Why didn't Kerry decide to run in '08

[book_worm]

1) He got 59 million votes in '04--almost nine million more votes than Al Gore got in '00
2) He won the '04 election thanks to GOP cheating in Ohio.
3) He still had a strong organization and lots of supporters.

In the end what was the deciding factor? Is it that too many people got disillusioned with him because they think that he gave up too easily and conceded to Bush?

I wasn't the biggest Kerry supporter but I think he would have been a strong voice in the debates this year. But on the other hand he is an effective US Senator too.

[jojo54]

1. Because he was "convinced" not to run.

Just like in '04, he was "convinced" to concede so quickly. That's just my opinion.

[jgraz]

2. That whole "sucking as a candidate" may have figured into his decision

[EFerrari]

14. Kerry sucked so badly they had to steal the election.

:shrug:

[jgraz]

26. Kerry sucked so badly they COULD steal the election

Against THAT president with THAT record of failure, it should not have been close.

[EFerrari]

27. It wasn't close. Electronic vapor voting makes "close"

a fiction. There's an article out there somewhere called "Landslide Denied" about the 2006 election. A good read and will peel your eyelids back.

[jgraz]

30. Point taken. I have read that and agree that Kerry's win was more decisive than it seemed

But Kerry's faults as a a candidate at least made it credible and acceptable that he was defeated.

And, of course, as his margin of victory grows, so does the shamefulness of his early concession.

[EFerrari]

35. It's not a big job to frame the issue if you own the media.

Look at all the DUers who believe Chavez is a dictator but don't really know why they think that.

I was upset about his concession, too. And, for months, believe me. But, looking back, he was surrounded by idiots and likely exhausted from two years of campaigning. He is, of course, responsible for his decisions but, looking back, he had little or no back up.

Donna Brazille was out on all the talk shows that weekend, apologizing for not snagging. the "values voters" that no one has ever been able to find. And, there was a concerted campaign to convince the Democrats that Latinos, young voters, women -- their base -- didn't come out for them and it all turned out to be pure bull. Those people voted for Kerry. It's never been explained to my satisfaction why people like Donna went all over the media claiming that they didn't. :shrug:

And now we know, our so called Justice Department was enabling voter caging.

That's what he was up against. And, even with all his experience in rooting out corruption, he probably didn't know it at the time.

[jgraz]

45. I think you and I agree on the basic points

I'm just much less inclined to forgive his concession, especially after his repeated promises to fight for every vote.

I'm also still angry about the lack of courage and coherent strategy displayed by his campaign. He ceded the entire issue of 9/11 to Bush, who by that time had been clearly exposed as a detached bumbler who allowed the attack to take place. Aren't you at all frustrated that Kerry didn't take Bush on over 9/11? This should have been THE issue in the 04 campaign, but Kerry failed to address it.

[EFerrari]

50. Sure. And I find myself wondering about Kerry's handlers.

I'm a Green, okay, and like many Greens that year, worked for Kerry with no local support. We called out of state from our cell phones in the evening and on weekends. And, I say this to establish that I really have no reason to justify anything or to let Kerry off the hook in any way.

But, my thinking keeps going back to his handlers, to the people around him who he had to depend on. Carville. Brazille. McAuliffe. (I probably just mispelled all their names.) Imho, the problem was there.

Because I do know show business. And a performer (like Kerry) has to depend on his crew to an extent that most people are completely unaware of. For so many things -- from scripts to managing the media to the most crucial decisions about the future. And as far as I can tell, Kerry's crew looked good and did miserably.

I'm more worried about 2008 at this level than I am about who becomes the nominee.

[jgraz]

57. A Green!! A Green!!!! Somebody get a stake, I'll bring the matches!

;) (Don't tell anyone I'm a Socialist)


The difference between a campaign and show business is that the candidate truly has to step up and lead at some point. People are becoming more and more aware of the obvious front-men being managed like sock puppets. Something in Kerry's character prevented him from doing the right thing in 04, and that will be part of his legacy forever.

[EFerrari]

60. I don't know if it was something in his character.

I used to think that. Used to think there was a diffidence -- aka, "we're just too nice".

But, John Kerry is so smart, it's just as likely that that big brain of his scanned the problem -- all the layers of corruption and difficulty -- and gave him the result: there's no way you can beat this thing with the team you have. :shrug:

He does bear the responsibility for his decision. But more and more, especially since I've tried to learn about that (horrible) moment, what he did makes sense in the context of that filthy election and those people around him.

And somewhere the DUers who greeted me to this site on Nov 22, 2004, are laughing their @sses off because when I came here, I was in a blind fury. lol

:)

[blm]

86. Not me - I always read you as an earnest person, not a showboat ranter with

no facts to back up the rant.

You ALWAYS sounded concerned for your country and accountability, and no matter if you did bring rain down on Kerry at times, your underlying tone showed integrity.

THAT makes all the difference in the world. To me you desire accountability and open government and that matters.

[EFerrari]

91. ClassWarrior kicked my remote over that. lol

I was so devastated -- as many of us were -- but I was devastated with this big mouth.

Here's to better days and to being a little patient while truth surfaces. It always does.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

157. Good analysis.

btw, you went two out of three on the names(Brazile has only one "l")so you probably did better than some Dems in both respects.

[EFerrari]

160. Two for three is not bad!

:)

[Horse with no Name]

61. Don't forget that Carville gave Matlin Kerry's strategy

and they turned out the pack of rabid dogs on Kerry.

[EFerrari]

63. John Kerry was surrounded by traitors.

I've never fully realized that.

But, imho, it's true.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Yes he was.

And it was possible he realized that too late in the game to impact a change.

[EFerrari]

66. When did you know that? Because here I've been thinking all this time

they were just stupid.

[Horse with no Name]

69. Stupid and Kerry were never two words I would put in one sentence

It just didn't make sense.
I think I have just been enlightened watching these past months.
How Congress can be bought and sold. If an elected official can be purchased, then it doesn't take much convincing that campaigns can be purchased.

[EFerrari]

70. Yeah -- it never made sense that Kerry wouldn't get it

except that he was wearing two huge, heavy hats, statesman and candidate. So, he had to rely on people around him. And on people whose loyalty wasn't to him -- as Bobby's was to President Kennedy -- but to their careers.

[Horse with no Name]

71. I would even say they weren't as beholden to their careers

as they were to THEIR Republican handlers AND their bank accounts.

[EFerrari]

72. When I watched and listened to Donna that week end

my belly flipped, bigtime. Did cartwheels.

And, it may not even be about "Republican" but just about power and money. "Republican" is just a brand for these people. They don't give a damn about "Republican" values any more than they give a damn about Democratic ones.

[Horse with no Name]

75. I would have argued that point with you

But not anymore.
I am starting to feel lost politically.
Even if we didn't hold a huge majority, we at least had the power to decide what would be voted on. That is more than half the battle.
But it just isn't working out so well...:(
I know for certain we won't get a deserving Presidential nominee.
We will only get a pre-packaged, just add water, corporate shilling nominee. It doesn't really matter what is on the label, because when you open it, the store brand is indistinguishable from the name brand.:(

[EFerrari]

78. Take heart, because those people aren't the party.

They're just the parasites.

If nothing else, this awful moment will get people offa their couch and active.

You know, a whole lot of us have to agree to this bs for it to work. Let's disrupt that
-- by simply being honest.

:hug:

[blm]

89. I think they were for secrecy and privilege of closed government - and

Kerry - an open government advocate - had to be stopped from getting anywhere NEAR the smoking gun documents he tried to obtain for years.

[EFerrari]

90. That certainly is a piece of this puzzle. Why would these privileged people

want to hand over power?

The more I get to know John Kerry, as much as a member of the public can, the more I admire him and the way he approaches problems. And, the way he's never given up on us.

[wisteria]

132. Unfortunately, that is very true. Traitors and slim only interested in what benefited them. n/t

[bbgrunt]

99. sure, he made some missteps, but so did *. The reason I think

that people fault him as a candidate has to do with the way the media insisted on portraying him. Egad, even John Stewart can't stop making fun of his tendency to give fully nuanced answers. Thus, if you aren't a media star you are a faulty candidate.

Notice how they even turned Dean's charisma against him.

[blm]

80. It wasn't close - and they would steal 5,10, 15 million if they had to.

Because idiots will turn and blame Kerry's (winning) campaign and call it a losing one FOR them and help dampen the outrage.

Wow - the RNC and their newsmedia whores sure have the left nailed - they know the DNC is lazy (preDean, of course) and that many on the left will buy the mediaspin against their own side almost every time.

[EFerrari]

We are so handled. We don't even know how much. n/t

[jgraz]

93. If Kerry won by a landslide, then his failure to contest is even more shameful

Like you, I believe Kerry won and possibly won by a decent margin. It's his cowardly capitulation, his refusal to fight without (or perhaps in spite of) ironclad evidence that is unforgivable.

[blm]

98. He had no PARTY willing to back him, the party's election experts said there was no case,

and the media had already proven they were NOT into fair reporting.

It would have been difficult for Kerry WITH PROOF, but he would have done it if he had it. Woodward's book recounts the fight Kerry was preparing for over the provisional ballots they believed they had - then Carville made his call. When those votes disappeared there was NOTHING TANGIBLE for Kerry to hang his hat on in a court of law and the party's election team of legal experts said NO CASE and NO MATH.

Without legal proof, with no Dem election experts, and no party backing him, you expected Kerry to go to court, even as Bill Richardson was having voting machines erased in NM - you really haven't grasped the reality - those who worked to protect Bush's election were some of our own party. They were making sure there was no legal evidence.

Face it - the smartest thing the fascists ever did was buy control of most broadcast and print media. They can create their own reality and smear the best lawmakers this nation has produced and do so through the powerbrokers in our party, too.

[EFerrari]

109. Yeah. Why did Bill Richardson shut down any recount effort in NM?

Someone explain that to me.

[EFerrari]

106. Okay. You're John Kerry. You've been at this for years now.

No one but Teresa and John Edwards are telling you to go forward. What do you do? Seriously.

Before the week was out and WHILE the recount was being organized, his handlers were all over the talk shows, regretting. It was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

[jgraz]

146. You do what you promised to do. Why is that so hard?

If Kerry wasn't ready to do that, he should have never made the "fight for every vote" promise.

[EFerrari]

161. His campaign did stay in the courts with a lawsuit until it was thrown out.

Maybe part of the problem is one of perception? He doesn't do a lot of chestbeating. His style seems to be to put his head down and work. That doesn't always read well in media forums, especially the corporate media who had it out for him in the first place.

[MagickMuffin]

110. Without support you lose

And please please explain how Kerry could have contested electronic voting machines that had NO paper trail???

You seem so sure in your bashing of Kerry that he could've just waltzed into court and demanded a recount.

In Ohio we had the infamous (now convicted) Tom Noe and his wife working behind the scenes. We had the SOS Ken Blackwell outsourcing the vote tabulations to a republicon firm in Tenn., then there was the county that wouldn't let people see how they were counting votes, if you remember they claimed the FBI told them there was a terror threat so they did everything outta sight outta mind.

So, again please tell me how Kerry could have fought to have the votes counted?

Where was the PROOF?

What evidence did he have?

Was it really Kerry's decision to concede or was he told by the party elders like Lee Hamilton who has stood in Kerry's way for decades?

I for one will never know the real answers to these questions. But I do know that if there is no Proof of wrong doing then it is very hard to make your case. And I'm sure with Kerry being a former prosecutor he would know that....

[jgraz]

145. Kerry didn't "lose". He didn't try.

Again, if he needed PROOF, he was lacking the courage necessary to "fight for every vote" and he never should have made the promise. He should have said "I'll fight for every vote. As soon as I have party support and ironclad proof that will stand up in a court of law and also several appeals. And I need to know that nobody will raise their voice."

Actually, I should have just done that translation in my head.

[wisteria]

133. Consider the fall out from the contested 2000 election.

All the media circus, the winny repubs and the ultimate result even after all the Dem support and that election appeared close.

[jgraz]

154. The 2000 election wasn't contested. We've never seen a contested election

If Gore had really wanted to contest the election, he coud have taken the fight to Congress and to the people. And he should have. No fallout from a truly contested election could have been worse than what we got from not contesting it.

[sandnsea]

3. he's not a masochist

I don't know all his reasonings, but between the media, the left, and the clintons - I wouldn't have ran either if I were him. Like Hagel, he says he can be more effective ending the war outside presidential politics.

Gore, Kerry, Feingold - how come our best aren't running.

[Horse with no Name]

62. That's a very good question

and you have to wonder if they KNOW things we can only assume.

[Red Zelda]

4. Because he's a wooden fool?

An empty suit?
A total non-communicative loser?
An easy dupe for election fraud?
The husband of a ...
OK, OK, I'll stop.

[blm]

7. He speaks ELEGANTLY and detailed - which goes unappreciated in dumbed down America.

He has the best record uncovering and exposing government corruption and advocating for open government than any lawmaker in MODERN HISTORY.
(Unfortunately the unaware have no clue how the investigations into IranContra, illegal wars in Central America, BCCI and CIA drugrunning even came about let alone how they were pursued with little help from fellow Democrats and against the wishes of the powerful in our party.)

Rarely has any nominee dominated all three debates so decisively. So decisively that the corporate media had no choice but to conceded that point, even though they were still in full protection mode of the Bushboy.

The nominee of the Democratic party - once they become known after the primaries - has no choice but to tap into the party infrastructure that has been built by the DNC the four years before election day. In too many crucial states Terry McAuliffe refused to counter the tactics employed by the RNC to gain control of the election process at every point where the votes are cast and counted. That neglect ASSURED that the nominee would have no LEGAL EVIDENCE sufficient enough to make a case in court.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is one of the most persistent warriors for healthcare solutions for the poor and also environmental issues in this country and in the world. And has been since she was a teenager traveling with her father to attend to the medical needs of African villages too remote to access hospitals or clinics.

That you don't know any of this by now must be by choice.

[MagickMuffin]

17. blm, once again you point out the work Kerry

has done to uncover the corruption within our government, but with people like Lee Hamilton who squashed those investigations by siding with Oil Slick Dick the investigations went no further. I don't know why Hamilton has always been there to squash investigations but he has and makes me wonder if his purpose in life is to throw monkey wrenches into whatever corruption is being looked into.

See my post #11 for more of my thoughts on "why Kerry isn't running" on my other insights into this subject.

[jgraz]

28. Sorry, part of being a successful candidate is connecting with the people

Kerry sucked at that. Clinton spoke with elegance and detail AND he managed to connect emotionally with an audience. Kerry never got that connection.



And lest we forget, John Kerry was not above "dumbing it down".

[blm]

32. Kerry hunted for over 40 years. You can agree with the RW newsmedia that Rather is

exposing as liars - but that doesn't make it true.

And further - Kerry won, so he DID connect. If he didn't, then RNC wouldn't have had to work to steal that election.

I know you don't care about HONEST GOVERNMENT and willingly attack and belittle our anti-corruption lawmakers - but some of us do and DON'T want glib politicians who will protect secrecy and privilege posing as Democrats.


You can be proud to tell your child some day that you preferred the glib protectors of secrecy and privilege and that you consistently mocked those who did the most to expose the corruption of government and protect the citizens' right to open government.

That should entertain the child growing up in a fascist America.

[jgraz]

42. What I consistently mock is a weak politician who won't fight when it counts

If America does become a fascist state (assuming it isn't already), part of the blame will fall on Kerry and his shameful capitulation in the face of overwhelming evidence of election fraud.

[blm]

77. YOU had overwhelming legal evidence of election fraud and didn't give it to the team

of Democratic party election experts who couldn't piece a legal case together without sufficient evidence? Why would you do that?

What you fail to see (because you don't want to) is that the election was stolen over a four year period - a four year period where the RNC gained control of every point in the electoral process where the votes are cast and counted. The DNC did nothing in that four years to counter those efforts and THAT was the system we had on election day. YOU join Terry McAuliffe and TeamCLinton by pinning all blame on Kerry to distract from the deliberately negligent stewardship of the DNC for the four tears they were charged with stopping the RNCs election fraud tactics.

BTW - logic informs us that if, according to you, Kerry lost because he did not connect with voters, then Bush didn't steal it because he didn't have to - according to you.

[jgraz]

92. Read "Armed Madhouse". The evidence is clear and was known BEFORE the election

Even your statements about the advanced preparation support that scenario.

BTW - logic informs us that if, according to you, Kerry lost because he did not connect with voters, then Bush didn't steal it because he didn't have to - according to you.

My statements are a little more complex than your black-and-white characterization. It's possible that Kerry was a poor candidate, did not connect with voters, yet still won in a fair election. Most informed people (e.g. almost all DUers) could overlook Kerry's obvious deficiencies as a candidate and understand that he'd have been a pretty decent president. Other people simply voted against Bush, who was obviously a dangerous failure even in his first term.

The people Kerry failed to win over (in numbers large enough to secure a theft-proof margin) were the moronic, ignorant, how-the-fuck-do-you-even-dress-yourself swing voters. I think many were repelled by Kerry's weakness as a candidate. Kerry's centrist triangulations may have also kept many disaffected leftists away from the polls.

[blm]

96. The numbers were far too high to reflect what you claim.

Would you like for the Dem party to wait until we know who the nominee is for 2008 and THEN give that nominee the added duty to secure the election process on top of everything else they need to do in 5 months before election day?

Because YOUR ASSESSMENT OF BLAME concludes that it was Kerry's fault the election process wasn't secure and his fault there was no legal evidence sufficient enough to continue in a court.

So, logically, all the Democrats have to do is wait and see who the next nominee is and pile on securing election processs to their plate of duties.

Or - we assess blame for 2000, 2002 and 2004 ACCURATELY and get the job done now before 2008, and maintain vigilance through a strong 50 state party infrastructure alert at every level of the electoral process that controls who, where and how each vote is cast and counted.

[jgraz]

97. The ultimate security against a stolen election is a candidate with courage

We didn't have that the last time, so there was no way to remedy any of the mistakes you allege. Kerry didn't have to SECURE the election, he just had to work up the stones to fight once he knew it was stolen -- and he's on the record (via his conference call to New Mexico) saying the he knew it was being stolen on election day. He just wanted the evidence to avoid the risk of looking like a "sore loser".

We voted for him to be PRESIDENT for god's sake. And he couldn't handle fulfilling his promise to fight for every vote? You feel that this was somehow beyond his capabilities? Then how the hell did you expect him to be an effective president??

[blm]

101. That doesn't make sense - either the PARTY secures the election process before election day

and it is their responsibility to counter RNC election fraud for the four years before election day or it isn't.

Gore wasn't in charge of his evidence or his case - the Dem party's election experts were and they said Gore had a case to make because he had the MATH with him as well as sufficient evidence - and the fact it came out so close helped ENORMOUSLY.

You really seem to think that a candidate has all the responsibility and the party has NONE, just because you want to get your Kerry hate on.

You enjoy smacking around words like weak and cowardly but you would REALLY KNOW those words if you were under heavy machine gun fire but turn around and face it anyway because there is a man down under the water that you believe you can save.

You would know what those words REALLY mean if you were prosecuting mob bosses.

You would know what those words REALLY mean if you were uncovering the biggest cases of government corruption in modern history and every powerbroker in DC from both parties and the FBI and all their paid press were blocking you at every turn, hounding you in the press, planting drugs on your staff to implicate you in the drugrunning operation that you uncovered. And you pursued these investigations for five years despite the obstacles and the death threats.

And then the charming, glib guy comes into office and smilingly sweeps it all under the rug. THAT took courage - YOUR preferred brand of courage, I guess.

[karynnj]

122. He wanted the evidence TO PROVE IT

Do you think he could have just refused to concede and Bush would say ok, you're the winner.

Bush had the government and the media. Kerry didn't even have much of the Democratic party. He needed solid, take it to court proof.

[jgraz]

137. Like I said: COURAGE

Someone with courage doesn't wait for ironclad proof before doing what he knows is right.

[karynnj]

149. I think the flaw is that what you thing is right was not what Senator Kerry thought was fight

or what VP Gore did. Kerry said it would be unconscienable to contest the election without solid proof of fraud. Gore had a stronger case with ballots that could be exaimined and a 537 matrgin. He never contested the fraud like designating people as felons who weren't.

In both cases, neither have publicly said point blank that their election was stolen (Kerry did say 2000 was). The reason is that it is better that someone else say it.

[jgraz]

156. No, I think Kerry and I were in complete agreement on the right thing to do

Kerry just chose not to do it.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Sorry to disabuse you of that old canard

but Kerry connected with SOME of us more than any other candidate in our (long) lives.

[jgraz]

40. That much is obvious

But you also must admit that he turned off many people, including many on this board. It's inconsistent to keep using your emotional reaction as evidence while dismissing the opposite reaction of so many others.

[Blue_In_AK]

56. I understand I can only speak for myself,

and that not everyone has to see things my way, but I think it's a pathetic commentary on the state of "something" -- I'm not sure what -- in our country when so many people, even good Democrats, can fail to see what is so clearly in their own best interests -- that is, supporting a man with brains and selfless vision, who has been fighting the good fight on our behalves for almost 40 years. It just makes me sad (and if that's an emotional reaction, I apologize) that so many people can be so blinded by such trivial things as windsurfing ads, "botched" jokes, perceived "woodenness," and clearly false propaganda perpetrated by other people with agendas.

I think John Kerry would have been one of the great presidents, and it's a huge loss to our country that he wasn't given the chance.

[jgraz]

58. For me, lack of emotional connection is a valid and damning criticism for a president

We only need to look at Bill Clinton to see how important it is. I hated so many of Clinton's policies, but I couldn't help but be in awe of how he was able to relate to people. That, more than anything, is what made him a successful president.

And that, more than anything, is what made John Kerry a failed candidate.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. Whether or not Bill Clinton was a "successful" president

depends, of course, on how you define that word. He really didn't do much to stop our slide into a massive corporatocrasy, despite his "feel-goodness."

But I'm not here to trash Bill, Hillary or anyone else. I will, however, support John Kerry until one or the other of us dies.

[jgraz]

67. He was successful in the sense that he accomplished many of his goals

They weren't my goals, and apparently they weren't your goals, but he sure did git 'er done.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. So has George Bush.

'Nuf said.

Peace, jgraz. I've got to get back to work.

[jgraz]

74. touché

[MagickMuffin]

36. Connecting with the people as I recall he didn't keep people from coming to his rallies

I connected with him and still do. You on the other hand however are the people here within the DU community that I was referring to about not having the support he needed.

You sound an awful lot like Maureen Dowd with her rhetoric. Ohhhh, Kerry wears a surfing suit, or wears pants, or talks in complete sentences. You are sooooooooo funny.




Yeah, no connection with the people whatsoever:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

100. Yeah, I'm sure glad I can have a beer with that Bush fella and not that other guy...

:eyes:

[jgraz]

117. Two words: Bill Clinton

I never wanted to have a beer with Clinton, I hated too many of his policies. But I have to give him credit as someone who could present him self as intelligent AND emotionally connected.

This has nothing to do with any Joe SixPack mentality, and to reduce it to such discounts a powerful lesson. A leader, especially a president, needs emotional skill as well as intelligence and policy wonkery. Clinton had all three and used them to great success (at least from a certain POV).

[dailykoff]

119. Did you happen to catch Kerry's convention speech?

I don't remember Bill's in 92, but I remember Kerry's, and as convention speeches go I thought it was pretty damn good. Lots of emotion, lots of heart. And it sure as hell was better than Gore's, not that I'm knocking Gore.

[jgraz]

120. Watched every minute. It left me completely cold

Of course, by that time I was pretty pissed at him for gagging all the Bush critics. It was at that point that I started to think he was going to lose.

[dailykoff]

125. He didn't exactly gag Al Sharpton.

Sounds like you had your mind made up long before you heard the speech. You don't happen to listen to RW radio or anything do you?

[jgraz]

138. Yes, he did

How many criticisms or even MENTIONS of Bush did you hear in Sharpton's speech? He toed the party line and even then the Kerry camp was panicked that he went off script even a little bit.

[dailykoff]

143. "I would like to answer your questions, Mr. President."

How about the third sentence and many times thereafter?



Tonight, I want to address my remarks in two parts.

One, I'm honored to address the delegates here.

Last Friday, I had the experience in Detroit of hearing President George Bush make a speech. And in the speech, he asked certain questions. I hope he's watching tonight. I would like to answer your questions, Mr. President.

more: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/alsharpton2004dnc.htm

p.s. hell of a speech. :patriot:

[jgraz]

144. Huh, I didn't remember him mentioning * by name.

That makes even more of a contrast with the other, Kerry-approved speeches. None of the convention was anywhere near as sharp as it needed to be. Where was the criticism of the Rethug chickenhawks? This should have been a theme of the week. So should Bush's failure to prevent 9/11.

I left that convention incredibly pessimistic about Kerry's chances. And he just continued to miss opportunity after opportunity for the rest of the campaign.

[dailykoff]

148. It seemed pretty well-run and well-produced to me

emphasizing the general themes of party unity and a better future for all. As a 3-day commercial for the Dem ticket I can't fault it. You might think otherwise but it was pitched to swing voters in OH and MO and they aren't big protesters.

[jgraz]

152. lowest post-convention bump ever

That doesn't sound particularly well-run to me.

[dailykoff]

158. How much bump did he need?

He won nearly every primary and by your own claim he won the general.

[politicasista]

151. You seem to love to hate Kerry as a hobby

People have posted fact after fact, but you seem to ignore them. It appears that you have an agenda. To tear down a good Democrat while promoting others.

I also noticed you haven't blamed McAuliffe or an idle Democratic Party that stood on the sidelines and haven't said a word about election reform. Where is your blame at them? Nah, it's just good to keep throwing darts, rocks, stones and spouting RW, Rovian talking points about Kerry.


Good luck with finding a "PERFECT, smear-free, promise to do everything I, I, I, want, if he doesn't, fuck him" candidate. Seriously.


Kerry must still be a threat in some way if his attackers/bashers are out of the woodwork.

[jgraz]

153. Well, my hobby is definitely not to be treasurer of the I Heart Kerry fan club

Like I said before, if you don't like criticism of Kerry, stick to the Kerry group. You'll find many people in GD and GDP don't like the way he ran his 04 campaign. I find his continual attempts to shift blame distateful, whether they have to do with the 04 campaign or the recent tasering he stood by and watched.

[karynnj]

123. You forgot that he also had an opponent below 40%

and at 33% near the election.

I've gone to Kerry speeches and he does connect. If he was given all the unfiltered coverage of his rallies Clinton got, Kerry would have beaten a war time president near 50% in the polls. (Or if the Democratic party had noticed how Blackwell was allocatintg machines - or is this something Kerry was personally responsible for as well.)

[jgraz]

141. Exactly -- and still Clinton went after him

Kerry had a guy at under 50% (usually a guaranteed lose for the incumbent) and he still failed to attack. If there was a way to sue for political malpractice, Kerry would owe me some money right now.

[karynnj]

147. There were no Presidents in the 45- 50 range

Something I worried about in 2004 when pundits spoke of 50% being the difference. There was no data in that range which were concern any statistician. Consider that all the Buchanan Conservatives would say they disapproved but they would vote for him versus any Democrat. In 1996, there were times I would have said I disapproved of Bill Clinton - but I voted for him, not Dole. (Consider how many people here would have done the same - or would have said they disapproved of a President Kerry now.)

It was not an easy election - also in December 2003, Bush was at 60%, Kerry and other Democrats was instrumental in getting that number down to below 50%

[karynnj]

105. Kerry did connect and he did not dumb things down

The fact is that Clinton, though charming, faced a President at 33% approval, who had not cracked 40% in months. Kerry faced a President near 50%, who had been at 60% in late 2003. Kerry was the first Democrat to poll near him after he won Iowa and people could see him. Dean was the candidate polled in early January and he was losing by 20%, and that was before the scream and well after he was simultaneously on the cover of three major news magazines.

Kerry also had considerable bad luck. He lost most of June as the only thing covered was the death, funeral and deification of Ronald Reagan. He then lost nearly half of July, the run up to his convention as the media covered Bill Clinton's book - starting with looking in the index under the letter "L". This coupled with the fact that he was given 3 hours of network coverage vs the 9 given in 2000 and before, made it harder to get the fluff coverage that comes at this time. Also, in every election, each network produced a biography for each major party candidate. Each was, at heart, designed to explain why this man rose to this position. Even for W in 2000, there was one with the turning point where he found God. (How scant their material was could be seen in the 2004 Frontline double biography. Before each was 40, Kerry was a war hero, an anti-war hero, an acclaimed prosecutor, a person who used the lt Governor position to successfully advocate for cap and trade of sulfur dioxide to fix the acid rain problem. Bush was a problem.) CNN biography was fair, but not the typical puff piece. MSNBC dealt only with Kerry's antiwar activities. The networks, to my knowledge did nothing.

Add that the media played with the SBVT long after they were caught in several lies and the Republican ties known and that they also smeared his wife. Teresa had many amazing accomplishments on her own and had always been described as charming - until it was clear that Kerry was running for President.

[jgraz]

142. He connected with you. Do you simply dismiss the millions of others who found him cold?

[PDenton]

129. Kerry was better at that than some Democrats

Remember Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro? Dukakis? Those guys mostly sucked at connecting with people. Kerry OTOH had no problem connecting with the non-koolaid types. Republicans just pulled out alot of dirty tricks, the Swiftboats being the most obvious, and they also branded him a flip-flopper. They also found a wedge issue for the Democrats- gay marriage, and to a lesser extent cultural issues in general (the same crap they have been peddling since the early 90's), and exploited it for all it was worth.

There were alot of Americans in 2004 that could see what a moron Bush was. However, I don't think the country as a whole was fully ready for Kerry in 2004. They were still in love with der Fuhrer and didn't like anything that remotely smacked of elitism. "Bush wasn't stupid, he was a man of the people", was the line of thinking. Now that his approval ratings have taken a big plunge, who knows.

Maybe Kerry could run again, but I think he's tired of running. It is too bad because I believe he'd be a great president, but maybe for the good of the country he shouldn't run again.

[Inuca]

22. A wooden FOOL???

May I suggest that you click here http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/senator_kerry_demands_new_iraq.html and watch the speech that he delivered yesterday on the Senate floor? I will not get into the "wooden" part (I do not agree with it, but I do not think it is worth arguing over), but if you can call that man a FOOL after listening to what he had to say and how he said it, well... fill in the blanks, I am trying to stay polite.

[jgraz]

29. OK, just wooden then.

Which is bad enough.

[Inuca]

34. Nope

Not true. Just a different style, tha some (to their loss) may find difficult to adjust to.

[jgraz]

48. Why deny other people's valid emotional response?

It's obvious that some people were drawn to Kerry while many others were turned off by him. That doesn't make us stupid or dupes of the media. I found him to be detached and emotionally vacant. This recent episode in Florida only served to reinforce that feeling.

IMHO, Kerry's own lack of self-awareness and his clear discomfort in his own skin prevented him from accepting this deficiency and turning it around. As a counter-example, look at that other famous wooden poltician, Al Gore. He was able to overcome the problem and even use humor to turn it into an asset.

[BlooInBloo]

54. Just because it's emotional doesn't magically MAKE it valid.

[LittleClarkie]

76. What I'd like to see is an indication that the person has spent any real time looking at the man

If that doesn't seem to be present, and it's the same knee jerk reaction from 2004 without any thought put into it or reexamination, then I would question its validity.

It's to easy to spout the same tired comments. At least if a person's gonna criticize, I'd like to see the facts they're basing their opinion on.

Some of us in the Kerry group know differently, having had that mythological beer with the man and a good old fashioned talk. I wish I'd been there.

[jgraz]

95. If a candidate can't win you over without hours of devoted study, they have no business running

I spent a lot of time researching Kerry and working for his election -- which is why, like many of his supporters, I feel completely betrayed by his lackluster campaign and his unforgivable refusal to challenge the results.

[LittleClarkie]

103. Funny thing is, I went through the same process and kind of fell in love with the big lug

All I did the day after the election was cry. I was one of the few here defending the guy still.

Whatever one thought of his campaign, the man himself was worthy and would have made a good president.

[blm]

111. You're mad at him for WINNING. He WON. He DID that job. The DNC did not.

At the time people saw the debates and agreed he had what it takes to be a competent president. Just because 3 solid years of media spin against him is creating a perception that treats him like a frigging fool doesn't mean that any honest person should LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT AND JOIN IN THE BASHING.

Anyone who believes the caricature that has been drawn over the lifetime of hard work and courage of a person is an easy mark for spin - a product of TELEVISION and why the fascists bought control of it in the first place.

They KNOW how lazy minded people are and that they can only absorb caricatures and slogans - so they give em what they want them to believe - and the really dumb ones repeat it.

[jgraz]

121. This is and has always been just your opinion

I have a different opinion and it's just as strongly held. I arrived at mine through a very simple calculus: Kerry promised to fight for every vote, and when the time came for him to do just that, he caved.

[blm]

130. Kerry was told by DNC that they HAD the election secured - he passed that on to us

and now HE is the only one taking the blame. You KNOW this to be true but let the DNC and the Clinton Team who oversaw the collapse of party infrastructure all those years OFF THE HOOK, just so you can ramp up the blame to Kerry.

Why don't you give all credit to winning the debates decisively to McAuliffe, while you're at it.

[jgraz]

139. So he says. I don't believe him

Any more than I believe he really planned to fight for our votes. Any more than a believe that he couldn't hear that kid being tasered.

And by the way, any credit for Kerry's wins in the debates goes entirely to the Chimperor and his pea-sized brain. The missed opportunities in those debates were agonizing to watch.

[blm]

159. Yeah - because YOU studied Kerry's lengthy record and came to the conclusion

that he never took on establishemnt.

YOU studied Kerry's lengthy record and discovered he's against dissent and opposes it.

YOU studied Kerry's record and came to the conclusion that he believes in using force against dissenters.

YOU are as competent a Conclusioner as Bush is a Decider.

[karynnj]

124. That's true of anyone - Not everyone adored Bill Clinton

I always though he was charming, but dishonest.

Kerry is not emotionally vacant. As a person, he seems far more likely to treat others well than Clinton. His reputation is that he is a gentleman - and that was what I saw the 5 times I have seen him speak. He was friendly and nice speaking to people afterwards.

You are pretty gullible if you can't see that Meyer intended to create a scene, get it on file and get attention. How do you explain that within hours of his arrest, he had an edited tape up on his website that was linked to be a major paper. He was in jail - how was all this coordinated. That was the first tape out and it started very shortly before the police reacted - making it seem unprovoked.

It also eliminated the fact that Senator Kerry asked the police intially to let the man ask the question - he instead went on a rant - not letting the Senator answer his question. After that went on for a while, the event's organizers cut off his mike and he continued to make a scene. Then the police moved to take him out as he resisted them. Kerry offered when they started to remove him to answer his question, the police and the organizers did not want him to stay. It was their right to evict someone creating a scene.

The police struggled with him at the back of a large room - there was no way that Kerry could see exactly what was happening from the stage. Nor would he know what Meyer was doing. What Kerry wasdoing was calming the crowd. There were university administators standing very close to the police and Meyer and they did not react. There were, per the campus paper, 700 people there and they did not rise to his defense. The police almost certainly shouldn't have tasered him - but they did need to get him out of there because he did not have the right to hijack the event. Maybe the story is less black and white than people making him a hero.

Maybe you should listen to the video link you were given of Kerry's speech on Iraq. That was likely similar to the type of speech he gave the students. He took an afternoon where it had been designated there would be no votes and spoke in Florida to these students to make up for cancelling a speech when he was doing the book tour because the Senate was kept in session. He also answered quetions fro the students and stayed to meet with them. That was the event the organizers planned and it was far better than the ANDREW MEYER show.

I have more sympathy for the kids who planned the event, got a prominent speaker, who reportedly gave a great speech only to have it turn into a controversy because someone had no concept of how to behave - and it wasn't because he asked a hard question. Too bad he didn't consider it would have been better to let the Senator answer the question.

[LittleClarkie]

44. 1. That's not it.

2. Nope, not it either.

3. Keep trying

4. Nah.

5. Go ahead, say it. The husband of WHAT.

Perhaps he lost because people like you didn't know him well enough. Because if that's all you saw, you didn't look very close.

He deserves none of that, and even now continues to work to get Dems elected in 2008 as he did in 2006.

The man who started the Iran/Contra investigation is not, nor never will be, an empty suit.

[pansypoo53219]

5. of course he got that many votes

he was running against the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. and HE STILL DIDN'T WIN.
granted it was stolen. BUT, he gave up pretty damn quick. at least gore took it as far as he could.

when are the democrats gonna learn NOT to go to massachusetts?!?

[Mass]

9. When will the democrats remember that MA is a model that the US could imitate rather than using

Romney's tactics and denigrate it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Kerry ran a great campaign

or he would not have gotten 59 million votes and 48% of the vote.
Don't forget he had 2 huge hurdles to face in Bush- "worst president" or not:
1. He was the incumbent.
2. He was a "war time" president.

[sandnsea]

39. lol, let's go to alabama or utah instead

Get a candidate from one of those glorious states. :crazy:

When are Democrats going to learn that Massachusetts is one of the best states in the nation. Lowest divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, std rates, murder rates, poverty, etc.

You piss about Kerry not fighting when you're the one who was intimidated into believing there was something wrong with a "Massachusetts Liberal".

[Orrex]

6. He's too busy zapping people with his taser.

Why, I personally saw John Kerry kill and eat a protester on the floor of the Senate last week.

CSPAN has the video, somewhere...


ZAP ZAP ZAP

[Inuca]

23. Link please :-)? n/t

[YvonneCa]

140. What grade are you in...

...this year?

[Mass]

8. For the same reasons Gore and Feingold did not run. They put the country interest before their own

and decided that they would be more useful where they were than running for president.

Add to that that, for Gore and Kerry who have seen first hand what Democrats do to their own nominees DURING a campaign, it would take a certain dose of masochism to do it a second time.

[MagickMuffin]

11. If you just read some of the threads here you know why

Senator Kerry has never had the full support of leaders of his own party. Lee Hamilton would rather side with Oil Slick Dick than someone from his own party. :shrug:

Add to that the MSM and well you can see how well they can destroy someone. They did tried to do it to B. Clinton, they did it to Gore, they did it to Kerry, and they have started doing it to H. Clinton. They MSM is not Democratic friendly. They distort so much and people are too lazy to check out what they are told by the MSM. Hell even Jon Stewart still to this very day mocks John, however, Jon just loves the other John as in McCain. That is one thing that really bothers me about Jon. I love the fact that Kerry can speak in full sentences and paragraphs, but that's just me.

If you remember that Kerry told a joke and blotched it and the MSM went after him tooth and nail. Soon after that he declared he wouldn't run. And of course when someone else in power blotches a joke it doesn't have the same effect concerning the MSM. Just think how many blotched jokes Mad king Boy George tells and you never hear the same attacks on him. Instead everyone just laughs right along with him.

Probably a wise decision. However, I would have loved for him to have given it another go.

[ProSense]

13. Wow!

I'll have to add that to my collection.

[blm]

21. True - GOP and newsmedia they could get through, and both did - but the undermining

from the influential powerbrokers in their own party makes it more difficult than it should ever be for both Gore and Kerry.

[ecstatic]

12. A Skull and Bones conspiracy?

:shrug:

He only ran to protect Bush in 04. :tinfoilhat:

Just kidding!

[MiniMe]

15. He had already been swiftboated in 2004 and didn't fight it

Then, in 2006 he stuck his foot in his mouth about something. I don't remember what it was now, but I remember that he basically went back to MA a few weeks before the election and tried to keep out of the public eye so he wouldn't be a talking point distration before the election.

[Inuca]

24. You do not know what it was

but you KNOW he stuck his foot in his mouth. Typical!

[MiniMe]

59. Typical what? I'm at work right now, didn't have time to look it up

Here it is, it was the botched joke.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/02/kerry.remarks/index.html

[Inuca]

82. Maybe I was too snarky

in which case I apologize. I simply meant that drawing a conclusion without knowing the facts is typical of superficial, non fact-based, judgements. I may have misunderstood what you wrote. I still do not think though that the joke incident should be held against Kerry. To the contrary. He tried to respond to it the right way, and was muzzled and backstabbed.

[MiniMe]

102. I agree totally.

It is the typical attack MO of the repukes. But between the swiftboating and that joke, I think he would have a problem running again. I think he would have been a great president, and the repuke tactics are beyond dirty.

At the time of the 2006 election, I remember that after that incident, he couldn't go out and campaign for anybody anymore, which was unfortunate. The repuke tactics effectively shut him up.

[Inuca]

107. My thoughts exactly

and I redouble my apology, I was definitely directing my snark at the wrong person :-).

[EFerrari]

16. Because the DLC is running Hillary. n/t

[RangerRK]

18. Why isn't he fighting for clean elections?

What is the point of our 'elections' anyway?

[sandnsea]

37. he's introduced legislation

I challenge you to tell me what's wrong with it. I bet you don't know because I bet you don't pay attention to anything that really goes on.

[RangerRK]

41. how rude!

what legislation- why don't you tell us about it?

[sandnsea]

88. You said he hadn't done anything

He has. Like I said, you don't know what's going on. You're just here to disrupt. You're the only one who knows the reason why.

[RangerRK]

112. You don't even know what he has done or you would tell us.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT KERRY HAS DONE TO MAKE SURE THE NEXT ELECTION ISN'T STOLEN?

It might start with his admitting that 2004 was stolen ya think?

[Terri S]

19. Does anyone here remember the Kerry 'joke' incident?

You know, the one where he was saying if you don't get an education you end up stuck in Iraq, speaking OBVIOUSLY about Bush, and Repubs and many Dems tried to say he was disrespecting the troops? You GOTTA remember... there were hundreds of posts about how despicably Dems treated Kerry. Not many stood up for him, knowing full well that it was a flubbed joke and knowing full well Kerry's record of supporting the troops..but you know, it was around mid-term election time and political futures always outrank standing up for what is right for some politicians. Dems were either telling him to apologize or were noticably cool and distant, not a one speaking out for him that I recall. What I do recall is Hillary Clinton coming out with the Repubs on it and saying his comment was 'unfortunate'. That was the day I wrote her a scathing letter, knowing full well she was anything but a stupid woman and knew exactly who Kerry was talking about. She was using it politically against one of her own because at the time a lot of people believed Kerry would get into the race for president.

Why should he run for president when members of his own party refused to stand up against the Repub smears, many echoing them?

[Inuca]

25. I remember

I wish I didn't.

[slipslidingaway]

83. I remember, a stab in the back by Hillary. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

31. Maybe he was tired of the abuse.

Look how much he gets even as a senator; imagine how they would amp it up if he ran for president again.

It's America's great loss that the 2004 election was stolen from him, but one can't blame him for not wanting to be run through that wringer again.

[EFerrari]

38. I agree, on all counts.

He probably just added a decade to his life span. Our loss.

[DaveJ]

43. He ran a perfect campaign in 04 and still lost...

So why would he expect to win this time? Some people just don't get him, they don't like him for hayseed reasons I can't comprehend. But people haven't changed that much since '04, so he'd stand little chance this time, especially against someone better than Bush.

[RangerRK]

47. perfect campaign to help elect Bush

By 2004 a clear majority were against the war- why didn't Kerry answer the will of the people? He offered us no choice but more war in Iraq.

[DaveJ]

51. Yeah well, thats another way of looking at it.

I also noticed instances where it appeared he was trying not to win. I'm just trying to keep my observations in the mainstream right now.

[EFerrari]

84. There's a mountain of evidence that election was stolen.

Credit where it's due.

[jgraz]

55. In this case "perfect" was truly the enemy of "good"

He seemed so concerned with making a mistake that he took no risks whatsoever. His caution was obvious from the outset, and it hurt not only his campaign, but the country as a whole.

We could have truly benefited from a knock-down, drag-out debate about Bush's role in 9/11 (not the tinfoil hat stuff, just his lack of action and his exploitation of the tragedy), but Kerry was so fearful that he ceded that entire issue to the Bush camp.

[DaveJ]

73. At least it was perfect enough to make all Democrats look good

It also made the country look foolish for (kinda) relecting who they did.

[Carolina]

79. Wrong, I didn't like

his IWR vote*
His August 2004 reply that yes, knowing what he knows now, he'd still have voted for IWR.
His failure to take on and fight the chickenhawks and swiftboaters (staying above the fray).
His failure to recognize and take on election theft by Diebold, voter roll purging of which there was ample evidence BEFORE he conceded.

* After being involved, and admirably so, in the investigations of Iran-Contra and BCCI, he knew what kind of people GHWB and his ilk --including son GWB-- were and should never have ceded power to the squatter-in-chief via his IWR vote. To this day, he can twist what that vote meant (or what he though he was voting for) but the bottom line is, it was a calculating political move (in opposition to the wishes of his MA constituents in 10/2002) that served him poorly (recall the apt RW meme: he was for the war before he was against it) but gave GWB political (as in bipartisan) cover to lead us down a path of lies. Thus Kerry showed moral and political cowardice and is in part responsible for where we are today.

The Kerry supporters here can flame me all they want, but the truth is the truth!

[cali]

46. Why are people still fighting the '04 campaign?

JK is a terrific Senator who ran as hard as he could in '04. I didn't support him in the primaries, but the Kerry bashing at DU drives me nuts.

[jgraz]

49. Because many have not learned the hard lessons contained therein

Plus, this is a discussion board. If we didn't keep endlessly rehashing old arguments, I might be forced to actually do some work. And that would truly be a tragedy.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Tragedy indeed. Preach on, brother.

[Carolina]

81. Because past is prologue

and there are some here who want JK to run and others who would rather not go through another thiefeat.

[blm]

115. Kerry won. DNC let RNC steal it. Now we have a new DNC strengthening party infrastructure

in all the states the last chair let collapse.

Had McAuliffe done the job we expected him to do after 2000's theft, then President Kerry would be in office.

But maybe McAuliffe WAS doing his job - Hillary2008 was operating long before 2004.

[wisteria]

134. Yeah, I have some involvement in local politics in my area and it amazes me how there is a push

now to clean things up and prepare people for the upcoming elections. Actually, I resent this push now, it should of been in place in 2000 and 2004.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Probably sick of turncoat grassroots "friends".

[wisteria]

135. Interesting point.It is a shame that those he defends turn on him like a screw.

I don't know of any other candidate who makes as strong an effort to reach out and listen to us more than Senator Kerry. And, what does he get back? Ignorant attacks that play right into Republican hands. Not everyone behaves like this, but unfortunately, the one who do are the ones the press play up and promote to benefit the Republicans.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

85. He's enjoying tasering Americans too much

:sarcasm:

Seriously, I like John Kerry, but his campaign was one of such missed opportunity. I watched him during the debates grin like the Cheshire Cat at any Bush misstatement and really thought he was going to pounce on Bush, but he never did. Very frustrating.

And yeah, I think he probably got screwed in Ohio and Florida, and shame on the Dems for sitting back and accepting it. I do however think there is a silent majority in this country who loves Bush for his "religious family values" and I think they will vote for a Rethug no matter what because of abortion and gay marriage. They just shut up about it and fly right under the radar.

[karynnj]

87. The reason he gave when he said he wasn't running

was that there were things that needed to be done now or whoever won in 2008 would face a situation worse than it than was. I think he knew that the Democrats would not converge around something like Kerry/Feingold if he were still running - because that would be seen as Kerry having led on the most important issue before the country in 2005 and 2006.

I also think that what the botched comment showed was that he could expect no support from the media or the party. Consider how the media reported the race in fall 2006 - Kerry and Edwards never polled at a significantly different level, though Edwards THEN (not now) got very positive press while Kerry got only negative press, even as he did everything Democrats wanted "somebody" to do. Yet the media played up Edwards chances, while nearly calling Kerry delusional. This ignoring the fact that they had to know that Kerry would improve his position through debates. Had Kerry continued, I doubt he would be in the lead - but he would pick up a large number of people who do not want Hillary, but think Edwards and Obama too inexperienced.

I think, if Kerry had decided in 2003 not to run - maybe for medical reasons, he would be a very strong candidate.

[LSK]

94. he botched a joke last year

[mogster]

104. I think he decided that he could do more as a senator

And maybe he was too tired after the 2004 campaign and frustrated by being blamed for not taking the stand in the aftermath.
He had really rotten advisors during the 2004 campaign; always two steps behind the Rovian machine, and with a certain flair for dumb branding ideas. Strange, because Kerry's internet supporters are very bright and up to speed.
I think he's a very good senator who has his attention in the right direction, and feel more confident about the future with Kerry in the senate.

[bbgrunt]

108. I have become very suspicious of not only the DLC but also

the broader democratic party. The Clintonistas had to appear to back Kerry while at the same time leaving an opening for Hill in 2008. They control not only the DLC, but the DNC as well. Why else would Hillary jump on board to squash any chance of a Kerry run this time--claiming that he should apologize for what was obviously a slip of the tongue and in no way denigrated the troops.

So why did he not fight? Because the ptb in the dnc let him know that he would be sabotaged from within.

[LittleClarkie]

113. Would be, and was, for my money, in Ohio

Some of his "friends" there weren't really his friends, if you know what I mean.

[dailykoff]

114. That's how it looks to me.

Kerry is a team player and his team said back off, so he did. Huge shame. I think he could have easily taken it, and I'm not at all sure HRC can get that far.

[blm]

116. Again, he'd be smeared as a 'conspiracy theory nut'as when he uncovered IranContra

and BCCI.

From within is right.


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

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



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

[wisteria]

136. Smart analogy. n/t

[gorekerrydreamticket]

118. He was crippled by the MSM over the botched joke gaffe, IMO...n/m

[rucky]

126. "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" n/t

[Mind_your_head]

127. Good question....

I guess he didn't sign/put his name on the GOP 'dance card' this time? :shrug:

[earth mom]

128. I don't think he wanted to be Prez.

Anyone who REALLY wanted the job would have fought like hell to make sure the votes were legit.

[wisteria]

131. He chose to prioritize his efforts to change the direction of the Iraq War.

As a candidate everything he said and did would be interpreted as efforts to win votes. And even though there were very likely operatives for another candidate working to "persuade" him not to run again, that did not make any difference. Senator kerry had and still has much support and respect from many people across this country. If Kerry thought he could be more effective as a candidate this time to get accomplished what he wanted to get accomplished he would of run no matter what the insiders had to say about it. That is the wonderful thing about Senator Kerry, he is his own man. If he ever decides to run again, I will be right there to support and vote for him. Our country would flourish with Kerry as our President.

[Le Taz Hot]

150. Simple.

Because Hillary was promised the nomination.

"We don't have choice in this country. We have the illusion of choice." -George Carlin

[EFerrari]

162. So, two of us think that. This was in the air since before she ran

in New York. :shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

155. The Bullshit factor

He decided not to run because he knew he didn't have the stamina to outrun the conservative media.

Not that that's a bad thing.

I think everyone has their limit as to how much bullshit they can take. I think the '04 campaign - the Swiftboaters, the negative press, the smearing. It was all too much.

Sometimes, you have to make a decision. He obviously felt he had a better role to play.