Interesting Article at the Nation about Mondale, Gore, Kerry..

[_dynamicdems]

This is an interesting article that outlines the differences between Democrats and Republicans in the way they treat their losing candidates. It includes some comments from Walter Mondale.

The Nation
By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: May 21, 2006
Plea of the Democratic Pariah: Forgive My Defeat


Article Tools Sponsored By
By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: May 21, 2006

WASHINGTON

IN so much as the term "rehabilitation" applies to Al Gore, he is enjoying a nice little run of late.

snip

As a general rule, it can be an unpleasant career move for a Democrat to run for president, streak to primary victories, win his party's nomination and, ultimately, fall short. For his troubles, he will automatically be consigned by large sectors of his party to a distinctive Democratic pariah status — his campaign ridiculed, second-guessed and I-told-you-so'd endlessly by insiders and operatives who bemoan how "winnable" his election was and "unlikable" his personality is.

They will reflexively lump the runner-up into the party pantheon of losers and hope he stays away. "We tend to treat our losing nominees like Superfund sites," said Bob Beckel, a longtime Democratic strategist who ran Walter F. Mondale's presidential campaign in 1984, a landslide loss to Ronald Reagan.

This contrasts with Republicans, who have admittedly had fewer runners-up in recent decades but who nonetheless accord them a more respectful, eminent status. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, but has retained an elder statesman's role within the party. Barry Goldwater lost 44 states to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 yet remains a conservative icon. Richard M. Nixon lost narrowly in 1960 and went on to be elected president in 1968.

snip

"The bitterness towards Kerry is much greater from the chattering classes in Washington," said Michael D. McCurry, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. McCurry posits the example of his father, a Democratic activist in South Carolina, who still admires Mr. Kerry and resents the ridicule that's been heaped on him by onetime loyalists. Mr. Kerry's current staff is quick to share news of the large turnouts and ebullient receptions the senator is getting as he travels the country, exploring another run in 2008. more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/weekinreview/21liebovich.html

[wisteria]

1. All the nastiness is coming from the inside crowd in Washington.

They all think their choice can do better and ignore all of Kerry's achievements. Their negatives need to be countered loudly by all the positives from his campaign. I know I have written to Reid and Schumer about the tone and lack of support in the party. It will take more people than just myself to make a real difference,but I feel better expressing my POV to them. Our party has got to change- it can't be all DLC or all grassroots. We need a change of attitude and we need to do some real work. The party is always telling us they know how to win, yet we never do.

[_dynamicdems]

2. They are acting like a bunch of snakes.

It infuriates me that these people are passing around a negative article about John Kerry and laughing. What a snotty bunch of assholes.

I'm getting so sick of all of this. It's really starting to get to me. I had a total meltdown earlier after reading all the shit in DU and then hearing about Jimmy Carter being swiftboated. JIMMY CARTER for God's sake! The world had gone stark raving mad!

Maybe I need a good cry or to get drunk or something.

Damn. Things really suck lately.

[fedupinBushcountry]

Arrrgh

I want to read more but I don't have a subscription to the New York Times.

[_dynamicdems]

4. I don't either but this article came up for me. Did you try the link?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/weekinreview/21liebovich.html

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Delete

edited: posted twice

[JI7]

5. thes motherfuckers probably never leave their offices in DC

other than to attend some big city forum and do the same punditry crap in different clothes and places. they think they know it all. they never got over Kerry winning even though they claimed his campaign was over. they spend time mostly and probably only with each other. they think all Democrats are like them. hahhahahahahhahahhahahhaha what a fucking joke.

[_dynamicdems]

8. That about sums up the pundits but people inside the party are also

guilty of doing the same things. They know better.

[europegirl4jfk]

6. And the press again - another example of Kerry being ignored

I watched the repeat of Larry King on CNN this morning. He had all these CNN journalists and consultants there and they talked about politics and potential candidates for 2008. Of course they think Hillary is the front-runner, but they mentioned at least all the others by name. Warner, Biden, Feingold etc., even Gore. But no word on Kerry, not a single word on Kerry, not even pronouncing his name once. It was just unbelievable.

[karynnj]

7. I think they think if they pretend not to see him, he'll go away

It seems strange as he polls way higher than Warner, Feingold and Biden. (The only poll that had Feingold slightly higher than Kerry used an arithmathical average of the % in 6 states - including Wisconsin, where Feingold got 30%.)

I think that if Gore is pushed to jump in, he will be on Tv more and people will remember that he wasn't the mythical Gore that several have created in their minds.

[_dynamicdems]

9. What really baffles me is that Keith Olbermann doesn't say SQUAT about

any of the stuff Senator Kerry is doing. He was my only hope on the news because he comments on stuff the other news shows won't touch. He won't even mention Kerry. Not a peep during the filibuster. Not a freaking word on the 35th anniversary Vietnam testimony speech John Kerry gave in Faneuil Hall in Boston. The way he avoids any story about Kerry is almost like his job is on the line if he says the "K" word. Maybe it is.

[ginnyinWI]

10. I've noticed that, too.

In fairness, his show seems to be based on "telling truth to power" so he focuses on the bad guys a lot. I don't remember too much talk about future elections or what Dems are doing that's good. But I haven't been watching regularly.

[_dynamicdems]

11. I haven't watched regularly since the filibuster effort.

It disgusted me that he didn't cover that, so I stopped watching on a regular basis. I tune in when there is a big story just to see what his take is on it. Nothing ever about Kerry but he mentions all the other Dems.

[ginnyinWI]

12. I know it's a sacrilige with some at DU, but

KO doesn't get deep enough into the stories for me. It's more just reactions to the news by Keith and his journalist regulars--quick takes, or maybe questions, speculations. I want something meatier I guess--more news than entertainment. The KO "gotcha" stuff is fun, but I need to watch other programs to get the real information I want. I've been going to Colbert lately for my daily ration of political fun.

That said, it's great for drawing in the people who like a lot of entertainment with their news, and it can give them an appetite for more, which can't be bad.