God the President doesn't speak to the public all that often!! I like both Kerry's. But I know what you mean, don't know the answer, except the guy kids love is the one most people want to see more of.

while some of his long term issues are talked about;
such as:
- the fact that Kennedy and he wrote the bill that led to CHIP
and that a lot of the COPS bill was based on Kerry ideas.

So if they had him playing with young kids for the first and showing him talking to inner city kids and/or playing some sport with them. At 6' 4'' and co-ordinated he should be able to play basketball with kids.

I have little to add, but to answer your question:

show the real man. Talk about what he did in the Senate, about his issues, particularly environment and energy, good governance, fairness and opportunity for all , and of course, his vision of foreign policy. Link all that to what he did in the Senate, as Lt Governor, as a prosecutor, and even against the Vietnam war.

All that goes together and not talking about one thing makes the image incomplete.

The swift boating of Kerry is so clear now, so I don't think those tactics will work for Republicans at all anymore. It would have been nice if we could have really gotten people to see those smear tactics last year, instead of debating the accuracy of the claims. As much as I think the campaign did try to pull the curtain back on Bush, you just can't make people see until they're ready to see. I also think the polls speak pretty clearly on that, people thought KERRY attacked unfairly more often. When a 501(c) puts on an anti-Bush ad, people associate it with the campaign. So the idea that Kerry should have ripped into Bush more really doesn't hold water, according to the exit polls.

I do agree with you, I lik Q&A or Townhall Kerry much much better. I used to say that Marvin's primary job should be to smash all podiums on sight.

Without the spin machine, it would have been an easy win. Then again, there's also the issue of Kaine being able to taylor abortion, guns and gays to Virginia. Try that on a national level, and you're going to have interest groups angry that he didn't pay enough attention to their issues. See TayTay's visit to Liberalland. I don't know how we're ever going to bridge that gap.

First, thanks guys for all of your input.

Kaine and abortion -- I watched one of the debates on C-SPAN, and I have to say that Kaine had the same position as Kerry -- I'm personally opposed to abortion but I'll enforce the laws on the book, nor am I going to work to put restrictions or outright ban abortion. He called that pro-life, Kerry calls it pro-choice. The big difference is that the POTUS nominates Supreme Court Justices, so Kaine wouldn't have gotten away with his position on a national level. The other side (which I'm already getting mad thinking about it) was how all the pressure last year was on Kerry's abortion position (and those poor fetuses). There were absolutely NO tough questions directed at * and whether or not he advocated putting either the doctors or pregnant women in jail (those poor girls). That was once again the SCLM being so afraid of being called liberal that they ceded the entire abortion argument to the pro-life people. In Virginia, it was Kilgore who had pressure put on him for such a heartless position (like the fact that he would only allow abortions for victims of rape and incest if they reported the crime to police within 7 days). * got away with too much on that issue last year, and with the Supreme Court moving to the right, here's hoping that NEVER happens again in an election.

As far as the "real John Kerry", I am a newbie, relatively speaking, in my utter admiration and affection I have for him. Last year, I was only an MSM consumer of the campaign. And really just an hour a day -- The News Hour with Jim Lehrer -- which would show extended clips of the two candidates. So I feel like I saw a fair amount of Kerry. I agree with you, Tay Tay, that Kerry had two awesome speeches in September, and I KNEW he was going to come up in the polls when I saw the excerpts on Lehrer. He also put in a supreme performance during the debates. I also read a few favorable articles about him in the New Yorker, especially his days as a prosecutor. But here's the thing -- there are different aspects to people, and I didn't feel like he had completely fleshed himself out come election day. For me this wasn't a problem, since I vote on issues, not personalities. But a lot of Americans like my friend do. So Kerry concedes and comes out to give a speech. And he's emotional and so many things I just can't describe. Of course, I cried while watching the speech, but when I thought about it afterwards, a question came to my head. Who precisely was this man who just came out to speak, and where the hell was he all last year? You talk about pulling the curtain away to reveal who * really was. But a curtain was pulled away for me, when a man came out who had real feelings, not so easily carcicatured, and openly shared his grief with us. I'm not saying he should come out and give an emotional speech all the time, but the more the curtain is moved away, the more I see the man who is John Kerry, the MORE I like him. And if more people could see that, they might consider voting for him next time. Now the question is how.

That is true, those questions about the criminalization of women and doctors weren't asked. I'd have to blame that on the campaign, it's their job to bring those issues into the forefront. Certainly the media should too, but in a campaign, they have to do it if the media isn't. It's definitely a side of the issue that hasn't been discussed much, and should be.

However, I would disagree that Kaine & Kerry have the same view on abortion. Kaine believes there is really a need for "partial-birth" and parental notification type laws. Pro-choice is to leave the choice between the woman, her doctor & her god; as Kerry said on many occasions. Kaine doesn't seem to have that view. At least as I understand him.

On Q&A Kerry, I can't comment. I watched him all through the primaries and feel like I saw that guy quite a few times at townhalls. I just got accustomed to the guy who gives speeches and I guess I always knew that was who I was going to get. It doesn't matter to me, but I understand that whole "in my living room for the next 4 years" thing.

I was concerned because I had seen many debates last year for the Senate races (Carlson (?), Tennenbaum, Salazar), who let me wonder why I would want to vote for them (and happy to live in MA and not have this problem).

Given everything that the media had said on Kaine, I was expecting the same thing: somebody who was running away from Democratic ideas and into a Repub light position.

I was pleased to see that it was not like that (granted, I dont agree with him on abortion, but at least, he claimed his opposition to death penalty). He stood clearly on his positions, most of them I can live with or agree. He is clear and look competent and I liked him a lot more than I liked listening to Warner.

So I am not surprised that he got elected, particularly after a campaign where he campaigned plainly. I would not make the comparison with Kerry. He will not have any power relative to security and I am sure it was a big issue last year and Bush really played on that a lot.