In the case of Gore, he initially was praised for graciously conceding a race he likely knew he had won when the Supreme Court intervened. He left the country and worked preparing his climate change stuff. When he returned in 2002, he was treated terribly by the mainstream Democrats -- his crimes: 1) He was angry (!) 2) he had gotten fat (!) and 3) he had grown a beard.
While true that he did not have either the Russians or the FBI investigating him --- he had Bill Clinton deciding that the weekend before the convention was when he should go on national TV to speak of how, after Monica, he was getting his personal life back together. Seriously does anyone think this helped?
In the case of Kerry, he had the swiftboat veteran liars getting endless media attacking him -- and as each charge was disproved, they moved on to the next charge -- the book, with its hundreds of allegations - some contradicting each other was like a cluster bomb. They received at least as much coverage as the wikileak stuff - and much of the coverage was sympathetic to the liars. Not to mention, the media condoned for the most part the purple heart bandaids.
The Comey letters were wrong, but it was HRC's missteps on the emails that were the basis - which while not illegal, were certainly not to her credit. In Kerry's case the reason was 2 fold -- one was that he protested the Vietnam War, which is to his credit AND because his real service record as a war hero contrasted in his favor compared to Bush.
In addition, 2004 was a much harder year to run than either 2000 or 2016. Remember Bush was in the 60s in approval ratings in 2003.
As to no anger afterwards, I remember that DU and Daily Kos trashed Kerry for months. Not just for losing or being a bad candidate, but as a person and politician. There was also a whisper campaign, from Daily Kos, that attacked Kerry saying that Harry Reid and the others in Senate leadership were angry that Kerry would position himself as A , not the, Democratic leader. Even Bill Clinton spoke negatively of both Kerry and Gore in 2005/2006 contrasting them as not being as strong fighting the rw as he was.
I would say that compared to Gore, Hillary is getting far more criticism on her campaign. She is also NOT getting as much support for being potentially the next nominee. Likely because there is a very strong case that he actually won that a very large percent of the population accepts. In addition, in early 2001, no one had any idea how much consequence there would be to Bush being President. However, once that was clear - after 911 and in the run up to Iraq - when Gore returned the mainstream of the party attacked him.
Compared to Kerry, I think the response is more polarized. There are FAR more people defending her and attacking anyone who says that she made mistakes -- either with the email or her campaign (ie not visiting Wisconsin). With Kerry, there was a period in the wake of the election where the only positive threads on anything for Kerry were in DU JK. I KNOW how much that safe space was appreciated by me and others. I can assure you that Kerry got as little respect on the main forums as Clinton.
At this point, there are STILL some in the media, here and elsewhere who want Hillary to lead the efforts against Trump. While HRC had many in the media who were tough on her, she also had many people who were there for her in 1992, 2008, and 2016 - far more than Kerry had in 2004. At this point, it is when THEY push that maybe she should run again (even though she is on record as a no) or when they position her as the one to lead, that there is push back from people who think we need new leadership. (Not to mention, there is a fight for the heart of the party that also means that Sanders is treated far more negatively than Dean, the closest counterpart I can think of from 2004.
ALL of us are hurt, devastated by where the US is now. Almost all of us voted for HRC, canvassed or phone banked for HRC, and never really thought the country would elect Trump. Just as many in 2004 blamed Kerry, who took on a long shot race and had there been a reasonable number of voting machines in Ohio cities would have won for Bush still being in office. For many, it was oddly that they had begun to trust that he could win and they had been impressed ... until he lost. With Clinton losing to Trump, the same thing is happening to her --- and it is a measure of how terrible Trump is -- that the intensity of the blame given to Clinton is both strong and hurts those who have long liked her.
= new reply since forum marked as read
utin.
