No more Kerry's...

[piechartking]

So number 1 is to re-take the House in 2014, which won't be easy because I'm sure the lines are drawn to favor Republicans. But when we look at 2016, I think that we can agree that the Democratic Party should never again nominate someone like Kerry.

I'm Asian, and I'm NOT racist, but I think that the party should nominate a minority or a Southerner, if they nominate a Caucasian. If you look at the demographics of the Democratic Party, someone like Obama clearly galvanizes and exploits those demographics. Not sure a northeastern Massachusetts guy would get the job done.

Thoughts?

[muntrv]

1. Kerry lost because of shenanigans in Ohio.

[TTUBatfan2008]

20. And not fighting the Swift Boat lies

And the "I was for it before I was against it" line regarding the Iraq War. He even used that line on Romney at this year's Democratic Convention.

[TTUBatfan2008]

23. Rove better watch his own back...

Those billionaires are going to call up their mob buddies.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. that swift boating thing was disgraceful

[backscatter712]

105. Kerry fell into the Wonk Trap.

Obama did that too in the first debate, but was fast enough on his feet as a campaigner to recover and whoop rMoney's ass in the other debates.

When he was asked why he threw away his medals from his Vietnam era service, he mumbled about how he just threw away the ribbons.

BZZZZZT!

He should have said "I did that to protest the continuing death and destruction of the Vietnam War, and to work to bring that conflict to a close."

He got caught up in semantics and explaining pointless details that fell right into right-wing frames, and didn't do enough to project Democratic values.

[politicasista]

108. Things sure change fast

Guess we are back to dumping on Kerry now. Facts never get in the way of Kerry hating.

[karynnj]

110. Kerry won all three debates. He was BETTER than Obama on this

That was part of the reason Axlrod spoke of when speaking of why Kerry was chosen. Not to mention, all the inside stories including direct comments by Obama, say that Kerry did push him in debates to attack Romney's lies. The Chicago people advised (wrongly against it).

There was no question on his medals in the debate. The question was on Meet the Press and was not at all as you suggest. It was intended as a gotcha questions. They had tape from the 1970s where Kerry asked about throwing his medals spoke of why they did it - and did NOT correct the person by saying he did not throw his medals (which were in Boston.) His answer in 2003 or 2004 was that the ribbons and the medals represented the same thing and he was proud of participating. (Had Kerry in the 1970s corrected the person, they would have attacked the answer as being similar to Clinton claiming he didn't inhale.)

As to that protest, you might want to check out kerry's speech on the 35th anniversary on the right to dissent - he is proud - and he should be of what he did in 1971.

[politicasista]

112. Kick for more facts n/t

[karynnj]

107. Both wrong

Kerry did fight back. He hit Bush harder than his VP, who should have been the attack dog did. At the end of the campaign Kerry was speaking of the fact that Bush's people left the KNOWN ammo dumps unsecured for months - and that ammo was beig used in the ied killing and maiming "our kids". Give me one charge in ANY campaign stronger than this - it is gross negligence and it led to kids being killed AND it led to a FAR more violent Iraq for teh Iraqis as well. He was also the one in 2003 and 2004 who criticized Bush for "outsourcing the capture of OBL" to Afghan warlords who were allied ith teh Taliban weeks before.

That was STRONG - so often, people mistake pounding fists, loud voices and red faces with fighting back - Kerry's dignified demeanor let him attack harder. (This cycle Edwards talked a good game of standing up to corruption - but Kerry actually had done it!)

As to the SBVT, Kerry did fight back:

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that tey had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

As to the before it before he was against it - the comment was shorthand to explain that he had been for the $87 billion supplemental war spending paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% - a version Bush said he would veto and against adding it to the debt.

[politicasista]

109. Kick

for facts.

[LynneSin]

29. Kerry was never a strong candidate and our campaign was basically 'Anyone But Bush'

And when you vote using 'Anyone But <fill in the name>' you tend to have a candidate that isn't getting the voters excited and ends up losing.

2004 was ours to win but Kerry wasn't the first choice of the hardcore progressives like those of us who regularly post at political blogs, read all the news sites and watch all the cable news shoes. In fact he was way down there behind Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark. If only those people active online voted Dean would have won in a landslide but because there's a whole world out there Kerry got the vote instead.

Don't get me wrong, I adored Kerry and I campaigned hard for him. But there was that something special missing that I felt when I worked campaigns for Clinton and Obama. Kerry had all the credentials of being a great president but he lacked that certain something you need to be a successful democratic presidential candidate. A strong democrat we wouldn't have to worry about Ohio being stolen because we would have picked up enough other states to cover the slack.

So the poster that said we need to find someone who isn't a Kerry - I have to agree! I think what was really exciting about 2008 was the fact that no matter who won that democratic primary we were going to make history and we had a candidate that would inspire us to get out there and campaign for them. I think Hillary would have had the same success as Obama had she won the nomination.

[politicasista]

30. Sounds like you don't like him

Guess it's ok to ridicule and hate on Kerry to praise Obama.

Just what did Kerry do to Obama today and since the election. Nothing.

Wonder what motivated people to show up for someone they didn't like? Crickets.

But guess that people will never forgive him for beating the favorites and have grudges towards him for helping Obama, E. Warren and Democrats.

Their loss. Keep doing your duty Senator. Haters gone hate.

[LynneSin]

35. I guess you never bothered reading the rest of the post

I adored the guy but he was not a strong campaigner. If he was he would have fought back on those Swiftboat comments early on before letting them spin out of control.

[politicasista]

38. No did read it, but

ProSense's comments are much more fact-based.

Guess those ralies don't mean anything because people that were there didn't like him and were ABB.

Thanks for letting the M.I.A. surrogates off the hook.

[zonkers]

106. So true. It fed into their portrayal of him as an elitist, moneyed and effete coward.

So far from the truth.

[politicasista]

111. Not really, some are just angry at Kerry because

favorties didn't make it, so instead of reading facts posted in this thread by Kerry supporters, people still berate and riducule Kerry anyway.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

92. I wasn't a Hillary person at all....

....harbored no ill will towards his backing of Obama in '08, and I pretty much agree with LynneSin's assessment.

John Kerry was our version of Mitt Romney.

Now before you jump down my throat (which you will anyway), John Kerry is a great man, an American hero, and has done more for this nation than Shitt Rmoney will ever do in a 100 lifetimes.

But let's toss aside the person and look at the politician.

He had a problem connecting with people. Not the people who showed up to rallies for him, many I assume who would have done the same if our 2004 nominee had been John Edwards, or Howard Dean, or Wes Clark. Partisans will show up to support the party regardless. I'm talking the average swing voter who isn't a Republican or a Democrat. He was aloof, not as much as Shitt, but enough to not sway and motivate certain folks who were swayed and motivated by Barack.

Shitt Rmoney got 58 million votes and a lot of people to show up to his rallies too. But in the end, I've always believed you can't beat something with nothing. And for whatever reason John Kerry didn't present himself as something to enough people. The GOP is choking on the same lesson we did in '04. Hating the other guy is not enough.

[politicasista]

101. Not going to jump down your throat

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Would just rather listen to people that were there and have factual posts to back it up, not spin like most of the comments in this thread.

[karynnj]

115. If Kerry would have been given what the media usually gives all candidates, he would have won

Note that unlike ALL other candidates none of the networks did puff biographies of him. Consider how the media pushed how likable Ann was and said that Romney's bullying as a teen was not important.

Kerry, by all accounts, is a genuinely nice man and there are NONE of those stories and many where he went far out of his way to help people who would never be in positions to help him.

Deval Patrick, who was negative on the campaign seemed to get it right when he said the problem was that most people never were able to know Kerry, who he called an "uncommonly decent man"" The fact is that Kerry won his races in Massachusetts by winning people over via retail politics. He was not the party or media favorite when he ran for Senate the first time or for LT Governor - he beat their favorite. He also got less media and party support in 2004 than other candidates - he won by meeting people in Iowa and NH and winning those two races. Only then did he get much media attention - though at that point, many in the media were pushing the "sunny John Edwards". When Kerry won 5 of the 7 contests on the next election day - in states that should have favored a Southern, they STILL did not concede that he was very very likely the nominee. Cnn called it a big win for Kerry and a smaller one for Edwards. In fact, Edwards who won just SC should have seen this day as a negative as these were states that he should have won if he were to be the nominee.

[ProSense]

32. Completely disagree.

Kerry ran a solid campaign. This was before the 50-state strategy. Kerry turned out young people. He built an Internet and grassroots organization. In fact, when Obama broke the single-day record for fundrasing, the previous record belonged to Kerry.

Kerry turned over his infrastructure to Obama in 2008. Kerry got 59 million votes in 2004!

Also, Kerry is far more progressive than Dean ever was.

[politicasista]

40. +1

[pstokely]

54. Has there even been strong presidential candidate from MA since JFK?

?

[LynneSin]

94. I think Teddy could have been

He just never got past the primaries

[politicasista]

125. Strange how so many in this thread are letting Edwards, MSM & MIA Dems off the hook n/t

[DURHAM D]

2. Can't think of any southern Democrat that has a remote chance of winning.

You?

[Art_from_Ark]

47. That's what they said in 1988

and 1972.

And if you want to go by historical precedent, with the exception of the Roosevelt-Truman years, it's been one or two terms and out for Democratic administrations since the Civil War*

*Al Gore would have made it 3 successive Democratic terms in 2000, but he was cheated out of his victory.

[DURHAM D]

98. I see you didn't mention a possible candidate from the south.

That was my point.

[Art_from_Ark]

99. Was anyone mentioning Jimmy Carter in 1972?

And Mario Cuomo was the odds-on favorite in 1988 to be the 1992 nominee. Bill Clinton gave such a long-winded speech at the Democratic National Convention in '88 that very few people outside of Arkansas at that time expected him to make a run for the 1992 nomination.

So it's probably too early to start pulling names out of the hat right now.

[JI7]

3. Kerry came close, he made some mistakes that if he could go back would give him the win

[garthranzz]

4. Get it straight: Bush/Cheney/Rove STOLE OHIO in '04

and suppressed votes in other states as well.

Kerry did not lose.

[lumpy]

5. Who ever is best for the job will be nominated, no matter ethnicity or regionality.

This is supposed to be a democracy.

[JI7]

6. so you would write off Elizabeth Warren ?

[ChoppinBroccoli]

11. I Would Pay Good Money To See............

...............a genius like Elizabeth Warren debate ANY of the buffoons considered front-runners for the Republican nomination in 2016.

[politicasista]

42. Good question n/t

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)

[piechartking]

43. No, I think Elizabeth Warren would be good!

She's got that folksy-appeal (Oklahoma) combined with super-duper intellect...I think she could totally get the job done. Not Southern, but definitely got that common touch and appeal.

[politicasista]

46. ok n/t

[ProSense]

7. "Thoughts?"

This is a strange post. Sort of out of the blue.

"But when we look at 2016, I think that we can agree that the Democratic Party should never again nominate someone like Kerry."

No, disagree because what the hell does that mean? Kerry isn't planning on running, and you seem to want everyone to agree to your notion of him. What's the point?

[Indpndnt]

25. No answers coming, it seems. The OP threw this out there 2 hrs. ago and hasn't been seen since.

I wonder why?

[piechartking]

44. I don't care if people agree or not...

I don't give two hoots if people agree, I was interested in hearing what people have to say. Clearly, many people feel that Kerry was imminently electable. I tend to disagree, because we ran him against a guy who couldn't fit sentences together and had absolutely zero sloshing between his ears, and still fucking lost. So, no, I don't agree that Kerry was a strong candidate.

I think a Barack Obama in '04 would have mopped the floor with Bush by virtue of the fact that he would have garnered more of the Hispanic, Black votes from Bush. I voted for Kerry, but I would have much rather voted for someone I was passionate about. And a lot of other Dems felt the same way.

[politicasista]

51. ...

Obama was still green. The country wasn't ready. He would have had a GOP controlled Congress/SCOTUS, and would have been a one-term pres.

[louis c]

8. I'm ready to work for Hillary

once the starting gun sounds.

That will solidify the demographics for a generation.

If we nominate Hillary in 2016, you will never see another Republican (as they are now constituted) elected President.

[cali]

9. gee. I think we should nominate the best person- regardless of gender or race.

[lumpy]

10. Truly...That is what democracy is all about.

n

[frogmarch]

12. If only there were

more Kerrys; that is, more politicians like John Kerry.

After I read your comment that our party shouldn't ever nominate someone like Kerry again, the rest of your post read "blah blah blah..." I may try to read it again later. Not sure.

[politicasista]

18. +1 n/t

[spanone]

13. i don't think we can agree on anything.

[sadbear]

14. We no longer need the South to win.

[marlakay]

16. I have a feeling Brian from Montana will run to

and I like him. Hillary is okay with me but i like the way Brian fights for what he believes in...

[uponit7771]

19. FDR was rich, won 4 different terms and by good numbers too...he was white and IN TOUCH with working

...people...and had tons of blacks vote for him IIRC.

We vote for someone a working person can relate to...I don't think any working person could relate to Gore but...but ...he still should've won if not for 20 - 40, 000 votes being caged in Florida.

I can understand you saying a person of color or a woman would instantly get the benefit of the doubt on relating to working people but it takes just a couple of screw ups on that front to take that image away..IF...IF the person we nominate can't relate to working people like FDR did.

Warren, Clinton etc....should be the ticket

[cynatnite]

22. Kerry still would've made for a hell of a president. He's a damn fine man! n/t

[politicasista]

24. They don't care

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Some will hate him no matter what (not talking about the OP).

Interesting.

Nobody liked Kerry because he was ____, so we were ABB.

Kerry gave a nice DNC speech and people screamed at him anyway. "Where were you 8 years ago?"

Kerry helped Obama in debate prep and surrogate work. "Nooo! We need ______" "He couldn't even beat Bush" "He didn't fight the SBV, Ohio, etc."

Guess people just love to ridicule Dems they don't like as a strategy to praise Dems the do like.

Keep doing your duty Senator. Haters gone hate.

[LynneSin]

31. Oh I agreed but he didn't run a good campaign

He let the Swiftboaters get the best of him. A stronger candidate would have gotten enough votes and state that Ohio wouldn't matter.

[ProSense]

33. This was 2004

Dean's campaign was ended by a scream.

One has to realize that the forces were working against Democrats and the most were unprepared for the spin machine built into the media by the GOP.

Things have changed. This year the spin was unleashed in full force, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars, and it failed.

[LynneSin]

36. Good points there

and honestly who knows how Dean or Kucinich or anyone else would have done in 2004.

[JI7]

45. you think Kucinich would have won in 2004 ? or even 2008 ?

[sabrina 1]

62. Progressive Dems had crossed anyone who voted for Bush's war off their list in 2004.

That left Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark and Carol Mosley Braun who were the most popular choices for Democrats at that time. Kerry had 3% support among Democrats and was not even noticed most of the time during the early stages of the campaign.

He was near the bottom of my list just above Lieberman who was at the bottom and I never expected him to be the nominee. This was before we realized that we the people do not get to choose the candidates, it is done for us.

I was a moderator on a big Progressive forum at the time and NO ONE even considered Kerry mainly because as I said all those who voted for Bush's war were, contrary to what they had thought when the voted for it, unpopular.

I remember watching C-Span and seeing Kerry campaigning and he was lucky if he had a dozen people around. Dean, Clark and Kucinich by contrast were bringing out crowds and in every poll online, Kucinich was the winner among Dems.

But as I said we were, many of us, unaware of how little it mattered who we wanted.

We were totally taken by surprise when Kerry emerged out of nowhere as the front runner. Which only goes to show how much power the Party leadership and whoever else decides these things, have.

Naturally once there was no other choice, we got behind Kerry who I knew very little about until then. When the SBV went after him, I was all over the Internet trying to refute the lies. But we noticed that we were virtually fighting alone. Kerry's campaign allowed those lies to fester for more than two weeks until Tweety of all people uncovered one of the SBVets in an interview back during the Vietnam years proving he was lying at the time, about his own claims.

I supported Kerry reluctantly and had to go against my pledge to myself never to support anyone who supported Bush's war in order to do so.

Anyone claiming that he was the choice of the base at the time, is not telling the truth. Most Democrats were furious at Hillary, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry and every other Dem who voted for Bush's war. I guess you had to be there to recall how strong those feelings were.

But we did get behind him when the others were knocked out of the race and it was, I'm sure people must remember this, 'anyone but Bush'. I learned more about Kerry during the campaign, and the more I learned, the more I liked the young Kerry and the more I could not understand the Kerry who voted for Bush's war.

[politicasista]

65. Would rather take ProSense,

JI7, and the DUK group's opinions. They are more fact-based and not media spin.

Not one person outside the DUK group has been able to answer the question, if Kerry was so bad and terrible, what motivate them to show up for someone that was so boring, wooden and a warmonger.

Sounds like The Boss, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and H. Thompson saw something different in Kerry than what people see here.

Sad that so many progressives have thrown him under the bus because of the past.

[sabrina 1]

67. I don't care what you 'would rather' believe. I have stated facts. Kerry was at 3%

during the early primaries and could not attract more than a few dozen people when he went out to campaign. I'm sure I can find some of that footage although most people who are not trying to rewrite history, already know these are facts.

His daughter was at one rally, with a very small crowd again I remember, and I recall feeling sad for her as it was clear she loved her dad and he was just not getting anywhere.

Mosley Braun who was a wonderful woman was far more popular than Kerry at that time. The debates were fantastic while all those anti-Bush war candidates were still involved.

Kerry suddenly jumped from 3% to the lead and shocked a lot of people who had not even considered him.

Frankly the way all that happened woke up a lot of us who we realized were pretty naive until then. We actually thought we got to choose who would run. The most popular candidates were eliminated and in the end so was Kerry.

Kerry from 3% to front runner is something I will never forget.

[JI7]

69. Kerry was higher than 3 percent before he went down to 3 percent with prostate cancer

and media whores writing off his campaign.

i know many like you only follow big media whores, but a lot of work is done on the ground and that's how kerry gained.

[sabrina 1]

80. You know nothing about me. I was on an independent news site as a moderator at that time

and never even turned on the media which I could not stand to watch it was so filled with lies. We cancelled cable at that time fyi so I was mostly free of any media garbage.

So if your certainty about what you know about me is any indication of what you know about that election, I will stick with the facts that I know.

[JI7]

81. and i was on the ground and talked to other people on the ground in iowa, nh and elsewhere

and it's a fact that Kerry was higher in the polls before he fell down to 3 percent.

[sabrina 1]

89. And I was on the ground also and it is a fact that Kerry and any candidate who voted

for Bush's war were the least popular among Democrats. That was such a huge issue that Gephardt and Edwards decided to apologize for their votes in order to get any support at all. Throughout 2003 Dean was the front runner and when Clark entered the race he generated a lot of enthusiasm also.

Interesting also that Dean's money all came from ordinary people so despite being the front runner, Kerry who no one was paying much attention to in 2003, at least not ordinary people, had over 7 million dollars for his campaign, most of it obviously coming from wealthy donors. But we were not aware of the role such donations play in our political system back then. If we had been we would have known that despite his popularity, Dean never had a chance of being allowed to win.

Edwards, also a traditional candidate, unlike Dean and Clark, managed to have several million dollars for his campaign also. Dean did surprise everyone by raising several million from his online campaign making him a definite threat to the traditional candidates Kerry and Edwards who were obviously favored by the power brokers.

In the end, Dean was basically pushed out of the race. And it came down to the more 'acceptable' candidates, by DC standards, Kerry and Edwards and even Lieberman who was at the bottom of the list as far as popularity goes, yet he was provided with millions of dollars also. The wealthy place their bets on candidates they know THEY can trust.

We know now that money talks in politics. Kerry, Edwards and even the unpopular among the people, Lieberman had the wealthy donors to provide them with money.

Dean and Clark relied on the people for their money. They were the people's choice. And the people do not get to make that kind of choice as the money provided for Kerry and Edwards demonstrate. If all of them had to earn that money as Dean did, Dean would most likely have been the nominee. Clark maybe would have been his VP, although Clark himself did not want that position.

ETA, I also worked for a top Dem Fund Raiser and got to see close up what the people with money were doing and who they wanted as their candidate, and it wasn't Clark or Dean or Kucinich or any of the others who were the people's choice.

[karynnj]

117. Dean had far more money than Kerry

Kerry loaned himself six million to compete in Iowa and NH. He did this because he was NOT getting the money from the big money people. People close to him have said that they advised him against doing this. He won the nomination through meeting people in Iowa and winning them over. At that time, his money had nearly dried up - with one day that Mary Beth Cahill spoke of where she made a donation because none were made that day. The contests started early the next year - so you really can't honestly claim that in November/December/ January the big money people were behind Kerry. As to the media - go use google - and you will find that almost all the media he got simply questioned if he would drop out after Iowa.

That compared to $40 million Dean had. Kerry was seen as antiwar in early 2003 by many who listened to what he was saying.

Clark was the Clintons' favorite and he raked in a lot of money in the last quarter of 2003.

[politicasista]

70. He reached somebody

The DU Kerry group people have a different view. Some of them were at those rallies and other events and they have a more positive view. Didn't follow the primaries because was a first time voter, but sounds like it was nasty then.

Anyhow, the Senator will keep working for progress despite the ridicule from the right, left, and center; and the brickbats thrown at him. That is a person of integrity and it is unfortunate that so many will never realize or see that.

To each his own.

[sabrina 1]

72. The primaries were not nasty then at all. They were exciting and hopeful. We had so many

great Progressive candidates who were among the first Dems to come right out and call Bush on his lies, on the war and on torture, people like Kucinich had no compunction doing that. You have to know that back then the media was afraid to tell the truth. Everyone had been silent on Bush's crimes, UNTIL the primaries. It was wonderful.

Kerry was the least interesting candidate, but aside from that, he had voted for Bush's war and was basically barely noticed. Most people knew little about him anyhow, other than his vote for Bush's war. Which at that time was a major issue for Democrats.

But once he became the nominee I remember we began to learn more about him. We had to support him but so many people just did not feel enthusiastic about him. However when I learned about his background I saw a different person and felt that maybe that person would re-emerge if he were elected. That was all we could hope for.

Clark was my choice or Dean once Kucinich and Mosley Braun were out.

[politicasista]

75. Still haven't answered the question tho

If Kerry was what people say than why did all those people show up for someone that was a warmonger and everything the the media said he was. So far crickets.

Guess they were just there to see The Boss and Big Dog Clinton. That's what the media said.

Again, will take the facts of those that were actually there and admire Senator Kerry and still do till this day. And the vets and others that had/have his back and still do.

The kids in the pics also saw something different that what was reported here, and as Obama has said, paraphrasing that kids know a bullsh-ter when they see one.

Guess you are poo-pooing his Senate BCCI work and environmental record too. That's not "progressive" or "liberal" enough for you.

[sabrina 1]

84. That question has been answered. People like me who supported candidates who had

had stood up to Bush and refused to support his illegal war which it was so clear was based on lies, had no choice in the end but to support the Democratic candidate.

No Democrat was going to let Bush get a second term no matter how unenthusiastic they might have been about the fact that we had to forget that Kerry HAD voted for Bush's war, which at that time was a huge issue with Dems.

The campaign was AGAINST BUSH rather than FOR anyone. Getting rid of Bush was the primary reason for any enthusiasm in that election. We thought that if we could do that, we would see the War Criminals prosecuted and the war ended. That was enough to get people out to support whoever opposed him.

The slogan, which should give a clue to how enthusiastic people were about getting rid of Bush during the campaign was 'ABB' = 'Anyone But Bush'.

[politicasista]

87. Nope it hasn't

It's been dodged, but that ok.

You are too busy screaming at Kerry to notice the factual posts in this thread.

Those close to Senator Kerry and DU Kerry group have told the factual stories. Some of those are/were self-described progressive, liberals. Hopefully they will continue to be heard over the screaming.

Guess Kerry's stance on the environment or other important issues doesn't mean squat either.

[sabrina 1]

90. You are too busy conjuring up motives for people that you are not paying attention to

to what people are saying. I worked for Kerry. But he was not my first, second or third choice BECAUSE he voted for Bush's war. That to me and to millions of other Dems demonstrated very bad judgement.

However, once he become the candidate, he got our support. I would have preferred Clark and or Dean, most of all, Kucinich, but none of those candidates we know now ever had a chance of being allowed close to the WH. We are only allowed to think we are making choices in the primaries.

The MONEY goes always to the choices of the Powerful. Which is why Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards, all establishment candidates, were being funded even as early as 2003 when Dean was the front runner. Had we known then what we know now, we would have known that front runner/people's choice, or not, Dean was never going to get the support of those that matter most, those with the money to put behind the candidates THEY choose.

[politicasista]

103. Sounds like Faux news n/t

[JI7]

83. and most people didn't think Kerry wanted war, just like most people don't blame Obama for the

economy. just because he wasn't interesting to you doesn't mean he wasn't to others. he made it without the media whore attention the others got.

and most people did not know little about him. there was more on him out in public from his younger days through the time he was running than anyone else. it was what helped him win.

[sabrina 1]

86. If Kerry didn't want war, he should have joined Kucinich, Byrd and all the other Dems who

refused to vote for the AUMF. Anyone who thought that Bush would not abuse any power given to him, had extremely bad judgement or they supported going to war with Iraq.

Later some of them, Gephardt and Edwards eg, said they had made a mistake. So did anyone, Hillary and Kerry who gave Bush that power and we need people in power who get it right the first time. Which is why Gephardt and Edwards were never on my list of candidates either. Or Hillary.

[karynnj]

118. Kerry spoke of the vote being wrong before Hillary or Edwrds

The fact is that Kerry when he voted as he did spoke of the promises Bush made and said if they were not followed, he would speak out. He did - On January 22, he spoke at Georgetown saying that we should "not rush to war". He said it would not be a war of last resort.

This was a Catholic (Jesuit) University where most - if not all - of the audience would know just how strong saying something was not a war of last resort is. It means it is an immoral or unjust war.

Not to mention, it is not at all clear that Dean would have not voted the same. In October 2002, he said that he prefered the SFRC resolution - Biden/Lugar - just as Kerry did. But that was not the bill voted on. Dean's own preference, for a resolution would have been even easier for Bush to have violated.

Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.

HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879
(I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.

Dean said he would support Biden/Lugar, Kerry's preferred resolution and there was no quote I could find in 2004 where Dean said before or even shortly after the IWR that he would vote against it. Both Kerry and Dean ruled out invasion for regime change. The biggest difference was that Kerry had to vote.

The similarity was that neither had they been President would have taken us to war. From some quotes, Edwards would have.

[sabrina 1]

122. Thank you for your response. I knew about Dean's statements. Which is why my choice

was Gen. Clark at the time. However, all those who gave Bush that power should have known better. WE knew better.

I remember the day of that vote and how disappointed I was that any Democrat was willing to trust a man who it was clear could not be trusted.

After that, even when some of them admitted they made a mistake, I decided we need leaders who get these important issues right the first time. Saying 'oops' later, after so many lives have been lost is a failure in judgement. Which is why I do not want Hillary to run either.

It's time for some new candidates, we keep getting the same people as if this country doesn't have thousands of qualified, intelligent people who are capable of doing the job. It almost seems like there is a small pool of 'acceptable' candidates chosen, not by us, but by those who have the money and the power to do so.

[karynnj]

123. Clark's statements were not crystal clear either

In addition, after initially seeing him as a knight in shining armor, there were many cracks that appeared. He had never run for anything, so there were gaffes. In addition, I did not trust that he was even a real Democrat. I was impressed by his work as a surrogate for Kerry.

I looked closely at Dean and Kerry - liking them both. I played around looking at what they said and did in 2001 and 2002. My conclusion was that they were closer than Trippi portrayed them to be. The more that I looked at their histories, the more I preferred Kerry. However, what I really wanted was for one of them to get the nomination and feared that they would be pulling from similar populations. Had I been polled (which I wasn't) in November 2003, I would have said Dean, as CW was he had a chance and Kerry didn't.

[sabrina 1]

124. Clark absolutely opposed the war. He made some confusing statements only once. That

was mainly due to inexperience in handling the press after the capture of Saddam Hussein and they attempt to attack him for his stand on the war.

I had the opportunity to ask him some questions during that time, regarding how he would withdraw and what plans he had to make sure that Iraq would be stable and if he thought that was possible.

I asked him three questions, he answered all three of them, it was on a very heavily trafficed public forum, and he put his words in writing. It was more than clear that he knew exactly what needed to be done to get us out of there and that he had given it much thought. I was thrilled with his response frankly as it was the most detailed response to those kinds of questions from any of the candidates.

What I found out since that election was something we did not know at the time. While Dean (although he did try to tell us, we just didn't know enough at the time) received most of his money from a true grass roots base, even when Kerry was barely noticeable to most Democrats, Kerry had already received millions of dollars from wealthy donors. So had Edwards and Liebermann.

Even with that, Dean succeeded in surprising them by outdoing even that money, and all of it was from ordinary people.

I realize now the reason for that money going to what were the 'establishment' candidates, the 'safe' candidates who would not rock the boat for the MIC or Wall Street.

So it really was never possible for a true grass roots candidate like Dean or Clark (whose money also came from ordinary people) to win the party's nomination. That is still the case and that is why we need to get the money out of politics. Dean and Clark were the people's choice, Dean being the front runner throughout 2003 but none of the people's choices, Al Sharpton, (who people forget, took money from Repubs) Kucinich Dean were ever going to get money from those who actually make these choices.

That election taught us that we the people do not make the choice of who has a shot at the WH. That is decided from a small pool of candidates by people with big money. And big money probably doesn't care much which party's candidate wins once they've eliminated all those they do not want. They let us choose the eventual winner. But we never really have the kind of choices we would like to have.

[karynnj]

127. In the last three months of 2003, Kerry was NOT getting much from

big money donors. There are people who had supported Kerry in his Senate campaigns and were impressed with him for years - and they contributed to his Presidential campaign. Dean had some big money donors as well. He had fewer as he was not from DC and was not known as well.

Clark was a BIG money candidate, who came out of nowhere - with Bill Clinton calling him a star. Dean was clearly the internet's favorite, but it is completely unfair to say that he was the "people's" favorite. Iowa's caucuses are not won by money, but by people - and 38% of the people went for Kerry - just 18% for Dean. That was the first real test and Kerry, who did not have media or party support, won.

As to Iraq, Kerry had very clear answers on Iraq - that the media completely distorted or ignored. I think it is great that you asked Clark and liked his answer, but in all honesty, did you ever ask Kerry?

[politicasista]

128. Kick for truth n/t

[JI7]

71. and there were Republicans shocked at Romney's loss , if you go by big media

you would be shocked. if you pay attention to facts and other shit the media whores are too stupid to report you wouldn't be shocked.

[sabrina 1]

78. Well if I had ever relied on our propaganda machine you would have a point.

I think most Democrats by the time 2004 came around, knew better than to pay any attention to the media.

[LynneSin]

95. I don't think he could have but I think Dean could have won

but we'll never know

[politicasista]

100. Not really

The Rovian machine was waiting for any Democrat.

[karynnj]

116. Neither would had the ability in the debates that Kerry had

The ONLY two exposures that most had to Kerry were the debates and the convention.

As to Kucinich, he might have lost every state!

[cynatnite]

50. Remember the definition of marriage crap that got put on ballots across the country?

A Karl Rove production all the way.

[politicasista]

57. And Kerry got blamed from someone tweeting him for looking the other way

when the LGBT laws were passed. Why they aren't attacking people like Rove is mindboggling.


Senator Kerry will never, ever catch a break with anyone. No matter what he does, it will never be good enough.

[politicasista]

34. Guess the media and the M.I.A. Dem surrogates are off the hook.

Rove loves it when we keep blaming ONLY Kerry.

[LynneSin]

37. They did the same thing to Obama in 2008 and 2012

and even though there were voting issues in states like Ohio and Florida, the turnout was in such a way that it didn't impact Obama in the end.

[politicasista]

39. And he had Dem surrogates that sided with him, not against him

the password is "surrogates." Obama had them. Kerry did not.

[cynatnite]

49. No, he didn't take the swiftboaters seriously...

A lot of folks didn't take them seriously, but eventually it got traction and by the time he took it seriously the damage was done.

We do a lot of armchair political strategizing here at DU and it's really easy to say what we "think" should've been done or not done.

[politicasista]

60. Thanks to Cahill and Shrum

It's a shame that Senator Kerry will always be labeled the poster Democrat for not fighting back.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. +1000!

[kwolf68]

27. ......indeed

[link:|

[LiberalAndProud]

28. If find racism of all stripes distasteful.

Content of character -- that is how I choose to measure people. I find your assessment of Kerry offensive in the extreme.

[politicasista]

48. +1 n/t

[piechartking]

41. I'm the OP, and I'm sorry I offended anyone, but that's just my opinion...

I've always felt this way, ever since '04 when I thought that (on paper), Wesley Clark was a great fit (turns out that he wasn't so great at campaigning or speaking) because of his Southern roots.

Now, it seems that Obama can win without the South (Thank GOD!), but I still think Southern plays better in the Midwest than Northeast liberal. And I think minority plays better with minorities than older Caucasian male.

But don't want to leave out the ladies - I think Hillary would be great (and having Bill campaigning HAS to be an overall plus), and yes, didn't think of Elizabeth Warren, but she would be great too.

Just not a northeastern liberal. I have nothing against the region, in fact when we return to the US, we've already decided we want to live in New England for a while (give the South a break....phew, it can be tiring with the relatives).

[Blue_In_AK]

52. John Kerry would have been an exceptional president.

[politicasista]

53. Must be all the SOS rumors

have brought the bashers/haters out. Just strange.

[Blue_In_AK]

55. JK as sec of state would be outstanding.

He is a very principled man with tons of foreign policy experience and a deep understanding of the USA's foibles.

[politicasista]

58. +1

Even though wouldn't want MA have Porno Brown.

[piechartking]

56. I think Kerry would have been a great Prez, will be great in the Cabinet...

Just don't think he was a great Presidential candidate. I voted for him, but I wasn't excited.

Politicasista, you can say what you want, but I'm just trying to continue the wins. The fact that Kerry lost (no matter what people say about Ohio) the popular vote to W, who had worse grammar than my 9 year old, and paid attention in school, all told probably 58 minutes, is plenty of evidence to the weakness of Kerry as Presidential candidate.

That's not hatin', that's just the facts. Of course he would have been great as President, but you gotta get elected first, and I don't want to lose in 2016 because we nominate our own version of Mitt Romney, whom everyone looks at and is like, "Meh"

[politicasista]

59. Ok. Obama was green in 04

and wasn't ready. No Democrat would have beaten Bush. The Dems taking back 2006 paved the way for Obama or any Democrat, including a rebuilt infrastructure in Ohio, 50 state strategy. The media is worse now, but it was terrible then.

It makes it seem like you are singling out Kerry as the poster Dem for all the Democrats problems' the last few election cycles.

And Kerry is noting like Romney. Romney is a zero. Kerry is a patriot and person of integrity.

[piechartking]

61. No, not singling Kerry out.

I really am sorry if it seems like that, but I would have picked on any candidate that the Democrats nominated who we did not love completely. I like Kerry personally, but was never in love with the candidacy. I still like him, loved him on Morning Joe the other day after the 2nd debate. But because liberals do not "fall in line", because we do not "do what we're told" like lemming Republicans, I think it's imperative that we have to nominate inspirational leaders.

I felt in my bones that Obama was that - I liked Kerry, but I didn't get that "feeling". I didn't mean to offend anyone, and probably could have put it in more civil terms. Good thing I'm not running for anything, we wouldn't get out the starting gate!

[politicasista]

63. Ok. Fair enough

Apologies for the over the top posts, they are toned down now. ):

[bluestate10]

64. We should focus on holding Congress seats and making a few pickups in 2014.

I was sad to see that Kathy Hoschul lost in NY, may be she will be back in 2014. Our activities in 2014 should focus on taking back state legislatures, we flipped several, but republicans gained more control in three. A lot of bad republican Governors are coming up for re-election in 2014, including Scott, Walker and the moron in Pennsylvania. We should be able to harvest Governor seats.

[bluestate10]

66. Beyond Clinton, our bench is as thin as the republican bench.

We have a few young players coming up that makes our side far superior beyond 2020. We don't have an Obama that I can see for the 2016-2020 elections, so it looks like Hilary is the best choice. Republicans are in even worst shape, unless someone like Colin Powell is willing to take their bullshit and carry their standard in 2016. I don't see Christie surviving a primary in that party and if they nominate a person with criminal and ethical stains like Rubio, our side will slaughter them. I love our bench in 2024 and beyond, we have a tremendous crop of younger politicians coming up.

[piechartking]

73. I agree that we need to focus on 2014

Get those governors out, get the Republicans in the districts out. Although with the way the districts are drawn, it will be tough.

As far as a bench, who do you remember from the DNC? I just remember Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro. (I do love though, that we are not ashamed of our past administrations, ahem Bush and Cheney, noticeably absent from the RNC)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

93. We have been lucky....

....to have two very gifted politicians in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in successive generations. The problem is when Obama is not on the ballot, people don't turn out, and I fear going forward what we're going to have to do.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. charisma does seem to be a must these days

I don't think race has as much to do with it as you just can't nominate a boring candadite. It just doesn't work these days. You have to have someone that can fire people up and get them excited.

[politicasista]

76. Strange. Kerry had charisma in 2000, but none in 2004

even the media said that.

But guess it is more popular to ridicule and disrespect Democrats we don't like.

[liberal_at_heart]

79. I never said I didn't like him

I think it is rather sad that candadites have to be popular to get elected. We should be electing who is best for the job not who is most popular.

[politicasista]

82. You're fine

Do agree that is sad that style trumps (no pun intended substance, but this is the American Idol-climate we live in now.

Was just venting that there seems to be lot of ridicule at Gore and Kerry to praise the brilliance of Candidate/President Obama. That is not what Obama needs. It only plays right into the hands of the GOP and Rove.

[standingtall]

85. We should nominate candidates

That best represent our values regardless of their race, sexual orientation, gender or what region of the country their from period. Democrats don't play identity politics that's a repuke thing.

[piechartking]

88. Pretending that demographics don't exist is also...

a Republican thing. I wrote a paper in law school about the Supreme Court striking down what seattle schools were trying to do because they were mandating diversity (what I would think is a good thing, right), on the grounds that such a policy discriminated against white kids.

The Court used Brown v. Board of Education for Christ's sake. And Robert's line was "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It was bullshit, conservative verbal diarrhea devoid of context, unmindful of the fact that white kids and minority kids in many cases (NOT ALL) start out in vastly different places.

So I disagree when I hear fellow liberals saying that we should not take race into account. Maybe it's just a Pavlovian response, but it makes me shudder thinking of conservatives and their bullshit.

[standingtall]

91. Not pretending demographics does not exist

Whites are not yet a minority they are in fact a plurality in America. Alienating 40% of the democratic base is not a winning strategy. Instead of just assuming we don't need the South because we could have won this election without it is also a mistake. We have made a dent into the Southeast with Virginia and Florida. We should now look to make further dent into that region. Instead of being satisfied with 39% of the white vote we should be trying to get the other 61% because if an organization isn't growing it's dying.

For example if a buffoon like Herman Cain would've been the republican nominee, and he were running against a white progressive I guarantee Herman Cain would just get crushed in the African American vote. People are better than identity politics which is why it doesn't work for repukes. Voters would rather vote for someone who thinks, and feels the way they do over someone who simply looks like them any day.

[Marrah_G]

96. We should nominate the best person for the job

Regardless of where they are from, what race they are, what gender or religion they are. Elections matter and this is not a sporting event.

[madinmaryland]

126. ^^^^ +1 fucking thousand!!

[quaker bill]

97. It works like this

if the coalition that re-elected the President goes to the polls in the primaries in 2016, we will nominate someone they approve of. If they hang back and wait for the general to start voting, they may face a choice they like less. That is pretty much it every time. This stuff is not a spectator sport. You raise the money, you knock on the doors, you make the phone calls, you win. "the party" does not nominate anyone, we do, or we don't, by our collective actions alone.

[Mc Mike]

102. Un recced. no text.

[karynnj]

104. Senator Kerry nearly pulled off an incredible victory in 2004

All models that were based on the economy and the President's approval had Bush winning easily. In fact, in November 2003, he was better positioned than any President - including Reagan - for re-election all the way back to Eisenhower.

Democrats who say everybody hated Bush are as silly as Republicans claiming everybody hated Obama - they are considering their self selected friends as representative of the country.

Throw in that the media condoned a character assassination of both John Kerry and his wife, the Catholic Church in some areas made abortion the key issue for their parishioners, and the new McCain/Feingold law gave Kerry the same money to spend over 13 weeks that Bush had for 8. (McAuliffe picked an early date not considering this effect long before Kerry won the primaries.) and gave rise to the 527s such a the SBVT.

Still and all, he would have won if there were adequate voting machines in Ohio. The solution for 2008 and 2012 was early voting that owed part of its success to what happened in 2004 and the anger over that.

Obama did not win because he was a minority - he won because he was Obama and - in 2008, the winner of the Democratic primaries was almost certain to win the Presidency. In the general election, he was far better than he had to be.

Part of the problem is that you are looking at a very small number of data points - and obviously you are looking back less far than 1960. The fact is the last 4 ELECTED to the Presidency were Obama, Clinton, Carter, and JFK. (LBJ was elected only after he became President on the death of JFK) So, in the last 4 Presidents one was from MASSACHUSETTS. Had there been a fair election in 2004, 2 of the last 5 elected Democratic Presidents would have been from MA.

[Jack Sprat]

113. Isn't it the repub state legislatures

doing the redrawing of districts to favor their party? We need to concentrate far more on promoting and backing state level Democratic majorities. We have overlooked this too long already.

[democrattotheend]

119. It makes me sad that it will probably be another 30 years

before I have a presidential candidate that I am as excited to vote for as Obama. My mom says candidates like him only come along once a generation. So far I am not excited about anyone who has been mentioned for 2016.

[tarheelsunc]

120. Which one of those categories did Kennedy fit into?

[politicasista]

121. Kicking for the REAL, truthful facts in this thread

and for those sticking up for Senator.