Kerry failed because he didn't stand up for what was right.

[sidwill]

Kerry failed when he voted for the use of force resolution. He put aside his belief that wars like this one are wrong so that he could be on the "popular" side of this issue.

Kerry failed when he refused to reject the war on moral grounds. Again he attempted to have it both ways, being kinda for the war but not for the way Bush was handling it. What was this about?

I'm not going to discuss how the Republicans hammered him over the head with these stances, that has been well documented. No I'm going to point out to anyone who wants to listen that Kerry failed because he failed to LEAD on the war.

You can't be "kinda" for a war or "kinda" against it, this is not only a recipe for electoral disaster but worse, way worse is that by taking this psuedo position you actually end up giving a certain amount of credibility to your opponent's pro-war stance.

Kerry should have simply decided way back in 03, to BE John Kerry, he should have thrown those who told him to triangulate, out the friggin door. He should have stood up and told the American people Time and time and time again that WAR was bad--war is wrong--war, especially this wrong would make us weaker, would cost us money and lives but above all else:

THAT WAR IS MORALLY WRONG.

And that OPTIONAL-AVOIDABLE-ARBITRARY-ELECTIVE WAR IS REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, WRONG.

In other words he should have stood up and did the right thing, even if it would have cost him the election. He should have done it because even in defeat he would have given a voice to those who have suffered and died. It would have brought the morality of warmaking front and center, making it THE issue and the primary subject of the nation's discourse.

It would have given the American people a CHOICE on 11/2 that couldn't be spun away, or obscured by Swift baot ads or flip-flopping.

Even in defeat it would have given us the foundation to strive toward future peace.

And ya never know--maybe if JFK had spoken from the heart during this 9 month long campaign--he might have changed a few minds.

[ProfessorPlum]

1. Stop blaming the victim

Kerry ran a smart, tough, tireless campaign, and I think he was an excellent candidate. And I agree he didn't get nearly as strident and tough with these guys as he could have - AND I disagree with Kerry on the IWR. But, he had to choose a tone, and he did.

Jesus, isn't it enough that the GOP/media piles on Kerry without us doing it too?

[freedom_to_read]

5. Hear hear, lay off Kerry

He did the best he could. If it weren't for BBV and voter intimidation in OH he probably would've won. At 3pm on Nov 2nd, looking at the exit polls, we were all behind him. Now we're going to waste time bashing him? Too easy.

"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

We've got to stop dissecting the past and look to the future now. We've got to put an end to BBV, and make sure the next guy we send up wins by such a resounding margin that no cheap chicanery can take it away from him.

JKF is a good man who worked his ass off to win this thing for us. He never asked you to agree with everything he stood for, and he never promised victory. He did promise to do everything he could to win, and he DID everything he could. He deserves, at least, our respect.

--ftr

[cyclezealot]

59. Bloodletting not needed.

but analysis does no harm..W/O vengence.. I was at an honors banquet in LA last night where Ed Asner spoke..Kerry , we wondered- did not really want to win..
We waited and waited for Kerry to reply to Swift Boat liars..It came too little too late...Up until Swift boat liars, Kerry was considerable ahead...
Some attacks you in this manner..You turn the other cheek..It is said you do not fight slander, you must have something to hide..
That's not the case..But, wtf..he not only then and there lost the election for himself, but we his workers..
We invested our time and money in him. He owes us a better fight.

[shance]

16. Kerry is not the victim, he wont be touched by Bush's policies, we will

By choosing to throw in the towel, he has cast doubt on his legitimacy as a candidate. Atleast Gore hung in there, by himself, when fair weathered opportunist Joe Lieberman had left him in the cold.

Kerry had an army of lawyers, THE VICTORY IN CLEAR SIGHT, and walked. Just walked. And has done nothing to honestly help protect and defend the election process.

"Kerry is the victim"? Kerry might be a victim of his own cowardice, I wish I could see it another way, but his actions have shown the reality of his conviction, which is when the going gets tough, where's John?

I cannot help but conclude he has left this country and the MAJORITY of citizens who voted for him and won this election, disillusioned about the election process and as a result we much more vulnerable to a terrorist attack and more extremist policies from this Administration.

Please show me Kerry's recent actions that would prove me differently.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. I'm not sure what more he could have accomplished by stamping his feet

The fact that Washington Democrats have not done more about Black Box voting is shooting themselves in the foot, but wouldn't Kerry have had to win 95% of the provisional ballots in Ohio to win? How is that "victory in clear sight"?

[angrydemocrat]

45. KERRY IS NOT A COWARD!!!!

If you want to know who the cowards are I will tell you. It is the repugs that cannot win a honest election if they had to. Also people who just a few weeks ago backed a canidate and voted for him but now that everthing hasn't been going to suit them or Kerry hasn't handled things the way they wanted him to are now acting like a bunch of spineless whiney a$$ idiots over it all! It is amazing how quick some people are to call Kerry names and make nasty remarks when they themselves don't have any proof as to what he is doing all they can do is pass judgment on him because all at once they have all the answers and know it all. So why are you people not in the Senate or running for president? You know so much more than Kerry does and how he should do things so maybe you should have to do his job for a while. And I ask you do you have proof that Kerry hasn't been going anything? I mean real proof not some article or some remark that a right wing nut in the news made I mean real proof. I seriously doubt that you can show real proof he isn't doing something no more than I can show proof he is. Because the fact is we don't know. But the difference is I'm not sitting around passing judgment and making remarks about the man. But I can also tell you something I do know to be the facts and that is this man is a fighter not a quitter! Go back and search his records see for yourself. This man has never went down without a fight and he sure as hell wouldn't start now! Just because you don't know his every move, where he is at, what he is doing, how he is doing it doesn't mean he has quit or does it mean you know for a fact he has quit fighting. This man was an attorney himself and he knows what he is doing and how to do it to come out with the best results in the end. This man brought down BCCI but mind you it didn't happen overnight. The way I see it if you trusted this man enough to vote for him you should trust him now. But reguardless if you like Kerry or not the fact of the matter is this man is a real fighter, true patriot, and loves this country as much as anyone. He would make a great pesident and this isn't over yet. Just because Kerry conceded doesn't mean crap because anyone that knows politics will tell you he still has plenty of time to unconcede if they find enough proof he won. Also even if this election is not overturned you can beleive that Kerry will continue on until he gets to the bottom of all of this. All conceding did was get the media and right wing nuts out of the way to do what they have to do. Before everything is said and done win or lose this election Bush and the repugs are going to wish they never heard the name Kerry!

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. God, amen

Somehow Dems/liberals would find something to bitch about regardless of who we run. We could run MLK or Gandhi, Jefferson or Washington or Lincoln, and they'd find crap to criticize. Yeah, it doesn't speak much of people who say nasty, freeperish things about the candidate they claimed to support two weeks previous. And all those people who think Kerry's awful, just awful - allright, fine. Trash a man who's spent his life fighting for people. Trash him for not playing into KKKarl's hands by pursuing stupid and meaningless litigation following the election. I'm sick of the whole "at least Gore fought" shit. Yeah, and it didn't get him too far; as I recall, he LOST via SC decision and was made to look like a sore loser. Yeah, why didn't Kerry do that?? Because he's smarter than that.

Whatever. Kerry doesn't need to prove himself to the armchair politicians of DU. The Repubes and their media whores have a stronger stranglehold on America than we realized, and until they are brought down, nothing will change. And personally, given his track record, Kerry's just the man I want in the Senate going after these thugs like the criminals and murderers they are.

[Selatius]

61. I voted Kerry but he *partly contributed* to his own defeat

Let's be clear about that. The ones who complain or disagree most here are the ones who largely came out of the "Anybody But Bush" movement. I admit I voted for Kerry not necessarily because I agreed on his stances over this war but because the choice was the best one out of two options: Bush or Kerry.

Kerry shot himself in the foot when he said that if he had known then what he knew now, he still would have voted for the war. This was said over summer at the Grand Canyon, I believe? Regardless, this caused a lot of grief on my part. I did not believe this war was worth it. The risks outweighed the benefits, plus I doubt Saddam would have wanted to attack the US unless he was suicidal.

Where was the John Kerry of 1971? Where had he gone? Where was that person with the crystal clear, rock-solid vision of what was happening? Where was that man who said that how could we ask the last man to die for a mistake? Isn't this war, so disasterously fought, so disasterously detrimental to our collective safety, beyond salvage at this point? What would the John Kerry of 1971 have said if he was brought from the past and shown all the terrible mistakes and blunders that have been committed in this war?

John Kerry hurt himself again when he allowed his advisors and staffers to call the shots over the Swift Shit ads that were running around. Sure, conserve your money for the last two months, but for God's sake there have to be exceptions in cases of emergencies. Shrum and Cahill did poorly for Kerry, and I only wished Kerry would have realized what was happening and took command of the wheel...

...and steered his ship back towards that shore just one more time.

I can only hope that if there was massive vote fraud, then Kerry has just one more trick up his sleeve and that he hasn't thrown in the towel. It's the last thing I have left as far as the campaign.

[mike_c]

78. Kerry was a craven coward on Oct. 11, 2002....

That cowardice cost him the election, IMO. You will no doubt disagree, but I believe that the moral ambiguity of his IWR vote and his subsequent statements-- not to mention the refusal to allow ANY anti-war sentiment into the DNC or the campaign-- doomed his campaign from the start. It required that he run solely on Bush's signature issues from day one. That's what really cost him the election, IMO-- his failure to present any real alternatives to Bush's issues. He allowed Bush to frame the entire campaign. He only did as well as he did because Bush is so awful and the country is so polarized.

[mike_c]

76. I've been criticizing Kerry about this from day one...

...of the primaries, so I agree wholeheartedly with this poster. I didn't vote for Kerry because I could not cast my vote for someone who apparently lacked the moral clarity to understand that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is by definition a war crime, an unwarranted war of aggression. Kerry lost my vote on October 11, 2002. Kerry's consistent defense of the IWR and subsequent invasion sickened me just as much as Bush's actions.

[ima_sinnic]

2. Kerry "failed" because the election was a fraud

--in a fair election he would have won by a landslide despite the deficiencies in his foreign policy. The majority of people really do want Bush OUT.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. That too. nt

[sidwill]

4. Even if he would have won.

By not taking a strong stance about the morality of this war, he wouldn't have been able to change diddly squat.

[freedom_to_read]

7. umm sidwill maybe you should consider changing your avatar

if you're so against the K/E team??

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Soooo . . . all of his actions would have been exactly the same as Bush's?

At this point, Iraq is royally screwed because of what has already gone on there. It wouldn't have mattered if Kerry said we were fighting the forces of Ming the Merciless in Iraq, until he got into the WH he wouldn't have been able to change anything.

And, he never promised to do more in Iraq than deal reasonably with the situation. That's all he could have done. I don't think any mortal person could bring a good outcome to Iraq now, President or not.

[sidwill]

11. Look to the future--agreed.

The question is....do we encourage our candidates to take strong stances on issues such as war and peace and have them LEAD. Or do we simply continue to triangulate and try to appeal to enough moderates in an attempt to squeak by with a win?

Kerry should have LED, not just tried to offend as few people as possible.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. He did lead

I agree his views are a little more media/Matrix based and a lot less reality-based than, say, Dean's. A lot of his buddies are intelligence agency realpolitik folks, who have a different way of looking at the world.

But I can't believe that people saw the debates and were not pleased with Kerry as a leader and a thinker. Or that 20 million more people came out to the polls to elect the incumbant!

Kerry ran a good, solid, competant campaign, and it was most likely rigged against him. Yes, he had flaws, but at this point, the blame falls more squarely upon our fellow Americans and the flawed voting system than Kerry.

Find something productive to do with your time.

[aquart]

6. Kerry didn't fail. George stole another election.

Stop believing what you see on CNN.

[TabulaRasa]

27. These responses are unbelievable

Whether or not Kerry won the Electoral College, and even if Bush was able to steal 3.5 million votes, which I think is unlikely, Kerry still tied one of the worst presidents in American history. If we can't acknowledge that there's a problem, the Democratic party will become extinct. Kerry did not do the best he could. He made every mistake you could possibly make, and missed countless opportunities to bury Bush alive. I would be saying the same thing if he won though it would have had the caveat that we got lucky given how bad Bush was. I have read three or four articles in the last few days quoting Kerry campaign officials (many are featured on Air America's website). The quotes from the Kerry campaign, and the sheer ineptitude they reveal, would be astounding coming from someone running for dog-catcher, let alone POTUS. These people seem to be completely devoid of elementary reasoning skills. To give you a personal pet-peeve of mine, did they actually think that nobody was going to bring up Kerry's anti-war activities? If you know that that is something your enemy is going to use, why not talk about it first and frame it in a positive light? This would have had the added benefit of blunting the swift boat criticisms of his war record, as people would have understood the ulterior motives of the guys involved. Instead, Kerry thought he could avoid offending anyone by not talking about it except to back away from his Senate testimony. Kerry spent the entire campaign walking on eggshells, and you can't win the presidency that way. People want boldness in their leaders. It's a fact. Democratic strategists don't know how to run campaigns, and the more we put our heads in the sand about this, the more we will lose. They need to be thrown out on their asses, and we need new, tough, smart people who aren't afraid to fight dirty. Period. Fuck you and everyone like you, Bob Shrum, you incompetent moron.

[ReadTomPaine]

47. Hard words. But true, fraud or not.

Doesn't anyone on *either* side pay for failure anymore? How on earth do these people keep their jobs?

RTP

[Cobalt Violet]

8. Bush and the Repukes CHEATED!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Cobalt Violet]

9. Bush and the Repukes CHEATED!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[sidwill]

24. They may have,

but its irrelevant to this discussion.

My point is that Kerry DID NOT LEAD.

Get it?

Saying that you are "sorta" for the war, is NOT leading.

Answering the question of "Knowing what you know now, would you still have supported the war" with "Yes, on these conditions, blah,blah,blah, etc......" IS NOT LEADING.

And it goes beyond the election, forget for a moment the outcome, Kerry and by extension the Democratic party and our voters took a position that basically endorsed a continued military occupation of Iraq.

The mistake was in attempting to take a position that some felt would result in electoral victory, but didn't reflect a strong idealistic stance. This strategy may have looked good on paper but it was devoid of purpose.

It doesn't answer the question of WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?

[dogtag]

13. I wish he had explained the 'vote for the war' by saying

that Bush I did not abuse his authorization vote and that he expected the son to do the same. He was wrong...the son is a lesser man than the father. It would have have been a 'two fer' but that, as they say, is water over the dam.

If the 'nice' convention had been the 'this war is a turkey' convention instead, things may well have turned out differently.

I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what JK has to say when Congress reconvenes this week. I hope he comes out swinging.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Absolutely right. A weak candidate on a weak platform.

He lost the election the day he voted for the war.

He could have saved it by renouncing the vote and going on the offensive against the war, but he chose to offer nonsense "plans" and more of the same.

Ending with the morally courageous and statesmanlike goose kill. He pandered to the right and lost.

To hell with the sour grapes about "vote fraud" and "cheating" and all of the rest of the useless crappola.

[Tempest]

15. Stop perpetuating the lie that Kerry voted for the war

Kerry voted for war as a LAST resort.

Boosh obviously did not go to war as a last resort and Kerry made it clear he didn't support Boosh going to war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Bull.

If Kerry was so oblivious to the fact that Bush was going to war no matter what, then he didn't deserve to be president because he is willfully ignorant.

23 other senators, and most of the rest of the world knew that Bush wasn't going to use force as a "last resort".

Kerry (and Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards) gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq. And, he backed up his vote by sticking with Bush after the fact with his obviously pro-war "plan" for Iraq that called for more troops and more bloodshed.

[Tempest]

28. Huh?

>>And, he backed up his vote by sticking with Bush after the fact with his obviously pro-war "plan" for Iraq that called for more troops and more bloodshed.<<


I take it you wanted to cut and run from Iraq and leave it wide open for civil war, or worse, Iran to take control.

Sorry, the U.S. broke it and it's now our responsibility to fix it.


I can't begin to imagine the foreign policy repercussions if the U.S. cut and run from Iraq.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. we can't fix it

the only decision we have now is how many more troops and Iraqi people will we kill before declare a truce and leave.

[Tempest]

35. We can't leave Iraq without stability

Regardless of what you think about the war, this is the reality of the situation.

Even if it means we're there indefinitely.

I'm also against the war, but I'm even more against leaving Iraq in the hands of fervent anti-U.S. militants with a nuclear neighbor.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. So we kill more Iraqis to provide "stability"? For who?

Certainly not the Iraqis. As for the "nuclear neighbor", Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria have a "nuclear neighbor". Should we invade Israel to provide "stability"?

[Djinn]

53. self deleted

[Djinn]

54. they don't want your stability

that "stability" means nothing more than the privatisation of their natural resources, intellectual property rights forcing Iraqi farmer to buy ALL their seed stock from the mutant makers at Monsanto et al and a CIA aligned puppet PM.

Why do you beleive that all those fighting against US troops are "fervent anti-U.S. militants" when there is ZERO independant evidence to back that up? There was NEVER any flower throwing by the Iraqi people, all the "liberation" celebrations you saw on your TV have been thoroughly debunked by now as pure PR bunk set-up by the military, the opposition to the occupation is widespread throughout Iraqi society - secular, religious, professional, working class, urban and rural.

If you think what the reaction of the average American would be to a foreign force invading, selling the silverware and installing their own PM, then you know why the Iraqi want the COW out.

If Kerry REALLY honestly didn't beleive that Bush would use the vote to start a kleptowar then he even more so than George is too stupid to be president - millions of people around the world knew - why didn't he?

[Jose Diablo]

64. There never will be "stability" as long as we are there

Don't you get it, the 'insurgents' are the Iraqi people. They are fighting us, we are not there to 'free' them, WE are the invaders.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. If we are there forever there will still be no stability

there is no stability now... so WTF is the point of continuing to let americans die and being responsible for killing Iraqi citizens? They hate us they want us out. They know we are only there to take their oil. They are not interested in our version of Stability.

How many more people should we kill? How many more children should we mow down with automatic weapons while they try to swim to safety? How much more of the Wrath of God should we bring down on our own heads for our immoral war for OIL and our stupidity?

[Sterling]

89. We can't leave Iraq without stability"

And yet our presence there is exactly why there is no stability. The irony is just tragic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Repercussions?

You mean like the destruction of Iraqi cities like Fallujah and the killing, starving, and prevention of aid now going on there?

You mean like the chaos that reigns in most of the country now?

You mean like the fact that 80% of the Iraqis want us out of their country?

You mean like the "bloodbath" that was supposed to take place in Vietnam after we "cut and run"?

Yeah, I'll take "cut and run", and the sooner the better.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Kerry is not an idiot

he knew that bush was going to war.

[Tempest]

33. And your proof of this is what exactly?

Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. So, you think he is an idiot?

Worth considering I suppose.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. Get real

since you can't seem to understand the simple truth. Proof, for my opinion? You want me to provide proof for the opinion shared by the majority of people in the world? Bush is a liar and was going to war and if Kerry didn't know that he is a moron.

[Q]

73. Bush* was already amassing troops when the resolution was passed...

...could that have been a 'sign'?

[ProfessorPlum]

18. What's interesting is he seems to have won the primaries

the day he voted for the war.

What a strange party this is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Sure, he was supposed to be "electable".

As opposed to ethical.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. Well, whatever

I worked my *ss off for Dean in the primaries, and was amazed when Democrats did not vote for him in droves.

But Kerry earned my respect in the general. I still don't think that huge influx of voters this time voted for *. But whatever. People here seem to be having a good time trashing Kerry. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Well, I held my nose and voted for the jerk.

With the anticipated result of what happens when you run another DLC candidate advertised as "electable" because he is willing to pander to the right.

As for "trashing" Kerry, you bet. Him and the rest of the apologists for the rightwing drift of the party.

[Jose Diablo]

77. If the e-votes can be manipulated in the presidential election

Why couldn't they be manipulated in the primaries?

[mom cat]

17. KERRY WON> GORE WON. This is purely a case of Grand Theft.

[Djinn]

86. so if I steal your car

would you just meekly concede defeat and go catch a bus?

[no name no slogan]

19. Kerry should have won in a landslide

-- instead, it was close enough for the Repubs to steal.

Dubya is the weakest incumbent president since Herbert Hoover. His record alone would be reason for him to go down in flames.

Unfortunately, Kerry decided to play by the Repubs rules. Instead of being unequivocly (sp?), against the war, he said he'd "manage it better". Instead of opposing so-called "free trade", he was in favor of "incentives" to keep jobs here. Instead of favoring a single-payer, universal healthcare system (favored by 50%+ of all Americans), he campaigned on "more access" to yet another form of "insurance".

When you play by your opponents rules, you're gonna get beat.

Kerry's problem is that he was not decisive enough. He decided to run a campaign based on "mine's bigger", instead of a true alternative to endless expensive wars. He promised revisions in policies, but did not provide a coherent vision. He came off as a yet another Northeastern technocrat (a la Mike Dukakis), and not a compassionate leader with convictions, who was willing to stand up against those who belittled him.

Senator Kerry is a fine Senator, and a good man, but was a lousy candidate this year.

[mtnsnake]

22. Couldn't agree more. Kerry failed miserably to explain

himself to the American people. He won the primaries by speaking out against the war and lost the election by not explaining clearly enough to the American people why he voted for it. "Wrong war wrong time" was a nice piece of rhetoric, but it did little to explain his own mistaken stance on the war. When it comes to the war, I still don't know where he's coming from and I don't think anyone else does either. He failed to make himself perfectly clear.

The chimp was clearly wrong, but at least he was clear. Sickening.

[emulatorloo]

25. Kerry Failed BECAUSE BUSH ROVE CHENEY lied about him and voters believed

the President, Vice-President, and the shadowy pudgy smear artist.

After all, why would the President lie?

[TabulaRasa]

34. Yes. That's given.

The Republicans are the lowest of the low. There is nothing they won't do to win. You should have learned that in 2002 if you didn't already know it. They lie, cheat and steal. And a sizable portion of the electorate is stupid beyond measure, and believe pure bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that you have to win in that context. We can cry about it all we like, but that doesn't accomplish anything except making us feel superior. That was the Kerry campaign's response to Republican treachery: "Teacher, make them stop. They're hurting me. Wah Wah." It doesn't surprise me that people don't want someone like that running a war against terrorists. You have to fight back, maybe even stoop to their level if necessary.

[emulatorloo]

48. Don't remember Kerry Campaign whining about it

OTOH this survey posted earlier by another DUer makes interesting reading:

http://www.alternet.org/story/20263

The World According to a Bush Voter


By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted October 21, 2004.

A new survey reveals that Bush supporters choose to keep faith in their leader than face reality.

[TabulaRasa]

80. Are you kidding?

You don't remember Kerry's campaign whining about "Republican smears". I thought that was what the entire first week of response to the Swift Boat thugs consisted of. Compare the Kerry campaign's response to the SBVs to the Bush campaign's response to Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke was telling the truth and the SBV were so full of shit, it was practically oozing off my TV screen. The Bush campaign unleashed one of the most widespread, concerted and vicious assaults on a man's character that I have every seen. Surrogates were everywhere claiming the man was an opportunist, a pathological liar, guilty of perjury, delusional and crazy. This is the man who put himself directly in the line of fire on 9/11, while the entire Bush administration was running for the hills trying to save themselves. Kerry's response to the SBVs? Send a weird-looking dimwit, by the name of Tad Devine, on a few shows, to say, "These veterans served honorably and have a right to their opinion. But John Kerry also served honorably. This is an unfair smear and John McCain has called it that." And they spent the rest of the time trying to find connections between the SBVs and the Bush campaign, so that they could cry about that as much as possible. John O'Neill is a lunatic, who spent years as the butt-boy/hitman for the most unpopular president in modern history. You think he would have been ripe for a public character assassination? Umm, yeah. Kerry surrogates should have been everywhere, blasting these clowns and comparing Kerry to Bush, a man who supported the war, but was too busy snorting coke and forcing girls to have abortions to actually fight it. (They probably should have left out the last part ... that's just my own personal flourish. :))

[emulatorloo]

82. I don't think Kerry wanted to directly attack another Vet

and I gotta say, I like that.

[TabulaRasa]

85. Then he deserved to lose.

If he thinks being a veteran gives someone a free pass to be a jackass, lie and destroy another veteran's character, not only attacking the man, but attacking his service of all things, he's stupid beyond measure, and deserved to lose. When someone attacks you, you have to fight back. I think people use subtle things like that to judge whether or not you're capable of defending them and the nation. No matter how many times Kerry said "bring it on", "the gloves are off", whatever, the non-verbal cues he gave off, from the weak smile he had plastered on his face, to the swift boat response, told people, this guy's a pansy, and he would hesitate before protecting my family. Even though that's not true, I think that's the message people took.

[mondo joe]

39. So what? We can only win when Republicans become nice?

Of course they're evil jackasses.

THat's why Dems have to be BETTER, SMARTER and FASTER.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. In hindsight

there is much to criticize about the Kerry campaign. To do so does not mean attacking the victim, for in no way can Kerry be considered a victim.

Pursuing the course he did, appealing to the middle class, not being forceful enough for the plight of the poor, the working poor, and those in the lower realms of a class society, oviously did not work. From what I am reading on the net, suburban areas went for Bush because they felt more secure with Bush. He did make mistakes and one of them, imo, was platitudes and pandering in the attempt to run a smart campaign.

The albatross around his neck, which he himself put there, was his and Edwards vote on the IWR. Kerry was never able to get around that without extreme, lengthy explanations that rang shallow. Rove jumped on it with a vengence--couple that with the dirt allowed to go on from the Swift boat ads, and the appearances of those on various political talk shows on the teevee, plus the Catholic church chiming in with the publicity of denying him communion, plus other things shouted at the congregations from various pulpits and many other things. I am assuming that he was against the war, but I could very well be wrong on that given that vote.

He lost his lifelong desire to gain the presidency.

But, look. He did not lose much did he? He will not go down and forgotten because he is still a Senator as always. He may be elected as such again out of pity for his valient try.

The war that was waged immorally, and illegally should have been the issue hammered upon the most. Dead people by the thousands killed on lies is a shocking atrocity. War crimes and lying are an atrocity. But he boxed himself into that corner of relataive muteness on the question becasue of the IWR vote.

I believe if it were approached as an immoral, shameful undertaking not worthy of this country and it was hammered as such, complete with facts about every single lie told that enabled Bush to invade Iraq,

,and a distinct and easy to understand presentation on his plans to withdraw from a quagmire in 1,2,3, easy for even the most mentally challenged to understand would have made a difference.

Instead all of the lies stood as truth to many people. What is interesting also is the appearance of Bin Laden on the last days of the campaign. Instead of causing people to wonder why he has not been captured and why he is still a threat, it seemed to drive the fears of the people toward Bush as a protector, rather than the more reasonable accusations of letting the guy escape was putting them in harm's way.

my two cents

[Kazak]

32. Uh, no...Kerry won.

The returns were fraudulent.

This crap is getting old real quick!

[cubsfan forever]

36. Hear, Hear! Impeach! n/t

[tritsofme]

42. I'll tell you what is getting old real quick...

The mass denial that goes on in this forum over Kerry's loss.

We can't blame our loss on some unproven fraud, we need to accept it and move on, and start working toward 2006 and 2008.

[Kazak]

44. Uh huh...

:eyes:

[AP]

38. If Kerry had any week spot it was that he wasn't sufficiently a symbol of

people's anxieties about class mobility and opportunity.

The truest thing about America today is that it's becoming harder and harder to go from working class to middle class or to being super wealthy. After 70 years of Democrats making America a land of opportunity, the Republicans have made America a land where the wealthy rule and if you don't have money now, you probably never will.

Kerry, unlike Clinton, didn't tap into those anxieties effectively. There's a war on the poor, working class and middle class, and because Kerry wasn't a living symbol of that war, he left the playing field clear for Repubicans to talk about national insecurity instead.

[tabasco]

90. There are some great posts in this thread.

This is one of them. We do need a hero for the poor folks. It is class warfare and Democrats better start saying so!

[KnowerOfLogic]

46. Exactamundo, but with half the congressional dems on Bush's

side, any nominee who spoke the truth would have had their legs cut out from under them by their own party. I was a Dean supporter and still think that dean should have been the nominee, but i'm not sure he would have done any better than kerry, because he would have had to go up against not only Bush on the war, but against a lot of his own party as well.

[Fescue4u]

49. When Republicans Give out Crack for votes

As they did in Toledo, we should have known that they fraud vote would have won.

Kerry took the right stance on the war. We just had it stolen from us.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. Kerry took the political stance on the war

you may think that is right, but I do not.

[Columbia]

50. Kerry believed he was doing the right thing

Where he erred was that he actually trusted Bush to use the authorization wisely to force a resumption of vigorous inspections.

[mike_c]

81. then he was an idiot who doesn't deserve to be in the Senate...

...let alone the oval office. Anyone with half a brain could see that Bush was well on his way to invading Iraq already, and that the IWR was nothing more than window dressing for an administration with a compliant congress, and most especially a congress eager to divest itself of its constitutional responsibility to determine whether the nation goes to war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Whether the Republicans cheated or not (and I think they did)

this should have been a blowout, as it was in my neighborhood, which went 80% for Kerry. It should have been like Johnson versus Goldwater, a liberal steamrolling a wacko righwing extremist.

Stealing an election that lopsided would have been impossible.

[delphine]

52. Kerry did what he thought was right on the war

I don't believe he was pandering to look like he was tough on war. I think he believed having force as an option strengthened our hand against Saddam. Now believing bush would be thoughtful about using force - that was rather dumb.

If there is anything I can point to that may have hurt it is the overarching impression that JK did not fight back - not against the shitload of liars, not against Bush and Cheney's lies about him, not against media bullshit (like cutting away from his speeches and press conferences after bitching that he never gave policy speeches and press conferences).

The subconscious message is that he doesn't fight. So he's telling us that he will never hesitate to defend us, and all the while he is hesitating to defend himself.

The nonverbal trumps the verbal.

In any event, whatever supposed "errors" he made, he is far and away a better candidate, a better man, a better leader, a better person than his sad and pathetic opponent.

Nothing he did should have made a difference in comparison with the incompetent retarded chimpboy.

A lazy and stupid media, complacent and apathetic voters who expect to be spoon fed information, an opponent who has sold his soul and is willing to do whatever it takes to win/destroy him, greedy corporations and a society that elevates bullies and disdains thought and reason

These are what hurt Kerry's campaign more than anything he did or failed to do.

I still believe he would be an excellent prez - I still hold out hope that come January we will not have to throw eggs at anyone.

My biggest complaint right now (which I posted on another thread) is that Kerry seems to feel that the turmoil he might cause by fighting for votes (and perhaps winning) is somehow worse than the turmoil we face just by having shrub in office.

The turmoil caused by fighting for votes is Democracy. That other turmoil is just fucked up hell.

[mike_c]

83. welcome to DU....

Saddam Hussein had already been in compiance with WMD disarmament mandates since the mid-1990s. Iraq had already agreed to resumption of UNCONDITIONAL inspections. In fact, inspections resumed and the inspectors were forced out by the U.S. on the eve of the invasion.

No, the IWR was primarily to PREVENT U.N. weapons inspectors from certifying that Iraq had complied with the U.N. mandate. The neocons needed an open door to a permanent U.S. force presence in the middle east, and that door was beginning to close, so they invaded.

[sandnsea]

55. Democrats aren't so bright either

Democrats and people on the left could have helped clear up that vote. They could have pointed out Bush said he had no plans to go to war at the time of the vote. That Bush said he just needed the strength of a unified voice at the UN. People could have said that. But oh fuck no, had to keep harping on it being a vote for war. If anybody lost this election, it was stupid ass people who couldn't put aside semantics about that stupid vote long enough to rally behind the candidate. I heard more Democrats bitch about that vote than Republicans. AND the $87 billion.

[kerrygoddess]

56. I'll second that!

Good lord can we get behind a candidate when we really need to and stop long enough to think and act accordingly?

[KT2000]

57. Compared to bush??

look at the supposed winner - a failed mess of a person - did he do things right?

any way you look at it Kerry is head and sholders above bush - he did not do anything wrong

[ever_green]

60. I agree with this. Do any of us here support this war? Neither should he

Nor should he have been our candidate! Why in God's name would we elect a candidate that doesn't represent our views! Ugh.

[PassingFair]

65. Agree with you on this, ever!

Every single rally, speech, and convention I went to in the last year played out the same way. Shouts of encouragement for better domestic policy, nods of agreement for health care overhaul,

but LOUD, FOOT STOMPING, YELLING AGREEMENT, whenever anyone had the guts or inclination to call bush out over his "war".

It never failed to amaze me.
State Convention.
Yawn,
UNTIL Carl Levin gets up and says NO more blood for OIL. The crowd is on its feet. Levin walks off. Everyone assume previous boredom stance.
And we ran a pro-war candidate with a vice-presidential pick who helped to write the "Patriot Act".
Huh?

[Biased Liberal Media]

97. Wow....I completely agree n/t

.

[tommcintyre]

62. He "failed" becuz the GOP controls the Evote!

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud_things_you_can_do.htm

[GSL]

63. Even after voting for the war, he still had a chance...

if he only had the courage to admit he was wrong. By that stage he was the "flip-flopper", and was aiming for pure consistency.

But if could have said "I made a mistake. America made a mistake. Let's make it right again" he would have gained some traction. Women, for one, love to hear that.

I absolutely agree with the first post. I am not sure Kerry would have been a good president, but I tend to think he could have grown into it, and began to trust himself and make meaningful and true decisions.

Trying to sell the Dems as "Repub-Lite" was always a tragic mistake. Many more deaths will be allowed because the Democrats did not go with what we all know is right, and tried to gain the vote in a scientific way.

[cubsfan forever]

66. Horseshit! The election was stolen! n/t

Professor 2

[Cheswick2.0]

70. that will be cold comfort when bush is inaugurated again

because Kerry failed to plan for E-vote fraud and failed to fight it afterwards.

[cubsfan forever]

71. We shall see n/t

Professor 2

[Cheswick2.0]

74. yeah right........... keep dreaming

if anything comes of this recount it will not be because Kerry/Edwards did anything about it. Progressives, at considerable personal and political expense will have dragged him like a sack of cement across the finish line while he vacationed.

[cubsfan forever]

75. Once again, we shall see

but don't wait for events to play out, just start bashing Kerry now, eh? Just asking. BTW, it was we "dreamers" who built up everything in this country that the fascists are tearing down. A person without dreams is, in a very real sense, dead.

Professor 2

[bacchant]

72. The election was stolen AND sidwill is right

in a radio interview from the GOP convention floor, Arundhati Roy remarked on the tragedy of letting republicans frame the issues. Especially, in regard to the War On Terror and Iraq. She put it well when she said "They've sealed all the exits", essentially leaving the democrats no avenue but to out Bush, Bush.

Kerry either didn't articulate his position on the our illegal war, or tried to play both sides. Sorry Kerry Acolytes, whether it cost him the election or not, he fucked this up.

[mike_c]

79. agreed, one hundred percent....

Kerry lost the election on October 11, 2002. I'm still surprised that the Democratic Party was unaware of this for more than two years, until Nov. 3, 2004.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. Kerry "failed" because of the ideas perpetrated by you,...

...and people that think like you.

I don't guess the idea of voter fraud on a massive scale ever entered into your "thinking", did it?

[Forkboy]

87. It entered into my mind for the last four years

but instead all we saw here at DU was scapegoating Nader.

NOW fraud is suddenly a concern! :eyes:

[JVS]

92. Doh!

[Sterling]

88. That is why our party is no longer viable

People like Bush because he laughs at people who disagree with him. We need a strong leader on our side who understands how to project strenghth.

[Boswells_Johnson]

91. Had Kerry been "hard" left

and won the election, the other half of the country would have been as upset as the Democrats are now. I think he was as liberal as possible and still be in a position to try and bring your country together.

[stavka]

93. Agreed....

voting for the war was worth 3% easily.......

It was what immediately made me move to Clark during the primaries (granted he didn't have a vote, but....)

[ProfessorPlum]

94. Bush won, and he has never stood up for what's right

Lesson?

[tommcintyre]

95. Not the voter, he who counts the votes decides Stalin (and Bush) nt

[Dude_CalmDown]

96. Agree 100%

Of course the chimp cheated but it does not take away from the fact that Kerry blew it with his vote for this war. If he had the balls to vote the way he knew was right he would have been able to make this the issue it should have been.