Was Kerry the best person the Democrats could offer in the election?

[camaro3232]

Since this was the first election that I could vote in, it was the first time I was really involved in the process. I found it real interesting and before this I really never thought much of polotics. I really was not involved in chosing Kerry but I did follow him alot for about a year before the vote. I really think there could have been someone better. He was a very good debater and kicked Bush's ass but on all other grounds he really did not impress me much. I mean he had the same type of views as Bush and really did not offer a plan for the war in Iraq. I think he should have said he would pull them out or end it fast. I really did not like Bush too much and pretty much had no choice but to go with Kerry. So was he the best we could offer?

[Mojambo]

1. Depends on who you ask

I think he was middle of the pack. There were much worse choices.

[physioex]

2. No.....

But hind site is 20/20. It is very difficult to find a candidate with the charm and intelligence of Bill Clinton who can win southern votes. One of the major problems is the fact that they have us beat on linguistics. Like "War on Terror", "Clear Skies Initiative", "Death Tax", and "Healthy Forests". These are some of the things we need to work on going into the future. For example I only refer to Iraq as an "Occupation" not a "War".

[donheld]

3. If i could turn back time

If i could find a way. Coulda woulda shoulda. What good does it do?

[bambo53]

4. Helps think about the future?

No, he wasn't our best candidate, but for that moment in time he was probably the best we could come up with.

I think Kerry and the 9 others symbolized the party problem, blandness, timidity, and a lack of useful progressive direction.
We need another Big Dog to lead the way.

[camaro3232]

6. Yea I think you got a point

Kerry was exactly what you describe. He was timid and did not some very bold to stand up to Bush. I think clinton would have kicked his ass. Bush that it

[Crunchy Frog]

5. You will find a very wide range of opinion on that issue

and no solid answers. The only way to really know would be to run the tape backward and try it over again with a few different candidates to see how it would turn out. Not going to happen.

This the sort of question that is more likely than not to trigger a flame war. It's kind of pointless speculation, but in some ways it may be a good exercise to think about what qualities in a candidate are likely to make him or her more likely to win a presidential election.

[bambo53]

7. qualities in a candidate ?

Well, that is important in getting one elected, but I think it's more helpful to have a completely new agenda for all Democrats that include universal health care, thereby eliminating Medicare and Medicaid,(polls say 75% of Americans like that idea) a fairer tax system, like the first $10,000 tax free and restore the tax on the rich. Improve the infrastructure & thereby create jobs and improve our nation,,, just for a few ideas.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Yes, I agree that the entire Democratic party

needs to revamp itself, but I also think that there can be some productive discussion concerning what traits we would like to see in a presidential candidate, and what traits are likely to attract a sufficient number of voters to actually win a theft proof election.

I don't think that discussion of the two issues is necessarily mutually exclusive.

[electropop]

47. RIght, revamped party, and a matching candidate

We have to halt the slide to the right, which is a trajectory toward irrelevance. We need to stand up for our core LIBERAL beliefs, and front a candidate who proudly agrees. Say it with me, loud and clear: "I am a LIBERAL and my people are responsible for every good thing this country has ever done."

[firefox]

8. Kerry won the nomination for one reason

Kerry is electable. He was also a representative of the wealthy. Even Kerry said he was not different from Bush in substance, but would be in style. His personal belief was even anti-choice/ pro-life, not that he espoused it as correct policy. One test of someone free of plutocratic rule is that they must cut defense spending. We spend more on armaments than the rest of the world combined, mostly in service to the military-industrial complex.

Kucinich would make the same claim that Chomsky makes. We can give universal health care to everybody than the system we have now that leaves 45 million adults out. It is like being practical about reducing administrative cost makes no difference. How does our 17% of GDP out perform the 6% of GDP that Canada spends? Why are we the exception to western civilization, when even Mexico has undertaken the task to provide universal health care?

It was an election that brought us no memories or changes in policy because of debate. People gave up their ideals and causes and got behind Kerry because he was electable. It is so painful that nobody even mentions it. It is like you cannot remind people that Kerry won the nomination with a cattle call- "Kerry is electable."

[PresidentObama]

25. Yes!

Of course...

He's still my choice in 2008!

[Carolab]

41. At least that's what they told us Dems who wanted Dean, etc.

We were told the "others", by implication, weren't "electable". What crap. They backstabbed Dean in Iowa, then told us in subsequent primaries and caucuses to vote Kerry, Edwards or "undecided".

[AndyTiedye]

10. The Media Would Have Destroyed Any of the Others

It doesn't matter who you run if all the media is in the Repubs' pocket

and the voting machinez too

[Kerry fan]

46. EXACTLY!

I totally believe that Kerry won by a good margin. And I totally believe Kerry would have been a great president. And I hope the election fraud can be exposed and corrected and I will support Kerry in 2008.

As more and more people paid attention and learned about him, his crowds grew by leaps and bounds.

If we had run Jesus Christ, he would have "lost" to the fraud.

Why constantly beat up on Kerry and criticize him when it is very clear that fraud, not honest votes, beat him?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[New Earth]

16. testy is that you?

oh how i missed your presence.....

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[New Earth]

24. it is you isn't it?

i knew it :o

[Vektor]

28. I too recognize essence of testy....

That ol' familiar vibe, eh?

[New Earth]

36. well he's gone now.

oh how we'll miss him again :nopity:

[seito]

38. ROFL

I have missed ya Faye

This brings back old times :)

[New Earth]

40. lol yup

he was sneaking around with a new name. spewing the same old shit...:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

12. In my opinion, he was the best qualified

best qualified to be president even if not the best qualified to run as president.

He had experience in so many aspects of leadership. He is an accomplished environmentalist. He is one of the Senate go to people for foreign policy. He's battled corruption during the BCCI and Iran/Contra investigations.

He is the leader of the Small Business committee (who's name excapes me). He's been an advocate for veterans forever, via his early days and also as one of the founding members of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He was electable for a reason. He was qualified. He was electable because one could see him as presidential, something that came through during the debates. The others had their gimmicks: youth, the anti-war vote and such.

But indeed, I think he was the best they could have offered this time. Any one of the others that I could think of would have gotten as lesser, if more passionate, portion of the vote.

I know some on the RW were afraid of Edwards. But in the end, I think even his inexperience would have shown through. He was more of an asset this year than some acknowledge though. The media hid him. They'd ask "Where's Edwards?" when you KNOW they knew where he was. They just refused to follow him into those rural areas and report what he was doing. God knows he wasn't on his ass eating bon bons.

Nevertheless, I believe Kerry was the best candidate for president. But being qualified for the job and being qualified to RUN for the job might be, perhaps, two different things.

[Demit]

13. Your last sentence hits the nail square on the head:

"being qualified for the job and being qualified to RUN for the job might be, perhaps, two different things."

It's a sad statement about US politics today, but we have a real "Entertainment Tonight" electorate in this country. Aided and abetted by every facet of media, tv and print. So we end up with a president that people "would like to have a beer with". A man whose only demonstrated talent is in campaigning for the job; who not only has no interest in or ability for doing it, but is on record at failing at every other job he has ever had.

We could have had a president with a potential for greatness; instead (election fraud aside) we chose a photogenic liar/incompetent. We are a sad, sad country.

[The Time is Now]

14. This isn't the question

Make a list of the people that you would have voted for instead of the current occupant in the White House.

Here's mine, just to get the ball rolling. Now, take the test: Put the current occupant up against any of the following:

Sponge Bob Square Pants
Wilson Picket
Lou Costello
Nixon (He made Hunter Thompson's list too)
Wile E. Coyote

If you had to choose between the current occupant or any one of the above, for whom would you have voted?

To question whether Kerry is the best that we could offer implies a belief in the existence of democracy in this country. I am, at best, agnostic on the idea. That John Kerry was not Abraham Lincoln, Albert Schweitzer, St. Francis of Assisi and Leonardo DiCaprio rolled into one is a point fairly easy to make. This, however, isn't the point. The point is why should someone with qualifications that far outrank those on my list above, not defeat a man who is outranked by everyone on that same list?

[anaxarchos]

26. I'll work for Wilson Picket...

...even if I have to go to the land of 10,000 dances.

[BeFree]

15. Oh, the innocence!

Newsflash: Kerry won the real election. He beat an incumbent president in time of war; an unprecedented occurrence in American history.

However, the election was rigged. Rigged mainly by those who counted the votes. And if you continue to have faith in the counting of the votes, all I can say is that I hope you enjoy your innocence.

Ya know, the most progressive and liberal Senator - from one of the most liberal and progressive families America ever had - Ted Kennedy, gave his utmost and complete support to John Kerry. It that wasn't enough for some people, there never will be enough.

Besides, 2004 really should have been Gore's re-election. Folks, it was stolen.

[kster]

18. Ya what BeFree said........NT

[BeFree]

21. Thanks, kster

I just read it again, apparently for the first time....LOL

Shoulda proof read it, eh? Anyway, glad someone got the gist of it. I often wonder what it would be like to have blissfull innocence. Or blissfully ignorant, take your pick. Ah, well.

Gore won 2000. He woulda won again in 2004. What a wonderful world it could have, and should have, been.

[MellowOne]

20. I was going to post the same thoughts

Glad you said it first.

He was the best candidate because he did win.

I would gladly support him again.

[New Earth]

17. YES

AND I WANT HIM TO RUN AGAIN :hi:

[David Dunham]

19. Democratic primary voters chose Kerry over all others.

We live in a democracy. The others all had their chance but lost out to Kerry.

[bunny planet]

22. Yes, yes, 1000 times yes.

[Vektor]

27. Yes.

He's fucking brilliant, and perfect in every way. Thanks for asking.

[berniew1]

29. He was a strong candidate and the strongest Dems had at the time

[Duncan Grant]

30. First let me say: Welcome to DU, camaro3232.

To answer your question: Yes, Senator Kerry was the best we could offer.

You said in your original post: I really think there could have been someone better.

Mind if I ask, who would that someone be? What attributes do you think they possessed? What vision did they articulate for the future?

Thanks for your attention to this question and welcome to DU! :hi:

[politicasista]

31. Like who?

[Duncan Grant]

32. I don't think I understand your question.

Would you mind running that by me again or was that for the OP? :shrug:

[politicasista]

33. Who could have been a better candidate?

Just curious?

[Duncan Grant]

34. I think the wires got crossed here somehow.

Please re-read my post again (#30).

I haven't said anything about any candidate other than Senator Kerry. I said he was the best candidate.

And your asking me what again? :shrug:

[Awsi Dooger]

35. No chance in hell he was our best hope versus an incumbent

That's what continues to irritate me. Our party seemingly can't differentiate between situations and the type of candidate required for each one. Opposing an incumbent is an entirely different ballgame than an open race. Myself and a handful of others tried to emphasize that here long before the primaries. Just because we had a distaste for GW didn't mean he wouldn't enjoy the advantages of incumbency, or that we didn't need a dynamic individual to try to oust him. Again, the only two candidates to deny an incumbent in recent history are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. How does John Kerry fit in there?

I handicapped John Edwards as the best hope and I'll always believe that was correct. The same people who insist Edwards would have been savaged by Rove and Co. due to his "lightweight" record are the ones who were championing Kerry as the most electable, and insisting cell phone users and our registration drives would put us over the top. Landslide, I believe that was the word.

The year 2004 was always going to be decided by white women. Security moms were not only legit, they were understated. Kerry's position in the polls was always directly tied to his standing with that block. Chuck Todd of Hotline and CNN emphasized that repeatedly. I thought it was base instinct Edwards with his optimism and populist message would fare much better with critical groups like independent women than John Kerry and his aged medals and his tired criticism of a known quantity like George Bush. You didn't even need the primary internals that screamed in that direction, that Edwards had potentially much more pull outside the Dem base. Meanwhile, November 2nd shows up and white women dismiss Kerry by a 54-45 margin. Gore lost by 1 point. You don't need to analyze anything else.

[Blue Shark]

37. One thing is for sure....

...the next Candidate of the Democratic Party better be willing to cheat to win. Given 2000, 2002, and now 2004, the Republicans have found a way to tabulate the votes so that they can elect presidents, hold majorities in both houses, and the Judiciary is quickly being filled with Rabid Right judges.

...seriously. The fraud was there in spades.

...Our next guy or woman better be fully prepared to counter-act the tabulation manipulation. And wouldn't it be so sweet to be going into 2008 election down 4 or 5 % and "Miraculously" pull out a 2-3% victory against all the statistical, mathmatical, and empirical evidence that the other side had gotten more votes? We would just smile and say..."Hmmm just like 2004 all over again"

[seito]

39. YES

That is all, Kerry On.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

43. Welcome to DU. In my view, Kerry was a "safe" candidate, a

candidate for the democratic machine, guaranteed not to rock the boat. Unfortunately that is exactly what we didn't need. Other than being more intelligent and honest than Bush--but who isn't--there wasn't all that much difference. Dean, Clark or even Kucinich would have been more provacative candidates by far, but the democratic leadership though it better to playt it safe. Oops.

[liberalpragmatist]

44. I think so

IMO, this wasn't '88, where clearly a stronger candidate could have won. Kerry was on the whole a pretty strong candidate. His campaign was far from perfect but it wasn't awful. Certainly there were mistakes - a convention that didn't present a clear vision of where we wanted to take the country or criticize Bush, a slow response to the SBVT, and a failure to enunciate a clear theme and be clear on the Iraq War until the final 2 months.

On the plus side, he decisively beat Bush in 3 debates and actually ran a very competent campaign in the final 2 months which is usually what counts most. It was a difficult political environment and a narrow loss was a very likely outcome all along.

Who would have been better? Dean would probably have energized the left and been able to present a clearer message, but I still think his character assassination would have been even more effective than Kerry's. My guess is that Dean would still have lost to Bush, perhaps by a slightly larger margin than Kerry - maybe 52-47 v. the 50.5-48 victory Bush had over Kerry and we may have lost Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as well.

Lieberman would have been weak.

Clark may have been strong. Indeed he was probably strongest on paper. The problem was his lack of political experience - he certainly would have made some mistakes. And you don't think he'd have been "swift-boat"-ed? He had a lot of rivals among the ranks of former military commanders - I think Gen. Hugh Shelton called him "treacherous" or something. That certainly would have become an issue even though it was untrue.

Gephardt and Edwards may have done much better with independents and on "values" or economic issues, but I don't think either would have been credible enough on national security, and Gephardt would have been attacked as even more of a flip-flopper than Kerry.

None of this to say none of the others would have won. I think a number of them were potentially electable - so was Kerry. But each campaign has its own dynamics. It's very easy to see a scenario where a few slight changes - maybe something as little as not mentioning Mary Cheney in the third debate - would have resulted in a Kerry win. An Edwards or Clark campaign might have won, might have lost. We'll never know.

In the end, I'm inclined to say that Kerry-Edwards was the best ticket all-around, although I don't the ticket used Edwards effectively. He should have been on TV more and in more national media besides just the local media in rural areas.

But we'll never know.

[smartvoter]

45. The trouble with all this is the fraud issue. The result is meaningless.

[RunningFromCongress]

48. Best possible choice for President: Yes. Best candidate: No.

He's the best man for the job we could offer, however decades in the Senate took away much of his ability to get out and sell himself until the very end, and while that type of timeline to get out of ones shell might have worked for state politics, it was a bit too late for National. I do think however that a re-run could work very well. It was clear the swift boat BS lost it's effect by the end, so it would have little to no effect come 08. Re-running a losing candidate isn't such a bad idea, seeing as how the republicans won on new smear, and people aren't effected much by broken record politics.