Why do we treat our former nominees like garbage?

[politicasista]

Or label them "has beens," "losers," etc.? At least the repukes give their candiates second chances, while the dems just toss them aside, all because they didn't do what WE wanted them to do.

[Dying Eagle]

1. good question

i would love to see Gore and Kerry run again in 08'

[politicasista]

5. I would too.

Gore was dissed very badly here in TN. The media didn't do anything but slam Kerry. I think they and Edwards should all run again.

[bluestateguy]

2. Our party has renominated plenty of candidates

Andrew Jackson was renominated in 1828 after losing (some would say being robbed of) the election in 1824.

Grover Cleveland was renominated and elected in 1892 after his defeat in 1888.

William Jennings Bryan was nominated three times in 1896, 1900 and 1908.

FDR was a VP nominee in 1920 on a ticket that lost by a landslide.

Adlai Stevenson was nominated twice (I think I would have voted for Eisenhower in 1956).

[Goldeneye]

3. Weird. There is web site that says John Kerry is

Andrew Jackson Reincarnated. I can't remember where it is. Kerry looks like A. Jackson too and he had an election stolen from him...Kerry 08?

[liberalpragmatist]

4. B/c we have no perspective or strategy

Our entire strategy has been ad-hoc and we become so pissed off when we lose, we want to throw everything out.

Look, I think that if a candidate loses badly (i.e. Mondale or Dukakis) then they're done. But if they lose narrowly in difficult circumstances (Kerry, Gore - who only *lost* on a technicality) they should be given the opportunity to run again. Does anybody really think Al Gore would've sighed audibly in a second series of debates? Does anybody think John Kerry won't have learned important lessons in '08?

I'm not saying either should be guaranteed a renomination. They should fight for it and it should be up to the primary voters to decide whether or not they look like good candidates a second time around. In other words, make no guarantees but give them a chance. Same goes for Edwards.

[LittleClarkie]

9. I agree in that they have experience in running national campaigns

And second, they have just as much right as anyone to try and run again. Hell, even Mondale or Dole could try again. If you can garner the support, knock yourself out.

I think Kerry, with all the assets not brought up during this campaign, could do so much better the second time around with the right PR department.

Gore would almost have to make a joke of the persona he was tagged with, some kind of clever ad campaign perhaps poking holes in that persona.

Feingold's ad agency, the one he used in 2004 to win in Wisconsin, would be fantastic in a national campaign, I believe. So positive and yet so effective.

It's all in how they're sold the second time around. As for me, I'm collecting a list of the things Kerry will have been right on by the next election.

Of course, Kerry will also have to decide between running for Senator and President in 2008. He ain't sayin' yet. He says it's too early at the moment to think about it.

[whistle]

6. By former nominees you mean Gore and Kerry?

...Al Gore gave Bush the legitimacy that the repukes wanted (see F9-11 movie) and Kerry let Bush have the presidency on, when was it day #2 after the election with his concession speech after John Edwards gave his mid-night support speech to challenge and appeal the election results cases all the way to and passed the inauguration!

[LittleClarkie]

10. There was no way Bush Co was going to LET Kerry win

just no way in hell. They even set him up in Ohio with people who were not working in Kerry's best interest, according to Rawstory.

Watching what Bush is doing now, he and his were going to cheat and lie and steal until they won. They'd improved the game since 2000, and Kerry got gamed. He was in a no-win situation, realistically. I do not blame him.

The blame goes where it belongs: all over Bush and the BFEE.

[whistle]

12. Then let's hear that from John Kerry's own mouth

[karynnj]

7. Also, you lose some of the strongest voices that way

Any person who manages to become the party's nominee has to have both a very solid record of achievement, political skill, and some ability to sell Democratic issues. Kerry almost won in one of the dirtiest races I've seen with the media stacked against him. Gore was a distinguished VP who really won.

(I also disagree on the sighs - it was not that he sighed, but in 2000 version of the Dean scream, we heard amplified out of contexts tapes of it for the next week. (Remember the montage of weir Bush looks and actions after the first Kerry debate - Oh, right It never happened! (and we would all agree that Al's sighing was far more normal than Bush's behavior in Miami))

I think if we defer any thoughts of picking the 2008 candidate until maybe Nov, 2006 we would be able to better use all the strong voices we have, We should applaud every good idea that any of them have and support it strongly if we agree with it. If by 2007 it appears that there is one person (or more) who is always there with good productive ideas, then that might be an argument for supporting him or her for President.

[mattclearing]

8. Because they are losers.

No one loves you when you're down and out.

[welshTerrier2]

11. I strongly agree with this HOWEVER ...

any Democrat, whether they have lost an election or not, deserves every opportunity to be heard on every issue ... and just as importantly, so do the grassroots ...

those Democrats that reflect the views that we cherish deserve our strong support on those issues where they represent us ...

HOWEVER, when they align themselves with republicans or align themselves with positions that are abhorrent to us, like seeking a "victory" in Iraq when it's clear continued occupation will make things worse, they deserve our strongest criticism ... we should never "throw the baby out with the bath water" ...

we should not treat our former nominees like garbage but neither should we criticize those who bitterly criticize them when they are dead wrong on any given issue ...

[shance]

13. I don't. Our media slanders our Democratic candidates and many buy

the conformist media propaganda.

I find it pretty interesting how many will haze the media and say they dont believe what the media covers, but as soon as the media comes out with a negative story on one of ours, many are quick to say, 'but they said it on CNN, MSNBC', or whatever.

[sampsonblk]

14. Could you cite some examples sista?

Other than John Kerry?

[daa]

15. Do you really think

Gore is going to win the THIRD time around? He is about as capablile of winning as Bork or Quayle.