"I held my nose and voted for the lesser of 2 evils, yet again. Because our community needed to believe." - member on DailyKos.
Whatever the man's failings as a candidate and as a person, isn't it exterme to lump him in the same category as Bush?
People tend to forget that America has primaries. Why should anyone expect that someone who loses the democratic primaries would even have a shot at winning the presidency? I didn't think Kerry was the best candidate in the field. However, he ran the smarter campaign. He tapped into the ABB(anyone-but-bush) vote and presented himself as a winnable alternative to Dean.
Personally, I thought Dean was the best canidate out there. My reasons differ from most of the democratic activists. He was clear, consistent, vocal and best of all - he wasn't ashamed of being called liberal. Kerry was. Nothing about Dean suggested that he wouldn't be a strong leader. I would feel safer with Dean at the helm than Kerry. Figuring out Kerry's true positions, required some digging. He said he was against gay marriage - no one believes that. He voted against DOMA. I didn't want to play this game with foreign policy. Plus, I liked the fact that he was an economic realist. So clearly the prefect candidate, right? Advocacy, advocacy, advocacy. Let me say that again - ADVOCACY. Having the right ideas and a clear vision isn't enough. That's part one. Part two is being able to run a smart and effective campaign. What's the point of having great ideas if you can't convince people of them. Let's face it, Dean didn't have the people or the machinery to win this election. I can only speculate that the Dean brain trust dislked the Bill Clinton approach so much, that they forgot that they were in politics. What's point of running Dean if he isn't ready to win? Kery was, plain and simple. I'm tired of great candidates running dumb campaigns. The last thing we needed to give Bush was a Nixon style landslide. Was Kerry's campaign rife with mistakes? Sure. So was Bush's. Let's not forget what Kerry almost accomplished. A liberal senator from Massachusetts lost to a war-time republican president by 2.5%! If Kerry is can manage to win the nomination again, more power to him.
Many of you will point out that anyone should have wiped the floor with Bush, even Donald Duck in a clown suit. Really? Let's not forget that a majority of Bush voters are woefully misnformed about his positions. The GOP was formally against the department of education until 2000. Americans were split between Kerry and Bush on the issue of education. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Should Kerry take some of the blame for this? Yes. But so should that DNC, you and me. To win, we have to educate the public. The more people know about us and our ideas, the harder it is for us to lose. The mission of the DNC should be to wage an information war. The rest will take care of itself.
