Kos on "How I feel about Kerry"

[Larkspur]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/12/124046/864>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/12/124046/864

The Kerry brigades think I have it out for their guy. And yeah, they're probably right.

I think Kerry is a great Senator, but he was a godawful presidential candidate. Of the serious primary candidates, he was the worst we could've nominated. How can I say that?
<SNIP>

When your entire reason for running is that you're the most electable, where does that leave you in a general campaign? We saw first-hand where that left him.

One more note -- campaign insiders will tell you that no one loved Kerry. No one had any sense of higher purpose. People who worked for Dean, Edwards and Clark all passionately loved their man. The campaigns stuck together. Why?

Because the campaigns were based in the candidates' home states. Hence, staffers had to move to work on those campaigns. They had to make a sacrifice to uproot and travel to a strange city on behalf of their guy. That commitment was real. And since those staffers knew no one else in these cities, they worked together, played together, and stuck together through thick and thin. It was shared sacrifice, and it translated to genuine affection and commitment to their candidate and their cause.

Kerry's campaign was based in DC. The staffers didn't have to make a commitment to their candidate beyond taking a different bus or metro stop. They didn't hang out after work, since they already had their established social circles in town. There was no sense of shared sacrifice and commitment to their guy. Kerry, the consumate insider, ran his campaign from frickin' Washington D.C. And now he tells us he's an "outsider"?

It was his race to lose, and he lost it. I'll support Senator Kerry to the end of his career, I will not support "I am now an outsider if it'll help me in 2008" Kerry.

Good analysis, Kos!

[jpgray]

1. And yet, those devoted staffers and their inspiring candidates lost

They lost to boring Kerry who inspired no one. Makes sense to me.

[bklyncowgirl]

10. Kerry was the compromise Democrats could live with

Pro-war Democrats would not rally behind Dean. Anti-war Democrats wanted nothing to do with Gephardt or Lieberman. Clark and Edwards were dismissed as too green. Kucinich was dismissed as a lightweight. Sharpton and Mosely Braun were the token "diversity" candidates.

Kerry with his nuanced position on the war didn't offend anyone enough to make large numbers of Democrats defect. There was no passion for him but there was no passion against him either.

[Dawgs]

25. Speak for yourself...

Not me!!!

[bklyncowgirl]

61. Actually, I was an early Kerry supporter

I'd long admired his stance on Vietnam and his work in uncovering the Iran Contra scandal.

I did not care for his vote for the IWR and was disappointed by the fact that he did not catch fire in the primary runup but I thought he had the best overall experience for the job. I took a look at Dean and liked what I saw but I was never a Deaniac. Being a contrarian, I would probably voted for Kerry had I voted in Iowa but for Dean had I voted in New Hampshire--I thought he handled the scream incident well and showed a class that I hadn't suspected.

The truth is that alot of people compromised. That is the nature of politics.

[bvar22]

66. AND because there was NO passion,

100 MILLION voters stayed home and the Democratic Party spent $MILLIONS trying to romance a handful of voters in the mushy middle (a passionless group) away from bush* instead of INSPIRING the Democratic Base .

[FreedomAngel82]

68. How do you know?

Voting machine's don't tell that do they? I still believe Kerry won 3-5%. Take a look at election fraud video's and look at the long line's. To say people weren't committed and weren't inspired to vote is bullshit.

[bvar22]

89. How do I know that 100 Million stayed home?

or
How do I know that the Kerry campaign played to the mushy middle?

[calimary]

202. Put me down in the "because there was no passion" column.

I can't tell you how many people I ran into, everywhere, throughout the last campaign season who usually referred to John Kerry with either a sigh or a shrug. We supported him because that's what we needed to do. We knew in our heads that he was our designated hitter. But many of us left our hearts back with somebody else (like with Howard Dean, in my case - others left a candle in the window for Wesley Clark or Dennis Kucinich or perhaps found a way to be okay with Kerry because he'd chosen Edwards to run with him and Edwards was their FIRST choice).

With far too many Americans, it was merely being AGAINST george bush, rather than being FOR somebody else. And that's not enough. That's not enough to bring out enough fervent believers to make the vote counts so lopsided they couldn't be jiggered with or changed or falsified. What bush had going for him - that we did not have - was that fervent follower effect. All the fundamentalists and other assorted JEEEEEEZZZZussss freaks were fiery hot for bush, but in their ardor FOR him and their revulsion to anything Democrat/liberal. That ardor was enough to get them to the polls in droves, abandoning all else. And WE DID NOT HAVE THAT ARDOR. Ardor like that keeps you fired up and willing to move mountains and walk through Hell barefoot to see something through. The lack of ardor on our part made it a "well, okay, I'll do it, unless something else comes up or unless I have to do something else or my hair's dirty or I'm even slightly suspicious that my vote somehow won't be counted. Oh well... maybe next time.

They didn't have ANY of that "oh well... maybe next time" stuff in their hearts. They had fire and brimstone.

Furthermore, they had a candidate who would declare on a regular basis - "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." We, on the other hand, had a guy who couldn't answer something in four or six words (sad but true, that's the simplistic shit we have to deal with), plus being drowned in the muck of his own making with the "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." NO WONDER JOHN KERRY DIDN'T CATCH ANYBODY ON FIRE.

I need to say THIS, also:

Yes I love Howard Dean. I always have. I always will. I was one of MANY who pushed for him to be DNC chair (what did I tell you about ARDOR)? I even voted for him in the California primary, ANYWAY, even after he was out of the running and Kerry was the sure thing. But once I committed to Kerry, BY GOD, I COMMITTED to him. With EVERYTHING I had. I donated myself into the red sending money to his campaign. I worked, set up house parties, put my kids to work as greeters at those house parties, talked him up, drove around with his bumper stickers in my rear window, and kept extras in the car to hand out to people who asked for them - of which there were many. I lobbied for him here and elsewhere, online and in person, with friends, some of whom I turned from voting rebubli-CON to voting for Kerry. I put everything I had into supporting John Kerry. And if that's what I'm faced with next time (supporting a candidate who was not my first choice), I shall do it again with the same commitment. But it was something I had to work at, and push myself to do. With someone like Dean, it would have been second-nature. ARDOR. ARDOR, like PERCEPTION, and like REPETITION, is EVERYTHING.

And THAT is what we need.

[IndianaGreen]

161. There is no compromise on the war in Iraq

Iraq is the new Vietnam and as in Vietnam, there is no compromise or reconciliation possible between those that want to end the carnage and those that want to continue the war.

There is no middle ground in war and peace anymore than there is between G-d and Satan.

[liberalmike27]

180. Kerry Sucked

HE was the media's choice for the democratic nominee. Of course once they steered many of the more dupable democrats away from their initial candidates, the ones who were all better to him, they turned on him horribly, and killed any chances he had of winning too. They chose him because he had low convictions, and they had the most ammunition. Edwards and Dean both were assertive and aggressive in their beliefs. No matter what the media had said about them, this always showed through. Kerry just pandered, this too many americans saw.

The way I see it, the media picked Kerry, then the media destroyed Kerry, allowing tons of unfounded rumor go unchallenged. Truly I hope he doesn't run again, he's old news, he's done.

Of course, after all of this is said, he may have actually won, we'll never know, but the exit polls said he did in the states with electronic voting machines. Who knows??

[libertypirate]

51. If you think they only use their machines to tweak the general

elections, your crazey.

[Hippo_Tron]

192. Give me a break

Look I don't dismiss that election fraud happened in Ohio, nor am I supporting Kerry in 2008, but if you're going to make statements like that, at least back them up.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. Kerry inspired no one??

I don't think so. He inspired me very much. Learning about his prosecution days and all he's done in the past. So to say he inspired no one is bullshit. Talk to me.

[NightOwwl]

2. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[rawtribe]

3. I voted against *

Kerry never gave me something to vote for. I haven't had someone to vote for in a long time. Last time was Carter. That's a long fucking time! Why do I keep on voting? I don't know. Self abuse, I guess. Pacifist have no voice in America. Just a fringe nut with no voice.



:hurts:

[andino]

4. Welcome to my world.

I find myself voting against a guy more often than voting for a guy.

[Mass]

16. I voted against GHW Bush

Never connected with Clinton. What's new?

[Larkspur]

35. Same here

The only candidate I voted FOR was Jimmy Carter in 1980, my first election, and Al Gore in 2000.

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. I was ABB too, though it broke my heart not to support

my own party which is rapidly falling apart at the seams. *again*

[bvar22]

80. I am lucky.

I was able to PROUDLY cast votes for Wellstone, and was PROUD to vote for Kucinich in the Caucus.

THIS is PASSION!!

Paul PASSIONATELY DENOUNCING Corporatism in Washington
shortly before he was killed!



Democratic Party, PLEASE give us LEADERS with passion, not those who are the least offensive.

[Selatius]

5. Why did Kerry hire Cahill and Shrum as his campaign advisors?

I forgot which, but I think they did their fair share of damage to Kerry individually. I think it was Cahill's idea for Kerry to say that he would've voted for the resolution knowing what he knows now about the intelligence, and I think it was Shrum's idea to try to ignore the Swiftshitter ads that came out that summer.

[KoKo]

69. I've thought about this alot...and concluded Kerry is very naieve...He

has been in DC so long and travels in different circles with Theresa than most average Americans do. His whole early life was different from average Americans and so he went with the folks he knew to run his campaign. I don't think he cared much for computers or used e-mail himself and that he's changed since the fiery guy who protested the Vietnam war, but we didn't know he had changed until he refused to smack down the Swift Boat Liars and others who came at him.

I think he honestly believed that DC worked the way it always has and that folks would be fed up with Bush and he would continue to be a "gentlemen" in a time of thugs, liars and cheats and in the end overcome them and win.

I don't think he has enough awareness of how most of America lives to have "true compassion" (not his fault) for folks and so he left that job to John Edwards. I don't think he really understands most of what we are going through out here in the US and that he enjoys a lot of time spent in "recreation" to relax himself while thinking abstractly on issues that he wants to support. :shrug:

[calimary]

203. Two utterly horrible hires. Although I think it was Cahill who advised

Kerry that the swift boat swifties would blow over and to do one of those "I won't dignify that with a response" reactions. That doomed the campaign.

I heard people repeatedly say that made them question his character as in - "gee, why the hell doesn't he fight back? They're saying AWFUL things about him and he doesn't say anything in his defense."

Unfortunately, THAT was allowed to metastasize. You know what that almost immediately morphed into?

TWO conclusions:

1) Gee, if he's not fighting back, maybe what they're saying has some truth to it...

2) Gee, if he doesn't fight back when they're attacking HIM, whatthefuck is he gonna do if WE are attacked again? Sit it out and wait because if he responded it'd give the attackers more publicity/legitimacy? Take the "high road"?

Either way, this was an abject failure and complete, stinking, reeking, steaming-pile LOSER. I think it sealed his fate then and there. Because by the time he got mad enough to tell Cahill where to go on this, the idea had already been planted several days previous, and had been left alone to take root. Which it did, because all you heard was attack and spin on the attack, and more discussion of the attack. You didn't hear ANYTHING to refute ANY OF IT. It then became, de facto, truth. It became PERCEIVED AS TRUE because you never heard squat to refute it. The same way as people in communities where there is ONLY regressive, deceptive hate radio come to adopt the opinions they hear, because they don't get exposed to ANYTHING ELSE. They formulate their own views based on what they hear over and over and over and the only things they're hearing are from and by the Dark Side. By the time Kerry got off his ass and responded, it was a done deal. The seeds had not just been planted but had been left alone and unmolested to take root - very firmly. The impressions in people's minds were similarly cast in rapidly-hardening cement. At that point, it was so deeply imbedded in people's minds that there was nothing Kerry could do to reverse it. He was too late. And his efforts to counteract it were too little too late.

And frankly, it disgusted me to no end that Kerry sat back and let this shit happen without responding. I couldn't understand it, and I was one of those calling his office begging him to fight back. I can't tell you how many urgent emails I sent to Ann Lewis of the DNC - who'd talked a good game in the beginning about how they'd been "too polite" and "too nice," but then failed to back that up with ANY action at all. I'm amazed I have any hair left on my head for the hunks I tore out in frustration. And there was LOTS of that sentiment out there. I saw it here on DU EVERY FRICKIN' DAY.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Love Kos...but he's wrong.

It's about the stolen election. Honestly, what would be the excuse for any other candidate losing? Too honest? Too emotional? Too grassroots? Democrats overwhelmingly chose Kerry to lead us, under what basis could we have gotten anymore voters? The problem is who counts the votes....

Kos does our cause no favor by making Kerry out to be the problem, instead of acknowledging that the elections were scammed.

[emanymton]

7. Serious Accusation Made. What Evidence Of Stolen Election?

I am not happy about the outcome of the 2004 election. So far I have seen no creditable evidence of a 'fix.'

Until evidence of theft, then Kerry has to be held accountable for running a 'bush lite' campaign.

Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

[Chomskyite]

9. Just follow the links starting here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a000756

[FreedomAngel82]

72. Take a look at this video

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=562403 If that doesn't work http://www.commoncause.org/november2ndvideo

[therapist]

8. I agree

It seems to me that KOS is becoming a pundit who is more concerned about creating "talking points" to manipulate opinions rather than telling the truth. I guess it comes with a territory - he achieved status of mainstream blog media (MBM).

He didn't mention Real ID vote at all. I don't know the reason, but he looks like Drudge ignoring Gannongate. We bash republicans for being complete sycophants, but i think we have plenty of the same on the dem side.

Why did he keep quiet about Kerry for so long? It's not like he woke up yesterday and realized that Kerry's campaign "was bad".

I didn't like pro-war Kerry, but trashing Kerry campaign 6 months after the election is a political "runaway bride".

[Larkspur]

11. I don't recall Kos every liking Kerry

He accepted Kerry because he won the nomination, but like me, Kos never liked Kerry.

[Mass]

52. No but he used to care about important matters

NOw, all that counts for him is the electoral process. He is ready to compromise on women's rights and other matters to win a seat.

[elizm]

12. I agree BUT...

I happen to agree that the election was stolen but Kerry also made it way too easy for them to steal it. Kerry was running against the worst President ever and yet the race was still close enough for them to steal it without the 'sheeple' figuring it out. We can only wonder what a stronger, or more inspired nominee may have done. I agree with Kos completely.

[flpoljunkie]

17. Kerry was the "stronger" nominee; that's why he won in Iowa where they

knew him, and he would have made a fine president for our country and the world.

Kerry stood head and shoulders above Dubya, both literally and figuratively, in the debates. On election day, we all thought he had won the election--including the NEP exit poll and the bookies, who had Kerry beating Bush by 2 to 1. Even Karen Hughes told Dubya late on election day that he had lost. But, then, miraculously the vote count did not match the exit polls and Dubya won.

We will only be able to prove election fraud if a whistleblower comes forward. Read this op-ed by Avi Rubin about relying on these electronic machines* to "conduct a free and fair election with a reliable result"--written just five days before the election, titled "An Election Day Clouded by Doubt."

http://www.avirubin.com/vote/op-ed.html

*All voting systems use central tabulating computers, "mother" computers as Teresa Kerry has dubbed them, to count the votes, no matter if the system is punch card, opti-scan, or touchscreen.

Kos is being a jerk in writing this.

[Larkspur]

22. Only 38% of Iowans chose Kerry as the nominee

Not a ringing endorsement.

And the Iowa Caucuses are ripe for Party Hacks to manipulate. Also, The Dem Establishment worked with the Media to tear down Dean prior to the Caucuses. It's a credit to Dean that the Dem Establishment feared him so much to gang tackle him, and it serves the Dem Establishment to have Dumbya defeat their chosen candidate. You can whine all you want about a stolen election for Kerry, but unlike Gore, Kerry lost the popular vote.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Iowans had a chance to see candidates up close and personal and they chose

Kerry. And didn't Kerry win in New Hampshire, too? Of course, he did.

As for Dean, he and his Deanics lost the race in Iowa. Remember the scream came after he came in a poor third. The Iowans knew Dean well.

I do not submit that Kerry lost the popular vote. Proving it is another thing absent a whistleblower or whistleblowers. I have no faith in the results of the November election--period--and neither should you.

It does not "serve the Dem Establishment to have Dumbya defeat their chosen candidate." Surely you do not really believe this.

John Kerry was our candidate and supported by the people as well as the Democratic establishment--that is how it works.

[XemaSab]

153. Clinton came in third

in Iowa too.

[flpoljunkie]

178. But he also went on to win the nomination, unlike Dean.

[FreedomAngel82]

74. Don't forget

that Bush and company also had rightwing radio and a controlled media that was never in favor of Kerry.

[liberalmike27]

182. Just

Skull and Bones brothers, the two of them. Both the wealthy elite, members of the secret society. Why do you think he didn't put up any sort of fight. He has to be smart enough to understand the statistical significance of the exit polls only being wrong in the States with electronic voting machines without paper trails.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[sendero]

29. I agree it was stolen..

... but it's still Kerry's fault because he sat there and let them do it.

We knew they were going to do it, everyone knew, and there was supposed to be this great team of legal experts and observers but I sure never heard of them.

Forget the "possible accumulation errors", there was plenty of horsehit done in plain view that should have been attacked and challenged strenuously. Oh, and BTW, it makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if there could have been enough challenged votes to swing the win. The point is this crap is going to continue forever until SOMEONE has the integrity and the balls to challenge it. We now know of at least one candidate who won't.

I've given my opinion here of why that didn't happen a zillion times, and nothing has happened lately to change my mind. I'll spare everyone the reprise. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

76. How do you know he's not doing something now?

He could be doing something for all we know. Nobody knows but him and his staff and anybody working with him. That's why, I think, 2006 is another important reason. So we can have a full investigation of voting fraud and get rid of the machine's EVERYWHERE and ban them from ever being used again in an election. Paper ballots everywhere.

[Eloriel]

138. Are you kidding? DUers for Kerry have been saying that since Nov.

"Oh, just watch, you'll see. He's doing it all quietly, behind the scenes, and when it's all ready, he'll come out publicly with all the evidence and we'll have this whole election rigging thing nailed."

That has been the line of thinking since the day Kerry conceded, which was the day after the election (not even 24 hours later). Even when there WERE candidates who protested the vote and asked for recounts, Kerry kept his nice, safe distance and could NOT be counted on to help in any way.

Well, we watched and waited all right (tho there were plenty of us who knew Kerry couldn't be counted on for this), and now those who kept pushing that ridiculous, unfounded bit of childish wishful thinking have been proven wrong as surely as the rest of us knew they would.

Sorry to see you step into that same trap. Here's a clue for ya: It ain't gonna happen. You're wasting YOUR energy engaging in such fantasy.

[calimary]

205. I know how you feel, Eloriel. That absolutely broke my heart.

To see him throw in the towel like that SO SOON after the election. He didn't even wait to file a challenge. And I CLEARLY remember, with some hopefulness, when he assured all of us that he intended to fight for every vote. Then he folded like a paper fan. That just frickin' broke my heart. I felt almost personally betrayed. I kept saying "...but I BELIEVED in you. You were going to fight for every vote. You promised. You knew what happened last time and you were going to fight it this time." A MOST disgusting and discouraging day. Because I REALLY DID work myself up into believing in him.

[bunny planet]

65. Totally agree.

I will gladly vote for Kerry again if he is the nominee in 2008.
And I did and do feel passionately about him.
He sucks at soundbites but he is a man of honor and integrity and would have been a great President. So would Al Gore.

I'm kind of wishing they'd run together in 2008 as the revenge ticket for two stolen Presidential elections. John would have to settle for the VP part of the ticket, he might not be willing to do that.

And definitely, the stolen elections are the problem, doesn't matter if you run Apollo the Sun God, if the machines are fixed and voters disenfranchised, there's no way to get your Democratic candidates elected.

[FreedomAngel82]

70. Exactly

Go to cspan.org and watch the Iowa Cacus dinner and see the poll numbers they show for the canidates. Kerry was winning by that time with around 60% (I believe it was 64%)?

[ngGale]

174. I have to agree, the elections were scammed...

the only issue I hated was the gun-ho war machine. Kerry should have been himself, said the war is a lie. Just imagine IF he had said that with all the new details coming out.:think:

[ClarkUSA]

184. Kos has said that he doesn't believe the election was stolen

[GOPFighter]

13. I agree with Kos

Sadly.

Kerry was great in the debates with Bush. He was obviously brighter and more knowledgeable than Bush, but he never connected with the undecided voters. A lot of his votes were anti-Bush votes, not "I'm excited about Kerry" votes. I tried very hard to love the guy, but couldn't.

[Mass]

15. Actually this is not kos point

kos point is that nobody liked Kerry, which is obviously stupid.

What you said is true of all votes. There were a lot of people in the NE that were not excited by Clinton or Carter 76 as well.

[FreedomAngel82]

78. I think he did

After the first debate my local news station had an interview with a handful of people and asked them about the debate. One woman said she had a Bush sign in her yard but when she got home was going to take it down. Another person said their mind wasn't changed and someone else said they were thinking about it. So the debates do help.

[bvar22]

82. Even in winning the so called "Debates",

John Kerry had many opportunities to drive a STAKE through bush*s black little heart, and he let bush* off the ropes like a gentleman. He SHOULD HAVE KICKED BUSH* after he knocked him down.

[Mass]

14. No surprise here

but thanks for a nice Democrat bashing, by another Democrat that is. I guess we dont need Republicans for that.

Just think what that says of the campaign of other Dems that Kerry won against them.

As for the rest. kos is an idiot, period, and his assessment on the fact that Kerry was liked or not is irrelevant. As in all campaigns, his primary staffers loved him and the people who came after the primaries liked him less. Same thing would have been true for everybody else.

[Fabio]

19. I think it is worth remembering that Kerry

got more votes than any other democratic presidential candidate, ever -- To the tune of 8 million more (59mm to 51mm versus Gore). That includes an incumbent in Bill Clinton, who had southern strength and could run in all 50 states, and got only 47 million in 1996. Think about that. Kerry got 13 million more votes than Clinton. Additionally, Kerry won the cumulative popular vote in the swing states.

That being said, I do think the Kerry campaign made some serious errors (along with doing many great things). August was a disaster for the campaign, and the last six weeks were brilliant. At the end of the day, though, our opponents dont play fair and we have to decide how to adjust, but to say that Kerry didn't get people to the polls is not true.

[Larkspur]

23. Yet Kerry LOST the popular vote

Kerry's support was mainly ABB -- Anybody But Bush.

[Fabio]

27. I dont get the logic in your point

[Mass]

28. Support mainly ABB is contradicted by exit polls numbers

and most other polls.

No more people voted against Bush and for Kerry than in 92 people voted against Bush and for Clinton.

Actually, this is exactly the part that is objectable in the piece. He is entitled to his opinions about Kerry, but he cant make up facts.

[Larkspur]

34. I don't recall exit polls asking people if they voted against Bush or

for Kerry? They don't usually ask that question.

[Fabio]

48. So what is the basis of your initial assertion?

'Kerry's support was mainly ABB -- Anybody But Bush'

[Sawyer]

91. They do ask that question

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

half way down the page

[Sawyer]

92. Actually, exit polls do support Kos

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

                Voted for their      Voted Against 
                  Candidate            Opponent

Kerry voters:        40%                  70%
Bush Voters:         59%                  30%

That's quite a drastic difference there.

[Mass]

97. Well not exactly

Here what they say - They say that among people who voted against the opponent 70 % voted for Kerry and 30 % against Bush. (70 % is not the % of Kerry's voters that voted for him as ABB).

Voted against opponents (25 % of all voters) Bush 30 % Kerry 70 %.

So 25 % * 70 % = 17,5 % of the voters voted for Kerry against Bush. Given that Kerry had roughly half of the vote:17,5 % * 2 = 35 %.

Voted for candidate (69 % of all voters) Kerry 40 % - Bush 70 %.

So 69 % * 40 % = 27.4 % * 2= 54, 8 %.

The rest of the voters could not decide between the two (I would have been in this case).

So what this basically shows is to that more people hated Bush and too that as a primary reason to vote than the opposite. Exactly the opposite of what you want to show. (voted against Kerry was NOT a primary reason to vote for Bush at all).

[Sawyer]

100. Actually, what I wanted to show was

that more people voted for ABB than voted for ABK. The exit poll supports that.

Judging by exit polls:

ABB = 122M * 25% * 70% = 21.35M
ABK = 122M * 25% * 30% = 9.15M

[Mass]

101. These numbers do not tell us anything about what they thought about Kerry

We were all ABB, even those who were Kerry's supporters since before the primaries.

Actually, Ruy Texeira had an analysis a few weeks ago about this question, and by analysing polls results before the election, he concluded that Kerry was as well liked by the Democrats than most Democratic nominees and in fact as much than Clinton in 92.

Here is the piece treating of the score of Democratic supporters for their nominee.

The rest of the piece explains that Bush was very popular among his people and very hated among Democrats and Kerry very hated among Bush's people.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001044.php

Democrats, between 1968 through 2000, on average, gave their own nominees a score of 73 and the Republican nominee a score of 46. Republicans in that same time frame gave average scores of 70 for their own nominees and 46 for the Democratic candidates.

Three of those four general trends were ruptured in 2004. Only Kerry’s rating from Democrats followed expectations. Kerry’s mean rating from Democratic identifiers was 72 – close to the grand mean for the prior nine elections. Kerry did about as well as Clinton in 1992 among Democrats and approximated the typical score a Democratic candidate gets from his own followers. Nothing else about the 2004 candidate thermometers followed precedent.

[Sawyer]

103. People were asked one of possible two answers:

did they vote "for" their candidate or "against" their opponent. Obviously quite a few had both motivations, but they had to pick one or the other. So the conclusion is that more Kerry voters "hated Bush more than they liked Kerry" than Bush voters "hated Kerry more than they liked Bush" - by a huge margin.

[Mass]

104. Well I can undertsand that

Who in their right mind would not hate Bush. This does not mean they did not like Kerry.

See my previous post that I modified.

[Dawgs]

36. Please explain how you know this....

How do you know that Kerry's support was mainly anybody but Bush? Can you read the minds of all voters.

That's pretty impressive if you can.

[Sawyer]

94. See #92 n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

79. I agree

I think there were mistakes made (like letting the SBVT people get away with their shit) but he was also up against "a war president." No war president has ever been beaten before either. A lot of people didn't want to change president's during war which is total shit I think.

[seaglass]

20. Kos has always been a Deaniac - he has no credibility at

all on Kerry.

Love? We are supposed to love our candidates? That is overemotional bullshit.

Very shallow analysis. Of course electability is part of the calculation in choosing a candidate or else the majority of people on this site who were against the Iraq War would have supported Kucinich. But then again, maybe they just didn't feel the "love." .:puke:

The people who didn't know what else Kerry had to offer were just partisans, like Kos, who were so busy promoting their guy and cutting everyone else down that they didn't pay attention.

I know Kerry wasn't perfect, he made mistakes and his personality didn't appeal to sound-bite nation. I'll admit that I never "loved" him (nor have I loved any other politician), but he would have been an excellent President.

[Larkspur]

26. Kos is anti-Dem Establishment and Kerry reeks of the Establishment

And Kerry was a bore to listen to anyway. He's one of the most uninspiring candidates Dems have had in a long time. Adlai Stevenson was more inspiring than Kerry.

[Mass]

44. You nailed it

Kos is "änti-dem" establishment. He is becoming a pundit.

[seaglass]

55. And he's a Deaniac. You know what's really boring? When

someone repeats themselves over and over again.

[zulchzulu]

30. Bingo!

Kos is still coughing up old phlegm from his days as a paid Dean hack back in the primaries...

If Dean was such a great candidate, why wasn't he able to even beat the Democratic field and drop out before Super Tuesday?

I like Dean, but if you want to analyze a badly run campaign, look no further than his attempt in 2004. I wonder if Kos has the balls to admit that....

Nah...

Nor would Kos mention that Kerry's issue policy on gay marriage/civil unions is IDENTICAL to Dean, Edwards... I wonder if Kos has the balls to admit that....

Nope...not a peep.

[Larkspur]

33. Howard Dean broke Bill Clinton's fundraising record twice

when he was in a field of 9-10 candidates. That is no easy feat. Kerry didn't break that record until after it was clear that he was winning the nomination.

His campaign was gang tackled by the Dem Establishment that propped up Kerry and were banking on Kerry's 4 month military tour in Vietnam to woo swing voters. The gang tackle of Dean in Iowa shows how corrupt and myopic the Dem Establishment is.

[zulchzulu]

73. Gee...thanks for your Karl rove talking points....good job!

"Kerry's 4 month military tour in Vietnam"...

Actually, Kerry did two tours...but facts are silly things. And the usual claptrap about the "Dem Establishment" flies in the face of voters who voted for Kerry in LARGE numbers.

I guess they aren't smart enough to see who was the better candidate. Maybe space aliens took over the ballots and made people vote against Dean before he dropped out BEFORE Super Tuesday...

I am so tired of this mealy-mouthed pout fest...turn the goddamn page!

[MoonRiver]

90. If you don't like it, why do you respond to it?

Or should others, not so enamored with Kerry as you, be disallowed freedom of speech? Whatever flies in the face of his supporters' lockstep denial that Kerry ran a horrible campaign and lost to the worst president ever, MUST at all costs be squelched.

[seaglass]

98. Because 4 month tour IS a Rove talking point, but I guess when

you're trying to make a point, scruples don't mean anything. What if someone used a Rove talking point against Clark, would you come to Clark's defense or not?

[MoonRiver]

99. I actually didn't know how long Kerry had been in VN.

Maybe Larkspur didn't either. Most of his post wasn't related to Kerry's length of stay in VN.

[seaglass]

102. Nah, it was all over DU during the primaries and she was

here. Don't know about you.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[politicasista]

112. Amen brother

I feel the same way. :yourock: :applause:

[RogueTrooper]

46. Actually

Kos has written about the weaknesses in the Dean campaign.

Kerry's position on gay marriage may be the same as Edwards but it is not the same as Deans. Dean supported the Mass. Gay Marriage law ( State's rights ) Kerry did not.

[FreedomAngel82]

81. I think so too

When I think about voting for someone I want that person to be smarter than me. Someone I know who can handle pressure and still make the right decisions and not what everybody else says but goes along with the real facts and doesn't fix intelligence. I've seen plenty of video's of Kerry and he has a fine personality. Kerry was a professional politician and unless you were a die-hard Kerry supporter or took the time to get to know him you didn't know too much about his personality. Watch the rallies in CSPAN's archive's. Pelosi's daughter also had a documentary on the democratic primaries and she followed them all around. Towards the end Kerry comes out on top and you get to know him quite well.

[mandyky]

199. So Deaniacs have no credibility on Kerry?

what a crock! once kerry won the nomination, i tried and tried to listen to his speeches. that man has no idea of how to address regular people. and now he's saying he's an outsider? if he continues speaking like he did during this election, it won't fly. one can't be a senator and be an outsider at the same time. someone who's buddies with the clinton's, kennedy's, bidens, etc. can't be outsiders.

But it's Kos who has no credibility? ya gotta be kiddin me!

[Catchawave]

21. I agree with Kos that the other Dem candidates.....

had more passionate support than Kerry. I certainly wouldn't support him in 2008 for two reasons:

_a 14 million dollar surplus in his campaign fund?

_the Vietnam Veterans against Kerry is still a strong org.

If Kerry runs again, I'll just vote for him, that's all. That will save me time, trouble AND money.

[Dawgs]

24. Just another BITTER Dean supporter....

How does this clown know that Kerry supporters didn't passionately love him? He doesn't, and that's why I can't stand these Kerry haters.

I was pro-Kerry before the primaries, and I'm just as passionate now.

If you guys are looking for someone to blame, then how about looking at your own candidate. Kerry demolished them in the primaries. How can you expect them to have beaten Bush, when they couldn't even beat the candidate you think is a loser?

This is just plain sad.

[Larkspur]

31. Kerry was propped up by the Dem Establishment that views rank-and-file

Dems as sheep to be slaughtered for their votes and money. Dean threatened that relationship by empowering his supporters and treating his supporters as peers, not sheep.

It's a credit to Dean that the Dem Establishment had to gang tackle him in Iowa. Dean was connecting with voters, but it's hard to defeat a corrupt monster, like the Dem Establishment and the Media moguls, who can work nearly 24/7 to tear down anyone they want, whether it be Dean, Nader, whistleblowers, etc.

[Fabio]

32. There is a dem establishment in Iowa and NH?

[Mass]

38. You mean like Gore, for example.

That makes a lot of sense.

Listen, before Iowa, Dean had the longest list of endorsements by high ranking Democrats.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. LOL..so the Dem establishment faked all those votes when he

spent a fraction of what Dean spent in Iowa and NH?

[GreenPartyVoter]

59. Again, get IRV in the primaries and knock out the "most electable"

issue. Find out who people want to vote for in their heart of hearts. Their second choice can go for "most electable", and if that guy or gal gets it the breakdown of the rankings will give him or her a strong idea of what the base is looking for in a candidate's platform.

[RogueTrooper]

37. Kos has the right to his opinion

I notice that most of Kos's front page is taken up with a defense of Reid against the Republican smear machine.

Kerry was an awfull Presidential candidate who ran an awfull Presidential campaign. He lost against and President who was as unloved as he is incompetent: That is the truth of of the matter.

We knew about the problems and deficiencies of electronic voting machines years before the 2004 election; yet we did nothing.

Now, Kerry won the primary but he did not win many friends in the process. His campaign, and by extension himself, were quite willing to use strong arm tactics to get what gentle persuassion could not. There were deeply unpleasant things said to leading members of the African American community. There were deeply upleasant threats made to supporters in other campaigns. Kerry got the nomination but it was at the expense of a lot of goodwill.

However, the thought of a George W. Bush second term helped us overcome the sour taste in our mouth. Shame the candidate was so useless.

I have a feeling that the only success the Kerry '08 campaign is going to get is in picking up Joementum.

[Mass]

39. Can you substantiate your accusations?

[RogueTrooper]

40. The one about Kerry being a shit candidate?

sure can. Just look at who is in the Whitehouse.

[Mass]

42. No, the other ones.

What you think about Kerry's campaign is your opinion.

But you make accusations about Kerry or his campaign threatening people to vote for him. This is why I am asking.

[RogueTrooper]

43. of course i can

otherwise I would not make them.

The threats that were made were less about getting people to vote for him and more to do with those people not suppporting other candidates. Or that their careers ( or community influence ) would suffer if they did not "get in line". It was all very unpleasant.

[Mass]

45. I could tell you the same stories concerning Dean.

And it was very unpleasant as well and as unverifiable. There were tons of stories in Iowa about how Dean's supporters were going around and saying that Kerry was going to die of cancer as well. These stories go around in all elections.

Please cut us a break!

[RogueTrooper]

47. Is this the: You did it too argument

obfuscating the truthby flinging similar types of mud?

Very Republican. ;-)

[Mass]

49. No this is the "I dont believe these stories" arguments.

before somebody proves them to me. Very democratic argument.

[RogueTrooper]

50. I doesn't matter if you believe them or not

I very much doubted that you would. Now, the people involved have not given me permission for their names to be used; nor are they likely too. Besides what Kerry did to win the Primary is besides the point as it is a long time ago now.

Where it matters is is Kerry decides to run again: Then we will see the return of Joementum.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. Do you have any proof of these accusations?

I'd surely like to see it if you do.

[Mass]

95. No, as I said

you hear these stories throughout every campaigns, and typically, they are no more than rumors.

I was just bringing them up to show the poster that his stories about Kerry were exactly of the same type.

[FreedomAngel82]

84. Oh that's real laughable

due to voting fraud. Every irregularity favored him. He couldn't get in without that could he? Hell no. If you haven't visit http://www.commoncause.org/november2ndvideo

[XemaSab]

154. I can substantiate the accusations

I went to a rally in Manchester as a Dean supporter, and Kerry had bussed up a snotload of people from Boston, and a lot of the Kerry people were Boston firefighters. They were being INCREDIBLY nasty to the Dean folks and everyone else.

All the other candidates' supporters that I saw were VERY nice to each other, trading stickers and giving each other support, but these HUGE dudes were going through the crowd just being completely rude, saying things like "it's too bad you don't see the truth" and "what the fuck are you doing campaigning for THAT guy?" and being very hostile. One of Kerry's guys punched a Dean girl. I thought it was going to turn into a riot, frankly.

Also, on election day they called up "our" voters and gave them the wrong polling information. They called our supporters at 3 AM to hassle them. Just dirty tricks like that.

Kerry was a pit bull in the primaries and Bush's lap dog in the general.

[kerrygoddess]

88. Do you think the election was stolen again?

So many here do. If that was the case, then Kerry was not a "shit" candidate and all of you are simply talking shit!

[Generator]

110. Best reply ever

I would have been thrilled if Dean won the nomination too.

But it's an insult to all that voted or tried to vote to say that we lost because Kerry was boring and didn't inspire passion. And it's all Kerry's fault. Me: I would blame the lazy ass voters first and not Kerry. But that's me: I have more respect for Kerry than the lazy ass, nothing's wrong here, oh I don't know Kerry isn't exciting enough to INSPIRE me to vote bullshit.

I heard the same crap for MONTHS on CNN and Hardball last year. And then I started paying attention and liked Kerry immensely. I felt like I had fallen for the boring stuff and Kerry was so MUCH MORE than the bs media talking points. Maybe, propaganda is inescapable. But I felt love for him because he's the only ONE that actually took on Bush. AFTER the fact of 9/11. The others tried but they didn't actually do it. They weren't there with their asses and their wounds and their wives and every damn word they ever said being manipulated to fit the media's intention on who should win.

And for all those that didn't like Kerry on prinicpal-fine I respect your differences. But you are never ever going to find the perfect candidate, and you are never ever going to get those lazy ass non voters super inspired to vote. And I doubt all of those that stood in line for HOURS are going to be doing it again in 2008. Not until the election system is fixed. And the passion of election day 2004 maybe was anybody but Bush but you cannot tell me it wasn't real.

And PS I wouldn't be here today after Dean's loss telling you he was just too "unstable" to win and he was the wrong candidate. I wouldn't because I know how much it means. To us. And hurts.

[politicasista]

113. Amen sister

:applause:

[MoonRiver]

53. A lot of us feel exactly the same as Kos.

I think Kerry and the Dem establishment, in general, should pay attention.

[LeftCoast]

54. Man, it is an amazing thing to see the Kerry Thought Guard swing into

action every time someone posts something critiquing Kerry.

[Mass]

106. It is amazing how some people are obsessed by Kerry

and cant let go. These are always the same ones posting these anti-Kerry posts, amazingly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. Abalone!

Some of us have known Kerry for years. He was the most experienced candidate and he did a great job.

[xkenx]

60. I Think Kos

is absolutely right. Sample of one anecdotal evidence in my own family. Before Sept. 2003, I was supporting Kerry, simply on what I thought to be his electability...experienced Senator, good Dem. record, Vietnam vet, etc. We watched a couple of early debates and speeches, and I was pitching Kerry to my wife. She said "But he just doesn't seem to connect to real people; he seems to be lecturing and talking over their heads." When Wes Clark entered the race, my wife said, "Ohmygod, this man has it." Both of us became passionate
"Clarkies." Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure. This is the kind of candidate who inspires dedicated support by his people and makes supporters of the undecided in the general election.

[FreedomAngel82]

86. Oh that's just crap

[CTLawGuy]

62. some people were wondering...

how America could both vote for Bush and oppose what Bush stands for....


"I think Kerry is a great Senator, but he was a godawful presidential candidate. Of the serious primary candidates, he was the worst we could've nominated. "

I don't think Kerry is a bad person but you just can't run a campaign on "I served in Vietnam".

Do you think the SBV-"T" would have been half as effective if Kerry did not make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign?

If Kerry had voted against IWR, he could have made an issue about how dumb it is to get fooled by bad intelligence into war (as Bush publicly claimed he was). Kerry could have said he was smarter than that. But nope, he voted for IWR and took that issue off the table.

He could have talked about trying to balance the budget, but instead he went off supporting a half-assed version of Bush's tax cuts.

[Fabio]

63. Messaging

[seaglass]

77. Please - if Kerry hadn't talked about his VN experience, there

would have been a different spin - something like he's ashamed to talk about it because his medals were fakes and his wounds were only band-aid worthy. They still would have been all over the throwing the medals thing, Jane Fonda etc.

Do you think Dean would have gotten it any easier with his bad back and then skiing and mixing cement?

It doesn't matter how true anything was, whether the candidate brought it up or not - they would leave no stone unturned for ANY dem candidate.

[CTLawGuy]

83. the reason the SBVT hurt so much was bc Kerry made a big deal out of VN

How come Bush's AWOL history didn't hurt him?

You can bet it would have hurt a LOT if Bush had constantly crowed about military service, but he really never mentioned his military experience much.

It may be that they might have found something else.

As for Dean, I think no one would have cared about his deferment because Dean would have presented himself differently, talking more about his gubernatoral experience rather than what happened 30 years ago.

Besides, if you were Bush, would you want to get into that?

[FreedomAngel82]

87. All I have to say about

Bush and AWOL is DUH! They've been hiding his records for years. People have the proof of his records but the smear machine ignore it and destroy it. Bush and being AWOL is basic Bush family 101. Any shithead could know this information if they took the time to research it themselves instead of believing rightwing pundints.

[seaglass]

96. Sorry, I disagree with you. Bush's AWOL didn't hurt him

because 1. it was considered to be old news and documents that would prove it were too obscure 2. there was no orchestrated, well-funded effort to keep it in the media. 3. Dan Rather

It doesn't matter how Dean would have presented it, it only matters how those intent on destroying him would have presented it.

[janx]

179. The biggest problem (and many of us saw it coming)

was the fact that the Dems banned together around Kerry for the military emphasis. They were in effect playing on Chimpy's turf.

Now I KNOW the military was popular then; it was we had seen on the television news and in the papers for years. But in trying to "out-military" Chimpy, we let the Republicans define the debate.

And the medals throwing, in this context, was sure to come back to haunt Kerry--it was ammunition for the Swift Boat morons, etc.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Who in the hell is Kos?

[second edition]

71. EXACTLY! N/T

[Mizmoon]

93. Thank you!

:applause:

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

105. Great work, Kos.

The fact is, Kerry wasn't my first choice. After Kerry became the nominee, I re-examined his prospects. I watched him on Meet the Press. I thought about it, and while Kerry wasn't the spineless flip-flopper the Repubs made him out to be, he is really nuanced. A whole lot. His lackluster campaign, his general lack of charisma, and the overall task he had to perform (to unseat a wartime President(regardless of how much of a screw-up he was)), he had a lot against him.

And, the idea of Kerry being an outsider is crap. He's not a regular guy. Neither is Bush. Like Bush, Kerry's a 20 plus year Senator, and a former Lt. Governor. That "I'm an outsider" crap won't fly.

[second edition]

108. Kerry is trying to fulfill campaign promises and promote

his 'Kids First" initiative. He can't promote it sitting in Washington. Obviously, Kos doesn't care about uninsured Kids nor abut the fact that Kerry has been one of the most outspoken critics of this administration. I am represented by two Rep. senators, I am happy to see Kerry out there expressing and fighting for my ideals. He is being proactive and working in a constructive manner. Kos is doing nothing but promoting Kos and being negative.

[MoonRiver]

109. I think Kos said Kerry is a good Senator,

but a lousy presidential candidate. That resonates with me.

[second edition]

111. Yes and think about what a Great President he would be if he

would be elected. Good senator-great president. Kos's opinions on Kerry the candidate are just that, opinions and not shared by many many people. You have to get to know Kerry. Kos never took the time to examine the real candidate.

[MoonRiver]

114. You have to get elected to be a great president.

My main complaint with Kerry is that he didn't begin fighting the voting machine scam at least a year before the election. He should have been screaming about it everytime he got in the public arena. He also ran a rather bad campaign. I sincerely hope he does not run for president again. I don't think he'll get the nomination if he does, though.

[LittleClarkie]

116. Yeah, but Kos doesn't even act like he thinks Kerry is a good Senator

despite lip service. He doesn't acknowledge anything Kerry might be doing in the Senate.

AND he repeats the same half truths that were worn out long ago. Similar to the half truths we hear about Dean or Clark leftover from the primaries. That Kerry is unloved. That Kerry had no reason to run.

Gee, I didn't realize that Rush had his script pre-written by the Dem primaries. I should have. Apparently WE did such a good number on our own people, that the Repubs just had to pick up the primary playbook.

Kos can say he thinks Kerry was a lousy candidate. That's his opinion and he's certainly welcome to it. But he's not welcome to his own facts. In the same way we are not welcome to our own facts about Dean or Clark et al.

Kerry has a somewhat small but loyal following and a very loyal staff, so he is not unloved. He has a sense of service, years of prior service, and a very well rounded career that qualified him to be president, no matter what you might think of his campaign to become president. So he had reason to think he could be of use.

Kos is stuck in the primary season. That annoys the shit out of me. He should know better.

[MoonRiver]

117. I think Kerry would have been a great president.

It's like day and night comparing a might have been Kerry presidency to the one we're enduring now. But one has to get from here to there. Kerry doesn't have the stuff, IMO, to stand up to the Rethug machine. I think it's time to give somebody else a chance in 2008. Meanwhile, I (can't speak for Kos) applaud the good stuff Kerry is doing in the Senate.

[Generator]

115. You know what's funny?

I think "outsider" these days may be akin to rebel with a cause. Because anybody that DARES to go against Bush is an outsider these days. Does the media? Do many of the Dems we have? No.. there is the cabal of Boxer..Conyers.. and Kerry the truly elected. Outsider indeed. You try for five minutes believing that Kerry actually won and you see if you feel a little "outside" the mainstream.

The Bush cabal inspires an allegience and a fear that is hard to fathom.

Democratic outsiders. It has a ring.

[robbedvoter]

118. Bad analysis. Kerry won. After that he became an ass and conceded.

End of story. Forever.

[zulchzulu]

126. Question: Is a concession speech legally binding?

Answer: No

I suppose Kerry should have shown up at the White House from the Potomac where he and the original crew showed up on a Swift Boat and firebombed the Oval Office the day after the election.

Yeah. That woulda worked...

[politicasista]

119. Can we please stop this mess

You guys got your wish. Hindsight is 20/20. Can we please stop fighting the primary wars? We have a criminal-in-chief to fight. Worry about 2006. At the rate that * is going, whomever wins the nomination (and hopefully the presidency) is going to have a massive, I mean MASSIVE mess to clean up once * leaves office. I am going to keep saying this regardless of who runs.

Enough already about Kos and 2008. He is only trying to divide us period.

[GOPFighter]

120. No, he's not trying to divide us...

...he's expressing what many of us feel. But so what. 2004 is done and gone. We move on. But there's nothing wrong with examining a lost election and trying to learn from it. Personally, I have no problem with anyone here who thought Kerry commanded great loyalty and support and was the best candidate. We'll never know so why sweat it?

[politicasista]

121. We should let the people who experienced the election do that

not some paid blogger who has never had political experience.

[NYCGirl]

160. Maybe you should read a little about Kos, before you question his

political experience or what he's done for Democratic candidates (other than the aforementioned Dr. Dean):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

[murdoch]

122. paid volunteers...

Soros sometimes puts his money to good use, one negative use though was getting people to put Kerry on the ballot or registering voters. It was a centralized organization, probably outsourced to Mumbai, India, or something, and kids were paid so many dollars for every person registered.

I tried to get people to sign to put an independent person on the ballot and they asked me how much I was getting paid. I said nothign and they told me tales of how their friend or cousin got a few dollars for every signature they got. Thus, they thought I was not working out of commitment, but I was trying to hustle them.

Personally, I see this as a DLC type move (which is what it was anyhow) which is an attack on what Democrats are supposed to stand for, if not an attack on the party itself. I know people are sometimes banned from here for saying the effect this sort of thing has on them, but I'll say it anyway - it made the Greens look a lot more attractive to me.

[kerrygoddess]

125. Kos was paid by Dean

Does that count?

[zulchzulu]

127. I can't tell if you're joking or not...

Are you saying Kerry outsourced paid volunteers from India to get votes?

Got any more in that bowl, buckeroo?

[kerrygoddess]

129. Yeah! I want some too!

LOL! I've heard it all now!

[Nothing Without Hope]

123. I agree with Kos. Kerry also cut the legs from under the election fraud

investigations. Period. As far as I know, he is STILL claiming that there were problems but they wouldn't have been enough to tip the election. He started saying that when his own volunteers were still en route to tell him of the terrible things they had observed in Ohio and elsewhere. He never bothered to listen to them. Thank you, Senator, now SIT DOWN.

[zulchzulu]

130. Let me know when you can count air as a vote...what a great invention!

Kerry knew that many of the BBV votes were untraceable and thus unproveable in a court of law.

If you can devise a time machine device that can go back and count air as a vote or find a way to make untraceable votes accountable and verifiable in a court of law, PLEASE LET ME KNOW! If you can crack the software used in the BBVs to uncount votes that were randomly sent to the Bush column and make it verifiable and accountable in a court of law, again...brother...I beg your ever-shinging knowledge!

You would be an absolute genius!

[politicasista]

136. Sorry, but Senator Kerry is not sitting down

You may want him to disappear, gain weight and grow a beard, so you can focus on YOUR candidate and personal agenda, but I am represented by two republican senators (The Cat Killer is one of them), so I am glad Kerry is speaking out forcefully then ever. You may not like it, but there are others here who do and appreciate it very much.

[GetTheRightVote]

124. There was passion, I had it & many other Americans had it too

Kerry or anyone else was doomed from the beginning, * cheated thru oppression, suppression, tampering with machines, a million ways, no candidate but * was going to win this past election, you can bet on that one for sure.

:kick:

[kerrygoddess]

128. RFK, Jr said...

“No matter who the Democratic nominee was, this machinery had the capacity to discredit and destroy him.”

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=874

I had the passion too... If Kos who was paid by the Dean campaign wants to go toe to toe with me on what a REAL grassroots supporter is, Bring It On. I wrote for the Kerry Blog for 11 months as a volunteer. The Kerry campaign came looking for me after someone alerted them to what I was writing about Kerry on Yahoo groups.

That's Grassroots. Kos is paid political consultant and my question is "Who's paying Kos to attack Kerry now?"

[Clarkie1]

131. That post by Kos is right on the mark!

Kerry is a great American and a great senator. He should be proud of that, and his supporters should be proud of that.

[kerrygoddess]

132. Ummm....

well atleast he said something decent about him...

The rest of the post blows!

I want to know who paid Kos to write that post?

[Clarkie1]

133. "Who paid Kos to write that post?"

huh???

Maybe it is his own opinion?

[kerrygoddess]

134. Or maybe it wasn't...

[Clarkie1]

135. Then your question should be...

"Did someone pay Kos?" not "who paid Kos?"

I think what he expressed was an accurate, widely accepted analysis of the events of 2004, and I have no reason to believe it is not his sincere opinion.

Unless I have proof to the contrary, that is what I will believe.

I appreciate you posting here and keeping us updated on the pursuits of the great Senator Kerry.

[kerrygoddess]

137. Well I have proof of the opposite...

Thank you very much. And so do plenty of other people who were involved with Kerry's campaign from very early on.

We all know the media suppressed the message, did you ever stop to think that they suppressed the stories about Kerry's volunteers from early on?

The Boston Globe interviewed me in Aug '03 and they never ran the story. I wrote for the Kerry Blog for 11 months as a volunteer. The Kerry campaign came looking for me after someone alerted them to what I was writing about Kerry on Yahoo groups. Kos knows damn well that Kerry had devoted volunteers who loved him and he knows damn well that not all of Kerry's staff was from D.C.

His post is a ludicrous attack and nothing more.

[Clarkie1]

141. I have no doubt Kerry had dedicated volunteers

such as yourself. I have great respect for anyone who devotes such time and energy to a cause they believe in. You did good, and are still doing good.

However, despite exceptions such as yourself and others, I don't believe that for most Americans Kerry was among the most inspiring candidates. That is nothing against Kerry personally or the work he's done and is still doing as a United States Senator. Nobody is perfect. I do believe Kerry was the candidate most people felt safest with going against a wartime president and experienced politician, and they voted for the candidate who felt "safe."

In the end, the strategy didn't work. I don't think Kos believes that Kerry had NO inspired supporters. That would be ludicrous. He is making a rhetorical point. Other candidates had more supporters who were truly inspired by them. That's just my opinion, and I'm not interested in proving or disproving it. I just happen to agreee with Kos and you disagree.

Kerry on.

[kerrygoddess]

143. I spent months on an inside track

of the Kerry campaign and I'm sorry but I feel you and Kos are off the mark on this. Kerry won Iowa because he an amazing ground team and volunteers that quietly worked under the wire. NH, same thing.

I spent the last few days before the primary in NH and I saw the love and passion he inspired and it was amazing. I was at the Dem Dinner in NH before the Primary and watched all the candidates speak, not one got the reception from that room that Kerry got. Not one. Even Dean's SEIU people went wild when Kerry spoke.

As a writer for Kerry's blog I had contact with volunteers from all over the country, they all had the passion. And many who came on board after the primaries said the same thing over and over again... "I hadn't really listened to him before because I was for so and so and now that I have listened... WOW!"

Why is that so threatening to some people that Kerry should evoke passion? Why should Kos write about this now? I'll tell you why, because John Kerry is evoking that same passion, STILL, again, always and he's a threat to anyone with aspirations and he's a threat to anyone who would rather see someone else run. That's why.

[Clarkie1]

145. Well, as a Clark supporter I can honestly tell you this.

I don't find it threatening at all that Kerry may "evoke passion" in some. I think the more passion that is evoked on behalf of Democratic causes, the better.

I don't see Kerry as a threat at all to, well...anything the future may hold. I'm being very honest with you. I just don't see it.

Kerry on.

[kerrygoddess]

146. The more passion evoked the better...

Is darn right! That's why posts like Kos's are selfdefeating to the Dem party right now. Instead of tearing our people down we need to support them and work together. Kos's post has done nothing but inspire infighting and we need to stop that if we are ever going to gain any ground.

[Clarkie1]

148. Who is tearing Kerry down?

Kos?

Hardly.

"I think Kerry is a great Senator, but he was a godawful presidential candidate. Of the serious primary candidates, he was the worst we could've nominated...

I'll support Senator Kerry to the end of his career, I will not support "I am now an outsider if it'll help me in 2008" Kerry."

From an objective observer's standpoint, "I'll support Senator Kerry to the end of his career" can harldy be interpreted as "tearing down."

There is a difference between candid, frank discussion and tearing down. Obviously, Kos does not want Kerry to be the nominee in 08'. There is nothing wrong with him saying so and giving his reasons why. That is not tearing down the great Senator Kerry, it is frank discussion. We need that in the Democratic Party, and we need to be civil and frank about it while keeping the focus on 06'. Discussions such as this should not consume our energy at present, but that doesn't mean we should close our eyes in case we may offend.

If you think Kos' post is "tearing down" the great Senator Kerry, then I respectfully disagree with you.

Kerry on.

[MoonRiver]

150. Exactly!

How is it an attack against Democrats to voice a personal preference that somebody NOT be the next presidential nominee??
:crazy:

[Clarkie1]

152. Precisely.

We need to keep in mind that whether or not we think a particular individual would be the best nominee in 08', they are all doing good. We may disagree on who is doing the most "good" today, yesterday, or tomorrow, but that is not the point. All our working Democrats are doing good.

I have no problem with someone mentioning why in their opinion they may not think Clark would be the best choice in 08', assuming he runs. It just needs to be done in a respectful way, which to me means giving due credit where credit is due the the good Clark has done for this party and continues to do for this party and this country.

Frank discussion and civil discussion is a necessary prerequisite for a healthy Democratic Party. Let's keep the focus on 06' for now without unnecessarily and unrealistically closing our eyes as individuals position themselves for the future beyond that. We ought to be able to occasionally comment on such matters without being accused of tearing down fellow Democrats.

[kerrygoddess]

162. Whatever

Big whatever! If I wrote the same thing about Clark that Kos wrote about Kerry, you'd be on that and me so fast it would not be funny. I've seen how you handle similar things said about Clark, so don't go there with the innocence routine.

Kos started a flame war, on Kos and here and he knew damn well that he would.

[Clarkie1]

170. Write the same (or even similar) thing about Clark? How?

By imagining he is a career Washington politician now trying to position himself as an outsider and who ran (in your opinion) a poor general election campaign?

Also, there is no reason for this to lead to a "flame war," because Kos's post was not a flame. It was someone stating their opinion in a way that respects and supports the good work Kerry has done and continues to do in the Senate.

That doesn't fit my definition of a "flame."

Kerry on.

[kerrygoddess]

172. Hmmm

No... Clark is a career military man who tired to run as yet another anti-war candidate/outsider in the primaries and he ran a poor campaign after finally answering the call of the Draft Clark movement started by none other than Armstrong Zuniga (hmmm...).

But we won't blame Clark for not winning the primary, after all, Kerry was such a lousy candidate it was easy for Clark to lose to him.

That makes perfect sense doesn't it.

Kerry's always been a Washington outsider and that's public knowledge. But I guess if you are stuck in that trap of believing what the MSM and flamethrowing bloggers spew, you wouldn't know much about his career would you?

[Clarkie1]

173. Kos isn't arguing that Kerry was a poor primary candidate.

He's arguing (with nothing personal against Kerry) that he was a poor general election candidate.

I agree with you that Clark could have run a better primary campaign his first time out, but I happen to agree with Kos that the primary process did not select the most effective, or even the 2nd or 3rd most effective general election candidate. That is nothing personally against Kerry, it's just my own political opinion which is shared by many others.

I think Kos is right when he says of the "big four" candidates, Kerry was the candidate most lacking an original and compelling message, yet was perceived as the candidate by many Democratic primary voters who could "beat Bush." Many voters told me, from many states, that they really liked Clark but thought Kerry was the one who could "beat Bush" because he was more politically experienced, etc. I don't know, but I suspect Dean and Edwards people may have had their share of similar responses from potential supporters.

Kerry convinced enough people during the primary that he was the only one who could beat Bush, and I believe that was more important to many voters than their personal preference.

It didn't turn out that way, and the Democratic Party needs to learn the lessons of that experience.

[kerrygoddess]

175. The Democratic party has a lot to learn

I'll grant you that, but Kerry is not the problem within the Democratic Party.

The Republicans are a finely tuned machine Clarkie1. They have been slowly building up their party under the wire for decades. They now own/control the media, they know how to stay on message, they don't infight to the extent that Democrats do, they are control freaks and it's worked very well for them.

Can you vision even for a minute that any candidate, any candidate we ran in the GE would have either legitimately lost or had the vote stolen? Because that is the case.

Until we learn to stay on message, stop the infighting, support our candidates and politicians and work under the wire, we're screwed.

No knight in shining "outsider" armor will pierce the Republicans walls. The largestmajority of voters in this country are MODERATES and they swing both ways when it comes to presidential elections. We're at war, Kerry with his military experience, Clark with his would not have made a difference.

Kos and Jerome Armstrong played two sides during the primaries. What was that about? Doesn't anyone around here wonder? I sure as hell do.

Worry about 2006 and work towards change and stop the who was better routine or who will be better routine. It's all moot until we can come together. Kos is a divider not a uniter.

[MoonRiver]

177. Excuse me, but

you say we need to "stay on message" by not bashing Kerry, which Kos btw didn't do, yet it's perfectly alright to go after other Democrats who you perceive to be threats to Kerry's future presidential efforts. No, you haven't come out and stated that but you seem to have no problem insulting Clark, Dean, and others who could logically be perceived to be in Kerry's way next time around. That is a huge problem with the credibility of your argument.

IF we're going to have to start the 2008 primary on DU already, then you need to be prepared for others to like someone other than Kerry. Do you really expect everybody to just get on board, and support the guy 100%? Even if he hadn't run and lost to * a mere 6 months ago, many would favor another. And they're going to debate and argue against Kerry for their candidate. That's just the way it goes when you throw a bunch of "passionate" Democrats together.

[kerrygoddess]

187. As a rule

I don't attack other Dems here or any where. I was trying to make the point here, that "if" I said similar things about Clark or Dean as Kos said about Kerry, others who support them would not appreciate that.

Furthermore, I don't post 08 focused threads, though 90% of the time I post any news about Kerry here, people immediately jump on it insinuating it's a Kerry 08 thread and they are not.

Kerry has said over and over he's focusing on 06 and helping to take back the Senate and House, while pushing for legislation he is sponsoring that affects the entire country. I could care less about 08 right now. 06 is what counts!

I feel people are wasting good enrgy right now squabbling about 08 when we have so much work to do towards 06.

[MoonRiver]

190. OK. I can certainly go along with fighting tooth and nail for '06,

and trying to forget about '08. It may not always be possible, but I'll try my best. In fact, I have been trying since Skinner's message.

[kerrygoddess]

193. That's the spirit!

It's hard when more than a few keep rambling about it! Thanks!

[MoonRiver]

201. Yes, but when the subject comes up,

I will definitely feel free to give my 2 bits. Personally, I don't want Kerry to be the 2008 nominee. I give him credit for past and future acts as a Senator though.

[Carolab]

139. Hogwash.

It didn't have a damned thing to do with where those campaigns were based.

People were passionate about Dean, Edwards, Kucinich and Clark because they inspired passion.

Kerry inspired ABB.

[kerrygoddess]

140. Hmmm....

I guess I worked my tail off for Kerry as a volunteer from Summer '03 because I had nothing better to do with my time as single mother with a home business!

Hogwash to you too. Kerry inspired passion and love and he still does that scares the shit out of some you!

[Carolab]

142. No, it doesn't "scare the shit" out of me.

It's just how I feel about him (along with lots of others).

If he inspired passion in you, great. I don't understand it, personally, although I also campaigned on his behalf to GOTV. I didn't do it because he inspired me, though. I did it because of ABB.

[kerrygoddess]

144. It's just how I feel (along with lots of others)

Well it goes both ways you now. You people who want to continue to spread the meme that Kerry inspired no one, can knock yourselves out, but those of us who were inspired and still are inspired will continue to knock your theories down a few notches.

There's a link to a remix of "For What It's Worth" in my sig... listen to it you might learn something.

[Carolab]

149. Listen, we're not going to change each other's minds.

Kerry bored me. He did not stir emotions in me--ever. He never even registered on my radar, in all of the years he was senator. I had a vague understanding of him protesting Vietnam many years ago, but mainly I thought of him as hooking up with Jane and company on that.

In the campaign, I thought he was tepid. I thought he was bland.

People react to * emotionally; they feel like he's their buddy or something. Kerry doesn't really bring that out in people. He's smart, and he did a great job in the debates but after all look at *'s lack of debating skills (particularly in the first debate). Other than that, I couldn't understand what he was doing, especially when he let the Swift Boat Liars walk all over him for so long.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[fedupinBushcountry]

176. Did you even care

to learn anything about the MAN, I doubt it, you were so wrapped up in your primary candidate, that you didn't even bother to, how sad. You know you can rant on all you like, but in the end, it is all about the primary and your man lost. It's sad, you contradict yourself over and over again .

I have 3 kids all in their 20's, I told them to research the candidates and pick who they wanted to back. Yes I was for Kerry from the spring of 2003, and I told everyone why, but I didn't push him on anyone, and I didn't want my kids especially to be pushed by me or anyone else, especially the media. Oh by the way I didn't know anything about him, but I made it a point to find out about ALL the candidates, before I chose. I didn't just jump on a bandwagon, because the media told me that was the way to go.

They all voted in the primaries and they voted for Kerry, they were not about to let the media choose their candidate. I'm sorry but your man was not on any of their list and all of them were anti-war, Kucinich was on my son's list who voted for Nader in 2000, and right up until January, until he happened to come across Kerry on C-Span at a townhall meeting, that one encounter INSPIRED him and knew that he would make a great President, and that he was just the type of man we needed in this time.

Oh by the way between 3 kids and at least 100 or more of their friends voted for Kerry the MAN, not ABB. They didn't go with the crowd they went with their gut feelings, and their values, not just to push a lever because someone said that is the lever to push.

[politicasista]

147. That's you and the media's depiction rather than reality

Edwards, Clark, Dean, and Kerry all inspired us. Iowans chose Kerry cause he acted, looked and sounded presidental. You should move past the primaries and support the Dems who are fighting against the arrogant, dangerous, and criminal adminstration, but instead you choose to live in the past.

[Carolab]

151. Stop saying "move past the primaries".

It's tiresome and I'm not stuck there.

Those of you who are so ANTI-DEAN seem to ME to be stuck there, though! Really, look at all Dean did to boost Kerry once he was the nominee. Much, much more than anyone else did or could have done.

He's always been behind the PARTY and working to beat Bush and to reform the party at the GRASSROOTS. He always said "it's never been about ME". He always said it's about US. I don't remember Kerry saying those words. But Dean said them and Dean believes them and Dean lives them.

[politicasista]

155. Whatever

:boring: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Carolab]

156. Nice.

:eyes:

[kerrygoddess]

165. Excuse me?

"look at all Dean did to boost Kerry"

Clark actually did more than Dean. Clark came on board with class and panache and gusto and so did his supporters, or most of them.

It's all about Dean, with Dean. All about Dean. In NH at the Dem Dinner he barely said word one about what he would do if he was president, he talked about Howard Dean's life. No small wonder the crowd there was hungry for the man who talked about being president and what he would do if he was.

Dean as Party Chair gets more support from Kerry supporters than Kerry as Senator gets from Dean supporters. That's real evident here and on Kos.

The only people you are fooling is yourself.

[janx]

183. Dean is the national party chair.

Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts. So it is logical that Dems from all over the country would be supportive of the Dem chair, no? But how is it that people like me, who live in the western United States, should have to be supportive of a senator from Massachusetts? He's a fine statesman and I respect him, but...good grief!

The primaries are OVER. Please, please, please give it a rest.

[kerrygoddess]

185. Legislation that Senators sponsor

Most often affect the entire country not just the people from the States they live in. Kerry has been consistently working on issues that affect the entire country since the beginning of the year, let alone throughout his entire career.

I know the primaries are over. I didn't start this thread, or write Kos's post. I don't push Kerry 08 here or anywhere. When post things about Kerry on DU it's news about what he is doing in the Senate that affects the entire country.

[janx]

189. I hope that you will support Senator Salazar then, too.

Because he is my senator, and I think he has been speaking out about the religious right in a way that no senator has before.

[kerrygoddess]

195. I support the work of all the Dem Senators

I don't publicly bash them if I disagree with things they do, say or vote for. I'm on nearly all of their email lists and sign all their petitions, etc.

[Radical Activist]

157. Great points.

One mistake Gore made was not moving his headquarters to Nashville sooner. Kerry's campaign staff had a lot of people who were trying to pick the most likely candidate to advance their careers. But, they were professional and many of them did a great job, especially his Iowa team, some of whom did have to move.

I don't think Kerry was the worst candidate, but it proves that we can't nominate someone based on what DNC and media insiders think is electable. They have no clue what is electable. Someone who inspires people is electable, and Kerry never inspired people.

[politicasista]

158. And your candidate could have done better.

Kerry was awful. ________ could have won. Ok * is a liar, cheater, war crimnal. Kerry was just too soft. :sarcasm: :boring: :rofl: :puke:

[Radical Activist]

159. My candidate would have

offered more than half-assed measured statements on Iraq and jobs lost to trade. Kerry did great during the first debate, but obviously it was too little too late.

[second edition]

164. Kerry lost to a war time president.

I don't think there has been one case in election history, that I can recall, where a challenger beat out an incumbent War Time President. Illegal war or not. You can not blame Kerry for "people not wanting to change Horses in mid-stream". You also haven't considered that many people WERE NOT opposed to the war during the election. They believed Bush and the WMD story. People even bought the Iraq attacked us on 9/11 theory.

[kerrygoddess]

166. Touche

Thank you.

It's so ironic all the whiners here cried so loudly recently that the election was stolen. Now it's Kerry did this wrong and that...

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Always got to bitch about something some folks do.

[second edition]

167. Your welcome!

They seem to have to blame someone or something for the loss. Now the stolen election debate has wound down, they have started to direct their anger to wards Kerry. Kerry's campaign made some mistakes, but none were fatal. The war and a spattering of "morals" are what did Kerry in. They need to actually do some research and take the time to read and analyze the information concerning the election. This whole blame Kerry thing is actually just all about them. Kerry didn't win for them, Kerry didn't fight for then, Kerry did connect with them etc..

[Radical Activist]

169. Its called learning from your mistakes.

You can't do that if you aren't willing to admit to them. We picked the wrong candidate. If we had picked the right candidate we would have won, so saying it isn't Kerry's fault is illogical.

[Radical Activist]

168. People did believe those things.

Whose job was it to inform them otherwise since the media didn't, and why didn't he succeed at doing that? LBJ was forced to not run for re-election when people started questioning the premise of the war, not just the way in which it was carried out. There's a big difference.

[Clarkie1]

171. Those are some very important, valid observations

which do not invalidate Kos's observations.

[sybil]

181. But wait...

...every Republican I know personally, re-registered in the primaries to vote for Wes Clark. They could not bring themselves to vote for kerry in the g.e., and refused to vote for bu$h. Many California Republicans are NOT party loyalists, esp. lately...

CA is the most diverse state in the union with the largest block of electoral votes. Californians contribute more per capita to political campaigns than any other state. But CA is disenfranchised in the primaries year after year. The Dem party really should do something about that. Rather than moving the primary back even further as they did recently, CADEM should have moved it forward. It could make all the difference in the G.E. Give us a voice in selecting our candidate! As it is, California has a mediocre turnout in G.E.'s They're getting sick of being disenfranchised.

Was the election stolen? yes. Could it have been stolen if kerry had had landslide numbers? NO! Did the concession show a 'higher standard of leadership'? NO! To speculate that kerry is working on exposing election fraud is pretty naive in my opinion. If that is the case, he should inform his base. Why the secrecy? Imagine the clamor from Dems? Imagine...we would not be infighting over our candidates past and present, we would take to the streets in support of an investigation!

And finally, Kos is correct, passion for a Dem candidate is required no matter which candidate it might be!

note: kerrygoddess of course is not going to be able to muster passion for my candidate anymore than i, with all due respect, am going to be able to muster passion for hers. She is right about one thing tho, it was Clark who "walked point" for john kerry, not Dean. And it was WKC who rallied his troops to support "ticket-unit".

Next time out I hope to hell we're all smart enough to put down the meme that Clark is "republican-lite" no matter who the candidate is. Nothng is further from the truth. Whether he runs in '08 or not, WKC is a gift to the Democratic Party.

[kerrygoddess]

186. Could it would it

Note: don't assume who I will muster passion for in the future, you do not actually know diddly about me.

I have a great deal of respect for Clark, always have always will. Kerry for me is a different story. I grew up in MA and watched his entire early career from returning from Vietnam, to prosecutor to Lt Gov to the Senate. I have a great deal of respect for him as a person and have always seen Kennedy like qualities in him.

As for Kerry working to expost election fraud, there are some investigations that can not be publicly broadcast. Kerry knows this as a former prosecutor. Fraud is the toughest thing to prove in court, and when it involves many layers of players and many locations, it's even tougher.

Many republicans switched parties to vote for Kerry across this country including some very high profile republicans who publicaly endorsed him.

Clark has been a gift of late to the Dem party I hope he continues to be so. I have no problem with him running again. If he were nominated I wouldhave no problem mustering passion for him.

[sybil]

188. Respect, perhaps...

My first presidential vote was for John F. Kennedy. Aside from the fact that both have represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate, I see very little to compare.

John Conyers seems to have little reservation about addressing the fraudulent presidential election and feels that our candidate's premature concession has made it nothing if not more difficult to pursue exposing it for what it was. I respectfully agree with Congressman Conyers.

[kerrygoddess]

194. You have a quote for this

I've never heard Conyers say any such thing. As a matter of fact it's my understanding that Conyers felt it easier to persue if it was not a Kerry issue.

[sybil]

196. Olbermann - Countdown

kerrygoddess, I don't have a quote at hand, although I'm sure anyone with time on their hands could find it if Keith Olbermann archives his transcripts. I personally heard Conyers remark to Keith Olbermann on Countdown that there were difficulties exposing election fraud in Ohio '04 since Kerry had "removed himself" by conceding the election. It was at this point that the Greens and Libertarians challenged the election. And I do know that Conyers sent a letter to EVERY senator asking them to challenge the Ohio vote on the floor of the Senate. (You can google that).

Since Kerry still holds the "legal fund" to which his supporters contributed before the election, for the purpose of exposing and challenging any potential fraud in "04, then I believe we deserve to know the status of that investigation, if in fact one is being conducted by Kerry's attorneys.

And there should be no mistake in Mr. Kerry's mind about the fact that we weren't contributing those funds to a Kerry '08 campaign fund.

More about the investigation fiasco here:
http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=103

[kerrygoddess]

197. Flocco's piece

What you are refering to here is from "December 13, 2004".

Flocco refers to pre-GE filing money that could not be used for Recounts. Some of the money refered to also was deemed to be Primary money which also could not be used fro Recounts. This has all been cleared up for the public record over and over again. Why repeat falsities here?

Only GELAC funds can be used for recounts. Kerry had a huge team of lawyers investigating fraud claims all over the country. Many of which were bogus, because some people seemed to think the more claims the better.

[sybil]

198. I was referring to the Conyers bit at the top of the article.

You asked for a Conyers quote. Of course it was December '04, that's when the investigations were underway.

As for my comments regarding Kerry's funding I'm talking *strictly* about that which *he* solicited *separately* from his campaign fund, for what he called a "legal fund", for the purpose of investigating election fraud if it arose. I think we agree that election fraud arose, no?

If Kerry is conducting an investigation at this time, as you seem to believe he may be, the "legal fund" would be the money he would be using would it not?

And fwiw, I'm not out to 'affront' you kerrygoddess....

[WilliamPitt]

191. Confusing

I'll be the first person to admit that the Kerry campaign blew it in a number of places during his campaign. They let the Swifties do their thing unanswered for far too long. They never answered the flip-flop thing. They never came up with an answer to the $87 billion thing.

But a lot of this smacks of revisionist history. Terrible candidate? How does a terrible candidate pretty much sweep the primaries? And no, I don't buy the conspiracy theories floated here by some Dean die-hards; I've asked for proof of this maybe a hundred times, and never have I gotten an answer.

How does a terrible candidate win all three debates hands down? How does a terrible candidate come within an ace of beating a 'wartime President,' something no other candidate has been able to do ever, with the entire media establishment turned out against him and a good portion of his own base chomping onj him because they were bitter their own guy lost?

I saw Kerry with my own eyes sit in Al Franken's living room with Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker, David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker, Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine, Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek, Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN, Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation, Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate, Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author, Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek, Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker, Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., I saw him sit there for three hours and go punch for punch with a dozen high-powered editors and reporters on whatever topics they wanted to touch on. He came out on top. That's a bad candidate?

I don't buy it.

One last bit. This: "One more note -- campaign insiders will tell you that no one loved Kerry. No one had any sense of higher purpose. People who worked for Dean, Edwards and Clark all passionately loved their man. The campaigns stuck together. Why? Because the campaigns were based in the candidates' home states. Hence, staffers had to move to work on those campaigns. They had to make a sacrifice to uproot and travel to a strange city on behalf of their guy. That commitment was real. And since those staffers knew no one else in these cities, they worked together, played together, and stuck together through thick and thin. It was shared sacrifice, and it translated to genuine affection and commitment to their candidate and their cause."

...is some bullshit. Ask Pete Daou about sacrifices, about how many times he had to move, about dedication. This bit, above all, is bitter nonsense. We loved our candidate mre so he was better? Please. You don't want 'movement people' running your campaign. I saw it with Kucinich, and that's a good portion of the reason homeboy barely cracked 3% wherever he went.

In the end, failure is its own example. Sure, Kerry lost the election. But the beloved better candidates couldn't even get out of the gate.

[killbotfactory]

204. How does a bad president win reelection?

Kerry must have been a worse presidential candidate than Bush.

[Ksec]

200. Kerry good.- Smear better