I suggest Kerry was maneuvered (unwittingly) into position in the primary

[MindLikeAParachute]

I'm not comfortable taking the stance that Kerry intentionally threw the election (although I'm not thrilled with the post-election walkaway), and certainly not because of any Skull and Bones thing.

And although I think there was some vote rigging - perhaps enough to tip it in a close race in Florida and Ohio - there wasn't enough to tip it in a nationwide landslide.

The Bush reelection team - albeit often unethical and at least definitely fans of dirty play - is, you have to concede, shrewd and effective. Unethical, yes, plays dirty, yes, but also shrewd and effective.

One of the ways to win is to define the playing field to begin with. In this case, one of the most critical things to define is your opponent. Rove & co certainly know this. They might be slimy, but they're smart and they think ahead.

The major likely candidates, if I recall, were Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. Daschle was marginal, the rest (Kucinich, Sharpton et al) not likely.

Out of all of those, which would the GOP most likely want to run against?

Dean was quite dangerous - he had a groundswell of support, and seemed like the heir apparent. He was a doctor, supported gay civil unions (this could be good or bad, depending on the audience), and had a McCain-like air to him.

Edwards was not as dangerous - he had boyish good looks, was very sharp, but because he was a one-term Senator, he was unlikely, but he could have pulled a Clinton-esque end run. He was a possibility, not the most likely possibility, but enough to be dangerous.

Clark, I think, was extremely threatening. Former NATO Supreme Commander (did I get that right?), West Point graduate, valedictorian, I think a Rhodes scholar, author of several books, spoke several languages, and he would never be perceived as weak on defense.

Kerry also was potentially dangerous, but he had a lot of weak points and contradictions. He was a war hero, but he was also a war protestor. He grew up a Boston Brahmin and later married into major money. He was a Senator from massachusetts, which just was going through the whole gay marriage thing. He didn't speak plainly, although he was clearly smart.

I argue that of all they people there, Kerry was the weakest candidate, and that's Rove/Bushco wanted to run against. Kerry was also in the senate for 20 years - they knew this guy and what he was like. Edwards, not so much.

Dean, one of the most dangerous because of his incredible Internet following and grass-roots support, had as a liability his "let's charge!" demeanor. When they finally got the clip they wanted "the scream", the GOP bounced it all around the echo chamber until they raised their own "Can Dean possibly survive this?" "Hard to say, Trish - looks bad", and basically he was done.

Clark was dangerous as a potential candidate, but his main liability was that he declared his candidacy way too late (he had never campaigned before, I belive) and so missed out on a lot of fundraising. The GOP shut him down in the opposite way from Dean - they gave Clark basically no media attention at all. He suffocated.

This left Edwards and Kerry, and Edwards had limited experience, so then the GOP media machine started pushing Kerry as the frontrunner, and before you know it, there he is, expected to win the nomination.

Just so you know, I liked Kerry at the end - he got his message out in a language people could relate to, and he kicked a** in the debates.

Unfortunately it was too little, too late. The GOP oppo research team (which digs up stuff on opposition candidates) knew Kerry very well - he was in the senate for 20 years, and over time, with enough statistics and votes, you can make anything appear negative. He had Mary Beth Cahill as campaign manager, a person not known for the kind of campaign he'd be needing, he originally spoke in "lofty aspiration" Senate paragraphs, not Bush's one-liners. Kerry was too intellectual, too lofty. Clark was intellectual too, but I'm pretty sure you didn't hear him equivocating like Kerry was. Kerry was from a state with a gay marriage clause. Liberal, liberal, liberal.

Kerry had a mixed vietnam era record - excellent in the war, but a "commie, anti-american" protester after it. That would give them something to assail, unlike Clark, who was Supreme NATO commander or whatever.

I think that Kerry's problems in the election, at least until the last 2 months, were better known to Rove and Bushco, than they were to Kerry himself. I think Rove and Team Bush knew exactly what kind of candidate they'd have in Kerry and they moved to shut down Dean and Clark to leave room for Kerry.

Edwards, being new, was less of a problem; they probably could have dealt with either, but Edwards was a dangerous opponent in a charismatic Clinton sort of way, and so the best way to shut Edwards down was simply make it a two-horse race (Kerry vs. Edwards) and then push Kerry through the front by virtue of the fact of simply declaring it so.

Now, without realizing it, or how he got there so fast, Kerry is in the race, not really geared up for that kind of front-runner status, and the campaign really floundered over the summer while the GOP attack machine, having exactly the target they wanted, went after him knowing he'd react (or not react) exactly as he did, and by the time Kerry could see what was happening, it was too late.

Kerry still got better in the last two months, particular after the debate, and held his own (and I say he won), but the GOP was able to get the candidate they wanted and force, at best, a close race; close enought that vote rigging and whatever other shenanigans could take over.

Had Clark or Dean pushed us to a 70/30 poll split, I don't think the GOP could arrange (or explain) a Bush victory, but by getting the candidate they wanted, they were just able to pull it off.

Comments?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Dean was the populist candidate and was smeared by the media

after the scream episode.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[BlueEyedSon]

19. The scream was, in context, totally appropriate... almost a non-event.

According to eye-(ear-?)witnesses, if you were in the room you could barely hear Dean, even the scream moment. The din of jubilation in the room was that loud!

When you listen to a recording from Dean's stage microphone - which only recorded his voice and none of the room/crowd noise - the scream is what it is, but it is out of context. The news media played only that recording.

For a truly upsetting experience, how about teaching your birds some of Bush's malapropisms?

[Benhurst]

46. I was disturbed by CNN's first version; but when I heard Dean

context, weeks after the damage was done, it was almost impossible to hear what he was saying over the crowd's noise.

For the tape to have been released the way it was, had to be sabotage.

[bunny planet]

25. Now that is a funny image.

[merh]

29. I love African Greys ...

They make the best pets. I had one that died rather young (heart attack) and I miss him. Wish you were near by that I could come visit your greys.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[candice]

86. I have a Grey

but can't find what you are referring to. Mine does scream!

[MarkusQ]

30. What was scary was how it was manufactured. (n/t)

[Withywindle]

34. ROFLMAO!!

Oh, that's brilliant! I would love to hear that!


OT, but if you haven't heard of them already, you and your son might want to check out Hatebeak.

[Mojorabbit]

60. Oh this is too cute!

I have a grey and does he have a trashmouth.

[mother earth]

31. Totally agree with BlueEyedSon

it was 100% media destruction of a candidate that would have given Bush a real fight, in more ways than one.

[AmerDem]

2. here's a comment

I don't agree at all.

[MindLikeAParachute]

4. How so? n/t

[AmerDem]

21. for starters

Anyone saying "although I think there was some vote rigging - perhaps enough to tip it in a close race in Florida and Ohio - there wasn't enough to tip it in a nationwide landslide." As been shown here the over and over Ohio and Florida are often used because of the immediate effect on the presidential race. Ohio alone would have ousted shrub. The fraud is nation wide. The patterns used to suppress the vote the machines doing the counting exist from one end of the country to the other.

Are you keen on having repuked owned companies providing machines they hold proprietary license software that not only totals the votes but can be written to do anything they wish it to do? Without first getting these very basic point across in your own mind the rest of your ideas amount to nothing.

[MarkusQ]

33. I think you are missing his point.

It's much easier to rig a close race, because people literally don't know who's going to win, and therefore it's almost trivial to downplay post election objections.

If you can rig a general, you can rig a primary. And if you plan to rig a general, you should rig the primary to give you a controlled road to the general.

The nationwide landslide point you are objecting to works they same way--it's part and parcel with what any responsible election rigger would do to cover their tracks.

--MarkusQ

[AmerDem]

38. No, I know you are missing the point.

You throw around words like landslide, why? Perhaps because the media has been saying shrub won country wide by 3.5 million votes? You can't use words like landslide when voting fraud was nation wide. After starting your post with a thought like this you try to further state Kerry was actually maneuvered into winning the primary. Do you honestly think Rove and shrub wanted to go up against Kerry's war record. Without the Swift Boat Liars they were done and the only reason the SBL were effective was because of Shrum and Caihill's total ineptness in running his campaign.

Start to finish your lengthy post is based on spoon fed MSM talking points and delusional assumptions.

[MarkusQ]

42. Point by point

You throw around words like landslide, why? Perhaps because the media has been saying shrub won country wide by 3.5 million votes? You can't use words like landslide when voting fraud was nation wide.

I only used the word "landslide" once, as a label to identify one of your points. This time I will quote you in full to avoid that source of confusion.

After starting your post with a thought like this

It was in the very last line of my post.

you try to further state Kerry was actually maneuvered into winning the primary. Do you honestly think Rove and shrub wanted to go up against Kerry's war record.

Yes, because that kept it from being about war vs. non-war. Dean (for example) was already along the "wrong war" lines back in the primaries. It would have moved the race onto grounds where they were very weak (WMD? Where?) instead of one where they could paint their opponent as weak (I voted against it before I voted for it, but I never "waffled")

Without the Swift Boat Liars they were done

But they had them, and knew they had them, since 2000 when they used them against McCain in the primaries. That's like saying "without his gun, the mugger would have been done for"--it just explains why he brought a gun to the mugging.

the only reason the SBL were effective was because of Shrum and Caihill's total ineptness in running his campaign.

I have no idea if they are to blame; you may be right, but I'm not going to adopt the point on your say-so.

Start to finish your lengthy post

It was three sentences long.

is based on spoon fed MSM talking points and delusional assumptions.

My points may or may not be delusional (I'm obviously not in a position to judge), but I've never seen them on MSM.

--MarkusQ

[AmerDem]

44. I'm not going waste my time giving you point by point.

you just said,"It was in the very last line of my post.".....no, you used it in the second sentence of your opening post...."And although I think there was some vote rigging - perhaps enough to tip it in a close race in Florida and Ohio - there wasn't enough to tip it in a nationwide landslide."

I have better things to do.

[MarkusQ]

61. *laugh* You might want to "waste your time" reading before you argue.

I just realized what's going on here--you're posting responses to my comment, but arguing with what the original poster said.

I am not the original poster. I did not start this thread. My nick is "MarkusQ"; the thread was started by "MindLikeAParachute" (IIRC). They put our nicks right under the subject lines (and I sign mine as well) to make sure everyone can tell who wrote what.

I have no control over what "MindLikeAParachute" thinks, does or says. If you disagree with his/her posts, I suggest you respond to them instead of me.

--MarkusQ

[WilliamPitt]

3. Anyone who thinks Kerry 'threw the election' is deranged. Period.

There were some serious institutional flaws within the campaign - too many conflicting voices and a hesitancy to pull the trigger when an attack needed to be batted down - but to suggest Kerry was somehow bird-dogging this thing is nonsense of the purest ray serene.

I, for one, never believed we would win this thing. Never thought we'd come close, no matter who got nominated. I supported Kerry for a variety of reasons, but the obstacles to victory were daunting for any of the candidates to overcome.

We were fighting against a three-year terror campaign waged against the American people by this administration, aided and abetted by a news media that knows it profits when people are afraid. CNN's viewership went up 500% after 9/11, and if you think the marketing boys missed that, you're nuts.

We shouldn't have come as close as we did, and but for some bullshit in Ohio and elsewhere, we'd be having a different conversation. Kerry didn't 'throw the election,' nor did he concede the next day to complete that act. He believed what he was told about the results and the chances of success, but has since changed his mind.

[helderheid]

6. I suspect this may be a plant

trying to shake up DUers. Kerry didn't throw the election. That's ludicrous.

Nothing to see here.

[Willy Wonka]

9. Um, care to explain *exactly* why Kerry conceded quickly

when he lied to every Americans that he would fight election fraud? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[MindLikeAParachute]

14. That I don't know about.

I was more interested in how Kerry got to be the front-runner in the primary in the first place, and the more I think about it, the more I think the GOP wanted him there because they thought he had flaws they could capitalize on.

[seito]

26. *sigh*

He can't be fighting election fraud, if he was he would be on TV, standing behind a podium, sporting one of these :tinfoilhat:

LMAO

You are right, that would be much more effective.

[propagandafreegal]

68. Yes, exactly Willy Wonka(lol!). Mike Ruppert says he threw the election.

[m.standridge]

70. Not that hard: he assumed that, since he'd lost the Popular vote

he'd lost the election. Democrats never win in the Electoral College only. But this time, a Democrat might have. It just didn't look that way, right at first, and the odds would have been against it. In other words, Kerry looked at history and how the Electoral College usually works. When he saw he was trailing in the Popular vote, there was no point going on, regardless of goings-on in Ohio. Only after some time, did anyone say Ohio might have gone for Kerry even without his having a national Popular vote lead.
Then they looked at the exit polls and some other states looked "interesting" from the standpoint of the Electoral College.
Also, Kerry is probably not wild about the idea of winning in the Electoral College only.
Also, Bush probably "peaked" in the turf he was ALREADY carrying, which helped him in the Popular vote, but not much in the Electoral College, where, you may recall, he had quite a struggle last time, too!

[MindLikeAParachute]

11. No, no, I fear you misread it

I wasn't saying Kerry did this intentionally, I was saying Kerry ran the kind of campaign Kerry would have run no matter what.

What I am saying is that the GOP felt that if they campaigned against KERRY, knowing what they did about him, that they felt they could win.

They were not so comfortable thinking they could win against Dean or Clark, which is why THEY moved Dean and Clark out of the way to make way for Kerry. That's not saying Kerry was in collusion, more that the GOP was messing with the Dean and Clark campaigns because they WANTED to go up against Kerry because they perceived Kerry as having attackable weaknesses, and thought they could win against Kerry, whereas winning against Dean or Clark could be much more difficult.

So they did what they could (via the media and probably other ways) to clear passage for the candidate they thought would be easiest to beat.

Again, I am NOT saying Kerry was in on it. It's more like if you have to be in a fight, and have the choice to pick to fight against one of four fighters, and you think you can somehow manage to avoid fighting the two strongest ones, you do what you can to get the one you think you can beat into the ring. That's all, and that's what I think they did.

[hughee99]

13. I don't think the original poster

was implying that Kerry "threw the election", merely that he was maneuvered into a bad position by Rove from the start.

[Machiavelli05]

15. Thank you.

good response

[marcologico]

22. right on

This theory has been going around since Dean lost Iowa. Face it, Kerry was the people's choice, and he won all but two primaries, with good reason. I can't see how the GOP would be afraid of Dean -- Rove would have reduced him to a bucket of spit in about two hours.

[Generator]

23. But has since changed his mind

If only I could hear that from Kerry himself. I want to know he gets it, I want to know that it's not just the Black congress that gets it.

The voter suppression of those in poor, urban areas is as big a story as anything to do with machines. Frankly after seeing those videos, I'm haunted. I'm ashamed that I didn't get it before. That those that are white and have never nor will never be challenged or have difficulty voting (like myself) seem to think it's not a disgrace.

As you so aptly titled it from "Selma to Ohio".

Please tell me that America is not going backwards in terms of civil rights.

And as I keep saying, Why doesn't the leadership in the Democratic party get this? If those votes don't count or can't be given as fairly as the opposition, then in such a divided country, how, how or we to ever win elections again?

Why do we not want to guarantee that those that have the most to gain from voting Democratic have a guarantee that there vote will count and that access to voting is equal to the Republicans?

I want to know that my representives get it.

[MarkusQ]

62. What about people who think Kerry was set up?

Do you honestly believe someone who was going to go to all the trouble to rig an election wouldn't try to influence who they were running against? Even before the primaries, both sides had models of how they would run against various opponents. Some of these must have looked better than others. So ask yourself: would Rove leave such an important variable to chance?

--MarkusQ

[The Judged]

75. How can anyone legitimately say 57,000,000 votes is not strong or popular?

[DemonFighterLives]

80. That's a lot no doubt

How can it be when Gore won the popular vote and W stole it and went on to be a terrible pResident with basically no positive accomplishments. Then with all the pissed off dems and others from the stolen elections, we are to believe that B*sh "WON".
Incredible.
:argh:

[Farah]

5. No. I think that no matter who we put forward...

Fraud was inevitable. I truly beleive that they had been planning this for longer than just when our candidate was to be chosen...

[shraby]

8. No Democratic candidate could have won

that election. Period.

[CoffeeCat]

24. I don't think Kerry was a plant, but...

I do think that Kerry is the guy the Reps most wanted to run against.

They had the Swift-Boat jerks salivating in the wings. Kerry's decades in the Senate showcased a record of tax hikes, in addition to thousands of votes that--if twisted enough--could demonstrate their "flip flopper" nonsense.

The Reps were terrified to run against Dean--because their bag of dirty tricks would have been more limited against him.

I was initially a Dean supporter. However, I grew to respect, admire and strongly support Kerry.

I'm glad Kerry's candidacy gave me the opportunity to know this incredible, courageous and brilliant statesman. Conversely, I think Kerry's candidacy and campaigning changed him. He was always a dedicated politician, but I think our hope, enthusiasm and spirited support took him to the next level, and that he completely fell in love with America--through us.

I think Kerry was deeply moved by America's support, and this is one reason why I continue to have faith in him.

[Machiavelli05]

10. I agree with most of what you say

But I dont think any Dem would have faired better...

Each candidate had significant strengths and weaknesses. I liked the top 3 (K, E, D) and was a bit ambivalent about C but I liked did like him to a point.

We need to work to redefine what we look for in a candidate.

Cant wait for Warner, Easley, Rendell to step forward next primary season, combined with Clinton and Edwards... its going to be a clash of the Dem titans... We'll get a good candidate from that primary.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

28. G.W. Bush failed to win his home state - twice.

You perhaps forgot - he's from Connecticut, where his daddy was born & raised & ran for office.

[m.standridge]

65. It's true--W was born in CT

not Texas or any other Southern state.
Which might explain why he was having a time gettin above 50% in several southern states:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
--even when he held a lead, which wasn't always.

What is so strange about the Kerry scenarios, though, is that, even if Kerry carried all the states he's carried, plus Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Florida and Arkansas--all the states, in short, where he had leads in pre-election polling, and where various exit polls had him in some variation of a lead--he'd be kicking a-- in the Electoral College, all right.
But he'd probably still be trailing Bush in the Popular vote this time.
This is an odd election. It's the one where the Democrat beat the GOP in the Electoral College only. That's what it appears to be, to me. That appears the real truth. It's unlikely for a Democrat to do that, given the nature of the Electoral College. But it's not impossible, and should, by odds, over 200 years, occur sometime. I think it may very well have occurred this time.
Kerry may very well not be wild about winning that way.

[Machiavelli05]

76. exactly.

Good ole boy my ass.

[FloridaPat]

16. I think the media picked the Dem nominee. There was the scream

thing. It was a great speech, but no one in the media actually listened to it. After that there was the "who can beat Bush" mantra day in and day out. Stories about Clark not being a real Democrat surfaced. Kennedy and the DNC wanted an "old time" nominee, so that left Dean out. The DNC helped undermine him. The DNC wanted Kerry, Lieberman, or what's his name from Missouri. All voted for the invation. Kuchinich was completely ignored by the media.

I think the wool was pulled over everyone's eyes about who should be running. They went for safety. They went for people who wouldn't upset the drug co or media co apple cart. They went for someone who wouldn't upset the military industrial complex.

And then Kerry ran that nice guy campaign. I did like him at the end and I really believe he did win the election. I believe the last 3 elections (counting 2002 also) have been stolen and fixed by Bushco. I believe we now live in a dictatorship. We are screwed people, and the Democrats helped by allowing the repubs to do what they did.

[IStriker]

43. The media did just what they were told to do - trash Dean and...

pump Kerry as the candidate who could win. The media did NOT highjack my party; the Clintons, Soros, etc. did. If you think Kerry wasn't in on this from the beginning, then you need to read his biography. He's another one like Clinton who has set out to make moves his whole life to maneuver himself into a position to be President. The guy that was "the most electable" was a lousy candidate and the highjackers put their money where their mouth was and lost it.

[papau]

17. Sad you must win by 70% in order to get credit for a 53% win - but it

sounds about right - and indeed with our "we are not controlled by the right wing GOP - we just act that way" media, I do not see the situation changing.

But Kerry had a lot going for him - and indeed did well enough - assuming he comes back by Jan 6 and notes the fraud - for me to support him in 08 above my normal first choice - Hillary.

And your "Kerry probably did not intentionally throw the election" is crap wording - Kerry fought a good fight and only the Freepers are trying to plant the "Kerry possibly threw the election" crap - so why do you use that phrasing in your post?

In any case, if Kerry wimps on the fraud, he is history. And if She wimps on the fraud, she is history.

Clarke would have been a great choice - and Dean's energy and truth telling was so refreshing.

I agree as to Rove decision making in the Spring, and the translation of those decisions into Media action, or non-action. Indeed reporters like to say that Bush is very good at handling them - handling the media.

I guess most whores say that about their Johns.

[MindLikeAParachute]

27. Thanks, except

I definitely did not say "Kerry probably did not intentionally throw the election".

I went out of my way to say that I wasn't comfortable with that theory. I don't believe it. I fully believe Kerry fought as Kerry would, particularly at the end, but I think he was maneuvered (unwittingly, as I have in the thread title) into the candidacy by Rove and Rove's media, because they perceived him as being the most vulnerable of them all and/or the one they felt they could mud-sling on.

[papau]

37. True - but there is no good wording of that thought - IMHO - so I'd

avoid the concept in the discussion - as it does not add to your valid points re Rove and media trying to control Democratic Party actuions.

But you're correct - the paraphrase was mine.

:-(

[mitchtv]

18. Kerry's problem IMO:

should have used the L word 'Liar' in the debates. spent too much time courting the spoiled, self absorbed, undecided and deserted the base.As for saving money in the final days, what was that about? Mary beth Cahill made some stupid decisions.

[Helga Scow Stern]

20. I have wondered some of those same things myself about the primary,

but I have left such speculations behind. The overwhelming thing is fraud. No candidate would have won against BushCo. We knew they would stop at nothing to stay in power. If they could steal a few million votes, which they did, they could have stolen any amount.

I think that Kerry grew through the campaign and came to life. I also believe that this fraud thing is his opportunity for greatness. We'll see if he is able to rise to the challenge.

[seito]

32. I wonder if we will be through fighting the primary battles by 2008

You are right, Dean would have done so much better. I am sure that the ROVE attack machine would have been no match for him. As for Clark, surely there is nothing in his past that could have been used against him. Now I see why Rove fixed the primaries so Kerry would win

The war hero must have been the weakest link. Just three purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star. And did you see his performance in the debates? LMAO

If the corporate media and the Rove machine could destroy an American war hero and deify a little AWOL sniveling shrub coward with a fake accent, how in the hell would you expect ANY CANDIDATE to stand a chance?

I am proud of John Kerry. I believe that he ran an good campaign, against nearly insurmountable odds. He made promises to the American people that he intends to keep. I will not stand in judgment over the tactics that he uses to fulfill his promises.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. With my tinfoil hat neatly in place, Kerry was selected (wittingly) and

Howard Dean went through a political assassination by a media that was in collusion.

I do believe that Skull and Bones is a factor. So there! lol!

[PennyK]

39. Believe it or not...

...I think Al Franken is the person who pushed Kerry into the lead position. I read in a Sunday Times mag story, way back, that Al felt people weren't really into him, so he hosted a party at his home to "introduce" members of the press, and I guess other influential people in the Dem party, to the idea of promoting him to be the candidate. I also later heard Al talking about it on his show...that was around the time that Dean "flamed out" and Kerry's star began to rise.

[Patsy Stone]

40. Oh no

Are we doing this again? :)

Look, Rove and the BFEE would have found something on everyone and probably did. Everyone is acting as if this was some kind of 80/20 blowout. The DNC's obnoxious "woe is us" handwringing is misplaced and I almost think it is on purpose. He lost by 3 million votes. That's the population of Dade and Broward Counties for example. Not a mandate, not a landslide, not even embarrassing in the least.

That Massachusetts Liberal crap is just that -- crap. Half the country voted for a Massachusetts Liberal. Stop it.

The "Dean Scream" was absolutely a move by the media. Even Diane Sawyer played the real feed from the room the next morning on GMA and wondered what the fuss was all about. I don't know why they did it, they blow. Why do they do anything? Profit? While I like Dean and would love to see him kick some ass as DNC Chair, I always felt he was right on the edge of blowing a gasket; not quite Presidential. I have lots of friends who were Dean supporters and even they agreed. What he and Trippi did was great for us and great for the party, but that doesn't mean he would have won 51% of the vote.

As for Edwards, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich and Mosley-Braun, they were also rans. Before you yell, I voted for Sharpton (our primary was late and it didn't matter -- more Sharpton delegates = good) I wrestled between him and Kucinich. Edwards always had VP written all over him. Clark came late to the game and, although there is no doubt he's a brilliant man, he was an average public speaker who's suits never seemed to fit quite right. He would be great in the Administration, but again, not quite the Domestic Policy kind of guy the Dems were looking for, although he would certainly have pulled a few Repugs. No one was going to take Kucinich seriously (although he is the true heart of the Liberal movement) and no one in Idaho is gonna vote for a black woman -- ever.

You also left out Gephart and Graham. Also Dem senators with long juicy records the RNC could have trashed, so why pick on JK only? :)

Personally, while I love Hillary (and, I do) that would be the worst choice we could make in 2008. She'll bring all the baggage with her and they're just gonna trot out the ol' Bill Clinton hate along with it. God forbid they do run her with Obama, we're dead. Though it would be a Presidency I would be pleased as punch to see.

No, Kerry was the best choice, the right choice and the people's choice. He truly hit his stride during the debates. Whatever dirty little tricks the Corporate Media is up to, it wouldn't have changed anything. People showed up in the 10s of thousands to see him. That wasn't because of, or in spite of, the Corporate Media. At the end, I think they actually started to like him.

The fact that any Democrat would run at all is courageous. The country was evenly split and it really was a crap shoot. Towards the end, it all started looking up and then, we all know what we think happened here... So, let's get some proof and take down the BFEE and get back to free and fair elections in this country.

I was going to say my .02, but after re-reading, it seems more like my .05. :)

[Withywindle]

41. Thank you!

Beautifully said, (says this Kucinich primary voter in a very late, very blue, and very primary-irrelevent state), especially about the narrowness of the margin (always taking theft into account). Also one of the 80,000 who showed up to hear Kerry in Madison, WI on Oct 25. That crowd was not faking it. Neither was he.

[LittleClarkie]

45. I still say that any candidate who couldn't make it out of the primaries

wasn't going to fare any better after them.

I think that Edwards was the one they most feared, at least that's the way our local conservative was talking. He feared the Kennedy factor.

If the GOP hadn't gotten Dean with the scream, they would have gotten him with something else. They were looking for things to take out any frontrunner. They got Dean early, then they started in on Kerry. There was the SUV statement that was played to death, for one thing, the "flip flopper" for another.

It wasn't going to get any prettier after the primaries. They weren't suddenly going to take it easy on Dean or any of them. They were ALL being watched like hawks for anything that could be used against them. The Bush war room was INSANE in their diligence.

[Eloriel]

49. What is your tolerance level for dirty tricks by your own side?

It was the DNC, Kerry and Gephardt and their rowdy friends who did Dean in. The media piled on at the urging of GOP operatives on the Scream Speech issue, but Dean's 3rd place loss in Iowa was engineered by his own party and several of its other candidates and their friends.

So I just don't know how you can make ANY sort of assessment about Dean's chances "after" the primaries since he was torpedoed from the inside.

[Andy_Stephenson]

51. Exactly Eloriel

and remember the New Hampshire data? Dean was IMHO rigged out of the race in NH. I will believe that as long as I live.

[LittleClarkie]

52. From what I heard

Dean was titting, and the rest of the field came in with some tat. Them's politics for ya. Still wasn't going to get any prettier as they went along. If he was that easily tatted, it was going to keep happening.

I will be more charitable to Dean than others are to Kerry. Perhaps Dean will learn from his loss and will know how the game is played for next time. I don't see any reason why anyone can't learn from their loss and use that knowledge for the next time. Otherwise we're starting from scratch again and again.

[Andy_Stephenson]

53. The Diebold system in NH

Was never tested nor certified federally. Dean was rigged out on NH. I know...I have the NASED numbers and the version of GEMS was so vulnerable a 9 year old could have rigged that one.

Programming ala Jeff Dean.

[LittleClarkie]

54. How did the results match up against the exit polls?

Vunerability and actual tampering are two different things, as we are seeing now with the general election.

[The Gigmeister]

47. Dean was Rove's candidate...

...At least Kerry had a chance to win...The best chance of all the primary candidates. Dean would have been smoked! He proved he wasn't ready for Prime Time with his 30 point meltdown.

I don't know why either of these two subjects are still discussed.

[renaissanceguy]

56. No, it was not a meltdown.

The media was against Dean ever since he vowed to break corporate monopolies on the media. They labeled him ANGRY when he had conviction and stood for his principles. Nobody could label him a flip flopper.

Whether you like him or not, it is because of Dean that ANY Democrat had a chance to win in this past election. If Dean didn't speak out so articulately against Bush, the Dems would STILL be kissing Bush's ass.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15841637

[The Gigmeister]

77. He melted-down...

He was the media darling and he was polling in the 40s when everyone else in Iowa was in the teens at best and lost big time. = Melt-down.

THEN came the scream.

He was not ready for Prime-Time. Enough with the excuses.

[naryaquid]

57. Dean didn't "melt down"....The tape of "the scream" had the background

noise deliberately DELETED - so that it LOOKED like a "meltdown"..In reality, the background noise was so loud, he HAD to shout like that to be heard...This was "acknowledged" and "apologized" for ..about ten days later on ABC, after the damage was already done.

[propagandafreegal]

69. Yep , Yep, Yep. *** vigourously nodding in agreement***

[Malikshah]

81. So Rove would have you believe

Sorry--but it's too much playing to the other's tune.

[hippiechick]

48. I suspect there was no 'unwitting' about it.

n/t


:hippie:

[zeemike]

50. I wish I could dig up my post from the primary

Cause they turned out to be prophetic
I remember saying when Clark entered the race that they were about to trash Dean, and so they did
And when Kerry was the presumptive nominee i said it was because he would concede the election quickly without a challenge if we had another 2000 event. That too was sadly correct.
So now I will go out on a limb once more and predict that the Ohio recount and challenge will go nowhere and it will happen by missteps and mistakes one after the other until it ends in a whimper, and will leave us all here asking what happened.

What happened is that they are just playing a game with us, good cop bad cop, and the true agenda of the Democratic leadership is self aggrandizement not winning one for the people. They could care less what we think as long as they can string us along and get money from us. And there is little interest in the leadership for true democracy or fairness for average people, they have no friends that are average people and feel no elegance to them at all.
Only a third way will work and change this country.

[genieroze]

55. In my heart I really feel Kerry won in a landslide.

Why in states like PA the exit polls were off by as much as FIFTEEN percent from the actual vote. That's way higher than the Ukraine discrepancy. Bush used the blue states to pad not win the vote. IMHO

[m.standridge]

66. Kerry's landslide, if one, was in the Electoral College

not so much the Popular vote. It's unlikely he won in the Popular vote.
However, much suggests that he was carrying several states that put him way ahead in the Electoral College.
But not in the Popular vote.
It was an unusual result, but not impossible.
Look: if Kerry carried PA by a bigger margin, NH by a bigger margin, and also carried NM, NV, IA, OH, CO, and FL, he'd have several hundred thousand more votes than he has now, as well as a lot more Electoral College votes.
But he'd still be TRAILING Bush in the Popular vote.
That's ok: under the law, he'd still have been elected President of the United States.
But Kerry may not be wild about winning that way. And he's a student of history, too. It's unlikely that a Democrat would win that way, but over 200 years, odds are, it could happen. He was probably put off, when he saw he seemed to be losing the Popular vote, to think he'd win in the Electoral College. He just started to assume he'd lost, when he saw he'd fallen behind in the Popular vote.

[genieroze]

73. That didn't stop * in 2000 did it? Ya know that little thing called the

popular vote that * lost. He lost the electoral college as well and was appointed by supreme morons who some of them had relatives working on * campaign. Looking at * approval ratings I doubt he won the popular vote this year either. State after state showing a HUGE lead over the 2000 numbers for * doesn't add up. * is a liar and a war monger, he's destroying the economy, the environment and the middle class and he is despised all over the globe. Thousands of people are dead because of him and his ilk. No president has ever won and election or reelection with those lousy approval ratings. This election was rigged the popular vote was padded and this country is going straight to hell because of him. As a Christian I don't like the way he uses Jesus as a reason to commit atrocities, it makes me want to :puke:

edited for spelling

[m.standridge]

85. try not to get your feelings hurt

because I agree with your principles and what you are saying.
I've also been up against some academics who I respect a great deal in taking this position, but here it is again:
I don't think that Kerry won the Popular vote.
I think he DID win in the Electoral College, though.
There are a lot of things to suggest he didn't win the Popular vote, including virtually all of the pre-election polls, by virtually all the major polling organizations at one time or another very close to the end, just before election day, and even after the early voting had started.

There are a lot of other things to suggest Kerry wasn't winning the Popular vote.

It is the failure to win the Popular vote, that was the pivotal reason Kerry conceded on Nov. 3, after reviewing "the Ohio results".
He was looking at the Popular vote.

But don't get me wrong: there's plenty wrong here. Kerry did a great deal better in several states than he was given credit for.
It's just that, you have to think out how well Bush was doing in those states he carried in the 2000 election--you know, the ones he REALLY carried.
In other words, there was enough there, with Bush being able to use the gay marriage amendments as if it was his, and his alone's, issue.

And on top of that, he touched a lot of chords with the anti-terrorism thing, the long bond built, in the red states' minds, about the war with terror. The Red states were already for him, but he was able to increase his vote in those same states.
THAT is where Bush was successful this time. He got his turnout up, in the states he'd carried last time.

The problem for Bush, is that, all along, he's been given "bogus" states--states he never carried to begin with. Like New Hampshire, Florida and probably Ohio.

He probably never "really" carried those before.

But as an incumbent, waving the flag (a sure vote-getter to some extent everywhere), and using gay marriage as a "get to the polls" hot-button issue, he increased his Popular vote.

Gore's lead in the Popular vote before was a little over 500,000 votes.
Factor in that a small amount of that, may itself have been invalid over the whole country, (not in Florida, where he should have been given credit for votes into the thousands, and probably also not in NH or OH, where he also should have been given credit for more votes; nor possibly in NV that time, where Gore probably got it much closer, too). Gore's Popular vote lead COULD have been LESS than 1/2 million, even with those additional thousands or hundreds more that he needed to carry FL, NH, and OH before.
Factor in, too, that Kerry's reputation was more liberal than Gore's, and he didn't have the advantage of incumbency that Gore had. Nor did he have the same regional appeal, and the fact the region he had most appeal in, had lost some population in recent years.
Then, factor in Bush's incumbency, Bush's flag-waving this time, and Bush's increased turnout in the Red states he carried beforem, especially using this gay marriage stuff to get Evangelicals out.
I'm tellin' ya, when you look at all of that, you could see how Bush could have a lead in the Popular vote --but still not win in the Electoral College this time, any more than he won in the Electoral College last time.
What he knew, was that he had to get everyone to accept that he'd carry Florida easily this time, when that just wasn't the case; that he'd carry some other states Gore had carried last time, when that wasn't the case, either. It DID look, in the pre-election polls, like either Iowa or Wisconsin might not go to Bush; but those same polls were suggesting that Ohio could very well go to Kerry. That made it clear that, with the other states Gore carried, Kerry would win in the Electoral College.

Bush had to fiddle with things, to make it look like he'd carried Ohio, Florida and and some Gore states, for long enough to get the media looking the other way. Everyone is used to the idea that a Democrat has to win the Popular vote to win in the Electoral College, while a Republican doesn't necessarily have to do that. And that's usually the case. But, this one time, it wasn't the case. This time, Bush was able to drum up support, but not where it would put him over in the Electoral College.
That's my take on it. I think we might get our feelings hurt if we dwell too long on this idea of the Popular vote this time. Those Senate races got awfully close, and yes there were indications of tinkering. But just the fact the vote got so close in them, that the tinkering wasn't extensive enough to catch the media, is an indicator of something about Kerry's Popular appeal: his coattails were weak; unlike the media, I'm not saying that Kerry's coattails were non-existent, but they WERE weak.

[Samantha]

58. Okay, I'll state the obvious

Of all the candidates you mention, the least qualified to run this country you omitted. He sits in the Oval House today, having stolen the election in 2000. Your comments about the candidates are interesting but the most interesting thing is not discussed: the least qualified person the world can imagine to sit in the Oval Office sits there today. In my opinion, he does not occupy that office because of any of the attributes, or lack thereof, connected to any of the Democratic candidates: he sits there because his top political advisor is the dirtiest man in politics, not because he won either of the last two elections, not because he is the most qualified person for the job, but because two presidential elections were engineered to orchestrate a George W. Bush* occupancy of the White House.

Postscript: Dean, the most charismatic, intelligent dynamic candidate among those who officially ran was derailed by the DLC, generally regarded as the "Clinton element" of the party.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

64. Obvious, yes, but an important point

I think we all realized at some point after Kerry became the nominee that we had a very good chance to win because * was such a horrible leader, a terrible debater and public speaker, a proven liar who hadn't even won the first time.

I don't care who the candidate was, I just couldn't fathom how more people would vote for * in 2004 than in 2000. How could he GAIN any votes, with his abysmal record and his illegal war and his inability to admit any of his own mistakes? This thought was my constant comfort.

In time, I learned to respect and admire John Kerry, and I believe he would have been a tremendous president. Dean would've been even better.

But whatever defeated Kerry would have also defeated Dean, or Edwards, or whomever. Whether it was fraud or other Rove dirty tricks, or the media, or the fundies, or the sheer inability of the American voter to see the truth in front of them (I believe it was likely a combination of these things), any of our candidates would have lost.

I hope we figure out how to counter this next time.

[NAO]

59. Dean's greatness is a certainty, but so was his defeat (think 1972)

1972. Nixon won re-election IN A LANDSLIDE. Every state except Massachusetts went Republican.

In spite of the horrific quagmire in Vietnam, Nixon won a TRUE mandate.

[kerrygoddess]

63. Every Republican president since Nixon feared John Kerry

Get a grip!

Every Republican president since Nixon feared John Kerry... his after serving in Vietnam testimony to the Fulbright Commission, Iran Contra, BCCI.

He won in the primaries because among other things he offered a very solid record that the other candidates did not. Because Kerry was the nominee, Rove worked a lot harder for W's win than he would have had the nominee been anybody but Kerry.

Kerry received more votes for a Democratic presidential candidate than ever in history and people still need to find fault with him.

Unbelievable... grow up... get a life... do something constructive with your frustration against Bush besides attack John Kerry. You'll feel better about yourself and might actually start making a difference in towards the next election.

If all you nit pickers actually did somenthing besides find fault...

[propagandafreegal]

67. I like your analysis. I still have my trust issues w/ Kerry right now...

but I like the way you broke it down. I do believe they set up Dean.

Thank you!

[m.standridge]

71. It's not a trust thing, Kerry just looked at history at first

as I've said in some other posts in this thread:
Democrats just don't win without the Popular vote lead.
On election night, at the same time that Kerry was said to be losing Ohio, he was also said to be losing in the national Popular vote.
Since a Democrat has never won in the Electoral only, the odds seemed to be against him winning at all.
Any historian will tell you that it's relatively unlikely that a Democrat would win in the Electoral College only.
That's why Kerry seemed to "concede too soon." But this is an odds-odd election: I think there's a distinct possibility Kerry is the first Dem. to win in the Electoral College only.
It just didn't register as possible at first.
Over 200 years, odds change.
So you can trust Kerry, just as you can trust a historian to be honest if she tells you it's unlikely that a Democrat would ever win without winning the Popular vote.
In the case of this election, the demonstrable result, as an alternative to the current accepted Bush victory, would be that Bush lost the Electoral College, but won the Popular vote.
The exit poll discrepancies suggest this, even more strongly than they suggest a Kerry Popular vote victory. (Factor in, too, the pre-election polls.)

[propagandafreegal]

74. For ME it is a trust thing. I don't understand why Kerry conceded so

quickly. Especially with what happened in 2000.

You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. :)

[m.standridge]

88. fine and I don't feel a need to answer every word

someone says. Kerry bewildered me, too, but I was looking pretty strongly at the Electoral College already. I don't think he really was at that time. He was looking at how he appeared to have been swamped in the Popular vote.

[Bill Bored]

72. Iowa had Dems voting for Bush who voted in the Dem caucuses.

So you could be right about some of this manipulation of the primaries.

Also, Kerry basically gave Bush a pass on 9/11 which allowed the ReShrubs to be seen as some kind of anti-terrorism gurus, even though they didn't prevent 9/11 when they could have and then invaded the wrong country afterword -- Iraq.

The campaign only focused on the post-9/11 mistakes. I say screw that!

Bush let 9/11 happen and he was never held accountable by the DNC or by Kerry. That was OK on 9/12/2001, but not 3 years later when the facts are in. I think this was a fatal mistake. If the shoe was on the other foot, you know they'd be crying impeachment. In fact, they have blamed Clinton for 9/11! The Aug 6, 2001 PDB was proof of Bush's incompetence and the Dems never jumped on it. Of course, if the vote was rigged, it wouldn't have mattered, would it?

So not the best campaign, but they did do OK in the debates, etc. I was actually going to write to thank Jim Lehrer for asking some good questions in the first one, which really seemed to turn the tide for JK. But then he lost the election and that was that. Sorry Jim.

Still, the vote cannot be verified and no campaign, no matter how lame it was, can change that fact. This was NOT a true election.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

78. And Reno lost the FL primary, leaving Jeb a weaker opponent

[Malikshah]

83. Yup, but be careful-- the McBride folks will hear you

and come a calling, defending their sacrificial lamb.

Just be prepared for the fury of lovers of bug-eyed political neophytes. :)

[bklyncowgirl]

79. Good analysis. But you left out the role of the Democratic leadership.

Dean was a wild card candidate. He generated enormous excitement--not to mention money--but was inexperienced in running a media campeign. I mean the guy was a part time local pol who got into the governors office because of his predecessor's untimely demise. He did a very good and innovative job as governor thus explaining how he got re-elected so many times but he'd never even campeigned statewide for governor as an unknown. He found the key to the mint and to a new sort of political activism on the Internet but in doing so he scared the shit out of the party establishment.

The Democrats decided to take down Dean for several reasons.

1. He was an exciting candidate who was either going to win in a landslide or crash and burn. They were perfectly prepared to lose in a close election but they didn't want to gamble on a blowout.

2. Dean's populism was anathema to the powers that be that the Democratic movers and shakers are beholden to as much as the Republicans. The big money boys don't like even the most muted criticism of corporate domination--Howlin' Howard was not muted.

3. As Governor of Vermont, the first state to approve Civil unions for gay couples and an outspoken supporter of abortion rights, Dean was rightly or wrongly the poster child for social liberals.

The Republicans were perfectly happy to let this happen--and help where they could. They didn't want to gamble either.

Kerry was the best compromise candidate--pissed off Deaniacs weren't going for Leiberman or Gephardt. Clark was also a gamble--an inexperienced campeigner who turned out to be something other than what establishment Dems who originally supported him thought they were buying.

I think Kerry did the best he could under the circumstances but I think he was crippled by a party leadership that wasn't willing to take chances.

[Malikshah]

82. Key word here "compromise candidate"

As long as Dems compromise-- they lose.

Folks, we're dealing with end-times people here. They view the universe as black and white.

All the "moderates" are fooling themselves on both sides. They are marginalized and are aiding and abetting their respective opposition by trying to be "balanced."

[bklyncowgirl]

84. Democrats it seems to me would rather lose than rock the boat.

I personally think that alot of Kerry's cautiousness was not his own doing so much as the influence of the party regulars around him. Not going after the Swift Boat Liars from the get go was just one example. In the end he caught his stride but it was too late and too little to get beyond the margin needed to neutralize the Republicans dirty tricks.

[candice]

87. Votes in California primary for Kerry were siphoned off to Gephardt

I forgot how many (14 thousand). If was our first blackbox voting experience. When I learned about it, I figured that Diebold Repugs wanted Gephardt as the candidate (or for Kerry to not seem so popular). Of course, it could have been one of those many glitches that tossed votes hither and thither in this mother of all elections.