Recent events have me in absolute amazement about the Kerry campaign. In a matter of only a few weeks, a president who de-facto dropped out of the Vietnam war conflict was painted as a hero, while a purple-heart award winning veteran was made to look like an exaggerator and opportunist. Not only that, but the economy and war-two issues that Kerry should be prevailing on, are not clearly Kerry's issues.


I've posted before about the moderate-liberal fighting going on within the party, here is a link regarding Joe Klein's analysis of Bob Shrum and Shrum's recipe to lose elections, which features populist economics and a pessimistic outlook. Shrum is a great campaign manager at the state level, but has yet to help anyone capture the white house.

Questions for debate:

1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well? If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?

Nebraska29,



Who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well in the polls? Well, could be the polls themselves trying to predict an uncertain future. The attempts to identify likely voters is a problem. What characteristics do likely voters have? It's a hard thing to define, and each polling outfit has its own ways that can vary from poll to poll.

I didn't think Kerry was the strongest candidate -- I'm a Dean kind of guy. So maybe Democrats still lacking intestinal fortitude with national elections is a problem. Remember? The primary deciders wanted someone "electable," yet another thing that's very hard to define.

Maybe what's needed in this election is the passion of a Dean with the reserve of a Kerry, blended maybe in the ratio of 3:2. Could Kerry get the passion going in the next six or so weeks? Maybe so. Not holding my breath.

But mostly I think the absolute lack of restraint on the oppostion's attacks are largely to blame. How do you fight this stuff? Apparently, by attacking back, but that drags the whole process into the muck. In this case, it is the US voting public that will bring GWB back for a second term.

Which might be what the Bush administration needs as a sort of punishment for its first term. Instead of Demos having to resolve problems created by neocon thought, it will be the neocons themselves left to admit to their own failures.

So at this juncture in time, I'm of the mind that it might be poetic justice if Bush wins a second term through deception, stretches of truth, rabid muck slinging, and unabashed appeals to the emotion of fear. Once the celebrations are over, the realization that four more years is a curse and not a blessing might sink in.

Who knows, maybe the Demos are seeing this early? Do we really want this mess to clean up? Should we let the neocon movement die a natural death or give it a whipping boy for four years, only for nouveau necons to yank power again in 2008?

Well. I doubt it. I think the Kerry campaign is struggling with attack dog tactics, dirty politics, and the ease in which public opinion is manipulated by those without any real moral attachments.

And so we will get the government that we deserve. I can be pretty cavalier about this as I'm not, nor am I approaching, draft age. I am not, nor will I be, a reservist or National Guard member. At most I suppose I could be a conscripted civilian contractor.

Or am I too much of a security risk? Dag nabbed free thinking guitar playing motorcycle riding writer.

It'll take a while before the barrel gets that low for scraping out. Can see it developing though, and so Kerry gets my vote, as Gore got it before. Plus I think Kerry will be much better for the country as a whole, but it's looking like I might be in the minority come Election Day.

Ah well. It's frustrating. Who is to blame?

The voting public, and the voting public gets to live with its choice.

You know it's a darn shame that this topic was confined to the Democrats Only forum because I'd love to have some of the board conservatives and Republicans post some big HAR-DE-HAR-HAR's in here. I cannot believe the defeatist attitude of some Democrats now that Bush has gotten his bounce. Maybe the GOP is right about their crap about "girly men" and Dems being "wussies."

So Kerry isn't a liberal fantasy come true? He's not ideologically pure on key issues? He hasn't run the most inspired and charismatic campaign?

Get over it. Please tell me who you think wouldn't be getting pummelled by the GOP attack machine right about now? Dr. Dean? General Clark? Reverend Al? Senators Edwards, Lieberman or Graham? Representatives Gephardt and Kucinich? Former Senator Mosely-Braun? PLEASE tell me who you would have liked to see going up against Team Bush and who they wouldn't have opened up like a can of beans by now?

Is it the polls that have you worried so with six weeks to go? Okay, try this one on for size:

Polls show Kerry back in the US presidential race


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two opinion polls released showed Democratic challenger John Kerry back in contention with President George W. Bush in the US election race.

Bush had recently had a lead of up to 11 percentage points after the Republican convention at the start of September.

Less than seven weeks from the November 2 vote, a Harris Interactive poll for The Wall Street Journal gave Kerry a 48 to 47 percent lead over Bush, while a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed them tied at 46 percent.

The Pew center conducted two separate polls showing that Kerry erased his deficit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...fp/us_vote_poll

The polls are ALL over the place. You can find misery or joy according to who's doing the poll:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106527/

I didn't answer any of the poll choices because they're all menu items for a loser's lunch. I didn't put a Kerry/Edwards yard sign up and give two more to my brother and sister because I think Kerry has lost already. I didn't put a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on my car (something I have NEVER done before) because I think Kerry has already lost. I didn't tell my boss I'm taking Election Day off because I'm going to be driving people to the polls because I think Kerry has already lost.

Am I sure Bush is going to lose? NO--I'm not. But I am sure that Kerry can win because if I didn't think so I wouldn't waste my time thinking otherwise.

We already know George W. Bush can be beaten because Al Gore did it in 2000 and he ran a worse campaign than Kerry has. Don't TELL ME that this is over before the first vote is counted because I don't believe it.

And for those of you that do, well, just be content in the knowledge that you have made Karl Rove and Karen Hughes very happy little Republicans today.

Don't believe the hype. Don't let the GOP talk you into declaring defeat and looking for someone to blame with all this time to go. Don't let someone TALK you out of a fight that hasn't been fought.

Get mad. Get motivated. Get your butt to the polls and do the right thing.

I find this thread ridiculous, unless you view all these polls as the "Holy Bible" when it comes to predicting the outcome of elections. These polls are much like a hypochondriacal patient demanding that a physician check his temperature every five minutes for changes in his condition. I suppose it is possible for someone to worry himself to death.

Curmudgeon watched a commentary on CNN Friday night which shed some light on the discrepancy in the most recent poll results. In the poll that showed George W. Bush 13 points ahead of Kerry, the first question was, Who are you going to vote for for President? In the polls where there was a dead heat or a slight advantage to Kerry, that question was posed after respondents had to answer questions dealing with issues such as Iraq, the economy, and the War on Terror.

I'll let the posters here form their own conclusions as to why these other polls were more favorable to Kerry, but I would suggest that after considering the state of the war, the economy, and the safety of Americans here at home, some Americans found it harder to wholeheartedly endorse President Bush.

If we can get the voters thinking about Bush's track record on domestic issues and not just the PR about the WOT and capturing Saddam Hussein, our man Kerry has a much better chance of winning. But Democrats are going to have to bring up that track record, as the Republicans have very wisely decided not to run on Bush's actual record but cast aspersions on our candidate instead.

I am a volunteer for Kerry. Some of you could be volunteering, too. If you care about this country and the next four years, I would encourage you to get busy.

I would agree with nighttimer and Pe's take on things a lot of polls are showing the numbers closer where it seems like the bounce that Bush once had is dwindling back to where it was. Yes Kerry has had a bad month, but has seemed to wake him up. I have watched several rallies on C-Span of Kerry's and he is talking about the issues and where this administration has gone wrong. Unfortunately the news only take out snipets of the rallies so it seems like he is not talking about the issues. As well as he is not talking about Vietnam anymore. Which is good. Talking about it a little is no problem, but it did consume him to much. Even if he did not talk about it at all I believe the Swifties would have still come out of the woodwork, because even though McCain or Cleland did not bring up the war history in their campaigns in 2000 or 2002 it was used against them.

Good point, Cadman. It just amazes me how the voting public responds to the negatives and ignores the Republican weaknesses.

PE and nighttimer, good appeals to the passions that need to be pushed over the next six weeks. It's time for Demos to get ticked off again, to raise voices and adrenaline -- but will it work?

I was hoping for more thoughtful debate, but again, the voting public isn't very thoughtful. Or is it? Is it just an illusion from bad polling practices?

I sense a quiet undertow working against the Republican attack dog machine. Voting people might be keeping their cards close to their chests as the scream machine continues on with no meaningful dialog to speak of. People are returning from Iraq with stories to tell, and the stories are spoken in low voices so as not to raise the hackles of the dogs. In the workplace, an equally quiet thing goes on regarding the future of jobs in the US. On other issues too, the voices have gone inward.

In this sense, the Kerry campaign might work by continuing to point out weaknesses of the opposition while promoting Demo strengths, in calm and rational tones. If that works, I'll be very impressed with the voting public.

It has surprised me in the past.

Or like a hurricane, this could be the calm eye period before the big last push.

It's going to be interesting, these last weeks. I'm ready to be surprised.

This thread may be a bit early or pessimistic, but it's something that people are beginning to talk about a lot. Check out today's(september 18th) edition of the New York Times, and you will find an article by David Brooks. In it, the fiasco that is the Kerry team is explained in detail.


The first group fell quick and changes were made....



Everyone but their dog was brought in to somehow improve the campaign.






The result?....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opinion/...hp(registration required)


If it's good enough for the Times, it's good enough for us!.

David Brooks, like William Safire, are the pet conservative voices of the New York Times. Frankly, I don't care what he thinks and the fact that the Times does isn't terribly important to me.

I can tell this with complete certainty. Most people have made their minds up for whom they are going to vote for. Polls aren't going to change their minds. Campaign ads aren't going to change their mind. Debates aren't going to change their mind.

I knew in 2000 that I would never vote for George W. Bush. Nothing has happened since then to change that.

Can I tell that John Kerry is going to win? Hell no. But who would be presumptious enough to start a thread "How Bush won the election" six weeks before the election?

No one. Not one of the board's conservatives and/or Bush supporters has started such a thread because while they may be confident Bush is going to win, even THEY aren't ready to call it a stone cold lock.

So why precisely are people so eager to write the swan song for Kerry's presidential dreams? Or is it so important to be first that you don't care if you're right?

Nebraska29,

I need to point out something about journalism: The voice of a newspaper is in the editorials of the newspaper, penned by the editors. The voice of a newspaper is not in the columnists that it runs.

The NYT tries to balance its columnists among liberal and conservative types, so don't get confused as to which voice represents the newspaper's take on things.

If it's good enough for the NYT, it's good enough for me? Beul hockey.

Again I will say that if GWB gets a second term, it is because the voting public bought into the Republican tactic of taking its own weaknesses and hollering about them loudly, with zero logic, turning them upon the opposition.

No real service to country? Kerry's medals are frauds! Screwed up in Iraq? Kerry flip flops! In the pockets of big oil? Kerry has no message! Jobless recovery? What jobless recovery??!! Tax cuts for the wealthy? You all got tax cuts!!!!!!

And it goes on and on with no abatement, right up to November and the big decision.

Might I also point out that those with no real argument try to write in terms that approach fictional creative writing, as the snippets given indicate. The imagery is drivel not worthy of a junior high school student's attempt at stringing words together.

So no, this is not good enough for me.

I will acknowledge that getting on message is difficult for both Demos and Repubs this time around. Where the Demos are struggling with what might sell, the Repubs are simply attacking and ignoring any message other than:

We need strong leadership or our tushes will be attacked again!!!!

Right. That's why we need Kerry, a proven leader, not this ugly thing, this frankenstein monster of compasionate conservatism faces sutured over sneering neoconservatives, that we have now. No more cynical abuse of the American public's reaction to tragedy. No more hidden agendas promoted as war on terror. No more double-speak coporate-inspired drivel.

Yep, but will the voting public buy this or some other message? We will see.

Let me ask the Dems here if Kerry is someone you actually back by policy or if we are just looking for a stop gap buffer zone? Is he the President of your future? Not mine by any stretch of the imagination. Why keep pretending? I guess not to give Republicans any more fodder, but here on AD, arent we somewhat honest-ish?

I hope Kerry does win, but I cannot at this moment say that the reason is because hes a great, even a 'good' choice if it werent by contrast to his opponent.

I wish Kerry would give forth a clear vision of the American future. His speeches are uninspiring and plans vague in their message. I feel nothing towards him.

They did well to start targeting the middle class for tax cuts instead of the wealthy, but whoever advised him to mention the 'over the $200,000 mark' made a huge mistake (again!).
Most of middle America are paying mortgages on their homes that are in the $200,000 or above bracket. Even if they make only $55,000 p/y
(the US median income) they are looking towards the day they will make $200,000, or the day their $200,000 mortgage is paid. Telling them that this tax bracket is a 'bad' tax bracket was a mistake of huge porportions. Maybe the half million mark or higher would have been better.
This indicates Kerry is out of touch with with middle America (not suprising). People in America no longer relate to a struggling poverty mentality even if they are financed to the teeth (which they are), 'getting rich, appearing rich, is good', being rich for real is better. Every person wants to see themselves richer, and the $200,000 mark is too low. This appeals to 'too' low end earners, and proves that the Dems are out to take your money if you ever get ANY WEALTH of substance which is easily $200,000.
Besides that.. everyone knows that Kerry is so rich that he cannot 'feel your pain'.
Bush has an added advantage that you think you could have a backyard BBQ with him and he would shake your hand and call you brother, somehow relate to you; even if he is a silver spoon fed, skull and bones, arms selling dynasty- corrupt, prove Im better than daddy, illiterate, elitist, ego bloated emperor with no clothes who will assure that the $10 million and above earners get their tax breaks as "-my base. "
Although this 'connection' is blatant a lie in the Bush case, Kerry does not connect with the people that way. In fact he does not connect with the people at all.

Im sorry to disagree with you NT. Im not trying to be first to declare defeat in an attempt to save face. Kerry is a continual disappointment. He does not represent me, nor the half of the country that was against the Iraq war. I personally think he needs extensive therapy, because he cannot STOP talking about his Vietnam service (nevermind his testimonial to Congress against his own, as if anyone forgot) in relation to this election, despite that it is hurting his chances every single day. I see a psychological problem there that worries me. Intense Denial of the facts of his own life circumnstances, what pertains to the country in the here and now and no common sense to let a misplaced ego trip- go (for his success).
I say, own that you thought Vietnam was wrong and own that you think Iraq was wrong or right. Nothing of the sort coming from J. Kerry, just a legend in his own mind.

Now, Bush, is much farther a legend in his own mind because he actually believes he deserves to be president. We have two very character weak candidates here. Bush did not even expose himself to a physical ( in civilian terms, logically, that equals fear of a drug test and that would normally mean loss of employment, and in the military?), never mind shrapnel, line of fire, serving in another country in war (god forbid he might have subjected himself to actually leaving the US for any reason than a one time beach vacation in Puerta Vallarta).
However this is not what an election was supposed to be about and this admin has advanced ONLY because of the idiocy of the american public to be so easily distracted from the issues that concern their everyday lives. As was said we deserve the politicians we get because of our ignorance. (Its actually an Italian saying of old)

Kerry can win if Americans have the balls to the wall fortitude to to speak out by vote 'against', it wont be because Kerry helped us get there. It will speak volumes that we reject the Neo-con agenda no matter what on policy, because this candidate has little to offer so far.

I apologize to my friends for betraying the idea that Kerry is a viable candidate and not backing him with unrestrained glee. Its a wonder he got the nomination in the first place, and if so much were not at stake Im sure most of you would agree but simply cannot say so publicly. That is understandable, then again I might be wrong and some may actually think he is a good candidate.
Regardless, I think its important to oust the Bush admin.
Reasons: Kerry will bring back our lost allies, we need them. Regardless of what people think we cannot go about Iraqs 'liberation' without allied backing since we have lost our standing there. Kerry may actually help out enlisted by funding and benefits which this admin has cut to the core.
We might adress health care instead of a new war on Iran or Syria.
We might adress education and Social Security which are in dire need.

By no means has the election already been decided, but Kerry has already revamped his staff once. Gore got into a habit of it and look where that got him. You also can't deny that on the issue of military service, Kerry should win hands down, but it's obvious that the campaign has a "blind spot" to the Bush machine and it's attacks. It's almos as if they are purposely trying to relive 2000 or something. He is undoubtedly in a predicament, I'm curious to know as to who is responsible for it.

I agree with Artemise on many points. Rather than hear him brag about his purple hearts, I would like to hear him brag about blowing the whistle like other soldiers, about "Free-fire zones" and other practices that soldiers were ordered to carry out from above that had little to no value of winning the war, other than to terrorize the populace(a good strategy given the puppet government that was about to fall didn't have their support anyways) I guess I'm more along the lines of he doesn't want to take a position, he wants to bea mushy-moderate. Though I would surmise that Artemise would be more for Kerry trying to have things both ways.

It is a mystery to me that so many think Bush is such a great leader. He was the President when 9/11 took place. What was a President to do in that situation? Let's see--visit the site, hug policemen and firefighters, dedicate aid to help, make speeches about how proud and courageous America is, how utterly devoid of humanity the enemy is, and that we're gonna get who's responsible. And that's what George did. So?????????

What about investigating what led to the 9/11 attacks? He resisted that. How about getting sworn testimony from our highest leaders to find out what they did and how it could have been done better? It was like pulling teeth to get him to trot out Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission he didn't want formed, and Bush himself would not testify under oath but only appeared on condition that his Vice President hold his hand during the proceedings to get their stories straight.

Bush could not be bothered reading the PDB that said Osama bin Laden was definitely planning an attack on the United States. The idea of hijackers using planes to slam into buildings had been posited, but his administration paid no attention. Condoleezza Rice said she didn't know that planes would be used that way. Richard Clarke testified that this President wasn't even interested in meeting with him or hearing his anti-terrorist information.

So what or who is keeping this joker in office? Who in their right mind actually thinks of Bush as a decisive leader rather than a reckless, not-so-bright cowboy who thinks that his pet doctrine, preemption, won't end up biting us in the nether regions when other countries (like Russia) say if the United States can do it, so can we?

Dubya has been fashioned by the RNC into a security "blankie" for some, even though he is fraying and has shrunk down to the size of a dish towel. Are we all so afraid that our country is going to go down the tubes if he doesn't get a second term? I'm more afraid the country will go down the tubes if he does.

How much of this crap have we accepted from the RNC and their 527s about Kerry anyway? The fact is, he has a good record as a dedicated U.S. Senator, and much, much more experience than Dubya ever had with national government while he was running for President. Kerry has convictions without being religiously overbearing. Kerry is admittedly hawkish, but he's got a brain and he's not afraid to use it. Kerry, while he has not been poor, is aware of the plight of Americans born without silver spoons in their mouths, and he is speaking out about gainful employment, health insurance, Social Security, education with adequately funded programs from tax cuts withdrawn from those who will hurt the least for it. And he's actually environmentally conscious, earning the League of Conservation Voters endorsement.

Kerry's biggest problem is that he wants so damn badly to win. He cares enough--do we?

Now is not the time for Democrats or the ABB crowd to be gun-shy in the face of smarmy, sanctimonious blather from a side that can't even run on its own record. Republicans have learned the magician's trade of smoke and mirrors campaigning--they are master illusionists when they manage to portray Bush as some kind of savior for the country. Don't fall asleep to what's going on.

It is incumbent upon us to do our very best to elect our one hope of getting back our "government FOR the people". Yogi Berra was right: It ain't over 'til it's over.

Kerry is very much alive and he needs our help NOW.

Artemise, back in the day when we used to burn up the phone wires arguing long into the wee small hours of the morning, I'm not sure how often we ended up agreeing after arguing. Perhaps it's time for me to break off a long-distance call to Alaska?

I'd like to take issue with one of your points. I have heard said over and over ad nauseaum about Dubya being a regular guy who I could pound a beer with and slam down some BBQ with. That is such a twisted fantasy that I can't believe that intelligent people still regurgitate it.

Let me make this perfectly clear. George W. Bush is NOT a "regular guy." He's just as much a blue-blood elitist as John Kerry. Kerry just doesn't try to front and act like he isn't. The difference between Kerry and Bush is both of them are smarter than a lot of the people they come in contact with, but Bush has got his "aw shucks" persona down a bit tighter. Dubya is never going to have a beer with me, you, Amlord, Beladonna, Aquilla, Dontreadonme, Hobbes, Conservpat or anyone else on this board. We don't travel in his circles. We aren't his kind of people. If you don't think Kerry feels your pain, Bush won't even acknowledge there's any pain to be felt.

A little confession here. I haven't been passionate about a candidate for President for 24 years. The last time I really voted for someone rather than against the other guy was when I voted for John Anderson over Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Even when I voted for Clinton over Dole, I didn't think Dole was a bad guy. I just thought he was a bad choice for president.

I'll be candid with you Artemise. At this point I don't care if your vote for Kerry is only because you can't stand Bush. Whatever gets you to that point is cool with me. If you have to hold your nose to vote for Kerry, hey it's all good. If you want a more ideologically pure choice then cast your vote for Ralph Nader. He won't win and might assure the wrong guy does, but if you can live with four more years of the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the Bush twins, be my guest.

At this late date, I have no interest in trying to sell John Kerry to people who haven't made up their minds or are lukewarm in their support. By now, you know exactly what you are going to get with Bush and if you don't care enough to vote for the only viable alternative to Bush then I can't convice you and it isn't worth my time trying to do so.

Kerry isn't my liberal fantasy come true either, but he's the only horse we have in this race that has a snowball's chance. You see Artemise for me this is all very simple. My 14-year-old son will turn 18 in the last year of a second Bush term and I will not permit him to be taken and sent off to die in some Middle Eastern desert for the greater glory of the neo-conservatives. That's not to say that a President Kerry wouldn't send my son off to die in war but I truly believe with all my heart that Kerry wouldn't send American sons and daughters for the same trivial, ridiculous and immoral reasons that Bush did.

Dick Cheney has made it clear: "Vote Bush or Die." I'm afraid that it's more accurate to say "Vote Bush AND Die."

That's all.

Whoa my friends! I wrote my post knowing that this is a 'dem only forum', which means I am pointing out our weaknesses and not preaching to the choir.

I know Bush aint a 'sit down and hash it over and come to a reasonable conclusion guy.'
My post with its heavy Bush insults should have made that clear. I am talking about the overall perceptions of the general public and how Kerry was blowing it.

I get it, believe me, I do get the necessity of throwing this admin out on its corrupt, lying, secretive, 'profit making think tank'- driven, warmongering, wasteful and self serving backside. Dont ever think I would vote for Bush or for that skeleton that third parties drag out of the closet every 4 years in the name of the spoiler, Nader. I just wish the candidate we are supporting wasnt such a terrifying obsessive. I see problems with him.
It does not take much to realize what is causing the problem of losing. Someone MUST have told Kerry to leave his service in Vietnam behind and move on, but he was incapable of it for too long.

Only now has Kerry gotten the message and hopefully he rides it to the end.

PE, I share with you the same confusion where Bush supporters go. I talk to them a lot as the nature of my business. Its unfortunate that a while ago many conservatives were disillusioned by Bush and shaking their heads in lack of understanding -- Kerry over-time served to solidify them in their own camp by appearing totally lame. He let the Swift Boat Veterans take off too long and it took effect. I know its insane considering the Bush record but it happened. Now thats all conservatives talk about, besides that 'he was a traitor to his own soldiers' when he testified before Congress, which noone in the patriotic, flag waving , "america is always right sector" of society can relate to. Somehow THAT has risen above most peoples concern for their own well being.
You see, to conservatives- patriotism is a primary value, hence this scandal has overshadowed the deficeit, the economy, the future..its an ethical concern. It doesnt matter that Bush lied about the war, shirked his own service, has no record to speak of on basically anything, it only matters that Kerry maybe got a false purple heart because it was only shrapnel in actual service in a foreign land. Lets just say, the public has a bit of attention deficeit. Its not logical but its pearls to swine, when up against a brick wall of reasoning.



I am obviously not communicating well, or not being read well. This was a Dem only forum and Im speaking to the like minded. I am analysing the situation not talking about my own politics (which as everyone should have known long ago are about as liberal as they come) I said I wish John Kerry had owned his Vietnam dissent. I wish he'd never brought up Vietnam in the first place considering his service and ultimate dissent. It was a recipe for disaster.
John Kerry is trying to have things both ways and this is losing him his own base and encouraging apathy towards him. Dems cannot afford apathy in the public because conservatives are passionate these days. Dean did amazing, passionate, grass roots groundwork for Kerry, a base he could have picked up but BLEW IT by taking the middle road and supporting Bush when challenged. These were young people who suddenly believed! This was a huge voting block who now will not vote for more of the same Cock and Bull story and a stogdy uncharismatic Kerry.
Kerrys advisors have sucked lemons, Kerry sucks lemons. Sorry.

Does anyone know what a voting block of the 18 to 25+ year olds are? Dean had it in his hand and it could have been passed on, but it was left to die in the dark of mediocrity.

I saw Drew Barrymore on Letterman the other night. She has done a documentary on young people and voting. Youth are our future, and they are a voting block untapped and disregarded, shame shame for Dems this time around. Competing for the 40-70+ year old vote, who by nature have children, will protect that $200,000 investment by voting government kickbacks by tax cuts and dont want major changes or social progressions that will upset the status quo; that is a hard policy to campaign against; but we need progression in the US, do you think we shall get it from some worn out intellectual liberal elitists (like myself?)
We are a stuck in the Reagan Era, which was stuck in the 50's already, a nation of extremists which base our economy on continual war and arms selling. The kids dont want to die in wars, they want to go to school, they want something new, they want hope for their futures, an ideal so lacking in these dull candidates and their dull speeches and dull outlook. Youth are without a doubt the dems much needed new blood. (Take a lesson from Mao, since we are condonning firing people for their political beliefs) He used youth to change the face of China for decades.

NT, although I miss our midnight conversations, its much easier on our phone bill and there is no need to worry. Regardless that Alaska is a conservative State and will go Bush, with our 2 electoral votes of little importance, I will still be at the polls and will vote Kerry and Tony Knowles (independant/dem for Senate), truly the best and least corrupt candidate.
I just see such bad mistakes with the Dems these days. How we got SO off track and so spineless and so utterly ignorant of who we are is beyond me.

I nulled my vote for this poll. Where is the "none of the above" or "other" or maybe even, the "I think Kerry will win" option Nebraska? The opening question is not only pessimistic, it is based on the assumption that Kerry is going to lose. At this point I think this election is even closer and more uncertain than the 2000 election.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say Kerry is "not doing so well" either as you are suggesting. National polls are for the most part garbage, the people that answer those things aren't the ones that will decide this election. Furthermore, many of them are completely misleading. If you really must base any kind of decision on polls, I would suggest taking a read of Real Clear Politics' Head-to-Head and
State Polls. I could go on to make the case for why Kerry isn't "losing" as you suggest, but that isn't really the topic for debate.

Now what I think you meant is what are the weaknesses of Kerry and the Democratic party, but that is just what I'm guessing.

I personally think it is far too early to start doing a post-mortum analysis of an election that hasn't even happened yet. Maybe we can re-visit this thread in 2 months, otherwise I would suggest that if we really want to have an honest discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic party then we should start an appropriate thread.

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at here, in which case feel free to correct me and clarify.

I didn’t like any of the answers in the poll, so I didn’t vote.

I’m more optimistic than I’ve been in days. Despite a well orchestrated convention, three hurricanes affording Bush the opportunity to “appear” presidential and the CBS debacle, the election seems to be a toss up.

Today the Dow lost 135.75 points, the NASDAC 35.47 and the S&P 500 15.74. Oil prices closed at over $48 per barrel meaning higher prices gasoline and heating oil. Despite Greenspan’s optimistism, some on Wall Street see the economy tanking.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV...ches/P95178.asp

Add to this the beheadings and mounting deaths and wounding of Americans, Iraqis and others.

George Bush’s world is in chaos. When the world he helped create goes into chaos, so does mine.

None of this makes me happy. I have a tax sheltered annuity that’s tied up in the stock market. Frankly, I’m scared.

In the midst of all this Republicans released an ad today showing Kerry windsurfing. The first mention I heard of Kerry’s choice of activities was from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on Convention After Hours. (This was the 1st or 2nd day of the RNC) Then Sunday, Wolf Blitzer, a man with all the apparent timidity the name Wolf implies, made a snide comment about the windsurfing. Kerry's camp promptly characterized the ad as juvenile. Are the Republicans now on the defensive?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../9732873.htm?1c

Above link requires registration.

The link below shows some pictures of Kerry windsurfing. I don't understand why some see this as anything other than relaxation. Certainly there isn't the political significance Scarborough, Blitzer or the Bush people seem to think. I can even see the activity producung a temporary serinity. Maybe that would be better than our current president, who at times, looks so combative, that one wonders if Don King hasn't prepared him for a prize fight.

http://www.pacificwindsurf.com/gallery/kerry

Although there are some flaws in the sites approach to the Electoral College, Kerry has pulled ahead of Bush. This may change tomorrow, but I think it’s a step forward.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

MSNBC also released results of a new Wall Street Journal that shows Bush leading 48% to 45%. This is a statistical tie within the margin of error.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6073871/

This is no time for hand wringing, pessimism or over optimism for Kerry and no time for Bush cheerleaders to break out the pompoms.

So to answer the question, I don't think Kerry has lost the election.

I've edited this several times for clarity, correction of typos (some I noticed only after Cube Jockey quoted a portion) and to add links.

If this is the best that the Bush/Cheny campaign can do then I don't think we have much to worry about. I mean seriously, windsurfing? Is that supposed to be a bad thing for a presidential candidate to engage in or something? I fail to see how a candidates leisure activities, especially something like windsurfing, are relevant.

Furthermore the message behind this ad is tired and anyone who has half a brain and researches the facts will see that the GOP is at the very least telling half truths and at the worst blatantly lying.

This proves that the GOP is trying to distract the nation from actually paying attention to the issues, and vote on personal factors alone.

The point on the DOW and the price of oil is also a very good one too BoF, I think that we are going to see a lot of people taking notice if the price of oil gets to the symbolic $50 a barrel mark.

What does that matter if it works? Does Kerry want to win or be right? Jog for 30 min to stay in shape, and get back to work. Personally I am tired of seeing Kerry windsurfing and engaging in all sorts of leisurely activties, because I am not afforded the luxury to be week after week on some mini- vacation, and I bet a whole bunch of unemployed people arent too happy with it either because not only arent they windsurfing, they are fighting for their existance.

Bush may have the luxury of campaign time vacations, because the 'elite' are his base, they understand the Presidents need for 'off-time'. Kerry's base are people trying to get beyond the grief of lost sons and daughters of the war, the unemployed and the people Bush has let down in the last 4 years. If Kerry needs so much leisure time, he shall certainly have it after he loses this election. Seriously I could slap him silly for allowing himself to be photographed time after time enjoying the life of the rich and famous. He should be seen WORKING and nothing but, well in contrast to the Bush record vacation time. He needs to visit families of fallen soldiers, not seen yachting, talking to people about their lives, not bicycling, campaigning, not on the beach.

Get it, that these ads are effective, right or wrong. The Kerry campaign has to be the worst run in recent history.

Cube Jockey, the topic was, " Who lost the Kerry election?" I dont know if your recent comments were directed to me, and although I dont think the election is lost yet, I think talking about what is going wrong is well within the topic.



Wait and see how relevant this becomes. Kerry has NO connection with the general public.
All of his time should be about making that connection. Kerry needs to WORK, not windsurf. He is losing and its his own damn fault. Im upset about it, because hes been just stupid, when he had every opportunity, but he chose to jack around like hes actually JFK married to Jackie. Like that was going to cut it. Its pathetic.
Hows about this, he just isnt into winning enough, his sports activities and 'off-time' are much more important. Thats the perception and may actually be the reality.

That is a good point, and I would say that one of the serious weaknesses of the Democrats in general is message - the GOP is a master of this. If you ask the average person on the street what the Democratic platform is they are probably going to give you some kind of rubbish you might hear Sean Hannity proclaiming liberals believe in on Fox News. That is why we haven't had a Democratic president in a while (and I don't count Clinton because he won on charisma, not platform).

Now as far as Kerry is concerned, he was falling prey to the exact same thing up until recently. I think that someone in his campaign has finally realized that people want to know what he stands for and not hear about the fact that he was in Vietnam ad nauseum.

But what the Democrats really need is the Karl Rove equivalent. That man, even though he is evil in its purest form, is the master of his game. I don't know why the Demos can't hire or find someone like this.


I just have to correct you here and say that windsurfing isn't a "mini-vacation" nor is it expensive. You can take a day lesson for about $80 and if you rent one (they are inexpensive and some places let you work for them rather than pay) you can go out on a Saturday or Sunday and get a great work out. (I know that because it is on my list of things to try and I have investigated it). Running actually isn't very good for most people and it is probably one of the hardest things on your body, especially for older folks.

Now can most of America relate to that? Probably not, because unless you live in a coastal area you aren't going to get the opportunity to windsurf and therefore it sounds exotic, but it isn't. Heck most of America probably can't even relate to exercise, we are a very fat nation these days. I can assure you that on the weekend you'll find plenty of people in Boston out sailing, windsurfing or kayaking - that is just what they do there. It is the same story where I live in San Francisco. What a candidate or president does during his leisure time should have absolutely zero relevance on his campaign. Period.


I am an avid cyclist, hiker, recently took up sea kayaking and am considering trying windsurfing and/or sailing - does that make me rich and famous too? If it does, why doesn't my bank balance reflect that?


They weren't directed at you Artemise, I objected to the premise behind this topic that Kerry is going to lose the election or that he has already lost. I have absolutely no problems discussing the weaknesses of the Democratic party (there are many) or even things about Kerry that tick me off (there are many). It is the defeatist attitude behind the topic I had a problem with.


And again it is all about message and appearance, it isn't about Money. I think that Bush is at least equally as wealthy as Kerry if not more so, but people don't label him that way. The reason for that is because Bush's "aw shucks, I'm just a stupid Texan" demeanor plays well with Joe American apparently (although it doesn't play well with me). Kerry has a bit of a charisma problem and he needs to work on it, he also needs to utilize Edwards more.

Artimese,

We need to put Kerry's windsurfing into context.

It was the first day of the Republican National Convention. Although Bush campaigned right through the week in eight states, the news media hammered the idea that the opponent usually cancelled appearances during the opponents convention. So, Kerry took it easy on Tuesday--windsurfing--while Bush campaigned. Kerry got criticized.

On Tuesday Bush met with a group, if I remember correctly, it was the VFW. Kerry addressed the same group Wednesday. He got nailed again for campaigning during the RNC.

On Thursday, Kerry held a late night rally in Ohio and got criticized again--this time for not having his stump speech honed to perfection.

All of the criticism came from Joe Scarborough from MSNBC on a show called Convention After Hours with co-host Ron Reagan.

In the weeks that followed, Wolf Blitzer, for example, (as late as last Sunday) keyed on the windsurfing thing.

The point is, Kerry couldn't win in Scarborough's "reporting," regardless of what he did. Part of what starts with biased sources, like Scarborough, often makes its way into the mainstream media and sticks. The line from right wing sources to the manistream media is a--the?--real danger.

That is another good point BoF, the media coverage of each candidate and whether it is favorable or unfavorable matters when it comes to the election. I remember reading somewhere that in the 2000 election Gore got far more negative (and less positive) coverage than Bush did - I'll see if I can dig it up a little later. The election was very close, but I'm sure things like that have an impact on voters, at least the more intellectually lazy ones.

This goes back to how the Kerry campaign is being run. He needs to be driving the media in defining his image and he certainly doesn't need to let president Bush do it for him. He has already made that fatal mistake and we'll just have to see if it is recoverable. I am very disatisfied with how the campaign is being run and I almost wish I was playing a part in it so I could slap some sense into these people. They had a model that was working well and had potential with Dean's campaign and they basically said "right, well that works so we are just going to throw it in the trash".

This also to a certain extent relates to the media watchdog thread I started, I really want to see the media calling candidates to the carpet - on both sides - and exposing them when they are being less than honest with us. I think that if they actually did that, the whole concept of attack ads would be rather counterproductive.

CJ,

The link you are probably referring to is the one by the highly regarded Pew organization:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...lap/default.asp

Part of the problem with Gore’s campaign was that he got painted as a "liar" or an "exaggerator," even when he wasn’t.

The most classic, of course, the “I invented the internet” statement. Actually Gore said he “created” the internet within the context of working for it’s funding in Congress. As I understand the story, Ann Coulter substituted the synonym “invent” for “create” and it mushroomed from there.

I agree that the news media is not asking the hard questions of either candidate.

Of late, I think CNN’s Lou Dobbs has been making an attempt to do this.

Another curious story circulated of late when both the right-wing and mainstream media asked what had happened to John Edwards. As it turns out, Edwards had been on the campaign trail all along; he just hadn’t been getting any coverage. Duh.

I have a new book you might like. It’s by David Brooks and the title is The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy. Even the cover is a classic visulation. We have three tanks rolling around with what looks like those 30” speakers Electro Voice used to manufacture mounted on the barrels.

Blame the media all you like, its the winning that counts.

If Kerry is pounding the pavement all the time it is highly unlikely he can be photographed doing other than. They may not give him coverage, but they cant either cover him goofing off. They will have to aknowledge he is WORKING eventually. If he eventually decides to actually take this election seriously and not try to compete with the Bush way of life as in quien es mas macho in a sports environment, we might see a candidate who is worth his salt, but its getting too late, the message is entirely weak.

BOF, "We" do not need to take Kerrys windsurfing 'in context', Kerry needs to take his windsurfing in context. 'We' think windsurfing is just grand. 'We' think all sports are fantastic. 'We' would all like to be out on our boards (surf or snow) having a good ole time and kickin it with our buds every weekend and on weekdays, like a Tuesday but can we? NO!. 'I' think surfers have the best life on the planet, no responsibilities, except to their sponsors, no cares in life, but 'I' realize that a surfer mentality cannot be President of the United States, and 'we all' cannot either be surfers because 'we' have a families to take care of, and 'I' and so many more people in this country want to see a candidate that 'WORKS' to get Howeverelected and 'Works' on weekends, and 'proves themself when the going gets tough' and 'I' think this is tough going right now and 'I' want someone who wants the job enough to dedicate to working for it without spendy fancy weekend windsurfing om Tuesday because its the 'RNC'. What? Let them take a lead? This isnt the Tortoise and the Hare!

You're making excuses for Kerry campaigning through the RNC, that he was critisized, who cares but Republicans? If you are a candidate that cares- Campaign the WHOLE TIME, work every single day How else does one expect the job to be done?

Look, if you want the job enough..Kerry just doesnt want it bad enough, hes too attached to his lifestyle, its obvious, case closed. Pick up your cards and look to 2008, Kerry has blown it, and its his own fault.
Heres the deal, Bush set the bar for vacation time, unknown in the past for Presidents, Kerry took that and exploited it, maybe even to a higher level. Now theyre competing for how much advantage they can take and still get elected. However, Kerry will lose because of his lack of dedication, he cant compete on this level.

I still don't see how you can make that claim. Regarding the windsurfing incident it is important to keep in mind a few things:
1) It was in a Bush/Cheny ad played on their website and maybe on TV in some places. This is hardly the same thing as getting media coverage everywhere on the local news. No one really cares about those ads except for the GOP faithful anyway.

2) The ad was about Kerry's flip-flops and the whole windsurfing thing just made for a clever gimick. The Republicans didn't state or imply that Kerry is taking a vacation because they know that would backfire on them.

But my major complaint still remains - why is the assumption here that Kerry is going to lose artemise? What conclusive proof is out there that suggests none of us should even bother showing up on election day? It is one thing to discuss the weaknesses of the campaign, but more damaging than anything Kerry can do himself is when the people that supposedly support him get attitudes like this. That is what kills a candidate, far more easily than any unfavorable soundbite replayed on TV ad nauseum.

Did you see the Republicans start a thread titled How did Bush "lose" the election? No, you didn't. Their thread is called how Bush "won" the election. The premise is still flawed in exactly the same way, and I feel that at least we are being more honest with ourselves, but this defeatist attitude will lead to defeat. Are you going to be inclined to go out there and do the things necessary to help Kerry win such as volunteering your time for the camapign, registering voters, donating money and talking him up to potential undecided voters? I would submit that with a defatist attitude none of those things would be considered.

Nope, we will have blown it and its our own fault.

If we had wanted a workaholic, passionate candidate, we would have picked Dean.

But no. That's not electable. It screamed in enthusiasm for begeegee's sake!

Guess the mind control ray of the Republican party is fully engaged. As the first debate appraoches, expectations for Bush are lowering, expectations for Kerry rising, and so we wll get the government we deserve.

Which is to say, not a very good one. It is really quite astounding! I'd suggest all Demos everywhere, and all those undecided, just stop watching television. That's where the mind control beams are coming from. Stop watching television and use that time to do some wind surfing, wave surfing, web surfing, street surfing, trail surfing or some darn thing that's real.

Calm the mind, focus the soul, vote for Kerry and get rid of the Bush mind manipulation machine.

It's been about 11 days now, and I have finally calmed down enough to respond to this question... I haven't voted in this thread, because I believe the entire premise is false.

The election is still about 5 weeks away. The election has not been lost yet. This is not the time to concede that a candidate can be elected on a platform of "Laura deserves to be First Lady for four more years."

George W. Bush is President in part because millions of eligible, and registered voters did not vote four years ago.

If you are posting in this thread, you are a declared Democrat. If you didn't have strongly held opinions, you wouldn't be posting on America's Debate. Go to your local Democratic Party headquarters and see how you can put those talents, and opinions to work. I assure you, they will welcome your help.

I'm lousy at speaking to people face to face, and worse on a telephone; but I've been helping with data entry on the campaign computers. PE has been on the telephones. We took some of our Fourth of July decorations down to spruce up the headquarters today. We've been trying to figure out how to prominently identify the headquarters ever since someone drove a car through the front window.

Elections are won not by the candidates, but by the votes cast. Man the telephones. Write letters. Encourage Kerry Supporters and Bush Haters to Register and vote. Total strangers have stopped us to purchase our campaign buttons because they want to support Kerry. Our HQ will not have any more Kerry/Edwards signs until at least Friday; and at that, they are looking for a truck owner to pick up the signs. I have seen very few Bush/Cheney yard signs.

Entering the data is encouraging. In three hours of data entry this morning, I saw very few voters who had identified themselves to our volunteers as Bush supporters...

Do what you can as a Democrat to get other people to go to the polls and vote, and don't forget your own responsibility to register and vote!

The only Poll that really counts is the one on November 2, and that is still over a month away. If each of you persuades a few voters that it matters that they cast their vote, it will multiply your vote, and it might make the difference.

A few things I've noticed in a battleground state...

There are a lot of yard signs up this year. For every one "Bush/Cheney" sign, there are two "Kerry/Edwards." Seriously. Even where the "Bush/Cheney" signs predominate such as on the street I travel to go to work, I noticed that one person had placed a "Kerry/Edwards" sign in their yard and then elevated it to stand taller than the Bush sign across the street. Cool!

This story appeared in my daily newspaper today:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry is batting .500 with Essence Cheatom.

Because the Northeast Side resident is just halfway to the minimum voting age of 18, she won’t be able to go to the polls on Nov. 2.

But that hasn’t prevented the fourth-grader from throwing herself behind Kerry with a youthful exuberance typically reserved for a favorite cartoon character or the latest music sensation.

Essence is the founder and president of a pro-Kerry student organization at Duxberry Park Alternative Elementary School on the Northeast Side.

Last week, while most of her schoolmates were outside, swinging and playing hopscotch, Essence was inside, leading a discussion about issues ranging from Medicare reform and toxic waste to land use and the war in Iraq.

Between meetings, Essence has been buttonholing teachers who might be undecided voters.

"This is a student who comes around once in a lifetime," said Mike White, a teacher at Duxberry Park. "She’s so driven and passionate about her beliefs. It’s just a rare quality to find, especially in a 9-year-old."

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?sto...0930-C7-00.html

In my home county of Franklin County where Columbus is located there are more than 90,000 new voters this year. My younger sister told me today that her best friend--who hasn't voted since she was 18--registered this year because she wants to get rid of "Ambush."

And this came from Sunday's New York Times:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

While comparable data could not be obtained for other swing states, similar registration drives have been mounted in them as well, and party officials on both sides say record numbers of new voters are being registered nationwide. This largely hidden but deadly earnest battle is widely believed by campaign professionals and political scientists to be potentially decisive in the presidential election.

We know it's going on, and it's a very encouraging sign," said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. The new voters, Mr. Elmendorf said, "could very much be the difference."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics...pagewanted=1&hp

Malcolm X once theorized that in a close election where the White vote is evenly divided, a heavy turnout by Black voters could make all the difference.

It's always been just a theory. Could this be the year it becomes an actuality?

The debate tonight is important. But it's not the be-all or end-all. Curmudgeon is dead on it. The only poll that matters is when the voters go to the polls on the first Tuesday in November.

My conservative colleague Aquilla is right that the fat lady is in the building, but it's still not clear who she's going to be singing for.

I have been reading the results of the poll here on AD regarding the first Bush/Kerry debate held last night. One vote for Bush winning, 27 for Kerry winning. Guess there's still breath in the Democratic nominee's body, so don't bury him yet!

Kerry was polished, articulate, gracious. He gave back better than he got from Bush. As Paul Begala mentioned in his blog, Bush seemed surprised at how presidential and well-spoken his opponent is.

In contrast, the President pooped out after 30 minutes or so. He resorted to repeating himself, he ummed and awed. He did not have command of his facial expressions, grimacing, smirking, and looking clearly irritated with what he was hearing from his opponent. He did not have a good answer for Kerry regarding nuclear proliferation and the U.S. developing more weapons of mass destruction (bunker buster nuclear bombs) while requiring the other nations not to develop them. He resorted to repeating that it was a tough job and he was working hard. But he had no solutions to offer regarding the quagmire in Iraq or his failure to capture Osama bin Laden. At one point he misspoke, mentioning Saddam Hussein when he meant bin Laden.

MSNBC was very glowing in its praise of Kerry's performance in this first debate. CNN was less glowing, but its QUICK VOTE poll indicated Kerry as the winner to the tune of 77%.

Kerry does not look like a loser to me. And perhaps some of the undecideds got a chance to see that the Democratic nominee comes off every bit as Presidential as the incumbent does, perhaps more so.

Now, how about we work for our candidate?

You've touched on something here BoF that we needto pay closer attention too. A lot of media outlets get their scoop from the right wing-and that's how we get storeis about Kerry's tan, windsurfing, or other inane things. They are also makinjg some major Fox(faux) mistakes.

NBC "fact-check" on debate distorts what Kerry said.


CNN plays down significance of a great Kerry debate.

NBC(again) distorts Kerry's comments on Iran.

When things like this happen and flighty reporters give out what essentially are RNC talking points, then we have some serious problems. I only regret that I didn't throw a media option in on the poll.

[quote=nebraska29,Oct 2 2004, 06:01 PM]
[quote] A lot of media outlets get their scoop from the right wing-and that's how we get storeis about Kerry's tan, windsurfing, or other inane things. [/quote]

Good observation Nebraska.

MSNBC was saying Kerry was ORANGE in the days before the debate. I don't know why Kerry had such a peculiar color. He had had a cold and perhaps some medication changed his skin color or maybe it was a make-up or whatever. Regardless of what ws going on, Matthews, Scarborough and others used an unnecessary barrage of words to point it out more times than necessary.

So, let's make a joke out of it. Is the country ready for an orange president?

Well, this whole topic coul be just a bit premature: according to the latest poll, Bush's lead has evaporated after the debate. In fact, the president now has the lowest post-GOP convention approval ratings.
So the fight is still on.

I would use this space to write "neener-neener-neener" to those who thought this thread was unnecessary, but I can't gloat about things that really disappoint me.

With that being said, I must say that I'm a little disappointed in Kerry. He did a great job in the debates, but blabbing on and on about his faith and putting on the hunting gear didn't earn him any more fundamentalist or NRA votes by any means. At least if we nominated Dean, he would've been out there sticking the president and he wouldn't apologize for what he believes in. The GOP appeals to their base, it appears that our party ignores them and tries to dress up like the GOP.

Any thoughts on this now fresh and(unfortunately right) topic?

Honestly, I think that Kerry did no wrong, or he would've lost by a landslide. I think his advisors did nothing wrong. I think that America didn't want to let go of a president in a war that president started. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Kerry to win. It's just that because it was that close, Kerry did nothing wrong, his advisors did nothing wrong, no one messed up anything. America just wanted to finish the war with the president it started with.

John Kerry won Ohio and the presidency in 2004.

I live in Butler County, Ohio. It's about as republican as it gets in this state, and 8 out of every 10 people I saw and spoke too, many of them life long republicans, were voting for Kerry.

This state is in sad shape, and the people here know it and were not going to vote for Bush. Yes, he has a following here, but Kerry got more votes.

Bush only "won" the state through massive fraud, which he was helped with by our current Sec. of State and future governor candidate, Ken Blackwell.

The exit polls don't lie folks.

I've seen too many people jump on Kerry and try and claim he was a poor candidate. Not so.

Even if you believe Bush really did win( ), Kerry still came VERY close to beating a sitting president during a time of war, when Americans are buying into the endless fear campaign from Bush, who was sitting on the biggest pile of campaign $$$ ever.

No my friends, John Kerry was elected president, just like Al Gore in 2000. Dumbya is the only two term president in history never elected to the office.

Even if this is true, it may be a blessing in disguise.

Had Kerry won Ohio, he would still have lost the popular vote. He would still have to deal with a Congress controlled by the Republicans with no popular mandate (from the popular vote) to do much, if anything.

I voted for Kerry and whish he had won, but he would now be governing under circumstances that would probably make him a one term president. I think Kerry knew this when he threw in the towel.

This is hard for me to say. I get nauseated just looking at Bush or hearing his voice.

Kerry did not want to win the election. He did not campaign as though our lives depended up it. His staff did not want to pay the registration fees to be a candidate in my state. He wanted to ride this election on coat tails, he played the election like a frat party. Not all the electoral votes were counted before he threw in the towel. He didn't want to fight like Gore had to make sure every valid vote was counted. But enough of that...

Kerry was just a horrible candidate. "We can do better!" What kind of slogan is that? He was out there saying he could do the war better. He wanted to escalate the war in Iraq. Kerry was not willing to be a true opposition...but then, neither does the majority of the Democratic party.

Nearly half the nation that voted, voted for Kerry because he was not Bush. He had that much support alone. He could have won if he was resolute in pulling out of Iraq. Oh, but wait, he voted for the war! Well, I guess he is the Dumbacrat's best pick.

If Gore and Kerry losing to Bush isn't an eye opener for the Democratic Party then this nation is doomed for 4 more years of regression. But if the 'liberals' in this nation are not ready for a president who enforces liberal values then Bush is indeed the best man for them. Then a vote for Kerry was just a retracted vote for Bush.

Ironically, I think Iraq is what actually did Kerry in. I think a lot of people realize that, in retrospect, going into Iraq was probably a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that we can just up and leave now. Iraq would dissolve into chaos and civil war, and Kerry knew it so he couldn't come out and say that he would immediately get us out of Iraq. People didn't want to vote for someone who said that the war was "wrong" if he wasn't ultimately going to do anything differently than Bush.

Plus Kerry was hand-tied from being able to say that he would have kept us out of Iraq if he had been president because, well, he voted for it (which was probably because he already knew he was going to run for president and didn't want to be hurt by being against a war that the public supported at the time).

This duality of opinions-- trying to be the candidate against the war but who also voted for it, and not having any real alternative plan to Bush's for getting out-- made him look weak and of course helped to foster the "flip flopper" image. I honestly think that Kerry would have made a good president, but he was a terrible candidate. It's sort of sad that the two characteristics are not one and the same.

I concur with this statement.

Yet I also think Kerry would have had a rough time if he had been elected without the mandate of the popular vote and with both houses of Congress overstocked with Republicans.