Mike Wallace said Kerry was a "lousy candidate"

[blackangrydem]

and Fritz Hollings agreed with him on 60 minutes last night.

If this was an NFL game, there would be a lot of flags thrown for late hits.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Clark 08'

Clark 2008

[Racenut20]

4. yep, u gots the right idea

Clark in 08. Meanwhile Davis for Gov. and reelect Nelson to Senate in 06.

[JNelson6563]

95. If he earns it

between now and then.

Nobody should be handed the nomination. We need to see serious spine for the Dem cause by whoever we nominate.

Julie

[XNASA]

2. Yep. That lousy candidate probably got the most votes ever....

In a Presidential Election.

And Kerry just got creamed too, didn't he??? I mean, the debates....what an embarrassment.

[debsianben]

30. Most Votes Ever?

If you'll recall, the evil retarded monkey (Bush) got more votes than Kerry. Even if Ohio's electoral votes (and hence an electoral college majority) was stolen, as I believe they were, Bush got the majority of the electoral college. So by your argument, Bush was an even better candidate than Kerry.

[XNASA]

31. I doubt that Bush got more votes nationwide than Kerry did.

It's probable that Bush's votes were padded even in non-swing states such as California and Texas to make the theft of Ohio and Florida look good.

Besides, I only disagree with the statement that Kerry was a 'lousy' candidate. I never mentioned Bush. You did.

[debsianben]

32. Re-Read Your Original Post

You denied that Kerry was a lousy candidate, and used as evidence that Kerry got "most votes ever."

The problem, as I point out, is that Bush got more votes than Kerry. So if the evidence that Kerry wasn't a lousy candidate was that he got a lot of votes, then Bush must have been an even less lousy candidate.

It would take a hell of a lot of vote padding to add up to those millions of votes separating Bush and Kerry. Yes, I know it was a tiny margin in historical/statistical terms, but millions of votes in raw numbers. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that a large enough scale of monkey business to account for all those votes.

None of this is to deny that Bush stole Ohio's (and hence the country's) electoral votes, which seems quite likely.

[XNASA]

33. I see.

The election was 51%-49%, so there's not much difference between the two.

Now I understand. Thanks for pointing that out.

[debsianben]

45. Eh?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, or what you're getting at here.

[Uzybone]

39. Of course Bush was a very good candidate

he was able to fool over half the country into believing him. Its funny that after 2 terms in office...some naive democrats continue to underestimate Bush.

[debsianben]

44. OK

Fair enough, I guess. He was and is good in the sense of "effective", especially given obstacles like severe, bizzare levels of stupidity.

[demnan]

3. Kerry was a good man

His campaign had many flaws, however. I'm sorry he gave up so quick.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. I thought they commented he was "over-handled"?

Too many people were giving him advice...he had "noah's arc" with 2 people for every campaign position. I watched it and didn't get "he was a lousy candidate"; maybe I missed that part. I didn't think he was a lousy candidate (IMHO).

[Old and In the Way]

13. Too be all the "advisers" weren't engaged with making sure

the election wasn't stolen. The candidate had his hand full campaining 20 hours a day. He did his part, his Party seems not to have done theirs. Isn't he rightfully to assume there is a Party behind him taking care of the nuts and bolts of the election process while he is making the sale with the voter?

While I fault the Republican machine for gaming the system, where was the Democratic Party in exposing/fighting this problem before the election? It's not like we weren't aware that Republicans will do whatever it takes to get their guy selected. If there was ever a reason to install Howard Dean as chairman of the RNC, this would be it.

[XemaSab]

72. I'm not sure

Dean's interested in being chair of the RNC.

:-)

[Old and In the Way]

89. I get 'em confused sometimes.

:-)

[Andromeda]

91. Lol...

That would be good. :)

[Radical Activist]

24. campaign advisers always make a good scapegoat

They did that with Gore too. In the end the candidate has to make the final decisions and chooses what advisers he wants around him.

[mzmolly]

6. That's what they always say about the "loser"

Dukakis
Mondale
Kerry

All good men, who would have made Good Presidents. But, what does that matter huh?

And, Bush who can't even pronounce "nukular" is afterall a good candidate. :eyes:

[fertilizeonarbusto]

10. Yup

Good candidate with a poorly run campaign infiltrated by DINO's and fighting the meretricious media every step of the way. And he still lost by only one state.

[xultar]

7. Ditto! n/t

[lateo]

8. Mike Wallace was right!

We could have run a ham sandwich against Bush and won...Kerry fumbled on just about everything.

[bunkerbuster1]

98. Ham Sandwich just called

Ham sez it's a hella lot harder to unseat an incumbant right-wing asshole with the corporate media on his side than you might think.

[RobertSeattle]

9. Yet more Monday Morning Quarterbacks

A 100K votes here and there and they'd be saying Bush was a lousy candidate.

[bullimiami]

11. mike wallace is a lousy newsman.

he has degenerated into a power fearing propagandist.

he should be ashamed to even speak.

[ailsagirl]

81. Changed my mind!!

[Mike L]

12. They are right. What's wrong with honesty?

We should have vetted Kerry more thoroughly. I'm guilty of it too. I thought Kerry would be a good candidate.

How can we properly vet the candidates next time? Is there any way to air out all the negatives before it's too late?

I think most Dems tried to put emotions aside this year and pick the candidate who had the best chance of winning, but we still didn't know enough about Kerry. I worked for Clark first. When I saw he was no politician, I switched to Kerry. Now I think Gephardt would have been the best candidate because he had no negatives.

How can we vet these people early?

[KittyWampus]

15. Nothing Like Leaving Steaming Piles In Multiple Threads About Various

threads, is there?

[Generator]

17. Oh my-you are so right!

The many many scandals that Kerry had during the campaign.

The drunk driving arrests in his past.

The cocaine usage.

The many bimbos.

Why I even hear his wife killed somebody with her car.

Don't even get started about those drunken sluttish kids he has.

There was even some speculation as that he wasn't man enough to testify on his own.

And to top it all off-AWOL.

It's no wonder he couldn't get elected.

[Fawn]

111. I must have missed something...

George Bush won despite all of these problems in his past.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Properly vet the candidate?

Please explain. Kerry's record was public knowledge for 30 years. He went through a primary with 8 other candidates.

DO you mean we should have known that a bunch of Republican scum would lie about Kerry's war record to cover the boyking's AWOL past? If you think these anti-American Republicans would not have lied and distorted Gephardt's record, you are naive.

Don't you get it? The Republican corporate media will work hand-in-hand with the RNC to demonize any Democrat. How much airtime, nightly, were given to the swiftboat liars? They don't have to make the accusations themselves; they smply give anyone willing to slander and lie all the airtime they need to convince gullable voters who lack the critical thinking skills to see through it. Because they also control the voting machines and the process, they don't even need a majority of voters anymore. All they need are enough foolish voters to provide cover.

[Mike L]

28. I mean the fact that Kerry only served 4 mths in Nam and used an obscure

Navy regulation to get out with 3 purple hearts. Also, his "US soldiers raped, murdered, cut off ears" 1971 Senate testimony. He won Iowa by dragging out Jim Rassemann and playing on his Vietnam War record. Did Kerry do 1000 times more than Chimp during the Vietnam war? Sure. But when he made that the centerpiece of his campaign, he promised more than he could deliver.

But the main thing was his inability to make his positions on issues known to the public-- the biggest one being the IW. He intentionally played both sides of issues. He also said many stupid things during the campaign. I expected more from someone with 20 years of political experience. I was wrong.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Ah, I see now.

* 4 months in Nam
* obscure Navy regs to get 3 purple hearts.

Gotcha....

I had no problem understanding his positions...anyone listening to his speeches and checking his website would clearly have understood his vision for America. Yes, his vote pissed me off, too...but, at the end of the day, it was Bush's decision to thumb his nose at Congress, the UN, and the entire international community. It was his war and it is his quagmire.

Kerry won more Democratic votes than any candidate in history. Think of how many more he would have gotten if the Republicans didn't control the vote machines and the process. He was an outstanding candidate and the guy the BFEE was scared shitless of. Why? Because he'd go directly at them....his investigations of BCCI will come in handy when his AG starts laying the case for serious criminal indictments....

[sangh0]

35. What took you so long?

"Ah, I see now."

The RNC spent millions broadcasting those two arguments all over the country, and you just now get it? You'll never be as quick as Mike_L

[Mike L]

38. What was Kerry's position on the Iraq war?

Whatever you say, you will be right............and wrong.

[Old and In the Way]

90. Exactly.

That's why you need to read his statement on what his vote was for. He voted to support the Office of the Presidency. It gave Bush the right to use force if UN sanctions didn't work. But they were working and he invaded anyway. Kerry's position was perfectly defensible. Bush said he had compelling evidence....and he lied about it.

Unfortunately, the Republican majority in Congress will not hold him accountable for his actions. I don't hold that against Kerry, though.

[FiveGoodMen]

114. The reason Congress has to vote

on a war resolution is so that one nut in the White House won't be able to start a war all by himself.

Kerry's job on the IWR was to see Bush for the lying, dangerous SOB that he is and stop him.

Voting Bush all the power and then hoping he wouldn't misuse it was a huge mistake. Claiming, after the fact, that he really did do the right thing was another huge mistake.

If Kerry couldn't tell Bush was lying, then he's not nearly as politically astute as many people here.

[Uzybone]

42. The Swifties couldnt have said it better

those cheap purple hearts that Kerry got should have been thouroughly vetted by us before the primaries. :eyes:

[Mike L]

47. OK, let's just be ignorant next time too and get beaten again.

Works for me.

[Blue Wally]

62. There was enough truth in the Swiftees pitch

That it was plausible to the electorate. No bald-facred lie will ever succeed, but if there was a kernel of truth, it can be believable. Anyone here think that Kerry was the best-loved officer in his unit??

[Old and In the Way]

92. What kernal of bullshit are you believing?

Here's the thing about combat shrapnel. 2" to the left or 3" to the right that sharpnel get's you a body bag. The Republican convention dishonored every American soldier that's ever been awarded the Purple Heart. I can't think of a group that is more un-American that a bunch of chickenhawks who belittled the sacrifices of every combat soldier.


"Anyone here think that Kerry was the best-loved officer in his unit??"
As compared to who? Everything I've read, his crew thought he was a great officer.

Please provide a link to support the basis of your question.

[Blue Wally]

93. Unfit For Command

Read O'Neills book. Certainly, O'Neill had an agenda and everything in the book was slanted against Kerry. If you read between the lines in the book, you certainly get the impression that Kerry (who isn't Mr Personality) wasn't one of the inner circle in his boat unit. A friend lent me the book this weekend (and I just finished reading it). I am a Vietnam veteran and understand shrapnel and bullets (and the differences between the two). Hell, the first guy in my unit to get the Purple Heart was in a fight with a fellow soldier in his tent, got knockewd down, and hit his head. We sent him to the 93rd Evac Hospital for a possible concussion. Next morning, some officer at the hospital came down the line of bunks handing out Purple Hearts. It took me a week of paperwork to get that Purple Heart revoked. I have also seen my fellow officers shamelessly "game" the medals system. A supply officer arranged for transfer of some supplies to a Vietnamese unit and went home with about three Vietnamese decorations for "valor". Even allowing for a lot of hyperbole and bias in O'Neill's book, you get the idea that Kerry wasn't all that admirable to his fellows.

[Old and In the Way]

99. Thanks.

Tell me what they had to say about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfiewicz, Elliot Abrahms, Richard Perle, John Ashcroft, New Gingrich, and the entire fucking Chickenhawk Republican Party? How many pages did O'Neil devote to those guys?

Did he include a special "Trading with the Enemy" section for Dick Cheney when he was circumventing the US/UN embargo, doing business with Saddam Hussein in 1998?

O'Neil has made a career for himself as the designated character assassin to hit Democrats like John Kerry. One question I would have loved to see the Republican corporate media ask these guys: How many more Americans had to die and get maimed in VietNam before they would have joined Kerry in protesting the war? 100,000? 250,000? 500,000? What was their personal threshold for deciding it was time to end the war?

Kerry led in VietNam and he led the fight to bring that unjust and immoral war to an end. That makes him a hero twice in my book.

And these same chickenhawks, who avoided service to their country when it was their turn, are now sending our sons and daughters to fight in another VietNam. Perhaps if they had answered the call back then, they'd have been more reluctant to take us on this fantasy called the Project for a New American Century.

[Blue Wally]

104. My point was......

that Kerry had some problems in the Navy and that the Swiftees charges were not made up whole cloth......


How much was resentment earned there and how much was resentment based on Kerry's subsequent anti-war record is unknown.

O'Neill hasn't gone after any Democrats except Kerry as far as I know. Certainly O'Neill has been more sucessful recruiting anti-Kerry Swiftees than Kerry has been recruiting pro-Kerry Swiftees.

Everything you say about the Chickenhawks avoiding service is true, but not germane to the point as to whether or not Kerry was an admired comrade in Vietnam.

[seaglass]

115. You have got to be kidding me. Every man alive who actually

served WITH Kerry and knew Kerry except one, supported him. Superior officers who disparaged Kerry during the pres. campaign had previously applauded him, one even spoke for him when he was running for Senate.

O'Neill had one target in mind and that was John Kerry, he did it before and lost, this time he won.

I wouldn't wipe my ass with his book.

[CTLawGuy]

73. I voted for it...

before I voted against it...

When you're being accused of flip flopping, those words are not wise.

[Fawn]

112. Kerry didn't make it the centerpiece.

Bush did and Kerry responded.

[loyalsister]

46. I'm not even sure we had one

a good candidate, I mean. I think the problem was regional, and the inability of Kerry to connect with voters. In fact, Kerry's candidacy represents a larger problem. An unwillingness of the party to make the actual effort. Howard Dean wanted to run a 50 state campaign. While I love the guy and all he has done for us, I think they tore him down enough that he couldn't have won. The Democrats should have picked up some of his ideas, however. 50 state campaign was one of his best. Kerry pulled out of MO and probably Arkansas way too early.
I would have rather seen door to door precinct politics more regionally relevant. Ideally, national staff would ask how do you do things and win here? Volunteers should be trained to speak to the audience with whom they are speaking. Unfortunately, the campaign didn't do that, and we didn't have a party that made it a priority.
A ground war specific to every neighborhood and every door with economic issues in mind might have looked very different.

Regional politics is a great starting point for future proactivity. I recommend reading the article about the Democratic Da Vinci Code in the January 2005 American Prospect. A lot of the red state reps that they pointed to may not be who we would want to run for president or who you would put up in your blue state, however they know how to win WHERE THEY ARE.
We need those guys. It's not about moving economically LEFT and understanding how to SPEAK to the people who actually speak a different dialect of English. Obama has a whole other kind of IT that we need to learn to use better to capture the attention of the country.

[Mike L]

49. "It's not about moving economically LEFT "

Did you mean to say, "It's about moving economically LEFT"? If so, I agree.

[loyalsister]

52. I did

Got confused in my editing.
Thanks for the correction.
:-)

[Blue Wally]

61. You have a twenty week primary season

Two or three states vote every week. The smallest states go first. The biggest states vote last. Everyone is being tested week by week and no one can really wrap it up early. Folks can drop by the wayside and new candidates slip in. You might not even have a majority by the convention. You then hash it out on the convention floor. In the end you have a candidate whose message and whose persoanl life have been well vetted.

[XemaSab]

78. Ostensibly

I think we were pretty clear early on exactly what they'd throw at each of the candidates.... except Kerry.

Dean: Total wingnut with anger management problems who totally skipped out on 'nam. Didn't release his gubernatorial papers. Signed a bill allowing gays to form civil unions. In the campaign made a comment that some took as racially insensitive and others took as anti-Southern. Finally, the scream.

Edwards: Trial lawyer. Not even one term in the senate. Trial lawyer.

Clark: Never held elected office. Got cozy with war criminals while in Bosnia. Supposedly a democrat, but has voted for many republicans.

Kucinich: Strange, elfish peacenik. Way way way too far left, except on abortion.

Mosely-Braun: Left office under scandal a few years back.

Lieberman: Gore's running mate. Perhaps somewhat overly pro-Israel. Hasn't accepted Jesus as his savior. (He'd also have a real problem getting out the base, IMHO).

Sharpton: Never held elected office. On the record making many fiery speeches.

Gephardt: ??? Wasn't in the election long enough for me to really learn much about him.

In the primaries, all we really heard about Kerry were the good things, like he'd been to Vietnam and served a long time in the senate. Not a pacifist, but on the record opposing Vietnam when he returned.

I think a lot of the stuff againt him was cooked up, but there were apparent inconsistencies that the right was able to use to paint him as a flip-flopper.

[Blue Wally]

94. Yes, but

a longer primary season with no one able to wrap it up early might have allowed Dean to recover from the "scream" or might have allowed Kucinich or Clark to become better known to the primary electorate. Kerry's vulnerabilities might have come to light earlier.

[JNelson6563]

97. What does that tell you?

Teh corporate media let us know what slop would be thrown at all but Kerry. Subtle implication he was "electable"? Mmm hmm.

The Rethugs wanted to run against Kerry and we happily obliged. Again. If there's one thing hte Dems have gotten good at it's obliging the thugs.

Julie

[itzamirakul]

79. You have to remember that

up to this point, we actually have little if any say-so in who the candidate is. If you remember, much of the Democratic base wanted Dean, but the all-powerful DLC pushed Kerry on us and even set out to help destroy Dean, because in their words, "Kerry was more elctable." So in the end, what the hell did WE have to say about anything? "Just line up, get out your credit cards and keep sending us money."

[Mirwib]

84. The best way to vet a candidate

is a long, protracted primary race. We can watch how a candidate responds to criticism, attacks, etc. Unfortunately, neither party wants to go to a convention without the candidate already having been picked. The media would make that party look indecisive.

The last convention that I remember in which there was some doubt who would win the nomination was in 1972 when McGovern was nominated. As I remember, it wasn't entirely decided until the vote was actually taken.

[blackangrydem]

14. I remember when Fritz Hollings was a presidential candidate in the 80s.

Kerry fared much, much better.

[Generator]

16. Yeah and his sonny boy works for Fox...

More of the great liberul media on the march.

Assholes.

[blackangrydem]

19. Who is his son?

[Generator]

20. Chris Wallace

[blackangrydem]

21. Oh, of course. I thought you meant Hollings had a son on Fox.

[robbedvoter]

22. As compare to whom? Hard work W? 92,000 ballots in Ohio without

POTUS vote - they need to make this seem legit.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. And I suppose Bush was a better candidate?

My ASS!

[KansDem]

48. This is the 800-lb gorilla that NO ONE in the MSM wants to acknowledge...

Bush was a terrible candidate and had been one since first announcing his intention to run back in 1998(?) Remember how the MSM fawned over him? How he didn't have to compete with the other GOP candidates? How he didn't have to (IIRC) debate with them?

All I've heard from the MSM during Campaign2004 was "is Kerry a 'good' candidate?," yet NOT ONCE did I hear the same concern applied to Bush. There were plenty of times Bush could have been called on his "campaigning" whether it was stoopid answers, stoopid looks, stoopid actions, etc. I suppose the MSM would refer to these as par for the course for such a "likable kind of guy with a charm that would make most Americans want to have a beer with..." :puke:

I was PARTICULARLY incensed when after Election2004 when Kerry "conceded," Bush said "Kerry was a 'worthy' candidate..." Go to Hell, George! You were a worthless POS! If the MSM weren't behind you since Campaign2000, you'd still be running Texas businesses into the ground and getting bailed out by your pals, the bin Ladens...!!!

[sunnystarr]

100. You're so right. Bush always was a lousy candidate but it's not

how good a candidate you are at all that counts. It's the MSM and HOW they cover you and define you. It was the MSM working hand in hand with the RNC that minimized and labelled Kerry.

Kerry was far superior as a candidate. However the MSM didn't cover his best and twisted his human moments. The only time they couldn't do that was in the debates and there Kerry's superior position stood out clearly. They worked hard to twist some things and keep them as talking points for a full week (Cheney's daughter).

Just think about what they could do to Lincoln if he was running today. Shoot look at how they could have spun Bush!! He was the REAL flip flopper afterall. There was so much material against Bush and Cheney and the administration that it's mind boggling that MSM went along. Well not really since those journalists and pundits are good little sheep after all.

Bush controls the press and therefore controls it all. I'm sure he's trying to figure a way he could control the internet too.

That being said - Kerry's actions stir suspicions. Why concede so quickly? Why didn't he go in for the kill in the debates? His actions cloud him to many and make it appear that another "fix" was in. Those are not things I want to believe but which lie as a doubt in that cloud over his head.

If Kerry was for real and he honestly believed those that told him that Bush won Ohio when he conceded then at this point he should be leading the charge to uncover the truth in Ohio.

I so want to believe in him but he should know that if he doesn't do this now his political future is dead. Many are convinced he's just been laying low. But the time is NOW! If he doesn't step up now in a clear visible way as a leader then he never intended to do so.

If he really is a patriot then he should be fighting for the cause of democracy and the right of every citizen's vote to be counted in a fair, open, election. He sure doesn't need money so why isn't he making history? If he doesn't step up to the plate now then he's betraying all those who supported him as well as the foundations of our democracy.

*edited cause I can never get it right the first time lol

[CTLawGuy]

77. Here's what Bush did that made him win

he worked from a framework advantageous to him, that Kerry did not challenge for fear of alienating people.

Bush articulated principles and showed how he advanced them.

For example:

The war in iraq was justified,
tax cuts are good for the middle class,
gay marriage is wrong,
abortion is wrong.

This demonstrated to people, his base, and a good minority of independents that he stands for something that they can understand.

They though kerry, on the other hand, stood for nothing and secretly harbored a "liberal" agenda.

[fujiyama]

25. Easy for him to say this now

didn't Hollings endorse him in the primaries? I remember an incident where Hollings called Asians "Chinamen".

[blackangrydem]

27. I'm surprised he didn't say "Chinks"

[JohnKleeb]

29. yes, he endorsed him

not early on like Kennedy, the head of the firefighters union, and the Massachuetts Democratic delegation though. He's said some racist stuff that's gotten him in trouble a lot actually.

[scbluevoter]

102. A famous civil rights personality(Cleveland Sellers). . .

who was a professor of mine at the Univ. of SC can remember him calling black civil rights activists something a little worse on the statehouse grounds when Fritz was governor. FYI, if you ever get a chance, read up on Sellers. Very important figure. Actually shot during the Orangeburg massacre where 2 SC State University students were killed.

[newyawker99]

107. Hi scbluevoter!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TrustingDog]

26. then what the Hell is bush?.... jeebers! n/t

[zulchzulu]

36. He didn't say he was a "lousy" candidate

He said his message didn't get out as well as it could.

Thanks Mike! Gee, I wonder why his message didn't get out...could it be the corporate media that you are firmly entrenched in...even worse...your Faux Snooze son...

[Bouncy Ball]

41. Hmmm

so blackangrydem misquoted Mike Wallace?

Imagine that.

[blackangrydem]

51. Did you watch 60 minutes?

If not, don't take my word for it, get a copy of the transcript.

[zulchzulu]

63. From the interview...a little truth

Hollings (who ran several lousy presidential campaigns and never got even close) was asked "Then why are Republicans so successful?":

"Because we ran a lousy campaign," says Hollings. "He was a good fellow; he's still one of the finest. But he got over-coached. He had too many consultants, too many pollsters, and really too many in that they call it 'Noah’s Ark.' He had two or three of everything. And he never could make up his mind."

Actually the response was Rovish bullshit, but NEITHER the old timer NOR Mike Wallace ever said Kerry was "a lousy candidate".

He did say this about Kerry:
“The only fella I know who really has the courage and the experience in every regard and can really take George Bush on is John Kerry of Massachusetts.”

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7776171.htm

[JI7]

37. you have some unusual posts

[Bouncy Ball]

40. I've noticed that, too.

A lot.

[blackangrydem]

55. Maybe you'd prefer if all my posts began with,

"Kill my landlord!"

[scbluevoter]

103. Kill my landlord. . .

that is funny as hell!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Kerry was a lousy candidate.

Moved to the right to try and capture the mythical middle starting with his pathetic IWR vote and his continued backing of the occupation of Iraq. He played the DLC gameplan of moving away from the left and abandoning whatever principles he had in favor of pandering to the right.

"Electable" rather than standing for anything but his own ambitions.

"Lousy" pretty well covers a weak and unethical candidate.

[zulchzulu]

50. Perhaps you can enlighten us with his moves to the "Right"?

Yes...the IWR (which was for the UN to continue inspections and go to war as a last resort) might be seen by some as "right"...even though people like Dean were essentially for the SAME THING at the time the vote was cast.

What other issues did Kerry "swerve to the right" in the campaign? Name them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. His continued support for the occupation.

You may dismiss his cowardly vote for the invasion. But, he continued to support the occupation. He continued to support NAFTA and the corporations. He continued to support "No Child Left Behind".

[zulchzulu]

58. Who were you for?

No, Kerry wasn't "God". His views on NCLB were pretty good in terms of the idea was OK if it had been funded. I'm not a fan of NAFTA or the WTO either, but I trusted Kerry's judgement over the years that both needed to be amended.

I protested in the streets against the war, but also understood Kerry's position. It's complicated. And this IWR debate is so stale here on DU that it has cobwebs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. I started out for Kerry until the IWR. Then Kucinich, then Dean.

I ended up holding my nose and voting for Kerry. For the last time. I'm switching to Green as the Democratic Party merges with the Repugs and sinks into irrelevance.

[zulchzulu]

67. I sometimes vote Green locally and usually Dem nationally

I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, we always have to make a strategic decision when voting nationally it seems...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. That's what I did this time.

Fortunately, I have one good senator (Murray) and a good congressman.

I'm changing my registration to Green to try and build the party. We really need an opposition party.

[Seabiscuit]

69. Ditto. Some progression, same thoughts re: future.

[Mike L]

54. Kerry's support of NAFTA and the WTO was a slap in the face to the

American worker.

[zulchzulu]

57. Agreed...but....

Kucinich wasn't viable as a presidential candidate. If it were me, I'd be going for Feingold, but he didn't run.

[Julien Sorel]

56. What was actually said.

Then why are Republicans so successful? "Because we ran a lousy campaign," says Hollings. "He was a good fellow; he's still one of the finest. But he got over-coached. He had too many consultants, too many pollsters, and really too many in that they call it 'Noah’s Ark.' He had two or three of everything. And he never could make up his mind."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/60minutes/main660368.shtml

[newscott]

59. Thank You!

I watched it last night and the only who said that Kerry was a lousy candidated was Wallace.

[blackangrydem]

71. and Fritz Hollings agreed.

Which is what I said.

[Julien Sorel]

76. Hollings didn't agree.

And Wallace was asking a leading question; he didn't actually say he thought Kerry was a lousy candidate. This whole thread is based on a falsehood.

[autorank]

60. Mike Wallace did a lousy job of raising his son who is an idiot.

[zulchzulu]

64. Amen

Wussup wit dat.

[autorank]

65. Maybe it's like *, kid wants to piss off his father by being a moron.

[zulchzulu]

68. Video of interview

Windows Media:
http://movies.ziaspace.com/Hollins.wmv

[ChiciB1]

74. Maybe....

Kerry was just OVER-QUALIFIED!!
Seems like he would have been up to the task!

[CTLawGuy]

75. he had a lot of glaring flaws...

1. Lack of credibility on important issues.
Voting for Iraq War and then trying to be against it, then saying he would have voted for it again. he had no ability to challenge the wisdom and morality of the war to foment opposition to it among independents.
A poor tax cut position which is a lighter version of Bush's tax plan (except that the rich wouldnt get the tax cut). It was made less credible by the fact that Kerry voted AGAINST the tax cuts. If Bush and Kerry are BOTH for middle class tax cuts, people who like tax cuts will vote for the man who proposed and signed the tax cuts, and not the guy who voted agaisnt them and then turns around and only wants some people to have them.
His openness to a ban on gay marriage in MA. Kerry said he may support one "depending on the language." instead of fighting to keep what gay people had won in that state, he caved into the republicans on it. 23% of gay Americans ended up voting for Bush.

2. Overfocus on Vietnam.
Kerry made his Vietnam service the sole for the argument for why he should be elected (other than ABB). It didn't impress too many people and Bush was able to turn it into a liability with the Swift Boat vets advertisement. As long as the campaign was about what Kerry did 30 years ago, Bush was sitting pretty.

3. Not responding to attacks quickly. The swift boat alleagations were allowed to fester too long before a response came.

----

Kerry lost because he could not demonstrate to enough of the American people that he was a decent alternative to Bush. Bush convinced a lot of people that Kerry was a flip flopper on important issues. Kerry's vietnam service convinced a bunch of Iowans who started to pay attention at the last minute that Kerry was electable. Kerry played his game completely within the RW framework which put him at a huge disadvantage to Bush. He assumed that tax cuts are inherently good, and that the war in Iraq was morally justified. He did not challenge these assertions. He got a lot of votes because of ABB, because many voters hated Bush. However, he couldnt get the votes of people who didnt hate Bush, but didn't particularly like bush either. Kerry didnt give them a reason to vote for him other than "I served in vietnam" or "Id have run the Iraq war differently".

[sampsonblk]

80. He WAS a lousy candidate

Trying to talk people into voting for Kerry was like selling poop and claiming its an air freshener.

I did my best for the guy, but I confess, I had a hard time voting for him myself.

[zulchzulu]

83. If you couldn't understand the issues...then anyone is a lousy candidate

It's easy for people who have no idea of the issues and the various levels of complexity in them to think a candidate is "lousy", "boring" or "hard to sell".

If you don't know the issues and the actual stances that Kerry stood for, it's like faking that you can play a violin in a classical quartet. People will see past the charade.

[scbluevoter]

105. People. . .

when will realize that so many believed that Kerry was "LOUSY" for the same reason they believed Bush was a "strong leader?" THE ECHO CHAMBERS OF NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ETC. They say it we buy it; and then we repeat it our own forums!

[ailsagirl]

82. Oops-- accidentally stepped into this thread

[leesa]

85. SOS. The old republican tactic of pretending it was a lousy candidate

rather than a stolen election. How clever!

[Laurab]

86. Clever indeed

SOS - I'm reading these posts in disbelief - thanks for yours. Most everything people seem to find fault with, I've heard from the republican spin machine. If he had said he was against the war, he would have been labeled a traitor. I can just hear the spin now - no, never mind, I don't even want to imagine it. Politics is a game and he had to play it. He was obviously against the war. He was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. He is intelligent, articulate, and has spent his lifetime fighting for things he believed in, whether or not they were popular. He was an excellent candidate. There were a couple of things that could have been done better for example,the Swift Boat attack, but even then, had he stooped to their level, he would have lost. You cannot win a RIGGED election.

[ChiciB1]

88. My Sentiments EXACTLY!

And I've posted this many many times. Quit yer bitchin and let's get this Democratic Party back on track.

Mobilize and show them what we're made of. It's stuff like this that kills us all the time. He was our candidate, we worked hard for him and we don't know what we don't know.

Kerry was my guy and I'm still hanging with him! And don't start with the "lousy" stuff again. The Idiot who couldn't string a sentence together was a LOUSY candidate... he just had corrupt people fixin things! I'll never believe he really WON this election or the LAST one!

I live in Florida and am STILL MAD!

[tedzbear]

87. Well he was!

Kucinich or Dean would have been better.

[flpoljunkie]

96. Problem not with John Kerry, but with our timid and corrupted media...

who again failed to do their job--in 2000, they gave Bush's record in Texas a pass, and they gave Bush's incredibly failed record as president, yet another pass--he is truly the "emperor with no clothes" for the American media.

Our mainstream media is just about worthless. If we are counting on them to protect our democracy, we are delusional.

[dbfl33040]

101. he's right!

[zulchzulu]

106. Truth: Mike Wallace NEVER said Kerry was a lousy candidate

The video is there...portions of the transcript are there... at no point in the interview did either Hollings OR Wallace say that Kerry was a "lousy" candidate.

And he wasn't either. Diebold is a lousy company. BBV is lousy technology. The corporate media is more than lousy. People who make up crap about an interview and spread false rumors are LOUSY.

[AmerDem]

108. Wallace has turned weak-kneed in his old age.

I wrote that geezer a handful of times through out 2003 asking him to investigate e-voting machines. Nothing, so who the hell is he to talk. The man is a walking corpse.

[Sparkly]

109. I think Kerry was an excellent candidate!!

Hardworking, energetic, smart, experienced, committed, articulate, liberal, compassionate... No candidate's perfect, and no campaign is perfect. But I think Kerry was a terrific candidate, and he'd be a great president.

[zulchzulu]

113. What the hell is wrong with you!

This is a Kerry bashing thread based on a lie that Wallace said Kerry was a "lousy" candidate.

Of course, Wallace never said that nor did Hollings, but this thread is full of people gleefully bashing Kerry. It's probably because their candidate lost in the primaries, so this is a time for them to vent. Or maybe it's the "cool thing" to do.

I guess.
:shrug:

[TeacherCreature]

110. I thought he was thoroughly mediocre.

Had some good moments, and also some bad ones.

Next time I hope we do much better.