Was Kerry bashed continually on DU during the 2004 elections??

[skooooo]

:shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

1. Before my time, but if I were here I would've raked him over the coals...

for lying down like a hurt puppy when the 'Swift Boat Assholes for Lies' went after him.

[skooooo]

4. Honestly, I thought in 2004..

..that there was some policy on DU that discouraged continual bashing of the candidate.

I understand that people want to complain about FISA, but why does there need to be 500 threads started on a rotating basis?

This place is becoming really dark.

[Danger Mouse]

5. Yes, I think that it's utterly pathetic.

I disagreed with Obama on FISA, but this constant flogging of the topic is unproductive.

[midnight]

28. This fourth of July weekend was a great time to reflect on

why my grandparents parents worked so hard to come to America-the Constitution. There are a handful of lawyers in my family and we don't sit around discussing the Constitution. We count on it!!! This week a bill, The FISA Amendments Act:
Gives the president broad new powers to spy on innocent Americans’ phone calls and emails – even when they have no connection to terrorism. It legalizes mass, untargeted and unwarranted spying on our international phone calls and emails. This unconsitutional act comes after illigal wars, corrupted judicial system, NOLA, 9-11. It might just seem like a disagreement to you,but for those of us who consider Obama's promise to fight against it, and then change his mind. It is another step in silencing our consitution. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”M.L.K.

[frankly_fedup2]

16. People have been making similar comments since the site started and

will continue on with their opinions. Now if that is "bashing" a candidate that is their opinion and up to the administrators who have made it clear that Democraticunderground.com is not a democracy and people just cannot have free speech on whatever they want. So it is left to the powers behind the site as to what is allowed and not allowed or what is allowed to be said about a candidate over and over. It may not be productive but I think everyone should be able to give their opinion whether it be popular or not.

[skooooo]

20. Maybe my memory is faulty..

...like I said, thought I remembered something different.

:hi:

[JI7]

30. this happened with Kerry and IWR during the Campaign

and people asking what was the difference in candidates. there were many threads about it, repeatedly throughout the Campaign

[dailykoff]

32. They are similiar votes except the IWR was BEFORE the campaign

so Kerry couldn't do anything but try to explain it. This is coming after the nomination and it's totally baffling why Obama would switch like this before he's even gotten elected.

[Growler]

35. This place has gotten really depressing

...and I have almost as many people on Ignore now as I did during the primaries?

What's up with the admins?!? I don't get the continued encouragement of Obama bashing that goes on here.

:shrug:

[JI7]

36. there are also freeper trolls with "concerns" coming on here

this happened in 2004 also. they come on with "is anyone worried about "fill in right wing lies" type stuff.

[Growler]

37. I know, but some of these people have 1000s of posts!!

What the hell is going on?

[awoke_in_2003]

76. Don't let post count fool ya

I have seen some very annoying people who have 5000 post in 5 months. Look at the join date. Truthfully, I am suspect of anyone who joined after around Aug 07. Had an influx of Hillary haters come in around that time. Once Barack started presenting a challenge, all hell broke loose. The recent plants loved stirring the shit, keeping us at each others throats. Many are still here, trying to do the same thing.

[karynnj]

52. I wasn't here, but rather than complaining of Kerry - DU and other liberal blogs

should have tried to help Kerry get the truth out - especially if they thought he was not doing enough. What he had done was already provided more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. I think that there was a sense -everywhere that this was so unbelievable that nothing needed to be done. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up.

The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse. http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html

click on little photo of the Senator.)

In 2004, there were no You tubes - if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer - but if they don't, we need to help Obama.

[blm]

58. If you were here, you would've KNOWN that Kerry DID attack the swifts and no news network

would broadcast his speech to the Firefighters Convention where he not only attacked the swifts but challenged Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts and come out publicly to debate their services during that time.

The news networks decided that was not newsworthy - but we know now from Dan Rather that the corporate media was protecting Bush because they expected favorable rulings on media ownership from a second Bush term.


T'know....if you WANT the actual data of what happened with the swifts, it is detailed in DU's Research Forum.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I wasn't here during the elections,

but he was pretty much bashed continually afterwards. It was pretty ugly, and some people still won't give it up.

[davidpdx]

3. I'm interested to see what kind of a response you get

I wasn't here either, but I'm curious.

[blondeatlast]

6. No. there was lots of teeth gnashing and sour grapes but nothing like this.

The Dean gang got over their disappointment rather quickly as I recall and it got unpleasant at times but not to where you thought you'd logged onto the wrong site.

As I recall it, this is MUCH worse--yet the election means even more now than it did then.

[skooooo]

7. personally..

..I think something's gotta give.

[blondeatlast]

11. Agreed.

As Skinner mentioned last week, I'm looking for bona fides at this point.

[polmaven]

55. I think one BIG difference

is that the Kerry supporters back then didn't keep vilifying Governor Dean or his supporters either.

This time, it's like the Primary season has never ended. On both sides.

I said in another thread that the focus now has to be turning Senator Obama into President Obama. We cannot keep throwing the word HATE around, and keep bashing each other over the head with it. That is totally unproductive.

Hillary's supporters cannot afford not to be Obama supporters now, the stakes are too high. But don't expect those of us who have been proud supporters of Senator Clinton not to defend her against unfair and sometimes absolutely disgusting attacks.

[NashVegas]

72. There Were Others

If Dean had, after Iowa, presented as huge a challenge to Kerry's campaign as Hilary Clinton did to Obama's campaign I'm sure it would have gotten much worse.

Those who attacked Dean and his supporters didn't have 16 years of Republican-laid positioning statements defining Dean for them, already.

[mkultra]

66. the hillary team is trying to punish us for winning.

[lukasahero]

70. Interesting reading your response vs. that of the one above you

One offers insight, the other just a slight. Just sayin'...

[awoke_in_2003]

78. Is it the Hillary team

or repuke plants stirring the shit up?

[Runcible Spoon]

86. Kerry got it WORSE: APATHY. Or you don't remember Anybody But Bush?

Obama has passionate supporters, and that is going to cause a backlash with those who either don't trust him at his word or just see him as a typical opportunistic politician.

This passion is a blessing and a curse. However, it's a FUCK of a lot BETTER than the tepid support for Kerry.

[cags]

8. I think that he was.. But thats thing about democrats we don't just tow the line, we have opinions

No one agrees all the time. And this is a discussion board.

[blondeatlast]

10. Not like this though. According to your profile you came here AFTER the 2004 election.

Maybe you lurked, though, but I was here at least one year by then and I don't remember it being never-ending like it seems to be now.

This is worse than I remember 2004 being.

[cags]

12. I was here I clearly remember posting and getting my DU bumper sticker that year... Hmmmm

[blondeatlast]

13. Did you change your screen name during the "amnesty" period (like I wish I had!)? nt

No worries--I just think it wasn't as bad but I could be mistaken.

[cags]

15. Maybe, but I don't remember doing that... who knows, I have kids, I lose my mind alot...lol

[blondeatlast]

18. I completely understand; oh yes! (I have an 11 year old boy!) nt

[awoke_in_2003]

80. "I lose my mind alot"

That's okay, as long as you don't suffer from insanity. I know I don't, I enjoy every minute of it.

[blondeatlast]

85. I like the way you said that! nt

[frazzled]

9. The better analogy, I think, is to Gore in 2000

... When huge swaths of the left mobilized against him for all manner of perceived centrist heresies, including I recall, outraged response to his position regarding the Florida Everglades. He was actually accused of being anti-environment.

We all know where that led: to a significant enough segment of left voters going for Nader (especially in Florida--site of the endangered Everglades!) and giving us George W. Bush. The Nation, Michael Moore, and Phil Donahue were all appalled by Gore and threw their endorsements to Nader, and many followed their lead in rejecting Gore.

In 2004, having learned their lesson from that debacle, Kerry got a less puritanical response--even though he had supported the war. It seems like those lessons have been forgotten by now, and the purity tests Obama is being put to may have as disastrous consequences as those of 2000.

Do we really think a President Obama will abuse the Fourth Amendment? Just visualize that, and remember Al Gore, and think about pursuing the outrage too far. It's not that we can't disagree with him: we just shouldn't throw him off the train. The media is watching, and gullible voters with little recollection of the past will create a situation that we will truly live to regret.

[blondeatlast]

17. You make a good point, plus another factor from 2004--

Kerry was running against Bush, who'd already proven how essential it would be to defeat him.

"Carrying the outrage too far" is an apt description; we need to tread carefully with CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

[karynnj]

53. I agree with that the left was worse in 2000

and you are correct on the main point that people had learned the danger of voting third party. You are wrong on some points.

One, Kerry did not support the war. Kerry was wrong to have voted for the IWR, but he was consistent in that he did speak out in January - March 2003 against the imminent war just as he said he would if Bush went to war other than as a last resort. He was in fact singled out as a war critic by some on the right at that time and regularly labeled as anti-war and a Bush critic. (Here's a David Frum, National Review article - Frum was a former Bush speechwriter. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606
Part of the problem is that even now - there is conflation of the vote and supporting the war.

This was as wrong as saying Gore was anti-environment. Gore was excellent on global warming - but had a Leaque of Conservation Voters rating in the 60s, because of other issues he was less good on. This still made him WAY better than Bush.

[frazzled]

67. Kerry was my senator then (as Obama, oddly, is now) ...

And I'm afraid you are wrong about Kerry's stance in early 2003. I remember it well, because on the eve of the war, March 17 (I remember because my birthday is the next day, and I was depressed that shock and awe was about to start any moment), Kerry issued a statement that fully supported the imminent invasion, and what is worse, the Bush-doctrine rationale behind it: he said that it was the president's duty to protect the long-term national security interests of the country. (This was shocking to me, because I firmly believed, and believe still, that we never, ever go to war unless there is an immediate threat--not for kick-the-can-down-the-road "long-term" interests--that is the basis of international law). I remember also that in June I attended a backyard party for him in New Hampshire, and spoke to him directly about this statement.

I didn't support Kerry in the primaries that year because of this issue and because I didn't think he'd make a good candidate, but I knew he'd be an excellent president, and when it was over I hauled my ass up to Dover, N.H. and stood with a group of Dean and Clark supporters on the streets to do sign-visibility for Kerry, and, after moving to Illinois, did phone banking for him. I gave him my full support, and learned to put aside my reservations about his political tactics.

I feel the same way about Obama: I'm not happy about some of the recent positions he's taken, but I have no doubt that he will make an excellent president, who will attempt to reverse not only many of the policies this administration has pushed through, but to change the discourse about the role of government in America in a major shift towards more progressive stances.

[tritsofme]

14. Nope, instead everyone put their heads in the sand and pretended missteps didn't happen.

No wonder it came as such a shock when he lost.

People were giving Kerry the type of odds that Obama has and deserves today to win the election, it was ridiculous.

[LittleClarkie]

56. I was here. No they didn't. But there's a differerence between bashing and criticism

If someone bashes Obama they're likely going to be deleted.

If they are merely criticizing him, then the thread will likely stay, but may become a flamewar and have to be deleted anyway.

I remember people calling Kerry an empty suit, and enjoying jokes about his long horse face. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth about this move and that move and what he should be doing to win. It quieted down some when he won the debates. People got energized then. It got better again after some people saw "Going Upriver" Some were ready to follow him off a cliff then.

It all changed when he lost though. There were lynch parties. It wasn't terribly popular to say "I'm still a supporter" but I did it anyway.

What we say on an internet message board, heads in or out of the sand, had little to do with what the campaign was doing at the time, and why he won or lost.

Same here. Even if we all think that missteps are happening, and say so in DU-land, that won't make Obama change, or win, or lose.

The campaign doesn't live or die on the opinions of a bunch of message board posters.

[bowens43]

19. If by 'bashed continually' you mean

opposing opinions were expressed when he did something we disagreed with then the answer as yes. We don't fall in line and blindly support anyone. You can bet that Obama doesn't want us to just sit down and shut up when we disagree with him.

[MarjorieG]

26. Still, energy should be spent electing him, spreading the good word, not just the criticism

[Runcible Spoon]

88. the "good word"? Gag.

please watch your choice in words before you reinforce any stereotypes...

[JI7]

21. i was here and yes he was

a bunch of skull and bones shit.

the administrators did limit some of it after he won the Primary.

[marlakay]

22. I joined up in spring of 04 and was working on the

Kerry campaign doing voter registration and I went on some out of state trips and went door to door.

I was on here alot and back then I felt like we weren't so fractured but alot has happened in the last 4 yrs and I think many people are barely hanging on to any hope of not only a dem winning but someone who will really believe in and do our issues.

Back then I remember it took people a long time to get over Dean and Clark people really wanted kerry to pick Clark around here, thats what I remember.

But there wasn't as much fighting in the general as now and trolls seemed to show up less but maybe blogging was still relatively new.

But this is where I came with alot of others the day after Kerry lost and we all said who we really were and to hell with the government.

I wonder if after the last two elections we have hardened up, instead of being sad we are angry now.

[skooooo]

23. ...and very distrustful.

[MarjorieG]

24. Amazingly similar.

There were many Dean fans, so although I was grateful for Dean's surrogate help (as one of the few at all), his fans were hold-your-nose-Dems who couldn't muster enthusiasm or resisted voting for Kerry. There were primary wars that never ended. Lots of infighting. Many first-timers new to the legislative process and what votes mean: yes, but or no, but-never perfect, who were endlessly critical.

People believed the media, or if they didn't, they complained, just like now.

They didn't understand the challenges of 2004, the opponents using fear, and that Bush and the war were popular. We were up more than a few points until the OBL tape the weekend before. So when McCain says he'll win it 48 hours before the election, I'm warning all that we can't take this for granted.

Whether an October surprise, bombing Iran, or election theft, we can't rest on our laurels here, and rag on Obama more than McCain.

The FISA issue reminds me of the IWR, when the vote was not a vote for war, allowing Bush to escape the real blame. All blamed Kerry. I don't think we'll lose our Constitution on FISA, and we can tinker later. But the emotions are the same-voted for war-voted for trashing our Constitution. Using emotional arguments and easy to quote phrases. I hate War. Save the Constitution. Easy to gather support and stoke emotion.

We also had a Bill problem, because of his lackluster support (on his summer book tour apologizing for the war and Bush's motives and not mentioning Kerry), probably holding the place for Hillary. He also suggested waiting on the swifties response, that Kerry should sign onto the marriage amendment (which Kerry didn't do, of course) and other dubious suggestions.

We liked Kerry's long, expressive hands, and found him nimble, cool, temperamentally suited, not rattled and able to side step the media when interviewed, and great with kids. Sounds familiar?

There was a media freeze of a presidential Kerry, and he had to go under the radar to local media. Media never showing the large crowds, the humor, just a Kerry head shot, and preferring to show long, staged events with Bush. Making excuses for him.

Yes, there was a lack of big picture on the blogs, and of seriously doing what was needed. Lack of Democratic support cost us. It was anybody but Bush, and we could have gotten more to the polls if Kerry's qualities were shared.

Kerry said Obama was his candidate of a lifetime, and I have to agree. Kerry connected better than was reported, but Obama is a phenom.

Maybe this isn't what you wanted?

[skooooo]

27. It's interesting..

...you're bringing back some memories!
:hi:

[JI7]

29. that's a great description of it

[Lisa0825]

74. That's not how I remember it.

I do remember (as a Dean supporter) that we were not enthused about Kerry, but then I recall MOST of DU not being enthused about him. In fact, I recall Will Pitt raking us over the coals for not being more enthusiastic.

I do not remember the post-primary fighting like it is now. Most Dean and Clark supporters I know fell in even if we weren't thrilled. It was more a sense of resignation than anger and fighting.

[depakid]

25. Kerry's strategy and tactics were scrutinized (and criticized) plenty

Less so during the primaries (oddly enough as I recall) than AFTER the announcement that there would be no so called "Bush bashing" allowed at the convention.

From there on out the campaigns misteps generated heated discussion, particularly the August "blackout," the refusal to respond forcefully to the swiftboat allegations and Kerry's "nuanced" statements about the war. His non-answer to Bush's "if you know now what you knew then" challenge on IWR made this board light up like it never has before.

On the other hand, Kerry didn't have the same problems with the Democratic "leadership" on FISA (the NY Times sat on the story until after the election) and his campaign didn't go out of their way early on to repeatedly "reach out" to far right groups and antagonize the progressive base. Of course, Kerry sewed up the nomination on March 3, so may not have believed they needed to move so fast in that direction.

[dailykoff]

31. That's how I remember the blogosphere, too--very hostile.

I didn't know about DU but on other discussion boards like on Alternet the criticism was intense. Every time a Bushcho horror like Abu Grhaib surfaced, Kerry would get called a weakling collaborator for not doing anything about it, even though he publicly called for Rumsfeld's resignation and had a petition going until it actually happened at the start of Bush's second term.

[MarjorieG]

33. People say Obama is tacking; I think he's trying to avoid the GOP wedge issues.

Not to gain support from the middle, etc, just to become reassuring to a great many people. His positions haven't changed, so don't go along with the spin. FISA the exception.

[dailykoff]

43. FISA is a pretty serious exception.

Flagrant in fact. I don't recall Kerry making any such vote, apart from the IWR which he copiously qualified before and after. Obama's FISA statement was really an astonishing FU to the Constitution.

[MarjorieG]

44. I think we don't know the whole story, or all understand it fully. This is also an emotional issue.

[depakid]

34. Yep. A lot of folks were none too happy with the "high road" approach

Among other things, people saw shades of the Dukakis campaign with Bush I.

Interestingly enough though, A LOT of criticism was directed not at Kerry personally- but at his advisers, who were often called out by name:

Tad Devine, Mary Beth Cahill, and Bob Shrum drew considerable ire for crafting what some (rightly) saw to be ineffective methods for dealing with the Republicans' dishonesty, arrogance and condescension- as well as the corporate media's uncritical and equivocal repetition of whatever claims they made.

Contrast that with the current situation, where you rarely ever hear criticism of Obama's campaign higher ups (except the time during the primaies when Hillary was called a monster).

[blm]

61. The corporate MEDIA 'blackout' of August was deliberate. Kerry countered swifts heavily in August

but no news network would broadcast his speech attacking them in front of the Firefighters Convention.

No news network even put into rotation for their daily coverage the clip of Kerry attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to stop hiding behind them and to debate their services publicly. Why?

Dan Ratler admitted last year that corporate media was protecting Bush throughout that time because they expected favorable FCC rulings in a Bush second term.


Few in the left blogosphere even picked up on the speech so the counterattack was never furthered by the left on the internet or by the few left voices we had in the media.

[DFLforever]

38. No I don't remember anything getting this ugly with Kerry

until after the election when many turned on him, some viciously.

With Obama, people have quickly crossed the line.


Some are trolls, moles, GOPers, people still unhappy about the primary, and some who simply don't want him to win.

But there are more who have little experience in electoral politics and what it requires to win an election among people who think differently from you and who carry assorted prejudice.

Obama is determined to win, even ruthless in his determination, and we're not used to that. He's shaken things up in terms of finance, strategy, issues, organization. He's trying to build new coalitions of voters. Everyone's off guard, both the Left and the Right. And we're spending as much time as the Right trying to define or pigeonhole him with similar lack of success.

[skooooo]

39. ..

:thumbsup:

[MarjorieG]

40. Interesting last paragraph.

[blondeatlast]

59. For most on DU, McCain is still an unknown enemy. We knew what Bush had already done,

so we knew we had to defeat him and exactly WHY (and of course, things got worse). It made it much easier to come together.

As an Arizonan, I know what awfulness McCain is capable of, but others have little idea. I can tell you he'll be worse than GWB and why (and have, many times) but until you "get it" you won't get it.

And yes, in a very few cases, I think the "r" word might be involved with many who don't even realize that they possess it--but it's difficult to discuss in any media, no more or less so here.

[Runcible Spoon]

87. hahahaha. everyone who doesn't bow down and swallow everything is A. a troll/mole of B. stupid

or C. prejudiced.

Wow.

[jobycom]

41. Seemed worse. Obama seems to be getting off easy, so far.

The attacks on Kerry were bad. Back in 01, the attacks on Gore after the election were far worse than anything Obama has seen. And we all saw the attacks on Hillary Clinton this primary. Even Bill has been shredded after the fact.

Pretty standard. Some people get upset when they don't get their way.

[chyjo]

42. no

I was an early Kerry supporter and I remember heated words between us and the Deaniacs, but once Kerry got the nomination things cooled down quickly.

[sandnsea]

45. Yes. It was awful

I don't think it was quite as bad as now, but people were just as idiotic. A lot of the same ones, interestingly enough. Some people around here haven't supported a Dem since they've been here.

[Awsi Dooger]

46. Leading up to the 2004 general election, DU seemed very united

I remember posting matter of fact stuff like "Kerry's sentences are too longwinded" or "people I talk to in convenience stores don't seem particularly thrilled with Kerry," and several posters labeled it Kerry-bashing. I was taken back to the point of amused. On sports sites those would have been considered understatement, but here I was being ripped for pointing out the obvious.

The conflict had been during the primaries, which were much more wide open than this time. Clark supporters were a pain in the ass. Let's get that out there. It frames 2004 on this site. Dean supporters were cool, relentless in support of him but they moved to Kerry. Clark supporters represented the best and worst of this site, more than any group since I joined in fall '02. Some of them were tremendous; detailed and specific advocates. Others swarmed every Edwards thread for months with the same tired claims, always ripping Edwards even though pro-Clark threads were left unoccupied by Edwards supporters like myself. Since Edwards was always at the center of VP speculation, along with Clark but always apparently greater chance than Clark, that aspect simmered on DU for months. Remember, the nomination was sewn up early so VP chatter was ongoing for nearly half a year, not 6 or 8 weeks like this time. Kerry basically got a free pass while the sidelight battles were waged.

As tritsofme posted in this thread, DU was overly confident, wildly overconfident. Kerry was always at fundamental disadvantage against an incumbent with his party in power only one term. The hatred for Bush masked that reality. I felt uncomfortable posting the situational stuff which favored Bush. We were treated to the daily 99.99% certainty and it was gobbled up.

If you stepped back and looked at DU at that time, as I did on occasion, the percentage of threads with Bush (or some form of reference to him) in the title was staggering. It was literally a bash fest. There wasn't time to rip our own guy when the opponent was such a convenient and apropos target. When someone posted occasionally that ABB (Anyone But Bush) wasn't exactly an ideal or magnetic criteria to be relying on, it got buried in the next 5 dozen anti-Bush threads. Once Bush became an irrelevant lame duck, I think we've lost sight of how central he was to DU for year after year.

The view of Kerry shifted dramatically shortly after the election. My memory is some prominent poster started a thread titled something like, "Kudos to dolstein and other DUers who got it right." Dolstein was a prominent poster for years but I don't see him anymore. Sharp guy but not a blindfolded cheerleader. He thought Kerry was a poor fit as nominee, and had been criticized for it. Dolstein agreed with me that Edwards had more charisma and "that Southern thing going for him." DU had tried to ignore those realities for months, but after the result was known and that thread showed up, all of a sudden the floodgates opened and every conceivable criticism of Kerry swamped DU.

I thought it was over done, particularly the ridicule of abandoning Ohio amidst a 120,000 vote deficit. The Democratic brand had much more chance to suffer during an extended battle like that, than any conceivable opportunity to reverse the outcome.

Kerry was a less than enlightened choice, a solid resume guy versus an incumbent. You need pizazz to oust an incumbent, not credentials. He's a great Democrat who would have fit better in an open race.

[sniffa]

47. Does a bear fart in the woods?

[wyldwolf]

48. some are just frustrated.. and it's funny in a way

After John Kerry, the netleft (arrogantly) proclaimed there would be no DLC candidate in 2008. And they got their way - sort of. Because they've never decided what really constitutes a "DLC candidate" (is it the policies or the membership?) they didn't pay much attention to Obama's policies. While concentrating so much on those three letters D-L-C, the left didn't notice the guy they helped to the nomination was a Third Way policy maven who will most certainly govern much the way Bill Clinton did.

[rucky]

49. Yes. For IWR. n/t

[Kahuna]

50. No. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

51. I read DU for years

Before I actually got an account and started posting. I do feel that there is a bit more acrimony than in the past. But what prompted me to start posting is my very real fear that if we take our eyes off the prize the election will (would) go to the Republican Nominee. Moreover, I didn't see posts of "We're Dems/Progressives and we are all in this together regardless of the outcome." Throughout the Primary I think I was pretty solid in terms of posting - "We have a great slate to pick from. Let's not deride these folks. If I post something negative about a candidate - I also have to post something positive about a candidate."

Now recently, I posted on a thread and someone thought AUTOMATICALLY I was an "Obama Fan". Well yes - I am. He has a D after his name and whatever faults he may have - I truly feel I will do better with him as opposed to anyone who does NOT have a D after their name. The poster that responded to me was surprised to learn that I had supported Edwards. That's sad.

But I also have to forgive people for taking knocks at Obama. We've all had enough. If you are at DU and a true progressive. . . you've had enough. We've watched our country just fall apart for 7.5 years. We're frustrated. We've had not one - but two elections - stolen/bought (take your pick). Many folks on here are in financial straits, looking for work, unable to make ends meet while we watch a black hole of money get poured into the results of The Biggest Lie Ever Told. Ironically - MANY of us never voted for the Lying Liar in the first place. That ADDS to our frustration.

My point? I think we are all deeply Emotionally involved in the outcome of this election. I will be devastated if Obama loses. I think a lot of people will. And that's where I think the hyper focus and nitpicking is coming from.

I have McSame promising to stay in Iraq for 100 years, against equal pay for women, and no plan for health care . . . my 15 year old niece that I love with all of my heart? It's about her. I'm voting and supporting this candidate because HER Life Depends on It.

I hope sooner rather than later that everyone comes around and realizes that regardless of how one feels about ONE or TWO issues that you may disagree with Obama on - that one realizes the alternative.

Nader and Barr and McKinney(sp?) have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election. We all have a better chance of seeing God than that happening. So if one chooses to splinter the party - that's their right as American. But it will guarantee a win for someone who is in polar opposition to what your beliefs are.

Guess what? McSame is for FISA too. But Barack Obama has a health care plan - and McSame has none.

Seems like a simple reason to accept the candidate, with perceived flaws and all.

[ShaneGR]

54. Nope..... not even sort of close.... nt

[sourmilk]

57. More "after" rather than "during."

His inaction on the SVBT smears and the election theft left many of us confused and not a little bitter towards him...

[ecstatic]

60. No. I was for Dean but quickly fell in line. The election was way

too important. We were behind him 100%, and by reading DU, I was hopeful that Kerry would win.

[SoCalDem]

62. Nope..

Even those of us who liked Dean, got used to the idea pretty quickly.

In 2004, Kerry was the presumed candidate pretty early, so there was very little antagonism.

[LWolf]

63. No.

Kerry is not as polarizing as Obama.

[dionysus]

64. no, people couldn't get away with that shit then

[BlooInBloo]

65. Of course not.

[lukasahero]

68. Interesting how many "I wasn't here"s there are in this thread

Yes, Kerry was scrutinized. He was bashed. Some by trolls, some by Deaniacs/other candidate supporters etc. Welcome to the real world of politics. It's not pretty.

Edited to add: I wonder how many of the "old-timer" responses here are colored by perceptions based on who they originally supported during the primaries? I suspect original Kerry supporters are going to say the bashing was worse than those who originally supported other candidates...

[Egnever]

79. I was a Deaniac

And I guess I am an old timer. From my perspective Kerry was bashed plenty during the primaries. I was pretty bent out of shape with this place after the primaries so I stopped coming for a bit so I didnt get a granite pizza.I cant speak to what happened after the primaries really here. I never forgave kerry for the IWR vote and neither did many others here at the time. I still dont though I have softened on him considerably this time arround after meeting him in person and his strong support for my candidate.

Of course the primaries last time didnt last nearly as long so there wasnt as much time for positions to harden. So I expect this time arround there will be a bit more bashing for a bit longer.

[blondeatlast]

84. I wasn't crazy about Dean or Kerry, In fact, I'm always an unwilling supporter of the

eventual nominee (and no, I'm not a kooky Kucinich fan either). It was the most lukewarm support I ever gave ANY primary candidate--but this is much, much worse in my opinion; and a lot of it is outside agitation and some of it is tinged by something far uglier--and it's tolerated.

[Occam Bandage]

69. Not anything close. Back then, people hated Bush more than the Dems. Now that Bush is gone,

the Dems have risen to the top of the hate list.

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Yes, because he voted for the war.

[NashVegas]

73. Nope

But then, very few Kerry supporters on DU were ever anywhere near as zealous about their support for him or spent anywhere near as much time trashing his opponents and their supporters.

You break it, you pay for it.

[Egnever]

75. Yes

[politicasista]

77. Yes. Joined DU after the 04 election

and he was bashed non-stop over the concession, etc. And still gets bashed even though he isn't running this time. Although I wasn't here during the primiaries, I think Obama is getting bashed early on and we haven't made it to the DNC Convention yet. Sheesh.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. George W. Bush was simply more hate-able than McCain and everyone knew there was at least a 50%

chance that we were going to lose - they knew it even if they didn't admit knowing it.

I think that accounts for some degree of difference in deference shown to the Democratic nominee in 2004 versus now.

[saracat]

82. Yes. And he was never "protected" from criticism.

[Eric J in MN]

83. John Kerry didn't cast any votes which disgusted us during his run.

Just before his run, when he voted for the Iraq War Resolution, for one thing.