Some keep saying that Obama's numbers are like John Kerry's in 2004.
Certainly, statewise they aren't, in particular not in Ohio.

Now that Clinton has formally ended her bid for the presidential nomination, hopefully Democrats will start focusing more aggressively on the larger picture.

Back in early November, I suggested:

It is time for Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, to use examples and the power of suggestion to make the case against their Republican counterparts.

MsCharisma of Maryland on the "Bill Goes Insane" diary said "He is so obviously jealous of Obama."  Truer words were never spoken,  I believe that jealousy is the real source of the vitriol toward Obama from the Clinton camp.  They cannot be reasonable or rational because jealousy at this level is inherently unreasonable and irrational.  And I think that jealousy has been nakedly on display in recent days.

The number of US soldiers currently deployed in Iraq is roughly equal to double the attendance at Barack Obama's rally in Portland, OR on May 20, 2008.

I've heard other parents say that talking to their kids about procreation is the hardest conversation they have. That conversation was a breeze. Tonight, I had the most serious conversation I've yet had with my 7 year old son.

More serious than the conversation about why his dad and I divorced (mostly because that happened when he was 4). More serious than the conversation about not talking to strangers (mostly because that happened when he was 3). More serious than the conversation about how important it is to tell the truth so that people are inclined to believe you rather than doubt you.

He asked me why George Bush was president, and he is too smart to take "because more people voted for him," for an answer. His immediate follow-up question was, "Why did so many people vote for him when he's such a bad president?"

My son was less than a year old on September 11, 2001.

If there's one thing the 2 party system has taught us, it's that the 2 party system doesn't work!

time after time after time, both major parties pass over great candidates and nominate fools. the best presidential prospects never make it to the November ballot. which is why we've had elections like Bush v Gore instead of McCain v Bradley.
and the Democratic primary voters' failure to Do the Right Thing is why instead of Howard Dean crushing the leper Bush, we had John Kerry meekly losing to the most unpopular sitting president ever to win relection. we could be (but hopefully aren't) on the verge of another monumental error, if we pick an unpopular establishment Dem over an agent of change.

so the question: would this be a mistake of historic proportions? and/or what is the biggest primary mistake Democrats have made in recent history?

I will limit the choices in the poll to the 1980 election through the 2008 election. in addition to the poll, please (if you feel like it) rate the nominations and tell us why or why not they were big mistakes. and feel free to go back further than 1980 if you want.

For all the talk of people leaving DKos lately, you'd think that a) there'd never been any candidate wars before (geez, did people forget the Dean 2003-4 flame wars so soon? Or the whole pie kerfuffle? Or the MSOC wars?  Or [insert favorite kerfuffle here]?), and b) the site was about to dry up and blow away.  In fact, it's pulling in more visits than ever.  This is a microcosm of what's happening nationwide:  The primary battles, far from driving people away from the Democrats, are creating more Democrats even as GOP numbers stay the same or drop.

Don't like candidate diaries?  Stay away from them.  It's that simple.  They will be gone after November anyway.  In the meantime, enjoy the rest of the site in all its cantankerous glory!

This diary is a response, in part, to ddigioia's "Memo From a Disillusioned Progressive".

I joined the Democratic Party in late 2003, when a doctor by the name of Howard Dean showed up and performed a backbone transplant.  Dean was my first choice for the nomination, and John Edwards was my second, because I thought they'd stand up to the Republicans — and because they were both campaigning with stories rather than laundry lists.  The mistake Democrats had made over and over, in my view, was to nominate what I call checklist candidates — candidates who have a whole list of reasons why you should elect them, but who can't turn that list into a compelling theme.

So when the rest of the party made the decision to put John Kerry at the top of the ticket, I was more than a little disappointed.

It's true. I was an independent. I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2004 election. In a swing state. That swing state went for Bush. (I know, hate me, right?)

I disliked George W. Bush, but I disliked John Kerry as much. I stood by the principle that you should vote for the candidate you think is best, regardless of BS issues of who you think is most "electable." If everyone voted for who they thought would win, no substantial change would ever come to DC or the country.

So Ralph Nader threw his hat into the ring on Meet the Press today. And I just wanted to let you know...

It's been four long years since the 2004 Primaries. Back then we had ten candidates on the debate stages. This year we started out with eight but are now down to two (or three counting Mike Gravel). How many remember that John Kerry had to mortgage his Boston Townhouse to continue his bid in Iowa? The Gephardt ads in Iowa attacking Dean? Wes Clark winning Oklahoma? Kucinich taking his delegates all the way to the 2004 Convention before releasing them to the floor? Many of you may have seen the junior senator from Illinois speak for the first time at the 2004 Convention.

Your poll on the flip...

It's been four long years since the 2004 Primaries. Back then we had ten candidates on the debate stages. This year we started out with eight but are now down to two (or three counting Mike Gravel). How many remember that John Kerry had to mortgage his Boston Townhouse to continue his bid in Iowa? The Gephardt ads in Iowa attacking Dean? Wes Clark winning Oklahoma? Kucinich taking his delegates all the way to the 2004 Convention before releasing them to the floor? Many of you may have seen the junior senator from Illinois speak for the first time at the 2004 Convention.

Your poll on the flip...

Huckabee schools Al Gore and John Kerry. Note to all future Democratic Candidates facing voting "irregularities" - take a lesson from Gomer Pyle:

As I said, we are prepared to go to court, and we are also prepared to take our case all the way to the Republican National Convention in September.

"Our cause is just. We must reemphasize the sacred American principle that all ballots be counted in a free, fair, and transparent manner."

See entire quote below the fold:

[From the Frog Pond]

When people compare George W. Bush to Herbert Hoover they are usually making the point that they are two of the worst presidents ever.  But there may be more similarities than people suspect.  When we have a little time to look back, we may see a lot of similarity between the elections of 1928 and the elections of 2004.  The main commonality could be that both elections represented both a high point and an end point for Republican dominance.  

As a 30-something who's gone back to finish college (hopefully the first woman in my family to graduate!), I'm surrounded by people who are four to ten years younger than me. Despite the fact that I attend what has historically been a very liberal, politically active university, I've noticed a general apathy in the new student body. As a member of "Generation X," the fact that the next generation seems apathetic to me could rightfully be seen as an indicator of some apocalypse approaching...........

I didn't see this result here, so I thought I'd throw this up on the site -- for those of you who wanted to know what the final result was.

From the website Stone Soup Musings (quoting Markmaynard.com):

The definitive moment of the 2008 presidential primary may have happened in Nevada, but it's possible none of us have seen it quite yet.

Barack Obama, as Ari Melber reports in the Nation, may well have lost the popular count in Nevada, but won the most resulting delegates. This effect is what I'm calling Irony in Las Vegas.

But that's not what I'd like to address tonight. Tonight I'd like to talk about voter suppression tactics and Bill Clinton and the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination.

OK, John Kerry. It's time for a reckoning. Where's my money? Where's my Democratic president? And where's my country?

Let's review all the reasons why John Kerry was wrong and John Edwards was right in 2004, shall we?

I know it is WAYYY too early to start this type of speculation, but what good is a diary entry without some baseless supposition?  But I digress...

Scattered thoughts from an outsider who may be coming in from the cold.

First off, though: yeah, I was here early enough that I bagged the user name "joseph" so neener to all you other josephs.

But more importantly, I haven't been to this site much in the past three years, maybe once or twice.  But I clicked on it in the runup to the Iowa caucus (I'm in California and still don't know who I'm supporting) and I have to say---I wish I could say it without sounding caustic, but I probably can't---it appears to me that the site has matured a great deal since I've been here.  I'm glad for that.  Be caustic back to me if you like.