If our next candidate doesn't WANT it, then please don't waste our time

[mtnsnake]

(Please, this isn't meant to be ONLY about the Clintons, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, or Howard Dean in particular, just because I picked their names as examples)

Bill Clinton WANTED to be president. He wanted it since he was a little kid. That's a good thing. If his wife runs, it'll be because she WANTS to become president. Love her or hate her, her WANTING to be president is half the battle.

I don't know of too many of our primary candidates, including the one who actually ran, John Kerry, who acted like they really WANTED it last time. Maybe Dean, maybe Clark to an extent, maybe someone else, I'm not so sure.

For that matter, in the actual campaign itself between Kerry and Jackass, who do YOU think ACTED like they wanted it more?

I think it takes a combination of wanting it and thinking you can win and conveying that notion to the voters. In 2008, if you can't get up there and passionately convey to us a burning desire that you WANT the job like you want nothing else, then please find someone else's time to waste. I wanna see it written all over your face how BADLY you want the job. As much as I absolutely LOVE Al Gore and like John Kerry, we don't need another robot putting the voters to sleep. I wanna see some passion!

[elehhhhna]

1. GW wants the perks, but not the job.

[Wickerman]

2. So, who do you think WANTS it?

I understand your point, but I really do think Gore wanted it. He just had a subdued style that the press latched on to as stiff. It was easier to attack than his sound policy.

Kerry was another story from the same book. That man dreamed of being President since he was a kid and lined his ducks up to get there but was, admittedly a little stiff. With a little MSM fairness, either should've beaten Bush* in trot.

So, who is your choice as a passionate Dem candidate?

[mtnsnake]

5. It's not just wanting it. It's CONVEYING that to the voters. Sure, Gore

wanted it badly, but I don't remember him coming across as someone who consistently conveyed that feeling to voters who didn't know him as well.

Maybe Kerry wanted it just as bad as Clinton or Gore, but you'll never convince me of that, let alone all the swing voters.

My choice as a passionate Dem candidate? I can't really answer that yet and that's why I did this thread. However, I can say that if Hillary runs, we won't have to worry about the "wanting it" part. The passionate part, well, that I'm no so sure of.

I just hope to heck that someone surfaces who has passion and desire and who can convey to the voters that they have that.

[karynnj]

45. You mention swing voters

but you are from NY - not being in a swing state, you likely saw no rallies, and probably very little of the campaign. I love watching campaigns, but living in a blue state - without CSPAN, it would be hard to even feel like there was a campaign going on - except for the snarky NYT Kerry reporting (Nagourney and Wilgoren) and the Bush groupie, Bumiller's Bush reporting. The editorial board endorsed Kerry, but reading the paper I didn't take it as a given.

The coverage was very different even from 2000. The conventions only got 3 hours of network coverage, the cable coverage had easily twice as many Republicans on their panels. Bush had far more leverage than Kerry with the debate commision. Kerry got 3 debates; Bush chose almost everything else. Bob Sheifer is the brother of a former W business partner - is it a surprise the domestic debate had no environmental or energy question - both Kerry strengths. Every other year, each of the channels did photo jounalism biographies that showed how the candidate came to be one of 2 men that will be President. (even with his troubled biography - they made Bush seem destined to be President.) Only PBS (Frontline) did a decent biography for Kerry. MSNBC covered ONLY the anti-war Kerry.

In another post, you say you are trying to extract meaning for the future. It may be fairer as there is no incumbent, but we need to look at how the media changed - and figure out if the media favored the Republicans or Bush (alternatively was it Kerry or the Democrats they disliked). It may be that, even if they have to pay for the time, the Democrats need a good biography for whoever their candidate is. (You have to admit Kerry has a far more impressive iteresting biography than the average candidate.)

[mtnsnake]

49. I was "into" this last campaign like no other I've ever been into

It absolutely had awful effects on me watching in frustration as the SB liars smeared and smeared with little or no rebuttal. I think last year's campaign even affected my health. Oh I was into it alright.

Anyway, back to the subject, as to Kerry himself, I found his background to be VERY interesting and honorable. He's a good man and would've made a fine president. I stand by what I said, though. I don't think he conveyed clearly enough to the swing voters the notion that he passionately wanted it as much as he should have. To me he seemed way too scripted, lacking in emotion, and robotically cerebral. Not everyone is so cerebral as we are at DU that they can catch onto his message as easily, which all to often was too muddled and hazy. It would be nice to see our next candidate act passionately about getting the presidency. By passionately, I mean with vains popping (once in a while) when he or she speaks.

[Skwmom]

3. I'm tired of the "me" candidates. Give me someone like Clark who

passionately loves this country and who has the leadership ability, smarts, integrity, and humanity to help turn this country around.

[BlueJac]

4. True

Clark could be the man in '08

:kick:

[mtnsnake]

6. I think Clark is fairly close to becoming the "perfect" candidate

He did show some spark in the "desire" department, along with all his other fine qualities. With a little room for improvement he just might turn on the masses.

[ArkDem]

8. Not to mention about 2% of the vote!

[karynnj]

9. I would credit EVERY serious Democratic candidate

with "passionately loves this country and who has the leadership ability, smarts, integrity, and humanity to help turn this country around." Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephart, etc

[Skwmom]

31. I wouldn't. n/m

[lateo]

13. Give me Clark any day.

I love Clark.

[karynnj]

7. There are the same stories of Kerry wanting to be president

since he was a young kid as there were for Clinton. (Although Clinton's goal is more ambitious as he was a poor Arkansas kid, who cherished shaking JFK's hand when he was chosen to represent Arkansas in DC and extended his hand past other students. Kerry also met JFK, but as the date of Jackie's step sister - he didn't have to reach out through a crowd to shake his hand.) I do think that there was a difference in that it is likely that Kerry wanted the Presidency because of what he could do. Kerry has a core integrity that Clinton probably didn't.

I don't think ANYONE runs without really really wanting either to win and/or to be President. Bush was more intent on winning. Kerry (or any other person chosen as the nominee) spent 2 years of his life meeting people, honing a message and traveling. By 2004, Kerry's whole family was out working for this. He and his wife endured having their well deserved good reputations trashed and being publicly ridiculed. The traveling and meeting a variety of people will help an excellent Senator be even better. Over time, whether he runs again or not, I hope that people do see through the slime machine and see both Kerry and Teresa for who they are - even if they still disagree politically.

What would Kerry have had to do to make you think he wanted it? The rallies in October were increasingly huge, excited and seemed to be leading to a win. THEY WERE BASICALLY NOT COVERED other than to list the stars with Kerry. The momentum Clinton got in 1992 from similarly hopeful rallies - which were smaller led him to victory. The media hid Kerry's passionate, optimistic rallies - so only those in swing states who went to the rallies saw them. (and the CSPAN viewers watching it because they already were committed.)

[mtnsnake]

12. That is not the point!! Kerry didn't ACT like he wanted it that badly!

Regardless of how much he wanted it deep inside (and you still can't convince me, personally, that he did), he didn't put on a very convincing show for any of the important swing voters.

[karynnj]

24. Then why did he do what was necessary to run

Kerry was recovering from cancer surjury in 2003 and he was back out campaigning before he really should have been. The pictures from December, 2003 were later used by Drudge (to claim he had botox) because he looked so bad. He and Teresa worked nearly full time on this for almost 2 years.

The alternative for Kerry would have been to continue the pleasant life he had being a Senator, working on the issues important to him. He could have choosen one of the others to endorse and been an articulate surrogate on many issues. (Oddly, if he would have taken a pass in 2004, with his profile he would be mentioned as a candidate for 2008. Who better to push as an anti-corruption, anti-incompetence candidate.)

Also, he won more than 50% of the swing voters - with unbiased media, he would have won easily.

[bunkerbuster1]

25. Gosh, that lame DNC speech about "being born in the West Wing"

wasn't "wanting it" enough?

[mtnsnake]

26. If only the rest of the campaign followed in the footsteps of that night.

It didn't.

[TayTay]

27. Yeah, he only ran so that

his daughters could hear him called a 'babykiller' to their faces, so that his wife would be called a crazy-person, bitch and a nutjob in public and his patriotism, military record and life's work would be called into question.

Hey, I got an idea, why don't you run. Maybe we can round up some people ahead of time who can practice shouting, 'babykiller' at you and your family. It's sounds like a lot of fun to put up with and I'm sure your wife or kids wouldn't mind if you were smeared all over the place.

Try it you might like it. Or you might find that it's not that easy to run for public office and that we have determined enemies who will do or say anything to any Dem to defeat them.

Simplistic rants about people who 'want it' are content-free.

[mtnsnake]

28. I've got a better idea

Instead of coming up with the easy negative response that's becoming all too familiar on this forum, how about offering a concrete positive suggestion for a change. Oh wait, that would take some thought.

I don't appreciate you taking what's meant to be a positive discussion on how we can improve our chances of winning in 2008 and turning it against me in the form of a reply loaded with feebly implied insults, with the sole intent of giving you an avenue to express your dissatisfaction with how John Kerry was treated during the campaign.

Now run along...

[TayTay]

33. Really, that was positive?

I think you might want to invest in a dictionary. That was a negative post that put up a strawman argument devoid of thought and any positive action whatsoever. You posit, without proof, that someone who clearly wanted the job of President didn't want it. Then, having written nothing in support of your argument, you blightly and ignorantly went along to suggest that you know, but won't share with the rest of us, what the criteria ard for deciding who wants it and who doesn't.

This is why Democrats continue to lose. Elitist arguments that suggest that one person has all the answers and that no other opinions need apply turn voters off. They also, surprise, surprise, turn off fellow Democrats who share the goals and despise the in-fighting and bashing that seems to overshadow everything else.

Run along now little troll. Perhaps, along the way, someone will explain to you that slamming someone and then claiming that you are positive won't work. See, it's not logical, it's obviously false and it's falme-bait. You can't use the 'What, me argumentative?" defense here. Slamming someone is clearly not positive. (Again, a dictionary can do wonders dear.)

[mtnsnake]

34. Ya know what? You have the same problem

that some other negative posters around here have. You either don't read the post slowly enough or you have trouble with reading comprehension. I hope it's the former. Case in point: There is a huge difference in the meaning between "wanting" it or "who ACTED like they wanted it". Read the OP again and try CONCENTRATING next time. Good luck, and hope that helps.

[TayTay]

35. I see, so you get to decide who wanted it and who didn't

Geez, you shoudl work for FEMA, you are still claiming for yourself the absoilute right to know who wanted it and who didn't.

Geez, we could use someone with that kind of vision and knowledge right now in disaster planning. Wow!

Must be nice to be all-knowing and to be able to see into the minds and heads of other people. How is it done?

[mtnsnake]

36. Okay, no more beating around the bush

You waste my oxygen, and you litter my favorite posting board with moronic statements that you either think are intelligent, or are witty. Clearly, they are neither.

Are you always this way or did someone spike your cereal with Stupid Flakes this morning?

[karynnj]

38. Her comments are usually among the most informative on the board

Often with extensive backup from the Congressional Record or other valid sources.

Your comments are regurgitated RW slurs on Kerry. You've made the same points endlessly on this same thread - I get it you don't like Kerry, you think he's boring. Don't worry, IF he runs again, she'll get a vote, you'll get a vote and I'll get a vote. All of us can choose the one we think is best. At this stage, it might be better not to become mini-Rove's attacking our favorite's potential opponents. Note that Kerry hosted Clinton fund raisers, Casey fund raiser and will be very active in trying to get Democrats in office in 2006. I'm sure your favorite is doing so likewise.

[mtnsnake]

43. usually

Anyway, thanks for following up your friend's insults with a couple dandies of your own, which are absolutely BASELESS. None of my comments are "regurgitated RW slurs" and I'm the farthest thing in the world from a "mini-Rove". If Karl Rove was lying on the floor with his heart on fire, I wouldn't puke on it to put the fire out.

Some people just can't stand listening to any constructive criticism of John Kerry. Instead of calling someone a mini-Rove, maybe you should simply disagree and prove that Kerry was this very passionate candidate who acted like he wanted to win more than anything else and how he conveyed that image to all the potential voters. With the exception of his acceptance speech, I didn't see anything close to that afterward.

[karynnj]

40. Her points actually do deal with your premise which appeared

to be that John Kerry didn't really want the Presidency. He went in with a pretty good idea of the nastiness of his opponents. If he didn't feel he was the best qualified for the job and that it was something he wanted with every ounce of strength he had, he wouldn't have committed his family to this effort. He after all had a very pleasant life as a respected Senator, a happy marriage, daughters and stepsons who love and respect him and access to almost anything money could buy.

Have you noticed that this year, he has been one of the most consistent, strong liberal voices we have - even after losing. He obviously cares very deeply. That care is echoed in the comments of his daughters who have a very old fashioned respect for public service.

[mtnsnake]

44. That is NOT what my OP implied. Please read it again.

What I said was, "I don't know of too many of our primary candidates, including the one who actually ran, John Kerry, who acted like they really WANTED it last time. Maybe Dean, maybe Clark to an extent, maybe someone else, I'm not so sure."

Did you notice the word "acted" in there? Did you also notice that in the sentence that followed, the word "acted" was emphasised?

My premise was not that Kerry "didn't really want the Presidency". My premise was that he didn't ACT like he wanted it as much as I would have liked him to act it. Whether he didn't act like it because he didn't want it...or whether he didn't act like it because he's a bad actor...all I know is that he didn't act it, IMO.

[blm]

50. Baloney. Kerry could've thrown the debates instead he won all 3 decisively

Besides, your analysis is HORSEPOO because it doesn't put ONE race into context.

It was a helluva lot easier for Clinton to defeat Bush1 when we had a press that covered at least most of IranContra and BCCI, and the public wasn't exactly trusting Bush's participation in those scandals.

So, thanks to the news KERRY generated against Bush1, it made Clinton's job alot easier.

Kerry had to enter a race where 90% of the corporate media was in full swing covering UP for Bush2 his entire term and allowing Rove free reign over their scripts.

And where Clinton was blamed by many for being asleep at the switch on terror, even though he showed an enormous amount of attention to terror, while it was Bush who failed. Yet, even Clinton's PR tour for his book didn't set that myth straight.

Clinton also never ran against a Republican who controlled most of the voting machines.

Man on man - Kerry whipped Bush's ass.

RNC beat the crap out of the DNC in the dirty tricks and stay on message dept.

RW media stayed on point while left leaners HAD no discipline in their message and had little working knowledge of Kerry's extensive efforts, while the RW glorified every piddly move that Bush made and even made up most of them.

Free Republic gets RESPECT from Cspan, while DU gets shoved away as a lefty loony bin. WHY? Same reason that media gave Bush and the swiftliars all the leeway and airtime and little or none to Kerry and the firefighters.

Try some context next time...the playing field is nowhere NEAR the same.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. I don't care how much Hillary "wants it"

If she "wants it" enough to sell out and be a neocon, then she "wants it" for entirely the wrong reasons.

I will only support someone who "wants it" AND can move this country in a positive direction.

[mtnsnake]

14. Of for crise sakes, she is NOT a neocon.

She might not be as leftist as you'd like, but she is not a friggin neocon. Way to go to deflect the entire subject.

If you don't want to discuss the subject of this thread, then how about you start your own "Hillary is a neocon" thread.

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. I am discussing the subject of the thread

And my definition of a candidate who "wants it" is one who wants to act like a fucking DEMOCRAT while in office, and not like a rubber stamp for PNAC and the corporatists.

[Mass]

11. The same Kerry that the media found so charismatic and passionate in 2000

when they were writing their articles about potential VP nominees for Gore.

And they never found Gore stiff until he ran for president and they preferred Bush. They turned Dean into a goof, and would have done something similar to any candidate.

Kerry wanted it, there is little doubt about it, and he was passionate in his own ways. He is not a clone of Clinton and behaves differently, but he is certainly as passionate when it comes to things he cares about, just in a different way.

I could say the same of Gore as I have seen him more than once passionate about the issues he cares.

[mtnsnake]

16. Those points are all fair enough, especially about Gore.

Just the same, I think Kerry's handlers and advisers should've found more ways to have him ACT like he wanted it passionately. I don't agree that Kerry looked like he passionately wanted it during his campaign, not enough to affect the swing voters.

[Mass]

17. In that case, we will have to disagree.

Kerry may have wanted it too much and believed too much his handlers on what needed to be done to reach swing voters, but he wanted it badly.

However, I am not sure how much Hill wants it. I always had the impression that the one who wants her to be president was Bill. I may be wrong, but this has been a persistent opinion in the last two years (or she is a lot smarter than her husband and hides her ambition a lot better).

[mtnsnake]

18. Okay, but

let's say you're right and that Kerry WANTED it as bad as you think he did. Would you agree that he didn't EXPRESS that feeling enough to the voters? He's a fine man, would've made a good president, I'm sure, and he's very cerebral and all that, but he just didn't come across as wanting to be president with a passion that no one else could match. He might have wanted to be, but he didn't passionately ACT like it enough, IMO.

[Mass]

19. If you did not feel it, he did not act passionately enough for you

I have seen people who told me that he wanted it too much and they prefered Bush's attitude (though admittedly, these people are freepers).

I dont know what to tell you. I know that most of the people that I know and who saw him did not think so, but the media has done a terrible job at covering this campaign, the same job they are doing right now reporting the reactions of the dems in front of the Hurricane reaction. (sure they show how Bush is bad, but they shunt all Dems reaction).

[karynnj]

21. The rallies I saw in October were passionate

and the raport he had with the crowds was amazing - easily comparable with Clinton IN 1992. The media did not let people see it. They would show several minutes of a canned Bush event - unfiltered, then show the Kerry rally with one of their talking heads sayimg Kerry spoke in ---- and said this about Bush ----. They also didn't talk about the size of the crowds or show a full view of them.

He constantly said very intensely this was the most important election of our lifes - because of the issues at stake.

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Well how are you determining Kerry's passion? By what you saw on TV?

Like several other posters have said, the MSM absolutely gutted their coverage of Kerry's rallies. They did NOT show the huge crowds, they did NOT play clips of the passionate speeches, they did NOT do anything at all th present him to the public other than a few carefully selected photos or random soundbites from his speeches, often carefully editing out the best parts. I know because I was AT some of these rallies. If you weren't at JK's rallies, then you weren't aware of probably 95% of what he was doing on the campaign trail, so horrible was the MSM coverage.

I kind of understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're completely missing the boat. The problem isn't that our candidates don't care; it's that the MSM does everything in its power to marginalize them. The MSM constantly puts on pundits that beat RW talking points into people's heads (eg, Gore fabricates things and is wooden, Kerry flip-flops and is stiff), they refuse to give any airtime to the candidate's campaigning other than a few carefully selected soundbites, and so the only exposure the public has to the Dem candidate is the convention and the debates. The public has been told so many times by now that Kerry has no principles or that he is aloof and unfriendly that they come to believe it, especially since they have been shielded from any evidence to the contrary because the media refuses to show any coverage of his campaign.

We need to retake the media if we want to win. We don't have a deficit of good candidates, but we do have a rightwing media whose mission it is to aid and abet the RW character assassination of Democrats.

[mtnsnake]

30. Yes, of course. And I don't buy the "it's the media's fault" excuse

that runs so wildly on this forum. Yeah, the media is partly to blame, but it's not anywhere near to blame as what's hinted on this forum. We'll "retake the media" only when WE decide to, not when they LET us.

[mrcheerful]

20. Its not a matter of want

I really don't think wanting to be prez is the real issue. The real issue was how democrats don't use people like the swift boat liers, (who btw, was started by nixon to stop any up and coming democrats from getting to far) and the religious right wing liers. lets face facts, the republicans have the best spin doctors out there and they can twist things and rename things and get the sheepicans to believe it as if it was gospel. What we need to do is put into place a honesty law, where if the facts aren't true they can't be used. Also, we need to put a stop to hidding a canidates past, like was done with GW. Look at the way Kerry was questioned on his medals, the swift boat liers said he gave those medals to himself, which was a lie because the military doesn't allow a officer to give themselves medals. Also remember GW was re-elected because the republican spin doctors used the gay marriage issue to get at the homophobes out there. Also don't forget how race was used in this last election, afro american voting places were under staffed and didn't have all of the equipement that non afro american voting places had. When we the people are more worried about what if instead of whats going on, its time we need to look at where this fear came from. How many of you have heard those swing voters state they voted for GW because they were afraid of change? GW was the lesser of 2 evils or Well i know where GW stands?

[mtnsnake]

22. I agree with all your points, but you kind of prove mine, too.

Kerry just wasn't passionate enough about himself to make those swing voters you mentioned take enough notice of HIM. I just hope beyond hope that our next candidate is just as passionate as he or she is cerebral.

Welcome to DU, btw!

[karynnj]

41. Actually from one person (not me) who saw both Gore and Kerry

at fundraisers - Kerry connected far better. His view was that Gore was very stiff, but sincere. Kerry surprised him in being very good at connecting with the people their and being pretty charismatic.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Gore's better now, I think

At least he appeared to be when I saw him speak on CSPAN.

But I do think Kerry tends to do better in person.

[Mairead]

23. Dennis Kucinich proved he wanted it--he damned near killed himself

doing his congressional day job while campaigning.

And he's not a multi-millionaire like the rest of them.

We claim we want social justice, but we sure don't vote that way, do we.

[karynnj]

37. What does not a multi-millionaire have to do with it?

Kerry, Gephart, Graham, and Edwards all continued doing their "day jobs" in the Senate or house too. Kerry was out campaigning as he was recovering from cancer surjury. The Edwards were travelling with two small children (I've been in both situations - 2 parents travelling with 2 kids is much much harder than a single person travelling). I don't see how Kucinich had it any harder than these two candidates.

I am not sure whether Dean or Clark had jobs during the primary - but not having a job had negatives too - the Senators and congressmen had offices which were useful for meeting press etc.
(I believe their staff couldn't work on the campaigns, but there were overlaps - Kerry is on the Finace committee - clearly his overnight response (in Oct) on SS privitization was easier as he had already seen the budget office's estimates of cost as part of his job.)

In terms of using their fortunes to make their campaigns easier, Kerry could get only $2000 from Teresa. Edwards had a higher net worth than Kerry or Dean. Gephart is probably not considerably richer than Kucinich. The biggest advantage is that you would have to spend less time on fund raising.

[Mairead]

46. I think you should check your facts about who did their day job

[TheCowsCameHome]

32. You are right on target - We need passion, not scripted robots.

I've said that since last fall.

If your heart isn't 110% in it, stay away.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Well, folks here tell me that they'd see Kerry come into town

looking like death warmed over, and still he'd try to listen to each and every person as he shook their hand, even though the woman I spoke to said he looked like he was about ready to drop.

I saw this myself Nov 1st at a rally. Cold, miserable, wet, and yet as he walked the line shaking hands, he'd look into people's eyes and really listen.

It is my conclusion that he did indeed want it.

I'm just sayin'.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

48. Another Laura Bush?

That shouldn't be too hard. We'll just build another Stepford wife.

[karynnj]

51. The RW smears against Teresa are inexcusable

Before you believe them look into the truth. Teresa helped John in Iowa because people loved her. The work she has done from her foundation is very serious and well regarded. She is a very brilliant, very caring woman. Her sons and Kerry's daughters would make an exceptional first family. Kerry's daughter Vanessa, a doctor ran the Boston Marathon and studied in England on a Fullbright scholarship.

In reality, if people actually knew the 2 families - Teresa is far more caring, intelligent and supportive than Laura and Kerry's girls far out-class the Bush twins.