John Kerry Picked The Wrong Year To Run

[THUNDER HANDS]

If he would have waited four years, he'd probably be in a better position for the presidency right now than he was when he actually got the nomination in 2004. Sure, he'd be in a tougher field with Hillary and Obama, but if he somehow survived and got the nomination, there'd be a good chance he'd face off with Mitt Romney.

Imagine that, two Northeast guys from the same state running for president?

Both could be accused of being nuanced to a fault.
Both had vast amounts of personal money.
Both have strong, autortitative speaking voices.
Both are tall.
Both have solid, almost helmit-like hair.

Romney wouldn't contrast so much with Kerry, which would have probably worked in Kerry's favor.

Yeah, John missed the boat by four years. Too bad too, because he would have been a great president.

I know, this post doesn't mean much, just something going through my head at 1 a.m. on a Friday night.

[Old and In the Way]

1. He'd kick Mitt's ass....totally dismantle that smarmy chameleon.

It is too bad...worse, I think he won it and we could have been out of Iraq by now.

[dsa]

2. kerry vs. romney? i doubt it

kerry wouldn't get the nomination over hillary and romney won't get the nomination over mccain or giuliani. i think the more interesting race is the more likely one--hillary vs. giuliani. it's like the 2000 ny senate race that never happened. i think it'd be a great battle to watch. kerry vs. romney, on the other hand, is like a snooty ivy league bore fest.

[Lord Helmet]

4. kerry vs. romney

:boring:

[ProSense]

5. As opposed to Hillary (I need no doze) and Ghouliani sleaze bag?

You've got to be kidding. Kerry would leave Hillary counting change.

[Lord Helmet]

8. you can't be serious

He didn't run because his poll #s were crap.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. well

to be fair, his poll numbers were crap around this time in 2003 too. And he did come back, though against much weaker competition than the field this year.

In fact, I think this field is so strong this year that a guy like Richardson, who is probably the number four guy, if that, would have been a top tier candidate, if not the No. 1 guy, if he ran in 2004.

[Lord Helmet]

15. 2004 was a weird year

Dean was sailing and then WOMPFF!!! it was over. Strange.

I agree the field is strong this year which is good.

[iconocrastic]

61. "Dean was sailing and then WOMPFF!!" - Yes, the Clinton machine stepped in

There will be no stopping Hillary.

[blm]

69. Historian Douglas Brinkley has THIS to say about that timeframe.

Don't forget, Kerry had to finance the last few months by himself BECAUSE he was getting shut out by the Dem establishment crowd.

Funny how people forget that.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>

[AtomicKitten]

75. Hillary?

Wrong election. It was the DLC that chose Kerry in 2004, or so goes DU lore.

[ProSense]

19. A disagreement, the field is not stronger, it's

deeper. There are more candidates with credential, but their credentials aren't necessarily stronger than everyone who ran in 2004. Who is Hillary, Obama, Biden and Richardson stronger than Kerry? Edwards? Clark? It's a different time, but it's also a time when the Republicans are beaten down to the ground.

[karynnj]

48. I'm not sure the field is stronger this year

Kerry's numbers in most of 2006 were in the range of Edwards - while Edwards was getting poistive press and Kerry was getting ridiculed. But look at where the party is and consider what the debates would have been like.

Iraq - Kerry was the man who more than anyone else led through on changing the policy. The ISG made recommendations that were very similar to things Kerry said in 2004 and 2005. The current party position is closer to Kerry's than anyone else's. Though Kerry voted for the IWR, unlike Hillary and Edwards - he spoke out against going to war before it started.

War on Terror - Kerry was prescient on this issue and pushed for action on international money laudering in the 1990s. Everyone - even W! - now basicly agrees with Kerry that the war on terror will be mostly intelligence and law enforcement and occasionally military (defined as special forces). Gary Hart, who also had excellent credentials introduced Kerry when he gave his real security speech.

Environment - Kerry has been an environmentalist for decades - Obama and Edwards have no record, and the Clinton record in Arkansas, especially on Chicken agribusiness was poor, the record in the WH mediocre. Gore said Kerry had the best record in the Senate in 2004.

Health - Kerry had the best health plan in 2004. Edwards has an excellent plan now. I don't know how Kerry's 2008 plan would have compared to Edwards. But, Kerry's accomplishment was that his bill with Kennedy (1996) was the main input into the S-Chip program, sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch. Hatch outlined in his Senate speech how it differed from Kerry/Kennedy - S-Chip has to be re approved every 5 years, each state can implement it the way it wants. (It would not be good for Hillary - who wants to claim that same bit of legislation for Kerry to be on stage.)

Corruption - How can you beat the guy who fought BCCI even though every power in DC got mad at him?

[iconocrastic]

62. Kerry failed on personality not policy

He never struck anyone as a strong leader, just an ivory-tower theorist who had no responsibility for consequences.

[karynnj]

64. That is not true

He won the primaries with no media support because he did convince people that he was a strong leader. The media made it very hard for people to even see his personality - which is too bad because he has a very nice one.

[Inuca]

65. This is completely wrong & unfair! n/t

[blm]

72. Completely in contrast to his ACTUAL record of service that you are familiar with, right?

.

[beachmom]

110. Yeah, that little stint on the Mekong Delta was BARELY a blip

in suffering consequences to "ivory tower theorists". So a lifetime of nightmares, schrapnel permanently in his leg, and the denigration of the Right for speaking out against the foolhardiness of the Vietnam adventure is really nothing. I mean, the guy hasn't had to suffer AT ALL from consequences.

:sarcasm:

Edit: oh yeah, and I forgot the brick thrown through the Kerrys' window that was inches away from their baby. Once again -- it was nothing, no big deal. Just continue to keep leading that "ivory tower theorist" life of charm.

[ProSense]

12. Quick to jump in heh? You must be bored by the current batch!

What's behind the Hillary surge?

How did Hillary Clinton steal the momentum from Barack Obama? And how many Americans actually know it happened?

What everyone needs to remember about the media's coverage of the election is that it's really about nothing but itself and the people who write it. Reporters, with just a few exceptions, couldn't care less about healthcare policy or Café standards for automobile fuel efficiency.

Bloggers are actually a bit more stubstantive on the whole since they have spent less time working inside a system in which this contempt is expressed. But even so, like reporters, they talk mostly to one another. Extremely few reporters or bloggers spend much time speaking to actual voters, much less likely primary voters - who are themselves rather odd, when one considers how small are the numbers of people who actually choose the nominee.

The net result is that virtually all coverage is driven by the inchoate feelings of the circle in which a particular fish swims. (And as far as the insularity part goes, yours truly is equally guilty as charged.)

<...>

The intensity of the tabloid nature of her coverage, combined with two major book-length investigations of her career and private life, make it unlikely that she can possibly map out a smooth path to the nomination, no matter how significant her polling and organizational advantages. What's more, the netroots are never going to go for her, particularly given the signals she's sent by picking the anti-labor, pro-corporate political consultant Mark Penn to run things. (John Edwards has the hearts of the netroots, but hearts beat quickly for Obama here as well.)

So what do we know? In truth, not much. Come January, it will still be a question of turnout, as all primaries are. Money will not be a problem for any of the top tier candidates. So it will be either a question of organisation or passion. We can measure the former; it's where Hillary wins, period. We can't really measure the other one yet.

When Kerry did run, and the OP offers a hypothetical that this would have been his first run, he had much better favorable numbers than Hillary. His went up and kept climbing. As opposed to Hillary's 52% unfavorable numbers that seem to have no ceiling.

Hypothetically, she could have run against Kerry in 2004. Why didn't she?

[dsa]

17. because the dems were scared in '04

the dem field was weak in 2004 because the party was muddled on all the major issues, had no clear message, and i don't think they had confidence they could win. the top potential candidates like hillary decided to sit it out and wait for a better opportunity when the odds were more in their favor.

[blm]

87. So, the brilliant Dem political leaders didn't think a Dem could win in 2004

so they didn't even bother to secure the election process in 2002 or 2004 because it would have been a waste of time, effort and money.

[Lord Helmet]

18. she was in the middle of her first term as a senator

maybe she was busy :shrug:

[ProSense]

20. So is Obama! n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. what's wrong with snooty ivy league bore fests?

:)

Am I the only one who appreciates nuance?

[JI7]

7. i appreciate nuance, but Romney doesn't nuance

he just does and says whatever will help him politically. not by just trying to sound appealing to different groups. but by totally changing his position on things.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. well, i guess nuance is Kerry's neighborhood

Romney is all over the place. In fact, most of the top-tier GOP candidates are like that, it's just Romney takes it to the extreme.

[dsa]

21. who wants to watch two clones debate?

they look alike,
they walk alike,
sometimes they even talk alike.
you can lose your mind.
when candidates
are two of a kind!

[karynnj]

49. If you can't see the difference between John Kerry and Mitt Romney, I am sorry for you

It says more about you than it does about the Senator.

[dsa]

56. it's more appearance than policies

they both look like slick hucksters with perfect haircuts, tailored suits, and huge bank accounts who will say and do anything to get elected whether they believe it or not. can you tell i'm cynical about politicians? i don't believe a word any of them say regardless of what party they belong to.

[karynnj]

63. Well I am therefore cynical that you will ever find

anyone that you can accept.

I guess it was lost on you that Senator Kerry has spent nearly his entire adult life in public service. There were years when his bank account was not huge, or even adequate to support appartments in both DC and Boston and weeekly travel to be with his daugthers. Senators are suppose to wear suits and thanks to the press we know he paid $75 for his hair cut - genetics accounts for the fact that his hair looks good. He was often not in a suit and even wore jeans occasionally in 2004. I actually was more interested in his integrity, values, and programs.

Did you forget that he spoke against the Vietnam war, knowing that could end his chances of being elected to office?

Did you forget that he investigated the Contras supported by the popular Reagan administration? The Reagan administration broke the law - Kerry was called a conspiracy nut.

Did you forget that he held onto the BCCI investigation where a Pakistani bank with terrorist connections bought off politicians on both sides of the aisle - even though it meant standing alone?

Did you see the ridicule he was subjected to for opposing Alito? Now, when it's obvious that it was the right thing to do Hillary Clinton - who did NOT want the filibuster - brags that she fought Alito, though she resented the filibuster vote?

Did you see how he was treated when he demanded the Democrats work to change the policy in Iraq last year? The Clinton wing thought it could hurt in 2006. Kerry spoke out because he felt it was immoral not to try to change a bad policy killing Americans.

Have you done half as much to push for change as Senator Kerry?

[dsa]

66. probably not

howard dean is about the only candidate i ever got excited about and the kerry machine destroyed him. john kerry with his billion dollars is not a man who is looking out for me.

[karynnj]

67. Kerry Machine??

Kerry does not have a billion dollars, Teresa does and she could donate no more than you or I could. In fact, Dean was wealthier than Kerry for most of their lives. Dean, not Kerry, grew up with a Park Avenue Manhattan address.

Howard Dean had far more money in Iowa. Kerry won because of organization, the firemen, and who he is. Within weeks of the election, the cable stations played 2 stories from Iowa. In the first, a slightly shy Kerry had a reunion with the man he saved in Vietnam - as Rassman spoke of Kerry's heroism, Kerry hugged him and said "anyone would have done it." The second story was Dean telling an annoying 70 year old heckler to sit down. Those images played all day - a smiling Kerry, an angry red faced Dean. That's the kind of politics I want to be part of.

[fedupinBushcountry]

82. Proof ?

Talking crap doesn't make it so.

[LittleClarkie]

95. At that point Kerry had no machine. He was just the comeback kid at a time

when Dean was self-destructing.

And if Dean was that fragile politically, then he wasn't going to beat Bush then, was he?

Now there's a machine if you want to talk about one.

Speaking to someone in the Dem HQ in 2004, they said that the Dean people invaded NH (or was it IA?) all enthusiastic about their guy, but with no clue as to what would be important in that region. People weren't interested in testimonials as to how Dean had changed a volunteer's life. They wanted to know what Dean was going to do for them in their lives.

It seems to me Gov. Dean imploded all by him self.

All the better for the party. He has been an excellent Chairman.

[beachmom]

113. Howard Dean came from an rich family and grew up on Park Avenue.

Which, of course, is IRRELEVANT. If your standard is that a candidate can't have money, then I guess you would have rejected FDR, who, aristocrat or not, helped poor people more than any other POTUS in history.

[TayTay]

80. Then why are you here?

At a website specifically organized to advocate for Democratic politicians.

I guess hypocrisy is a shared value for some.

[fedupinBushcountry]

81. Ditto n/t

[dsa]

100. i'm here BECAUSE of people like howard dean

people like him are inspirational. i only voted for kerry as the lesser of two evils. he never inspired me at all.

[wisteria]

83. Well, then you do not know Senator Kerry's background or history.

He may have an attractive appearance, but that is only a fraction of who Senator Kerry really is. Go read about his upbringing go review some of his history and take a look at the causes he is passionate about. Senator Kerry is far more than just a suit.

[beachmom]

112. John Kerry was pro-choice BEFORE Roe v. Wade. He was pro-choice

in 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002, and all the way until now. This is his position and it will always be his position. He has never waivered from this position.

I think cynicism is a highly suspect way of dealing with politics. The Right COUNTS ON cynicism so that the people turn away. Then it becames "both sides are the same". The Democratic party is the party for the regular people while the Republicans party is for the rich and elite. The rich and the elite will always donate and vote, and are pragmatic -- if they have to pay less in taxes or escape regulation, then they are satisfied. Meanwhile, the people want a better life. And if they stop believing in their government, then they just start obsessing about a certain wedge issue or they stop voting altogether.

Trust but verify. And if you do, then you can see that John Kerry is a boy scout in Washington DC. He got into politics for the right reasons, and he remains in politics for the right reasons. How big his bank account is is irrelevant to the job he does. Because quite simply, he's not looking for a tax cut. That should be quite clear.

[dsa]

118. that's great for you maybe

but not for me. i may vote democrat but i'm still a pro-life catholic. did you know people like that exist?

[blm]

71. Yeah, Hill would look and sound WAY more presidential than Kerry ever could during

the series of debates, eh?

And I am sure her record of service to this nation would TRUMP his, as he is only the lawmaker who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history.

Too bad there are so many who SAY they are on our side who are willing to ignore those investigations in order to protect the secrecy and privilege of the ruling class and BFEE. I am sure if either Clinton was in power they would make certain the Bush cabal's crimes of office are held to account.

[AtomicKitten]

74. we'll never know, will we?

It's easy to pretend to predict outcome when bolstered by the reality that it could never be disproved.

[blm]

76. Gee, AK, how will we ever know, since the Clintons have never been in power

and never had access to any documents that could have laid clear HOW crimianl the Bush cabal actually was/is?

I KNOW you care about these issues as a fine, upstanding patriot who longs for accountability and open government. No Bush-aligned Dems for you, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

78. we'll never know who would win a debate between HRC and Kerry

As to the rest, considering no one could ever possibly know the absolute truth and care about issues the way you do :sarcasm: ,
you're on your own. That dog doesn't hunt anymore.

[blm]

86. You're right. Few support anti-corruption, open government issues in the Dem party .

Too difficult - Too dangerous to buck the entrenched powers who prefer secrecy and privilege.

But, that is no reason for real patriots to give up and concede. I know I won't and there are a few dozen like me here at DU, and at least a dozen in the congress and Senate. You don't mind if we work at growing those numbers, do you, AK?

[AtomicKitten]

89. ah, yes, the ubiquitous "we"

:crazy:

[snowbear]

3. Good grief..

"I know, this post doesn't mean much"

Boy, you can say that again.

[jillan]

10. Well I for one am sad that Kerry is not running.

I have the utmost respect for him and know that he would have been one of the best Presidents ever

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. yup

although, I have to say I think the next president will be considered a great president no matter who it is. Just by the simple fact of not being bush and the bar for future presidents having been set so low. Sure whoever becomes president is going to have a heap of problems to fix, but if they can walk and chew pretzels at the same time, they're halfway to Mt. Rushmore.

[jillan]

14. haha - that's true

Being able to use complete sentences will guarantee them good poll numbers.

[Lord Helmet]

28. Bush's base act like they like stupid.

[snowbear]

25. That wasn't the OP's point though pirhana.. We all have the utmost respect for him.

What I'd like to know is who the numbnutz was who actually voted this POS thread up..

Maybe they'll drop back in and explain why they liked it so much?

Yeah. ------ right.

[seabeyond]

102. me too. really wanted him to. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

16. Actually no. 2004 was good. If he ran a better campaign he would have got it.

and even now, there is some question if he really is the real president.
2008 is a strong field and he would have a much harder time and most likely would not have been able to overcome the Clinton name or Obama appeal.

[dsa]

23. i agree the kerry campaign was poorly run

every time he got some momentum, he'd find some way to screw it up. he also didn't combat his critics very effectively. if he hadn't ignored the swift vet stuff so long and done a better job of countering it, he probably would've won.

[politicasista]

24. Why didn't the Democrats back him up?

Seems like that's where some of the blame should be, don't you think?

[Lord Helmet]

26. geez louise why didn't he defend himself?

Nobody wants a president that acts like a wuss.

[politicasista]

29. It would be fun to see you call a war hero a "wuss" to his face

That's a bad as Bush's base.


What did you do when the Smear Boat jerks made their rounds? Did you defend the candidate by pointing out the facts, or did you whine about how he won't fight back? Sounds like you did the latter.

[Lord Helmet]

30. whatever

It appears I've dropped into the middle of crazy town on this thread.

Later.

[politicasista]

36. Yeah, whatever is right

cause it shows that you have no facts to back up your ranting posts.

Later to you too. :hi:

[dsa]

33. i agree with you

no matter how bad the rest might insult you! :)

[blm]

68. Who defended Bill when he was called a draftdodger in 1992? Not Bill.

It was John Kerry.

And Kerry DID defend himself appropriately but the corpmedia would not highlight those facts or his defense, so most people THINK he didn't defend himself.

Kerry also WON, probably by 5 million votes in 2004.

Nice of Terry McAuliffe to spend four years as head of the DNC and its Office of Voter Integrity NOT SECURING the election process.

[jillan]

34. Amen to that! The candidate is not the one that should be defending himself.

Bsh never had to defend himself. He just went out and campaigned.
He had his campaign people do it for him. He had Mehlman breathing and spewing all over the msm.

Kerry had practically no one go out and defend him.
I hope the Dem party learned from that, and does it better in 08.

[ProSense]

27. You don't know what you're talking about.

The question wasn't how Kerry was doing in the polls, he had a lot of momentum throughout the campaign, that's why they were predicting a huge win up until the time the results came in. Bush and the media tried their best to shift momentum with terror alerts, but Kerry kept on doing well in the polls. In fact, he was doing so well after the convention, that the liars decided to attack in August. Still he rebound from a brief set back.

[dsa]

31. swift vets killed kerry

that was his biggest mistake. he ignored it hoping it would go away, but all it did was snowball. he had to waste lots of time trying to fight it and it took him off message. his poll numbers suffered for it too.

[politicasista]

32. The Corporate Media and lack of party support did too n/t

[ProSense]

35. Again, nonsense! The liars didn't help, but

they didn't kill Kerry:

After the convention:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-31-2004/0002222417&EDATE=
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128148,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB109526872487418642.html?mod=todays_free_feature


Effects of liars' August attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/prez.poll/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3922031

The campaign response is here.

[dsa]

39. more data

if you want good poll data, check out this site.

predicted: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/fin/nov02p.html
actual: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/dec/dec14.html

this guy is the king of poll data, and he's liberal so you can't claim he's just a right wing liar. he collects data from just about every poll there is and compiles it together to make his calculations.

in his final prediction, he still had three states as a toss up--2 went for bush and 1 for kerry. his only error was showing hawaii going for bush when it voted kerry. otherwise he was dead on.

maybe wherever you live, kerry still had momentum late in the campaign. he didn't where i live, but i'm in the south which is red state territory anyway.

[ProSense]

40. And even more:

two days before
one day before


Edited to add even more:

Zogby calls it

It's one pollster's prediction, and hours before the nets weigh in with their calls, but at 5 p.m. ET, pollster John Zogby calls the race for John Kerry, with landslide proportions: 311 to 213 electoral votes, and only two states too close to call: Nevada and Colorado. But, what's this? Zogby's final-final poll has Bush winning the popular vote, but just barely, 49.4 to 49.1 percent, and not really, when you consider the margin of error, +/- 3.2 percent.

Stay tuned for an exciting night.

link

[dsa]

41. i only look at the least squares prediction method

it is historically the most accurate since it averages out polling biases.

two days before: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/fin/oct31p.html
one day before: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/fin/nov01p.html

case in point, these came much closer to being right than the links you posted.

[ProSense]

42. Yet none of it proves

a damn thing except the race was close:

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8618.html

Still people like me think Bush cheated to get the results, and most likely several million people are kicking themselves for the consequences.

[karynnj]

50. Not true

As of April, Kerry had:

- 140 pages of naval records, with fitness reports spanning the entire interval, on his web site.

- The Nixon tapes had the Nixon people speaking of the fact that they investigated Kerry - he was war hero and squeaky clean. They were then ordered to destroy him. (This was 2 years after the fact - if there was any dirt it would have been found.)

- All the men on his boats when he got each of his medals were 100% behind him

- John Warner, Republican Senator who was Secretary of the Navy in the VN era said Kerry earned his medals - he had looked into the silver star.

When the book came out, the Kerry people put together 36 pages noting lies and discrepancies. How many lies does it take to discredit someone.

Contrast all of that to how Clinton handled the Gennifer Flowers accusations or the draft questions. The difference is the Clinton counter did make the articles seem less damaging - making it seem questionable. In Kerry's case, the official record was given equal weight with comments that had no proof behind them. the media was irresponsible.

In an interesting Blog Utube interview with Jerome Armstrong and ? All, Kerry spoke of how the SBVT lies could possibly have been handled if they had something like Utube where you could put out a response.

[Capn Sunshine]

52. Even then, if he'd gone to court over Ohio, he'd be President today

but without that big resounding victory message, like we had in 06, he would have been pretty weak. But if wishes were horse we all would ride.

[beachmom]

114. Wrong. There is no concrete proof that would hold up in court

that he won in Ohio. Votes not cast don't count. The majority of Americans don't even KNOW that some think it was stolen in Ohio. If Kerry did what you asked, he would have destroyed himself and possibly the Democratic party for years to come.

[politicasista]

22. The question that no one wants to ask

is how come the "stronger" field didn't run in 2004? :shrug:

[THUNDER HANDS]

43. that's easy

Obama wasn't even in the senate yet.
Hillary was two years into her first term when she could have announced.
Richardson probably felt he wasn't ready yet and needed more seasoning.
Edwards, of course, did run, but wasn't as sharp as he is now.

[politicasista]

44. I think they knew that Bush wouldn't be running in 08

and didn't want to have that label of losing to a buffoon. (Even if they knew or thought that Bush was "beatable") Which is why they sat out cause they figure that the public is going to be sick of repukes and the presidency is theirs.

If they all ran in 2004, chances are they would have been smeared just as much as Kerry (and Gore in 2000) was. Not to mention facing a fear-minded public. They probably figured that since Bush wasn't an incumbent running in 08, that it would be much easier.


JMHO

[blm]

104. None would face Bush and Rove at that time - Hill stayed closer to Bush on

military policy than her party's nominee.

Why? Did she believe in Bush's military instincts more than Kerry's?


What is one to think when you start adding up the various reports?


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Awsi Dooger]

37. Same thing I've posted on many sites for years

Great point, Magic Rat. Kerry was dunce cap to run in 2004. Here are a few other points:

* Much easier to win an open race than defeat an incumbent, especially if the incumbent's party has been in power only one term. That is the most favorable scenario imaginable, now 9 of 10 successes (Carter '80) since 1900.

* Someone with a bland personality like Kerry fits much better in an open race. At that point the course of the nation is the focus, not how the personality compares to the incumbent. Hardly a coincidence that only Reagan and Clinton have ousted an incumbent in the TV era.

It's hard to fault Kerry's timing since he did get the nomination. But if his goal was to occupy the White House and not merely the November ballot, 2008 was the correct cycle.

[politicasista]

38. Fellow DUers that saw and met him in person don't think he's bland

What about those that showed up at the 04 rallies? That sounds like the media's depiction rather than reality. I know some candidates aren't for everyone.

[Awsi Dooger]

45. Unfortunately, perception is reality

I'm talking about how he came across on TV, with the sentences that rambled on and on. I have no doubt he's a great guy.

My primary point was ANY Democrat had an uphill battle in '04 versus an incumbent. More than was acknowledged here or on other progressive sites. It's extremely unlikely to evict an incumbent with his party in power only one term. That's why 2008 is so vital. It's essentially a 2-for-1 on our end, since that incumbent/only one term in power dynamic will favor our side in 2012.

[Colobo]

53. Excellent analysis.

[karynnj]

51. Maybe Kerry felt compelled to run because of the situation in Iraq

and how the war on terror was being handled. Maybe he wasn't being political.

Kerry is far from bland- Kerry was a highly decorated war hero, a charismatic anti war leader who amazed the SFRC in 1971, he fought acid rain as lt Governor, he authored the Clean Elections bill with Wellstone, giving a speach on how whenever America has needed it is citizen activist who have fought to right the country and that was in danger with so much money in politics. He also investigated the Contras who the very popular Reagan supported. He fought BCCI, a Pakistani bank with terrorist ties that had bought banks in America and political interest on both sies of the aisle. He even saved the life of a Republican Senator who was chocking.

He flies airplanes, he plays ice hockey, he was varsity or junior varsity in 4 sports in college, he was in a ROCK BAND in high school, he plays classical and bass guitar. In his 60s, he still does charity 100+ bike rides. He writes poetry (at least for ST Patrick's Days). He is funny and witty enough to have completely controlled the Colbert show when he was on. Last but not least, Teresa Heinz Kerry hardly seems likely to be someone who would be interested in anyone bland.

Imagine a movie of Kerry's life - the biggest problem is that there is too much, not that there is not enough.

[Awsi Dooger]

93. Good point

I tend to look at elections from a standpoint of likely victory based on situational influence, not issues that may drive a candidate to enter or abstain.

2004 was an underdog cycle for a Democrat. That's how I would have labeled it first and foremost, then based my decisions off of that reality.

I prioritize astute handicapping and the Clintons have shown it. Bill ran in '92, when the GOP had held the White House for 3 straight terms, unprecedented since FDR and Truman. The country was ready for a change. Now Hillary is similarly running in a favorable landscape. I don't think it's a coincidence.

Bland has nothing to do with resume. Ousting an incumbent in a presidential election has very little to do with resume. That was my argument on DU and elsewhere in 2004 and earlier. We needed someone with pull, a naturally likable nominee. I thought Edwards came closest so I supported him beginning in late 2002, even when he was almost invisible on DU.

[beachmom]

117. I purchased Kerry's biographies and Obama's autobiography at the same time

I finished the two long Kerry books within a few weeks. Still haven't gotten through Obama's.

Kerry is extremely fascinating, especially when you read his writings. He does not have a bland personality at all, but more importantly, he is an endlessly interesting person.

[dailykoff]

46. His biggest mistake was dropping out last January.

I know his official reason was to stop the war and the unofficial reason was to keep his Senate seat, but frankly I think it would have been a cakewalk to another nomination.

Sorry fellow Kerrycrats but IMHO Kerry made a huge mistake. :cry:

[politicasista]

47. .......

:grouphug: :hi:

[karynnj]

54. We don't disagree with you - it wouldn't be a cake walk, but doable

I suspect that the reason was mainly what he said - that there was a lot on the war and global climate change that has to be done now, but would be difficult to do if he were running. I also suspect that he could see that it would be extremely nasty and that he would not be given the latitude by the media that anyone else is.

It also might be that to win in that environment - he could tear the party apart. This is shaping up to be a very very nasty race. In 2004, it was not just Kerry who was hurt. In a 2006 NECN video on PTSD, one a Kerry's crew spoke of PTSD. Many of those guys - who are far more fragile than Senator Kerry - were hit as hard as he was by the liars. Teresa Heinz Kerry, who was always a well respected person was smeared worse than he was. Also, from the time he was first in the public eye, he has been a very classy, well mannered, positive, polite person. After 2004, he spoke of still having what was most important the love of friends and family and his integrity. In the past, I bristled when people posted that Kerry was too honorable or too good a man to win. I suspect that they might be right in 2008.

He may also have seen that taking the Senate root, he could still make an impact for good. A 20 plus year staffer of his recently left the Senate staff. He honored her with a Senate speech. Her thesis written before she came to the Senate was on how big an effect a Senator can have.

All that said, he was extremely well positioned. He is far more charismatic and charming than Biden, Dodd and Richardson. More importantly, he has been the one who has been a leader on Iraq, the War on Terror, and (excepting AL Gore, obviously) global warming. The first tier has Clinton vs two people who have relatively little experience. To me it was clear that an experienced anti-Hillary could break through - if he were John Kerry.

[wisteria]

55. Senator Kerry is a visionary and he saw the mess Bush was leading us into, he felt compelled to try

and stop him. He told the truth, but it wasn't enough to overcome the lies and the scare tactics of Rove and the Republican liars.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

59. Are you a

troll?

Yup!

[iconocrastic]

60. "missed the boat" Are you being sarcastic?

I'll never forget his entrance in the Boston Armada.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Both have solid, almost helmit-like hair.

[Catchawave]

73. He would still have the same problems as in '04

Still several million Vietnam Vets alive, vote and mad as hell at him.

[ProSense]

77. You mean he'd still win the primary? n/t

[blm]

79. And yet he won by probably 5 million votes. And there would STILL be no other

Dem candidate who could best Kerry during the series of debates or one on one on the stump. And CERATAINLY none who had his record of achievement over the last 35 years.

[NNadir]

84. I tried to do my best for John, but how exactly do you lose to the worst President in history?

I'd like to forget John Kerry right now.

[blm]

85. Most Dems wouldn't even TRY - why? Bush was also the most PROTECTED President

in history, by the congress and the media, and even had the support for his military strategies from the last Dem president.

Besides - Kerry DID win. Thank our glorious DNC chair, Terry McAuliffe, for not spending his 4 years running the party and the Office of Voter Integrity in any way that would assure a secure election process.

[AtomicKitten]

88. and being the epitome of reason and fairness that you are

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

... Considering you feel that the solution to rampant election fraud is somehow the job of the DNC Chair rather than a problem that can only be solved legislatively, if 2008 is plagued by rampant election fraud we will fully expect your venom to spew in the direction of Howard Dean.

As if.

That would never happen because you use this charge as a cudgel repeatedly here at DU to beat Terry McAullife up, regardless of how unfair and flat-out absurdly untrue it is. You would have to reach into your magic bag of rationalizations and render your own accusation moot, but it would be fun watching you spin it.

You know very well that Terry McAullife made the party solvent for the first time in decades and modernized and computerized the party, and gave Howard Dean something substantial to work with. There is no reason why both men cannot be applauded for the fine work they have done.

Instead you choose to continue your nonstop jihad against one man on whom you dump all your bitterness re: Kerry not being in the White House. It was Kerry that mishandled the Swift Boat Veterans that crippled his campaign. It was Kerry that scrubbed the speeches at the Dem Convention in 2004 to include only happy talk and exclude Bush-bashing. And it was Kerry who was furious with McAullife for speaking truth to power when he talked about Bush being AWOL.

You have an interesting :sarcasm: way of looking at things, but your allegations are, as always, seeped in bitterness and bereft of fact and reason.

[wisteria]

97. I am in agreement with you BLM. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

98. and Katrina was bad weather that inconvenienced a few people

it's all in the spin :crazy:

[Vinca]

90. Given the voter disenfranchisement and voting machine funny business,

Kerry most likely won in 2004. You can't beat criminals unless you expose them for what they are. I hope we're not having this discussion in 2009.

[Mass]

91. The good old days are back - A Kerry bashing thread.

What did he do this time?

:party:

BTW, people from MA will tell you the difference between Kerry and Romney, if you do no see it. Romney is not nuanced, he is empty.

And happy to see that so many here are happy to follow the media perception when it comes to Kerry. Stop complaining when the media are not nice to Edwards or Obama, please!! You are so happy to bash Kerry that you do not see that the media does the same thing to your guys, and that you allowed it by accepting their lies about Kerry.

[politicasista]

92. LOL!

:toast:

[ProudDad]

94. I've seen this cycle before

damn near anyone the Dems run should win in '08 (unless they suckle on the DLC's teat too much)...

In '04, he would have had to "show up", he didn't.

I just wish a real, non-corporate progressive could be nominated...

[wisteria]

96. What? Senator Kerry worked damn hard for the presidency and he was

no corporate candidate. And, 08 holds no guarantees for any Dem. Everyone of them has flaws.

[democrat2thecore]

99. No, No! The problem is JOHN KERRY

The problem is John Kerry, the man, the candidate - not his positions on this issues.

[Mass]

101. No problem with the man. One of the finest.

and welcome to DU. I hope your candidate is half the human being that Kerry is. I know I will support him with pride for his bid for senator in MA, and I wished I could find somebody I would support with as much pride for president. At this point, nobody comes close, though one man is above the others.

[seabeyond]

103. except kerry won in 2004 n/t

[mtnsnake]

106. Yeah, thats why he's sitting in the White House

Kerry lost to an imbecile. He lost because he was a crappy campaigner. He ignored the swift boat lying fuckers until the charges stuck, he made mistake after mistake, and he couldn't connect with the voters. How frustrating to sit there wondering when the hell he'd fight back, only to never see anything materialize in that regard. Never again!

[seabeyond]

107. all you say applies to gore. you ignore the facts to do your own version

of swiftboating and regardless of the number of times that peole give you facts, you continue to ignore, like the swiftboatersw telling your made up story to diss the man, the same as swiftboaters. you ae no better. and people giving you fact changes nothing in you voicing your story, the same when the swiftboaters did it to kerry and fact was put out and ignored. you have it down perfectly. and will continue to express nontruths as truth, the same as the swiftboaters

[blm]

109. Kerry won - Terry McAuliffe failed ALL Dems by not securing the election process from 2001-2005

and every Democratic candidate, no matter who, would have faced 2002 and 2004 with that unsecured process.

No candidate was going to be able to rebuild the party's infrastructure once they became the nominee - every one of them would have to rely on the party infrastructure that McAuliffe oversaw for those four years.

[mtnsnake]

111. No. He lost because he was unelectable. He was as stale as last months pumpernickel

As good a senator as he was, it didn't translate into him being a good presidential campaigner. Wow what a crappy campaign he and his handlers ran.

[AtomicKitten]

120. securing the election process can only be done by Congress

... through legislation. You repeating that line of crappola over and over again doesn't make it true. McAullife did his job, just like Dean has done his, both as DNC Chair.

I actually heard Dean speak on this. When he was asked a question about election fraud vis a vis EVM, and he said that it can only be dealt with by Congress or on a state level, and that he recommends citizens gather signatures to put on state ballots initiatives mandating paper trails. That was his view on the subject.

Will you still be looking to the DNC Chair to solve this rampant pervasive problem in 2008? I would suspect that now the DNC Chair isn't McAullife you will conclude, and rightfully so, that securing the election process is, in fact, beyond the scope of the DNC Chair's purview.

[blm]

105. Why? Are people MORE presidential if they FEARED running in 2004? Because some CALCULATED

that 2004 was not winnable and kept their powder dry refusing to lead on any serious issue in opposition to Bush and his policies, those people are most qualified to be president now?

[mtnsnake]

108. Too bad we put up the only candidate who could possibly have lost to a moron!

...a moron who had already proven to be the worst president in history in his first term.

If only Howard Dean didn't have things explode on him in Iowa. Dean wouldn't have run his campaign based on a war theme, he wouldn't have turned his head the other way and ignored his naysayers, he would NOT have lost to a moron, and we wouldn't still be in Iraq. Kerry blew it plain and simple and it's nobody's fault but his own!

[Tellurian]

115. What makes Kerry's LOSS more apparent is the constant excuses blaming others 3 yrs after the fact!!

If his supporters thought he and they did a good job, they would have been over it by now, because they knew they did their best..

But the beat goes on- The endless spamming episodes of half-truths flailing in the ether by the dutiful zealots stuck in a time warp. Attempting to drown the din of what we all know in the end...John Kerry never fought for his rightful place in History. He kissed Teresa good night, rolled over, went to bed and forgot all about us in the end!

Kerry's famous last words: "I Will Fight For You!"...yeah, John, how about a refund?

[AtomicKitten]

119. nail on head

I was never particularly fond of him to begin with, but this adoration love-fest with skewed views of how things went done - as if the rest of us weren't paying attention - combined with the venom toward other candidates then and now and DU'ers having the audacity to disagree pushed me right into the mode of reflection on truth and reality and none of it jives with the picture some try so desperately to paint here.

I spent thousands $$$ of my own damn money on that campaign in cash and sweat, and I have never felt this way before but I too want a refund. I was ripped off from start to finish. The only thing I'm left with regarding that campaign is a bitter taste in my mouth and the undeniable feeling that it was Dean that should have run instead of the DLC handpicked candidate we ended up with. Funny the DLC is a pariah here at DU yet nobody in this fangirl club will cop to the fact that they chose Kerry for us.

[wisteria]

116. You know that isn't true. We put up the best candidates. The ones

that can truly run this country and want to bring about change. Senator Kerry's loss - (if in fact he actually did lose), was due to the manipulated fear this country felt, the Iraq War and miscalculating the power, money a the vulnerability of the American public to accept the lies of the SBV.