- with Pat Buchanan and Marilyn Quayle being the ugliest. I think that the media not condemning, but praising the atrocious Bush convention speeches, hurt more than the speeches themselves. There was no outrage at all from anyone in the media - let alone any Republican - when official delegates, likely pillars in their home communities wore purple heart bandaids. To me, that was sickening. All because the Republicans felt they could not let that true part of Kerry's record stand - he was a war hero. The media's lack of outrage, seemed to almost send a sign that Kerry and the Democrats deserved that treatment.
Kerry's convention, while it was happening, was highly praised. It was positive and Kerry's speech was very good. (Obama's conveyed a message that Kerry wanted for the campaign - which Obama blew everyone away with the grace and eloquence with which he did it.) Only after the hatefest, did people start to define it as the "good" convention - and Kerry's as weak because he didn't do the same.
But, the other alternative would have been worse, had Kerry and the Democrats had a Democratic hatefest - which would be hard to imagine Kerry, who didn't do that as a 27 year old activist - doing, it would have backfired. He would have been been slammed as unlikable, unPresidential and he would have at that point for all purposes lost any chance of winning. Bush and the republicans would then have likely had an upbeat crowning of Bush as the noble leader, who got us past 911. Kerry's loss would not only have been bigger, but he would likely have been ashamed of the campaign - something Bush did not need to worry about because I doubt he set the same standards for himself.
I think Kerry would have been a good President, in a very tough situation. The 109th Congress was incredibly dysfunctional and the country had not yet seen how much damage Bush did. You've seen the Republicans try to argue that all the current problems are the fault of Obama or the Democrats. But only 20% of the country thought we were going in the right direction in 2008, on the eve of the election in 2004, Gallup asked the question differently - and found that 59% answered that the country was doing either "very well" or "fairly well". Only on foreign policy, where there is a lot the President can do without needing approval, could Kerry have made things less bad. However, no one would know they were less bad.
I think he is a very good person, who has already quietly, often getting little credit, done a lot. I loved his comment last Thanksgiving when asked what he was thankful for:
"Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry: "I've got a ton to be thankful for this year starting with the love and health of my family and friends, including a new son-in law. My friend and mentor Ted Kennedy's passing especially reminds me how lucky I am to have the gift of his teaching over the years and also the blessing of good health, and a brand new hip that feels better by the day.
“I'm grateful for the skill and commitment of our troops, especially those who are spending this holiday away from families and loved ones. The funerals of two Massachusetts soldiers this month were a tough reminder of the ultimate sacrifice made for our country, and their families and all the families of the fallen are on our minds this Thanksgiving. I'm thankful that Massachusetts has continued to give me the privilege of serving in the Senate when so many big issues are being debated and decided, and I'll continue to do my best to meet the expectations folks have placed in me."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/26/thanksgiving-thoughts-from-washington-and-beyond/When you look at so many politicians who have completely destroyed part or all of their lives, he seems to have his values and priorities right.