Looking back, what caused John Kerry to lose in '04 - BESIDES election fraud?

[derby378]

I want to hear it from you directly. I have my own observations, but let's see what DUers as a whole think. Which issue caused the most damage to Kerry's '04 campaign?

[mod mom]

1. Quick-before Faye spots it-it's ELECTION fraud not voting fraud. ;)

[derby378]

6. Done, thanks!

[New Earth]

84. hahahahhhaahh

ahahahhahahahahahaah LOL :D

thank you :D

[mod mom]

148. you educated the entire DU base almost single handedly. I salute you.

:patriot:

[Adelante]

2. Exit polls showed it was national security

It makes no sense Kerry would have lost on that issue, but apparently that was it.

[LSK]

5. exit polls showed him winning

:hi:

[Adelante]

29. On the issue voters said most influenced their votes

Kerry did very well on domestic issues. Bush did really well in only two areas, which were two of the top three chosen, terrorism and moral values, with Kerry in the teens and Bush in the 80s on both.

[blm]

13. Exit polls said he won by 5%. RNC stole that election and DNC let them do it.

..

[dailykoff]

21. Sadly you are right. The rest is mythology. (n/t)

[Adelante]

34. ASIDE from that is the polling question

We know it was stolen, blm.

[iamjoy]

45. I Thought It Was Moral Issues

that most voters cited. If these so called "family values" voters voted Republican, that would indicate it was abortion, gay rights, etc.

[Adelante]

56. Yes

Moral values and terrorism are where Bush excelled.


Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? (Check only one)

% Total Kerry Bush

Terrorism 19 14 86
Moral values 22 18 80

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/

[FrenchieCat]

3. It was a National Security Election like this one will be.....

and that Osama Tape on October 31st wasn't exactly useful for our side.

It was the October surprise that no one labeled as such. It was still just as effective, even without the label, nevertheless. :(

[ShortnFiery]

143. "Osama Tape on October 31st" = more like the Osama-tron Spook Production.

Am I the only person who viewed that "video" as quite suspect? Yes, the American People via the whorish cheer-leading by the M$M seemingly lapped it up.

More than ever, IMO, it boils down to losing "our Forth Estate" to the M$M Corporate Ruling Class. :thumbsdown:

[LSK]

4. He didnt lose

But I'd say the flip-flopping or the Swift boats.

[jenmito]

7. Not responding to the Swiftboat Liars for so long n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. That's what I think, too.

Even at the time, I was so frustrated that all this crap was being kicked around, and there was not a even a peep from the Kerry campaign for weeks and weeks. That reaction (or the lack of it) allowed that bullshit to circulate all over without being refuted effectively, and -- worse -- it gave rise to the impression that Kerry was weak because he wouldn't even defend himself against vicious defamation. It was a huge tactical error.

[AndyTiedye]

17. Option 2 Would Have Been to Spend it All in August to Respond to Them

Anything less than that would have been a drop in the bucket.

The Mighty Slime Machine was giving the Swift Boat liars all the free airtime they wanted,
but we Democrats have to pay $$$$$$ for every second.

He would have been out of money in October.

[jenmito]

43. He should've put out an immediate response and the MSM would've played THAT over and over, too

I don't think he'd have to have spent all his money...

[blm]

57. Really? You saw the MSM play THIS clip from his Firefighters Speech over and over?

MSNBC had this clip and would NOT use it the way any sane person would expect. In fact, they continued to push the idea that there was never a response at all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758982

[jenmito]

65. No, I didn't. But your article says the assertions were two weeks old already...

That's WAY too long to take to respond to such lies.

[blm]

69. It wasn't the first response. But it was a SCHEDULED speech that should have

been broadcast live on all the news networks. Kerry was waiting for WH to denounce the ad. They didn't. He had this high visibility speech scheduled. Then the corpmedia somehow backed out of covering it, and barely reported it.

I also think many of you forget that NO CAMPAIGN NEWS was coming out during that early August timeframe because Gov. McGreevey of New Jersey was outed with a gay lover he put in charge of terrorism and security.

That took up at least a week of political sensationalistic news.

[jenmito]

74. When was the first response? n/t

[blm]

78. It's in the research forum here at DU.

And NO campaign news was getting any traction in early August with the Gov McGreevey outing.

[jenmito]

82. I wasn't posting here back then, so I guess I just didn't know. n/t

[jenmito]

41. I agree...

I think everyone has learned from his mistake this time around, at least.

[Adelante]

50. They didn't have the money to do ads in August

In retrospect, it would have been better to do it anyway. But it would have been way, way better had the DNC and Dem 527s taken on that financial burden in August. Whether they were asked or not, I don't know.

[AndyTiedye]

139. It Would Have Been Illegal to Ask Them

And Kerry ran a clean campaign.

[Adelante]

142. Thanks, I didn't think of that

They would have had to initiate the defense.

[Arugula Latte]

23. God that pissed me off. We were SCREAMING for them to fire back.

He could have turned it to his advantage. "How DARE these people question me for an AWOL president who never saw combat?" It would have resonated had he turned some righteous anger back at them. But Nooooooo. He had to confirm peoples' preconceptions of wimpy Democrats who don't have the spine to fight back. :grr:

[sandnsea]

27. And we were screaming - HE DID

But people like you chose to believe what was in the media instead of helping to counter those lies with the truth the campaign was putting out. And no matter how many times we post the timeline with the truth of the responses, people prefer to believe the lie.

Just yesterday I tried to correct someone regarding Obama's nuke statement. They chose to believe the media smear. An Obama supporter. Right here at DU. What the hell is a campaign supposed to do when good Democrats choose the smear over facts??

[Arugula Latte]

40. I distinctly remember his campaign delaying, delaying their response

The campaign didn't want to "dignify" the attack ads with a response at first.

That did FATAL damage to his campaign. The Kerry Campaign did too little, too late. That's not a media smear. It's what happened.

[blm]

44. Really? You got dates on that?

Because Eric Boehlert charted the response and proved beyond a doubt that media muted Kerry's counters to the swifts and did so deliberately.

Kerry challenged Bush to DEBATE their services instead of hiding behind the lies of the swifts - and did so in front of the FIREFIGHERS CONVENTION. A speech media didn't want YOU to know about, let alone WATCH on Aug 19, 2004.

[CitizenLeft]

127. CNN

I remember them being particularly, and blatantly, biased on this. It infuriated me so bad I wanted to break things. Matthews made an effort to give Kerry's side equal time, but it wasn't enough and the swiftboat screech wouldn't stop. They continued to get free airtime, and that ad of theirs was played over and over and over again when it was actually only playing in targetted states. But because CNN kept giving them a forum, we all saw it that disgusting ad ad nauseum.

[Breeze54]

135. The Swiftless Liars started their crap in July!!!

The Vets Attack

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

New Battles: Underestimating the Swift Boat ads, the Kerry team suffered from their slow response.
Then Bill Clinton's former aides arrived and staged a silent coup

In August, when the Swift Boat vets scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club, the Kerry campaign dispatched Gen. Wesley Clark to hold a counter-press conference. At the last minute the Swifties canceled. A cheer went up at Kerry-Edwards headquarters on 15th Street in Washington.

The cheers were premature. The Swift Boat ads—a first round charging that Kerry had lied to win his medals, then a second batch accusing him of betraying his mates by calling them war criminals—were misleading, but they were very effective. The Kerry high command failed to see the potential for damage until it was too late.

To respond to the ads would be to dignify them, argued both Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill. Mostly the ads were stirring up the Republican true believers, not winning over the "persuadables," the undecided voters. At least that's what most of Kerry's advisers wanted to believe. It would be a mistake for him to hit back; the persuadables don't like negative campaigning. Better to float above it all.

Kerry wanted to blister the Swift Boat vets in a speech he was scheduled to give to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 18. "We need to get these guys," he said. But at the last minute his handlers on the road were ordered by headquarters in Washington to restrain the candidate. Cahill and Shrum were worried that Kerry would seem too bitter and angry, the way he had appeared when he sarcastically thanked "Good Morning America's" Charlie Gibson, back in April, for doing the Republicans' dirty work.

Edwards wanted to begin a speech, "I join with Senator McCain in calling on the president to condemn this dishonest and dishonorable ad." But Kerry headquarters said no. Stephanie Cutter, the boss of the Kerry communications shop, explained that the campaign didn't need to give the Swift Boat vets any more attention than they were already getting.

Shrum would later insist that he saw the need to take action soon after the Swift Boat ads began cutting into support for Kerry in August. Still, the media men lacked a certain imagination, or at least gumption, about pushing back.

In late August the campaign finally made a small media buy to answer the Swifties,
but it was like using a fly swatter against an elephant."

[sandnsea]

51. The Swift Boaters cancelled

The campaign had a full press conference scheduled and the swift boaters cancelled. They had been through it twice before and it seemed like they had run away again. They did not count on the media carrying the lies. As soon as that became apparent, they had massive response from all sorts of people. The media never reported the responses. And even though Kerry supporters tried to push the truth online, people here preferred to jump and scream then to dig in and help spread the truth. THAT is what happened.

[Breeze54]

132. That's bullshit!

"They did not count on the media carrying the lies."

That's A Typical, well known Rove behavior!! How could Kerry's campaign manager NOT know??

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0831-10.htm">Sinking the Swift Boats

snip-->

The point to all of these attacks is not, as the Swift Boat Veterans pretend, concern for "the truth." Rather, they are engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the behavior of a "target population" - in this case, voters.

The Swift Boat attack on Kerry uses a classic propaganda tactic: have PR professionals organize and launch a well-funded smear attack, an ad hominem barrage against Kerry's integrity, and do it through a front group with enough separation from the Bush campaign to pretend independence. Then use the right-wing echo chamber to keep the issue alive and churning, spitting plenty of mud and confusion. It's a strategy that is virtually guaranteed to hurt Kerry in the polls.

What seems surprising is that the Kerry campaign was so unprepared for this attack, especially since this standard tactic has been used for decades by Bush's political mentor, Karl Rove.

According to Dallas Morning News political writer Wayne Slater, "It's amazing how similar this type of attack is to the pattern of attacks I have seen over two decades - in some cases involving Bush's campaigns, in other cases they involved campaigns in which Karl Rove was a participant.

In every case, the approach is the same: You have a surrogate group of allies, independent of the Bush campaign, raising questions not about the opponent's weakness but directly about the opponent's strength. In every case, it works."


snip-->

The "third party technique" is a standard PR tactic, and is at the heart of the Bush campaign's successes. As one PR pro describes it, the technique is fairly simple: "Put your message in someone else's mouth" - the mouth of someone the public will believe, or at least who will be believed sufficiently to influence the opinions of your "target audience."

We examined the third party technique at length in our 2001 book, "Trust Us, We're Experts!" The technique offers several advantages for the propagandists out there:

Camouflage:

It helps hide the vested interest that lurks behind a message.

Emotions Over Facts:

It replaces factual discourse with emotion-laden symbolism.

more at link....

[sandnsea]

190. Oh good, EXACTLY what I was talking about

People who should have been helping to beat back the lies were beating up Kerry and the campaign instead.

For instance, where is the rebuttal to this statement, Elliott retracted the affidavit as early as August 6, "Swift Boater George Elliott, author of an affidavit publicly criticizing Kerry's conduct and the merits of his Silver Star.." Why don't people who supposedly cared so much about getting rid of Bush report some of this stuff.

Where is the reference to Cleland going to Crawford and challenging him directly about hiding behind surrogates.

Where is the reference to Kerry's challenge to Bush on August 20?

Where is the reference to Rood - who spoke out for the first time in his life on behalf of John Kerry.

I didn't say they weren't prepared for the smears - I said they weren't prepared for the media carrying the lies - and I would add with the help from the left as you just proved with that piece of crap analysis that you posted.

[Breeze54]

193. I worked my ass off FOR Kerry, so you have a lot of nerve giving me any shit!!

And as far as the many references you are looking for...CLICK THE LINK!!

That is a seven page synopsis of the events. I'm not going to reference

every damn thing in that article, as it's against the posting rules at DU.

BTW??

I've voted for Kerry every time he came up for election but I have to say,

that election and his vote for the IWR made it a very difficult and emotional

decision for me to make. But I pulled myself up off the floor after that and

worked to defeat W at MY OWN EXPENSE and traveled OUT OF STATE for the cause!!

It took me 3 months to pay off the phone bill, with all the calls I made all

across the country, as a Kerry Election Team member VOLUNTEER! :grr:

I have and had every right to be pissed off as did many other campaign workers and voters!

Get off your, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", high horse!! :grr:

[sandnsea]

194. If you were repeating lies

It would have been better if you'd stayed home. We were trying to get correct information out about the swift boat lies - AND trying to ward off the left wing lies at the same time. You can call me any damn thing you want - you're still wrong.

[Breeze54]

198. You are a pompous ass!!!

The state I worked, voted FOR a Democratic President and a Democratic Governor for the first time in years!!
You are now, officially, a joke to me! I'm beginning to think you were one of the idiot "insiders" in the Kerry
campaign that made all those really baaaad decisions. Fatal flaw that it was! Asshats running the campaign!
Moronic, pompous ass, know it alls; that didn't have a clue, thinking they knew everything and they knew nothing!

Yeah, it's beginning to make a lot of sense now, concerning your diatribes! Genius. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

199. rotflmao

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You can't argue the facts so you throw a fit and flip me off???

:rofl:

Grow up.

[Breeze54]

201. Great come back.

Not. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

140. ahem

>>"Just yesterday I tried to correct someone regarding Obama's nuke statement. They chose to believe the media smear. An Obama supporter. Right here at DU. What the hell is a campaign supposed to do when good Democrats choose the smear over facts??"<<

It's fascinating that you relay this brief discussion the way you do considering your view on this subject was in my opinion out there and completely unapproachable; like we were speaking a different language. You appear to be impervious to some realities and damn glad to argue about it.

I do have a daughter named Alice, however, I'm not going to follow you down the rabbit hole.

"My kingdom for some insight."

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

172. You perpetuated the distortion

and continue to. There isn't anything "out there" about it. Obama did not say he would never use nuclear weapons, he just didn't.

[AtomicKitten]

183. IMO is it YOU that misunderstood his statement

First of all, I don't form my POV on what the MSM gaggle says. In fact, I have no clue what their spin is on it. So, your declaration that my POV is tainted by a "MSM smear" doesn't hold water.

In my opinion, Obama said what he meant first - that nukes would never be used under any circumstances - and then the ubiquitous pause followed thereafter by him qualifying his original statement and backing off it.

That is how I read it. You can read it however you wish, the difference being I won't insist you are lying or wrong or the pawn of the MSM, Karl Rove, or Satan.

I find this Tag-Team approach to discussion here at DU bullying. There is a reason why so many people on this thread disagree with the way a handful of DU'ers view the 2004 Kerry campaign. If you're not afraid of a little insight, I'll draw you a map.

[sandnsea]

185. yes, how you read it

Because, for the love of god, THAT IS HOW THE MEDIA REPORTED IT. They did not report his comments about terrorists in Pakistan in context - and consequently that country thinks he truly said he was going to invade. They did not report the nuke comments in context either. I don't care what why or howfore they did it - but they did it. And you've got the comment wrong. Period.

And no amount of name-calling about what happened in 2004 makes you right either. You're a bunch of sour grape Deaniacs and Clarkies who can't deal with the reality that your candidates imploded. That's the real DU bottom line. If you want some real insight - which I know you don't.

[AtomicKitten]

187. here you go, just like I reported it

>>''I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, WITH A PAUSE, 'involving civilians'. Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table'..."<<

Have a great day.

[sandnsea]

188. Without the question, over and over and over again

That makes it clear this is about attacking terrorists in Pakistan. I don't know what is wrong with you that you prefer lies to truth.

[AtomicKitten]

189. *

>>"I don't know what is wrong with you that you prefer lies to truth."<<

I would diagnose your particular disorder but that would be frowned upon.

Good luck on all that.

[sandnsea]

192. yeah yeah, bla bla

sandnsea is crazy, always the attack of last resort, how clever, see ya

[jenmito]

46. Same here...

I think his "people" advised him just to ignore it. What a dumb mistake.

[blm]

60. I think that's another myth playing out. He responded and then surrogates like Clark

and Cleland stayed on it the rest of the time. No matter how much he countered it never would have been enough because the election fraud was already in play and set up for four years already.

Here's the clip that corpmedia IGNORED.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758982

[jenmito]

67. After two weeks...

but you're right. The MSM should've covered it then.

[blm]

71. After Gov. McGreevey had over a week dominating the news cycle.

People forget things like that and myths gain the upper hand.

[jenmito]

80. I didn't forget about that-I'm from NJ and still live very close to NJ...

But I also remember NOT hearing a rebuttal from Kerry. I don't know WHY I didn't hear from him, but I didn't.

[blm]

86. And what DOMINATED your news there for over a week? I'm in NC and McGreevey was all over

our news as well as wall to wall on the national cable news networks.

And I am petty sure that Kerry's tough response in front of the FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION on Aug 19 should have dominated the news cycle for at least a week in a normal news climate. But this is CORPORATE NEWS now, and they obviously had their orders to downplay or ignore any counterattack.

THIS was news - a sitting president had NEVER been challenged to debate his service before - how did the media do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758982

[jenmito]

93. Correct, but from your article...

"As Kerry denounced the criticism as “lies about my record,” aides privately acknowledged that they and their boss had been slow to recognize the damage being done to his political standing."

[blm]

96. Their spin is to excuse themselves - standard operating procedure and spin.

Just as they did throughout the entire campaign - just as they have done for the last ten years. Of course they didn't attribute that because they exaggerated it to pretend they, the press, had no blame.

[jenmito]

98. If Kerry's own campaign aids "admit" to acting too slowly,

I don't know what else to say. :shrug:

[blm]

102. Anonymous attributions that end up excusing the press for their INACTIONS?

How convenient for the reporter.

And it doesn't MATTER about the timing when if Kerry HAD made that speecha week earlier it would have been suppressed anyway in favor of the McGreevey story.

One would ASSUME that the press couldn't ignore a major speech to the FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION - but they did, didn't they?

I don't know what else to say if one insists on giving the break to the newsmedia who was OBVIOUSLY complicit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758982

And this video PROVES it.

[jenmito]

104. McGreevy came out a week AFTER the Swifty liars attacked him.

He should've spoken out immediately.

[blm]

108. They were pressuring the WH to denounce it and made statements available

including his records. The press should've handled it appropriately. The networks were told by legal team to not run the ads since they contained false statements. These were all things that HAD to happen since the Bush campaign was not the source of the ad - not until they could track the money anyway, which they did.

Then the decision was made to challenge Bush at the FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION speech that was already scheduled AUGUST 19 and was supposed to be broadcast live. It should have gotten wall to wall coverage.

And it doesn't MATTER when or how often or anything else when the media has already dug in and is sticking with their plan to ignore or downplay the counters.

What was done was way more than the issue ever needed. But NO AMOUNT of counter would have satisfied then. Kerry would have just been accused of being too easily distracted by an outside group and overly sensitive to criticism. Kerry is not and never has been one overly concerned when attacked - he truly is stoic and has a healthy ego that DOESN'T need stroking. Egotistical men do NOT risk their lives to save others or take the heat and the career killing risks that come from investigating the darkest corners of government corruption.

If you haven't read Eric Boehlert's book you should. You would recognize the COMPLICITY of the media on this issue and that is something that would have happened to ANY nominee at the time. Even Jesus Christ, the retired general now serving as Governor of South Carolina was going to have the media set against him.

[jenmito]

156. It was too little too late. He should've knocked them down THAT DAY!

He was too calculating, too careful in his slow response, no matter how forceful...once the lie has been out there for more than a DAY or twoo it may as well become the truth.

[dailykoff]

200. So they could say he was hysterically overreacting?

Or so they could say he was thin skinned and easily distracted, possibly borderline psycho?

[jenmito]

202. So they could say he's a fighter...

and he won't take any bull but he'll correct the LIES right away.

[dailykoff]

203. If they wanted to say he was a fighter, they had plenty

of opportunities. Instead they said he was "unfit for command," repeatedly. The point is that there was no way Kerry could avoid getting shat on, so I believe he was right not to blow up a storm, which would simply have given the media hacks another Dean scream or botched joke to hang around his neck.

[jenmito]

206. You misunderstood my reply...

You said that if he responded right away they would've said he was hysterically overreacting or he was thin skinned and easily distracted, possibly borderline psycho. I said they would say he was a fighter. The REASON they would've said it if he came out against it immediately is that he would've been seen as someone who doesn't need to meet with his advisors, carefully craft a response, or whatEVER. He let too much time pass.

[dailykoff]

207. You're imagining things.

These guys have been shoveling shit at Kerry for decades with the help of media like the NYT and Boston Globe and I think Kerry knows their moves. Nobody would have called him a "fighter" no matter what he did, rest assured.

[jenmito]

213. You're trying to justify his very slow response....

Funny that you imagine they'd call him thin-skinned or psycho or whatever and you KNOW that but I'M imagining things.

[dailykoff]

215. He's been responding for decades

and only a fool would take those charges seriously in the first place.

[jenmito]

216. His people figured if he didn't dignify them with an answer it would go away...

They were wrong. Sorry-but Kerry should've responded to these liars IMMEDIATELY. He waited way too long.

[dailykoff]

217. They answered. They just didn't scream

to get your attention.

[jenmito]

219. They answered after the lies had been out for two weeks already...

Too slow.

[AtomicKitten]

218. submit Jen

Apparently if you aren't with them in their distortion of history, then you are with the SB Liars. :crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3450627&mesg_id=3454207

[jenmito]

220. Ahhh...so it's kind of like-

"If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." Thanks for showing me that post!

[jsamuel]

28. yep, imo

but really, he tried, but the media wouldn't have it

[jenmito]

49. He did?

I'm not sure he DID try...at least not fast enough. Didn't he even say his mistake was not to respond to them fast enough?

[wisteria]

79. He did respond two times, in April and August. They were on the attack almost immediately.

Edward's should have done more along with the Democratic Party, but besides them, the media played along with the Swift Boat liars and didn't cover much of the Kerry camps denials and demands for these lies to be refuted with the truth. Actually,Senator Kerry's campaign had taken care of them in April and the SBV had no money left. However, they were able to come back in August after receiving donations from friends of Rove. It is a myth that Kerry did not fight back used by those trying to find excused to blame Kerry.

[CitizenLeft]

126. I'm remembering more now...

You're right, they did run out of money. Looked like they were done in that first wave, but they came back.

And just to be clear, I don't blame him. I believe he won the election, and, like him, I thought honesty would win out. It didn't.

[CitizenLeft]

125. totally agree

He didn't forcefully confront the lies quickly enough, and because they were lies, he mistakenly thought people would see the truth, or seek out the truth. Unfortunately, he was wrong about that. I have a close friend, a Republican, who had flipped and was about to vote for him. I called her to talk, and was flabberghasted that she had switched BACK because of that swiftboat shit. Suddenly, she couldn't "trust him." You gotta be kidding, I said, but no go. No matter how much evidence of their lies, articles, vid links, etc. I sent to her, it was enough to make her vote for Bush to my utter disgust.

Forceful, controlled righteous indignation, night after night, in relentless soundbites would've worked, I thought, but he waited too long.

[jenmito]

155. Thank you!

I don't understand how people can keep making excuses for him NOT coming out immediately! :hi:

[Ediacara]

195. I agree

[blm]

8. Most wellknown Dems were all supporting Bush on terrorism and Iraq war strategies.

The last Dem president, his famous Senator wife and Joe Lieberman, the last VP nominee were ALL supporting Bush on the two biggest issues of the day.


Which helped the PERCEPTION that a Bush win was conceivable in the media even after Kerry throttled Bush decisively in the debates. That set up the atmosphere for the steal.


But it was election fraud that did it - election fraud that was ALLOWED to happen by a DNC chair who refused to counter the tactics he KNEW would be employed by the RNC machine because we all learned about them during the hearings on the election fraud in 2000.

McAuliffe promised it wouldn't happen again after 2000, but instead we saw it was worse in 2002 and even worse still in 2004.

That election was stolen in the four years before election day.

[derby378]

9. My belief is that Karl Rove milked the anti-gay vote

I remember he made a whirlwind tour in borderline states, stirring up church voters to vote against same-sex marriages and civil unions by voting against Kerry. The strategy apparently kept Kerry from taking more Western states than he did.

[MADem]

10. He didn't lose. The question might better be phrased "What made it easier for the GOP to cheat him

out of his win?"

[derby378]

14. That's not the question, though...

I sympathize, but in the end there's still lingering concerns that something Kerry did made Bush's and Rove's jobs easier.

[blm]

25. That Kerry did or other Dems? If Kerry was as bad as said, why the cheating, stealing

lying from a 'popular president's' campaign and the undermining and even backstabbing from within his own party if he was doing as badly as the myths now proclaim?


Historian Douglas Brinkley 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."
>>>>>

Here's Bill Clinton making headlines and helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq /


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
>>>>>>



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

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

[MADem]

47. Well, it's like answering the question "Why is the sky green?" It isn't green, and Kerry did not

lose. So I can't pretend he did in order to respond to your inaccurate question based on a false premise. He got the thing stolen from him. Some factors reduced the margin, but I remain convinced he got the most votes and had they been properly counted, he would have had the most electoral votes as well.

[madrchsod]

66. do`t blind them with logic

i thought the sky was green....

[Yukari Yakumo]

122. Ok, here's a better question then

How the heck did the Kerry campaign fair so poorly enough so the KKKarl'n'Crew could steal the election?

[MADem]

137. He wasn't MEAN enough. He didn't get 'in their face' shitty.

But then, class will tell, I guess.

[dailykoff]

11. Stabbed in the back by just about everybody.

He won, but what could he do about it when nobody in his own party would support an extended legal battle? So he packed up his tent and went home.

[AndyTiedye]

15. The Repiglickin' Media

The Swift Boat liars would have been over and done with if the Mighty Slime Machine hadn't picked up their swill and given it all that free airplay.

When the AWOL issue came up, the Repiglickin' media minimized it, and destroyed those who tried to bring it up.

Their pundits were campaigning for Bush** on the air every day for months.

They will be back next year.

[That Is Quite Enough]

16. "Fear, smears, and queers." As said by Al Franken.

They had three or so chapters in "The Truth" that detailed how the Repigs worked people's fear and hatred of gays, while also tearing apart Kerry's war hero status and 'flip-floppery.'

[zulchzulu]

18. The complicity of the mainstream media to go along with Bush's Terror Color War

It's been well documented that whenever Kerry would be in the headlines, suddenly there was a terror alert...

FEAR!

CODE RED!

CODE ORANGE!

Even Tom Ridge was baffled by some of the calls to alert the public of threats that he knew were dubious and said so when he left office.

He said on CNN:

"The information we have to work with more often than not is very vague. It does not tell us when, where or how the terrorists might try to harm us again."

Add that the Swiftbatshit Liars were able to carry through their scam well after the lies were debunked shows utter corruption and laziness in the media for the most part.

Murrow would have all their pretty heads hanged.

[nevergiveup]

19. Rove played the fear card perfectly

and it worked. I know countless non right-wing folks whose vote was based solely on the allusion that W would protect them.

[muntrv]

20. Because Kerry didn't fight back against the swift boaters, not agressively

campaigning against shrub.

[zulchzulu]

22. That's a myth

Kerry and many others within the campaign started a fierce attack about 8 days after the first ads showed. That was in mid-August. By the last week of August, the New York Times and other publications had articles debunking the claims in the ads.

What happened was that the Swiftboat folks were able to air the ads ad nauseum all the way to November and the mainstream media was complicit in keeping the story alive.

[derby378]

26. I never saw the counterattack, though

I think the Kerry campaign simply underestimated the ruthlessness and the machinations of Karl Rove, and they paid dearly for it.

[blm]

31. You never saw the counterattack because media COMPLICITLY kept you from

seeing it.

Eric Boehlert charts the media's complicity with the Swifts in his book LAPDOGS. NO NEWS NETWORK would cover Kerry's speech to the Firefighters Convention where he challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the lies of the swifts and come out in the open and debate their services from that time. That was Aug 19. Any halfass news organization would have been on a challenge to the president like that for days and weeks on end till it happened. Not THIS corporate media controlled by Bush's cronies.

[sandnsea]

38. You and I both posted the facts

DUers who were here in 2004 have no business saying they didn't know. A lot of us posted and posted, but these people preferred their histrionics over helping to get the truth out. They have a lot of nerve trashing Kerry now when they wouldn't help when they were needed.

[tomreedtoon]

144. If a counterattack happens in the forest...

...and nobody hears it, did it happen?

I'm convinced Kerry failed because he wimped out. Your comment suggests that he was too stupid to break through the media indifference, by using alternative media or by going on the offensive in a way they couldn't ignore. Could we both be right? Making Kerry cowardly AND stupid?

Of course, it could be Kerry's advisors who were cowardly and stupid...but trusting them and not his own gut doesn't absolve him from cowardice or stupidity, either. That would make him inattentive in addition.

[sandnsea]

35. I told you, personally

You were here in 2004. You were given the information. Not just by me, but by a bunch of people including PeteNYC. We told you to help spread the truth, but you said what happened on boards like DU and Kos didn't matter. Well it did matter. So thank yourself for choosing to jump up and down instead of help. And maybe you won't do it again next year. It takes one unified voice to counter the right wing machine.

[derby378]

48. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof...

If you can show me where you, personally, told me about this, I'll respond appropriately.

I know that Kerry eventually started making a few statements, but it took a month for the anti-Swift Boat campaign to really materialize, rather than just eight days.

[sandnsea]

55. A month???

How could it have taken too long to respond when Kerry spoke to it, himself, around August 20. ??? If it took a full month to materialize, then Kerry responded to it well before it had taken hold. So I guess you just blew your own argument out of he water.

I remember you. You were a ranter. I responded to you. You were told the facts.

[derby378]

68. zulchzulu said it only took eight days as opposed to a month...

So I'm still waiting for evidence, not name-calling. I'll admit to the occasional rant (wouldn't we all?), but come on.

[sandnsea]

75. So you're clueless

You've got no idea what you're talking about and are just ranting to feed your own anti-Dem belief system. You being right about the establishment Democrats was more important than winning.

[derby378]

81. Ha! I thought so...

If you can't prove your assertions (and I'm not saying you can't), why don't you go and cool off for a while? I am but a man, but still on the Democrats' side, so don't be hatin'.

[sandnsea]

87. Just like in 2004

The ranting is more important than the facts. I bet the next time there is a Kerry thread, you'll repeat the same bullshit swift boat lies because you're convinced the Dem way has to be your way.

[blm]

76. Gov McGreevey was outed and strung up in the weeks before. Has that been forgotten

along with Kerry's actual response that media chose to NOT give any significant coverage though it was as tough a challenge as ANY president had ever received from an opponent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5758982

[karynnj]

107. The fact is that Kerry had the truth out BEFORE August

The SBVT attacked twice in the spring. By August,

- Kerry had about 140 pages of Naval records on his web site. They included fitness reports that spanned the interval and were in some cases signed by people now in SBVT. He also had one page that showed that when he left Vietnam, he was approved for the higher security clearance needed for the Brooklyn assignment. (This means at the point he was leaving his line of command - now SBVT - had to attest to his character.)

- The Nixon tapes were widely covered at the time of the convention. The Nixon administration investigated him, told Nixon that he was a war hero and clean. This was 2 years later - if there was anything to be found, it would have been. Nixon ordered people to "destroy" Kerry.

- The Navy gave him those medals 35 years ago - at that point. No one questioned them even though he was very much in the news in 1971.

- Every memember of his crew who were with him for any of the medals back the official accvount as does the man whose life he saved.

In August, they came out with their book - which was like a cluster bomber of smears. In addition to what was already there.

- Kerry's people gave the media 30 pages listing things that were provably false.

- Senator Warner who was Secretary of teh Navy in the 1960s, said that he had examined the siver star paperwork and the medal was deserved. (In 2006, he repeated that on the floor of the Senate)

- They provided proof that the main people were linked to Bush.

- Kerry, his crew, Clark, Cleland, Kerrey and others disputed the SBVT

Generally speaking it usually takes only a few blatant lies before a source is discredited - It is telling the media played with it for months after they were proven to be liars.

Can you prove anything in your life to this degree?

[zulchzulu]

37. I have video of Kerry speaking about it in September

There were also plenty of surrogates who went on the road for Kerry to say that the Swiftbatshitters were liars.

I have them on video as well.

[sandnsea]

63. Elliot retracts - 8/6

"But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

Who would think it would take any more than that. It's been three damn years and these people STILL don't know the truth because they just don't want to. They want to hate Kerry for whatever sick egomaniacal purposes that it serves them.

[zulchzulu]

99. That SOB goes to the Greenville Country Club in DE all the time

I know, because I know some people who go there and he is a member. I'd like to go there at some point and buy the guy a drink and pour it on his bald head. He'd be so lucky.

[sandnsea]

24. Dumb Democrats believing the lying media n/t

[politicasista]

118. Bingo n/t

[sandnsea]

177. This thread supports that theory

People just don't want to accept the truth, even when it's smacked right up in their face. What is John Kerry supposed to do about people who want to hate him for personal reasons?? No campaign can change people's self-serving need to be superior to everyone around them, even one of the smartest and wisest people to ever populate the planet.

[politicasista]

178. Exactly

People will look for any excuse to hate him or anyone that doesn't meet their agenda. They don't care about truth. They complain about the media, yet buy into everything it fabricates.

No matter what he does, it has to be ten times better than most Democrats or else.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. honestly, he ran a horrible campaign

[blm]

39. If that were true he would've lost by 10% to such a mediaprotected president

in the post 9-11 country, just as was expected by everyone, including most Democrats by the end of 2002.

[sandnsea]

42. most votes of any Democrat

especially up against a sitting President in a time of war. He ran a great campaign. He made two mistakes and the Dem Party couldn't stand behind him on either of them. He was trashed in the worst way, and the grassroots peed their pants instead of fighting. You have no idea what a national campaign is like, and neither does Obama. So you might just want to back it up a bit.

[Alexander]

32. Kerry won, 53%-46%, and won 309 electoral votes...

That's what the exit polls said, and they have a well-documented history of never being off by more than 0.1%.

2004 was stolen, just like 2000. While I take some comfort in the fact that most Americans didn't vote for Bush in either election, it's even more disheartening to know that our elections were stolen - and hardly anyone did anything about it.

This is why people like Barbara Boxer deserve our support - they are willing to tell the truth when everyone else is too scared.

Kerry could have won in an unquestionable landslide had he:

1) Attacked Bush during the convention,

2) Mentioned the Kerry Committee and his work with Iran-Contra more,

3) Made a forceful, loud and instantaneous response to the Swift Boat ads,

4) Reconciled his pro-IWR vote with his vote against the $87 billion supplemental during at least one of the debates,

5) Removed his jacket to show he wasn't cheating and challenging Bush to do the same during at least one of the debates,

and finally

6) Addressed the issues of election fraud in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida and Nevada.

[karynnj]

110. I disagree with several of your points

1) Speaking of his work on Tran/Contra would have backfired - Reagan had just died and been canonized. How does Kerry say that he exposed that Reagan/Bush allowed crack cocaine in the country so we could arm RW thugs.

2) Kerry only had 3 hrs of network time for the convention - not the 9 Gore had. It also was important to introduce Kerry and make people comfortable with him. Kerry's own speech gave his backgound, spoke of his vision and spoke of what was wrong. The last part was pretty tough. Carter's speech hit pretty hard too. The key was he came out looking Presidential and likable. He needed that.

3) There were 2 $87 billion votes. Kerry voted for the Democratic one that had oversight and paid for it by rolling back some of the tax cut. Then, knowing it would pass, voted against the version that removed these features. Kerry made it clear that he was NOT voting against funding. I agree that he should have answered this simply and clearly as he did earlier in the day he later summarized the 2 votes. It would have been better than the answer that he gave - even though it was a good line. He should have used the one opportunity to speak unfiltered on that.

4) I like your suggestion on the jacket - though it could have been a disaster with Bush storming off indignant and a lapdog media paintin Kerry as a conspiracy nut.



(Kerry did speak of some of those election problems in the Senate when the Rosa Parks voting rights act was extended.)

[Alexander]

222. Good for you.

The bottom line is that if Kerry had challenged the results in Ohio, none of this other stuff would've mattered.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[ronnykmarshall]

164. Other - Grovelbot!

That's why he lost.

[terip64]

36. he didn't lose n/t .

[kansasblue]

52. I wish he was clearer. During the debates I thought it would be

so easy to explain the ' I was for it before I was against it' But he didn't give it a try. They changed the bill! Just explain it.

fight man! fight!

[mike_c]

53. his willingness to buy into the neocon agenda was what lost it for me....

I can't speak for others, but Kerry's willingness to jump onto the security state bandwagon, his statements about the need to continue the war against Iraq, his attempted justification of the war, and so on made him impossible for me to support.

[sandnsea]

59. You hear with different ears

He called for a plan to start troop withdrawal in 2005. You were listening to the media tell you about a Democratic plan - Hillary's plan. You weren't listening to John Kerry's plan because the media believes the DLC is the Democratic Party. They still do. That's why we hear such strange things in the media about Democrats, they're talking about the DLC and Clinton crowd.

[mike_c]

72. "Kerry rejects call for Iraq troop withdrawal...."

Defeated Democratic candidate on “Meet the Press”

By Bill Van Auken
1 February 2005

For any of his erstwhile supporters who cling to illusions about what might have been had the vote gone a bit differently on November 2, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry provided a definitive answer Sunday.

Appearing on the NBC television news program “Meet the Press,” Kerry was shown a videotape of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Edward Kennedy, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning with the immediate removal of at least 12,000.

“Do you agree with Senator Kennedy that 12,000 American troops should leave at once?” asked NBC’s Tim Russert.

“No,” replied Kerry.

“Do you believe there should be a specific timetable of withdrawal of American troops?” Russert continued.

“No,” Kerry repeated.

more@link

on edit: oops, forgot the link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/kerr-f01.shtml

[sandnsea]

83. HIS plan that he would control

Laid out in 2004. I'm not going to go back and figure out what was specifically going on every different month of the war.

He laid out a plan to promise troop withdrawal and bring in the international community in order to quell the violence. Do you honestly believe Iraq wouldn't be over by now under a Kerry Administration? Do you really think it served anybody to characterize him as the same as George Bush??

"we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

[mike_c]

88. "...and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years"

Now THAT'S strong conviction! Maybe. If it all works out.

Do I really think Kerry would have kept troops in Iraq? In 2004 he said he would. He said repeatedly that the U.S. NEEDED to fight the war against Iraq, and he said that the difference between he and Bush was that he could do a better job of prosecuting the war.

Never mind that it was immoral and criminal, then and now.

Kerry was ALL OVER the bogus "war on terror," and he apparently accepted the neocon agenda for hegemony in the middle east, beginning with Iraq. Did he really mean it? I dunno. But he certainly did say it.

[sandnsea]

91. "begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer "

and with international support, create a peaceful country instead of the nightmare we've got now. He never said we needed to fight Iraq, he said we needed to do our best to create stability. He repeatedly said we needed to take our troops off the front and not be the face of that war. You choose to believe what you want because it suits your political agenda, not because it's based on fact.

And there are terrorists, you can't say they don't exist because they don't fit with your political agenda either.

There was a terrorist attack on a Russian train today. It can't ALL be CIA operatives. :crazy:

[karynnj]

117. Read the NYU speech

He was not a neo con and never accepted that agenda and even in the first debate said No permanent bases.

[flashl]

54. No one fought for Ohio Voter Rights

It was a repeat of the Florida 2000 election. Voters in Ohio stood in line for hours to vote to have their votes thrown away. It was widely known that there were huge discrepancies between Ohio's Sec. of Election web site totals and counts reported at each Ohio SOE county website. Even when comparing total votes at Ohio SOE websites to precinct counts again there were discrepanies, in the thousands.

NO ONE supported Ohio voters.

[AtomicKitten]

58. running on the "we do wars better" platform and ...

* insisting on only "happy talk" during the Convention,
* not coming back at the Swift Boat Liars fast or hard enough,
* immediately folding without challenging particularly Ohio.

[sampsonblk]

73. I second all your points

[mike_c]

77. exactly...

...spot on. Remember the ONLY place anti-war sentiment was allowed at the 2004 DNC convention?

The "free speech zone," of course:

[karynnj]

115. Remember how well the 1968 convention worked?

Had there been a huge show of anti- war protestors the immediate response of the media and teh Republicans would have been if he can't run a convention he can't run a country.

[mike_c]

120. speaking of the 1968 convention...

...perhaps it worked better than you think. I was 13 when I watched Richard Daley's thugs wade into Americans assembled to redress their grievances, and I will never forget it. The whole world WAS watching.

[wisteria]

89. No, he ran saying Iraq was the wrong war in our fight against terrorism and how

terrorism should be handled differently. He has been proven correct on both points.
Whether you want to face it or not,there are countries and terrorists that want to do us harm. And, there are right and wrong ways to go about handling these countries and these terrorists. Senator Kerry had the right ideas in 2004.

[karynnj]

116. There are three issues that were conflated

- the vote
- should we have gone to war
- what should we do now.

Kerry said that we should not have gone to war - he said Bush mislead us into war, it was not a war of last resort (which means in Catholic (and possibly all Christian?) theology that it was not a just war).

But if he was to be considered a President, saying that the war shouldn't have happened was not sufficient. He had to say what he would do. That is the part you are remembering - but if you read his NYU speech which was the main Iraq speech - he spoke of what he would do. that plan was like the ISG recommendations - to be implemented in 2005, before the civil war started. It was diplomacy heavy, aimed to give everyone in Iraq some stake in the country coming together. Under that plan, Kerry amnticipated some troops coming home in late 2005.

Even if Dean won, he would have needed a plan and he would have had to argue that he could run the war better.

[AZBlue]

179. I agree. I think he needed to come back faster and harder on several issues,

but the SB issue was the most important. It was allowed to get way out of hand, when it should have been squashed within hours.

[AtomicKitten]

184. I don't think some grasp this particular complaint.

They don't get that we were tearing our hair out every day he let the SB Liars slide. They think our being agitated about this is disrespectful to Kerry or something, when it is precisely the opposite. We were repulsed by the whole scenario. In fact, I'll go as far as to say he was complicit in America thinking that a draft-dodging coked-up frat boy was preferable to an intelligent, experienced, purple heart recipient. What an effin nightmare.

[dailykoff]

205. "We were repulsed by the whole scenario."

Nice that you're helping the swiftboaters get their message out. And if Kerry had said any more about the matter, I'm sure you would have found that even more repulsive.

[madrchsod]

61. jesus christ he won the election....

nothing else "caused him to lose" because he won

[bluedog]

62. swift boaters........lies and not responding fast enough! n/t

[iamjoy]

64. A Variety Of Factors

The Media -
I do think the media worked against him. For example - the media gave credence to the Swift Boat liars, but downplayed response by Kerry. Also, they made such a big deal over Kerry mentioning Dick Cheney's gay daughter while ignoring Dubya's claim that he wasn't interested in bin Laden (and then denying he ever said that).

Convention Timing -
The Democratic convention was over a month before the Republican one. This put us at a spending disadvantage. It also meant our message was "old news" long before the Republican convention.

Fear -
For some dumb reason, Americans still trusted Republicans more on terror than they did Democrats. Republicans manipulated this.

"Moral Values" -
I must put this in quotes because I think poverty and war are moral issues. But most people who cite moral values refer to homosexuals and abortion. Republicans manipulated these issues very successfully.

The Candidate
Kerry was in many ways a weak candidate.
He didn't come across as likeable.
He couldn't articulate a clear alternative for Iraq. Just saying the Bush policy sucked wasn't good enough, people wanted to hear his solution.
He placed so much focus on his military career, it left him more vulnerable to the Swift Boat smears. He should have placed a little more emphasis on what he did in the Senate.

Bad Luck
In early - mid 2004, Dubya's approval ratings were right around 50%. Presidents with approval ratings over 50% generally get re-elected.

[karynnj]

114. Kerry's Iraq alternative

The media gave very little coverage to his Iraq speech at NYU that he labelled a major speech. He spoke of a summit, involving the Iraqi factions, the stakeholders in the region and the international community, rapidly training the Iraqis, no permanent bases.

The media claimed this was like Bush - but on all these 3 issues it isn't. Incidently, the elements of Kerry's 2004 plan were in his 2005 plan and to some degree the K/F plan and they were clear enough that the media identified the ISG recommendations like Kerry's proposal. In the first debate, Bush himself - after Kerry stated what he would do - said it was his plan. BUT IT WAS NOT WHAT BUSH WAS DOING OR HAS DONE SINCE.

This was an issue where Kerry was right. As he was on how to deal with the war on terror.

[iamjoy]

160. So, We're Back To The Media

For not giving enough coverage to Kerry's plan. But, much of his plan was based on the hope that third parties would cooperate.

[LittleClarkie]

70. The campaign not letting the man be himself

He was at his best when he was allowed to be angry.

I would also include rapid response. The campaign didn't react quickly enough.

I think Kerry wanted to ignore the insults and try to keep things civil. I think he over estimated the intelligence of the American public.

[wisteria]

85. Red color alerts, fear of further attacks spread by Bush and Co., the Bin Laden tape two days before

the election and the old idea that you should not change horses in midstream during a war, fraud,intimidation and disenfranchisement of Democratic voters are the things that hurt Senator Kerry's changes, he did however actually win and received more votes than Clinton and Gore did during there campaigns.

[elizm]

90. Likability...

I do believe John Kerry won...but he needed to win by a larger margin in order to get by the election theft. He lacked in likabiltiy and charisma. Hands down he was the most qualified.

[wisteria]

92. Funny how before he ran against Bush, he was known for his charisma.

Actually, that comment is nothing more than a lie trumped up by the Republicans and the media in order to make Bush more appealing. I have met Senator Kerry a couple of times and I can tell you he does not lack charisma or a sense of humor. This was a media churned lie.

[elizm]

106. I have met Senator Kerry as well in Charleston, SC...

And I do believe he won the debates as well as the 2004 elections. But one thing I never saw in him was charisma.

[wisteria]

128. You don't still have an e-mail list of over 3 million and devoted defenders without

having charisma and a message the resonates. Perhaps, it was the setting you met him in or an off day that defined your beliefs.

[blm]

95. Winning by 5% should be theft proof in America. A sitting president being

consistently supported on the two big issues of terrorism and Iraq by the LAST Dem president should have never lost at all. But Kerry was so good during the debates and in his ads that he WAS able to defeat Bush.

So RNC stole it for Bush.....again, and DNC let them steal it for Bush..... again.

[RFKJrNews]

103. The 2004 Election *was* Stolen

...and IMHO, Kerry and Edwards backed down too easily, most likely fearing being forever labeled as "sore losers," the way Gore was when he contested the 2000 election.

Anybody remember the pounding Gore took for that in the media? Everyone blamed HIM because we didn't know who our president really was for weeks during the recounts and court battles.

Nonetheless, the fact that Gore, Kerry and Edwards ultimately backed down and did not fight on to expose the fraud still troubles me.

We need a nominee this time who we KNOW will not back down from a fight if they distrust the final election results, no matter how long it takes to get to the truth!!!

I honestly believe RFK Jr. is that man. If he gets in the race and wins, he'd persue the investigation to the bitter end, regardless of bad advice given to him by the DNC. Don't think he'd care if anybody called him a "sore loser."

Kennedy wrote an excellent expose' of the 2004 election fraud in Rolling Stone, I encourage all to read this:
"WAS THE 2004 ELECTION STOLEN?"
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen




* Please SIGN THE PETITION" to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the race for the White House!
http://RFKin2008.com

[blm]

105. Kennedy has said Kerry didn't have the LEGAL evidence to continue in court then

and had no legal recourse. That they would have to rely on a whistleblower coming forward to change the circumstances they were under.

There was no DNC support for a court case that the party's legal team of election experts said they could not make.

That election was stolen in the FOUR YEARS before election day. And RFK has made that point himself.

[calteacherguy]

94. Kerry. nt

[blm]

111. Right - no media lies - no election fraud - no Dem leaders supporting Bush's

two biggest policies on terrorism and Iraq.

Just Kerry - the one lawmaker who just happens to have uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history while a pack of internet typists go around and pretend they are better than he is.

[calteacherguy]

136. What we learned from the Kerry campaign

is being an outstanding senator does not make one an outstanding presidential candidate, necessarily.

[ISUGRADIA]

97. A crappy campaign strategy

He conceded about 27 states to Bush and put all his eggs into a few states.

[jillan]

100. Karl Rove played dirty.

The Swiftboat liars hurt him, but I don't think they did him in.
The flip-flop label stuck ~ I spent most of '04 trying to convince people that he was not a flip-flopper.

And all I can remember was on election day how Kerry was winning in all the exit polling, was winning on the big board....
and there was KKKarl on his cell phone smiling telling bsh not to worry.

[karynnj]

101. An extremely biased media and a President who

raised the terror code for political reasons. If you think of it - this makes Bush a terrorist because he terrorized his own country - by causing them to have more fear than facts warranted.

[DaveinMD]

109. the way he ran his campaign

by that I mean not immediately responding to the baseless attacks. Blame Shrum for that.

[Blue_In_AK]

112. Because a lot of Americans preferred Bush's ignorance

to Kerry's brains. Kerry spoke to the intelligent people. Sadly, many were too dim to "get it."

But the most important and obvious reason is that the election was rigged and stolen just like 2000.

[_dynamicdems]

113. STUPIDITY.

People were sold a bill of goods. Most people still bought into the myth that George W. Bush was decent, Christian human being, who had made mistakes but whose heart was in the right place. Pure bullshit. It's sad that we have so many uninformed Americans in this country. These are the people who still believe the media has a liberal bias and that Faux Noise depicts the God's honest truth. The Republican Party is comprised of two basic types: evil, manipulative bastards and dimwits who swallow the bullshit that's fed to them. The bastards did a good job convincing the dimwits.

Check out some of the RW boards and read some of the pure crap these types still believe. We should have terror alerts for ignorance.

[politicasista]

119. Lack of party support. And a whore media n/t

[_dynamicdems]

121. Even worse, our taxes paid for it!

If you really want your blood to boil, check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x301176

The BASTARD used our tax money to sway the hearts and minds of the MORANS. :banghead:

[beachmom]

123. Other - the Osama bin Laden tape the Friday before the election. n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

124. Because Kerry proved to be not a clutch player.

Three major issues

1) The response to the Swift Boating. Too little, too late, too weak.

2) Ohio. He simply gave up on election night. Didn't fight for it like Gore did with Florida.

3) Kerry was not aggressive at all. He played BushCo's game by BushCo's rules.

Not to mention he has a bland personality and came off as a rather dull guy. That really doesn't help matters with American voters.

[wisteria]

129. Go back and read some of the other posts before yours, everything you say can be refuted.

You seemed to really buy into the RW tactics used to discredit him. Did you really follow the 2004 election?

[karynnj]

151. You must by a pretty exciting person if you find Kerry dull and bland

Don't you get that the media distorted someone who was always described as interesting, even by people who didn't like him. This is a war hero, a genuine activist, a person who at 27 was able to speak to the nation and move where they were on the war, a person willing to fight the mafia as a prosecutor, a person who was willing to fight Reagan's support of RW thugs in Central Americs and the entire terrorist/criminal cabal that was BCCI. While at the same time, being the elegant, eloquent lawyer or Senator.

This is a person, who was a debate champ AND played 4 sports. A person, who started a literary club in high school and who is an accomplished pilot. A person who was in a rock band and gave a speech on foreign policy at his Yale graduation that Madeleine Allbright quoted because it's ideas are relevent today. This is a man who wind surfs, ski boards and who plays classical quitar. This is a guy who is shown in the Butler photo book creating active games to keep all the kids engaged when friends vacationed together as young families on Cape Cod. This is a guy who in nearly every fitness report (that were all on his web site) was praised for the unusual loyalty of his crew - during both tours. This is a person who wrote many friends when in he was in Vietnam and everyone saved the thoughtful interesting letters.

Kerry's problem may be that he couldn't be categorized, because he is a person with many contrasting interests and characteristics. He also is an extremely clasy person, who has acted for the public good for nearly his entire adult life. He is a very serious person who made the effort to formulate his own foreign policy point of view and to be a very informed leader on environmental issues and on the needs of small businesses. This is a person who is willing to listen to the needs of all the players and suggest pragmatic solutions - whether it is to keep non-local baseball games on cable or to enable the UN and Cambodia to accept a format for the tribunal for the Pol Pot era leaders. This is a person, who having been criticized in 2004 for not having his name on much legislation, took his name off a bill he authored, while it was being voted on, because Republicans were threatening to withhold their votes otherwise - and he placed getting help to small business ahead of getting personal credit. Giving serious, complex answers to serious complex problems is not "dullness".

If you saw is Colbert appearance, you woud see that he is very quick witted and able to make fun of himself. Do you honestly think that Teresa Heinz Kerry would give a bland, dull guy a second look? In my opinion, he is one of the most interesting, multi dimensional people who has run for the Presidency in my life time. My experience has always been that the closer I look at most politicians, the more the covered flaws become apparent. With Kerry, what surprises me is that while he has his negative points, the more I've read or seen, the more impressed I've been. He is the rare politician whose substance is better than his image.

As to Ohio - there STILL is no legal case. Gore was down 537 votes, Kerry 60,000. Gore had ballots that could be recounted with some chance of finding more votes - as there were far more ballots that were rejected in Democratic strongholds that could be examined for clear intent. Not only was 2000 close enough to challange and 2004 not close enough - in 2004, we were at war. No one in the Democratic leadership would have backed a challange.

Not agressive - Kerry was hitting Bush with harder attacks than anyone else did - including Dean. THe difference was that he was not red faced and shouting. Remember it was Kerry who spoke of Tora Bora, Kerry who spoke of "our kids" being hit with ied made from ammo from known dumps not secured.

[Hippo_Tron]

130. Biggest mistake, making Bob Shrum his top strategist

Shrum told him to stick to hammering Bush on the economy and against his better instincts he did instead of hammering Bush on not going after Al Qaeda aggressively enough and not getting Bin Laden. If Kerry had stuck to "If George Bush wants to make this campaign about national security, then bring it on" he might be in the White House today.

[karynnj]

149. Kerry chose to spend more time on Iraq and terrorism

in the entire September - November time - that was the reason we heard people such as Carville and Begala whining that he was not following their advise and keeping the topic on Democratic issues - like the economy. Had THEY spent the time amphlifying the message Kerry spoke rather than whining hat he was not like Bill Clinton, it would have helped on two accounts - their criticisms hurt Kerry and it ignored the right message.

As it was Kerry shifted away from the advise that both the Clinton people, including the President and the Kennedy people (Shrum and Cahill) were giving him to focus more on terrorism and Iraq. If the OBL tape had not come out (or if the election process were cleaner), the story would be that that bold move - rejecting the advise of the establishment for the advise of the Kerry people - his brother, best friend, wife and other Boston people - is what created a Kerry victory. With the Kennedy and Clinton people pushing the same thing, it took guts and faith in his own opinion to shift - even when he did. (There was a lot of revisionist history in 2005 and since by the Clinton people - but as they went to the press with their advise to Kerry - it is on record.)

I agree with you that the brief time - August - when Kerry concentrated on the economy, the environment and health care were not as strong as when he hit on the security issues. However, it was important to get his plans out on those issues and he ended up in the last two weeks hitting very hard on the fact that they had not secured the KNOWN ammo dumps and that "our kids" were being hit by ieds made from that ammo.

[Hippo_Tron]

161. Getting the economy message out was important, but security should've been number one

And we heard almost nothing about security from Kerry during the summer. We heard about the economy and we heard about his service in Vietnam. Even more distracting was that he had to play defense on social issues, something his campaign should've been much better prepared for.

Carville and Begala's criticism probably didn't hurt very much because only political junkies really know who those people are. Also, Shrum and Carville are basically cut from the same cloth and both go by the book of sticking to economic issues like a broken record. They are partners in the firm Shurm, Carville, and Greenberg. If anything Carville is probably a bit better at what he does because, unlike Shrum, he probably woudl've advised Kerry to hit back against the Swift Boat liars but his message still would've been a broken record about the economy and jobs. On the other hand, there's a reason that Carville doesn't officially do domestic campaigns anymore. Other than the Clintons, I don't think anyone trusts him given who he is married to.

And as you say, the shift (which occurred in about September) really did help him and perhaps if there had been another few weeks, we might've seen a different result.

[TankLV]

131. Other: Weak response, poor response and timing, horrible presence...

One of the worst campaigns I've ever seen aside from Gore's...

It was his to win and he managed to squeak out a loss...

[rockymountaindem]

133. Because the country was in a conservative mood

For all the tired talking points about "not wanting to change horses in midstream", "security moms" etc. there were a lot of people who felt that way. I don't know where the rest of you live, but here in the reddest major city in the US, plenty of people literally believed that if Kerry was elected, all hell would break lose re: terrorism. They felt their very lives, yes... their lives, were in jeopardy if Kerry were to win. Nothing could convince them.

That and the OBL tape released on, what, the Thursday before the election? When that came out I knew it was over. Well, I never thought we would win, but at some points I hoped so much I forgot about that. The OBL tape, though... that was the end.

[Greyhound]

134. A direct result of Clinton's acquiescence to his corporate master's wishes.

While Raygun and 41 laid the groundwork, it was William Jefferson Clinton that allowed, and even encouraged, the cancer to metastasize and openly take over the rule of our country.

The consolidation of all of our media, the open warfare waged on the poor and upon women, the half-hearted and even outright refusal to prosecute blatant corporate criminality, giving the finger to the base of the party, etc.

[trashcanistanista]

138. The stupidity of the American voters n/t.

[harun]

158. Why did I have to read this far down the page to see wisdom.

It didn't have anything to do with Kerry's mistakes. He crushed Bush in the debates, is much smarter, more experienced and his ideology is in line with the majority of the voters of the United States. However dumb people let the media tell them who to vote for. Kerry can't do anything about that, and even if he did it wasn't like the media would stop playing the B*sh fear cheerleading roll.

The media will try to do the same thing in the next election.

[ima_sinnic]

141. Kerry did win--there was no "besides"

people don't wait 8 or 10 hours to vote for an incumbent or for the moronic "moral values™" BS

[unpossibles]

145. election fraud

although swiftboating and other BS charges did not help.

[saltpoint]

146. Kerry won that election, IMO.

Dubya enjoyed significant support, yes. The red staters turned out in force. I think a pertinent question is why red staters prefer someone like George W. Bush to John Forbes Kerry; Dwight Eisenhower to Adlai Stevenson; Dubya to Al Gore; and so forth.

Rove liked to pick on John Kerry's public image as an aloof New England over-intellectual "French" snob. The long view though is that history will not be kind to Rove's boss, a clueless fake half the time and a soulless punk the other half.

In their most recent presidential election, French voters turned out to the tune of 80%-plus.

[Tesha]

147. Other: A terribly lackluster campaign, slow responses to attacks

Other: A terribly lackluster campaign, slow responses to attacks,
and the difficulty of coping with his vote on the Iraq War Resolution.

Tesha

[Totally Committed]

150. Just my opinion:

His continued allegience to the DLC, adherence to their prescribed "message", and the wishy-washy positions on the issues (even in his own defense) that their stupid advisors gave him to parrot.

They ran a stupid campaign for him, and he allowed it.

TC

[1932]

152. Skiboarding in Utah and windsurfing in Nantucket?

[DutchLiberal]

153. Other: he was too kind to Bush. Kerry didn't call Bush out.

Kerry handled the issues far too gently, not agressive enough.

[JNelson6563]

154. Consultant ridden, poll driven campaign

All hail Milquetoast MaryBeth! :puke:

Julie

[NaturalHigh]

157. Likely because he was a poor candidate all around.

Hillary supporters should take note. If a lousy candidate gets the nomination, a lot of us won't vote for the nominee.

[wisteria]

162. What, a candidate that gets more votes than Clinton or Gore and comes closer than any other person

to unseating a war time president is a bad candidate? Please go do some real research you will find that Senator Kerry was a good candidate.

[NaturalHigh]

196. That's your opinion, and I respect it.

However, I respectfully disagree.

[rinsd]

159. The GOP fucking the Dems with convention scheduling (nt)

[wisteria]

163. True, the convention date was badly chosen, but I thought McAuliff did that?n/t

[Major Hogwash]

165. Rehashing the '04 election again?

Wow, it's time to move on.

This sort of thread only causes more divisiveness and bashing of good Democrats.

I don't think the people in the Kerry Group will stay active for much longer at DU because they have had to defend John for what, 3 years now.

This is at least the 3rd thread started this summer asking the same question, getting the same responses.

Figure it out for yourself if you haven't already, and let's move on.

The '08 campaign is already underway and John is not running again.

That's it in a nutshell.

[politicasista]

171. Bingo n/t

[bamacrat]

166. He catches like a girl.

[Yukari Yakumo]

167. Reasons Kerry got beat

1) Dreadfully lacking in charisma. Unfortunately, most people back then still identified with Chimpy on a personal level much more than Kerry. He wasn't going to win votes on his looks alone.

2) Not exactly having a firm stand on the issues doesn't help either.

3) The convention played too nice with Bush and was light on the issues. Typically the conventions delivers a boost to the campaign, but the 2004 convention was so poorly handled that the Kerry campaign gained far less momentum than it should have.

4) Ineffective at using his military credentials versus Chimpy's. Purple Heart v. Fortunate Son Brigade, 'nuff said. Yet Kerry wanted to play nice and never hammered this issue home.

--4b) Ineffective and slow response to the swift boaters. The swift boaters utterly savaged Kerry in the month of August, which did irreparable damage to Kerry's military credentials. And Kerry was WAY to slow to respond and was largely ineffective in refuting the swift boaters claims. This did heavy damage with veterans and Kerry's likability rating.

5) Lack of a message or focus. In '92, it was "It's the Economy stupid!" In '04 it was... what? Kerry never gave the people a good reason to vote for him other than "I'm not Bush".

[Capn Sunshine]

168. Flabbergastingly bad campaign run by DC insiders

They believed triangulation and the middle voter was the answer so they watered down Kerry message and restrained him at every turn. Just like they did to Gore. The result was an appearance to the general public of no difference between a Kerry presidency (" I voted for it before I voted against it" ) and schlubbo.

When this strategy is employed, the R machine turns out its vote every four years base on some trumped up issue, and they win by employing the other various block Dem voting techniques they have honed since 2000.

By the way , guess who runs Hillary's campaign.

[rainy]

169. Other, If one didn't know his history and all the good things he has done

and one was left to just watch him and listen to him, well, he is pretty dry. When I first started paying attention to the candidates I didn't know much about Kerry and whenever I saw him on TV I was not moved to listen or watch. There was no passion. When I saw Dean however, he moved me. Once Kerry got the nomination I learned more about him and really grew to like him very much and I adored Teresa, she was fresh and genuine. It was the stiff thing for Kerry.

[Jai4WKC08]

170. Other -- he never stood a chance

Kerry is a liberal senator from New England. He was totally unelectable all along and Democrats were stupid to think he could be otherwise. And they still are.

[ecstatic]

173. The awkward "lesbian" question

Along with all his other awkward comments and positions. He's a smart man but he cannot effectively communicate with most Americans.

[politicasista]

176. I hope the PERFECT candidate can do that

If you think the media will go easy on anyone BUT Kerry then YOU are in for a rude awakening. ALL candidates will have something twisted or taken out of context. And that's the truth.

You sound like you bought into the media spin. It's seems like you just look for any excuse to hate Kerry no matter what good he does. Really sad.

[Vektor]

174. Well, with election fraud, there really needn't BE another reason.

He could be the perfect candidate, and if they stole it, they stole it.

Kind of an odd question - ya know "What else besides theft caused someone to lose something that was stolen from them?"

The theft is all you need, really.

That aside, if there were no theft, but he'd lost anyway, it would have to be the Republican owned corporate media, and their VERY biased coverage of the candidates that did it.

Whoever controls the media controls the masses, and the Repukes own the media. Jesus himself would have lost to Bush with our mainstream media slanting things the way they do.

[Spearman87]

175. "I'm John Kerry, reporting for duty"

or whatever it was, and other attempts by the campaign to use his service as a resume enhancemant. That opened the door for his service to by put into question. Otherwise, the Swifties would have gotten little attention; Everyone would have laughed and said, "Well at least he served (unlike the other guy)". But because his camp gave them the opening, a very strange chain of events occured. And whether one camp says JK didn't respond, or another says no one listened, whatever the case the Swiftboats sunk Kerry.

I think they'd have had little traction had the Kerry campaign not attempted to use it first. I can almost see Kerry standing there in a full dress military uniform......I know he was actually wearing one (was he?), but it certainly fits the implicit message.

[MasonJar]

180. John Kerry did not lose, any more than Gore did. The weasel Rove

and the evil Jeb along with the PUG election machines cost the two great statesman the presidency.

[JohnLocke]

181. The lack of a rapid, robust response to the swift boat smear.

[politicasista]

182. And the Democrats that sat on their behinds and did nothing n/t

[hedgehog]

186. He just didn't seem able to connect with people. nt

[defendandprotect]

191. Kerry likely won . . .

[burrowowl]

197. The DLC faction

The idiot the DNC appointed to carry out the campaign in New Mexico was either an ass or wanted Bu$h to win. Many who worked on the campaign were really pissed at him and his cohorts.
Plus the electronic voting machines, that reverted to Bu$h as a default without complicated manoeuvers to get it to vote Kerry.
We now have paper ballots in NM.

[alfredo]

204. Convention timing. The one month between the R and D nominations

put Kerry in a money bind. He was taking fed funding so he had a cap on what he could spend. All during the month of August Kerry couldn't spend the money needed to combat the Swifties. That made him look weak.

[wisteria]

209. Thank you for explaining this. This important factor is left out of mostly all conversations and it

is probably the most important fact.

[alfredo]

221. The GOP waited until the Dems announced their date, then scheduled

theirs as close to the cut off date as possible. they had to get one state to change their election laws so bush could be on the ballot.

Kerry had $75 million to spend through Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov. The final cut was the Bin Laden tape that showed up at an opportune time. That gave bush a bounce that was enough to help him over the top.

And what bin Laden couldn't do, Ken Blackwell did.

[knight_of_the_star]

208. Lack of needed party support

Not that the party didn't support him, but it always felt like Kerry was out on his own running the campaign without the real support he needed from other big name Dems and the DNC under McAwful which in the media-driven age we live in can mean a lot to those not plugged into the net. I mean, where were people like HRC to jump out and denounce the swift-boating and other such sliming?

[wisteria]

211. Yes! They weren't there and they should have been. n/t

[Clark2008]

210. Other: He's a Yankee.

I know that sounds petty and I don't mean for it to (I'm happily married to a Yankee), but the folks in the South and the mid-West simply have trust issues with city folk.

Stupid, yes.

[wisteria]

223. No, its more like the South doesn't like Democrats.Bush the first was from CT

and Reagan was from Cal. so it isn't as much the yankee thing as it is the opinion the South has about the Democrats. I am basing my opinion on the years I have spent down in NC and SC even though I was born and raised in a large yankee city.

[cd3dem]

212. "support the troops" rather than "support the truth"

the "liberal" media owned by the RW

passive campaigning by Kerry

ignorant voters/ignorant non-voting public

people assuming Bush was too dumb to be reelected so they didn't do anything personally

people who never do anything personally because they are too busy watering their lawns and taking the kids to soccer practice

criminal behavior

too many democrats stayed home

lack of same day registration laws

Kerry didn't spend all his money

bought the claim that you can't criticize a president during war time

defeatism

"support the troops" rather than "support the truth"

[xxqqqzme]

214. When Kerry addressed the convention at his nomination

He saluted and said 'Reporting for duty'...my heart sank, I knew it was over.

[wisteria]

224. I recall a majority of people appreciating that gesture as a demonstration of respect for this

country. I personally thought it was very fitting. Presidents do salute you know.

[onehandle]

225. Attacks from "Democrats" on his record. nt

[Killarney]

226. All the marriage amendments

If all those states hadn't put the anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot, the turnout wouldn't have been as high as it was by the bible-beaters. But voting against gays draws them out like vultures to a carcass.

Whoever unified the effort to get those amendments on several state ballots (Rove and the GOP higher-ups) essentially guaranteed the win for Bush.

[ktlyon]

227. other- not responding quickly and effectively when they lie & distort

the record

KL

[Awsi Dooger]

228. It was an extremely unfavorable cycle for any Democrat

That was never adequately emphasized by the media, and on DU and on other progressive sites it was somehow treated as the opposite, a near certain win since we hate Bush. Only a very charismatic Democrat could have ousted Bush, unless his favorables had already slid to post-Katrina levels. That's why I backed Edwards beginning in late '02. None of our candidates were ideal but Edwards easily had the best dosage index in terms of what it takes to bump an incumbent in the TV era.

In 2004 you had an incumbent with his party holding the White House only one term. That is the most favorable scenario possible, now 9 of 10 (Carter 1980) successes since 1900. Normally they are landslides. Only Bush's lousy performance and mediocre approval ratings kept his margin down. It can certainly be argued he could have lost minus 9/11 and the fear-based national security concerns that aided the GOP in '02 and '04. But frankly, once Bush was declared the winner by SCOTUS in late 2000 you had to assume he would win in '04. The same applies to '08 and makes it such a vital election. It's essentially a 2-for-1 on our side. If a Democrat wins in '08, he/she will benefit from the same incumbent/party one term in office dynamic in '12.

[wisteria]

229. The 2004 election was about security and no one has ever beaten a war time president.

People always side with not "changing horses in mid-stream". Personally, I don't think any candidate other than Senator Kerry would have come anywhere near as close as he did in almost beating Bush. Edward's did not have the security chops that Kerry did and Senator kerry out flanked him on security and foreign relation issues. Edward's charm didn't even get him out of the primaries. Senator Kerry had the smarts, the experience and the charisma necessary to challenge Bush. Many people believed and have come to believe that Kerry actually won in 04 based on exit polling and reported incidences of fraud, disenfranchisement and Diebold machine manipulation.

[AdHocSolver]

230. A lackluster campaign based on the premise anybody can beat Bush, and not even bothering to campaign

in so-called "red" states. Kerry wrote off large sections of the country as unwinnable and made no attempt to seek votes there.

A most telling comment was from a guy who's elderly grandma lived in the hills of West Virginia (IIRC). She was a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, but turned against him by 2004. So he asked his grandma if she were going to vote for Kerry in 2004. She replied that she would not. When asked, "why, not?", she replied that Kerry wouldn't come and ask for her vote, so he wasn't going to get it. She wasn't planning on voting at all in 2004.

This simple woman did not like being taken for granted. This is why Howard Dean developed his fifty-state strategy. You want the job, interview for it. Kerry and his handlers did not understand this simple premise. The fact that the 2004 election was so close enabled the Republicans to steal it as they did. It only required "switching" a few votes. If Kerry had won a couple more states, losing Ohio through the shenanigans that occurred there would have been irrelevant.

This is why I hope that Hillary is not the candidate. It will be another close election, and the Repubs will have a chance to steal it too.