Talk about trying to create artificial dissensions.

[Mass]

Apparently, the media seem to have decided to frame the Clinton hearings in the light of Kerry disappointment.

Not only did The Globe's new DC gossiper find Schuster's appreciation week snarky (I still have not seen it, so I cannot judge).
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/kerry_appreciat.html

Ouch, talk about damning with faint praise.

One of MSNBC's stable of political talk shows announced this evening that all next week will be "John Kerry Appreciation Week."

David Shuster, the new host of "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," which airs at 6 p.m. EST, pointed out that Kerry had to watch mostly from the sidelines while Barack Obama won the presidency -- which Kerry failed to do in 2004. Shuster also pointed out that Tuesday, he will be presiding as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the confirmation hearing of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state -- the job he probably really coveted.

The cable network showed a calendar with the week blocked out, plus a photo of Kerry surrounded by little red hearts.

"All together now, Senator Kerry, we appreciate you," said Shuster, which seems a little harsh, since Kerry has been a frequent guest on MSNBC shows.

But now, Newsweek links Frantz to an article he cowrote in the 90s about Troopergate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/178864

Democrats now control the Senate, so the hearing will be led by the Foreign Relations Committee's new chair, Sen. John Kerry, who wanted for himself the job that Clinton has been offered. Both he and the committee's top Republican, Richard Lugar, are expected to treat Clinton with deference, although Kerry has hired journalistic gumshoe Douglas Frantz to be his chief investigator. While working for the Los Angeles Times in the 1990s, Frantz co-wrote a "Troopergate" story that helped launch the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Still, if Clinton does face pointed questions, they're likely to come from the committee's more conservative GOP members, such as South Carolina's Jim DeMint or Louisiana's David Vitter.

[sandnsea]

1. Maybe he's trying to help her

by hiring the kind of slimeball the right will use to dig up garbage on her. Either way, good. Best to get all the dirt, whether to be ready to defend it or to bring it to her attention early.

I saw that Schuster spot, I couldn't decide whether it was snark or not for sure. Even if it was, it wasn't so bad.

[karynnj]

4. He's not a slimeball - he is far better known for the serious writing he did on BCCI

The fact is that though American Spectator and others went WAT beyond truth on troopergate and other Clinton issues - lapsing into conspiracy theory and lunacy, there were issues that were covered - and rightly so in the main stream media. There WERE valid investigative issues involving Clinton. In fact, I think teh RW did him a favor with over the top accusations - they hid the less sensational real corruption charges - some of which were more HRC's problem than Bill Clinton's. Her Rose Law firm boss DID go to jail. I don't think there will be questions on that time frame.

I seriously doubt Kerry would hire as investigator for the SFRC someone because of dirt on the Clintons. In the first place, Kerry has spoken of a serious investigation of the international use of tax havens - like the Cayman Islands - as both an international problem and a fairness problem - the middle class pays more taxes because many very rich people avoid them. In addition, it is a national security problem as it can be used to launder money for terrorists or international criminals. (this was brought up in a Kerry/Jack Blum exchange at the July 24, 2008 Finance hearing on the Cayman Islands - available to view on the Finance Committee website.

It is NOT Kerry's job to help Clinton. It is Clinton's job to answer any question that Senators find relevant. I think the Senate will confirm her easily - they typically do when it is a peer and realistically, on foreign policy for the years she was in the Senate Clinton was ranked at 60 something percentile on a left/right scoring - meaning that she was more liberal than 60 something Senators. (This was in a Washington Post primary time period article, which concentrated on overall score - where she was higher.) As there were less than 50 Democrats in that time frame - it means that she was to the right of the Democratic center on foreign policy - and to the right of Obama. She is likely MORE acceptable than other possibilities (including the very clean Kerry) to the Republicans.

My concern about this frame is that it could turn into implying that professional behavior on Kerry's part - allowing Republicans the same courtesy to question that Lugar gave Kerry, boxer, Feingold and others with Rice - into something that it isn't. (In fact, it would not be unwarranted for Kerry to ask HRC to address the potential conflict of interest question with Bill's donations. (It still strikes me as weird the GETTING the list was the Obama demand for nomination - rather than GETTING and VETTING the list.)

[sandnsea]

6. Uh, his job is to know what's coming

and not be blindsided in the middle of his hearing. To that end, someone who is both a good investigator and has proven himself willing to get down into the dirt, is what is needed when you're dealing with both the Clintons and people who would like to destroy the Clintons. My point was that just because he hired a slimeball connected to Troopergate, and I get to have that opinion, it doesn't mean that he did it because he intends to grill her. This is the President's choice for Secy of State, and unless there is something truly horrific, it is, in fact, his job to get her nomination through. That's politics.

[karynnj]

8. I disagree that it is Kerry's "job" to get the nomination through

Kerry does not work for Obama. His responsibility is to run the hearing fairly and to ensure that the Senate's responsibility of oversight is done.

The fact is that the Clinton hearing will be over by the end of this month - why would Kerry give a fulltime job to someone based on just one (important as it is) hearing likely to end in January. Kerry needs an investigator for work important to his agenda as SFRC head.

It is CLINTON"S job to get sufficient Senators to vote for her. As I said, this confirmation should not be difficult. However, if the Republicans find dirt - that changes the opinion of sufficient Senator - a highly unlikely possibility, and she is not confirmed - it is a fault of the life they led, not Kerry's. He can not change anything they did - and he should not compromise his ethics for either Obama or Clinton - he owes neither of them anything.

[sandnsea]

9. That's politics

Running the hearing fairly means not getting blindsided by garbage that is distorted in order to hurt the nominee. Yes, that's his job. If he knows there is garbage to disqualify her, he should already have told the transition team, also his job. He doesn't have to compromise his ethics to do his job which is to run a smooth hearing and divert problems early, as somebody was able to do with Bill Richardson.

And again, all I did was offer a different possibility for the hiring. Maybe they're going to write a money laundering expose, hell I don't know and neither do you.

[karynnj]

15. He does not have to investigate 1980s - early 1990s vintage Arkansas accusations

about Bill Clinton. In the first place, troopergate never reflected upon HRC. I doubt the Republicans will even go there - though they may question the campaign finance ethics and whether there was quid por quo in any of the contributions to her or Bill's campaigns. The Republicans have already said they will bring this up. When (if) it comes up, Kerry will not be blindsided. The Obama team - which has the list - obviously does not see it as a problem. Even if Kerry did, the only thing he could reasonably do is mention his concern to the transition team.

Those questions, if they come up, are valid and HRC will have to answer in a way that satisfies enough Senators. That should be easy - as I said - because the majority of the Republicans are happy with her as SoS. In addition, Senators know exactly what they are getting.

As to Kerry, it is his job to run the hearing, but it is not his job to have investigated any possible issue that could blind side HRC. It was the transition team's job to have done so and more than anyone else's responsibility - it was HRC's to have told them of anything she knew that could hurt the nomination process embarrassing not just her, but Obama. In Richardson's case there was no suggestion that Rockefeller told Obama he could not get Commerce committee confirmation. It was a public story that Richardson likely played down becoming more serious.

The fact of the matter is that you called the investigative reporter a "slimeball" based on the information that he wrote a story on troopergate. Now, I haven't seen the article - and if you have you didn't say so. The fact of the matter is that it was reasonable and warranted to investigate the issue after it arose. He was NOT the American Spectator writer, who wrote the story that made it an issue. Most of the investigative writing I saw actually spent more time refuting the flakier charges. The LAT had a very good reputation in that time frame.

What I pointed out was that he wrote extensively on BCCI - a more important issue now and then compared to "troopergate". I also mentioned Kerry's public intention to investigate international tax havens. It does not seem a big leak to connect hiring someone who did a great job looking into BCCI with a planned MAJOR agenda item of investigating international finance.

It makes more sense than saying it was to hire someone because of a Clinton story that he likely spent less than a week on more than a decade ago. In addition, there is a timing problem - Kerry JUST made this announcement. I don't even know when he starts - but HRC's hearing is Tuesday. Even if he started to work the instant Kerry announced it - it is far to late to investigate all of HRC's past (which is not Kerry's job anyway)

In conclusion:
1) HRC will be easily confirmed - but she likely will have to answer some unwelcome questions. I certainly hope that Kerry will not channel Lugar in the awful Bolton hearing where Lugar called everyone out of order, but will be more like Lugar normally was - including at the Rice hearing. The tone of the hearing will more likely be set by HRC than by Kerry. He will start things out pleasantly and will likely praise her as he has in every statement he ever made. If HRC bristles and refuses to answer questions - the hearing will turn negative. I assume she is practicing prepared diplomatic answers to those expected questions.

2) Kerry will obviously work with Obama and for the most part, they want the same things. However, when they disagree, Kerry has every right to disagree. If Obama had wanted Kerry as his advocate, surrogate and 100% ally, Obama had that choice - and he chose not to take it. (He also did nothing to stop his transition people from saying negative things - somathing Kerry certainly didn't deserve and something Obama could have likely stopped cold.) Kerry still is extremely supportive of obama and of HRC and other appointees in his comments.

[sandnsea]

18. Huh?

Where did I say Kerry needed to investigate Arkansas or Troopergate?

You are reading volumes into an offhand statement about Kerry being as prepared as possible for anything they'll throw at Hillary Clinton. The end.

[karynnj]

19. You called the guy a "sleaseball" based on nothing other than the

articles comment that he wrote an article on troopergate. As I said Kerry is not required to know everything that can be thrown at HRC - HRC and the Obama team do. If something is real, it would be wrong for Kerry to call the Senator asking it out of order. If there is an issue that could derail her - HRC knows it - and it is her responsibility to surface the issue with Obama. Not to mention, if it is REAL then it is valid - there is no way to anticipate all possible lies - there are an infinite number of them and if pushed The Clintons are the ones who need to respond.

Will you back away from that assessment as unwarranted? Or admit that it is highly unlikely that Kerry hired him because he might know some of the underside of the Clintons?

Kerry's role is NOT HRC's lawyer or advocate. He is supporting her appointment and has said nice things, but just because he is a Democrat and head of the committee does not make him her chief defender. Not to mention - he owes the Clintons absolutely nothing.

[sandnsea]

20. "Confirmation Hearing In Chaos"

Yeah, that headline would look just great. Yes, it is Kerry's responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. Advise and consent. Do you think he should just take whatever Hillary says and not do any research on his own? Do you think he should let Republicans say anything they want, and not know when they're headed for the gutter? That is the job of anyone heading an important committee meeting, let alone a hearing for the Secretary of State.

You throw in politics, and it raises the stakes even more. And yes, he has a responsibility to head off partisanship and run a smooth hearing, even more so because it's his party. It would look pretty bad if he let his President's Secretary of State pick be embarrassed in the confirmation hearing. Yes it's partisan and it's politics and that's the way it works.

And finally, yes, I think that you see people's true character more when they're in the weeds than when they're flying high.

I don't know what your problem is, but I wish you'd get over it.

[karynnj]

23. He has run confirmation hearings before - I've watched them on CSPAN

They went smoothly. You are creating a hypothetical situation not likely to occur.

The questions Kerry is likely to ask will be on foreign policy - and just as with the various ambassadors whose confirmations he headed they will be an exchange of information.

As to the Republicans, if they bring up questions - they will be on things like Bill's various contributions - and whether they represent a conflict of interest. Those are valid questions - and Kerry and Lugar sent that information to the entire committee. If FACTS embarrass HRC - there is NOTHING that Kerry can do to prevent it. Now, if a Republican were to accuse her of killing Vince Foster - Kerry would call the question out of line - but that isn't going to happen.

You are the one who brought up the idea that Kerry needs to know things that the Republicans can throw at HRC. investigating future lies is not possible by definition. If there are REAL things that could embarrass HRC - I hope the Obama team already knows of them and agrees they can be overcome.

The headline will not be the hearing is in chaos - that was not the headline with Bolton. The headline was that the SFRC would not recommend confirming Bolton. (It was Bolton, not Lugar, the headline hit. If something (we currently don't know of) made HRC that unconfirmable - it would reflect on her and secondarily on the Obama vetting - not Kerry. As it is this unlike Bolton, I don't think the opposition party is 100% against her and I doubt ANY Democrat will vote against her - she will be confirmed.


Oh - "I don't know what your problem is, but I wish you'd get over it." I guess my problem is that I disagree with you - both on the investigator Kerry hired and on the role of the chair in a confirmation process. He will run a fair process - that is his job. Fair does not mean that the Republicans can't raise issues. Did Lugar err in letting Boxer call out Dr Rice or Kerry to grill her for over 30 minutes? Was that "hearing in chaos?"

I am not the one that called a person a "sleaseball" based on NOTHING. The fact is some of the things the Clintons did were unethical - and it was reasonable for investigative journalists to look into it. Unless you have the article and it lied, this is a ridiculous accusation.

[Mass]

28. Not sure why he hired this guy, but I found the insinuation he should not have hired him

because some 15 years ago, he wrote an article on Troopergate amusing (coming from the reporter). This is in fact what I was point at: the need for the media to create a circus that is not there. This last snippet I posted on politico is in the same vein. There is no drama around Clinton hearings, so let's create some.

[MarjorieG]

2. Schuster's appreciation casts as gracious loser, not myriad ways Kerry wonderful, for decades.

That he did as well during a difficult presidential year with an uninformed, afraid populace will never get the consensus I think and feel.

Tay Tay with another job?

[TayTay]

3. Yes, that is true.

[YvonneCa]

7. It's ...

...true??? :7

[TayTay]

13. Yes, it is.

[YvonneCa]

16. Okay...

...I'm not very good at being 'covert'. :7 Are congratulations in order? (I hope, I hope...) ;)

[TayTay]

24. No.

Not at this time.

[YvonneCa]

25. ...

...:hug:

[karynnj]

5. I agree - but it is a step

The fact is that few people will ever see beyond winning or losing. Therefore, it is tough to get Democrats to admit that the 1992 campaign was less than brilliant - even though GHWB was below 40% approval for most of the year, sinking to 33%. Perot mostly slammed GHWB then imploded in a very odd exit and re-entry - when he returned he was NOT a viable candidate. Clinton's "bumps in the road" kept this from being a landslide of Reagan 1980 proportions.

The thing that frustrates me the most was that his "war room" was held up as where he was better than Kerry. In fact, he did get a response out within less than 12 hours for each accusations - the problem was that on most issues, he had to backtract and change the response each day for up to 4 or 5 days - before he often admitted that 1) his initial response was not the full truth and 2) there was some truth in the accusation. Kerry got the TRUTH out each and every time within the same interval. The difference - the media.

I recently found the USA Today link for the Gallup at the end of the 2004 campaign. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm Your comment of a difficult year is an understatement. Look at question 7 which is a variant on the normal "is the country on the right track" question. It is actually a better designed question as it allows people 4 categories rather than the two extremes. Shortly before election day, 13% said "very well" and 46 said "fairly well" in response to "How well are things going in the country". When you consider the country was a year and a half into the war, a factor that would make people reluctant to change Presidents without very good reason, and 59% say that things are going at least "fairly well", you see that Kerry was convincing enough to win some people over who were not that unhappy with Bush. (Contrast this to Obama's situation, where the number thinking the country was going in the right direction was less than 20%. Different question, but the situation is so night and day - it doesn't matter.)

Then look at question 8. Bush was seen favorably by 53% of the voters and Kerry by 51%. This in spite of the media repeating the Republican POV on all issues. (Every speech Kerry gave on Iraq had reporting in the AP ending with the AP saying it was the same as Bush's position - even though it quite obviously wasn't.) They also used the strange criteria that Kerry Senate work only counted if he was the first named sponsor - a criterion they didn't apply to HRC (who would have been left with nearly nothing). Add to that the way they NEVER asked the SBVT for proof - as they NOT KERRY were the ones disputing the official record.

These numbers show what a strong candidate Kerry really was. Not seen - as it hadn't happened yet - was the impact of the Clinton allies second smearing of Kerry after the election - which I will never forgive them for. The late October 2004 numbers show that Kerry had the potential and the ability to lead the Democrats against Bush, a task the Clintons clearly had not wanted in 2001 - 2007, and for personal gain - they chose to try to destroy a strong Democratic voice. Also consider, that from early 2005 on - Kerry was shown to have been right on every contested issue that became clear cut - with no push in the other direction, this would have pushed the 51% up.

[politicasista]

10. A strong candidate?

That I have never heard anyone say. Unfortunately, that argument is being used to praise and promote PE Obama and other candidates from 04. :(

I am not feeding freepers or anything, but ask how many people that voted in 04 and voted in 08 say that they were actually thrilled to vote FOR Kerry instead of vote against Bush? And in 08 actually thrilled to vote FOR Obama instead of voting against someone (i.e. McCain)?

To people I talked to and read about, I found more answers to the second question than the first. People were actually thrilled to vote FOR Obama. And it was from the same people that voted for Kerry (though many say they were only voting against Bush).

It's not just because Obama was a history making candidate, but he did run an almost A+ campaign and got more voters, young and old, out who had never voted before or hadn't voted in years. A local beautician one of those http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27459000/">people. My family hadn't donated to a presidential campaign since Jesse Jackson's 88 campaign (We donated to Obama's campaign. :)). My mom hadn't had a bumper sticker since 88. (She bought an Obama/Biden sticker). And they are very informed about news and politics.

I personally think many people were turned off by what happened to Gore and Florida in 2000. Ask yourself, why weren't they more interested in kicking Bush out in 04 then they were getting Obama in? A lot of people will say, it boils down to inspiration, charisma, and message and Obama was and is the right candidate, the right president for the right moment. And as unfair as this was for the senator, some AA complained that they were tired of voting for "two white guys" in every presidential election. (I am not joking, I did hear people say this).

This is not a boasting or revisionist history post. (I know it will be taken that way, if so, then apologies). And I know that isn't fair to compare Obama to Kerry, say that Kerry didn't have enthusiasm, the whole CW lesser of evils, and the election cycles that they both ran in, but there is something about Obama that drew (and still draws) people to him. Most are hooked at first listen, with Kerry, it may require some listening a bit. :)

They aren't perfect, but I do think that Obama has lots of star power that others lacked. He has lots of them (i.e. celebs, ok, I know that's not important) on his side. (I heard how they were not there for Kerry like they were for Obama, Gore, and/or Clinton?)

I know this post might be way off base here (please do correct me), and I haven't been here in over a month, but I have been offline reading things, but thought to add some 2 cents.


Maybe I just don't understand some things, or never will.





And yes, I am glad Kerry is going to be Chairman of the SFRC. He will do good there. :patriot:

[globalvillage]

11. Well, thank goodness there are a lot of people out there

who don't vote/donate based on race. Otherwise, we'd be saying hello to President McCain.

[Mass]

12. A lot of things that were uninformed here.

Kerry had a lot of star power around him, just like Clinton and Gore, and probably Obama. The fact that some have decided to say after the fact, when it was fashionable to say so, that they were not enthused by Kerry, does not mean they were not there, campaigning for him again and again.

African Americans voted for Kerry at a very high level. More African Americans voted for Kerry in 04 than they did for either Clinton or Gore (in absolute numbers). There were naturally more African Americans voting for Obama than for any of them (that is perfectly understandable), but this is NOT what made the difference. What made the difference was white people who became convinced they could not stand 4 more years of the same failed economical policies. As explained very adequately by karynnj, in 2004, these people were not yet feeling that their jobs, their house, ... were at risk.

And, btw, I know plenty of people who, once they have gone over their disappointment of seeing Bush reelected, said they were very happy about Kerry and wished he would be president as he would have done a great president. In the other way, I am seeing more and more people who voted for Obama because they did not want more of the same more than because they LOVED Obama. You have to understand that this is NOT a YES/NO situation. You could want to be get rid of Bush AND still vote FOR Kerry. When asked a YES/NO question, as most of the polls ask, you choose the strongest of the two points, and, in 2004, the strongest was getting rid of Bush. Did not mean they did not like Kerry. This is one of the big lies the media perpetuated, based on polls with biased questions.

BTW, remember, after a vote, people want to say they were thrilled by the winner, never by the loser. So, question what you hear on both points. The point is that Kerry lost with more votes than any other Democrats except Obama and with more votes than any other winners except Obama and Bush, and it was not only because people loathed Bush. Polls tell us he did not.

As for errors, he made some, but Obama did as well. It would have been interesting to know what would have happened had McCain chosen a decent VP, but thanksfully, we will never know. However, this certainly helped Obama a lot, that many RW still had enough decency to recognize Palin was not ready.

Careful, success is always made of many elements. Obama's talent is definitively one of them, but there were other factors who were there as well in 2008 (economical crisis, Palin as VP) which were not there in 2004. Who knows what really made the difference.

[politicasista]

21. Good points

Will take them at face value. However, if they were not enthused by Kerry, then they were more enthused by Obama IMHO.

[politicasista]

27. And to also add

in addition to some good points, I really think Obama the man, and candidate were a big factor in enthusiasm. There were people that never registered to vote, never voted since the last Democratic president was in office, or never paid attention to politics until Obama came out on the scene in 04.

It's important to ask why did they not show up or feel like checking research on Kerry like they did for Obama. I understand that the times were different and things were not as bad then as they are now. However, if people like Oprah, Tyler Perry, and others were not enthused by Kerry, then they were more enthused by Obama IMO. Obama really inspired people (i.e. Caroline Kennedy, etc) to get involved, speak out, and things, even if people didn't for vote for him. A lady at my hair salon said that was one of the things that was "sad" about Kerry. She felt the inspiration factor was lacking in the nominee. Obama really showed people how it's done and there is nothing wrong with that.

But, as TayTay said, people will always snark about Kerry and 2004. Even if it's is still happening on DU, the liberal blogs, or in the real world, there is nothing we can do about that anymore I guess.

I understand that that is all a moot point now. Congress and the presidency are blue and fixing the mess is the only thing that matters now.

[fedupinBushcountry]

29. Caroline Kennedy was

out there in '04 too. You are talking about one group of people. Stop the rhetoric, I didn't vote for Obama because I was inspired I voted for him because we needed change. I'm sorry but your analysis is wrong IMO. I watched as people came to Kerry, in fact they did not come around to Obama until the primary voting started just like Kerry. But one big difference Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama did not, that is when Kerry endorsed him after Iowa, that made a big difference for Obama.

Also you will always find people that didn't register or vote, Kerry found 10 million more then Clinton and 8 million more then Gore, between him and Dean they brought many people to the polls, did you forget '06?

Also times were much different, fear, fear, fear, was used over and over again. Don't tell me people didn't buy into it, I know they did, I spoke with them. Oh, and the economy turned it in the final months for Obama, look at the polls. I was also among many African Americans who were very happy with Kerry in '04. I don't know why you still continue to want to paint Kerry as a horrible candidate, he wasn't, I know, he brought me into politics for the first time since the 60's and when we had voices that really inspired, Kerry brought that back into politics again.

So continue believing what you want, but please stop bringing the rhetoric, 2008 was no way like 2004. EOM.

[politicasista]

31. I am NOT painting Kerry as a horrible candidate

But there are people that still do (see cadmium's post).

Is there something wrong with wanting to see someone get some respect due?

Forget I even said anything. No one understands where I am coming from anyway.

As I said, it's a New Year, there is a Blue Congress and a new Democratic President elect. The rest is all just water under the bridge..

[karynnj]

30. There is some truth here - but it is not the complete story

I know that among young people and among African Americans, Obama was the focus of huge enthusiasm. I could argue that Kerry had a huge amount of excitement among young people and greatly improved the voting rates compared to Gore. But, I know from my kids - there was more excitement with Obama.

However - I KNOW Obama was a TOUGHER sell in the Jewish community among people who were - say over 30. These people were down right giddy about Gore/Lieberman and loved Kerry - and were amused to learn of his Jewish ancestry. I know that even in the fall - it was the choice of Palin, who scared the hell out of many of them, that moved many still undecided at High Holy Days (Sept) to Obama. In 2000 and 2004, there were VERY few for Bush and few undecided. (Oddly Palin scared many more than even Cheney.)

In other communities I am part of, many were voting against McCain - many using familiar words (erratic anyone) to describe why they were rejecting McCain - who many had liked. There were also many who would have preferred someone else - HRC in many cases. Then, there are many of us who went to Obama on trust - because of the endorsements of people like Kerry, who had earned our trust. For some of us, it was weaker than that - it was a process of elimination after a rapid elimination of HRC and Edwards. The fact is that had Obama lost - you would have people saying they were not really all that much for him.

The fact is that, like Gore and Kerry, he is a far better choice than the other guy. He also is thoughtful, charming and well spoken. I know people who have met him - in the past though kid activities - and they think he and Michelle are good people. Many of us have met Kerry and know he is an exceptional person. It is good, in both cases, that people are disappointed

The fact is that most people are "results merchants", oblivious of the odds and forgetful of the process - a winner is "good" and a loser did something wrong. The fact though is that some years - a Democrat will win unless he/she REALLY screws up - other years it is not clear that an absolutely perfect campaign (which never happens) by the Democrat who best fits the times will still be a loss.

Kerry ran in an impossible year. The death of Reagan and the jingoist nature of the time meant that Kerry had to soft peddle the work he did on investigations - though they completely destroy any picture of him as weak, flip flopping or holding his finger to the wind. You can also argue that a person like Kerry runs best as a change candidate. That mode channels his passion, vision and insight. To me, the Faneuil Hall speeches were all Kerry running on change. In 2004, Kerry did run on change on many issues - but the country was just not ready.

While the vast majority of the population will agree with you that Obama was more charismatic, that does not mean that he would have come close to winning if the country was still as happy with Bush as they were in 2004. It is also true that even within a few months of the election, a few polls done - showed there was already enough of a shift Kerry would have won. There are some major advantages Kerry had over Obama - starting with a resume of accomplishment and foreign policy insight that Obama really didn't have. An interesting thought is that if Kerry did NOT run in 2004 (maybe due to health), I don't know if Obama would have been able to get the nomination - even if the 2004 candidate gave him the keynote speech.

[politicasista]

32. The last point and I am out

The first paragraph, I agree with it 100%. I live in one of only 6 (out of 95) blue counties in TN. The 2nd presidential debate was here, and there was lots of enthusiasm among the young folks (you could say I am young, under 35) for Obama, and there wasn't anything wrong with that. My cousins just turned 18 and lot of them were concerned about their futures after high school/college, so that were excited about Obama. There wasn't a dis of Kerry or Gore (they weren't even mentioned) so again nothing wrong with that. :)

I never met any politician, though I have only seen 2 in person, Jesse Jackson in 88, and Lieberman :puke: as Gore's mate in 2000. Some AA male dudes thought Lieberman was cooler than Gore. :puke: (Did they get that wrong!).

I didn't know there were ABM (Anyone But McCain), most likely because Bush was really, really bad that it wasn't as hyped up by the media as another ABB or anyone saying that they held their nose and voted for Obama (though I am hearing a lot more of that from lefties since the cabinet choices, and Pastor Warren were announced).

I remember that cool pic of Michelle O. and Momma T sitting together at the convention. They looked like they were gal pals having a great time. I know it's been hard for everyone here to hear/watch all the nasty leaks about Kerry from the Obama transition team" without much defense from O or others, or think that Obama has slighted Kerry, which I don't think is true at all. He just preferred the Senate, where he can be his own boss. Thought I hope that Reid will back off and/or step aside. (I figured that DNC night, Obama just got caught in the moment or just had a demand from BC).

I understand that both years are different. It was really hard to enjoy the 2008 election, not because of Obama. I like him and love Michelle. I just did not like that people were (and still are) dragging Kerry and Gore through the mud just to praise him. That was a turnoff and not fair to Obama at all. Maybe it's the snark.

I also understand that people have now moved on (though GDP doesn't prove that). We have a Blue Congress, a Blue WH, and a fine senator that will be a solid Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.


I am sorry that people here are thinking that all I am saying is "rhetoric" or that everything else is being perceived like I am painting Kerry as a horrible candidate/person. I am just for getting some kudos. Not everyone sees things like we do. Not everyone sees that we lost an opportunity to put two decent people in the WH twice, and that "fate" is the reason we have Obama. We are making up for lost time.

Things are going to get worse before they get better. I used to live near a shopping mall that thrived in 90s, now, it's an abandoned lot with Macy's closing soon. The last store remaining, Sears, does no business either, so it may be next. To make the long story short, the economic downturn has hit hard here, as it has everywhere. So, it may not be important who gets credit or respect for what anymore. It's about saving the country now.

Anyway, I will be out of everyone's hair now. As I have said, everything about 04 is now a moot point, or water under the bridge. It will do no good to complain about it anymore or voice anything that I hear about the senator. Otherwise, I will get scorned for being an Anti-Kerry person or something else.


I am out of this thread. Peace.

[karynnj]

17. Look at the answers to the polls - in 2004, peopel were not ready for a change

If Obama, through a time warp, ran in 2004 - he would not have won. There simply were not enough people wanting change. I am not saying Kerry was perceived as a strong candidate, I am saying he WAS a strong candidate. I based that on how he did versus the environment he ran in.

I know you see the Dean, Clark, and at one time Edwards people all saying their candidate could have won - the reason you see this and not Kerry - is because there was a Kerry-Bush race and there was not one for the others. The only thing you can go by is that Dean polled HORRIBLY against Bush - and the other two were not ready for prime time. Dean people say Dean would have stood up - yet he whined about being a pin cushion under Democratic challenges.

I know that Obama is charismatic - that is very obvious. He also is lucky that he ran at exactly the right time for the message he was conveying. However, I think had Kerry been given the same coverage his charisma would have won him more votes. I also KNOW that there is no way to convince people of that - what I do know is that the media did not show the Kerry rallies where he was speaking of hope and a better future.

I think Obama ran a great campaign - but I think Kerry did too. The difference was in 2008, it was clear in late 2007 that whoever the Democratic candidate was - he/she would very very likely be the President. In late 2003, it was still unlikely that Bush would not be re-elected. That is why I linked to the polling numbers. It would have been a Republican upset had McCain won.

In loss, there was pointing to errors Kerry made - his answer to an unrecrded question at the Grand Canyon and his answer on $87 billion. No one now speaks of Obama's "bitter" comment that was tone deaf or his unfortunate wording in his answer to Joe the Plumber. As to response to the SBVT, Obama never faced such an organized group (the lying vets) - the time frames of his response actually match what Kerry did.

[politicasista]

22. Yep. The media was a factor

but I still think his advisers (if, that is spin, apologies) should have just let him be his natural self. We have seen that he interacts very well with people. On TV, the media made him look awkward, but somehow Obama came out looking good. He smiled a lot, even when there was a lot of poo flung at him.

It's amazing that people praise Obama for running a high-road, honest campaign (I have the collectors edition covers with quotes) when people wanted him to get down and dirty, he refused and kept his cool composure. The same people that applauded him for that slammed Kerry for running a high road campaign against the Swifties, but taking the high road is fine now that Bush isn't running anymore. I think the big difference is that Obama learned from mistakes, but they understood the how the media works more than anything. (I have noticed that the "bitter" comment is no longer mentioned).

I also think there was more promo and push for voters to go see Fahrenheit 911 than there was for Going Upriver. I still don't think people have a clue about Kerry, the Anti-war protester, war hero, and BCCI person, but all of this is now water under the bridge.

[cadmium]

14. Thanks for the link -- One of the

refrains that I find I have to beat down in conversation it that Kerry was a "horrible candidate" with implied comparison to Clinton. People should be AMAZED that the 2004 election was as close as it was. I wonder what the result would have been if Kerry had an attack-dog like Perot helping him do the negative. Bill Clinton never had to attack Bush much because Perot was slamming him constantly and ignoring Clinton.

[Mass]

26. And the stupidity continues

After 4 confirmations where politico sees conflicts from the Republicans on reasons that make sense (whether you agree or not), here is what Politico says about the Clinton confirmation hearings.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17312.html

5 coming confirmation collisions
...

Sen. John Kerry v. Hillary Clinton

While unlikely to be acrimonious, this exchange – tinged with the awkwardness most familiar to the high school prom court – is on the list for reasons of pure spectacle.

To wit: Kerry wanted to be president. Then Clinton wanted to be president. Then Kerry wanted Obama to be president. Then Obama became president. Then Kerry wanted to be secretary of state. But Obama wanted Clinton to be secretary of state. This all sets the stage for Tuesday’s confirmation hearing, where the back-and-forth will be finely parsed for any evidence of recriminations.

Or maybe Kerry will eliminate the need for such parsing by asking, “Why you and not me?”

Even by Politico standards, this is really a stretch. Come on!

(Nice smiling picture of Kerry here).