Iowans were 'snakebit' by Kerry?

[kentuck]

The Democrats in Iowa had more to do with John Kerry being the candidate in 2004 than anyone else. They must look back and ask themselves "What if?" What if they had voted for someone else? Would another candidate also have been demolished like Kerry?

They will think long and hard before they cast their vote this time around? Will that be good or bad? In my opinion, Democrats would be better if they simply chose someone that best represented the Party and what it stands for, rather than debating amongst themselves about who might be the "most electable". Why not just choose someone that stands for Democratic principles and defend them to the last man?

[Wickerman]

1. Demolished, Kentuck?

But for some hijinks in Ohio the race looked pretty close from my perch.

Aside from that, nice post.

[kentuck]

2. Perhaps that is not the correct word?

Perhaps "character assassination" or "chopped off at the knees" might be a better description?

[Wickerman]

4. now I get you

Yeah, but I fear the spin machine of the GOP side can "demolish" whomever we put up. Who would've guessed the swiftboat crap would've been effective? If I were to have attempted to discredit Kerry that isn't where I would've thought to started. That makes me believe those evil fucks from find any lose thread and tug at it until they get all to unravel.

[kentuck]

8. And that is exactly why Rove was on TV this morning..

He believes in taking the storngest point of your opponent, in Kerry's case his war record, and "demolishing" the candidate on that issue. This morning he was still trying to get people to believe that the Democrats pushed Bush into going into the war in Iraq. Everyone does not have to believe him- only the Republican morbots.

[karynnj]

16. That would have happened with any candidate

The media was complicit in the smears. There would have been an attack on any candidate and I doubt any would have ended up in as good a shape as Kerry - with most reasonable people agreeing that the SBVT were liars. Consider that the RW to the contrary even Guilliani complained that he was being swiftboated by the fireman - using that word because it means they made stuff up.

Kerry was smeared in many many ways - and the sad thing is that after the election a wing of the party continued the smearing to eliminate a rival.

Not to mention, even though winning Iowa gave Kerry momentum, NH could have ended it. He was extremely well known in NH and if the people in NH though he would make a bad President, they would have gone to Dean or Clark (who had started to do well in NH and lost most of his support to Kerry.) Then the next elections were the first multistate day - ND, MO, OK, SC, DE, NM and AZ are not a dream set of states for a NE Senator. He won 5 of them - and in reddest of red OK, he got 25% to Clark's and Edwards' 30% - not a real blow out. The states Kerry won he won very convicingly they weren't close.

It was NOT just Iowa, but in 2004, Kerry looked much better than the alternatives.

[LittleClarkie]

3. "Demolished" would feed into the "mandate" that Bush claimed he had

It was a tiny little thing.

And if Kerry was "demolished" then why are there those who still think he should have fought in Ohio. A demolished man can't fight.

[wyldwolf]

5. the only problem with your hind sight is Iowans DID think long and hard...

...and they chose the candidate they (and many of us) felt was the best GE candidate.

Democrats would be better if they simply chose someone that best represented the Party and what it stands for, rather than debating amongst themselves about who might be the "most electable". Why not just choose someone that stands for Democratic principles and defend them to the last man?

Same shit, different day. WHO decides what the party stands for and what it's principles are??? And if we don't nominate the most electable, should we nominate the LEAST electable??

[Mass]

6. Says who? I heard that from a few mainstream reporters this morning, the same ones who have never

been able to say out loud that the SBVT were liars, but stayed at the level of "he said", "he said".

So, how is it that we still listen to these people as if they had any insight?

[mtnsnake]

7. "Democrats would be better if they simply chose someone that best represented the Party"

"and what it stands for".

I couldn't agree more. That's why it's a shame that Dennis Kucinich doesn't get much more than a fleeting glance in the Primaries. I don't think there's any other candidate who "stands for Democratic principles" more than he does.

[beachmom]

9. Kerry was the best candidate in the field. That is why Iowans voted for him

in the caucus. And it is why he won the primaries in state after state thereafter in a landslide. They picked the right candidate, but it wasn't our cycle in '04, and was an uphill battle. But Kerry came pretty darn close. No other candidate in that primary field would have come as close as Kerry did in 2004. Hillary Clinton, knowing the cycle we were in, decided not to run in 2004 deeming it "unwinnable".

2008 is a different cycle, and Iowans, I am sure, are taking that into account as they contemplate who they will vote for.

[mtnsnake]

10. Kerry was better than Dean?? At the very least, that's very arguable.

[Debi]

12. At caucus time Kerry's campaign organization in Iowa was better than Dean's

As a Dean supporter I'll admit that.

[wyldwolf]

13. I think he was

[beachmom]

14. Look, I don't want to re-fight '04, but if Dean was so great, then he would

have won the nomination. If he couldn't even do that, then there was NO WAY he would have fared better than Kerry in the General.

And getting back to the theme of the OP -- Kerry's record was more in line with Democratic principles than Howard Dean's (who was more centrist, especially on economic issues). Take away the war (which was huge -- I am not arguing it wasn't), and Kerry was far more liberal than Dean. I mean, check out Kerry's environmental record. It was no coincidence that the LCV endorsed him way early in the primaries -- they knew they had a dream candidate for their issues.

Dean never struck me as presidential. But his message and his movement of followers was very important for the Democratic party. I think Chairman Dean is doing a good job for the DNC.

[mtnsnake]

15. No problem. You make a strong case. nt

[Debi]

11. Don't blame me...I caucused for Dean

*putting on flame retardant suit* :hide:

[SharonAnn]

17. Thank you. At least your work helped Dean become Chairman and that's been good.

I supported Dean here in Tennessee, though that was a hard slog all the way and by the time of our primary he didn't really have much of a chance. Still, I though he represented what the Democrats, and the rest of the United States, really needed.

We still need it.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. I miss President Kerry. n/t

[wisteria]

19. Senator Kerry was by far the best candidate in 2004 and if he were running for Pres. this time

he would still be the best candidate. He did and still does represent our party and ALSO "we the people" better than any candidate- former or present, that I know.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. Indeed, Wisteria.

In my 61 years, he's the one candidate I was most proud to vote for.

[karynnj]

22. Me too - I'm 57 and it is by far my proudest vote

and from the Fanuil Hall speeches he wrote and gave in 2006 (and a last one on economics recently), it was clear that he would have been even better in 2008.

[kentuck]

21. Make no mistake

Kerry was absolutely the best candidate in the last election. However, I think many Iowans may be questioning themselves about their vote for him. I think they made the right decision last time.