Kerry might not be done

It may be wishful thinking on Cameron Kerry's part, and hopefully it is:

While Senator John F. Kerry is "profoundly disappointed" with losing his presidential race last week, it is "conceivable" he will run again in four years, his brother and political confidant, Cameron F. Kerry, said yesterday.

Sorry, but Kerry had his chance. I grew to respect the man during the general election, but that can't obscure the fact that out of all the primary challengers, Kerry was the only one who didn't bother developing an overarching theme for his candidacy.

"I'm the most electable" got him the nomination but nothing else. I don't know who I like for 2008, it's way too early, but I do know that we need a candidate who is better at defining what he or she stands for, and what the Democratic Party stands for, than Kerry was able to do this past year.

•  yup

  your right on this one

  by mother on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:31:22 AM PDT

  •  Unless he takes it upon himself

    to organize that shadow government we have been debating. If the latter proved true, we should hear what he has to say. He does have some political capital, he has also a gigantic conspiracy of lies to build a solid case against. Most of all tho, creating a shadow government would be that brand of innovative policies that would carry us definitely to victory, and therefore the one-off shelf life credited to all candidates nowadays would be irrelevant.

    If he was planning on another traditional run and crowd our field, he can go fuck himself on a tree.  

    by Italtransit on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:38:20 AM PDT

    •  Reagan ran 2 times and was elected

      There is nothing wrong with Kerry running again. That's the problem with democrats we do not help our own we through them to the waste side. Lets see what he does in the Senate if he's a bull dog he could be our guy again. If not then we'll get someone else. But he's going to have to work for it. I personally like Bob Kerry and Wesley Clark for 2008. But we should start looking at a 2006 strategy. Jeb will probably run for senate the GOP will brow beat him into doing it. Any voter irregularities suppression or fraud in Florida needs to get some major publicity maybe we can run adds or something that highlight the Shenanigans that have been going on down there in past several years.

      by GeekGirl on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

      •  Reagan lost in the Primaries

        Reagan '76 (and Bush '80, Gore '88, etc) lost in the primaries.

        Losing a general election is a lot more visible then   losing a 5-way primary contest. I'd bet that the majority of Americans couldn't tell you who lost in the 2000 Primary sesason, but they sure as hell know Al Gore.

        Americans don't elect losers. Nixon did it in 68 because of Vietnam, but it was a fluke.

        John Kerry was given a WALK TO THE NOMINATION and he dropped the ball. He was given two hundred million dollars and he blew it.  

        Kerry had his shot and it's over now. I hope he is a great senator, because we need great senators, but he'll never again be the Democratic nominee.

        by shaneh on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 02:56:03 PM PDT

      •  I think Kerry is probably in a great position ...

        He needs to play it right during the next 4 years, but he's got a great base, and he ran a pretty decent campaign.

        It's probably going to depend on how he manages the next 4 years. But if he acts as a credible opposition voice to the republican nonsense, I think he would make a great candidate again (and a wonderful president) in four years.

        by FightOn on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:15:07 PM PDT

  •  Uh, aren't we a trifle premature, here.

    Let's wait a while longer before we gather the firing squads and circle up.

    by BlueSpace on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:44:13 AM PDT

    •  I can't feel like legs, Sarge!

      Too late.

      I should have donned Kevlar the morning after.

      No way Kerry gets elected.  Great guy, but it's like thinking about Liz Taylor and Richard Burton getting remarried (again).  Do you really want to go through hell again?

      He did have an overarching theme, "Stronger at home, respected in the world."  But he got tripped up by "what did he say, and when did he say it?"

      by seriously blown cue on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:48:58 AM PDT

•  No Kerry.

  No Edwards. No Hillary. No Dean. No Northeasterners or West Coasters.

  Time for a change.

  by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:31:35 AM PDT

  •  Yeah!!! And nobody from Illinois ...

    ...either. Let's get us a ...a... a Texan next time.

    Jeezus. I am so sick of this fucking move it to the right, move it to the right mantra.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

    •  Didn't you get the memo, MB?

      We need a southern governor.  They're the only Democratic candidates who can win.  For all practical purposes, that means Warner or Easley; otherwise, forget it.  And we should take a lesson from our last southern governor to get elected and throw gays under the bus.  Maybe even abortion, too.  Whatever it takes to out-Republican the Republicans.

      Maybe rename ourselves the Democratic-Republicans and say we're the "Party of Jefferson" to trump all that "Party of Lincoln" crap.  That should confuse those values voters.

      "We need a southern governor."  Lather, rinse, repeat.

      by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:44:17 AM PDT

      •  As Armando noted at length ...

        ...last night in his Diary, Digby over at Hullaballoo has a terrific analysis of the South. Already we barely have a difference between NeoImps and DemoWimps in foreign policy, if we're going to keep edging up to the Republicans year after year, why not just merge altogether?

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:47:29 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, the Repocrats

          Is it me or these guys are still fighting the Civil War? or some such?

          by Italtransit on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:49:47 AM PDT

          •  We all are

            It's Jesusland vs. The United States of Canada.

            Didn't you get the memo?

            /semi-snark

            by Geotpf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 02:34:39 PM PDT

        •  Digby is dead-on

          I'm far from a seasoned political expert, but in the aftermath of this election people seem to be getting about 50% of the lesson right.  Sure, we need to sell our ideas better in certain parts of the country.  What we don't need is to abandon our ideas for neo-GOP ideas that we think are "winners" in any given election cycle.  That's what's lost us the last three national elections.  The so-called values voters will smell the calculation a mile away, anyway.  People can always tell when someone's hawking something he doesn't believe in.  

          And if we do win, then what?  Move left, alienate the voters we converted, and get tossed out on the next go-round?  Or follow through with the center-right agenda we promised but don't actually agree with?  Either way, what was the point of winning via selling out?

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

          •  Hmm

            The political calculation thing seems to be working fairly well for the Republicans.

            Maybe we should start calling them on it?

            by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

            •  What calculation?

              They actually believe all that garbage.  The calculation part is in the negative ads, the smattering of wedge issues, the race-, woman-, gay-baiting, etc.  On the issues, they believe it all: tax cuts, destroying Social Security, preemptive war, hatred of the UN and especially France, all of it.  

              Their only calculation wrt the issues is in framing the steaming pile of excrement that is their set of policies and making it look like a Christmas present, all wrapped up with a pretty bow on top.

              by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:08:10 AM PDT

              •  Calculation

                As far as calculation goes, he means things like the Medicare bill, No Child Left Behind Act, etc.  Yes we rightfully criticize those efforts because they didn't go far enough, helped drug companies, weren't properly funded, etc.  But they were calculated attempts by Bush to neutralize Democratic issues, and largely they worked with voters.  He got away with collaborating with Ted Kennedy on an education bill and seeming like he honestly was trying to work with Democrats to help kids.

                Obviously Bush and those Repug a--holes didn't want to help anyone but themselves.  But he did successfully blunt some of our issues.  We should do the same with them ... and we did, when Clinton was in office.  Remember the COPS program to put 100,000 cops on the street?  That was all about neutralizing a Republican issue, and it worked.

                by Philosopher on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

              •  Have you not been paying attention?

                The Republicans don't believe all that garbage, until they are told so by their email distribution list.

                Watch 'em... some of these issues don't become issues until Rove/Bush brings them up... and then suddenly they are rabidly behind them.

                The Iraq war was their biggest political calculation, and it worked for them.

                by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:30:29 AM PDT

                •  Not Repug voters

                  Repug leaders (Bush and Rove) believe it.  And GOP voters fall in line because of the "strong and steady" leadership.  Any calculation behind it is backed up by belief, which the voters like.  They'd rather have "strong and wrong" blah blah blah.  The suggestion that we should have a leader(s) who panders to a particular constituency/geographic region by taking stances he/she thinks will win by getting to the elusive 270 is precisely the problem with the Democratic Party.

                  by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:34:58 AM PDT

                •  Party & lib hate > ideology

                  They'll shift w/ the wind ideologically.  It's mostly about winning and spiting libs.  They're petty people.

                  by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:40:36 AM PDT

      •  Wow

        Let's pretend we know who the electable guy is in advance via telepathic invasion of red state brains, pick that guy, and win big!

        Let's nominate another guy who 90% of the convention delegates disagree with on the major issue of the day!

        Lather, rinse, repeat.

        by pletzs on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

        •  I guess I should have added

          the <sarcasm> tag.

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:48 AM PDT

          •  Oops

            My bad. But the whole idea of Kerry running again seems a little out there and probably makes the outlandish more plausible. Maybe (hopefully) he's being sarcastic too?

            by pletzs on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:44:29 AM PDT

      •  Midwest or Southwest

        Apparently, there's more citizens in that area than Vermont. :) F the south.

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:05:29 AM PDT

        •  No opinion at the moment just curious

          What do westerners think of Janet Napolitano? A southwestern Democratic Governor in a repub state with a repub legislature? I don't really know her principles, just her demographics...

          by bonobo on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:49 AM PDT

          •  "don' tknow her princples"

            maybe we should start voting for candidates based on who has the most of those instead...

            by ihlin on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

            •  Ideally, both

              I want to vote based on principles. I want 51% of America to vote with me. If Demographics help, I'm all for finding a candidate who's got them. Right now, as I idly try to figure out who I'd like to see make a run, I have a lot more information available about demographics than about principles. I've got news stories with partisan rhetoric on both sides, precious little substantive information on the process and content of AZ legislation over the last few years. I can understand why you might prefer to look first for principles, but it's a question of available info, not priority. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

              by bonobo on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

      •  I know that's a joke

        But Mike Easley would probably win. He took a bankrupt NC (thanks to Bush) and fixed it. And he landed big corporate deals to bring FedEx and today - Dell. And he has a great education record. And he's a great debater. He tore Republican Patrick Ballantine to shreds...

        "Mr. Ballantine, you have no idea what your talking about or what it takes to run this state."

        Mike Easley would be a good choice...not trying to give credence to the 'we need a southerner' nonsense.

        by silverbax on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:05:36 AM PDT

        •  Didn't mean to dis Easley

          I don't know anything about him, and if he'd be a good candidate, I'm open to it.  I've just seen one too many threads where someone mentions none of the things you just brought up, but instead says "hey, this guy Mike Easley is a Democrat from the south; let's nominate him!!!"  

          The real bottom line is it's way too early to have any idea what '08 is going to look like for either side.

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:54 AM PDT

      •  Yes...nominate Zell...

        ...a true Southern conservative, former Georgia governor, still (at least tangentially) considers himself a Democrat...ideal candidate.  Probably even electable.

        Of course, how, exactly, this differs from having a neocon Republican in the White House, I don't know...

        We need someone who is 1) progressive and 2) can connect with the Red-staters.  Dean was right that we need a candidate who can speak to the people in the pickup trucks with the Confederate flags on them; Dean just wasn't the one to do it.

        We need somebody, actually, like Lloyd Doggett.  Unfortunately, we probably don't need Doggett himself, because standing representatives just don't get elected.  But Doggett is really the epitome of the electable Democrat.

        by DC Pol Sci on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:08:58 AM PDT

      •  What about Vilsack?

        I don't know much about him. But don't discount the mid-west. We need Ohio, Iowa and we need to keep Mich., Wisc. and Pa. I'm sick of southerners.

        by crazymom on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

        •  I like Vilsack

          I think we should take a look at Vilsack.  Also Warner from Virginia.  And maybe even Bill Richardson or Tony Knowles (yes I know he lost for Senate, but he was an ex-Governor--he has the same qualifications Dean had).

          Ken Salazar also looks great for VP, in my opinion.  He was a rancher for many years, campaigned in a cowboy hat and a rusted-out green truck, yet is a good Democrat.  Plus I imagine that he would help us win the Latino vote, which Bush cut into this time around.

          by Philosopher on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:23:40 AM PDT

          •  Re: Vilsack- my thoughts as an Iowan

            I don't live there anymore but still keep track of politics there.  He is likeable but not exciting- Edwards' looks and charm with Kerry's demeanor from what I have seen.  But he was a small town lawyer turned state legislator who won an upset victory for governor and became Iowa's first Dem governor in a generation, getting reelected handily in '02.  

            He is really liberal and has stood up for gays (job discrimination, not marriage) but manages to be popular in a rural state with few Dem govs in its history.  I think he is solid material for us, geographically, culturally, politically.  

            I am concerned about nominating another Catholic being that the church comes out harder on them (and has a better case for saying they are hypocrites) than it does for non-Catholics who are pro-gay and pro-choice.  I think this burned Kerry (not that they should allow pro-war catholic politicians to go uncriticized, but they are hypocrites themselves).  But hopefully the atmosphere will just be different next time.

            On a side note, people keep saying Dean is unelectable because he isn't religious enough- at least they can't say he is a hypocrite as he does come from a very liberal, pro-gay denomination.  

            by DemDachshund on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:26:14 PM PDT

      •  I threw that memo in to the garbage

        No, we don't need a Southern governor. We need a good, solid candidate, preferably outside D.C., as senate records and such are easy to attack and to define candidates.

        Kerry had a credibility problem. Which was greatly due to the fact the repukes did deliver their message so well.

        We just need candidates that aren't so lackluster. Screw the South. It's unlikely we can carry any southern state for a while, it's more important to focus on VA, CO, OH and NV in the next elections to come.

        How about the governors in PA, MI or WV? Those are valid candidates and NOT from the South.

        With this logic, we could just ask Jeb Bush to run for us.

        by Jonesyboy on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:14:43 AM PDT

        •  Hmmm

          Well, my post was meant to be sarcastic.  Obviously I botched that one a bit...

          As for the PA, MI, and WV guvs, MI is out since Granholm was born in Canada (unless, of course, the Repugs push the Ahhhnuld amendment thru at some point).  Ed Rendell, from PA, could make a good candidate, though he's a bit too enamored with the DLC for my taste.  He also has a ton of salacious moral skeletons in the closet, I'll guarantee it.  I'm from the Philly burbs, and we all just know there's mountains of dirt on the guy.  Worse than Clinton.  As for WV, I'll be honest, I've got nothing.

          I agree with the rest of what you have to say, though to me VA is in the south.  Not that we shouldn't focus on it; I think we can get it to turn blue.  It's never useful to write of whole swaths of the country, but we don't need to hyper-pander to particular regions, either.

          by Categorically Imperative on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:23:39 AM PDT

        •  MI Governor

          Jennifer Granholm is very well liked in Michigan, solid Democrat, and she's got charisma to spare. However, she was born in Canada. So unless Ahnold's constitutional amendment goes through, she's not eligible.

          by lpackard on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

      •  This anti-South shit is not just ignorant...

        it's not very strategic either. To look at the south as monolithic and backwards is falling right into the Republican briar patch. The fact is that the south is considered so important because it is the fastest growing region in the country. It is going to be increasingly difficult to piece together an electoral vote majority without at least a few southern states. This doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our values on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But if it means we have to act a little more country in order to get 35% in the rural areas instead of 25% so that we can squeak out a victory by winning in the urban and suburban areas then no I don't think that's much of a compromise.

        by kitchentable on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 01:15:12 PM PDT

        •  Absolutely right

          Why should be keep trying to be less than a national party when we know that Democrats can win in Southern states.  Well, we don't win national races -- but we routinely win state races including governors' seats.  We have Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma (which votes like a Southern state), and Louisiana, and until the most recent elections we had Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama.  That about covers it.  Some of these governors are more moderate than others, but most have progressive agendas.  We need to compete -- using candidate time and campaign dollars -- with a message that connects with the voters who have been splitting their tickets.  The last thing we should be doing is saying a pox-on-red-states-and-that-means-the South-especially.  

          by Elizabeth Edwards on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:38:58 PM PDT

        •  Where is it growing from?

          Because if it's taking voters from the North Eastern states, it's impossible for the South to remain heavily Republican.  

          by Asak on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

      •  ROTFLMAO

        Maybe rename ourselves the Democratic-Republicans and say we're the "Party of Jefferson" to trump all that "Party of Lincoln" crap.  That should confuse those values voters.

        "We need a southern governor."  Lather, rinse, repeat.

        My 10-year-old can't figure out why I'm laughing so hard.

        Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

        BTW, I agree completely.  Or maybe a Senator from Indiana.....

        by MilitaryWifey on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:09:54 PM PDT

      •  I'm not moving... especially not to the right!

        Did anyone read Molly Ivins' Mourning in America?  Love her!  She talks about curing a chicken-killin' dog by wiring a dead chicken to the dogs neck until it stinks so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself & will never kill another chicken again.  Love this Texan's twang.  She then goes on to say...

        The Bush administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.

        So don't worry about it!  The stink is going to be so bad that we won't have a problem electing a Democrat in 2008.

        by goldilocks on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 09:16:46 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      Picking Kerry was a move to the left.  

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:33 AM PDT

      •  Nope.

        Picking Kerry was a move to the bottom.

        "I know, let's pick someone who's electable. Sort of like the lowest common denominator. Here, John Kerry ought to do!"

        by Kimberly Stone on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 02:21:32 PM PDT

    •  Define right

      Let me know if you think Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were left wing or right wing.

      Better yet, just define what you think left means.

      Frankly I still want someone like Roosevelt, but in order to get that the Democratic party has to shift to what I think you regard as the right-wing, which is troubling.
      

      by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:00:37 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        Ideological zealotry hasn't helped Bush much.  It nearly cost him this time around, as this election should not have been close after all the post 9/11 goodwill.  Bush could have taken 400+ electorals.   He won in 2004 due to 9/11.  Not because of "values."  

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

        •  It was all about abortion

          that is what got millions of xians to the polls.  they believed this was their chance to stop abortion.

          by naufragus on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:19:16 AM PDT

          •  The majority of the public is pro-choice

            That ain't it.  It was 9/11, plain and simple.

            by Geotpf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:19:02 PM PDT

      •  Economically speaking, I don't think ...

        ...I would call FDR right-wing. Certainly his Republican foes at the time didn't.

        On foreign policy, certainly, Truman was further to the right than many, but, remember, to the real right, he lost China and went for the sell-out containment policy of George Kennan instead of rollback. On economic policy, he had a mixed record, mostly leftward.

        Kennedy came at a cuspish time in American politics and never got the chance to show what he might have become. Bobby, despite his years as AG, was definitely a good deal to the left of his brother by the time he was - sigh - assassinated.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 09:15:00 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm. But...

      Does saying "no Dean, Hillary," etc. really mean "move it to the right"?

      For me Hillary represents her husband's legacy of Republican-lite welfare "reform," NAFTA, don't ask/tell, etc.  And Dean was much further to the right on policy than his revolutionary image would suggest.

      Why can't we find someone who's new to the scene  and really progressive?
      

      by MarkDQ on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:28:41 PM PDT

    •  Hey! I know!

      Let's nominate Zell Miller!

      That's the ticket!

      by Andrew C White on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 08:15:20 PM PDT

  •  no politicians

    No scrawny wffling girly men. I say we draft Jesse Ventura or some other "outsider" to come in to clean up the mess four years from now.

    No Hillary.

    by PitterPatter on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:39:38 AM PDT

    •  Hunter S. Thompson

      He isn't too strong in the God and Gays departments, but he is hell on wheels as far as Guns go.

      by redfish on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:48:01 AM PDT

      •  even better!

        Yes yes. A Jesse Ventura/Hunter S. Thompson ticket. At least we would have a good time. Then in 4 years I would just be feeling a  hangover, not complete depression about losing again.

        by PitterPatter on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:31:02 AM PDT

    •  OMG

      I will leave the demo party if Jesse Ventura is even considered. He's not presidental material.

      by JenD on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:49:05 AM PDT

  •  Yeah.

    Let's run someone the Kos community really wants.

    Bev Harris!

    </sarcasm>

    by Jon Meltzer on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

  •  No Cal-ee-fornians??

    We want Arnie! We want Arnie!

    [/snark]

    Seriously, why not a West-coaster?? We shouldn't limit ourselves IMHO...

    by MichaelPH on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:46:07 AM PDT

    •  San Fran liberal.

      That's probally worse than Massachussetts lib. :)

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:51:32 AM PDT

      •  I didn't suggest Mayor Gavin! n/t

        by MichaelPH on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:00 AM PDT

        •  Grey Davis!

          ;)

          by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:12:58 AM PDT

  •  There is Something to Regional Bias

    The last time a northeastern Democrat won was JFK...

    We need to learn to deal with the anti-elite, anti-coastal sentiments which exist out there -- not deny that they exist.

    Our best candidate would be someone from the midwest or South, of a middle class or working class background, who speaks with a regional accent.

    It sucks, but that's the way it is...

    by GregP on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:47:03 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      Don't you think that the reason why JFK did so well was because he was a brilliant speaker?

      Does anybody else notice that Mondale, Dukakis ,Gore and Kerry all share the trait of being rather long winded and boring?

      Even Carter wasn't so wonderful, although he was compared to Ford.

      It's something people better start thinking about.

      It doesn't have to be a southerner or a midwesterner, it just has to be someone compelling.  And I don't mean nice and pleasant... I mean someone who can make a good argument.  Go back and listen to some Franklin Roosevelt speeches to get an idea of our minimum requirements.
      

      by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:03 AM PDT

      •  The 60's were A LOT different.

        People had a much higher of opinion of government back then and lets keep in mind that JFK barely beat a turd in 1960.  

        Unfortunately, for some reason Northeaster and West Coast = big government.  Hopefully, the left can paint Texas and Bush as fundamentalist government.

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:01:37 AM PDT

      •  I would blame the campaign managers for that

        According to the special Newsweek edition on the election, Kerry's speeches were uneven because when they were about his ideas, he was inspiring, and when they were about his handlers' ideas, they tended to fall flat.  I think he was over-managed. Too many cooks spoiled the broth.

        by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:17:40 AM PDT

        •  Newsweek

          I think that the Newsweek special edition was an unbelievably unbalanced issue. They actually mapped pretty closely to their blatantly pro-bush polls. So, I'd take what they said about Kerry with a grain of salt. And, I'd take what they said about bush as completely filtered by the bush team. Nothing got past them without their approval.
          The national press has some serious ass-kissing issues. Kerry played very well in Peoria. He just didn't play that well inside-the-beltway.
          

          by myjlf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

          •   stupidest post of all time...

              Pro  Bush Polls?  

             Kerry played well in Peoria ?

              are  you fucking drunk?

            by wxdave on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 09:36:17 PM PDT

        •  I haven't seen that yet

          but man, it's exactly what I've been suspecting. Those of us who dug into Kerry's background and Senate speeches and interviews found plenty to get inspired by. We couldn't understand why only droplets of it were coming out in the campaign. Kerry could easily be talking about "Ask not what your country can do for you" and mean it from the heart, but he only sometimes got to come anywhere near that kind of discourse, except in his acceptance speech at the DNC. It almost seemed if his handlers were telling him not to risk being too idealistic, too patriotic, too corny, too something -- I don't know what it was, but it was weird. Have Democrats really ceded the entire territory of high-flown patriotic idealism to the Repubs, so that even when they have a candidate who believes in these ideals with all his heart, he's told to stick to talking about numbers instead?

          A friend of mine said the difference between Kerry and Clinton is that Clinton is more intellectual, and Kerry comes from the heart. That probably sounds off-the-wall to most people, but I agree with her, and I know a lot of people who do. But you had to pay close attention and kind of look past the campaign packaging to see that. When Kerry speaks from the heart, it's awesome. I had a feeling that he was getting a lot of advice against doing that too much, though. God only knows why.

          by karenvanhoek on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:47:33 PM PDT

      •  Agreed.

        And that's what we had with Clinton.

        Obama could be our Kennedy ... that is if people can get past their racist B.S. as well as applying stereotypes to his name.

        by debunker on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:51:39 PM PDT

    •  Our problem...

      Our problem lies in the way the GOP frames us. We are "liberal elitists". Since when has being intolerant of intolerance been elitist? The same goes with everything else we stand for as liberals.  We all have a common goal; the betterment of the people.

      Who cares what the GOP thinks of us? It's time to start promoting OUR values, not letting them frame their so-called values.

      I'm sick of all this sliding to the right shit, too.

      We are liberals for a reason. It's time to start framing ourselves as the party that works for the common American.

      Summary: We need to frame ourselves and stop letting the GOP do it for us.

      by Ghidra99 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

      •  Aye

        If you start framing the Republicans as elitists, and you keep doing it...

        pretty soon people will see it and agree with you.

        That's how the Republicans did it.

        by Steve4Clark on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

      •  Great insight!

        Why can't we start framing republicans instead of being on the defensive?

        The Bush administration should have been easy to frame as extremists. Which they are. They are so far away from so many republicans, it's scary. And yet, during the campaign, it was Kerry who was called an extreme liberal and had to tip-toe around it.

        One of my favorite moments in the campaign was when Kerry said the Bush administration had implemented "the most, arrogant, reckless, ideological and incompetent foreign policy in the history of the US." Hindsight 20/20, I regret that he didn't continue using this tone throughout the campaign...

        by FightOn on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:00:29 PM PDT

    •  That's not the way it is

      Mr. Northeastern Liberal John Kerry got more votes than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore or Richard Nixon ever did.

      If it weren't for the fact that 50% of Bush's supporters were delusional about his policies and the basic facts of the world, then Kerry would have crushed Bush. But unfortunately we have 59 million people living in a fantasy world of spin because like Bush they don't want to admit a mistake.

      I don't care what area somebody comes from, as long as they are a good candidate. I watched the speeches of Dean and Hillary at the DNC convention and they would not be great candidates. Right now I'm with Kerry, Edwards, Obama, and any Unnamed Democrat Superstar who emerges in 2006.

      by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

      •  C'mon

        Factor in population growth.

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:58:28 AM PDT

      •  Meaningless

        The numbers almost always grow -- population growth.

        by GregP on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:04 AM PDT

      •  I'm with Kerry

        Until somebody better comes along. We need our own Arnold. Bruce Springsteen anyone?

        by LIMAMA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:17:02 AM PDT

      •  The Bush voters needed to spin themselves into a

        fantasy world, because they felt safer with Bush, so bent all of the facts to make it ok to support him. Nobody can tolerate cognitive dissonance for long.

        by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:20:42 AM PDT

      •  Fool me thrice...

        My hope is that the lie cannot continue for 4 more years. Realistically, people will eventually figure out that Irak is a catastrophe for the US, and that the administration governs for its cronies, rather than for the people.

        by FightOn on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:03:43 PM PDT

      •  without a clue

        why are so many  if  you  repeating this  silly   point?  Of course John Kerry got more votes than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore or Richard Nixon

          there are    vasty  more   people and voters in  2004....  1996  1992   1976 and 1972.

        by wxdave on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 09:39:09 PM PDT

    •  But not...

      Rod Blagojevich. He's like Dukakis, but without the pizzazz.

      by nightsweat on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

      •  shudder

        I've noticed that even other Democratic politicians in Illinois don't like Blagojevich (not that IL Dems can ever get along, but that's anothe story).  I don't look for him to get a second term, let alone run for Pres.  I think he's got the ambition, but not the backing.

        As for Kerry, I'm adoping a wait-and-see attitude.  I'm not going to start bashing the man we were all admiring a week ago just because he lost an election.  IF he handles the next four years well, accomplishes some good stuff, and develops that infamous narrative, I'd be willing to give him another look.  Depending on the other choices, maybe even another chance.

        by mlr701 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:57:33 AM PDT

    •  Midwest or Southwest.

      It's getting harder to win the south.  Hard to out redneck or bible thump the cons.

      Being from a rural area in Illinois, I can see why Kerry didn't connect w/ some Midwesterners.

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:56:18 AM PDT

      •  Southwest Also

        I should have included that.  Just not from areas which stoke up anti-elite resentment.

        by GregP on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:04:55 AM PDT

        •  Yep.

          Doubt the cons could win w/ someone from Alabama or Mississippi.  Texas is a lot more diverse.

          by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:36:10 AM PDT

    •  That's hardly that long ago

      The last Democrat voted in from the Midwest was Harry Truman and that's only if you count MO is midwest instead of Southern.  Before him?  James Buchanon, and that's only if count PA as midwest instead of northeastern.

      And who was the last Republican elected President from a blue state that's not California? Calvin Coolidge from Massachusetts.

      Sorry, but this nonsense about how the party MUST ignore the states that vote for it when picking a nominee is just absurd.  Yes, its important to find a candidate who will convince voters from red states to switch.  Obviously.  But the notion that this cannot be someone from the west coast or northeast is just silly.  It can be done. John Kerry came awfully close.

      And, just how well did we do with a Southerner in 2000, again?  A narrow victory.  With a New Englander?  A narrow loss.  We need to nominate the person best equipped to present the  message of the party.  I'm not convinced that this HAS to be a regionalized thing.

      by BStu on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:03:52 AM PDT

  •  and

    no Senators.  It's too easy to attack their long voting records.

    The next candidate should be "TV friendly" and be the guy you most would want to have a beer with.

    Charisma counts, sad to say.

    by DoubleBonus on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

    •  Agreed, and t'hell w. most of the South.

      Do we think Republicans are thinking, "How can we win New York and Illinois?"

      I think we have our safe states and they have theirs.

      For a lot of reasons, I do not include Florida in the south, given all the people who've moved there from other places, racial diversity, etc.

      Right or wrong, me thinks the relatiy is that we need someone people can relate to more than they could relate to Kerry, and someone with the 3C's. Clear. Concise. Consistent.

      by rghojai on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:59:57 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, we need an Alaskan or a Hawaiian

    of someone from Guan or Puerto Rico.  Shoot, if Iraq is a colony by then, maybe an Iraqi.

    by LionelEHutz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:19 AM PDT

  •  No this, no that...

    I've just realized what's been bugging me about these threads...  It's all about telling other people who not to support... Kerry's too this... Dean is too that...  

    Find a candidate you like.  Work for him/her -- convince me why I and the rest of the country should vote for your candidate.  

    Because at the rate we're going we'll have dismissed all possible candidates by the end of the month...

    by rdt on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:17:50 AM PDT

    •  Well, it seems we were right about Kerry...

      Turns out he was not a very electable candidate after all.  My first impression was correct, he was long winded and boring.  He didn't have the charisma to win and I knew it at the time.  

      Many other did not and supported him.  Now you're going back to claiming the right to make your own decision.  So, what you're really saying is you have the right to be wrong?  

      by Asak on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 05:32:32 PM PDT

  •  Why?

    It isn't like we lost in a landslide and it isn't like the Kerry campaign did everything right (see the lack of initial response to the swiftvet smear, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" soundbite and the "The Iraq war is a mistake but if I knew then what I know now I still would have voted to give the president the authority" mystery) and it isn't as if Bush didn't really bind with a lot of people after 9/11 and have approval ratings which were at one time in the stratosphere, yet we still came within less than 200k votes of winning the election.

    The problem is not geography. The problem is an incohrent message and lack of vision. No one knows exactly what it is the Democratic Party stands for any more. Howard Dean can fix that.

    Dean for America, 2008!

    by Romberry on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:11:06 PM PDT

    •  What does the DNC stand for?

      Yeh, I've heard that a lot too. I disagree with this as well. For one thing, whatever the national media claims that the GOP stands for, they don't. The DNC is actually very clear about they/we stand for especially when standing in comparison to the gop. It's just that the national media refuses to be truthful with the American people.

      Here's a few.

      1. Fiscal discipline
         
      2. Helping those who cannot help themselves
         
      3. A rational foreign policy
         
      4. Pro-choice, pro-environment
         
      5. Progressive tax rates
         
      6. Business regulation
         
      7. Free and fair elections
         

      by myjlf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:37:01 PM PDT

•  Kerry hardly done

  he following statement was issued this morning via Dick Bell:

  Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:11:02 -0500

  I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on election day, especially in Florida and Ohio.  Their concern reflects how much people care about the outcome of this election.

  I want to you to know we are not ignoring it.  Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in DC making sure all the votes are counted accurately.  I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me.  Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections.

  If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to  [e-mail] rather than to me.

  The election protection effort has been important to me personally, and I am proud of the 17,000 lawyers around the country who helped.  It's obvious that we have a way to go still, but their efforts helped make a difference.  Their work goes on.

  Thank you,
  Cam Kerry

  by karendc on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:31:40 AM PDT

  •  I aggree

    that kerry is hardly done, I think he laying low and waiting for Ohio to get the final tally , I heard the gap is closing and the provisional ballots have not been conted yet,

    Now call me a tin foil hat wearing nut today but did it ever cross anyones mind that Kerry removed himself quickly so that no time would be wasted figuring out Ohio without a circus like atmosphere ?

    Also I heard Blackwell has recused himself , I heard this last night on Mike Molay on Air America ..

    They don't certify the vote untill dec 15th I beleive , who knows whats going on ~ but that election is a mystery and his concession speech was rather strange to ..
    Nonthing about this election seems normal ..

    by jackieca on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:45:18 AM PDT

    •  They are flying

      under the radar, I think.  The best way to do this kind of work is out of the media glare. If nothing comes of it, then no damage to the Dem Party. If there is something to it, they can come forward. Smart. Very smart, if you want my opinon. These guys weren't born yesterday, and things are not always as they seem. ;-)

      by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:57:10 AM PDT

    •  That's exactly what he did

      Kerry knew the odds were against him, so it would look back to keep fighting publicly. So he symbolically conceded and kept the lawyers at work. If there is a miraculous turnaround with the recounts and provisional ballots, the media will pick it up and it won't look like Kerry is being a sore loser.

      Right now I have pretty much accepted a Bush win. I'm like a Red Sox fan after they went down 0-3 to the Yanks. If the vote count miraculously turns around and gives the election to Kerry, I think my brain will explode from joy.

      by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:00:28 AM PDT

      •  im not sure

        it would be a miracle ,

        think about these numbers for a moment if you will ,

        The gap in Ohio is down to somewhere between 40 and 60 thousand ,

        There are 155,426 provisional ballots,

        Most who vote on provisional ballots are voting kerry ,thats the whole idea of provisional , many of these voters move , lose jobs ect ...

        Kerry has ten thousand attorneys , you can bet they are earning their pay .

        Blackboxvoting is full of sharp IT professionals,

        Nader is asking for recounts ,

        why would nader be asking for recounts , he stands no chance , he knows it ..

        Three lawyers (Edwards Kerry and Nader ) and blackbox voting (diebold experts ) and ten thousand attorneys and Kerry and Edwards are basicly in hiding ..

        you have a recipe for action .. these guys are not stupid .. and who knows maybe Nader was in on this from the beginning ...
        we just do not Know whats going on , We do know that Kerry and Edwards KNEW who they were running against , Kerry even said once thinking his microphone was dead that the bushco was corrupt or something to that effect ... can not remember his exact words , But TRUST me KERRY knew all along that Rove Bush Cheney were criminals ...

         

        by jackieca on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:39:56 AM PDT

  •  Who is "Dick Bell?"

    Do you have a link?

    by Calee4nia on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:49:13 AM PDT

    •  Dick Bell ran the blog on JohnKerry.com

      by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:58:20 AM PDT

    •  Link

      here.

      Dick Bell ran the Kerry campaign blog.

      by whometense on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:06:22 AM PDT

    •  It rings when the Viagra kicks in n/t

      by DC Pol Sci on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:11:09 AM PDT

  •  That's good to hear

    However, do you have a direct link to the statement please?  I'm sorry, I don't believe random things posted on message boards. :-P

    by Geotpf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:12:58 AM PDT

    •  Message is Legit

      This is not just a message on a board. I'll leave it to Karen as to whether she wants to provide more information on herself, but she is in a position to definatively verify anything stated to be coming from Dick Bell. I also received personal email on this from an email address known to me.

      by Ron Chusid on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:22:49 AM PDT

      •  Cool then

        :)

        by Geotpf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

•  it is somewhat difficult to run as ...

  ... "the electable one" after having lost the election.

  by sendtoscott on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:32:00 AM PDT

  •  That is true, if he ran again

    it would have to be as:

    "the one who can not get elected,
    but can come pretty damned close"

    by redfish on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:36:08 AM PDT

    •  By your reasoning

      Richard Nixon should have never run again. And if he didn't run again, he wouldn't have won two terms in 68 and 72. If there are better candidates out there in 2008, I'll be all for them. That's a lifetime away so who knows. But if I'm left to pick between Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, I'll pick John Kerry without a doubt.

      by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

      •  I'll make the same pick--

        given those choices.

        However, I don't see Kerry running again (assuming that the count in Ohio does not produce the miracle of a Kerry presidency this time around)-- I know Nixon did it, but I think that things have changed enormously in the 30-40 years since then.  Media saturation, for one thing, is about 50,000 times what it was then.  CW has changed a lot in the past couple of decades, and it's probably CW that says that Kerry's done in the presidential stakes with a loss in 2004.

        Too bad, IMO.  A very decent and honorable man.  I don't see the results last week making him an "unelectable" as much as I see those results certifying the appalling and stupefying idiocy of a huge number of American voters.  What they consider "electable" I consider shit.  I don't know that I will ever be on the winning side in a national election at this rate.

        Oh well, it wasn't as bad as watching McGovern lose every state but one in 1972!    

        by cinnamondog on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:25:19 AM PDT

        •  Bev Harris posted a message

          in Randi Rhodes Blog about someone high up in the media that told her that they have been told NOT TO TALK ABOUT VOTER PROBLEMS at all , either on air or off air ... and that the reporters were Horrified by this  ..

          It was posted by Bev Harris on Randi Rhodes Blog on Nov 8th ... and it went on to say that there was a tip off from the person she talked to ..

          I looked for it in the archives but could not find it ..

          I read it last night .. so I think there is defanitly things going on under the radar    

          by jackieca on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:58:15 AM PDT

        •  media saturation is an interesting point.

          i actually think kerry's run - resulting not in a bush landslide, but in an election that most people who care know could be tipped by a different vote shakeout in one state - has given him the name recognition he did not have before. much will depend on where we stand on the economy and bush's war in 2008. but if it's as bad as i suspect it will be, there will be one guy who has instant name recognition among, say, over 100 million voters, who can point out he advocated a different course in 2004.

          if kerry builds on the name recognition, even if there are missteps, he could be a very strong contender for 2008. (let's remember that "missteps" depends on what the voters care about - or are programmed to care about - in any election year.)

          by yankeedoodler on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:16:04 PM PDT

      •  My reasoning is that Nixon didn't run

        against JFK as "the electable one".  I'll accept correction (I wasn't born yet), but I don't think Nixon ran as the one less likely to turn off ABJFK voters.

        by sendtoscott on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:29:05 AM PDT

      •  bush sr also

        He ran a national campaign and lost before he ran in '88. Of course, as VP he had a leg up, but he did lose to RR in '80. And, he came within a whisker of losing the VP nod. That would have been an interesting change in history!

        I don't have the energy to go back through history, especially with the multitude of history buffs who visit here, but it's my understanding that the majority of presidents lost their first (or second) run for national office.

        by myjlf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:41:28 PM PDT

•  I like Kerry but

  but at the risk of sounding like a broken record I sure hope we're going to prevent the discussion from being about personalities, rather than issues, beliefs and approach, for the next year.  

  by PSoTD on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

  •  The New Improved Democratic Narrative

    is coming...don't worry.

    by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:42:15 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right

      but to be honest, I'd rather almost all energy went into that for now.  It seems to me that the narrative ought to provide the roadmap to the candidate.

      by PSoTD on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:18:34 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't Kerry's fault:

    I think it was the Dem Party that was without a strong message and recognizable identity in the American public's eyes. So it became a race about the candidate only. To win, we need a strong unified party behind a good candidate--and I do think we're heading that way. We needed more time to get it together than we had. Kerry was a great candidate--moderate and with good credentials.

    by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:02:32 AM PDT

    •  It wasn't Kerry's fault

      I agree. If anyone paid attention to the southern debates, there was a whole lot of distancing. That killed it for those running there and nationally. No cohesive message.

      by fight2bfree on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:12:21 AM PDT

    •  It was Kerry's fault-for what he is

      The population had a choice between a war protestor and a warmonger.  In a post-9/11 world, thier fear caused them to chose the warmonger.  It's a simple as that.

      by Geotpf on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:16:31 AM PDT

    •  It doesnt matter

      if Kerry would have PERFECT , they had diebold .. If you want Democracy back get rid of E voting .. I just heard Jeb Bush say he was going to finish out his term which endds in 06 and that he doesnt know what after that ..

      HE is going to run for President along with Rove , and he is much more articulate then his smirkey brother .. plus his wife is hispanic ..

      I am telling you guys the Bush crime family has planned this all out since their fathers loss in 92 ..

      We are doomed if we do not stop thier plan .. we will be ruled by a Bush dynasty ..

      by jackieca on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:29:54 PM PDT

•  I agree

  ABB drove it all.

  After all at then end of the day, Kerry was Bush lite.  

  by jgoodguy on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:32:26 AM PDT

  •  Bush Lite?

    Sorry, but if you honestly think Kerry was Bush Lite, you haven't paid much attention to his actual record or positions.  Maybe you're focused entirely on his support of NCLB and the Iraq Resolution.  Outside of those two things, I really don't understand how anyone could consider Kerry a Bush-Lite candidate.

    by dmauer on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:36:05 AM PDT

    •  Who is Kerry, then?

      I know he was not Bush, but never heard anything about education, crime, environment, seniors other than " I have a plan. It's on my website."

      by PitterPatter on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:41:53 AM PDT

      •  What campaign were you watching?

        Education:  Kerry wanted to raise teacher salaries while also making it easier to fire bad teachers. Also, fully fund No Child Left Behind and reform it so that it stops punishing school districts.

        Crime: Fully fund the COPS program to keep 100,000 cops on the streets.

        Environment: Invest in renewables, raise fuel efficiency standards, protect national parks from drilling, clean up toxic waste dumps, stop drilling in ANWR, go back to Kyoto.

        Seniors: Protect Social Security from the fiscal disaster of privatization. Allow Medicare to improve Canadian drugs and bargain for lower prices here at home.

        And that's just off the top of my head. Go spin the Kerry-bashing RNC talking points somewhere else.

        by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:46:50 AM PDT

        •  Then you weren't paying attention...

          pay more attention next time....

          by Volvo Liberal on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:53:45 AM PDT

      •  The fact that you don't know what Kerry stands for

        is your fault. Not his. He made his stand on the issues known.

        Bush lite my ass.

        by JenD on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:54:04 AM PDT

      •  You weren't paying attention then

        Your fault, not his.

        by LionelEHutz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 10:58:18 AM PDT

      •  Ok, maybe you don't have cable...

        but if you caught his policy speeches on Cspan, you wouldn't be saying this.  A lot of his policies are too complex for sound-bites, but he did not fail to put them out there in several distinctive policy speeches to various groups. You can't just go on Hardball and be able to communicate your strategy for Iraq, for example.

        by GinnyfromWI on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:07:24 AM PDT

    •  The Iraq resolution

      Voting for it hurt him immensely.

      Imagine what might have happened had Kerry given an impassioned speech against the Iraq resolution during the Senate debate.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

      •  Not so sure

        If he had voted against it, Bush would have said "When confronted with evidence that Saddam had WMD, John Kerry voted against holding him accountable."

        Zell Miller would have said "John Kerry has the same view as France: keep Saddam in power."

        The ads would have bashed him relentlessy: "If John Kerry were president, Saddam would still be in power. He'd still be working on WMD-related program activities. Can we risk a commander-in-chief who won't use force against our enemies?"

        And so on. I think voting for the war and then criticizing it when the facts changed was the better position, politically speaking.  It's the same view as Joe Biden, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Hagel and those other guys. Voting against the $87 billion was more problematic.

        by existenz on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:07:44 AM PDT

        •  You're somebody who gets it

          The GOP doesn't care about the truth. You take one senate vote and you exploit it into the ground.

          I'd rather have a candidate who voted to threaten Saddam and opposed the war...

          Than someone who voted to threaten Saddam and supported the war, let alone someone who voted against the war and said "let Saddam be". One has no integrity, the other has no good sense. And the spinmasters would jump on both.

          It's not black and white, this political game.

          by danthrax on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:19:05 AM PDT

          •  Tell that to Jesusland

            n/t

            I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

            by xysrl on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:00:26 PM PDT

        •  And of course, that 87 billion vote was ours

          I remember the petitions.  I remember the howling we did that our senators had to vote against it, had to stand up as real democrats, had to fight Bush at all costs.

          John Kerry did that, and then his party ran away crying like little girls from his vote.

          Leading this party is like herding cats.

          by stephdray on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:38:06 AM PDT

          •  If you've ever had a cat

            (I hesitate to say, "owned a cat"), you know how hard it is to herd them.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 03:23:03 PM PDT

        •  When will people get it right

          Kerry never voted for the war because there was never a declaration of war resolution voted on.  He voted to authorize the use of force if certain conditions were met.  They were not met and therefore he is fully justified, with no sign of flip-flopping for criticizing the war as a whole, not just the way it was managed, as the others mentioned did.
          Secondly, the vote on the $87 billion is simple.  I just wish at some point he had said the using the logic of Bush, then every Republican was against supporting the troops, and so were Cheney and Bush.  After all the Republicans voted against a bill with that authorization in it and Bush was willing to veto it.  Actually for Kerry to explain it would have been "too nuanced", but his so-called spokesmen could have been doign a far better job of this.
          This was a case were the Republicans controlled the rhetoric, and it wasn't all Kerry's fault.

          by JAPA21 on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 11:50:50 AM PDT

        •  But the facts are...

          that in response to:

          If he had voted against it, Bush would have said "When confronted with evidence that Saddam had WMD, John Kerry voted against holding him accountable."

          There were no WMDs. Everyone knows that now. So a vote against the war in Iraq would have been the correct thing to do.

          I don't know why Kerry never made a big deal out of PNAC because it perfectly laid out that 9/11 was a pretext for what Cheney wanted all along.

          by Kimberly Stone on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 02:36:37 PM PDT

    •  let's see