The three main types of Kerry bashers here at DU

[zulchzulu]

First, let me say that I appreciate all of those that worked their ass off trying to beat Bush this time around. We DID win, although that's a victory we must remember in our hearts and use that energy for 2006 and 2008. And beyond...

The thing that really gets me about the apparent need to Kerry-bash from some people are somewhat broken down into three basic thought groups.

The first are the people that can't seem to even fathom the idea that their candidate that they suffered through disheartening defeat actually LOST...and lost big...and in some cases EARLY in the primary season.

Tinfoil hat all you want about how some states decided the choice too early, or worse, don't have a clue how a caucus is run. If some candidates were such "hot shit", why did they run out of money early in the campaign and even have campaign directors not even return the candiate's urgent, desperate and repeated phone calls.

It's like saying your race car would have won the Indy 500 if you hadn't just had time to put the wheels on the goddamn car.

Sour grapes makes for a sour whine. Turn the page, please. I back the message and mission of the DFA...that's what counts now. Move on.

The second category are the armchair warriors who somehow think that Kerry had been doing nothing about the Ohio, Florida and other region recount issues after the election.

We were gamed by the Repugs' connections to BBV machines, Diebold and the evidence will be presented in due course. I remember predicting back in the early summer that the Repugs had already planned on stealing the election and that we all needed to get as many people out as possible to vote for Kerry in order to create a large pad of votes the counter the game the Repugs were going to play. I remember Kerry mentioning the issue in speeches where I saw him on the trail.

Kerry, Edwards and their combined legal team were not only on the street looking for clues, evidence and names after the election, but were mobilized before the election.

Again, if Repug-ruled counties decide to use BBV machines and other tactics to prevent democracy to function, there is only so much one can do without proof. The proof has to be after a crime was committed.

Kerry knew that he didn't have enough votes to turn over the results of the election...yeah, he could say exit polls were different...but that's not votes or legal reliable proof.

There were many press releases and other content that showed that the Kerry/Edwards campaign was trying to find out what happened. But without the choice of counting air as a vote, making exit poll numbers a legitimate way of legally electing someone or having the possibility of a re-vote, the grim result of yet another stolen election is the only choice.

Thirdly, the type of Kerry basher that gets my goat are the ones that spew the same old tired unproven, distorted accusations that Karl Rove spewed and polluted the airwaves with regarding Kerry. Usually these accusations (like "flip-flopper") are vacuous exercises in Hannityesque dogma based on Coulteresque yelps, yips and yowls.

Kerry did well and came close. I have grown through all the post-election disappointments to see where he could go and how he tried to go.

We have to push ahead. Please consider Kerry an ally to the progressive side of democracy...look at his high ratings in various political benchmarks for being a strong liberal and a progressive soul.

Bush ran a VERY dirty campaign and had the willing corporate media alongside him to suffocate and suppress Kerry's message and aid Karl Rove's lies and cast of accomplices, proselytes and bootlickers willing to hosanna the agitprop of the Media Mephistophelians behind the elusive curtain.

Any candidate that the Democrats would have run would have been subjected to the same level of peculiar impalements of character assassination and fictionalized culpability.

The willing corporate media manikins and marionettes that mouthpiece the Repug Echo Chamber like obedient automatons would have allowed for the same debauched perfidiousness on the TV screens that seem to be seen as the "News".

The only thing that would be fair and balanced would be those that dangled from a gallows pole after Jeffersonian justice was wrought.

But I digress...

Kerry has proven through his career that he is willing to investigate crimes and misdemeanors of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. I know he would like to continue that tradition and get to the bottom of this stolen election.

Have faith in your allies, even after they have been decreed as "defeated". That's when they need you most. We need each other (bruises, scabs and all) to get ahead in the next needed progressive political missions.

[XanaDUer]

1. Thank you for this post

...

[politicasista]

2. Thank you!

[rpannier]

3. You can demean all you want

But the fact is he conceded Ohio. He left his vocal supporters in the lurch when he conceded. He gave our political opponents the cover they needed to claim it was over and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy-minded whiner. I don't give a damn about behind the scenes nonsense. He blew it. I would NOT ever vote for him -- EVER!

[yinkaafrica]

6. It is with profound sadness that I must agree with you.

He let me down, big time.

[zulchzulu]

8. Remember that concession speeches are NOT legally binding

Get it? NOT legally binding. Repeat after me...NOT legally binding.

[yinkaafrica]

9. There you go. Kerry 2004!

Where do we send our money. :)

[rpannier]

11. It's irrelevant

Once he conceded that took the spotlight off the election. There was little-to-no coverage of what was going on in Ohio. Anyone who even questioned the election was subject to being made a laughingstock or a whiner. Look back at 2000 when everyone and their cousin was watching Florida because Gore refused to concede.
And as to your inane posting -- I am well aware of that it's not binding. I am not stupid -- which you obviously am trying to infer.
Your posting shows a sad disregard for reality and public perception.
Oh...and by the way --- Now it is over!

[zulchzulu]

14. Bringing up "concede" puts you in the box

I would venture to say that we ALL are pissed off at the election results...we all probably agree on 94% of all issues...

However, when you say Kerry "conceded" too early, you're not understanding what was going on behind the scenes. Like I said, a concession speech is not legally binding...it's a polite formality...albeit not a perfect solution by any means.

Just because Kerry participated in a legally non-binding action doesn't mean that he stopped working on investigating the election. That's the myth that you seem to disclose.

[rpannier]

37. No it doesn't

Kerry himself gave the impression he was conceding Ohio, and the election, when he said there were not enough votes out there to make a difference. When he did that the message to the American public was, "I've lost."
You can zig-zag around that and say all you want about binding or non-binding. But, the fact is that when he gave that speech, it was taken by the majority of the American public to mean -- I quit.
By doing so, it effectively ended the election in the media and in the public discourse.
It became irrelevant what Kerry, you, me or my mother were doing behind the scenes. The complaints about fraud became a non-issue and anyone who claimed fraud was marginalized. Hence, when anyone brought up voter fraud they were met with haranging comments like, "Oh, yeah. Voter fraud. Is that the best you can come up with as to why you lost?" or my favorite, "You lost. Kerry's accepted it, why can't you?"
Members of the media have admitted they follow stories, not lead them. Had he not given that speech, the media would have continued to cover it and the Ohio vote would have received more scrutiny.
I was in advertising for seven years and the motto, "Perception is fact." is the credo they live by. When Kerry gave that speech the majority of the public said, "It's over."

[rockymountaindem]

90. Do you honestly think the media would have put the attn. where you want it

?

If Kerry had publically complained about problems in Ohio, it wouldn't have focused the media spotlight on problems, but on Kerry. It would have been wall to wall coverage of "Kerry the Sore Loserman" and every Republican pundit would be blabbing about how Kerry was somehow emboldening the terrorists (like they did yesterday in the Congressional debate). Kerry standing up in public would have caused a media feeding frenzy and his character and actions, not the voting flaws, would have been the main course.

Please explain to me why this scenario is better than investigating behind the scenes.

[rpannier]

104. Very Simply

To start with, my scenario is better because it would have kept the fight in the public eye. Behind the scenes still means "SQUAT" in the discourse of public opinion. And like it or not, what the public perceives is all that matters.
If your concern is that the media would have turned it as an issue about Kerry being a sore loser than I feel badly for you, because what I hear you saying is, "God forbid we should receive negative public attention." That kind of mindset is what loses us elections.
To get change you MUST keep the issue in the mind of the public or it becomes a non-issue and dies.
That is why my scenario is superior to yours. Mine keeps it in the public eye, it keeps people talking. You can spin that anyway you want.

[frylock]

38. so exactly what the hell was "going on behind the scenes"?!

I haven't seen evidence of a fucking thing he or his team were doing behind the scenes. There are still people on this board who believe that he is doing things behind the scenes. He didn't do shit but roll over. No, a concession is not legally binding, but were you watching today? How many repubs used Kerry's concession against us? Kerry would have NEVER conceded if everything weren't on the up and up is what they kept saying all damn day. So go ahead and keep on believin, and when he throws his hat in the ring in 08, you go right ahead throw your money down the shitter. Kerry gave up.

[rpannier]

105. Amen!!!! n/t

[Mirwib]

112. It is a secret what was going on behind the scenes

so that is why you don't know what happened. If you were privileged enough to know what was happening behind the scenes, it would be clear to you that something was happening. But since you don't know what was happening behind the scenes something had to have happened.

/sarcasm off

[Guaranteed]

19. That's doesn't mean SHIT.

He gave up the fucking boat in the eyes of the American public. It was OVER at that point. He CONCEDED.

[CTLawGuy]

51. doesn't matter

I watched the debate in the House yesterday. Republican after Republican QUOTED Kerry or his staff's statements about having lost the election in an attempt to poo-poo the courageous stand Boxer and Tubbs-Jones (among others) took.

Kerry's action in conceding when the election was questionable did a LOT of moral, if not legal, damage to the cause.

Because, if even Bush's OPPONENT HIMSELF accepts the result and accepts the election, how can anyone else not do so?

[frylock]

61. word up!

[sandnsea]

92. Speak for yourself

I never felt left in the lurch. In fact, I've been more annoyed by the fraud fanatics than Kerry because it's harder than hell to get the REAL machine failures and voter suppression problems out there over maniacal rantings that haven't been proven.

[tsuki]

103. You said it all. I was more than a little upset to see my

Representatives and a brave senator stand up and speak for my right to vote and be counted only to have Kerry and his attorney's word thrown back into my face.

And notice, it was Kerry's, off in Iraq, words and not Edwards that were use to invalidate my right to vote.

[Placebo]

4. Agree with you 100%

:thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

5. I would have been better off with an older brother --

-- like John Kerry.

I think a lot of people would have been better off with a president like John Kerry, especially compared to the "winner" of the November election.

Kerry didn't cheat. Bush cheated.

How old are kids when they realize that you can't cheat -- 4? 5? Whatever it is. Bush cheated.

There's a deep-rooted indignation for cheaters, and Kerry did well to run a pretty clean charge against Dubya.

Was it Rove who did the cheating? Guess so -- but the cheating was there no matter what. And it fowls the air.

Record number of Democrats voted for our two Johns. I'd vote for them tomorrow over the little cheater, bright and early.

[greenohio]

7. EXCELLENT POST!!!

[Redleg]

10. Thank you for that. Of course some will try to crucify you.

That's just how DU is!

[Osamasux]

12. Great post. I am proud of the campaign John ran

and will remain so. He did his part to win the election, we all just came up short.

[mike_c]

13. fourth category....

Some of us never drank the kool-aid to begin with. Some of us have never supported John Kerry beyond a vague sense of ABB. Kerry's faults remain as glaring today as they were during the campaign.

[JVS]

27. We have a winner

please collect your prize at the reception area

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Absolutely correct. "Electability" lost the election.

He played to the right and got whipped for having little to offer except a watered down version of Bush.

[knight_of_the_star]

93. Exactly!

That's where I sit.

[politicasista]

15. Well said. Thank you.

:hi:

[Old and In the Way]

16. Would you ever vote for a loser like Bush over Kerry?

Me neither.

I'm holding my head high. Can't fault me for sticking up for this country and voting for honor, integrity, and intelligence over ignorance, hubris, and arrogance.

The "winners" who helped to make the election close enough to steal will get to enjoy the fruits of their "winnings" now.

In a way, I'm relieved. If Kerry and Edwards did get elected under such a divisive electorate and a Republican majority still in Congress, they'd have been the fall guys. We'd get to see impeachment proceedings start on 1/21/05 over Kerry's "treason" in VN. Meanwhile, the entire mess would suddenly become their fault and their problem to fix...alone.

So, the good news for "W" is, he "won". The bad news for "W" is, he won.

[Guaranteed]

17. Wow, those sure are the kinds of people who think certain things!

Ha ha! That was great!! I can't think of one single Kerry basher who's anything other than one of those things. Except for everyone here, since they were saying these very same things in October of 2002.

You know, maybe you should try refuting what they're actually saying, instead of just trying to label people or impugn their motives.

BTW, there's only one kind of person that's a Kerry supporter: the kind that are politically fearful. Fearful of change, and fearful of having to make a good argument. Fearful of everything, basically. They're also perpetual losers.

[pres2032]

22. wow, what an amazing post!

first you accuse zulchzulu of gross generalization and then make a gross generalization of your own about us Kerry supporters! that certianly sucks life out of any credibility you may have thought you had and any point you may have been trying to make!

i've always basked in the insults thrown at me from repubs (i.e. babykiller, pinko commie) never thought i'd get them from my own party. thanks! now i have "perpetual loser" to add to the list!

[Guaranteed]

24. Zulch started it.

I just threw the shit back at him.

You know, even Will Pitt said that those who voted for the IWR were spineless...

[pres2032]

25. what a mature post that is

i guess the "but he started it!" line is still around, even among adults.

I have no idea what IWR stands for, so that's meaningless to me. I like John Kerry, I think he represents change, and i'd vote for him again. nay, i'd devote the same time and money again that i spent that first time.

[Guaranteed]

26. ......Alrightyyyy then. nt

[pres2032]

28. i'm glad you see it my way now

being that you have nothing substantial to say. :-)

[Guaranteed]

29. LOL you don't even know what the IWR was.

Do you know what happened here with that?

[pres2032]

30. umm, ok....

you can tell me if you want, i'm kinda curious now. but i don't see it changing my support for kerry.

[Guaranteed]

31. It probably wouldn't. Didn't change

Will Pitt's mind, or any of the other Kerry supporters. Not for good, at least.

[pres2032]

32. so what's your hang up with it?

if it doesn't change minds, maybe you should forget it?

[Guaranteed]

33. Oh, it does. Just not Kerry supporters',

and others who would make excuses.

[marcologico]

40. IWR was the authorization to use force. Dean and Clark like to harp on it

since they were never senators and never had to vote on it or anything else. Oh wait Dean ran a maple syrup farm somewhere.

[RafterMan]

46. Bullshit

in the debates and in interviews, Clark was the one saying the Dems should put the argument about the IWR behind them and concentrate on beating Bush.

He did not "like to harp on it". You completely made that up.

[CTLawGuy]

54. don't make excuses

for Kerry or anyone else's cowardice. If they find being a legislator so intimidating, they should resign and let braver people in.

I know EXACTLY how Dean would have voted. He would have voted "NO".

[marcologico]

55. NOBODY knows how politicians will vote until they vote. Where were you

yesterday?

[CTLawGuy]

59. Dean said he would have voted "no" on IWR

and since that was the "unelectable" position to take, you can probably assume it was his genuine position.

[marcologico]

63. Talk is cheap and it was the wrong message anyway.

You have to win elections to accomplish anything and Dean couldn't do it. If he thinks he can build a better mousetrap, fine, I hope he gets the DNC chair and proves it. That's a good battle to fight but keeping up the sniping campaign against Kerry isn't going to help him win it (and I read that letter on the "Deanpeople.org" site, it stinks). The primaries were over ten months ago.

[bunny planet]

36. Bullcrap

[CTLawGuy]

53. and

people who keep bashing their heads against the wall of Vietnam, think that will somehow get them through the door.


They keep trying, even though it has never worked for anyone.

I have two main problems with Kerry:

1. October 2002. Kerry tosses aside his courageous experience opposing the unjust war in Vietnam, where he realized many people died for a mistake, to vote to allow Bush to make a similar war in Iraq. 12 years earlier, he had voted AGAINST the much less questionable first Gulf War, to expel Iraq from a sovereign nation it had invaded. Attempts to reconcile the two votes leads one to conclude that Kerry behaves differently when he knows he is going to run for president, and that he is not above playing games with our soldiers lives for political gain.

2. 2003-2004. Kerry runs a campaign that is essentially: "I served in Vietnam, therefore I'd be a better president than Bush." The problem is, that doesn't resonate with people. Kerry, rather than pushing his own worldview with his own language, tried to play Bush's game by Bush's rules.

-Tax cuts are good for the middle class
-The war was a good idea (I would have run it differently)
-Gay marriage is wrong

All those principles lead a voter to favor Bush, since he is stronger on them. And those who disagree with them have no one to vote for. that leaves kerry hypothetically with no one. Heres' how our candidate should have run:

-Social programs and a balanced budget help the middle class better than a piddly tax cut
-The war was a distraction from our responsibility to neutralize Al-Qaeda
-Gays just want to be treated the same as everyone else

It won't make everyone like you, even every swing voter, but it will ensure you have a solid base of support (from people who agree), and a framework from which to sway those to your side.

[Clark2008]

18. Kerry never bothered me much

And I rarely complain about him.

But his second in command bothered me tremendously. And the fact that his campaign sputtered on the Swifties. Still voted for him, though, but will not campaign for him should he run in 2008.

[politicasista]

20. You are a general person?

I think the SB liars damaged the campaign, not to mention the slow response of thinking "it would blow over." Kerry should have taken control of the ship.

[Clark2008]

21. By "general," do you mean Wes Clark

or "generally an average person?" LOL.

Yes, I'm a General Clark person. I'm also average. :)

But, as I said above, that Swifties things was drummed into the ground by the Faux media types and Kerry simply didn't jump to defend himself in time. It hurt him in moderate parts of the red states that might have flipped blue for him.

[madfloridian]

23. I don't bash Kerry, we supported him. But 37 states did not get to vote.

in the primaries for the full slate of candidates. Two states determined it all. That is no way to run a primary.

I don't bash, but I don't think my candidate lost "big-time". I disagree.

[bunny planet]

34. Thank you for this post. It makes my top three. I think I have run into

all three of the Kerry bashers out here that you've mentioned today and it has sent me scurrying for cover with my fellow Kerry admirers (there are many of us here). I won't start another I believe thread now (not a bad idea) but thank you so much for saying out loud what I've been thinking. It helped today of all days very much.
:-)

[pbartch]

35. GREAT post and I gotta say I HATES BASHERS TO PIECES

MEECES TO PIECES........BASHERS TO PIECES.....


you get my drift.

[TrustingDog]

39. there is no frikken way Kerry 'lost'....

I will Never Believe That. Ever.

and don't give me this 'next needed progressive political missions', cuz they ain't gonna work, get it? the system is rotten to the core and nothing is working. get it?

It's not about politics anymore, it's about outright thievery. We know who they are, but can we accept the accomplices to it?

[DistressedAmerican]

50. If he isn't sititng in the Oval Office on the 21st,

he lost. Doesn't really matter why he lost. He did.

[roguevalley]

41. Good grief. So I can't hold a negative opinion of Kerry and what

he's done since concession. I heard Edwards say they would fight to the last dime. Then the next day, getting up, someone said Kerry conceded. I thought it was a joke. It wasn't.

I feel VERY negative about Kerry. Its LEGITIMATE. I am sick of people telling me that I am a _______________ for feeling this. Good grief. Don't TELL me what the FEEL! My feelings are mine and they are legitimate. What the hell is the matter here? Is there a rule that we have to act like this is OKAY!?

Maybe for you, he's golden. But for me, 52 years old, graduate school graduate, 27 year career, retired, he isn't. I'm severely provoked by this and if that bothers others, then well, so what?

Are we not allowed our legitimate feelings anymore? If so, then how are we different from anyone else?

[marcologico]

42. where should Kerry have looked to find those missing 119.000 votes?

If you haven't figured out why Kerry conceded after losing the election, by foul means sure but losing it nonetheless, you probably never will. Stick around though because the story isn't over.

[roguevalley]

43. I'm going nowhere. I'm a lifelong dem and will be until I die. I consider

it a badge of honor not to be one of them. But I have to feel what I feel now. Sorry to see that its begrudged by others.

[no name no slogan]

80. go visit www.gregpalast.com and find out

Palast was on top of the 2000 thievery, too, and wrote extensively about it. It was on the front pages of nearly every paper in the country-- too bad that country was the UK.

He's also got plenty about 2004, too, if you go to his site.

Personally, I think it's pretty damned pathetic when the Green Party has to do the dirty work in Ohio, because our candidates don't want to 'look bad'. :eyes:

[rman]

44. how many types of New Liberalism apologizers at DU?

-

[Guaranteed]

45. Nothing but excuses.

And sorry ones.

[eg101]

52. well, since you asked...

....maybe this will get me in trouble with, umm, someone, but there....oh, never mind....

[RetroLounge]

47. Yawn.

But he was so, oh, I don't know, Electable...

:eyes:

RL

[eg101]

48. John Kerry: "I am not a redistribution Democrat."

what type am I?

[DistressedAmerican]

49. What ties us all together is our shared

disappointment with John Kerry.

My message to Kerry: Get a spine and stand for something or don't feel bad when you can't build a following.

[ebayfool]

56. Thank you, zulchzulu ... I needed that.

This is as useful as Faye's freeper list - helps to distinguish & pin down the 'weird harolds' that we have to wade through every day. Copied & saved to use as a reference & as a little boost of sunshine when the 'weird harolds' get me down!

[leesa]

57. Can we please just forget about Kerry? He's forgotten about us.

[sabra]

58. I appreciate your post! n/t

[ernstbass]

60. well said!!!

[paulk]

62. thanks, zz

:toast:

[HFishbine]

64. I think your logic just ate itself

"Kerry knew that he didn't have enough votes to turn over the results of the election..."

Pretty much makes the rest of your rant moot.

[Bo]

65. CLARK 08 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Kerry lost because he pandered to the right wing.

He effectively lost the election when he voted for the war and lost it as the one issue he could have defeated Bush on. Instead he tried to have it all ways.

A weak candidate on a very weak platform. He ended up with virtually no credibility.

[marcologico]

69. They're called swing voters and you can't win national elections without

them. They supported the war. Sorry, that's the way it is. Kerry had to trust his base and go after the middle. It might have worked better if his base was a little less picky.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Well, he failed to get them..even after killing the goose.

Maybe he should have murdered another one. We've been hearing the "swing voter", "centrist", "moderate", crappola since Clinton was lucky enough to have Perot give him the election in '92.

If pandering to the "swing voters" is such a great strategy, why isn't Bush using it? Why isn't it working for the DLC/DNC?

So, "they supported the war". Does that mean that we should support it and candidates who support it? I think not.

[marcologico]

76. Look, he won the blue states, didn't he? And he didn't sell out gays or

abortion, did he? That's what he would have done to win more red states.

Anyway he DID win, and we all know it, so the strategy worked. He just didn't win by enough.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. He won? Well, glory, Hallelujah!! I must've missed that part.

Apparantly, so did the rest of the country.

If, as you say, he just needed more votes, how do you propse that he should have gotten them? By being more for the war? By moving more to the right?

Hell, I had to hold my nose to vote for him this time around because of his rightward stance.

Sounds like a Catch-22 to me. The Dem candidate moves to the left, he loses the right. He moves to the right, he loses the left.

As for me, after this last fiasco engineered by the DLC, I'm going to join an opposition party and register Green.

[Zynx]

111. Perot did not hand Clinton that election.

That is an unsophisticated and uneducated argument. All the mathematical studies done on this matter show that Clinton still would have won and won fairly comfortably.

[no name no slogan]

83. What about the non-voting 40%? If he got a fraction of those,...

Kerry could have gotten their votes quite easily. All he had to do was take a stand and STICK TO IT.

You don't win elections by painting yourself as a better manager of your opponent's disasters. You win by offering a CLEARLY DIFFERENT vision from your opponents.

BTW, 50% of the American people were against the war at election time. Unfortunately, NEITHER major-party candidate could have been called "anti-war". The only difference between Kerry and Bush on the war was that Kerry said he'd manage it better.

That's akin to saying that you'll bail the water a little bit faster out of the sinking oceanliner, instead of getting on a new boat entirely.

Kerry (the man) is a decent man, and was a decent Senator. He was not a great presidential candidate in 2004

[XemaSab]

96. The swing voters

supported the war because there was nobody out there telling them why the war was wrong, and that the war was going badly. An antiwar candidate may have been able to influence public perception of the war and move the swing voters over without alienating the base (us).

[jswordy]

68. THERE'S ANOTHER KIND

The kind that is made up of folks like me, who started out backing someone else but worked our asses off doing the party's groundwork to get Kerry elected because we detest Bush so much, only to find out that the Kerry we had earlier defined as not in the best interests of the party as a candidate turned out to be the man we thought he was.

We worked our butts off, Kerry cruised. The man and his staff blew more political chances and frittered away more opportunities than anyone since perhaps Michael Dukakis. The whole tone was wrong, from the convention on out, and the campaign consistently gave the opposition more ammo than it fired back at them.

Kerry seemed stuck in the soft-sell. So we worked more, harder, trying to make up for the shortcomings of Kerry and his staff. We urged the man on, telling him to take the gloves off.

But it was like swatting a mule, and by the time he got moving the wagon had already left the barn. That kind of reluctance to engage the opposition, combined with a long record that shows him as basically a shade of his opponent rather than drawing firm contrasts, spells just what we got. A loss.

I knew Kerry was deeply flawed. I hoped, as did so many others I met on the campaign trail while working for Kerry, that the anti-Bush vote would be enough to push him into office -- even though he was a candidate so many of his own grassroots campaign workers admitted to me was a question mark to them, too.

If your base and your workers even see you as an enigma, it spells trouble when it comes to getting the voters to latch onto something to vote FOR you about.

I can tell you as a part of it that the campaign did very well -- extremely well -- in getting out the substantial number of voters who wanted to cast ballots against Bush. But it failed in getting out enough voters who wanted to vote for Kerry. And that made the margin of our loss.

There was a point, almost at the end, when I thought we would squeak it out despite it all. But we had just done too little, too late. And that all started with Kerry's campaign, which was the tail that wagged the dog.

This is not some armchair troll rant. I have absolutely nothing against Kerry the person at all. He and his top staff just weren't suited to the type of campaigning we needed this cycle, is all. I learned all this in the trenches this cycle. And I'm not some spring chicken in his first campaign. I started in 1978. I have seen a lot of pols, a lot of styles.

[marcologico]

70. that's type 1, see original post n/t

[KittyWampus]

73. LOL! Kerry Cruised... Yeah, You Lose Your Voice By Cruising....

:eyes:

[jswordy]

75. There is a difference between...

...how much one talks, and what one says.

It is a huge difference.

[jswordy]

74. Well then, put me down as Type 1....

...the kind of guy who would have preferred we actually FIGHT for the office of president. Proud to be counted there.

[TheDonkey]

71. Great post!!! (nt)

[welshTerrier2]

77. damn ... you left me out ...

actually, i don't apply the words Kerry basher to myself at all ... and i certainly don't fit the three categories you listed ...

i was sickened by Kerry's IWR vote ... no need to rehash that though ... i moved past that and strongly supported Kerry after the primaries ...

but my rejection of Kerry today comes from one of the key issues facing the U.S. and the rest of the world today ... and that's his "we can still win this thing" position on Iraq ...

forget the IWR vote ... look past issues of campaign style ... overlook the Ohio business ... OK ... but how can anyone look at what's going on in Iraq and call for more "war" ... i'm sure someone will come along here and defend Kerry ... trust me, you're wasting your time ... aside from the point that Kerry's Iraq positions came across as vague and inconsistent during the campaign, the real tragedy is that he continues to call for more "war" ... internationalizing the "war" will not solve anything ... Kerry is a very knowledgeable and thoughtful man; he's also dead wrong on this issue and he's abandonned those of us who see this specific "war" as immoral ...

why didn't you recognize a fourth category of those who have legitimate policy differences with Kerry (even if you don't agree with us on the policies) ??? is it OK to strongly criticize him when we disagree ??

[marcologico]

78. If it's any comfort, Dean's position was identical.

Dean criticized the war, but his policy position was: pull out ASAP, and meanwhile spend more money and get more firepower in there to support the troops. Ditto Kerry.

[welshTerrier2]

79. no comfort at all ...

Dr. Dean also called for giving Saddam 60 days to prove he had no WMD after which the U.S. should invade ... his policy failed to meet the long-held standard of "imminent threat" ... that's why I discontinued my support for his campaign ...

how he ever got the "peace candidate" label remains a mystery to me ...

[no name no slogan]

84. Me three

He was in the right place at the right time, I guess. He got the attention of the media, which helped him get the money, which helped him spread his word, etc.

Dennis Kucinich's position was much more anti-war, and definately more pro-peace. Not only did he not vote for the IWR, he also called the administration's bluff on the existence of WMDs. Not many other Dems were doing that.

[Lerkfish]

82. nah, you left out my group: the sadly disillusioned.

I was promised by Kerry that he was gonna "watch my back". Nov. 3 he conceded, which was like a sucker punch to my solar plexus after working for him, and attending rallies, contributing, etc.

Then, he said he was going to make sure everyone's vote counted....then he disappeared.
People here kept telling us "just wait, he's planning something stealthy, something BIG, but he can't tip his hand just yet. He's working behind the scenes...hang on, He's still got our backs!'

so I waited... and waited.... and waited..... and then yesterday, not only wasn't he involved in the process, but he was the poster boy for the RW, as they referred to him by saying things like "even KERRY has told you people to get over it, the election is over...stop with the conspiracy theories already"

so, to me, I'm sadly disillusioned. Perhaps you can dispell that?

Can you:

1. demonstrate how Kerry actually "had my back"?
2. demonstrate his direct work in making sure everyone's vote counted?
3. demonstrate his stealthy wise behind the scenes plan for either election reform or overturning the election?
4. demonstrate how money donated to him, requested directly by him personally, to fight the election results if necessary, were ever used for that purpose, except relunctantly after being badgered about it?
5. demonstrate that he is more concerned about people like me than about his own 2008 run?

If you can do all that, maybe I would not feel sucker-punched.

Your fallacy in your post is you are beginning with this initial false assumption: that the only people responsible for being disillusioned by Kerry are the people disillusioned. Don't you think Kerry himself bears tremendous responsibility for that? Don't you think the DLC telling us "we" lost because we weren't right wing enough has some responsibility in people like me feeling this way?

Next time you want to categorize me, try using better arguments, or at least, more balanced ones. If you want to demonize people that don't fawn over kerry like brainwashed sycophants, may I humbly suggest you are in the wrong party....or else I am.

[marcologico]

85. Tell me what making a huge stink in Ohio and then losing anyway would have

accomplished, apart from improving Rush and Bill's ratings and turning Kerry into an Al Gore-style national embarrassment.

[Lerkfish]

87. sorry, that wasn't what I requested. Can you dispell the disillusionment?

of what Kerry said he would do, and then didn't?

That's different from saying if he'd followed through it would be ineffective, my point was he made a promise that he broke. Its a question of sucker punching those who supported him.

what you bring up is a separate issue.

Where I was brought up, If a man says he'll do something, he does it, even if its hard.

are you saying following through would be "hard, hard work" for Kerry?

[marcologico]

88. I'll try:

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

HELP IS ON THE WAY!

:toast:

p.s. he counted the votes, the votes weren't there, when they turn up he'll let us know. And don't worry, they will.

[Lerkfish]

91. now, see, that is exactly what I'm talking about...

empty platitudes do not fill an empty soul.
Just "Keep hope alive" ?????

er...thanks for the rational response.

:shrug:

[MISSDem]

86. Thank you for this post.

I am proud of John Kerry and would support him again.

[IdaBriggs]

89. Kerry & his team did NOTHING to investigate election fraud.

Seriously, NOTHING. In New Hampshire, for example, their offices were packed up within 72 hours. How do I know this? I was trying to reach them. There was also support among the top people for further investigation / contesting / evidence of fraud in states such as Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, North Carolina -- the list is long, but the point is still the same:

He and his team were NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. "Get over it, we lost" they said. I was unofficially told they couldn't request investigation in states they won (think New Hampshire) because they would look like idiots, while "the lawyers" couldn't be found, either. (One told Andy Stephenson they needed to "quit dragging stuff up" or words to that effect.) Ohio needed TEN VOTES per precinct to switch over at a cost of $112 per precinct for the state -- and that isn't going to be too difficult to do, thank you very much, in a NORMAL hand recount

Kerry may have played to the political reality of his life, but he certainly wasn't helping with election fraud investigation. Please don't make the mistake of thinking the Democratic leadership really cares about this issue unless they are FORCED to care. :) I'm not criticizing them for it; I'm simply dealing with the reality of it.

[marcologico]

102. puzzling. But were they equipped to launch a 50-state investigation?

Maybe they had leases that ran out right after the election?

I'm curious what you made of Kerry's letter. Why Hastert and Frist and not Dems for instance.

[IdaBriggs]

109. With a war chest of over $50 million & 20K lawyers --

it would seem like it to me (but I am simply a practical woman with a penchant for getting things done, as opposed to playing to political perceptions). Yes, they could have helped IN A BIG WAY if they had believed it would do any good; they weren't interested in learning WHY it had to be done.

The election was fixed. Kerry was warned in advanced. One theory (ONLY A THEORY) is that Kerry "benefited" from some of the fixing during the primaries, and didn't dare address the issues for fear he might be tarred with the same brush (regardless of whether or not he had anything to do with it). Who knows? I don't. I just know my current (somewhat cynical view) is that the Republicans are corrupt, while the Democrats are useless. I don't think the Dems will do ANYTHING unless they are forced to do it kicking and screaming the whole way....and I'm willing to do a little kicking myself to make that happen!!! :)

[marcologico]

114. uh, you lost me on that last part there. Highly unlikely, especially Iowa

and that's where he won.

Anyway thanks!

[knight_of_the_star]

94. You forgot another one

The group that went from backing him because he wasn't Bush to bashing him because he ROLLED after his campaign said they would wait until EVERY vote was counted!

To dismiss people who have problems with him as merely bashers and having no basis in fact, etc is a tactic that I would have expected from the GOP, not from another Dem.

[robbedvoter]

95. Agree with the winning/stealing part. After that not much to inspire trust

culminating with the tone set yesterday - from Bagdad.
"We had to push up, over his dead body"
He made almost impossible for everyone to claim the election was stolen.

[Bouncy Ball]

97. I haven't engaged in any of it.

Because I guess all of it just makes me vaguely sad.

What I don't understand is how someone could lovelovelovelovelove Kerry so much on November 2 and now can only say horrible hateful things about him. How does one turn their heart that quickly?

Don't get me wrong, I haven't been happy with ANY of this. And I certainly don't want to judge others' feelings. I guess I just can't immediately start kicking the shit out of the very person I was just so in support of. I mean, I can understand the people who were ALWAYS ABB doing it now, because they were never really sold completely, etc.

But I've seen people here who were just gushing about Kerry as late as early November and now seem to wish he would drop off the face of the earth. Of course, people can feel what they feel, I'm not the decider of that, I just can't DO that that quickly. I can't. All I have to do is think of bush et al and any neutral feelings I might have about Kerry dissolve in the face of the total hydrochloric burning acid bath that is my feelings about bushco.

Sigh. I don't think that even made sense. I don't have any beef with anyone here. I am finding myself getting angrier at elected Dems who don't stand up and fight for us. But......I can't Kerry bash. I can't hate the man. I VOTED for him. That's a big deal to me. It was the first time I didn't vote third party. I was proud of my vote. And I guess I want to hold on to that. For better or for worse.

:shrug:

[politicasista]

98. I agree

:cry: :cry:

[Bouncy Ball]

99. Oh thank goodness.

I was beginning to think maybe I was a weirdo or something. I think people who feel the way we do just aren't saying anything.

Because I can't exactly defend him or speak praise about him right now, but I also can't attack him.

Again, :shrug:

[politicasista]

100. I can't either.

:cry:

[Clarkie1]

101. We didn't win - Get Real

Kerry lost, not withstanding a very unacceptable election system.

[Pallas180]

106. Get Real. I was there. We had the lawyers and the complaints. They wanted

to fight. kERRY SAID NO, NO FIGHT. We had lawyers in Florida who had
flown in from Oregon. They were dismissed.

You wrote a nice piece, but most of it was not fact.

We may never know why Kerry backed off, but he didnt fight even though he had the tools to do it and had said he woud in every speech he gave. He sent the lawyers home.

I have no empathy for Kerry the turncoat. Essentially, either he was threatened, or he's a coward, or a liar.

That's what it comes down to.

What a bogus bozo.

[marcologico]

107. Interesting. Did anybody from Kerry's campaign give any reasons? n/t

[zulchzulu]

108. Thanks for your responses...now let's move on

NO time like the present...let's get past the 1/20/05 bullshit and start pounding with our fists full force.

Time to kick some ass...

[moggie12]

110. I confess, I was a Kerry basher

About a week ago I wrote a scathing post saying what a bad campaign he ran (most of my ire was directed at Bob Shrum, not Kerry himself). My argument was that the Dems need to be smart and tough enough to counter the manipulative Republican spew: Rove & the GOP are masters of twisting things around and framing arguments in such a way that we Democrats always come out on the bottom. The Fox guys drive me batty: My blood pressure spikes sky-high when I watch them slyly manipulate public opinion. Anyway, you are right: Kerry fought a valiant fight -- it was an uphill battle against an opponent who fought "dirty". For that, he deserves thanks and praise. I want Democrats to learn from the '04 experience, however, so Dem consultants know how to better protect and defend their candidates. My point in criticizing the Kerry campaign was not to diminish Kerry, but to point out that he might have won by 10 million votes if only his campaign team had fought a more media-savvy fight and given him better strategic and tactical advice.

[kerrygoddess]

115. Maybe... just maybe

If people stopped bashing our candidates in the fashion of the Repubs we might not have so many problems. It sure as hell did not help that our own people were constantly nit-picking at him and the campaign.

[bunny planet]

113. Well Seito, this worked out well didn't it.

Great post, but looks like all types of bashers came out here just to trash it and what a surprise.......... bash some more.

Thanks for trying anyway.
Looks like we'll just have to wade through more of this for awhile.

[njdemocrat106]

116. Good post!

John Kerry and John Edwards were my hope for the months leading up to election. Sadly, even with the BBV problems, I think Bush won, making me feel disappointed in 59 million of my fellow Americans who did not see through the lies and the blatant crimes of this administration. November 2 was one of the most exciting days of my life. When I was driving to my polling place, I was absolutely excited that I was going to do my part in ridding this country of a sick, twisted, evil, and flat-out STUPID man. I pretty much stormed into the firehouse and walked up to the sign-in table (only 1 person was in front of me) and when I got inside the booth, I pushed the button for Kerry/Edwards and checked to make sure the screen at the bottom said Kerry/Edwards (we got the electronic voting machines where I live, but they're not Diebold or ES&S, though that's probably not saying much). After voting for the other Democratic candidates running for office, I cast my vote and walked out extremely optimistic. November 3, however was probably THE most depressing day of my life, or at least of 2004. I tried going to bed at around 1 AM, but I kept waking up and turning the TV on every hour just to see if Kerry won Ohio. I think I only got about 2 hours of sleep that night. I personally think Kerry did the only thing he could do in a situation he was in. I still admire him, and I would vote for him in 2008 (even though I don't think he'll run again). Hopefully by 2008, Bush will reveal his true colors, and people who voted for him on the basis of "moral values" and that he is a good Christian (which he absolutely isn't) will be so sick of him we'll have a President we can be proud of and an electorate so united that the voting machines couldn't even steal another victory for whatever low-life GOP candidate runs.

[Vektor]

117. HELL YEAH! Agreed.

And thank you.

[Cheswick2.0]

118. sorry, pretty much wrong about everything

the party shoved Kerry down our throats because he made himself acceptable by voting like a republican for 3 years.

We are all paying the price now. Kerry ran a bad campaign. He was a weak candidate. People didn't trust him. They saw him as unwilling to fight. They saw him as out of touch.

He wouldn't even aknowledge the one problem that probably put the last nail in his coffin, election fraud.

[marcologico]

119. yeah, if only we picked somebody who could actually win elections!

like primaries!