If Kerry made horrendously bad decisions in 2004 does he continue to do so?

[Didereaux]

This is a valid question, as it goes to the heart of whether an endorsement has any value, or in fact might be of negative value. I doubt it could reach the levels of say, a Larry Craig endorsement(we can only HOPE that ass publicly gets on the Repug nominees bandwagon),

[babylonsister]

1. Please stop trying to trash one of the best Senators in Congress.

Many people don't buy it, you look like a fool, and you're not helping the party.

[Didereaux]

8. I am asking a valid question that most certainly is of importance to the party...

it is important, because if Obama gets the nomination, the party is going to have to deal with every possible negative Karl Rove can engineer up for them. The new Kiddy Army, and all to many others are beginning to take this election for granted...that is an absolute guaranteed, loanable asset, to a total defeat. Take care of these seemingly small items 'in house' and early so that when 'Turd Blossum' makes the big effort you won't get sidetracked or hoodwinked.

I really honestly do not expect the kids to grasp any of this, and that is no big deal, they have energy and spirit(which will be needed), but lack almost any semblance of knowledge or experience in how this deadly(this time) game is played. This is the most important election since 1932 and we damn well won't get a secong chance for decades(if ever) if we lose it.

For those who are falling for it, Rove stuff appearing of late in here is just 'tuning', yet he has succeeded once again in trapping the inexperienced. First almost a year ago he began his (incomprehensible to the neophytes) campaign declaring Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee. That with hours began the great debate of 'inevitability, which continues to be a bone of contention even today. and on and on and on. Vigilance, folks, vigilance

[Didereaux]

27. c'mon Babs, answer this. I am serious this is not a flamebait in the slightest

[ingac70]

2. Kerry's only mistake in the 2004 campaign...

was not hitting hard back against negative campaigning.

[Warpy]

6. Correct. He should have sued for libel the day that Regenery

book by the Smear Boaters came out in the UK, and it did. Suing there would have been a slam dunk (hell, it would have been here, too) and he could have exposed the whole Rove slime machine for what it is and has been since Rove was a pizza faced teenager at Lee Atwater's knee.

I will never quite forgive him for not suing, although I know he was getting mountains of bad advice by his professional campaign team. I will also not quite forgive him for not knowing the advice was horrific and firing the lot of them, sending them back to their jobs as corporate lobbyists.

Now we face another presidential campaign with the same hacks taking leaves of absence to package yet another Democrat as somebody only a GOP could love.

[Didereaux]

11. My point exactly, a horrendously bad decision that was so obvious that it ...

boggles the mind yet today why Kerry sat on his hands so long. Any kid understood that if you fail to defend yourself immediately it appears that what is said is true. That was almost a childlike decision in its level of naivite'. The result? 4 years more of murder, mayhem and pillage. Plus the added bonus that one more democratic name and election is now a part of the collective memory and filed in bold letters...spineless, dumb Democrat candidate once more chosen by the Democratic Party!

You really have to always look at political things through the eyes of the average voter, as sickening as that can be at times.

[ingac70]

16. ....

Remember back during the '04 campaign, when Bush signed a military funding bill and said..

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html

You can bet your ass if I had been any part of the campaign that would have been a commercial running in every "red" state in the US!

[robbedvoter]

21. He won anyway, so it's moot. Conceeding would be "it" - but Edwards didn't

push his "wanted to count the votes" past shrewdly released rumor to insure his support for his next run.

[Didereaux]

26. Perhaps had he not screwed up he would have gotten more than Repugs could steal?

[JDPriestly]

29. And he doesn't like Edwards because Edwards fights and wanted to fight then.

Vote for Edwards. Obama is Kerry-lite.

[terisan]

3. Well his endorsing statement said naught of substance. he would make a good S of State though and

it they have made some such deal, it could be a reasonable move.

[aquart]

4. Nope.

Endorsing Obama is akin to that legendary conversion on the road to Damascus. He has seen the light and will be forever blessed.

[marmar]

5. "Valid" is in the eye of the beholder......

n/t

[Bitwit1234]

7. I lost respect for him...he should have endorsed Edwards

it shows to me, he was jealous of Edwards, because Edwards was more popular. And this shows it. To endorse a pitiful light weight over a man of real substance shows he must lack judgement and did so all along.

[robbedvoter]

23. Having been on this board at the time, Edwards barely registered here. Kerry

had a fairly large base. Then Dean delivered his supporters to Edwards to spite Kerry - and we started to see some Edwards noise - but it was the old Dean/Kerry fight - with new names. Kerry continued to have a strong base here after the election.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Sour grapes.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. Doubt this OP would have been written if the endorsement had gone to Hillary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. You're saying choosing Edwards was a horrendously bad choice?

[originalpckelly]

12. The Borinator was a horrible choice now that I look back.

I think I voted for him, because Bush was so obviously worse, but I wished there was a better Democrat that time. I liked John Edwards, but he seemed to have too little experience with only one Senate term under his belt.

[Didereaux]

13. Going in I had no problem with either Kerry or Edwards. there was really nothing...

obvious in Kerry's record(and I aadmit upfront that I was so mad at the repugs that I didn't care, and was certain the nation felt the same as I that I did not really scour his record at all), in fact quite the opposite. that he was not the swiftest boat in the water.

As it turns out there were clues that Kerry was not exactly top drawer, but there was not near the 'vetting' going on back then as now. Oh, it got noisy and ranforous, but it was about such importat stuff as Kerry's wifes looks, how she got her money, that Kerry married for the money...really important stuff like that. hmmmmmmm, let's see today it is he's prettier than your candidate, she's uglier than theirs...okay nothing has changed. I'll go away.

[robbedvoter]

22. They were a pro-war ticket. I gave them my vote reluctantly - they wasted it away.

(by not fighting for their win).

[zalinda]

14. It depends on who you support this time around n/t

[Didereaux]

18. I support Biden. but I decided to remain uncommited the rest of the primary however...

Obamas negatives in my book have exceeded those of Clintons and Edwards combined at this stage.

[dionysus]

15. nominated for dumbest thread of the day.

[Didereaux]

19. how very inciteful and informative. Thank you,

[dionysus]

25. if the shoe fits the flamebait, crybaby thread...

[robbedvoter]

24. Seconded - although the Rove, Paglia threads are strong contenders...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

17. Being a good senator doesn't make one a good "national" politician

or candidate. His national campaign for president sucked.

nuff said.

[robbedvoter]

20. You mean, like wanting to apologize for IWR, but prevailed upon by Edwards not to?

That kind of bad decision?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwjvAs9J-0

[JDPriestly]

28. Apparently Kerry regrets his decision to choose Edwards as his running mate.

He should have just not endorsed anyone. He now looks like a fool, as usual.