There is something to be said for charisma

[JNelson6563]

Ok, I wanted to throw this out here and see what we get....

I was in the trenches day in and day out of this campaign. Opened Dem HQ myself every morning, worked many 12-14 hour days, raised a shitload of money and achieved great things.

With that said, I must share an observation with you. I saw no love for Kerry. Where I live has long been written off as a Rethug stronghold. I cannot tell you how many times I heard "I am an independent, I usually vote Republican but I can't stand Bush!". I heard it everyday, several times. Not once did I hear of love for Kerry. They came in for lawn signs, bumper stickers and pins, duly giving me donations (lots of 'em!) but still no "Isn't Kerry great?" or anything like it.

When Elizabeth Edwards came to town I got to spend the week with the advance team. Showed them around town, our operation, everything. They were very impressed. I also shared my above observation with them. I told them things look great but imagine if there was some actual passion for Kerry instead of just against Bush. Told them that was what we needed to achieve and maybe if they got Kerry here & into other supposed Rethug strongholds that might help.

Well, whether they did or didn't get him into those strongholds doesn't much matter, what does matter is that there was still no great passion by election day for Kerry. Yes Bush looked like an idiot next to him at debates and yes, Kerry looks presidential but still...

There really was no charisma or magnetism or any of that. I think that is something we should consider next time around.

Your thoughts?

Julie

[AP]

1. It's not all Kerry's fault. This was the Bush strategy and a lot of Dems..

...were big time suckers for it.

Bush copied the Nixon strategy: be such an asshole that you draw the opposition into focussing entirely on you and not on what they stand for. That's how Nixon won in '72.

The first sign of trouble was "ABB." When people first started saying that, I though, "man, that was invented by a Republican and not a Democrat."

I can't believe so many Democrats thought that by repeating that they were doing something helpful.

I think Kerry did do a pretty good job of telling people what he stood for. But it was the rank and file democrat who didn't see the damage they were doing by having their eye on Bush rather than on the prize.

[JNelson6563]

3. You miss the point

There were countless independents that came in that hated Bush. Kerry lacked the style, charisma, magnetism (whatever you want to call it) to really win their hearts.

Many of the Dems who supported him did so in spite him being their far-from-first-choice in the primaries.

Don't blame the Dems. Especially those of us who worked very hard for free! Let's be intellectually honest here. It's not the fault of the rank and file Dems or the hard-working volunteers.

Julie

[AP]

5. Kerry could have had a better personality, but still, every chance I got

to tell people that they have got to stop arguing against Bush and start arguing for Kerry, they got it and started doing that.

It's a shame that more people didn't realize that earlier, but you have to appreciate that a lot of that was driven by what I assume must be either very misguided people or false flag operations.

Kerry was working his ass off, but when you have perhaps well funded covert wingers pushing the manta "ABB" with all their money and all their insider media connections, it's hard to put all the blame on Kerry's personality.

JULES
I wouldn't go so far as to call a
dog filthy, but they're definitely
dirty. But a dog's got
personality. And personality goes
a long way.

VINCENT
So by that rationale, if a pig had
a better personality, he's cease to
be a filthy animal?

JULES
We'd have to be talkin' 'bout one
motherfuckin' charmin' pig. It'd
have to be the Cary Grant of pigs.

[Julien Sorel]

12. It's always like that in every election against an incumbent.

It was true even for Clinton in '92 (an election I followed rather closely), and no one could accuse Clinton of having a charisma deficit. Bush himself followed that pattern in a way in 2000: "I'm a lot like Clinton, but I don't get blowjobs!"

The difference this time is that a normal campaign dynamic somehow became a (very) minor issue for the campaign itself. In that, I suspect a combination of Republican talking points, immediately picked up by the inane cable media, and then echoed by soft-headed Democrats new to campaigning, who took nearly everything they saw and heard on TV to heart.

I rather suspect the thread starter is making a back door argument for more of the same from 2000 and 2004, but this time with a "charismatic" candidate (whose identity you can easily guess) so this whole topic is just silliness anyway. There will be no incumbent in 2008 for an "Anybody but ___ (my guess is Frist)" argument to take hold.

[JNelson6563]

18. I shared my observations

I was in the trenches daily. In the original thread I shared the facts of what I witnessed. If you would rather infer I am merely being snide or have a personal gripe go ahead. I can't think of a less productive approach to it or a more fitting poster for it to come from.

I'm just reporting the facts. Infer I have some other agenda if you like, that doesn't change the facts as reported.

Lastly, just so you know the effort by us here was effective, I will have you know we won an unprecedented amount of precincts and many we didn't win in were very high 40's for Kerry. I'm in Michigan and as you know we wenet blue. We did our bit, that's for sure.

With that said, you know what you can do with your inferrence.

:toast:

Julie

[Julien Sorel]

35. Your talents, hard work, passion, and observations are

greatly appreciated.

Other than that, it's "inference," not "inferrence." ;-)

:toast:

[NYCGirl]

2. I think you're right. Unfortunately, in our current society, being

"telegenic" accounts for a lot. Personally, I can't understand the Bush likeability thing; smirking fratboy types disgust me, but lots of people like him, for some reason I can't fathom.

[AP]

7. Thank god there are telegenic people who care about Democracy.

To me, this is what Clinton was talking about when he said that the remarkable thing about Edwards isn't that he has immense talents, but that he has chosen to use them to do good things.

[smbolisnch]

4. Hey Julie

I personally did vote FOR Kerry as opposed to against *. I suppose maybe it had something to do with my being very involved and very political. I did see a side of him that most Americans who just catch a little bit of faux "news" every night didn't get to see. I blame it completely on the media. They didn't give him a chance. How often did you see video clips of * with his dog and at the "ranch" etc?? What comes to mind was Kerry snowboarding last year. They were all over the rumor that he yelled at an adviser, and THAT was the story, and that's all. KWIM??

And on a side note, *'s so called charisma makes me want to vomit. He comes across as illiterate and pompous. If that's endearing to more than half of the country, well, I just don't get it...:puke:

[JNelson6563]

21. Hey, I'm there

What really did it for me was the debates. After watching those I realized Kerry was certainly someone I could be proud to call my President. But then again, I too am really into politics.

Unfortunately many only knwo what corporate news whores tell them.

Julie

[smbolisnch]

24. Exactly.

All I can say is, when i see Kerry Bashing on here, or anywhere, I take it personally. I really do. He got through to me, for whatever reason.

[spooky3]

26. I guess what I'd like to know is how many people stayed home because

they hated Bush's work but didn't find Kerry's charisma powerful enough to get to the polls.

I have a feeling there weren't too many.

But we know approximately 40% of people who could register did not vote (most were probably registered). Why did they stay home? My guess is that for most of them, they didn't see much impact of the President on their daily lives. For how many of them would an incredibly charismatic candidate drawn them out this year? My guess is, very few. If they judge things only in their own narrow lens, it seems they would have to be jolted by fear or a promise that would affect them and that they really thought would happen with one candidate but not the other.

But I don't have any evidence to present; it's just my hunch.

So my hypothesis is that if the other party has a very charismatic, seemingly competent non-incumbent in 2008, we're going to have to match them. But in this case, I don't think they did. I'm in the camp that believes the jury is still out on whether substantial fraud occurred. So I would prefer to withhold judgement until that evidence has fully come out.

on edit: Julie, thanks for your hard work.

[SmokingJacket]

6. Charismatic people tend to have Sex Issues.

Remember Clinton?

Honestly, unless you're into bioengineering, I don't see how we could have done much better than the tall, nice looking, intelligent, experience vietnam vet with no mistresses that we nominated.

[CityHall]

8. Exactly right. MRI data confirmed this

There was a report about two weeks ago that FMRI studies showed that Bush supporters responded to looking at Bush the way people respond to an old friend. Kerry supporters responded to Kerry the way people respond to a sunset.

I shook his hand at a rally and I can confirm that he wasn't connecting with people jsut two feet in front of him. He wasn't looking people in the eye, just grinning blankly off into space. (Teresa was much better at the same event.)

We had a cardboard cutout of Kerry at the large election-night party the dems organized, and honestly, it generated about as much excitement as the actual candidate. At the rally, there was a noticeable drop in enthusiasm by the time Kerry came out, vs the excitement in the buildup when Bon Jovi was playing and local politicians were speaking.

Say what you will about Monday morning quarterbacking, but this was one of the big weaknesses of the campaign.

[seabeyond]

9. nelson lets not forget another fact

how many people went beyond, looking for information to see who kerry is. every person i know that actually took the time to see who kerry is, listen to what he had to say, get to know the feel of the man, came off liking what they saw. the media, thru the whole time kerry ran, did not say one positive thing. the repug presented a fake illusion of who kerry is. if that is all you have to go off of, what was presented as who kerry is, then how could there be a love for the man. how could there even be a like. kerry didnt have access to favorable coverage. the man was lucky to get any coverage at all

[JNelson6563]

14. Here is a fact for you

We endured the horrors of letting the Coordinated Campaign work out of our office. They did loads of phone banking. Do you have any idea how much $ I authorized the party to spend on printing and mailing all kinds of info out? Anyone who asked got sent info.

Of course we didn't get any eye-catching color lit until the weekend before election so all we had to send out was the stuff we printed ourselves so I guess there is something to be said about organization of a campaign and expecting too much of local parties too.

Julie

[seabeyond]

20. hey julie, i am a julie

i would also like to say, i am not hiring someone to have a beer with, go to bed with, or other wise be entertained by. so again i throw it to the american people that they are so clueless that excitement of the candidaate, not the one most qualified is even a factor.

and of curse i know it is. talking to a man who says he was voting for kerry, but that edwards too young. he is 51 i say. really he says, well he shouldnt look so young. k i say, but by the same standard some woman will vote for him simply cause he is cute.

just retarded to me

[Leilani]

10. Ironic, I just posted something similar in another thread...

So many people I know, who are not political, didn't like Bush...didn't like his policies, war, style, etc.

But they didn't like Kerry.

I didn't originally support Kerry, but when he won the nomination I fell in line.

But I was ABB.

So yes, there IS such a thing as charisma.

[Cha]

11. CAll me crazy...I found plenty of

"charisma" in Kerry. I know that didn't translate to mass appeal..a la Clinton. But 55 Million Voters voted for Kerry..and I know many were just against bush.

Anyway..Kerry won..it's just a matter of proving voter fraud.

[Shanty Oilish]

13. Star quality

I'm a believer. Star quality makes a difference. It shouldn't, but it does.

[hijinx87]

22. star quality? how much star quality did * have ?

honestly, I don't get it. we go on and on about charisma and star quality, and we got beat by a god damn dirt clod from texas.

[Shanty Oilish]

23. Did I say he did? No.

Star quality would have beaten him handily. As it is, we came very close. About a hundred fifty thousand votes in Ohio made all the difference. One state. One. But I digress. The candidate with more star quality, or any other appeal that works on the pre-conscious level, has the advantage. It's just a fact. They don't always win, but they're likelier to win.

[hijinx87]

25. it wasn't "star quality" that beat us.

the search for "star quality" is bullshit.

it was the fact that we nominated a fucking stiff. we lost the anti-war vote when we abandoned howard dean. we lost gravitas when we failed to put gephardt on the ticket.

senators never win the presidency, and the only way we could have made that worse would be to put TWO senators on the ticket.

jesus christ, and now we're even deeper into a republican morass in the house and the senate.

I've been lurking for a pretty long time, and perhaps it's just the bitter disappointment that compels me to speak up, but we got killed for reasons beyond "star power", and it pisses me off to see that reason proposed.

[hijinx87]

36. a more distinct message on gay marriage would have done better

the difference between the * message on gay marriage and kerry's was THIN AT BEST. we needed distinction, not necessarily difference. and hell, even * came out for "gay union" at the last second. why didn't kerry POUNCE on that?

[janx]

15. I don't know if it's so much charisma as it is an ability to

connect with many different kinds of people. It took awhile for Kerry to realize that he could relax--hell, he'd been in the Senate for 20 years, and that's somewhat of a formal situation and lifestyle. Also, the photo ops the campaign chose to highlight overcompensated for this, I think.

The one moment I remember well was not the goose hunt itself (because I thought that was over the top), but Kerry's reaction to the lab who was on the hunt. Kerry knows dogs, obviously; he stuck his face almost gleefully right up to the dog's. It seemed very genuine.

But it's stuff like that that a campaign really can't plan or fake. It is, again, the ability to spontaneously connect somehow. A candidate doesn't have to look like a film star or a jock or what-have-you; s/he just has to have that familiar trait.

[Leilani]

19. Great point!

I love dogs, & when I saw that photo of Kerry & the dog, it made him seem more real to me.

Kerry is a very formal person, & I think the campaign could have shown him better.

And I don't mean extreme sports.

[yardwork]

16. Kerry won my love

I can't speak for anyone else, but I totally admire Kerry now for being a kind, thoughtful, decent, intelligent, truth-telling person.

Kerry is everything the chimp claims to be and is not. The chimp is everything he claimed Kerry to be.

The truth was out there. All people had to do was watch Kerry on TV, read transcripts, or even go in person to hear him speak. I thought he did a great job.

I also happen to think that Kerry won the election.

You won't find me complaining about Kerry as a candidate. I thought he did a great job.

[The Wielding Truth]

27. We knew Kerry , that's the difference. Most people didn't research

this guy. They saw him as ABB and not much else. He repeated all the issues and tried as hard as he could. I, too admire him and loved him as a decent man,a servant to this country and to us. He is so what this country needs. He is a statesman and his agenda is just to make this country stronger and more free.
It's simple,but it's very difficult if not impossible to get past the Rove machine of destruction. You've seen it at work. It's psy-ops for the USA. It has changed us from a world inspiration to world conquerer.
Kerry may be able to do something in the Senate that he could not do before . He can maybe with Obama release us from this manic Mideast fiasco.

[JI7]

17. he got a great reaction when people saw him

after the debate the polls showed he was more liked than bush.

[hijinx87]

30. exactly. and that should freak ALL of us out.

we won the debates, all THREE, mind you, and still lost the election. So, WTF?

[newyawker99]

47. Hi hijinx87!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Awsi Dooger]

57. That was one sample and not true overall

The national and statewide pre-election polls and exit polls confirmed Bush had a greater favorable/unfavorable impression ratio than Kerry.

[hijinx87]

28. Can we get off "charisma", please?

there is a whole category of "charismatic leaders", and it's not exactly flattering. Look it up.

I just disagree vehemently with this whole notion that we need "charisma".

[JNelson6563]

29. Like I said

there's something to be said for it.

I don' think it's the be all and end all by any means. I tend to be more intellectual when making choices myself.

But the fact remains, America is too large for any candidate to politic in retail fashion for the WH. One has to have a broad appeal in order for the mass-marketing that is today's national politics. Many Dems were angry at Kerry's votes but backed him anyway. The a-political souls and disaffected Rethugs also voted for him. It's just that nobody was breaking down the door to get a piece of the man.

Julie--just reporting the way it played out in this neck of the woods

[hijinx87]

32. well, maybe I'm just being a jerk.

sorry if it looks that way. but what we need is ANOTHER bill clinton, but without the scandals that gave the thugs a reason to run on in the first place.

the whole thing just pisses me off.

[tjdee]

31. SCHWARZENNEGGER.

I've been saying this for a very long time.

Democrats are always with the "people are going to listen to real issues and look at the blah blah blah." They continually overestimate their fellow voting Americans in this regard.

After what happened to Al Gore, an excellent public servant and a very good man, and after Schwarzennegger won California, I felt it even more.

That was one of the reasons I so strongly advocated an Edwards or Clark nomination. We are very lucky to have smart, capable people who are also good looking and charismatic. We should use them.

This is not to excuse voting fraud and the media machine's role in this. Or to place blame on Kerry, who would have been a fine president.

[hijinx87]

33. BULLCRAP.

the guy is a rethug. he was a big reason why we lost ohio; there was a tremendous rally with arnold and *.

[tjdee]

34. And why did he win?

Charisma.

People liked him.

They looked at HIM and not the Republican machine/agenda.

And he did it in California, which is the huggiest liberal place in the country.

When I saw the Dem challenger talking some "tough love" crap, I knew it was all over for him. He was boring, probably would have done a good job, and look who Californians chose.

[hijinx87]

37. I was BORN in California, and I am the first to say . . .

it's a really, REALLY funny place. with swarzenegger in place, it could go repug tomorrow. Socal could easily go repug, and overbalance the folks in Nocal.

[hijinx87]

41. with all y'all in place. it would still take ohio. n/t

[hijinx87]

43. easy, baby.

I am on your side.

[JI7]

38. while california is democratic, it's not very liberal

the anti gay proposition on the ballots passed by majority a few years ago. the proposition to make the 3 strikes law less strict failed to pass. we voted to get rid of affirmative action.

it's mostly liberal in that it's very much prochoice, for gun control,environmental protection and because of the entertainment industry and scientific research,.

richard riordan would have been competitive also statewide. and gray davis had been attacked for a lot of things that looked wrong such as giving favors to contributors. much of it because of democrats going after him. the green party didn't help either in this.

[hijinx87]

44. yes, yes, yes.

and we ALSO just got our ass' kicked by a bunch of dirt munchers . . .

[Awsi Dooger]

58. Great example; people voter FOR Schwarzennegger, not just AGAINST Davis

Several of us stressed that on DU, to no avail. Gray Davis was very unpopular, no denying that. But a typical Republican would have had an extremely close recall vote, both in parts 1 and 2. Only someone who the populus was passionate to vote FOR could carry that recall by significant majority. Because we had no clue what happened in California, our lousy handicapping prevailed in the 2004 primaries.

[baltodemvet]

39. Charisma has it's place

if it's in addition to brains, competence and communications skills.

[mitchum]

40. But bush has no charisma!

Now, there is a legion of paid fluffers out there proclaiming his charisma. But that is exactly what they are doing- proclaiming! They repeat this lie over and over in the service of a dull-witted, peevish ape-like creature.

[Rev_Karl]

56. The only thing Bush has is charisma!

He realized early on that he didn't have the smarts or the drive to get ahead so he worked on the charm. Moved to Texas, took on the accent, got himself born-again (twice) and charmed his way to the top (with his daddy's help)

He is the frat-boy leader - all charm and no substance. Evil and empty at the core.

[liberalfrombirth]

42. Kerry is not a leader!

Ok, now back off! neither is the _ that just got elected again. But until we put out a true leader we will never win again.

Thankfully, I see one coming... from IL...

Sorry in advance to those of you I just pissed off. You'll get over it soon enough.

Wake up and smell the truth.

[Redleg]

51. Kerry is a leader.

I'm not going to get over it. You can take your "wake up and smell the truth" back to freeperville.

[NewJeffCT]

53. it was in the portrayal

Kerry is a fine leader. However, when he had chances early on to define himself, he was not able to do it. When he had the nomination sewn up, Bush & the RW propaganda machine immediately went out and started calling him a flip-flopper who changes positions with the winds of politics.

While Bush was, in actuality, a much bigger flip-flopper over a much shorter time, Kerry & our surrogates did not do a good job at hitting back. This portrayal as a flip-flopper early on really hurt Kerry. If they had neutralized that early on (pointed out Bush's flip flops!), it would have made a huge difference, as most don't see leadership as flip-flopping.

[PATRICK]

45. That is the reason

I first backed Edwards, but kerry had proved the most ready campaigner with other strengths that came in late and sturdy. HE was the front man for all the hits. Edwards was left relatively alone for a purpose. Ordinarily a post like this right now has me searching for your post count and the Alert. I think we need to focus. Bush feared the charisma wild card blowing all their plans. Predictability and closeness was EVERYTHING to this plan.

If sturdy and experienced proves true even yet prepare to eat this post, but in any event this is premature considering we are talking about a dedicated coup d'etat NOT a beauty contest.

My God, get out of this "if only" we had dressed better crap. We were campaign fodder.

I DID mention the excitement factor that the DNC really fumbled in our local race in my scorcher to McAuliffe. Abysmally so for the ill-advised and attractive Samara Barend. If you could grass roots personally every area life would be full of charismatic stump candidates. Use of TV has to really accent the postive to highlight the REAL greatness of our candidates, not standard Madison Ave. fakery.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

46. There was another factor at work as well

The more I think about it, the more I start to believe that this was just not going to be our year, for the main reason that in the aftermath of 9-11, a lot of voters simply felt a devotion to Bush due to the fact that they felt that they had been through a difficult experience with him. That level of devotion is transcendent and is next to impossible to manufacture, even given $200 million and an experienced candidate.

Kerry handed Bush his ass in all three debates, and as much as I enjoyed watching that, there was a feeling in the back of my mind that even that wasn't going to make the difference. The die had already been cast for a significant portion of the electorate three years earlier. People felt on a visceral level that Bush was "protecting" them. Once people have bought into that it's hard to offer them something else that trumps it. A lot of people who I used to respect and who I thought were intelligent swallowed this horseshit whole, and it's very difficult to break through that level of delusion.

As much as I hate to say it, the only way this perception of Bush is going to change is if something truly calamitous happens on his watch, in such a way that it is impossible for him to escape the perception of blame. Since he already fucked up a war and no one minds, it's going to have to be something truly horrific to make an impression.

[mtnsnake]

48. Did Kerry ever smile once during his speeches? He hunts geese, though

How correct you are, Julie.

It's the image, baby!! Sadly and unfortunately, it really is a big part of it.

Chimpy's image makers transformed him into a cute little smirking cowboy/toughguy, who appealed to and fooled the masses of people into voting for him. You and I could see through it....that just underneath was really a madman, but his followers are incapable of grasping reality. Does anyone really think Chimpy's sleeves were always rolled up because he was hot? Does anyone think he learned that little gloating smile on his on his own, the one he started wearing 24/7 following debate #1 for the rest of the campaign whenever he talked to his subjects? The smile of confidence?

Kerry, OTOH, had no image makers. If he did, they all should've been fired on the spot. Did he ever smile once during any of his monotone speeches? This may sound trivial, but he couldn't even do a good looking thumbs up, and if you're gonna do thumbs up each and every function, then learn to hold that friggen thumb up straight and not at quarter mast! And how many times did he overdo it with that "heartfelt" gesture, the one he learned from Teresa where they clasp their hands on their chest and then "send" their heart toward someone in the crowd? Geez, if I was one of his image makers, I would've told him to stop doing it so much. That one gets corny looking after you see it so many times. And then we had him out there killing geese with only a couple weeks to go until the election. Nice fucking image. I'll bet that really swayed a lot of voters...the wrong way!!

[xequals]

49. There is a lot to be said for charisma

from the playground to the boardroom, people respond to popular, good looking people. That's just a fact of human nature. Voters -- especially the apolitical types looking for hope and change -- tend to gravitate towards them.

If Kerry would've just been himself he would've been great. The Kerry that came back from 'Nam spoke with passion and conviction; he had tons of charisma. The Kerry of the Senate always sounded like he was playing the part of what he thought a politician should be; very rehearsed and disconnected. It's a shame because he showed flashes of the 'Nam Kerry now and then, but it didn't quite break through.

[NYCGirl]

52. I agree. Every time someone would bring up the 1970s Kerry,

I so wished that John Kerry would appear.

[Redleg]

50. I believe Kerry has charisma.

I don't profess to know Kerry's personality traits nor should any of us who haven't spent a great deal of time with him. Bushco did their best to portray Kerry as a stiff, humorless, elitist, bore (as they did to Al Gore). The media swallowed that bullshit whole and when comparing Kerry's "personality" to Bush's, Kerry almost always came out the loser.

Anyone who can remember Bush's performance in the first debate and his performance against McCain in the 2000 primaries, and his many shitty statements since then will believe Bush to be a petty, arrogant, and untrustworthy person.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

54. This was definitely part of the problem.

We lost the personality contest. Some people tend not to look at what the guy on TV is saying, but how he is saying it.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

55. NONE of the primary contenders had it

Or that one would have won the nomination.

Lacking a charismatic choice, Democrats had to make a tactical decision about who had the best chance of beating Bush. Whether he was our first choice or last choice, many of us came to love Kerry for the qualities that the majority of Democrats saw in him. But all of those qualities are tangible. None of them are magical.The revulsion that drove people away from Bush did not turn into an emotional attachment to Kerry.

People who doubt the power and importance of charisma should ask themselves why they don't marry the first decent, nice, smart person they meet, or why some talented performers never get the acclaim they deserve.

[Awsi Dooger]

59. To oust an incumbent, charisma isn't just something, it's everything

I host debate watching parties and I think that gives me a good insight into apolotical voters. If the candidate doesn't magnetize them, they will turn away or head to the bathroom even if he's making the greatest political point of all time.

I'm just going to repeat what I posted all year, in fact back to early 2003:

* Only Reagan and Clinton, flooded with charisma, have ousted a presidential incumbent in recent history

* None of our candidates were ideal, but it was lousy handicapping to identify bland New England senator John Kerry, based on a war record and so-called electability.

* John Edwards was the proper choice. His so-called lightweight resume could easily have been overcome by basic likeability, optimistic populus message and an ability to win women and undecideds more than Kerry. This campaign was always about winning a majority of the elusive 10%, that neither party had a lock on. I thought Edwards had the best chance, and many of the internals from exit polls during the primaries confirmed that.

* ABB was idiocy, masochistic to the core. So was running a negative Bush-bashing campaign when public opinion of this incumbent was locked in, only influenced by outside events like the prison abuse scandal. Yet I still see DUers second guessing this campaign, saying there should have been more widespread and intense criticism of Bush. Surreal.

* Regardless of our candidate, we were at more of a disadvantage all year than we dared to accept, based on our hatred of Bush. Since 1900, 9 of 10 presidential incumbents have been re-elected if his party has only held the White House for one term. A natural benefit of a doubt. Now, make it 10 of 11.

* In total, Republican registration, GOTV strategy, and passion matched ours, at bare minimum. 9/11 gave the GOP a boost, in fear based trust.

* White women were always going to decide this election. Kerry's fortune in the polls was directly tied to his percentage among them. Security moms were not a myth. When terrorism declines as an issue and we find a candidate who can wow white women with charisma, we will regain the White House.