Meet the Press "Presidential Preference Poll:" Why the HELL is John Kerry Dead Last at 8%?

[The Cleaner]

I mean really - Kerry is probably the most intelligent, best debater, best speaker, and the most Presidential. So he goofed in 2004, so what. That doesn't make him a failure. And his latest gaff, falsely accused of being against the troops when the repubs and media twisted his words about being bogged down in Iraq, was completely outrageous. He's a war hero for freakin sakes.

He has all the experience. He knows how our government works. He's on critical intelligence committees.

So why is Kerry so damn maligned?

[undeterred]

1. You've been here 6 months and you have to ask?

I love Kerry but I am afraid to say so at DU.

:hide:

[bdamomma]

13. he made some mistakes yes, but he hasn't made all the mistakes

bush has made, why is Kerry's creditability on the line?

[Unbowed]

82. He's maligned because some people are afraid of him.

Kerry is attacked the way he is because he's got four major categories of enemies:

1. The powers
Greedy power hungry bastards with an agenda(ie: media conglomerates, DC power brokers, money people agendas Kerry will not meet)

2. Chickenshit Republicans
They still go after Kerry because they obviously fear what he'd do and find out if he were elected.

3. Ambitious Democrats
These are a lovely bunch of two-faced assholes who believe all is fair including backstabbing one of your own if you want to succeed in politics.

4. Tight-ass liberals from Fantasy Land
You know the type: they would have done everything different than Kerry did in 2004 (genius by hindsight) and would have won by a landslide. A harsh, unforgiving bunch (who are also quite myopic and unrealistic),these types think it was Kerry's fault and Kerry's fault alone that he lost in 2004. They refuse to acknowledge the number of other contributing factors including the fact that Edwards didn't add much to the ticket. In fact, they are delusional in the opinion that Edwards would have done a better job. What a total crock! Sadly, the liberal side of the spectrum has a lot of idealists who hold everyone to a higher standard than they ascribe to themselves: forgiving, loving, compassionate liberals until they get the chance to taste the blood of one of their own. They are every bit as vicious as the Rovian wing of the Republican party.

EDIT: Just scroll down for examples of the above. See?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. glad you didn't say so, otherwise I'd be stoming on ya.

actually, people here did complain about the mistakes he was making in his campaign, but those stating those views were stomped on.

I personally think Brazille is not competent, and should have been replaced early on, but some people actually believed that such observations were racist or sexist. She blew it in so many ways, that I still shudder whenshe appears on some MSM Cable gnus program.

Now, would Kerry have made a good president? Most likely, yes. No one can revisit the past and predict how reality would have played out, but I trust his judgment far more than the boy King's. In fact, to be a great success, all he would have had to do was simply decide the exact opposite of what the boy king did with any issue. Our country would be far better off if that were so . Yet, he managed to take a horrible, lying, cheating, insane person and LOSE THE ELECTION TO HIM.
that took talent. of a kind.

I also think that there are better candidates than he. HIllary is not one of them.

[Trajan]

2. He may be all those things .....

But he is also unpopular ....

He simply doesnt have a warm manner .... nobody can be blamed for that, but there is no mistaking his lack of popularity ...

[burythehatchet]

3. Personally I do not think he is a good speaker

If you are going to run for president you can't say in 400 words what can be said in 30 words.

[Virginia Dare]

25. He's hit and miss..

I've seen him make some really great speeches on the Senate floor, but for some reason he really didn't come across that way on the campaign trail. He seems like the kind of person that comes off a lot better in person than up on state. Part of his problem was that he had some really bad handlers I think.

Having said that, Hillary Clinton is not a great speaker either, not nearly as good as her husband, but then again, nobody is.

[burythehatchet]

30. Noone should be compared to Bill. He's simply another species

when it comes to public speaking.

[originalpckelly]

49. Yes, indeed, she has the same problem.

I remember Coretta Scott King's funeral, that said it all. It was too stark a contrast between her and Bill.

Now, on her video, on the website, in which she announced, she seemed to speak very well. I don't know, I think she's kind of hit and miss like Kerry.

[undeterred]

34. He came to Madison Wisconsin the Thursday before the election

and spoke to 80,000 people. He gave his stump speech, but it came from the heart, and it was not awkward or filled with long words or difficult to understand. It was passionate and intelligent. I volunteered at the front of the rally so I could see him well and I came close to touching his hand afterwards. That day I was filled with hope that our national nightmare was over. I would still love to have this intelligent, dignified, experienced statesman as president of my country.

[Nedsdag]

92. Mondale also received big crowds late in the campaign.

It didn't do him any good either.

[poiuytsister]

45. Kerry does come off as wooden on TV

but when I heard him speak in person here I was knocked out. He is so much different in front of a crowd, I was very impressed and really swept up. Too bad it just didn't translate to the small screen.

[originalpckelly]

48. I know, he's not exactly the most inspirational candidate...

Very good Senator with a good record, but President's need a little special something, and unfortunately he just doesn't have it.

[skipos]

4. We need to accept the fact that most Americans are not thougthful voters

They vote for the guy they want to have a beer with, the guy who they just "like" more. Right or wrong, Kerry's goofs have sunk him.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. Just because someone doesn't want him

doesn't mean they aren't thoughtful. I think he is okay or even good on most issues...I just don't like him. I don't like him as a speaker, I don't trust him, and he was a mess in 04.

[skipos]

19. I agree. He wasn't my pick in 04.

My point is that someone can be great on paper, but if they weigh 300 lbs or have a really annoying voice, they probably won't ever be President. "Experience" and "credentials" have a small part to do with becoming President.

[blue cat]

5. I feel your pain on that one

He is still my number one choice. Ideally he is the best, but realistically people are passing him by for a variety of reasons.

[shadowknows69]

7. because the media has chosen Hilary

and that's what the polls WILL reflect from here on. Anyone willing to bet me on that?

[Junkdrawer]

18. And I'll bet they turn the MINUTE she cinches the nomination. n/t

[shadowknows69]

41. absolutely they are dying for the chance

that's why she's not the best choice. Too visible and too attackable.

[Junkdrawer]

42. The Corporate Media plan for 2008...

[rockymountaindem]

8. Well for starters, he's been out of the limelight for awhile.

If he announced a candidacy, that number would probably go up. But unless and until he does so, he's going to hover right around where he is. But I wouldn't necessarily take DU as gospel. Hillary Clinton is probably on the bottom of the list around here, and she's tops in the polls, while Gore is only pulling 10%.

Plus, Kerry is not last. There are a bunch of candidates in that poll getting less than 3%. When they clear out, Kerry and the others will all pick up support.

[Swede]

9. You do know he speaks fluent French,I hope?

That should disqualify him.

[cassiepriam]

10. Because few were smart enough to get his joke. We don't like humor which requires any thinking. :(

He is a victim of sociopathic character assassination.

[flashlighter]

11. Well, he couldn't beat Bush in 04, and the R nom

in 08 will be smarter, unless the nominate my coffee table.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. He did beat Bush in 04.

He just couldn't out-cheat Bush in 04.

[flashlighter]

28. It shouldn't have been close!

He ran an AWFUL campaign. He, a war veteran, somehow found himself defending his record against a draft dodger. He didn't articulate anything. He spent his entire time trying to convince ME to vote for him, when he had me at "I'm not Bush". He ran as the "anyone but bush".

Look, I'm think he would have done a good job as president. However, this country doesn't vote for the most qualified, it votes for bumper stickers and soundbites.

More people voted in "American Idol" than the 04 presidential race.

[globalvillage]

32. Did the Kerry campaign make mistakes?

Of course they did. As will every campaign.
But the terra hysteria created by the administration and the complicit media is why we lost '04. That, voter disenfranchisement, and the truly McAwful Terry McAuliffe. Thankfully, Dr Dean will help with the latter.

[blm]

36. Kerry's campaign did better getting out voters than DNC did securing those votes.

Had the DNC secured the election process and had a strong organization in place in every state, BushInc and his RNC couldn't have stolen another election.

[Ignacio Upton]

And even if he won Ohio, he still lost the popular vote by 2.5%

You can't rig all 50 states to get those results. He ran a lackluster campaign, especially in August-September, when he was getting pounded by the Swiftboat Liars. He began to turn things around in the debates when he creamed Bush (I actually think he did better against Bush than Gore did in 2000) but by then I think it was too late. Like it or not, the public's image of Kerry is already ingrained in people's heads.

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. !!

:thumbsup:

[WI_DEM]

101. but did he do anything about it at the time? I think he may have won Ohio

but the thing is even with Ohio he would have lost the popular vote to George W. Bush.

[blm]

39. Most Dem bignames wouldn't face BushInc's machine in place then. Bill Clinton even

said he doubted he could have won in a post 9-11 election. Do people conveniently forget that Bush was the most PROTECTED by the media president in history? Even the people running for office NOW were afraid to cross Bush's policies back then.

Clinton and Biden would NOT back Kerry up on his attacks of Bush and Rumsfeld in 2003 and 2004 over the failed strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[hlthe2b]

12. To be perceived as anything less than a 100% FIGHTER

at this point in our country's (currently dismal) history, is an absolute deal breaker. Kerry is carrying the perception and will not likely loose it, that he did NOT do everything possible to win in 04, nor to contest corrupt ballot-fixing in Ohio, nor even to counter the slime thrown at him by the Swift BOaters.... Regardless of his strengths, I think that he continues to be damaged goods-beyond repair...:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. That's the deal.

And that's my big reservation about Edwards - I first saw it in the VP debates when he had the opportunity to rip Cheney to shreds and didn't do it. Now he says he was restrained from contesting the 04 results by the party, but I have to wonder how much he really wanted to slug it out.

[tularetom]

14. Perhaps the fact that he hasn't declared his candidacy

might have something to do with it. Also he got some shitty advice in 2004 (not to contest Ohio) but he took that advice, and a lot of Dems have not forgiven him for it.

[Vinca]

15. If Kerry had fought for the Ohio vote, it would have made all the

difference this time around. It's sad, really, now that the corruption in Ohio is becoming more widely known as a result of a case making it into the courtroom. He won last time - no doubt about it in my mind - and what a tragedy it has been for this country that he didn't fight for an honest accounting of the vote and chose, instead, to "make nice." Joining the fight (sort of) long after the fact wasn't enough. I still like him, but I won't vote for him in the primary for that reason alone.

[Virginia Dare]

23. I have the same problem...

I really think he didn't fight hard enough in the end. Maybe he did all he could do, who knows, but it really disappointed and depressed me when it seemed like he just gave up. Who knows what dark forces he was up against though.

I think he would have made a good President, I campaigned hard for him, but he wasn't my first choice, and he wouldn't be this time either.

[ohio2007]

33. JFK conceded the fight for Ohio b/c he felt Florida required more attention

He ended up losing both. Thats the way I remember it. btw, Kerry took Wisconsin by a more narrow margin then he lost Ohio.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=2844&mesg_id=2844&page=

[Ignacio Upton]

60. Please don't call him "JFK"

I know they have the same initials but to compare Kerry to Kennedy is BS.

[globalvillage]

16. He hasn't announced yet.

The media has been all over Clinton, Obama and Edwards announcements.
It's too early to worry about polls. Let him announce, if that's what he chooses to do, and make a case for his candidacy first.

[cynatnite]

20. I like John Kerry a lot...

but I don't honestly believe he is electable after '04. I can't see him getting the nomination.

[MiniMe]

21. Because of a blown punch line, and because of being swiftboated.

[ProSense]

24. Kerry hasn't announced. These polls are useless because not only is it too early, but

also any poll that has Giuliani and McCain sweeping to victory over the entire Democratic field in this political climate is most likely hogwash.

[globalvillage]

29. Neither McCain or Giuliani have a chance in hell.

McCain is delusional and Giuliani has far too many skeletons.

I agree. Polls are meaningless right now. The only thing they gauge is the impact of the media pushing their current favorite. And that can change at any time.

[alfredo]

26. Democrats are not very forgiving of pols that lose. The Reps

will back a loser until he/she wins.

On edit:

Reagan and Nixon are two examples.

It wasn't just Kerry that screwed up, the party made some big mistakes and got outmaneuvered on convention timing.

[XemaSab]

31. I feel totally different about Gore or many of the primary candidates

than I feel about Kerry.

Poor Gore had no idea what he was getting into, but Kerry should have seen Gore's mistakes and learned from them. I didn't see him doing that at all.

I think Gore, OTOH, has learned from his own mistakes and Kerry's too. He's also gone on to have a strong career as a speaker and activist after leaving office. I'd be much happier with Gore than Kerry.

[alfredo]

54. It was obvious that 2000 was stolen. Gore is blameless. He

knew the Supremes were in the service of the GOP. He was facing the "perfect crime." He saw the media and the money was was with the Chimp. Kerry saw Ohio was fixed and he knew there wasn't much he could do about it because the people who would be investigating the crime were working for bush. Remember, there was no paper trail, no way to prove there was a crime outside of people confessing. If he had the money to forego public financing he could have fought the August Swiftie offense. That and the Osama video killed him.

Osama didn't want Kerry because he wouldn't have reacted in a predictable manner like bush was doing. His praise of Kerry tipped the scales in favor of bush and al Qaeda. bush won and so did al Qaeda.

[oasis]

35. Prediction: After he announces, Kerry's poll #'s will leap into second place.nt

[Buzz Clik]

37. Exactly.

Kerry's in last for a gazillion reasons. His numbers will roller coaster just like all the rest. The only percentages that matter in the slightest come from the primary voting booths.

[depakid]

38. "why is Kerry so damn maligned?"

Because he promised not to run a Dukakis style campaign -and then went ahead and ran one anyway, from July to September of 2004.

The presidency was his to lose- and that's just what he did.

[blm]

40. Terry McAuliffe timed the Dem convention so Kerry had no way of spending the money

in any equal way with Bush. People forget that AFTER the candidate accepts nomination, he is bound to the rule of using ONLY the federal money that must last through to the end of the campaign. Kerry HAD to conserve his money - it should have been the DNC and Dem groups picking up the slack in that 5 week period.

Kerry did respond appropriately but since the corpmedia ignored his defense and Dem spokespeople didn't focus on or repeat Kerry's challenge to Bush to debate their experiences during the Vietnam war, the challenge fell flat.

[depakid]

43. no way of spending the money?

Query:

How much money did they have left over after the campaign?

As to Kerry's responses- All he had to do was say "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted to give George W. Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq."

Simple as that.

But when push came to shove, he let a pathetic little bully have his way. That's not the sort of person most people want as president.

[blm]

47. That money left over was the primary money that he wasn't ALLOWED by law to spend

after he accepted the nomination. I'm surprised so many are unaware of that campaign law. Primary money is all the money coming in up to the acceptance. Kerry ended with that 15 million unspent just as every other campaign has done. The post election accounting takes years and in some case, they are still spending 2004 money on court cases that are still in progress. Gore didn't get his accounting over with till 2004, and I didn't see anyone complaining about those 4 years.

Bush didn't lift a finger for himself - he didn't even have to win the debates or craft any serious policy positions as Kerry did. Bush had an RNC and RW media machine do it ALL FOR HIM.

How did the DNC and the left media do against their counterparts? Or do they get the kudos while Kerry gets the blame even though he won all his man to man matchups and they did not?

[depakid]

50. "...Kerry gets the blame"

Because he was the candidate- and HE messed up.

And took a lot of peoples' hopes down with him.

Supporters can make all of the excuses that they want for the convention and it's sorry aftermath... but the bottom line is- John Kerry had the chance, and he didn't get the job done. And it's cost everyone so much.

[sendero]

55. And I think a lot of folks..

.... deep down think sort of like I do.

The 2008 Presidency is ours to lose. Why? Because George Bush was given four more years to screw up. Why? Because JK lost a race that should have been a slam dunk. Why? Because his campaign was lousy from start to finish.

Why do I want to reward someone with another shot that is only there because he screwed up his first shot?

[blm]

79. Kerry would've lost in a huge landslide if he was as bad as you claim. He would've won

and taken office with the campaign he had if the DNC and its Office of Voter Integrity had done its job of securing the election process for the four years they were charged with doing so.

[hijinx87]

90. not necessarily

* was probably the weakest candidate in a generation.

there was no excuse for not blowing him out. this whole
ghastly war would be over by now if the little tyrant got
sent back to texas in 04.

[blm]

91. Not with the fawning broadcast newsmedia who turned him into a heroic figure against terrorism.

And covered up even the most important parts of the 9-11 report. Newsmedia gave more airtime to the swiftliars than the 9-11 report.

Even after a term in office where Bush received more positive airtime than any past president, the challenger was given ONLY THREE HOURS of primetime to introduce himself at the convention, and one of those hours went to Clinton, and one to Edwards. Clinton in 1992 received NINE HOURS of primetime to introduce himself to the country. Big difference.

[hijinx87]

96. my, my, my.

it's everyone's fault except the guy that actually lost?

let's phrase it a different way. who didn't screw john kerry
in 2004? that is bound to be a shorter discussion.


(oh, and :evilgrin:)

[blm]

97. Kerry made a few mistakes that were not insurmountable as the high vote tally shows.

The DNC made mistakes that WERE insurmountable - like not spending four years they had to secure the election PROCESS.

You may want to also pretend that corpmedia and Clinton's public support for Bush's positions, and Terry McAuliffe's neglect of election process and party infrastructure were all benign matters in favor of blaming everything on Kerry.

I blame Kerry some.....he should NEVER have trusted the DNC was doing the job they claimed to be doing.

EVERY candidate makes some mistakes. None as big as some of the serious misspeaks and blunders Bush made but the media protected him, while focusing on the few and less egregious mistakes of Kerry.

[wisteria]

62. Exactly.It almost seems as though they sabotaged him purposely.

Look who came to his aid and look who didn't. Makes you wonder.

[SaveElmer]

52. I think that is right on...

Kerry has himself to blame for the loss....

[wisteria]

59. NO, it was more like our party let him down, especially the DNC! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

69. that's exactly correct

and apparently something some folks refuse to acknowledge

[OregonBlue]

44. He did NOT fight in Ohio and we now know he won Ohio. Enough said.

[Jimbo S]

98. To fight that would have been embarassing

You may know he won Ohio, but no one has yet to prove anything to me.

[sallyseven]

46. Because the media hates him and they are sacred shitless

that he might win and it would be all over. He is the best of the lot of those running. They know it and so they will deamonize him for the next two years. I hate them and those people who can't figure out that he is a great person and would be a wonderful president. They let him be swiftboated and will let anyone else that is strong be destroyed for their greed.

[A Simple Game]

51. If you use the logic of the Hillary haters, we can't vote for him

because he is a war monger and forced * into war with Iraq.

Other than that he is just a poor campaigner.

[blm]

53. If he was as bad as claimed he would've lost by a huge landslide as others who

challenged presidents did. He would NOT have put up decisive wins in the debates, and would not have drawn record crowds to his fall campaign rallies.

The RNC kicked the DNC's ass for FOUR YEARS, outorganizing them and securing the election process for their own needs while the DNC left their tactics uncountered.

The RW media machine kicked the left media's nearly nonexistent ass on a daily basis.

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in his matchups.

[wisteria]

56. because he speaks the truth and will not pander to the media or corporations.

Besides, those number can and will improve. He has not received the generous fluff pieces that the other candidates have received. For the most part, he has been the punching bag. Which proves he can take it and he can give it back.
And, like you, I say big deal he lost last time. Just look what he was up against. He is the most qualified and dedicated and selfless one. Our country would move forward and become more respected in the world with him as our President.
Polls mean nothing now. People aren't paying attention really.

[Mass]

57. He is not dead last.

Everybody but Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Gore are there.

Considering the MOE of these polls and the very negative press, this is actually amazing that he is still there.

Dont sweat on polls like that.

BTW, behind him are many people running and that the media do not even bother listing: Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Vilsack, Kucinich, ... and, very unfairly IMO, Clark.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

58. People need to be comforted.

The worse things get, the more people need comforting.
Kerry is not very comforting.
To be comforting, you need to be comfortable with yourself.
Whoever wins in 2008 will be the candidate who is the most comforting.

[Mass]

63. At this point in time, the difference between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th,

in a poll with 5 % of MOE is meaningless.

Considering the absence of media, Gore and Kerry's numbers are exceptionnally high and must be fairly uncomfortable to the two who are before.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

65. The Comfort Factor will increase in significance exponentially

as the media escalates and the cosigner hesitates. :hi:

[marlakay]

61. People are afraid he will make same mistakes

I guess as much as we know people learn from mistakes, no one wants to take a chance. Thats why some are not sure about Gore.

Democrats have been running scared ever since Bush came into office and even though we have Senate and Congress I don't see very many people using that to really speak out like they should. A few have but many are still pandering to the right and afraid of losing votes.

I live in conservative town and I can tell you just in the last two years the way people talk has changed alot. They are disgusted with the whole white house and staff. They would respect someone speaking out against it. Beyond just the few that always do.

[wisteria]

64. Every one makes mistakes. He is apt to make less than others because

he has been there and done it already. I think it has more to do with the 50 year old idea that we can only run a candidate once. Which, is actually ridiculous, because the more the public gets to know someone the more comfortable they become with them. That is if their own party don't attack them too.

[BlooInBloo]

66. Because Democrats/DUers/etc. are happy to parrot republicans who make up shit about Democrats.

[AtomicKitten]

67. Wonkette responds to your query.

from http://wonkette.com/politics/walnuts/kerry-defends-nixon-windsurfing-229450.php

Kerry Defends Nixon, Windsurfing

Are you getting Kerry Fever again? Neither are we. But the official 2004 Fall Guy is gearing up for another brave campaign to keep Republicans in the White House forever, as evidenced by a) Some minor staff re-jiggering in his Washington office, and B) A craptacular interview in Details, the lifestyle magazine for men who just dress gay.

Asked about his habit of being photographed while “windsurfing,” Kerry says, “I challenge anyone who makes fun of windsurfing to come out and do it with me and see how long they last.” First, that is not our idea of a fun date. Second, the issue wasn’t whether windsurfing is a physically demanding leisure activity — it was that it looks like another expensive hobby of the coastal rich, because that’s what it is. Bush’s handlers bought a fake “ranch” for their Yankee Preppie Yalie Cheerleader and next thing you know he’s a “cowboy.” It works, because Americans are simple. Who calls him “cowboy” most? Dumb liberals!

Next, Kerry defends his interest in running for president again by comparing himself to Richard Nixon:

"You know, different people have different feelings. Some people react and say, “Oh, you lost. Why try again?” Well, John McCain ran and lost, and he’s trying again. Ronald Reagan ran four times. Richard Nixon lost the presidency, then ran for governor, lost the governorship, and then six years later, he was president”"

Yeah, and six years after that, he was run out of Washington like vermin. And he never “lost the governorship,” he lost the election — Nixon was never governor of California.

Whatever, there’s no point trying to talk sense into ol’ Skull & Bones. He’ll run, the CIA will get him the nomination, and WALNUTS! McCain will become president for life and we’ll finally have that End of the World the Jesus Freaks are so excited about.

[fishwax]

68. Because he lost last time

and he hasn't announced this time.

[stranger81]

70. 3 easy reasons:

(1) He said publicly and repeatedly that, even knowing what he knows now, he still would have supported the war in Iraq.

(2) He gave up without a fight in 2004 -- why would we back him again?

(3) He didn't even spend all his financial resources when running in 2004 -- remember all those last minute donations that went unused??

I don't disagree that Kerry is smart, a good speaker, and has a Presidential manner (though I'd disagree that he's a good debater, as a good debater has to connect with and persuade his audience). But Obama has all of those qualities and better -- he appears to have balls.

[blm]

73. I'm surprised that Obama didn't use those "balls" for big fights like Alito or Iraq withdrawal

or for the DSM inquiry or for Bush's nominations of Rice and Gonzales.

Or to defend other Dems when they were being attacked unfairly. I am surprised that he chose to not fight ANY of those battles with the Dems who were fighting. Was he keeping his the powder in his "balls" dry?

[orleans]

71. you answered your own question

"So he goofed in 2004, so what. " so what? so that's what. so he's at the bottom of the pile.

you know the expression: fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice--no fucking way!

[Blue_In_AK]

72. People get freaked out by intelligence.

[Kurovski]

74. Perhaps people feel that he can do his best work in the Senate.(nt)

[bunkerbuster1]

76. Duh. Because we Democrats hate our warriors.

Oh, not the ones who win. But if you run for President and lose, we treat you like shit.

Happened to Dukakis, happened to Carter (for years, until he single-handedly rehabbed his image), and it's happening to Kerry.

It sucks, but it's what we do.

[Innocent Smith]

77. Because he lost

It is probably that simple.

The American public is more knowledgeable about American Idol than the things that really matter. In their mind I have no doubt that they think of him as a loser.

[Jakey]

78. Why expend precious resources...

trying to explain to the American voter just how WRONG they were about Kerry? That's INSANITY.

He lost, he's damaged, he's passe.

Let's move on.

[globalvillage]

81. You're a Yankees fan?

Apparently they've never lost anything.
Fascinating.

[Jakey]

86. Sure am...

...and quite aware of the consequence for underperformance in pinstripes.

[TZ]

95. I am not sure how he got nominated actually

There were a lot of other better candidates if you ask me. I never like him all that much but voted for him (not in the primary). If he can't beat the chimp he's not going to beat anyone. So I hope he does not enter the race. My problem with the Dems is they tend to nominate people who DON'T appeal to the mainstream even moderate Republicans. You can't win unless you do that. Are you listening Hilary?

[Beelzebud]

80. Because he lost to the worst president ever?

[jgraz]

85. DING DING DING -- we have a winner

Whether he lost or just won by a steal-able margin, Kerry will almost certainly not have a 2008 candidate with the record of failure that Bush had in 2004. Kerry DID wipe the floor with Bush during the debates (esp that first one -- yikes), yet he still managed to find a way to lose (or not win by enough).

No way Kerry even comes close against a non-appalling candidate (assuming the GOP can find one).

[blm]

93. With the MOST media protection ever. A corpmedia who gave less airtime to 9-11 report

than it did the Swiftliars book.

And the worst president who had the last Dem president siding with him very PUBLICALLY over crucial issues.

[SoCalDem]

83. Kerry got the votes because we HAD to vote for him, (like him or not)

he was the democratic candidate so he got the votes.

We have voted for the "lesser of..." for decades now, and '04 was no different.

'08 will probably be the same.

republicans and all that money they seem to come up with (and their lockstep mentality) makes them "LOVE" their candidate.

[jgraz]

84. Sadly, after all the "Block Reply" debates, I'm actually happy to see another Kerry thread

Now watch me go and get blocked...

[jgraz]

87. Y'know, maybe the mods should add a feature that auto-generates Kerry threads

• Kerry 2008
• he lost!!
• No he didn't! He Won!
• deleted message

etc, etc, etc... :P

[raysr]

88. KKKarl is not satisfied

with beating his opponents, he has to destroy them before he's through. Between the swift boats and the gaffe about the troops intelligence, Rove ran him right into the ground. Of course he has considerable responsibility for this himself by laying down and not fighting back.

[LaPera]

89. Lost his balls!

[JCMach1]

94. 8% is bad for someone who hasn't announced?

Here is the answer:

2002 Nov 8-10 (National Adults)
Al Gore 38
Joe Lieberman 13
Tom Daschle 12
John Kerry 12
Dick Gephardt 8
John Edwards 3
Howard Dean 3
Other 1
No one 3
No Opinion 7

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/1111.htm

[Recursion]

99. Because he's someone who would say, "I actually voted for that before I voted against it"

And people would prefer someone who would say, "it was a stupid mistake and I wish I hadn't supported it in the first place", like Edwards did.

[WI_DEM]

100. I think alot of democrats were disappointed by his '08 run (in the general election)

especially his inability to refute the swift boaters in a timely way. I think many democrats simply want somebody else. Then his so-called "gaffe" towards the end of the '06 election where he was then sidelined for several days--apparently hurt him as well.

[paulk]

102. because we live in a throw away culture

always on the lookout for new packaging, new product....