Why such strong feelings about "losing" candidates running again?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I've been observing postings here about Obama possibly picking Kerry for VP and was struck about the animosity to such an idea by some people just because he lost the 2004 Presidential election (depending on your perspective). I've heard similar arguments made about other candidates whom lost their bid for the Presidency and/or the nomination in years past and began thinking about why we, as a party, seem to discourage candidates who "lost" previous elections from running again despite their strengths and consideration of the circumstances at the time of the election (i.e. 2004)?
Not to mention the fact that Republicans seem rather unafraid to nominate/run candidates again and again despite past losses sometimes achieving electoral victory as a result. For instance, Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and came back and won the Presidency in 1968. Reagan failed to win the GOP primary in 1976 but came back to not only win that primary in 1980 but the Presidency as well. The Republicans this year, of course, are running McCain for President despite his primary loss in 2000.
However, some of us are shunning the idea of Kerry running again, this time for the VP slot, and neither Gore nor Dean have run for office since their losses in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Now, I know that, in some cases, the decision is a personal one but the general sentiment among some in our party, particularly within the "establishment" seems to be that once a loser always a loser (despite the fact that some "losers" may not have actually lost like Gore and maybe even Kerry). Has anybody else noticed this? Does anybody have any thoughts about this?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Dems just don't do it for some reason. Not since Stevenson. nt

[Bullet1987]

2. Look at DU...Democrats can be like Black Widows sometimes and eat their own

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. A fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives, I'd guess.

Conservatives keep trying the same old thing, over and over. Progressives keep trying new things, are unafraid to take the path less traveled.

Therefore, conservatives are naturally inclined to recycle old politicians again and again, while liberals are naturally inclined to go with the new.

[blm]

13. I don't think there is anything noble in the trashing directed at Dems who risk sticking their necks

out for the party. Hell, some powerful Dems will even HELP their Rethug pals like Bush just to gild their own positions.

[TwilightGardener]

4. America hates losers. From both parties. Nixon and Reagan were exceptions.

[blm]

9. America should hate deceit. They should never treat heroic and historic lawmakers

like Gore or Kerry with animosity and label them 'losers' to re-inforce the spin against them made by the GOP and their complicit media.

Gee - imagine if more Democrats had the spine and the integrity to maintain the insistence that their guy was RIGHT and the GOP was wrong and still are.

In 1993, the GOP popularized a bumpersticker that read Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush. That allowed Bush to maintain a level of respect and the Bush brand name to prevail.

Dems hurry to state their nominee was as bad as Republicans just spent a billion dollars claiming.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Not saying it's good or fair, but this is a nation that loves two things:

novelty, and winners. If you've run and lost, or been around a really long time, you are in the has-been/retread category. That's the American mentality.

[blm]

12. Untrue - the GOP has already proved your claim is UNTRUE. They rehab every one of their

key players and even their B players, no matter what or how they've lost or been disgraced.

Vitter was given more support from his fellow Republicans when he returned to senate after his diaper enhanced adventures with a prostitute than Kerry was given as the nominee and especially after he returned to the senate.

Americans in general love comebacks, but the sinister 'strategist' set who work for the fascist agenda have convinced too many Dems that honest Dems need to be kicked to the curb while they promote the idea the charm of the weasel wing is needed to win. That was a meme set forth by the Clintonites after 2000 and again in 2004. Setting the stage for the 'Only Clintons can win' mindset and campaign for Dem primary.

[LWolf]

5. I don't like Kerry or Gore for VP.

Not because they are "losers." They aren't.

Because they are senior to Obama, and on that ticket, they belong at the top.

[Marrah_G]

8. I agree... That's what I was trying to say in my response.

You said it way better then I.

:)

[KingFlorez]

6. Because running losers again doesn't always work

There are some cases where it does, but there are others where it just shouldn't be done. Some are just poor candidates and don't deserve another chance to screw up again.

[Marrah_G]

7. Kerry should already be President

I cannot see him playing Obama's backup. Frankly, I think he would be a far better President. Just my open and honest opinion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Thanks for all of the thoughtful and interesting responses

Thanks for all of the thoughtful responses. I agree with much that has been said here. My only other thought is that spending some time in the political "wilderness" after a loss can help improve a candidate so that they could compete more effectively in the future.
Although I realize that Gore has sworn off any further political ambitions (and maybe because of it), he has become IMHO an even better spokesperson for liberal/progressive causes, particularly by speaking out so forcefully against the Bush (mis-)administration, as well as his ahead-of-the-curve opposition to invading/occupying Iraq.
Even Kerry has become a more forceful opponent/critic of the Bush (mis-)administration since his "defeat" in 2004. I would not have any hesitations voting for either one of them (again) for President or VP although I realize that they have both publicly stated that they are not going to put themselves up to it. :-(
I don't see either one of them as "losers", however. I personally believe that Gore, who DID win the popular vote, was robbed outright of electoral victory by Bush in 2000 through a series of machinations that should have resulted in his and Cheney's disqualification/impeachment/imprisonment. In 2004, Kerry was a victim of a media-driven campaign of scurrilous and unfounded smears of his military service (and suppression of negative information about Bush), as well as over-hyped fears of domestic terrorism. That Kerry lost by such a relatively small margin in spite of all that, demonstrates IMHO that he was actually a strong candidate who would probably be able to prevail under the new post-2004 circumstances.
I'm fine with having new candidates like Obama running for office and would agree that some candidates really shouldn't run again in any capacity but it seems silly for us to completely dismiss good solid candidates just because they didn't win in a mediawhore-driven climate that has increasingly become outright hostile to ANYBODY running for office under the Democratic banner.

[dansolo]

14. Some of us didn't want Kerry as our nominee in 2004

It has nothing to do with his losing in 2004, I just don't want him on the ticket, period.

[grantcart]

15. well sadly the Democratic party has a huge appetite for tearing down its leaders

We don't even want to wait until the GE is over to start.

Hell we don't even wait until he gets the nomination.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

16. I don't know, maybe because they lost? Unless there is an extremely

compelling reason to go with them, why spend a precious election slot with someone who has track record of losing? They lost for a reason, and that reason would reemerge. The only "losing" top dem who deserves a second run is Gore, but he didn't lose.