Can We Say What We Want Now?

[cali]

I never thought this was a well run campaign. I didn't think JK connected with the voters. Going with Bob Shrum was a mistake. When everyone raved about the Convention, I cringed. I thought the Reporting for Duty moment was in the mold of Dukakis, and that stressing his Vietnam service while neglecting to even touch on other issues, baffling. I thought he abandoned his liberal record instead of standing by it. The only time I thought he stood out was during the debates, and that wasn't enough.

Yes, I think he may have made a good President. And although there may have been fraud, we just didn't bring in enough voters.

[ROC]

1. It was a poorly run campaign and not the best candidate

Time to learn and apply. The elections of 2006 are coming.

[Guava Jelly]

2. we could have ran jesus and had a flawless campaign

and jesus would still lose
the wingnuts own the media and the machines that count our votes
brace yourself for another defeat in 06 and 08
we need to invent our way around this somehow

[Jasper 91]

3. May I respectfully completely disagree .

You are being hoodwinked if you think that John Kerry didn't get the votes , he did , but they were counted for Bush . Don't believe the hype that the moral majority out voted us , they didn't .

When a theft has occurred behind closed doors , it may be hard to prove , especially if the odds are stacked against you with Republican SOS's , AG's and right wing blanket media coverage fighting you all the way , but is not impossible . Technological advances may have helped steal this election , but it has also given us the tools to prove this fraud .

We won this election and we have the incontrovertible proof of statistics and facts to back it up . Now we have to do the hardest part , fight for recounts , but fight we must .

[cali]

5. I've read all of the voter fraud posts

and haven't seen the proof. It has nothing to do with being hoodwinked. It was a poor campaign, and yes, I'm sorry, JK was a poor candidate.

I'm not denying that there was fraud, but the rethugs ran a winning campaign. They mobilized their base. We didn't. JK tried to be all things to all people.

[libbygurl]

4. Remember JK, when asked by Jon Stewart whether he was liberal,

actually paused briefly and finally said, "No," in a tone I felt was tinged with shame.

I was crestfallen when he said that. JK couldn't stand proudly for liberal values (they are GOOD values, btw, damn what those Repubs say), fully playing according to the rules set by the right wingers.

[redsoxliberal]

6. what you have just said is flat-out false

STewart asked whether Kerry was the MOST liberal senator, more liberal than Karl Marx even.
John Kerry laughed and then said "no."

[libbygurl]

9. Well, the point is that he tried to run away from the "liberal" tag,

the details being slightly different. That's what came across.

[BillZBubb]

7. This whole campaign was Dukakis Deja Vu--all over again.

They made all of the same mistakes and ran the same wimpy campaign. The only high point was the debates where Kerry at least showed the sheeple that Bush* is an incompetent moron. Too bad they're "moral values" wouldn't let them see it.

Those of us who pointed it out over the spring and summer were pilloried as unsophisticated. We just didn't understand the political "chess" and "judo" that our brilliant campaign strategists were running.

This election should never have been close enough for the right to steal (if that's what they did).

[NYCGirl]

11. Where it really started to unravel was when Kerry was asked if he would

still vote for the IWR, knowing what we know now, and he answered "Yes."

[The Traveler]

12. While I sympathize with your feelings ....

I gotta point out that the outcome was hardly Dukakis like. Take the election at face value ... assume for the moment there was no voter fraud (and try to hold hack the Homeric laughter for a moment). Dukakis was blown out of the water, rejected on a massive scale. Over 50 million Americans voted for Kerry and a new direction ... hardly a massive rejection.

And this in opposition to a war time president, after the most successful attack ever conducted against us on US soil.

We didn't succeed, but we know now that future success is possible. Bush's halo is slipping down. Hear that flapping sound? The chickens be comin' home to roost, and the floors of the White House will become increasingly slippery and foul.

But to succeed, we have to construct a workable philosophical framework that expresses Democratic ideals and working methods in a coherent package. More simply, we gotta know what we believe (as in are willing to bleed for), know how to say it, and be willing to stand beside it and never back down.

[Socialist Dem]

8. after seeing what trying to be "civil" got them,

maybe the words "lies" and "liar" will finally be brought out. Too many times we heard "misspresented" or "incompotent"....just call it for what it is....shrubco has lied from day one so they can get Iraq to (1) reap massive oil profits and (2) have a perminant, continued military presence in the middle east.

The only thing that's gone wrong for them is the Iraqi people haven't rolled over and submitted.

So stop trying to be "above it all"....call 'em murderers..call 'em facist....call 'em liars.

[Straight Shooter]

10. Here's what you can say: "bush is a NONVERIFIED president"

Just like his nonverified votes.

Once again, fraud stains bush like the bloodstain in Macbeth.