Someone explain to me how Kerry was the most electable in '04?

[nickshepDEM]

People say it all the time.

"Electability doesnt mean a thing. Kerry was the most electable in 2004 and look where it got us."

Well, someone explain to me how Kerry was more electable than Dick Gephardt or Bob Graham?

Dick Gephardt, a man who served in the U.S. House Representative's four 28 years, lead the good fight against unfair free trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT, served his country in the air national guard, and hailed from a crucial swing state that is often known as the bellwether of presidential elections.

Bob Graham, a man whos life story is an exact replica of the 'American Dream'. A man who served as Governor of Florida, a key swing state, from '79 to '87 and Senator from '87 to '05.

I just dont get how people can brand John Kerry as the most electable candidate from 2004. He comes from a state that any democrat in the country could carry by double digits. His crossover appeal was minimal. His record in the US Senate was mediocore at best.

So someone explain to me... How was John Kerry the most electable candidate?

[Skittles]

1. I never thought he was, not by a long shot

and it will forever piss me off it was a done deal way before the voting even got my way (in Texas).

[snowbear]

2. Blame it on Iowa...

They gave him the mojo.... http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif

Then again.. they couldn't vote for the General..

[Greyhound]

72. Let's not forget the DNC that just poured $ into his

campaign when it looked like Dean was going to win the nomination.

[karynnj]

77. Not True - in Dec 03, the time period you are talking about

Kerry's campaign, utterly dissmissed by the press, was essentially broke. To stay in the race he put his house at risk by mortgaging it to get money. I don't think the DNC gives money to any primary candidate.

Even with this Dean had far far more money and blew through much of it in Iowa - it wasn't Kerry having more money that defeated Dean.

[PassingFair]

104. You have GOT to be kidding, Kerry, the poor little rich boy?

:rofl:

:nopity:

The wheels were greased in Iowa. Fire Departments with spanking new engines! Dean's "perfect storm" ran smack into entrenched party politikers who knew EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. Disgusting! My apologies to Iowans, but I hope we never again have to watch the Iowa caucus system weed out "troublesome" candidates.

Let the country decide!

[karynnj]

108. It is absolutely true

Edwards was far richer than Kerry. Teresa is fabulously wealthy, but could only give the same $2000 everyone else could.

Dean spent by far the most money.

[PassingFair]

109. I guess in Iowa, it's not how much you spend...

It's WHERE you spend it.

[LittleClarkie]

198. How much do you think he has?

As opposed to, say, the Missus?

[PassingFair]

201. Methinks Mama might have had an interest in being...

1st Mama.. Don't you think so too?

[LittleClarkie]

203. Yawp. But she can only cough up so much

I wonder if you typed in her name over at opensecrets.org, how much it would say she gave to hubby. The limit, I reckon.

And so he mortgaged the only one of their several houses he actually owns.

[LittleClarkie]

204. Heh. I just did that very thing (opensecrets.org). I found something funny

She didn't give to her husband at all.

But she DID give to John Murtha's campaign.

And Boxer's.

And Barney Frank.

Good taste, no?

[Greyhound]

118. I've been unsuccessfully looking for the data. I remember reading

the report about the DNC ad buys and how they gave a tacit endorsement to Kerry over Dean, without naming names of course.

[MercutioATC]

3. I wish I could answer, but you're singing to the choir here.

Kerry was a nightmare candidate. I can only think of 4 of the original 9 that would have been worse.

[karynnj]

78. Gee - I can think of eight

[MercutioATC]

154. Al Sharpton??? C'mon...

I didn't think Kerry was THAT bad...

:evilgrin:

[wisteria]

162. Excuse me? Where do you come off saying that. He was far from

being a bad candidate. In fact, he received more votes than Bill Clinton and Gore when they ran. It is also a fact, that he has maintained more good will amongst the American people than did any other Dem Presidential candidate in recent history besides, Clinton. I know of many people willing to give him another chance, if he did decide to run.

[MercutioATC]

164. He never connected with the "average" American.

Hell, I'm an educated Democrat and he never connected with me. I don't think he could have fit the stereotypical "Wealthy New England liberal" mold if he'd tried.

Judging by the last couple of elections, people don't want a "statesman" as President. They want somebody they can identify with.

Unless you summer in the Hamptons, Kerry's not that man.

[blm]

173. Firefighters identified with him - so did men who lived in REAL foxholes

and knew what artillery fire felt like.

The whole BULLSHIT story that Kerry was aloof and a phony was started in Nixon WH and perpetuated by GOP operatives for three decades in an effort to distract from his important efforts against corrupt government.

What a disappointment it gets promoted here at DU.

[MercutioATC]

189. Ahhh, if only the electorate were all firefighters and veterans...

They're not.

"Aloof" is a judgement call...an opinion. I think he was aloof. So, apparently, did a lot of other people.

[Mass]

190. You think so, Other people think so. A lot is your qualifier that

is not really supported by facts, except if you call the MSM talking points facts. In fact, polls show that people connected fairly well with him.

[MercutioATC]

191. "A lot" was enough to let Bush win...

I don't know that another candidate would have done better, but I saw this issue from the start of the primaries. Kerry just doesn't speak at a level that resonates with many people.

[Mass]

192. That was true of all candidates. Some like them, some dont,

[blm]

193. Not the waiters and waitresses who voted Kerry tops for graciousness

and friendliness in his attitude towards them. That was another Iowa story that the broadcast media didn't want to discuss.

I'm sure the media appreciates your devotion.

[Mass]

194. Except if you believe CNN's Crowley who thinks that people in Iowa

dont know what green tea is (those poor people are so secluded they dont have access to our modern knowledge:sarcasm:).

Of course, some people may believe them.

[MercutioATC]

195. Ahhh, if only the electorate were all waiters and waitresses...

They're not.

Wait, I'm getting a sense of deja-vu...



The bottom line is that he didn't appeal to enough people to get elected. It's my opinion that a good part of that was his inability to connect with people. Regardless, SOMETHING caused people not to vote for him.

[blm]

196. And something caused people to believe Dean was a raving lunatic but it

wasn't the truth, was it?

Couldn't possibly be the GOP controlled media and voting machines, right?

[Dying Eagle]

4. and more Kerry bashing helps how....??

I am so sick of Kerry bashing.

Its been over a year now. Find a new whipping boy!!!

:wtf:

[nickshepDEM]

6. Im not bashing Kerry. Im bashing the people who say electability

shouldnt matter because it landed us with Kerry. I just so happend to disagree that Kerry was the most electable.

This thread has more to do with 'electability' in general than it does with John Kerry.

[Dying Eagle]

12. Your intent may not be a Kerry bash...

but it will soon degrade into one. (like most Kerry threads do)

I supported Kerry throughout the primary. Electability had nothing to do with it for me. 20 years of LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE voting in the Senate, being a Vietnam era war hero, and hearing the most intelligent and genuine speaker of my lifetime dismantle B*sh every step of the way made me support him.

I think many DEMOCRATS saw the same thing I did.

[_dynamicdems]

32. Many of us did see the same thing as you. He was my choice and even

if he had come out of Iowa dead last: Senator Kerry would have had my vote nonetheless. He was in NH, out on the street, shaking hands till the polls closed or nearly so. It was impressive to see him out there working for our votes even though he was predicted to win by a large margin after Iowa. He's tough and he never gives up. When he sees that one tactic is not working, he adjusts his plan, but NEVER his goal.

[karynnj]

79. Count me as one

I was happier and prouder to vote for Kerry than for any candidate in my life.

[blm]

48. Then use FACTS to explain your claims against Kerry in your post.

Please educate those of us who saw a different senate career than you did.

[nickshepDEM]

49. The fact that you cannot provide any...

major pieces of legislation that he wrote is fact enough for me. Thanks.

[blm]

53. Then I suggest you read all the posts. They have been named but YOU dodge

a crucial question about your CLAIM that Kerry had a mediocre record in the senate.

I think you fear that you exposed your lack of knowledge regarding the way the senate works and the import of Kerry's work in the senate over the last 20 years.

[maryallen]

110. Are you a paid Kerry campaigner?

Every time anything slightly derogatory is said about Kerry, there you are: "Johnny-on-the-Spot," ready to answer any and all questions about the man.

Funny, it's been that way since Kerry's name was first mentioned as a possible candidate -- when the top contenders on DU were Dean and Clark -- there you were pumping up his name. And strangely, in the beginning, you were nearly all alone.

That's the way I remember it, anyway ...

[blm]

134. Nope. I'm someone who came here to alert people to Left Behind influence

and RevMoon's involvement so they could counter their fundie family members.

I can't work for any campaign as my spouse works in a newsroom and it is forbidden there.

I have been a supporter of Kerry's since I learned about BCCI, and am often surprised how little supposed Dem activists know about BCCI, especially when almost everything re 9-11 is rooted in BCCI. You think they would have bothered to learn more.

I wanted Gore to pick Kerry as VP in 2000. Anyone who is familiar with Kerry's work in the senate would want him in the White House. He has done more to expose government corruption than any lawmaker of the last 35 years.

I find it strange that anyone chooses to attack Kerry when he has had three decades of GOP operatives working against him to tear him down...long before there was even an Arkansas Project.

[ladjf]

87. We would stop "bashing" Kerry if the pro-Kerry folks would

stop trying to promote his candidacy for 2008.

[MoonRiver]

89. Thank you!!

:applause:

[ProSense]

90. Bashing Kerry because his supporters are supporting him? n/t

[blm]

99. Care to show the threads that do that?

Because I see defense of Kerry from RW lies and false media perceptions, but very few threads promoting Kerry in 2008.

[ladjf]

151. Why would you defend Kerry against RW lies, ect unless you

have further ambitions for his political career?

I was opposed to Kerry's nomination in 2000 and I'm even more opposed to it for 2008. But, if is again nominated, I will vote for him, not because I think he is the person we need but because he would probably be better than allowing the Republicans to stay in power. I think we can find a better candidate than Kerry.

[wisteria]

160. We want the truth to prevail! Not the lies! n/t

[blm]

169. Find the lawmaker who effected this nation more positively the last 35yrs.

.

[karynnj]

181. Because he deserves to have his reputation reflect the principled

decent life that he (and Teresa) have lived. I seriously believe he is an extremely honest, moral person who has served his country for over 35 years. Seeing the affection and respect his daughters and Teresa's sons have towards him, he is likely a very nice person.

So, if he announced tomorrow that he had no intention to run for President (and the Senate) again, I would just as adamently defend him against lies.

[Dying Eagle]

107. Thats funny

I thought this was a democracy and I can support any person I want. Where the fuck is it written that you can't support the same person 2 elections in a row?

My support this election will be behind Russ Feingold. I can tell you one thing, If Kerry was the man again I would PROUDLY vote for him again!!!!!!

Finally save the "I wont ever vote for Kerry again" posts. All I have to say to that is vote Repuke then because I am Democrat FIRST! So whoever is the person with the "D" will be my candidate in the general election of 2008!!!

[wisteria]

159. We can not promote what is undeclared. We only defend him

from misinformation and out and out lies.Nothing wrong with trying to convince people that John Kerry is actually a great leader, and deserving of respect. Others defend their people, why can't we, in all fairness, defend John Kerry without being accused of being 2008 operatives. Many politicians in the past have run again for different positions after losing the first time. Some make it and some don't. Why should Kerry not be given an opportunity to do just that if he decides to. Why shouldn't fairness apply in Kerry's case also?

[TankLV]

166. Got that right!

Thank you.

[karynnj]

180. Seeing that this is a Warner 2008 thread in desguise

and I've seen Gore 2008, Edwards 2008 and many Clark 2008 threads - where there is little bashing even IF we Kerry people were promoting him for 2008 why is he not treated like the others?

In the most part, we have posted what he is doing NOW and he's pretty active. His Iraq exit plan is worth reading, in that it is thoughtful and a serious attempt to get the target off the soldiers, let the Iraqis find a political solution and leave.

[bullimiami]

5. i didnt think so, and didnt vote for him in the primary.

but between bush and kerry ive got to say kerry is more electable, unless of course you have fix in.

[Rowdyboy]

7. Stupidity....Once he won Iowa, the herd instinct took over ...STAMPEDE!

Then he had the nomination. Thats what we get for allowing 2 tiny states with 95% affluent, white voters choose our nominee.

[snowbear]

10. Yeah... what Rowdyboy said. ...But on the bright side Nick...

...they're gonna love this guy:

[nickshepDEM]

11. Thats a good pic.

Where did you find it?!?

[snowbear]

13. Yeah... I like it too...

It's somewhere in the Google images file..

[wisteria]

161. You know what, I am beginning to dislike him already, simply

because all you who are promoting him feel a need to knock down kerry in order to promote Warner. It doesn't say much for your guy when all you can do is bash Kerry. Warners got a long way to go to be on par with John Kerry.

[Kahuna]

81. Not only that, as a NH neighbor he got the favorite son vote...

I'm sick sick sick of NH and Iowa, the people who gave us, Dukakis and 4 years of bush 41 and four more years of *.

[karynnj]

182. My map shows that Vermont is also a neighbor of NH

In fact they have a border that runs almost the length of the state - much longer than the Massachusetts one and the candidate that he beat because he was from a neighboring state was from where?

[Jim Sagle]

8. He wasn't, although he was a DAMN sight more so than Gep or Graham.

The Republican MEDIA said he was the most electable, and so did the Republican DLC. They were lying.

The DLC are the true gatekeepers of our time: they keep the gate firmly shut so that the Democrats are fenced out at all times.

It's who they are (corporate Republican whores). It's what they do.

[melody]

9. Kerry was elected

There is no way he wasn't -- he was the tallest and most forceful. All domesticated primates choose Alpha males to lead them. By no stretch of the steroid-enhanced imagination is President Exidor an "Alpha Male". Add that to all the other elements, and yeah, he was elected and was the most electable.

I'm still pissed as hell at him about his post-election behavior, but that doesn't change the circumstances.

[sepia_steel]

14. He won... seems pretty open-and-shut to me. nt

[nickshepDEM]

16. Won? Damn, fooled the hell out of me...

Last time I checked some moron named Dubya was in the White House.

[Awsi Dooger]

15. I didn't agree with it but those guys weren't any better, IMO

I alter my handicapping via situation, identical to a sporting event. Trying to oust an incumbent is completely different than an open race, IMO. Too many voters will default to the known quantity unless he's viewed as inept, which GW's current approval rating would qualify but not a year ago, or if the opposing nominee is very appealing. Personal favorables and likability act as a teflon that negates Swift Boating or anything similar.

I thought it was obvious Edwards was our only candidate who had a chance to pull from the other side and deflect the inevitable attacks. The election was always going to be decided by conflicted white women who strayed to the GOP and national security concerns after 9/11 but were still thoughtful enough to listen to a different message from a charismatic messenger. Kerry didn't qualify nor would Gephardt or Graham.

The electability stemmed from Kerry's admirable military record and a flawed handicap it was necessary with the Iraq war underway and floundering. Somehow we thought vets would vote our way in increased number. I remember myself and others posting that was nonsense but being attacked. We also believed we had a nominee who was invulnerable to charges of war record or knowledge of foreign affairs. Someone who is viewed personably unfavorable by a majority of respondents is vulnerable to virtually any charge. I hope we remember that and apply it in the future. When I would ask strangers about Kerry in convenience stores, etc. they inevitably did not think highly of him and therefore downplayed all of his theoretical strengths. I reported that on DU after my summer driving tour in 2004.

Increasingly we desperately try to emulate the GOP instead of understanding their methods don't work for us. Rove's supposed theory is attack the opponent's strength, not the weakness. Big fucking deal. I don't think I've ever used that word before on DU but maybe it fits this time. We were never going to win a national election by attacking the GOP on the war or national security. That's where the legit theme, "but what do you stand for?" comes from. On another liberal forum last week one of the major columnists wrote, "We do stand for something. We stand against Bush." I wanted to scream. Bush is a nonentity as of March 2008. So I guess we're locking ourselves into a 28 month strategy. Brilliant.

ABB was incomparably ignorant. Voters want to vote for, not against. Just like when you ask for a remedy you ask a specialist or expert, and don't merely do opposite of whatever the dumbest guy on your block suggests. Opinions of Bush were locked in place and obviously 50/50. Nothing we could say was going to alter the base opinion. MoveOn.org might as well have dumped the cash on the street. We desperately needed a positive message and alternative view and only an upbeat populist like Edwards had a chance, IMO.

[nickshepDEM]

18. I was going to include Edwards, but I figured...

the thread would turn into a "Edwards only served 6 years in the senate" flame war.

I basically fall into the same category as you with regards to Edwards 2004. He had a positive vision and an uncanny like ability to deliver that vision to average Americans. I truely believe had he won the nomination, he would be president today.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. I'm not sure

Undoubtedly it would have been closer than Kerry but winning Ohio was the obstacle. I thought we had equal chance in Florida but that was wrong. I underestimated the GOP registration success in Florida plus the state economy which was far superior to the national economy.

Blackwell influenced the result in those punch card counties. I'm hardly disputing that although I don't fret Diebold machines.

Whether Edwards could have forged a positive message to flop 60,000 Ohio votes is debatable. But since my base theory is the national margin is basically planted on each individual state and they amend it as they see fit in terms of state partisanship, it wouldn't have been a 120,000 vote deficit to begin with. If Edwards could have cut the national margin in half it figures he starts 1.25% better off in Ohio than Kerry, so that makes winning the state very feasible.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. It's easy to forget now but Bush ran on his national security credentials

This was pre Hurricane Katrina exposing to all that Bush's Administration was inept at defending America. Obviously Scooter Libby hadn't been indicted yet. A majority of the public supported our having gone into Iraq. They believed Hussein was linked to 9/11. As long as they believed those things they weren't going to throw out an incumbent President.

Kerry only began to close the gap with Bush when he began pounding on Bush's perceived strengths and directly challenging him on Iraq. Edwards would have been in a very weak position to do that. His biggest claim to foreign policy experience was sitting on the Senate Intelligence committee that reviewed the Iraq evidence, and his co-sponsorship of the IWR. Edwards not only authorized the potential use of force in Iraq, he actually supported George Bush's invasion of Iraq. I think some votes would have shifted around sure, but overall Edwards would have done worse than Kerry given the dynamics of that Election.

I remember when Lloyd Bentson, running as VP to Dukakis, came out of the 1988 Elections having impressed the public a whole lot more than his running mate at the top of the ticket. That didn't happen with Edwards in 2004. There was a lot of talk on DU before the Democratic Convention as to whether the public focus would be "It's the Economy, Stupid", or "It's the War, Stupid". Edwards was oriented toward the former but it became the latter.

[karynnj]

88. Edwards would likely have been seen as someone far too green

to take over the Presidency in troubled times. Kerry dominated the stage when he debated both in the primaries and in the general election. He had a breath of knowledge that left Edwards in the dust.

At this point, Kerry just endured nearly a year of intense personal character assination - his war service, his record in Congress, his marriage, his character, his personality and even his daughters were attacked. He has come out still fighting and still doing what he thinks is right. He has been found to be correct on many things the media disputed. He is an intensely honest man - unlike many in the press who know he knows they lied.

Edwards if he were the candidate would have been hit with things from his days as a lawyer - channeling the voice of a baby who died in birth troubles me. He also was still very pro-war at least as late as Oct '03. (Kerry was against going to war and spoke against it before the invasion. The inspectors were doing their job.) Edwards would likely have lost more people to the left and would likely have had difficulty articulating why he was better for the war effort than Bush.

His stump speech was good, but not enough.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Mediocre at best? That's what you call a 92% lifetime ADA rating?

Are you SERIOUS? Kerry brought down BCCI and uncovered Iran-Contra. He has an unfailing record of supporting the environment and women's rights. You mention Graham's inspiring life story - what about Kerry's heroism in Vietnam, which was matched only by his heroism in standing up in opposition to that same war?

The people on this thread sure are bitter that their darling didn't get chosen. All the candidates spent ample time in Iowa meeting and debating and getting to know the locals. Kerry is genuine and warm in person and his integrity is rock solid. People in Iowa voted for who they thought would be the best PRESIDENT, not who they thought would look the best on the next Wheaties box.

People here are as bad as Republicans - you want to nominate a flashy show-horse with no substance over a man with rock solid credentials. Thank God this site doesn't come CLOSE to representing the mainstream Democratic party.

[Dying Eagle]

20. Well said Wild Eye.....

I agree whole heartedly!!

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Newsflash

In a horse race the flashy show horse has no chance because he will be outrun.

A national election is a popularity contest so looks and style count bigtime.

I want to hold office, not be contented that the guy we nominated would have made the best president other than the technicality not enough people liked him enough to vote for him.

Kerry is a great Democrat who fit much better in an open race like 2000 than trying to evict an incumbent in 2004. I'll continue to emphasize the different needs of those scenarios.

Gore's lack of personal favorables didn't impact his chances as much in 2000 as it would have in 2004 if he had tried to run as a challenger. There was no DU in 2000 but I was posting that opinion elsewhere. Gore sighed his way out of the lead in 2000 but it still wasn't fatal. Obviously Gore was the rightful victor. People were assessing the different directions the country would head based on the two competing parties so personal favorables, while still somewhat important, are not nearly as vital as when trying to throw someone else out of office.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. But by that token, no challenger has ever beat an incumbent war prez.

You're absolutely right that Bush being an incumbent wartime president mattered. I, however, don't think there's anyone else who could have possibly performed better against Bush. Average people were looking in 2004 for someone who would keep them safe, be "tough on terra." If Kerry, who is a tall, commanding prescence (back to the looks and style part) with a combat record, did not win enough of the "security" vote, I cannot name a single Dem who could have performed better - or even as well as him - in that regard.

[nickshepDEM]

22. Damn, you make it sound so good.

So tell me, how did he lose?

[snowbear]

23. Ooohh, pick me.. I know, I know !!!

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. That too. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. FEAR, LIES, SPIN ,WAR ,CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

Need any more, or does that cover it?

He came a DAMN sight closer than anyone else would've. NO challenger has ever unseated a sitting president during a war. Not to mention that mainstream media coverage was GROSSLY in favor of Bush.

[dorktv]

29. We are not in a war, a war requires sacrafice. Who besides the

military is sacraficing?

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. That made no sense

2000 dead soldiers = war.

[dorktv]

153. 2000=senseless slaughter.

[JanusAscending]

31. HE DIDN'T !!

Plain and simple.....WE DID !!!!:cry:

[Kahuna]

82. So why didn't Kerry ever brag about these accomplishments? Or

any accomplishments for that matter? He ran on a 30 year old war record. PERIOD. That is all that he told voters about himself. Pretty paltry if you ask me.

[blm]

100. It's untrue if you watched daily Cspan rallies, true if you watched corp.

media's editted version of his campaign speeches and rallies.

And further, it's the DAILY JOB of the DNC, Dem spokepeople and pundits and reporters to promote the Dem nominee. Just as the RW machine did for Bush on a daily basis.

Face it - the Dem spokespeople were underinformed and plain old too dumb - had no sense of historic record and fact, especially if that fact was too damaging for the Clinton team.

[karynnj]

184. That may be all the media reported

But Kerry spoke of many many issues - both what he planned to do and what he had done in the past. He had the same information on his web site.

Look at what the networks did. They covered 3 hours total of the conventions. Even in 2000, it was 9 - 3 hours on each day. Before that it was even more. Also, for as far back as I can remember, leading up to every convention, each of the 3 networks would do a glossy type biography. (They even did this with W in 2000 - though it wasn't easy.) None last year. What they did have was MSNBC did a nice piece that focused just on Kerry in the anti-war movement, though the piece was positive, this was the only controversial part of Kerry's life. CNN did a biography that was supposedly balanced. The best biography was a double biography with Bush - this was the only biography that really covered Kerry's lifetime accomplishments.

Consider that Clinton's convention in 92 is best remembered for the video of his life that set the theme of the man from Hope. This was broadcast during the TV time he had. Kerry at his convention had only his speech, Edwards' speech and Clinton's speech in his 3 hours. In retrospect, either Edwards or Clinton should have been linited to a half hour and a film of Kerry's full life could have been shown.

[babylonsister]

19. My opinion: I wasn't so much involved in politics, but was

VERY angry about the war. I never participated in primaries, polls, politicians, other than knowing I never did like the blivet.
And when I realized the bastard LIED to the world, that was the ticket that turned me.
I was out of the country on 9/11 and saw the love, concern, and heartfelt care from people from many countries. The blivet managed to squash that idea, and I will never forgive him for ruining our connections.
Kerry won the primary and was an excellent choice IMO. He was the guy who had the experience, beat the blivet during the debates, and has made more progress ever since than the POTUS ever thought about doing.

[_dynamicdems]

25. Maybe because people voted for him. I really love Gephardt and think

he is awesome, but he's run so many times and never got enough votes to win in the primaries. To be electable, people have to vote for you. Electable is just a word people use when they want to jump on the front runner bandwagon.

Nobody was saying much about Kerry being electable until after he came out ahead in Iowa. People like to go with a winner. If Kerry had not come out of Iowa ahead, but say, third...the people who were saying "electable" would have been saying it about someone else.

Just like in a horse race, the favorites are picked by their previous showings. Some people want to go with a favorite because their chances are winning are better. In politics we don't handicap. Instead of "favorite" we say "electable."

[longship]

33. Wesley Clark might have been much more electable.

If we're going to play what if games here I'd like to throw out Gen. Clark as the definitive 2004 candidate. Unfortunately, his campaign was new and a bit green during the early going. If he had run both in Iowa and New Hampshire and had done well in both we might be looking at an entirely different scenerio now. Instead, we were saddled with a feckless Kerry campaign which didn't have the guts to respond to the Swift Boaters, the band-aids, and the rest of the lies. They ignored it all and I blame Kerry himself for that.

[karynnj]

91. If wishes were horses beggars would ride

You say IF Clark ran in both NH and Iowa and did well in both - that was the problem. He opted out of Iowa, possibly because of a late start or the idea that he could put all his chips on NH and no matter who won there, blow out NH. He came out very strong, with stellar media summaries of his background, then made several gaffes.

Kerry won Iowa, but he and Teresa had done a lot of work in NH and as DynamicDems (from NH) wrote above, he worked extremely hard meeting people and was really liked by them. He won NH easily.

Why do you hypothesize that Clark, who stumbled in the primaries, would have played everything perfectly in the general election. Kerry did fight back against the SBVT, but didn't let that fight take over the campaign. (Erring on that side was a danger) It would have in hind sight have been good for a senior Democrat, maybe Carter, also a vet, to have loudly and in MORAL tones decried the bandaids and shamed the Republicans into removing them.

Clark would have been hit with lies as well. I really don't know that he would have responded better. (I know Dean _I'm not a pin cushion" wouldn't and that McCain was demolished because he responded so emotionally. )

[high density]

34. Corporate Media talking head frenzy that started after Iowa

That's what generated Kerry's "electability." First it was Dean who was awarded most "electable" by the corporate media. He was sunk in part thanks to an idiot making $9/hr mixing the sound for that post-Iowa speech improperly and the loving corporate media playing that scream clip over and over and over.

I think Kerry could have won the election last year, but unfortunately he was CONSTANTLY taking bad advice from his almost traitorous campaign team that had no clue how to deal with the modern media and a "swing vote" that craved jingoism.

[fedupinBushcountry]

42. Reality

He lost before the scream in Iowa, after months and months of total media control. What doe that tell you, funny how Kerry had a traitorous campaign (your words not mine)but I never hear any talk here about the others campaign, and why they lost. Just seems so odd, as far as Kerry it is so easy for some to criticize, and so easy to blame him for everything . When in reality no one ever took a close look at their candidate's mistakes.

Also, howe ironic, Kerry had the backing of all the primary candidates, so if they were all so electable, why didn't Kerry win, with their help and notoriety.

So, so easy to play the blame game,and so childish. The reasons have been given so many times that they become downright stupid when you take a step back and look at them. One example, Kerry had the lead in the polls days before the election, then the Bin Laden tape came out and they pushed some more FEAR FEAR FEAR on to people. So no the SB liars did not destroy Kerry. Lets also not forget, the flyers passed out in W.Virginia, saying that Kerry would ban the bible, or the preaching in churches using Rove's talking points, and the list goes on.

Yes Kerry lost, yes there were mistakes as there are in ALL campaigns, Bush made them too (3 debates)etc. But oh it is so much easier to blame one person and his campaign, instead of really taking a look at everything that happened.

Funny isn't it, that some here give all the credit to the other side, so I guess they agree on playing hatred, fear, and pure outright lying to win, since Bush won and Kerry lost. :crazy:

[beaconess]

152. You're right

It's really easy to insist that someone else (Edwards, Dean, Clark - just pick one) could have done better than Kerry when that someone else sat out the general election campaign and, thus, the incumbent president pretty much ignored them. But you can bet dollars to donuts that ANY candidate running against the Bush machine would have been targeted as viciously as Kerry was and we would likely have had the same outcome - or an even more lopsided one. Whatever their weakness was - and contrary to some supporters' seeming belief that their candidate was without fault, sin or weakness - the Bush folks would have zeroed in on it, blown it up and out of proportion, and tried to beat them to death with it.

But it was Kerry who was in the ring, so it's so convenient to now Monday morning quarterback and claim that others would have done so much better. But that doesn't comport with reality.

[karynnj]

92. Coming in third when everyone expected him to win was a

bigger factor.

[election_2004]

35. He was the DLC's alternative to Joementum

Once it became obvious that Joe Lieberman's campaign was going to go nowhere, the DLC establishment lined up behind Kerry in order to "stop Dean."

Lieberman would have been their first-choice. They were probably less-than-thrilled with having to get behind Kerry, because Kerry was "too liberal" for them (but he wasn't damaged goods the way Gephardt was), but they figured Kerry would be more malleable than Dean, Edwards, or Clark.

[karynnj]

93. Clark was supported mostly by the Clinton people

I am not implying anything nefarious, he was a Clinton friend and adviser, from Arkansas and many people on his team were Clinton ppeople. If anything coming in when he did, he was the DLC alternative when Lieberman failed.

Edwards was mainstream DLC and had (I think) a leadership role. Kerry was the most liberal member, never had a leadership role and was rarely involved with any DLC events. If you noticed the DLC people - from Begala and Carville to Brazille hurt him more than helped him. If he was anyone's protege at that point it was Kennedy.

Kerry is and was one of the least malleable politicians there is. Even at 27, he resisted the racous mainstream of the anti-war movement staying true to himself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. I've heard it argued that he was a Kerry alternative

and that some National Dems turned to Clark when Kerry was doing poorly in the polls, but it is a real stretch to pull Lieberman into this. Clinton himself was never a Lieberman man as you well know. Gore picked Lieberman for VP to provide him with Clinton scandal repellent. Some mainstream Democrats who thought that we needed to run someone with the background needed to take on a sitting War President toyed with Clark for awhile when it seemed Kerry wasn't going to make it, then they returned to supporting Kerry when he rebounded. And some folks from Clinton's Administration simply knew and respected Clark. You got to factor that in also.

When people are offered support they most often take it unless there is something very toxic associated with it. Clark however turned out to be way too independent for mainstream Democratic Party leaders to be happy with, which certainly showed as the campaign proceeded. He was never remotely DLC.

[election_2004]

128. Joementum was a factor

Lieberman was the choice of the MSM and of many in the party establishment. They began flocking to other candidates once the "Joementum" fizzled, and Kerry most likely picked up a large chunk of this displaced support.

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. Lieberman had his initial backers sure

And they had to go somewhere when it was obvious he was fizzling. Outside of the DLC however I don't agree he was as much the settled choice of some of those you list as you do however. Of course the media was going to talk about him. Lieberman had the greatest National name recognition of any Democrat. There are more than one division inside the Democratic Party. Everything can't be neatly boiled down to DLC and non DLC. Some players in the National Democratic Party don't even care much about ideology, they just want to hook their wagon to a proved winner who they think won't overly rock the boat. Lieberman, with his high national profile, started out convincing some that he would be that man. Others were just as comfortable with Kerry and Gephardt because they had coexisted peacefully enough with both men at the national level for a long time. They were simply afraid of outsiders.

The wording of your original post linked Clark to Lieberman pretty directly, and that is what I was calling into question. I'm sure when some original Lieberman supporters thought Clark was the only guy left who could beat Bush they supported him, at least for awhile. Same thing can be said about Bob Graham supporters. Lieberman himself was pretty viscious toward Clark since he knew he couldn't survive finishing behind Clark in New Hampshire, and I think the Clinton people with Clark's campaign were never happy with Lieberman to begin with.

[incapsulated]

156. DLC alternative?

Please, Clark was not and is not DLC. He could've joined by now if he was. Nor was he a "Clinton advisor", he worked for the President as SACEUR. Of course they were friendly out of office. They are both from Arkansas as well, I would think that had to do with common connections, too. I'm sure he asked for advice from a master politician and former President when it came finding campaign staff, wouldn't you? That hardly makes him some Clinton creation. He is his own man and a damn fine candidate in his own right.

Since people like to forget, Clark was drafted and begged to run by supporters like you see here on DU.

He wasn't, oh, some lifer politician with all the right connections to the right people and a campaign structure in place.

Fuck this Clinton bullshit.

[Stevepol]

36. Whether electable or not, he won by 5M votes according to the polls,

which are the only real barometer of elections anymore. The "alleged" votes, i.e., the electronic voting machine and central tabulator results which are prepared and manufactured in cyberspace have little relation to the real result.

I actually preferred some other candidates, and I believe even now that any of them would have beaten Bush, some by more than Kerry did. However, I think Kerry was a very good candidate. My hope was that he would use his battalion of lawyers to challenge the vote count in states around the country.

Until a candidate is ready to do that, I'm afraid the jig's up for American democracy.

[Catchawave]

37. OK, some thoughts

First of all I think Kerry was very electable, in fact, Spongebob Squarepants could've beaten Bush! So what went wrong? Better yet, what have we learned?

Bush's base is just plain stupid, as seen in international headlines! However, they turned out in huge numbers in several states because of the anti-gay Marriage Ammendment on the ballot, and voting the party line.

And some other dribbles.....

1. There are millions (?) of Viet Nam era veterans who voted against Kerry, because they've never forgiven him as "Hanoi John". This loathing was already there long before the Swifties came on the scene.

What's funny, it has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, Kerry WAS considered a tattletale "traitor" from those times and still is.
Sadly, turning on your "brothers" was worse than Bush's mysterious draft dodging "special" appointment into the TANG, or the even more mysterious "honorable discharge" without completing his duty.

2. 75 million voters DID NOT vote in 2004. The election wasn't stolen, it was given away.

3. The primaries are a joke. In some states, only Democrats can vote for Democrats. In my state (Virginia) everybody can vote in the primaries. My republican friends all voted for Dems by viture of being the most beatable! I'm surprised Al Sharpton didn't win the Va. primary :shrug:

Just my opinions :hi:

[karynnj]

94. Not all VN vets voted against Kerry

Many agree with him. Overall he did as well with vets as Democrats typically do - the sad thing is that with all he has done for veteran organizations because he does care - he should have done better.

[Catchawave]

116. Oh I agree !

Back to the "electable" topic, MANY may have agreed with him, but we needed MOST to win !


From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-06-kerry-vets_x.htm

"Navy service in Vietnam defined John Kerry's life, and now it's defining his presidential campaign against a wartime commander in chief. More than any other candidate since John F. Kennedy, another Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Kerry is running as a veteran and counting on veterans to help him win the White House."

******

[karynnj]

185. The Democrats always get less than half of the veterans

There is no way Dean or Edwards would have gotten more.

[Joy Anne]

38. Graham

would have been the best and most electable candidate, had he not had that heart attack just as he was about to start his campaign. He's a populist, yet with Intelligence Committee creds, who'd have carried Florida effortlessly. But he was wan and worn-out-looking when he tried to start campaigning. If he had the vibrance and stamina then that he's showing on his book tour---

Kerry is still linked with "Jane Fonda" by the faux-military types who want a war hero candidate, so he had no chance of getting those votes, no matter how many salutes. Why did he want to remind everybody of Vietnam? His campaign was dreadful and gave the average voter no reason to vote FOR him, with DLC-like domestic policy proposals; I hadn't thought a campaign could be run worse than Gore's, but I was wrong.

Republicans whose votes I worked on getting wanted to vote against Bush but didn't like Kerry either.

I was, and am, a Dean supporter.

Joy
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/003355.html

[TayTay]

39. Because he won Iowa.

Winning a primary is a good sign that you can win other primaries. That might lead to winning general elections. Not winning primaries and caucuses is a sign you might not win general elections. It's not rocket science.

Kerry got the second highest vote count in US history in a general election. Unfortunately, his opponent was the top vote getter in US history. Kerry increased the Democratic vote by over 5 million from 2000. He very nearly knocked off a war time President.

The first step is to win some primaries. That is the only 'viability' argument that actually means anything.

[Neil Lisst]

41. Dick Gephardt is a great guy and a wonderful legislator.

Not a presidential leader, though.

Bob Graham couldn't keep his family awake with his speeches.

[LWolf]

43. You hear that at DU

because in the primary wars, if you supported someone outside the mainstream, the mantra, repeated ad nauseum, was:

"I really like _______'s positions the best, but he/she's just not electable. We have to pick the candidate that is electable." And then the poster would swing into a campaign speech for Kerry or another perceived "electable" choice. Kerry most frequently.

In other words, we couldn't nominate a candidate on issues or record, but only on the perception of "electability."

We weren't supposed to choose a candidate based on issues or record; "Anybody But Bush" would get Democrats' votes, and we ought to be "ABB" and support Kerry whether he "fit" what we wanted or not, because he was the "electable" candidate who could beat Bush.

It's not surprising to find an angry backlash. I never disliked Kerry; he was never my choice for president, either. I resented having better candidates pushed out by the "electable" mantra. Many of us responded to that mantra by pointing out that any Dem was electable, if we ran a good enough campaign to beat the opposition. We were ignored, derided, and drowned out.

Which is why I will not get on anybody's "electable" bandwagon ever again. Choose a nominee on issues and record, or I won't be there.

[skipos]

44. I agree with much of your post but

I will always consider BOTH the issues/record as well as the things that help someone get elected (speaking ability, likeability, demeanor, standing up to the inevitable mudslining, the life history, etc). I see no reason to support a weak candidate who is electable, and I see no reason to support a good candidate who has no chance of being elected.

I, like most people here, did not think Kerry was the best candidate OR the most electable. I still worked my ass off for him though.

[LWolf]

70. I donated. I voted.

Even though I was, and am, unhappy with the way the "electable" bullshit denied better qualified, imo, people.

I will not continue to do so. The Democratic Party can decide whether that matters or not. Should "electability" again push issues/record to the bottom of the priority list, I won't be along for the ride.

[blm]

47. And those of us who WANT to expose government corruption WANTED Kerry.

.

[LWolf]

71. Some of you. n/t

[blm]

73. Yep, those of us who can decipher actual records and historic facts.

The rest was mostly bullshit from the left quoting the right wing's planted stories.

I trumpet the corruption investigators, be they reporters, prosecutors, mayors, congressmen or senators.

They generally go unheralded and roundly ignored for this nation's most difficult work. I saw it happen to Kucinich when he was mayor, to Kerry in IranContra and BCCI, and Waxman and Conyers now.

[LWolf]

168. Again, some of you.

I'm answering the question about "electability," not "attacking" Kerry, who happened to be the one perceived to be "electable" last go-round. The fact that some people preferred others and gave him their vote because of the "electable" boondoggle has nothing to do with right wing planted stories.

I know that you have been a fervent Kerry supporter since before I ever found DU; I'm sure you have good reason. I am not a Kerry detractor; I just don't want him in the WH. I never did, even though I donated and cast my vote for him. I prefer others. I think it's still ok to say that here at DU. I still believe the ELECTABILIY factor is bullshit; that a good campaign AND AN ACCURATE COUNT OF ACTUAL VOTES can win without compromise.

As a matter of fact, I personally think more focus and energy should be spent on making sure votes will be counted in '08 than in starting primary campaigns 3 years before the primaries.

Just me.

[blm]

170. I think the focus should be on machine fraud, too. And media fraud.

My battle is with those who misstate Kerry's actual record and use RW lies and talking points to do it.

I also think the whole "electability" line was total bullshit and no Kerry supporter used it - we used his actual record which no other lawmaker even comes close in respect to uncovering government corruption.

Why any Democrat would set themselves AGAINST a man who has investigated and exposed more government corruption and has helped end more wars than any other lawmaker is beyond comprehension.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

176. Yes, Kerry easily won the ABB crowd, BUT

he was unable to make his case to the uninformed voters, not because he was "too liberal," but because they looked at their lives, thought, "I don't have it so bad," and couldn't think of any compelling reason to dump Bush.

Kerry was unable to convince the undecided voters that their lives would improve if they voted for him.

[ProSense]

177. I think it was more that

some people didn't see a case for dumping him as a sitting president during war time, for some it was their own delusion and for others it was the media distortion of the facts.

There are informed, rational people (mostly Republicans), who knew what was going on in Iraq, now trying to say they had no idea Bush was so wrong. Hence, some were just Bush supporters.

[blm]

45. Explain your criteria for your claim that his Senate record was mediocre.

Use facts, please.

[nickshepDEM]

46. Name one major piece of legislation that he wrote...

And I emphasise major.

[blm]

50. YOU made a claim - back up your claim.

And I can name plenty - including SCHIP, Violence aganst Women, Hate Crimes Bill, Tracking of Terror Funds, and much more.

I think you are showing that you don't understand how the senate works and how Jr. senators get their names kicked off legislation that they even crafted if a Senior senator wants on and joins the bill.

It's not always the name on the bill who actually crafted the bill.

And if you really think that investigating and exposing more government corruption than ANY OTHER LAWMAKER in modern history gives Kerry a mediocre record, than I have issues with YOUR perception skills.

[nickshepDEM]

51. I said major...

You know, like, Campaign Finance Reform or Sarbanes-Oxley.

[blm]

54. HAHAH - Campaign finance reform Bill came after Kerry and Wellstone's

Clean Elections Bill.

Yeah, Feingold and McCain really crafted a better bill than Kerry and Wellstone.

[nickshepDEM]

57. Wow, your really streching now.

The bill your refering to was never even introduced and lacked another sponsor after Wellstone's death.

Trying to pin Feingold and McCains success on Kerry. LOL.

[blm]

59. Nope. I don't view McCain-Feingold's bill a success for this country -

the Clean Elections bill would have been a success for this country

And several states have adapted Kerry and Wellstone's Clean Elections bill for their own elections and more will follow suit. So there was some measure of success for their bill, with more to follow.

[blm]

60. Tracking Terror Funding wasn't major to you? Must have been major because

Kerry's legislation wasn't being ENFORCED after Bush took office.

9-11 shouldn't have happened.

[nickshepDEM]

52. My claim is backed by his lack of major legislation, thanks.

If you cannot understand that... Well, I cannot help you.

[blm]

55. Your claim is based on not knowing how the senate works. SENIOR Senators

get their names on bills if they choose to join late in the game, even if they didn't CRAFT or work on the bill. It's been a GOP tactic to deny targeted Dem senators on this wherever possible. SCHIP is an example - Hatch replaced Kerry's name with his own even after Kerry and his office did most of the work with Kennedy.

And Kerry will ALWAYS be a Jr. Senator as long as Kennedy is in office.

Kerry helped to craft major legislation, but didn't get naming privileges thanks to an arcane senate rule for naming bills.

I am shocked that any DUer is still unaware of how bills are named.

[Kahuna]

83. Kerry never mentioned one thing about his senate record. If it was so

great, why did he never mention it? Cause if he did, I missed that part.

[blm]

98. The party's job was to do the bragging about the man, like RNC did for W.

RNC lied with more enthusiasm than underinformed Dem spokespeople and pundits could tell the truth.

When Kerry did talk about his record, the broadcast media ignored his points about his investigative work and dumbass Dem pundits and reporters were too underinformed to provide the daily promotion that Bush got everyday from his RW machine and for doing little of any note.

And just because Kerry didn't brag about his work more aggressively doesn't negate its place in history does it?

[zann725]

56. He WAS. It WAS his Destiny...even yet.

Fate should not be tampered with.

[ProSense]

58. Kerry got the nomination and the election was stolen.

Can't be anymore electable than winning.

[Cocoa]

61. I think this is a strawman

Kerry supporters did not focus as much on electability as you are saying, or even say much about electability at all, they held that he was the best candidate to be president.

[nickshepDEM]

64. I never said Kerry supporters voted for him soley because...

he was the 'most electable'. All Im saying is, he is often refered to and used as scapegoat by those who beleive electability should not be a litmus test when choosing a democratic nominee for president. I hear it all the time here...

"Kerry was the most electable in 2004 and look where it got us."

[karynnj]

95. How ironic that you are pushing a candidate for 2008

whose strongest argument is that he's electable as a Southern Governor. (Even thought he has a pretty short career.) If he ran for Allen's seat, he could run in 2012 or 2016 - as a much stronger candidate. He's actually young enough to do it. He was mediocre in the q&a part of a NH event on CSPAN - as he has gaps that need to be filled. I really don't know why he, as a Governor, had ttouble with a guestion on the environment.

[Sparkly]

62. I think there were several reasons people saw him as electable.

He's a Senator, and people tend to think time in Congress or as Governor is "President School."

National security, defense, foreign policy, military, etc. were (are) important given the mess we're in today, and Kerry is a decorated veteran. Governors usually don't have the same experience with international affairs.

Gephardt did, but didn't have the military experience, and for whatever reason was seen as bland and/or overly-familiar as a candidate, I think. I'm guessing, though.

It DID all hinge on Iowa, as others have said. But I don't see Kerry as a poor choice at all.

[nickshepDEM]

66. Gephardt served...

Air National Guard.

[Sparkly]

68. Right, but...

I think Kerry's experience as a decorated combat veteran was seen as more significant than service in the NG.

[nickshepDEM]

69. Gotcha.

[seaglass]

63. Are you in some kind of time warp? You just came up with this

"insightful" question now, 1.5 years after it's been beaten to death?

Wow.

[nickshepDEM]

67. Where to start....?

You must have failed to read the oringial post and the numerous posts that followed (see post #6). Im not attacking Kerry, nor am I trying to start a year old flame war. Im attacking those on this board who claim he was the most electable in 2004. Therefore, we shouldnt use electability as a litmus test because Kerry proved it doesnt matter. In my opinion, electability should be a major factor and Im simply trying to point out that there were more 'electable' candidates in the 2004 field.


Keep up next time... K?

[seaglass]

136. You did not provide, nor do you have any evidence that

another Dem candidate would have gotten more votes than Kerry, so there is no point.

It's just such a stupid argument. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote. Was he electable?

[leesa]

65. The GOP, the corporations and their pet media chose him for us.

Just like they will choose our next candidate, probably Hillary, and their games will continue unabated. That way, either they take down the candidate, or they let them win if they are certain they will toe the line as ordered.

[karynnj]

97. All those people, who looked like regular Iowa and NH

voters were from the GOP and corporations. Kerry has never in his life had fawning media. He is far too honest.

[skipos]

74. Kerry and Edwards came in 4th and 5th place in this DU poll from 04

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=118329

So I doubt that most DUers thought he was the most electable.
Iowa happened and everyone was so excited to get behind ANYONE to get Bush out, that they didn't stop to think if Kerry was the best choice. I don't think everyone lined up behind him because he was the "most electable," I think they lined up behind him because he won Iowa.

[nickshepDEM]

75. I agree... Maybe I phrased my question wrong.

Im not attacking Kerry or his supporters. But like I said, I hear it all the time here. "Kerry was the most electable in 2004 and look where it got us."

People here use Kerry as scapegoat to knock down the 'electability' arguement. Im simply trying to point out that electability should be a major part of our presidential litmus test. There are a ton of politicians who would make great presidents, but only a handfull can win the general election.

This is sorta' off topic, but he still helps to prove me point. I support Governor Warner in 2008 because he hails from a state that no other Democrat in the country could carry. He has a ton of crossover appeal. He has proven his electability in rural America. And on top of that, he is a solid democrat who stands up for our core beliefs. IMO, he is the most electable in 2008. In 2004 I would have argued that Gephardt, Graham, or Edwards were the most electable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Only because you are being so emphatic I will disagree

I think Clark can win Virginia, and possible Edwards could too. Warner of course is a much safer bet for winning Virginia than anyone else. I think Clark would win Arkansas also for what that is worth, and it is true Warner might though Clark would be the safe bet there. That just leaves the rest of the country up for grabs. I know you raise other points in favor of Warner, and I could for Clark as well, but I'll limit my comments to this.

[Kahuna]

76. If I had thought Kerry was the most electable I would have supported him..

in the primaries. Since I knew he wasn't, I didn't...(support him in the primaries).

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. I might get some flames from some Kerry supporters for this

But I have always seen two sides to Kerry: the overly cautious nuanced political side of him, and the courageous truth to power fighting side of him. I remember all through the primaries being reminded that Kerry was a closer, that he doesn't really start fighting until everything is on the line, and then he finds his fighting spirit and surges. That was the pattern from his last Senate run. That was the pattern in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, and that was the pattern in the General Election.

Kerry drifts toward caution until his feat near the fire and then he comes out swinging. When he does he does so well, but it is his caution that partially gets him into trouble in the first place. I remember Kerry in the lead up to the IWR, and I was unhappy with him then. I knew he personally would not have taken us to war on the pretenses Bush did, and I understood the intricate logic of providing leverage for diplomacy by leaving force on the table and all of that, but Kerry was not as direct in confronting the orientation of the Bush Administration then as I wanted and needed him to be.

Kerry was not connecting early in the primary season and his poll numbers were spiraling down. Then he looked in the mirror and said; "I am not going to go down this way". He mortgaged his house and he came back fighting hard. That is the Kerry that the primary voters voted for. When Clark left the race and pulled in behind Kerry, I was looking for the Kerry who had been a leader in the Viet Vets Against the War to step forward to lead our Party, not with the same issues, but with the same spirit, and I was hopeful that he would be that.

As soon as Kerry had the nomination in hand however he toned down his public presentation to appeal more to America's center if I remember the logic correctly. I remember feeling agonized by the strict stage management of speakers Kerry's people attempted at the Democratic Convention, and their fear of Democrats being identified as too stridently "Anti-Bush". That same caution also kept Kerry above the fray, so to speak, at first while the "Swiftboaters" kept effectively landing landing low blow after low blow on him. Fighting Kerry finally reemerged after Bush widened his lead over him. Kerry entered into his "closer" persona. He started fighting and fighting well, and were it not for certain events in Ohio he would have squeaked out a narrow victory. But we needed more than a narrow victory, and we needed more than a closer to get it.

In my opinion Kerry looked at the results on November 9th, looked at the odds of overturning them, and went back to being cautious, gearing up in his mind to lead the opposition to Bush's second term, in preparation for an 08 second attempt at the prize.

I think Kerry had it in him to win in 2004, and to win by a convincing margin, but he didn't touch that part inside himself early enough during the General Election, though he did just in time for the primaries.

[ladjf]

85. He wasn't. He was selected as the most likely candidate to

be nominated and defeated. I think Dean killed his chances with his promise to break up the media monopolies. Shortly after he made that statement, the media "decided" that he wasn't electable. They were assisted by Democratic forces behind Kerry and others.

[blm]

101. Except Kerry weighed in against corporate media first, so where does that

come down in your equation?

Or did you forget Kerry's Senate resolution to overturn the FCC decision?

BTW....Look at this date and then tell me when Dean was given a press plane for corporate media to cover his campaign. Point being that before you make a claim against one candidate you best know ALL the factors out there that can disprove that claim.



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[MoonRiver]

86. He was far from my 1st choice. I worked hard for him nonetheless

once he got the nom. But we shouldn't allow another DLCer to take the nomination in '08. Although I don't know if it matters as long as Repukes control the paperless voting machines. :(

[MrBenchley]

96. He won the primaries....

"His record in the US Senate was mediocore at best."
Tell you what....YOU get elected and then we'll see what kind of record YOU have.

[nickshepDEM]

103. Ill tell YOU what...

I have no ambition to run for public office, let alone POTUS. So my record or lack there of is irrelevant. :freak:

Find your brain, come up with an insightful comment/arguement, and then we'll talk. K?

[MrBenchley]

106. I don't see a lot of incentive

for talking, frankly.

[politicasista]

102. Thanks for playing into the hands of Bush and the GOP

It will help us win in 06. Thanks for keeping dems divided. :sarcasm:

[nickshepDEM]

105. Thanks for the insightful comment.

:sarcasm:

[Mass]

111. That is a way for some to justify the fact that he beat other candidates

when many had predicted he would lose.

As some people refuse to accept that he actually won the IA caucus because people could see him face to face rather than rely on the pundits' views, they had to go to the "electability" meme.

However, I strongly disagree with what you say of his record as Senator. You just dont know what you are talking of, obviously. He did a lot better that many would have predicted, because people liked him.
BTW, ask Carter and Mondale (and even Clinton 92) if any Dems could win MA by double digits. You may be surprised.

[nickshepDEM]

114. Oh, I know what Im talking about.

Like I said to blm, name one major piece of legislation he wrote in his long senate career?

[Mass]

117. You just proved you dont know how the Senate works

But if you insist in thrashing Kerry, you may want to learn about him because I dont feel like making searches on google for you. I know what my senator did or did not do and I am proud of it.

Sorry if this escapes you.

For a first look:

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/about/record.html

[nickshepDEM]

119. Since your using the senate process as a scapegoat to defend

Kerry's lack of authoring major legislation. Tell me, how does the senate work?

By the way, Im sorry that stating the facts is considered 'thrashing' in your book. But in my book a career senator with no major pieces of legislation under his belt is hardly what I would consider great.

[Mass]

120. I posted what he did in my post.

Sorry if you dont think it is important, but I have to disagree.

In addition, many senators do not author bills, but work in the background to get these bills voted, or work on other issues.

I dont feel any interest in justifying anything to you (neither do I think I have to), because the subject is of no interest to me. I like my senators and stand by them.

But if you prefer to repeat Bush's talking points for whatever reason, go ahead.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[skipos]

125. No need to get insulting. We are all on the same team here. nt

[Mass]

127. Are we? I may be missing something.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Dances with Cats]

132. Simmer...simmer down.

Like that Donna Summer skit. :-)

[skipos]

139. I guess the same person

who told you yelling and insulting people was an effective way to change their minds.

If you don't want me to comment on your posts, then don't post them in a public forum.

And remember, we are all on the same side here.
:hi:

[Mass]

145. Strangely, I dont think somebody who says my junior senator

is a mediocre senator is on the same side I am. Or should I say what I think of the person he supports for president? I would not because I have no idea how he was as governor.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[MH1]

147. Well, SCHIP is pretty major.

(if you have kids and need help with health insurance. Maybe it doesn't apply to you so you don't care?)

And as I understand, Kerry mostly wrote it.

I think you are just looking for an excuse to diminish Kerry so your guy looks better?

:shrug:

I tried to watch Warner when he was on CSPAN the other day with the NH DEms. I really tried. I turned it off after just a few minutes because I found him rather uninteresting.

So, to make Warner look better it is necessary to lower the bar?

Just asking.

[MH1]

148. Microloan program. Women's business centers.

Stuff that no doubt is not "important" enough for you.

[blm]

178. The OP doesn't think tracking of terror funding was an important bill

so why should expnding health insurance for kids be important?

[MH1]

150. Lifted trade embargo with Vietnam and normalized relations.

With McCain, brought closure to the POW/MIA issue.

Again, not important if you are not personally affected, I guess.

[karynnj]

186. But with regards to this, shouldn't the Dean supporters, see the value

in this. Without Kerry diplomatic skills and enormous effort, I doubt the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians would be returning American bodies. The return of the remains of Dean's brother likely brought him comfort. Dean, in all his comments on this, didn't have the grace to note that Kerry played a role in this.

My guess is we will hear a lot of this effort if St John McCain runs - that his book credits Kerry as the diplomat will be lost. When the Vietnamese were in DC earlier this year every account spoke of McCain's committee. That Kerry was the chairman was not mentioned in any MSM account I saw. Bush himself was taking credit that his meeting would continue these efforts. (When Kerry took this on it looked like a no win situation, he did a brilliant job dealing with a committee that had three volatile Senators - Bob Smith, Bob Kerrey and John McCain on it - that Kerry got them all to agree on the results is absolutely amazing. )

Seeing things like this, why do you think Kerry supporters feel the need to remind people about the things he's done.

Seeing this,

[blm]

205. Your mistake is that you confuse NAMING bills with AUTHORING bills.

Kerry helped AUTHOR many bills, but got naming in few of those he authored. You think a senior senator swooping in and getting naming rights deserves more credit than a junior senator who worked on authoring the bill.

And you oddly seem to believe that it's not so great that a senator would take years out of his life to uncover the highest form of government corruption even at risk to his own life.

That's really an interesting priority you have for senators.

[dfgrbac]

112. Kerry was elected in the primary by the media, not the people.

The media leads the voters around by the nose, and they follow.

Notice how Kerry became the front runner before even one vote was cast?

[Mass]

113. LOL, This is so false that I have to read.

Before IA, Dean was leader. It was only after Kerry won Iowa that some media got interested and even there, all they wanted was Kerry not to win NH.

[ProSense]

115. I thought Hillary was the front runner?

[karynnj]

188. Actually no - unless you aren't calling the caucus votes, votes

Kerry and Edwards were gaining in the last week - but it still looked like Gephart or Dean would win. Edwards got the Des Moines Register endorsement (the most prestigious Iowa paper - I think).

[dfgrbac]

197. You're right. I didn't include the caucus votes.

I have to admit, I am not very politically oriented. To me the primaries are where people go to the polls and vote. I never thought about the states where they have caucuses.

Frankly, those states are not very representative of the nation and I tend to ignore them. I think it is grossly unfair to think a winner of one of those caucuses is the "front runner"!

But once the statement is made in the press, everyone across the nation thinks it is so. This is political manipulation of the worse kind.

[ContraBass Black]

123. Electability is nonsense.

Anyone is electable if we vote for him.

[skipos]

124. It depends on who "we" is.

If by "we" you mean registered democrats, that is about 37% of the vote. I doubt any democrat could win with that.

[blm]

135. With a REAL media and secure voting machines ANY Dem is electable.

.

[skipos]

141. Tell that to Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern,

Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson etc.

[blm]

175. I'm referring specifically to current GOP offerings. If media told the

truth about 9-11 incompetence and criminal negligence, or the actual corporatist agenda of BushInc, would Bush have maintained power? Could he even have gotten close in 2000?

If we had a real media, Clinton wouldn't have been impeached and those who pushed for impeachment would be charged for false prosecution and for subverting the constitution.

[skipos]

199. We have to get dems elected with the media we have, not the media we want.

:) I understand what you are saying, but I blame the people as much as I blame the media. If more people wanted the real news and not the latest Natalee Holloway or celebrity breakup story, MSM would have more real news. I guess it is kind of like the chicken or the egg. What came first, people wanting shallow news or the media serving up shallow news? :shrug:

[blm]

206. The takeover of the media was a deliberate move by the RW machine.

The people did not demand Natalee Holloway or Scott Peterson stories. Their ratings did not go up with those stories.

The people are being TOLD that they want those stories....by the RW controlled news media.

[shance]

126. Look at who owns the Media Industrial Complex and there's your answer.

They say he won because of his "electibility" and, of course his potential 'malleability' if he became president.

[Dances with Cats]

131. Iowa caucuses

A bunch of damn sodbusters went out in thS February cold and saddled us with Kerry (D- Quit). Along of course with an assist from the news media who played Deans scream over and over and over and over. We need to change the primary system. I kinda like your Warner guy though. Anxious to see him more.Is he the anti George Allen. Hell, you might not even be from Virginia....

[Neil Lisst]

133. Kerry was the most electable of those who ran.

None of the other candidates could have done as well.

[nickshepDEM]

138. I respect your opinion, however, I disagree that the other candidates

could not have done as well.

Clark was a hit or miss type candidate. He could have lost big or won in a landslide, but I still believe he had the potential to pull it off.

Edwards had the positive vision and charisma to deliver that vison. None of the other candidates could touch his people skills. I think he could have held all the Kerry states and possibly flipped a few that Kerry came up short in.

Gephardt is just an all around solid democrat who many blue collar republicans would have switched over and voted for, IMO. He was a great leader while in the house.

All of the above also came from states that Kerry never really had a shot in. They all could have argueably flipped their home state from the top slot.

[Dances with Cats]

140. I agree with you...

Kerry broke my heart when he refused to fight. Gore showed up to fight after the fighting was over (will NEVER forget or forgive his capitulation on the floor of the Senate as shown in Fahrenheit 911).
This Warner guy you tout....will HE fight? Recruit me now, I'm all ears.
Thanks, RW

[skipos]

146. You aren't asking me but

I saw him speak infront of a bunch of dems in NH recently. Not a good crowd to judge anyone's ability to fight, but he seems very, very comfortable with what he believes in. I appreciate anyone who can say "you might not agree with me, but this is what I think" as opposed to saying what everyone wants to hear. I am far from a gun nut, but I will give him props for being confident enough to bring up his belief in gun ownership in front of a bunch of democrats. Not exactly the kind of crowd to get into that.

I also like the fact that he was able to get great things done in a red state working with republicans, and have a hefty 70% approval rating to boot. As we can see, politics is getting uglier and uglier, and I hope our next democratic president is going to be able work with enough people on both sides of the isle to get things done. Bush is going to get NOTHING done in the next to years because of what a divisive leader he is.

He has a very down to earth speaking style, and is easy to understand. His non-political style reminds me of Wesley Clark. I think those two complement eachother really well too (Warner's domestic and governing skills with Clark's military and foreign skills). I think the down to earth style of those two would appeal to dems as well as people who are a bit jaded by the usual politicalspeak and senatorese.

And for anyone interested in Warner's electoral abilities, he should easily be able to flip VA, 13 electoral votes. If he was able to add that to Kerry's 252 evs, he would only need 5 more to be president.

Right now, I really like Clark and Warner. But I won't be surprised if others good ones pop up in the next three years.

There is more info here...
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/index.html
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

[Dances with Cats]

149. Thanks!

I think we need a fresh face! Will hit those links....

[Neil Lisst]

142. Clark was too new to the party at the time, Edwards might have

done better than Kerry, I'll give you that. I always felt that Kerry should have only appeared with Edwards, and let Edwards do most of the talking.

My judgment on electability for 2004 is not the same for 2008. I think Clark and Edwards both have street cred for 08 they didn't have for 04.

[Mass]

144. I have to disagree with that. I have always been very disappointed by

Edwards speaking. It always seemed so rehearsed. He had one speech and never varied from one word.

I also think Kerry would be a very good potential candidate in 08. Between the fact he is battle-ready and the fact that people know him well, who knows what could happen. Hopefully, he would choose somebody who can be a credible VP, though.

[blm]

179. Funny, when Walter Shapiro followed the Dem candidates for a year he

came away with a different impression. He said that after all the media reports that Kerry was stiff and aloof, he found that Kerry was the warmest and one you would want to have the proverbial beer with the most.


The broadcast media ignored that story.

When the service people all over Iowa were polled, Kerry was given the highest ranking for graciousness, generosity and thoughtfulness towards them - that means the waiters and waitresses, hotel service people, car service, etc.....


The broadcast media ignored that story, too.

[UDenver20]

143. HE WASN'T

DEAN, CLARK, or EDWARDS were all better.

BUT we as Dems don't learn our lessons. We'll do the exact same thing in 08 with Gore (again), Clinton, or Kerry (again).

Its like a sick joke.

[YoungDemocrat]

155. Don't forget Dean

I was a Dean man, I think he'd have kicked some ass in the election, but according to all of my much more knowledgeable friends, Kerry did a lot better than Dean could have ever hoped to do.

[wisteria]

157. Your taking shots at Kerry to promote your guy.

I'll tell you this it is more than just attracting the "Southern" states. Kerry was electable because he appealed to a wide range of Americans. Including many Southerners. He is intelligent, extremely knowledgeable in foreign affairs as well as domestic ones, a former Vet, well spoken,excellent debater,an honest and respected politician. He has a commanding, soothing polished presence.He is a true leader. I would follow him in a minute. That he didn't garner more of the Southern vote had more to do with strategic maneuvers on the part of his campaign managers. Kerry, as I would expect him to do, has taken responsibility for the errors of his campaign.

Now, if all you can do is put down another Dem in order to promote your guy, it doesn't say to much for your guy. It will take more than just a regionally likable Southern Governor to win the White House in 2008.

[nickshepDEM]

158. Not true. See post # 6.

Im taking shots at people who claim electability should not be a litmus test because it failed with Kerry.

[wisteria]

163. I stand by my remarks, I think as I stated before that Kerry was

and proved to be very electable.His numbers would not of been as high if he wasn't. Go back and do some history on War Time Presidents.Most have won in landslides. The American public in general, have never voted to remove a war time president. The Bush people knew they had that going for them, and they ran with it. Kerry can close to defeating a War Time President. I think that says something.

[TankLV]

165. It was ABB - Anybody But Bunkerboy and they thought his veteran pedegree

would not only shield them from the swiftboaters, they thought they could contrast it with AWOL boy's record.

That about sums it up.

He was NOT the best candidate by any means, that's for sure.

Sure fooled a lot of us into supporting him, tho, to our dismay.

[Lexingtonian]

167. Nobody knows what "electable' means.

It's what people say when they mean 'he has that je ne sais quois'. :D

My impression was that last year it was code for a kind of relative relevance, a sense of what set of politics the candidates were stuck in. Which they seem to take from the latest selfdefining election they had to fight.

I think the origin of it is the recognition that in 2000 the race was between Bush rerunning his 1992 Texas campaign and Gore rerunning his 1986 Tennessee campaign.

My view of selfdefinition of the '04 candidates:

Kerry- 1996
Dean- 1990 or 1992
Edwards-1998 in the South (~1988ish in the North; think Dukakis)
Clark- 1996 in the South (~1986ish in the North; think early Clinton)
Gephardt- 1984 (think Mondale)
Kucinich- 1980 or '82 (the war against the unions)
x-Graham- 1978/late Seventies (sorta Ted Kennedy/Jim McGovern)
Lieberman- 1976 (think Carter...in a deficient way)
x-Nader- 1974 (and Watergate has never ended for him)
x-Biden- 1972 (think Muskie..sorta)
Moseley-Braun- (Jesse Jackson era)
Sharpton- (follow-on-MLK era)

I may be missing something and a name or two, but this is the essential idea.

I don't buy the idea of 'crossover appeal' nationally in the sense of having people who genuinely identify with the other Party vote for your guy and go back. Since 1990 or so there's only been realignment. In that I'm agreed with Karl Rove.

Kerry lost 2-4 million Gore voters (well, even Gore lost their loyalty on November 9 or 10, 2000) but, for the first time since 1968, got people who have been committed Republicans over to the Democratic side- about 2 million Bush voters of 2000. 2004 was the first election with a serious Republican-to-Democrat transitioning since the few 100,000 Goldwater social liberal Republicans did so in 1968.

All the virtues you give Gephardt and Graham are those of the FDR Democratic Party era. Your critique of Kerry is insulting- in the Massachusetts partnership and Democratic lawwriting, Ted Kennedy has the seniority and exercises it. Kerry took the job/role/specialty of oversight and did quite a number on the Iran-Contra (iirc), BCCI, and S&L investigations. (The S&L thing is probably why McCain went Judas on him, btw.) This came to an end in 1994, obviously.

You have to stop believing that we can go back to the FDR Democratic Party and the politics of its era. This belief system and its reliance on the voter provincialisms and caste thinking of that time, though not entirely past, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Every election now is more post-caste and post-regional and post-ethnic in its political logic.

I'm of the opposite school as you. We can't have candidates whose politics is replay of that of, oh, the Seventies. The voters who want to live the Past all vote Republican. If you look at exit polling the Bush swing voters generally made shit up- pretended to believe in the most outrageous silly allegations about Kerry- to explain their votes because they were ashamed. But in the choice between adapting to living in the present and future, aka Kerry, and dwelling in the past however shitty, aka Bush, they by majority caved in to their small petty selves and ignorance and anxieties and resentments. They weren't ready to embrace Change just yet.

I hate watching all these rehashes of '04 by all these loudmouthed faux certainty-filled posters here on DU. They're all wrong. It's all litanies of Republican talking points of November and December of last year taken to be the gospel truth. The day even one of them actually reads the exit polls and exit interviews, I'll throw them a party or something. As it is, I consider it all a massive circlejerk. The essential failure of these people who keep on arguing how horrible Kerry is/was is a desire to revel in rigid, latently conservative, views or consider them justified retroactively. Until Ruy Texeira disproved it they argued that gay marriage was a pure poison that did Kerry in. Until September they argued that Democrats had to go over to embracing an overturn of Roe v Wade- until, of course, the massive shift to pro-choice and against overturn happened over the summer, precipitated by O'Connor. Now we're stuck with hearing the bullshit about how the next nominee has to be a Southern governor until the cows come home...well, actually, until sometime late next summer, when the last moderates schism from the hardliners who run the Republican Party and polling shows Democratic ham sandwiches finishing off incumbent hardline Republicans in the likes of Florida and Nevada and Colorado.

And yes, I'm just going to continue bitching at the margins at all the 2008 agitprop and idolatry. (However, I do like the idea of John Kerry as Vice President in 2009, purging the federal government of the corrupt wackos smuggled into it under Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. Plus dogging all the Ken Lays and the like in a national War Against The Enrons And WorldComs.)

[blm]

174. Sorely lacking here at DU is reality-based analysis - Grazie Lexingtonian.

..

[ProSense]

171. The election was stolen

Kerry won

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2277800&mesg_id=2277800

[Mass]

172. Are you trying to tell us that Warner is electable? Too bad, I dont go

by electable. I go what people stand for and whether they are competent of not for the job and Warner is not even close to the top of the list.

[enough already]

183. Dean was the most electable

A governor who was strong on economic issues and anti-war, but the DNC and MSM torpedoed him. It must be nice for the repukes when we do their dirty work for them.

[Mass]

187. I agree fully with you. They did what they could to kill Kerry.

[emcguffie]

200. You're right, he never was.

Remember when the Rover kept saying they looked forward to running against Dean, because he'd be so easy to tear apart? Sounds to me like they were terrified of him.

I think THEY put it out that Kerry was electable, because they knew how easy it would be for them to tear apart the "northeastern establishment liberal".

Whatever they say, they mean the opposite. It shocked me how easily they got away with it.

[frogmarch]

202. Kerry's Senate record mediocre?

Not by a long shot! John Kerry has a very distinguished Senate record.

Take a look:

Building a Stronger Economy

Crossed Party Lines to Support a Balanced Budget and Cast the Decisive Vote to Create 23 Million New Jobs. Shortly after joining the Senate, John Kerry crossed party lines to bring fiscal discipline back to Washington.

Fought for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Deficit Reduction Act, Balanced Budget Act. John Kerry cosponsored and voted for the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget and deficit reduction bill to end runaway deficits. In 1993, John Kerry supported the Deficit Reduction Act, which put America back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. John Kerry's vote reduced the deficit and resulted in the creation of 23 million new jobs. John Kerry also voted for the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically reduced spending and balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.

Helped Increase the Minimum Wage. John Kerry was instrumental in passing the most recent increase in the minimum wage - to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

Fought for the Child Tax Credit. John Kerry led a successful fight for an amendment he introduced to make sure that all working families receive a child tax credit.

Stood Up for Small Business. As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, John Kerry promoted policies to increase access to capital, open international markets, foster innovative technology companies, reduce red tape and increase federal contracting opportunities. He also created and improved the MicroLoan program, expanded the successful nationwide Women's Business Centers (WBC) and loan programs that help the small businesses of reservists stay afloat while they are on active duty.

Making America Safer

Fought For 100,000 Additional Cops on the Street. As a former prosecutor, John Kerry understands the importance of strong law enforcement. That's why he led the fight to add police on our streets through his amendment to the 1993 Crime Control bill. John Kerry's amendment provided for $150 million to hire 100,000 new police officers - a measure widely regarded as having helped to lower the crime rate across the country.

Fought to Modernize and Strengthen America's Military. John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today's military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980's. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform throughout his career.

Fought Global Terrorism. John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

Made the Homeland More Secure. John Kerry was an original co-sponsor of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which improved our nation's airline security after September 11th. He also helped pass legislation in response to September 11th that placed armed Coast Guard personnel on high-risk vehicles such as oil and gas tankers as they enter port.

Worked to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons. John Kerry has made preventing the spread of nuclear weapons a top priority. He fought for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fought against withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and has been a strong and persistent advocate of programs that help secure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and materials in the former Soviet Union so they do not fall into the hands of hostile states or terrorists.

Expanding and Improving Health Care
for All Americans

A Leader in Expanding Access and Lowering the Cost of Health Care for America's Children. John Kerry was there at the beginning of the fight to provide the largest investment in children's health care since the creation of Medicaid.

Wrote Pre-Cursor Bill to S-CHIP, Providing Coverage for up to 5 Million Children. John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.

Improved Coverage and Care for America's Veterans. John Kerry has been a tireless champion of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. He fought vigorously for full funding of Veterans Administration (VA) health care and opposed the Bush administration's exclusion of Priority 8 veterans and its elimination of VA outreach efforts. He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy.

Improved Post-Natal Care. John Kerry co-sponsored an amendment that successfully required health care plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and child following the birth of the child.

Fought HIV/AIDS. John Kerry was among the earliest supporters of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which today is the largest discretionary federal investment in treatment and support services for individuals and families living with HIV or AIDS. Today, 533,000 Americans with HIV/AIDS receive better treatment through this program.

Addressed America's Nursing Shortage. John Kerry wrote the Nurse Reinvestment Act to help relieve a nationwide, crisis-level shortage of registered nurses by encouraging more young people to choose a career in nursing. Today, enrollment rates at undergraduate nursing programs are up by 17 percent.

Making America More Respected
in the World

Helped Spread Democracy and Human Rights Throughout the World. John Kerry was a leading advocate for democratic elections in the Philippines, serving as an elections monitor as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. He was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He worked with the United Nations and Cambodian government officials to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia that will prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge. He sponsored the Code of Conduct of Arms Transfers Act, which prohibited U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to nations that do not adequately protect the human rights of their citizens. And he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation which imposed sanctions on Burma's military regime for detaining Aung San Suu Kyi and repressing her National League for Democracy party.

Fought Global HIV/AIDS. John Kerry authored major elements of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, legislation which at the time provided the most money ever for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. He sponsored the bipartisan U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002, comprehensive legislation that was unanimously approved by the Senate and became the foundation of the global AIDS legislation that was passed by congress and signed by President Bush.

Fought International Crime, Corruption and Drug Trafficking. John Kerry chaired the landmark hearings that uncovered the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal - the largest banking corruption scandal in modern times. He led hearings which provided evidence that Haitian military officials were involved in drug trafficking to the United States. He also led hearings on corruption and drug trafficking by Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and introduced legislation requiring the Reagan administration to cut off foreign aid to Panama because of drug-related corruption within its government.

Uncovered Government Corruption. John Kerry went on a fact-finding mission to Nicaragua and presented his findings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Based in part on John Kerry's groundbreaking findings, the committee reached a consensus decision to investigate the Contra guerillas and their connection to drug trafficking in the United States. The resulting investigation uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme that diverted profits from illegal arms sales to Iran to support the Contra guerilla fighters in Nicaragua.

Other Important Accomplishments

Took on the Task of Investigating POW/MIA Issues. John Kerry and John McCain "doggedly investigated" an important and volatile issue which some described as an "unglamorous task that nobody else wanted." Regarding the investigation, John McCain said, "John Kerry handled the chairmanship of that committee with tremendous skill." In 1994, John Kerry sponsored an amendment with McCain that urged the American government to lift its 25-year trade embargo with Vietnam. He then worked closely with McCain and President Clinton to facilitate full normalization of trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam.

Fought to Help Victims of Agent Orange. Beginning more than 15 years ago, John Kerry introduced legislation to assist veterans in receiving medical compensation after being exposed to the toxic chemical Agent Orange. John Kerry even testified before Congress to force the government to care for Vietnam veterans. John Kerry's bill, the Comprehensive Agent Orange Scientific Evidence Review Act, sought to require that the Veterans Administration(VA) look into the "health effects of exposure" to Agent Orange. John Kerry also voted to pass the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Veterans' Agent Orange Exposure and Vietnam Service Benefits Act of 1989.

Fought to Protect America's Environment. John Kerry has been described by the League of Conservation Voters as an "environmental champion." He introduced legislation to improve standards for clean air and establish a fund to finance emissions reductions. He secured millions of dollars in funding to clean America's waterways, harbors, and drinking water, worked to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, and introduced legislation in 1996 to ensure "protection in the quality of our water." He sponsored legislation that extended and strengthened laws protecting marine mammals from commercial fishing. He helped protect America's National Parks and National Forests from pollution, excessive logging, and overdevelopment while ensuring that endangered species are preserved for all Americans to experience. He has opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for over a decade, ensuring that future generations can experience this national treasure. He strongly advocated for U.S. participation in the Kyoto accords and other international environmental initiatives, and personally participated in many major world environmental summits, including conferences at Rio di Janiero, Kyoto and the Hague.

Fought for America's Veterans. John Kerry has been a tireless champion of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. He fought vigorously for full funding of VA health care and opposed the Bush administration's exclusion of Priority 8 veterans and its elimination of VA outreach efforts. He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, John Kerry investigated the fate of missing American soldiers in Vietnam and brought about the resolution of this difficult issue for their families and for the governments of both countries. In 1994, he sponsored an amendment with Senator McCain that urged the American government to lift its 25-year trade embargo with Vietnam. He then worked closely with Senator McCain and President Clinton to facilitate full normalization of trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam.

Stood Up for America's Children. John Kerry wrote the bill that became the foundation for the 1997 State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which provided states with federal funding to help extend health insurance coverage to children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid. He introduced legislation to expand state and local early childhood development efforts, including education, child care and health care for children between birth and six years old. At the end of 2000, a version of this bipartisan legislation was signed into law. To address the needs of America's at-risk youth, John Kerry led the effort to establish the YouthBuild program, which provides young people with basic education toward a diploma and the skills training they need to get a good-paying job. YouthBuild also teaches leadership and civic engagement while providing students with adult mentors who help them overcome personal problems and participate in a supportive community with positive values.

Fought for Affordable Housing. As a member of the Senate Housing Subcommittee, John Kerry has a long record of fighting for affordable housing. He shaped the first significant rewrite of the public housing program in over 20 years and worked to craft and pass a bill that helped save the government billions of dollars in rental assistance payments, preserved thousands of affordable rental apartments, and helped finance the rehabilitation of those apartments. With Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry sponsored the Affordable Housing Preservation Act to foster local partnerships between non-profits, state and local governments, and private landlords in order to keep existing housing projects available and affordable for low-income tenants. He worked to create and implement the "mark-up to market" program and he co-authored the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act of 2000.

~~

And he's still fighting for us.

John Kerry was highly electable in 04, and would be in the White House now, had it not been for all the evil, underhanded Republican tricks.

[ProSense]

207. And everyday

people wonder how the Bushbots could be so blind, yet these same people turn around and scream the RW talking points.

[wisteria]

208. Kerry has superior leadership qualities and a stellar Senate record.

He has vast knowledge in foreign affairs, fiance, and small business. He is intelligent and well spoken and well respected. Warner may be alright, but he is not on par with Kerry.

[second edition]

209. Yes, damn right Kerry was a good candidate and he just about made it so.

he had a tough uphill climb and he proved himself to be tough. He certainly took a lot of sh*t and he was absolutely wonderful in the debates. Did he meet the "Clinton" test for elect ability- no he didn't. Even Clinton's win was based more on just his likability, home state and position as Governor. The Repubs were a fractured party at that time and there were issues with the economy. If Clinton would of had to run on security- I think he would of lost.
As for Warner, just because he meets certain "winnable criteria" doesn't mean he is electable. Every time we make assumptions like this we lose. For instance, Warner doesn't appeal to me at all.