Kerry's loss: a blessing in disguise?

[Rocknrule]

Kerry wasn't a bad candidate, don't get me wrong, but Obama flat-out has it all over him. I personally never got all that excited about Kerry - my main reason for supporting him was like alot of people: he's not Bush. The silver lining to Kerry's defeat in 2004 is that it allowed a Dem candidate to run now who is pure leadership material and has a huge percentage of the country behind him. People actually like Obama because of the person he is, not just because he's running against a carbon copy of Bush (although that is a big part of it). Plus, I think we can count on Obama to stand his ground if they try to steal the election, since it would be much more obvious this time. What do you think? Was Kerry's loss somewhat worth it because it allowed Obama to run or is even that not worth the extra 4 years given to W? Will an Obama presidency make up for Bush's 2nd term?

Personally I'm not sure where I stand. Every day with W in office is a day in hell for America, but I'll be damned if Obama isn't one of the best candidates to ever run for president.

[Pirate Smile]

1. Two words - Alito - Roberts.

[Generator]

25. Thank you

That was reason number 3 for me.

[Dark]

50. Four words

Congress determines SC's size.

[Massacure]

65. I'm not holding my breath until Obama asks Congress to change it...

Look at what happened to FDR...

[Dark]

76. FDR didn't have what Obama's going to have.

a supermajority

[NYC Liberal]

81. Actually FDR had 76 Senate seats (out of 96) and 334 House seats in 1937

The Republicans only had 17 Senate seats.

Just FYI.

[Lilith Velkor]

67. Two more: New Orleans.

[CarbonDate]

87. Yup, and the Repubs would still be running clips of it....

...spinning it as Kerry's fault. Not Kerry's fault that the levees broke: Kerry's fault that the hurricane came through at all.

[Lilith Velkor]

101. So fucking what?

The Kerry administration would have helped those people instead of punishing them for having a Democrat for a governor. Hell, Bush Senior would have done that much.

Why on earth should decent human beings give a shit what the lunatic Repubs think?

[okieinpain]

103. you can believe that. bush didn't give a shit, that's what happened

to new orleans.

[quakerboy]

83. On the otherhand

They keep talking about a good chance that the next president will get to choose 3.

3 is bigger than 2.

[BlooInBloo]

2. I'm sure the million+ dead iraqis look at it as a blessing.

[Generator]

28. Thank you

That was tied with Katrina for me. Cold chills. All the dead of the last four years that didn't need to be.

[AtomTan]

3. No, and I'll give you one reason: Katrina.

I could have waited 8 or even 16 years for an Obama presidency if it meant 4 fewer years of criminal neglect and orchestrated disaster by the federal govt.

[Generator]

29. And thank you!!!!!!

This immediately came to my mind. The day I sat there on November 3rd 2004 and thought of what didn't need to be-I couldn't even imagine the horrors that would come.

[Dark]

52. He couldn't have done any good.

at least not at preventing it.

[AtomTan]

92. Nobody expected anyone to hold back a hurricane.

But remember it wasn't the storm but the lack of emergency response, and continuing failure of leadership in the aftermath, that caused the greatest human toll.

[muntrv]

4. We need to have overwhelming turnout at the polls to counter any voter

suppression or to make the suppression obvious.

[knixphan]

30. ditto.

[iceman66]

5. That's a tough one.

I think Obama is a better candidate (and potential president) than Kerry, but Bush did a lot of damage these last 4 years!

[Inspired]

6. No, it wasn't a blessing. How absurd. n/t

[crankychatter]

7. the dead refute you - NT

[d_b]

8. Fuck no.

[blue cat]

9. No, not a blessing at all

but a tremendous tragedy, although some good has come out of it as we are more unified. Obama is a blessing.

[gemlake]

10. Obama will only be 51 in 2012.

Plus Kerry would have saved us from the last 4 years of Bush.

[BzaDem]

11. Supreme Court, Iraq, Katrina. n/t

[chiefofclarinet]

12. Comparing Kerry to Obama is unfair to both

Comparing Obama to an elder statesmen like Kerry is not fair. Kerry has been around in the senate for many years. He was also battling a "popular" incumbent president during a war. The fact that he got so far to upsetting him is quite an accomplishment.

Comparing Kerry to a powerful new force like Obama is not fair as well. Obama has this overarching theme of change. People want no more of the same old in Washington. He also has history on his side, being that he may become the first non-white president in our history.

Either way, it is unfair to both men to compare them. Kerry did a good job in 2004, and Obama is doing a good job now.

(Also, I would rather have 8 years of Kerry any day of the week to handle crises like Katrina and this economic crisis than Bush. I would be willing to wait for Obama until 2012.)

[wisteria]

26. Great comments. n/t

[YvonneCa]

48. Thank you for this post. The 2000 and 2004 election lessons...

...are being applied well by Obama. I am grateful for that. But we'd have been better off with a Gore win in 2000. We'd also have been better off with a Kerry win in 2004.

[beachmom]

62. Wonderful post and well said. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Kerry's loss was a tragedy for the country and the world.

That some good comes from it over time is simply the way the world works, seems to me.

[YvonneCa]

49. Truly a tragedy. n/t

[kansasblue]

14. Kerry 2004-2011 Obama 2012-2020

[TheDonkey]

31. Unfortunately Edwards would have had something to say about that

But I really wish we were able to elect Kerry in 2004. Obama would have eventually sprung up on the mainstage. he's made for it.

[kansasblue]

38. In my world in 2008 Obama was added to the Kerry ticket. :-)

[TheKentuckian]

15. No, it sucks really, really bad

the last four years have been extremely damaging to the prospects of this country. Now we have a guy like Obama and I think he only gives us a chance to not go into the crapper instead of making a few big steps in the right direction from much further ahead of where we find ourselves now.

Plus, Kerry would have made one terrific President for that time. He would have cleaned up a lot of messes before they blew up all over the place and probably many of these criminal Republiscum would be off the streets as an added bonus.

[politicasista]

16. It was Kerry that gave Obama his time to shine

and Obama did it well. Obama has Kerry as a surrogate, something he didn't have in 04

The Katrina victims, and other people whose lives have been impacted by Bush's disastrous policies would highly disagree with that comment.

[Eric J in MN]

17. No, Bush has done so much more damage to the US...

...in the past 4 years.

And Bush wasn't rebuked by getting voted out.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. In some ways his loss may have set the stage for greater things.

But when I think of all the opportunities lost in the last 4 years......

[LBJDemocrat]

19. I prefer Kerry.

Obama's great, but Kerry would've brought an intellect to the White House that we haven't seen since FDR, or maybe Woodrow Wilson.

[wisteria]

32. I felt the same way. n/t

[MH1]

46. Yeah, me too.

I'm glad Obama is such a great campaigner that he will probably win, and he'll be a good prez. But Kerry is a rare soul, and as you said, intellect.

I think most of the world will never appreciate what we missed by failing to elect John Kerry president. I'm thankful there's at least a few that get it.

[beachmom]

54. Honestly, I feel uncomfortable with this comparison.

It's like saying in 1960 when JFK ran, that I prefer FDR. Well, I like both, and think they both have strengths and weaknesses. I also think Obama is an intellectual powerhouse as well, judging from his many writings.

I think 2008 is Obama's year, and 2004 was Kerry's. And it's like crossing a space time continuum to try to say which one is better given the two different moments in history.

The OP, of course, annoys me. I do, however, think Kerry would have had an awful time with an antagonistic GOP Congress. And all the conditions were set for this financial meltdown by March 2004 when the SEC made their fateful decision to allow investment banks to leverage debt 33 to 1. It would have blown up under Kerry's watch, and maybe Dems wouldn't have taken Congress in 2006, so, well, it would have been very, very difficult.

I guess I don't like what ifs, and just want to look forward to a hopefully brighter future.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

56. But most of the world did get it

If you look at sureys of individual countries from that time, you'll find that the majority of countries preferred Kerry over Bush by wide margins and were dismayed when he lost. Ultimately it was American voters who didn't get it and even by that measure the proportion of those who didn't get it to those that did was exceedingly narrow and perhaps questionable

[Incitatus]

20. A lot of damage done in the last 4 years. Many lives ruined.

[Democrafty]

23. Ruined or lost. n/t

[Incitatus]

57. both

[AnAnonymousDemocrat]

21. Not a blessing

I was so, so sad when Kerry lost. I honestly concluded that he and his wife were too good for the average American. The scoundrels (Bush, Rove, Hughes) won the game, and they won by being manipulative and dirty - very dirty.

[wisteria]

34. I agree with your assessment of the filthy tricks. n/t

[MH1]

47. "too good for the average American"

that was my conclusion, too.

This country didn't deserve a President Kerry. :(

[Orsino]

22. That's a hell of a disguise.

It looks an awful lot like three nations in ruins.

[wisteria]

24. Kerry was and is a leader who would have made an exceptional president.

Senator Obama hasn't won yet.The economy has been a boost for Obama as the Iraq War and the fear tactics of 2004 were an albatross for Kerry.
Sorry, but I don't see how Obama is a "better"candidate than Kerry was. Obama is running at a different time in our history. He would not have survived even a primary run in 2004.
Also,maybe you voted for Senator Kerry only for shallow reasons, but many other people voted for Senator Kerry because of his leadership skills, his experience and his temperament. As hard as it may be for you to believe- many, many people really like Senator Kerry and voted for the man- a least 3 million on his current e-mail list would disagree with your assessment.

Finally, what is the importance of your post? I see no redeeming value in it. It only serves to bring out the loony Kerry bashes and anger those of us who worked hard to elect whom we felt was a great candidate who would have made a great president.

To answer your question, no I do not think Senator Obama is a better candidate- only different and running at a different time. I think he will make a great president, but I do not consider Kerry's loss in 2004 as a blessing in disguise.

[liberalpragmatist]

27. If Kerry had won we'd have a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court

There's no chance of that happening now for at least a couple decades.

[undeterred]

33. You have no basis for saying this because Kerry never had his chance.

Let's get one thing straight. John Kerry did not lose- we were robbed, and it was a crime.

We will never know what a wonderful president John Kerry might have been because we were robbed of his presidency. Kerry had far more experience and I am sorry that we missed out on that. I hope that Obama will be a good president but we will never have a basis for comparing him to a Kerry presidency.

:patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick: :patriot: :kick:

[wisteria]

37. Yes, it was stolen from him and we have all lost out because of that. n/t

[karynnj]

35. definately not

1) Kerry spoke of possibly starting withdrawals from Iraq in 2005. His positions evolved as things got worse on the ground. Intense regional diplomacy that Kerry wanted as soon as he was in office could well have averted the civil war. American and Iraqi lives would have been saved.

2) Katrina - did you hear Kerry's comments soon after Katrina. Kerry's competent management would have focused on first saving people than restoring the region. As a Senator he had a Small Business bill out within weeks and it ended up passing the Senate with over 80 votes - after Kerry took his name off while it was being voted on (making it Snowe/Vitter) to get the votes to pass it.

3) Global warming/alternative energy. Kerry was second to no one on the environment in the Senate. His words echoed in the words used this year by all teh Democratic candidates - none of whom had Kerry's understanding or long track record on this issue.

4) Add that we wouldn't have the financial crisis to the degree we do. Here's an old Skinner DU post from 2004 that includes Kerry's position on predatory lending - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x678560 This was not surprising as he was a co-sponsor to tough anti-predatory lending bill in 2000, 2002, and 2003. (Note all the sponsors were Democrats and it had the support of many organizations like Acorn (The Democrats need to surface this information - it was NOT the liberals and Acorn pushing for the sketchy loans - they were against it.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x153196#153199

I like Obama and am very glad that Kerry endorsed him when he needed it. The fact is that while Obama is very impressive, I am less convinced that I know he will succeed than I was that Kerry would. Kerry also almost won in a year that was much tougher than this one - where generic Democrat has beaten generic Republican by double digits for most of the last 2 years. Having Kerry as President would not have meant that Obama would never be President.

There also are people who liked Kerry and they still do.

[wisteria]

39. Good points n/t

[beachmom]

60. I disagree respectfully on the financial crisis. All of the pieces

were put in place in 2004 at that SEC hearing, Karynnj. And with a hostile GOP Congress, how would he have gotten the anti-predatory lending bill passed when it had previously had zero support from Republicans? And I am unsure if Congress would have changed hands in '06. I do think Kerry would have seen the problems ahead of time but I still think the implosion of the housing market was inevitable and the unregulated derivative and credit default swaps markets would still have blown up causing firms to collapse and credit to freeze up. Maybe it wouldn't have reached this point, but it still would have been bad, and a recession would still have hit.

As to Iraq, yes Kerry would definitely have gotten us out. He would have worked on peace in the Middle East. He would have improved the situation in Afghanistan. He would have made the budget more sane. He would have responded better to Katrina (although it would have been less than a year into his term -- could he have improved FEMA significantly in that short time?). He would have dealt with global climate change. But .... with a hostile Congress, we should not think he could have gotten his entire agenda through. It would have been a very tough slog.

Basically, I don't like this what if game. He didn't win. He is still a great Senator and leader and will certainly be a confidant for President Obama if not a member of his cabinet.

[karynnj]

95. respectfully, I disagree

A president, would have the ability to use the bully pulpit to make it tough for Republicans to oppose. A Democrat arguing for prudent fiscal policies who get many mainstream Republicans. I don't think it would have completely avoided the burst of the housing bubble, but it would have minimized it. In addition to there would likely being fewer mortgages defaulted on had he gotten something passed in 2005, as President, he would have been more leverage to deal with the foreclosures than as a Senator. Kerry and Smith got their provision to help the states renegotiate salvageable mortgages through the Senate Finance Committee with 20 votes (there are 21 members) I agree that the derivatives and swaps were time bombs - but quick actions to deal with the mortgages at the root of them could have made a difference.

I don't particularly like this game either because nothing will change history. It was the challenge set up by the OP. I do agree that Kerry would have had an incredibly tough first term - and given all the problems, it might have been his only term. If that were reality no one would have been able to see how bad the alternative under Bush would have been.

[rockymountaindem]

36. After all the crap that's going on now and has happened all through the last 4 years

I'd have to say no. Not only do I like Kerry very much, but imagine a competent response to Katrina, an end of the Iraq war in 2006, a well-functioning economy, etc. I wish Kerry were President now more than anything, politically.

[wisteria]

41. If wishing could make it true. Good comments. n/t

[abumbyanyothername]

40. Kerry didn't lose. nt

[wisteria]

42. I agree. n/t

[YvonneCa]

51. Me, too. But the American people...

...did.

[globalvillage]

43. Two great Americans

No need to marginalize one for the benefit of the other, John Kerry would have been a fantastic President, and Obama will be.

How great is it that after being robbed of the presidency, Sen. Kerry is doing everything possible to get Obama elected? I think it shows real courage and true patriotism.

[wisteria]

44. Yes, you are right. Senator Kerry is a very special person and great patriot. n/t

[beachmom]

61. You speak for me, GV! nt

[MasonJar]

45. Excuse me, but John Kerry has spent his life fighting the wrongs of this

world, starting with the Vietnam War, a war in which he bravely distinguished himself (and for which he was maliciously maligned by the Neandrathals in the Rovian world.) He had the right to stand against Nixon; he earned that right the hard way. He had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a very distinguished one as a Senator. He is an environmental advocate and a patrician of the greatest magnitude, who actually is intelligent and educated, unlike the marsupial we have endured for 8 years. So just because Obama will be a superior president (and I think he will if he is allowed to win) is in no way a reason to downplay the kind of president Kerry would have been. His wife too is one of the world's exceptional women. Of course Obama could have run in 2012 in any case. I just wish that Al Gore had not been cheated out of what he rightfully won. I cringe at all the deaths our country has caused; innocents gone forever because of official deception and crimes. My heart breaks when I think of those little girls whose heads were shot off because their father didn't know to stop and the children crushed in the destruction of their own houses and the little boys shot by soldiers because they were on the roofs of their own houses, which is where they sleep in the summer, like sleeping porches in the South. My heart goes out to Cindy, who lost her son and has stood up the the BUSH CRIME Family for all of us. And of course all the others, so, so many. It has happened twice and I fear it will again this year (just look at the machines in W. Va.) This time we must not let it go. Gore tried, but we dems did not back him. The fringe GOpers were down in Florida in mass, but where were we? NOT in FLORIDA, and yet with all his effort, I still see Al blamed for not standing up well enough. We are culpable, not Al. Never again! Not this year! We must not allow another stolen election!!!!!!!!!!!

[politicasista]

53. Thank you n/t

[YvonneCa]

55. Exactly. We (not all of us, but enough)...didn't stand up...

...and do our part as citizens. We got complacent. We took our country for granted. The only good I can see coming out of the eight Bush years is that it *may*...I hope...wake the country up to our responsibility to do our civic duty. Not just to vote...but to PARTICIPATE in our democracy. Otherwise, we just might lose it.

As to John Kerry...he's my hero.:patriot:

[mitchum]

58. No, it was the goddamn political tragedy of my lifetime

[timontheleft]

59. Probably not . . .

given all the great reasons already stated.

However if Kerry had won, John Edwards would have been vice-president when the Edwards scandal broke out earlier this year. That might have turned a lot of people off to a second term for a democrat, and causing longer term damage to the Democratic party.

[JI7]

63. there was no blessing in the loss just as there wasn't with Gore and other Dem losses

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. nope was not

[AzNick]

66. Hell No! Kerry would have been better than DUMBO

And the entire world economy might not be in the crapper now.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Fuck you.

That is all.

[Starry Messenger]

69. No.

:cry: I haven't been that depressed in years.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kerry+o%27neill+debate+cavett&search_type=&aq=f

Series on youtube from 1971: Kerry turning O'Neill into a string mop.

[Arugula Latte]

70. I like Obama WAY more than I liked Kerry or Bill Clinton (or Gore in 2000 -- but not the later Gore)

BUT, too much was at stake. Too many have suffered due to this evil administration.

[politicasista]

71. To each his own

We don't need to knock Obama's best surrogate and supporter just to praise him and other liberals, Democrats. Not to mention that it was Kerry (along with Durbin) that introduced Obama to a national audience. Not to mention that Obama has some Kerry people working on his campaign so it's not just charisma alone. He is cool and smart.

[Arugula Latte]

72. I like Kerry, too. I'm just saying, I'm much more excited about Obama.

[politicasista]

73. We all are excited about Obama

Some more than most. (I am)

But this is a Democratic year. This is post-Katrina, post-Iraq Civil War, post-Schiavo, post-bad economy/foreclosure, post-3.00 a gallon in gas, post-you name it.

There is no comparison between 2008 and 2004.

I guess I am just saying that people act Kerry like "losing" was the best thing to happen to Obama. Obama would think differently. He knows that people are fed up and going broke everyday. People are sick of being lied to and sick of the smears. Perhaps, people cheering that Kerry (and Gore) "lost" now that we have Obama should tell that to people who have lost love ones in Iraq or Katrina, or people that have been put out of their homes due to foreclosure or people who are unemployed and without health insurance.

You are right too much has happened. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Arugula Latte]

74. No problem ...

I should have explained it better. :hi:

[politicasista]

109. It's all good

:hi:

[cynatnite]

75. There was a lot of shit working against Kerry back in 04...

and I am still a huge fan of his. He would have made a fine president.

So, the answer is no. It was not worth it given the shit that's happened since then. Katrina comes to mind.

[mwei924]

77. 4 years of Bush?

That's too much. I could never see that as a blessing. Plus, if Kerry had won, Obama would've been next in line for 2012 as he was the breakout star of 2004. He maybe would've lost a bit of his shooting star vibe but also the experience argument would've been less relevant.

You gotta give Kerry massive props for picking Barack Obama out of nowhere to give that keynote address. Without Kerry, Obama would just be any regular Senator. I mean, sure, he didn't get to be President but now he's basically the kingmaker. I imagine he's pretty happy with himself about that.

[Jennicut]

78. I still would rather have had Kerrry first and then Obama, he is a young guy

so he could have waited. Kerry was a good man, not exciting but very intelligent. He nailed Bush in those debates in 2004 which was exciting to see at the time as it was the first time Shrub's feet were really held to fire. Unfortunately, the entire country was not ready-they had to see just how bad things could get under Rethug rule. Remember, Katrina had not happened yet and the violence in Iraq was just starting. Now that all the American people see what Bush and co wrecked, they are a lot more ready for a Dem and we had very exciting candidates in Hillary and Obama and either one was going to make a great president. I do have to say Obama just might be my favorite candidate so far but I on;y have been voting since 1996. Love the ticket of Obama/Biden, best ticket so far that I have had the chance to vote for. :)

[Overseas]

79. Ditto ditto ditto on the many valid reasons that more years of GWB were not a blessing.

Nothing but a curse.

Maybe you shoulda opened with the "every day with W in office is a day in hell for America" sentence.


I agree that Senator Obama is one of our best candidates for president.

[No Elephants]

80. Ideally, Kerry would have won then and Obama would have won now. Or Kerry 8, Obama 8

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. if Kerry had won - he would have been trapped in an impossible situation

I was broken hearted that dark and sad November night four years ago.

I don't know if it is a blessing in disguise or not since "what if?" games of history are as difficult to predict as the future.

Still I believe it is safe to say that the situation in Iraq would have continued to deteriorate and Kerry and the Democrats would have taken much the blame. Many Democrats would be upset that he was not withdrawing fast enough. While established strategic thinking would have prevented him from doing so. No doubt we would have heard the mime that we were headed for victory until the Democrats took the White House and ruined everything. No doubt we will hear that mime from some quarters under President Obama.

The Democrats would probably not have won control of Congress and Kerry would have been forced to deal with a vengeful and vindictive Republican majority for at least four years.

Under a Democratic Administration, the change in media tone would not have turned in the direction of being at least a bit more critical of the Republicans - since the focus would have been on other things with a Democrat in the White House. As bad as the media is right now, it is still light-years ahead of the "on bended knees" sycophantic media of the pre-Katrina and post 9/11 media that shamelessly served as a ministry of propaganda for the right-wing of the Republican Party. Yes, it has improved since those days.

It is safe to say that the housing market would have still bubbled and busted and along with it we would still have the current economic crisis in the banking and credit industry and the equity market turmoil and impeding global recession with a Democrat in the White House.

As deeply disappointed as I was in the loss of Sen. Kerry in 2004 - it may not have been the right time for the Democrats to have won.

I have often wondered about something that happened in 1976. If one recalls, Reagan almost won the Republican nomination - losing only narrowly to Gerald Ford. What if he had won and became the Republican nominee that year? Either he would have lost to Carter and would have likely been out of the running in 1980. Or he would have won and been the President in office facing late 70's stagflation caused by the wild fluctuations on the global currency markets that followed the release of the dollar from the Brentwood agreement in 1970 and the general economic chaos that was bound to occur regardless who was in office.

Would the whole nightmare of the Reagan revolution been avoided? After all, issue by issue most Americans did not agree with the vast majority of their policies: then or now. But Reagan was voted for by people who did not agree with him on almost any issues. I cannot think of anyone else of that era that could have sold it as effectively.

Then again, as I have said, "what if?" games of history are as hard to guess as predicting the future.

[depakid]

84. Democrats could have stopped either one of the Supreme Court nominations

Had the shoe been on the other foot, Republicans surely would have. No question about it.

Something to think about.

[karynnj]

98. Kerry and Kennedy tried their best on Alito - but the centrist wing of the party dragged its feet

[seaglass]

85. Sorry, Kerry is much wiser than Obama I would rather have him as Pres any day.

And no, the last 4 years sucked equally with the first 4 so it was not a blessing in any way.

[Frumious B]

86. The worst part is the Republicans at my workplace.

They were all talking up Bush and slagging Kerry four years ago. Now they're slagging Bush, pissing their votes away on McCain and parroting the worst of the smears against Obama like they are God's Own Truth. It's like they've learned absolutely nothing despite my telling them in no uncertain terms that Bush would bring us to ruin if he got a second term.

[CarbonDate]

88. No, but I'm sure the Republicans would rather....

...Kerry had won in 2004 at this point. We're looking at 20 years of Democratic dominance at this point.

[RBInMaine]

89. A loss is NEVER a "blessing" of any kind. I worked LIKE HELL on that campaign !!!

Multi- millions were spent. People worked their asses off in '04. We lost because we got swiftboated and out-campaigned by Karl Rove and W. Plain and simple. Kerry was wishy washy and wimpy for way too long. Hopefully Dems have finally, once and for all, woken the hell up and learned how to be tough again, wear some BALLS, and kick the shit out of the GOP scum ! If we had done that in '04 we would have won. Kerry was WEAK and UNFOCUSED. We could and SHOULD have won that campaign. With a better campaign from Kerry we would have, and it would have been different world today. That loss was no "blessing" !

[Mass]

90. NO. This is purely selfish from an Obama supporter, nothing else.

Kerry president would have avoided us and the rest of the world many of the problems of the last 4 years. He would have been a superb president, proabably as good or better than Obama.

The reason the country is behind Obama is because Bush and the GOP sucks and they have suffered four more years, allowing people who did not realize that in 2004 to realize that NOW.

By the way, you make the error (fairly widespread) to confuse candidate and president. What this country needs is a EXTRAORDINARY president, not the best candidate. I am sure that Obama will be that, but so would Kerry, and it would have been 4 years ago. (Hell, I would have taken anybody elected rather than Bush in 2004, and I am a strong Kerry supporter).

[politicasista]

110. Exactly n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

91. I LOVED Kerry, but he would have been a one-term president

because of the economic collapse.

[Inuca]

99. Really?

The economic collapse may have been avoided with Kerry at the helm.

[BeyondGeography]

93. Timing is everything; Kerry could have easily won this year

Not as convincingly as Obama, but pretty damned close.

OTOH, had Kerry squeezed out a victory in 2004, he would have been thrown into the middle of all of Bush's screw-ups and assumed ownership of them. Iraq, a shit economy, a tax structure that needs to be reworked, no investments in health care, energy, etc. All of these things, which have become George W. Bush's legacy, would have been John Kerry's to deal with. He would have been blamed for the "loss" of Iraq and every other failure that was near-fully formed in the pipeline. And he wouldn't have had the legislative majorities that we will enjoy post 2008, in no small part because the GOP has cratered under Bush.

The media would have been merciless, and his presidency would have been a welcome distraction for the bankrupt GOP, whose present inability to connect with voters would have been obscured by the skill with which they would have been able to make John Kerry the enemy of average Americans.

For all of that, I have enormous respect for Kerry; he's tough-minded, eloquent and smart as hell. He could have survived, but I doubt he would have thrived. His loss made it possible for us to get proper closure on the Bush era, and to elect someone who can give us and the country a fresher start. There was a huge political upside to four more years of Bush, and we're seeing it right now. States that we haven't won for decades are turning blue. This is the prerequisite for change and it wouldn't be happening without the full dose of Bush that we have absorbed. Americans are not intuitive when it comes to the policy side of politics; they needed to see wholesale failure before they moved. Bush has given them that, and it took the full eight years.

[Marrah_G]

94. No. No. No.

[Sheets of Easter]

96. No. In hindsight, I was not a Kerry fan, but no.

Kerry would have had time to undo four years of Bush's damage, as opposed to Obama's task of undoing eight years of damage. And as someone already pointed out- two supreme court appointments in Bush's second term.

[1corona4u]

97. No, his loss was not worth what we have gone through for the last 4 years.

[Inuca]

100. An absurd premise

this is not a game. People lived, suffered, died during these 4 years.

[Fabio]

102. Though I completely disagree with your reasoning

I may actually agree with it be a blessing in disguise only because a JK victory probably would have precluded if not democratic majorities in 2006, then more likely the supermajority we hope to have in 2 weeks.

[El Fuego]

104. Is it only about Obama? What about the damage done to real people by Kerry's loss?

Calling it a blessing in disguise is just a feel good rationalization for the moment. In reality, 4 more years of bush has done irreparable harm to our country.

[onehandle]

105. THIRTY YEARS OF A RIGHT WING SUPREME COURT!

I love Obama, but nothing he can do can undo that.

[Beacool]

106. Blessing in disguise?

I don't know about that, it gave us four more years of Bush. I was only enthusiastic about one candidate this year and she didn't make it. I don't know if I agree that Obama has a "huge percentage of the country behind him". A few weeks ago it wasn't so clear, though the lousy economy will push him over the top. Hopefully, he'll be a good president. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Occam Bandage]

107. No. Not at all. We'd have liberals instead of Alito and Roberts, we wouldn't have

the deregulation crisis in the markets, we'd have gotten out of Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan, the Katrina response would have been competent, etc., etc.

[David__77]

108. No, but I was very sad when it became clear he'd be the nominee.

I know he would be pilloried as an effete "Boston brahmin," and that he lacked the political gumption or skill to overcome this. It's old history now, but I honestly believe Howard Dean would have done better and more for the party in that election.