Did Kerry run a good campaign in 2004?

[Clintonista2]

Poll question: Did Kerry run a good campaign in 2004?

Asking this because apparently suggesting the idea that Kerry ran a bad campaign means you "support Bush." (See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3655989&mesg_id=3655989)

[CyberPieHole]

1. No. he ran a terrible campaign. n/t

[question everything]

69. Agree. It started with the convention

where too much emphasis was placed on his military service.

Yes, we wanted to put a war hero vs. a chickenhawk, but, as Clinton showed us in 1996 - a successful campaign has to be about the future, with optimism, not about the past.

This emphasis opened the door to the Swift Boaters and he took too long to ignore him. Again, he should have taken a page from the Clinton 1992 campaign about a quick response to everything.

Next, the way he handled women's right to their bodies. When asked about abortion he put his hand on his heart and said that "personally he was against it, but.." He should have turned around the question - as good politicians do - to talk about children who are already here, about the sanctity of privacy, about government has no business in the most private aspects of the lives of its citizens.

He did not handle the wars - in Iraq and on terrorism - right, and this is the lesson that Hillary is learning but not Edwards.

The reality is that we love to win. Most had no idea where Kuwait was, but how proud we were in 1991 after we won that war. Even today, if something will happen and all of a sudden the Iraqis are smiling and thanking us and there are no longer attacks on their own - and on our troops - and they march in the streets with banners thanking Bush - you will see a major change in public polling. All of a sudden the war would be "worth it" and Bush would be a hero (argh....)

Mostly, he did not address to voters on their persona areas of concerns: school, health care, retirement... to talk to them almost as one on one. We like such an approach, what can I say? No one can be so personal as Bill Clinton, but there is something to learn from him.

His wind surfing, his bunny suit, his unnatural tan - all were disasters.

[ProSense]

2. Yes! Despite Terrible McAwful

.

[YvonneCa]

3. Other, because...

...he probably could have been stronger without dealing with cancer at the same time...it sort of saps the concentration (among other things).

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Kerry let them get the swiftboat thing in front of him while he was

windsurfing.

[karynnj]

29. That is unfair - he gave the media all the proof they needed

to reject the lie and prove that the SBVT were lying BEFORE they attacked in August. This was more than Bill Clinton provided on ANY attack in 1992 - many he simply provided spin, not proof that they were lies.

Before the attack, the media had:

- 140 pages of his naval records, with glowing fitness reports spanning the entire interval, some written by SBVT

- the Nixon tapes that showed they investigated him 2 years after the fact in 1971 and found he was a war hero and clean

- None of the SBVT, many of whom were career Navy and likely not against the Vietnam War, spoke up to say Kerry was not a hero in 1971 when he received a HUGE amount of coverage.

- There was no "Kerry" story of why he got medals - It was the official Navy record.

- All the men on his boats when he got medals, were 100% behind him

- Doug Brinkley an academic historian's book - backed Kerry 100% and many of those he interviewed became SBVT 2 years later

There is NOTHING in my life I could prove as well as Kerry did his war service. Not grades, work, or even that I am the mother of my kids.

Kerry had every reason to expect the media to reject the alternative SBVT story because they offered no proof and they were against the official record. When the SBVT came out, the Kerry team also did quickly give the media 36 pages of points in the book that could be definitively shown as wrong and they linked the funding to Bush. The media in return, went from one false claim to another, demanding that Kerry disprove each - and they found many people who were there who further corroborated the NAVY's (and Kerry's) account of each event. The most impressive was a conservative Chicago Tribune editor who was the third boat skipper in the Silver Medal account. In addition, Republican Senator John Warner said that as Secretary of the Navy he reviewed Kerry's Siver Star and he deserved it. They did not ask the SBVT for one shred of proof though they were the one's countering the official account. The media was complicit in this character assignation.

For Clinton people to use this is beyond despicable. Look at any of the Clinton "bumps in the road" in 1992. They were mostly problems of his making - and the defense was to attack - and hope the media stayed on their side. In the SBVT lies, Kerry's actions were heroic and deserved praise. Nothing he did in Vietnam was the reason for these attacks. He was attacked on this because the Republicans knew they needed to destroy the idea that he really was a hero. He should have gotten a lot more support from Democrats - the proof was there and they should have seen how important it was - not because of what was done 35 years before, but because it did show Kerry's character.

For Democrats to now perform a second swiftboating blaming him because he was the victim of character assignation by the media is pathetic.

As to windsurfing, he windsurfed for about 2 hours with the press in tow - during the Republican convention. In any other race, in this sports obsessed country, it would have been a great photo op. A beautiful New England day, with a deep blue ocean and a sky blue ski, with a boat filled with smiling reporters and Kerry people, including Teresa. It was good clean fun. It also may well have stopped a Republican attack that Kerry had not recovered from his cancer.

Windsurfing is less elitist and expensive, than the country club golfing done by Clinton and the Bushes. (The only way it is elitist is you have to pretty athletic from the articles written on it.)

[ray of light]

5. Isn't that like asking, 'What was your favorite food 2 years ago"?

Talk about bringing up useless conversation starters.

[ray of light]

7. My favorite food two years ago was Boston Clam Chowder.

[ray of light]

9. Oh Oh...mmmmmmmm Some finger liken' good southern fried chicken with

honey....

[provis99]

24. 2 years ago? Boston Baked Beans

But nose-wrinkles of disgust from strangers on the street cured me of that habit.

[Basileus Basileon]

6. Kerry ran a horrible campaign.

As it turns out, despite what many DUers seem to believe, "the other guy sucks" does not a winner make. This goes double when you sit on your ass and don't say a word about an organized smear campaign.

[ProSense]

8. No he didn't

see.

[mvd]

15. His campaign was fair IMO

It wasn't like he didn't respond to the Swift Boat Liar ads. See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x2555

But there were things I didn't like:

- he highlighted his military service TOO much at the convention
- ran away from his liberal credentials too much. In the third debate, Bush attacked Kerry for being a liberal, and Kerry ignored it
- he put too much energy into a few states
- a lack of a cohesive message

[Basileus Basileon]

16. Fair? Yes. Effective? No.

I agree on many of your specifics, btw. He did not do a very good job of defending himself at all.

[mvd]

19. What I like about Hillary Clinton is..

that she will have a great rapid response team for sure. And she doesn't let much slip by.

[karynnj]

31. She hasn't been hit by anything of the magnitude of the SBVT

even in April 2004, we would be saying the same thing about Kerry, as he had already swatted the SBVT back.

[mvd]

55. Oh, I'm sure they will mount something like it

Clinton just seems to have the toughness needed when facing the Repukes. IMO.

[karynnj]

30. Actually, the only part of highlighting his military service I had a problem with in 2004 was

Bill Clinton's speech. I didn't like his comments because from Clinton's own history, I thought they were insincere. Also, I disliked them because he spoke of how he volunteered both for duty and for the dangerous swift boat assignment. Kerry, himself, said that he asked if his service could be postponed a year for study in Paris and when he volunteered for the swiftboats they were doing coast guard like work. Clinton's comments matched 2 of the SBVT allegations - even though it was from Kerry's comments to Doug Brinkley that they found these two facts - that did not in any way take away from Kerry's record. Vietnam made up at least half of what Clinton said of Kerry, before going on to his favorite topic - his administration.

Additionally, Clinton was the obvious person to speak of what Kerry did when Bill Clinton was President. Here are three, without thinking.

- One of the main accomplishments of Clinton's Presidency was the reconciliation with Vietnam. McCain, in his book, said this would not have happened without Kerry. Kerry led the POW/MIA committee and he was the person who got the Vietnamese and other SE Asians to commit to a massive effort to repatriate American remains. (like Dean's brother). Clinton did not mention Kerry's real involvement in this in his book put out the month before Kerry's convention. His name was simply in the middle of a list of Vietnam vets. Only McCain was singled out for praise.

- Kerry with Kennedy introduced the bill that with some significant modifications became S-CHIP. It is a big enough accomplishment, that HRC's getting BC to support it staying in the budget is the success that balances the healthcare mess.

- Closing down BCCI - OBL's bank in the early 1990s - pretty important anti-terrorism work for a Senator

Most of the other images of the military were as character witnesses. The short comments from David Alston, who was the AA minister who had been on Kerry's boat were beautiful, emotional and convincing. There were also his entire crew standing there and there was Max Cleland. It was a time of war and Kerry had been tested in war and was found by him men to be a leader they could trust. The message was obvious.

The Republicans claimed that it was fair to attack his service because he used it. First, that does not permit them to lie about it. Second, the SBVT book came out within days of the convention. It was obviously written long before his convention and would have been used had he banned the word Vietnam in his convention. It in fact likely helped when the SBVT hit, because people had seen that his men were behind him and had heard Alston.

Kerry in his own speech mentioned Vietnam only in saying that he served his country as a young man, then he spoke in equal measure of opposing the war. That and the salute at the beginning were it.

[mvd]

54. I have to disagree

The whole theme of the convention highlighted his military service. To me, it looked overdone.

[mvd]

70. One more thing

Then I'm moving to something more current. I think I mostly do agree with you, with just a few divergences. I used to think that Kerry did not respond well at all to the Swift Boat Liar ads, but DU has taught me that Kerry did respond. It can be argued whether it was enough, but he did not ignore them.

[BootinUp]

59. Another Clinton blamer is what I get from reading your post

When someone is to endorse or talk about a candidate positively, they make choices based on what they think will be strong positives to the electorate or perhaps follow the lead of the candidate's own talking points. I don't recall Kerry talking about the Vietnam reconciliation or the BCCI scandal during the Presidential run. And I don't think Amercians would have connected with those two issues in a strong way either.

[karynnj]

65. Kerry mentioned the POW/MIA thing in his speech

and alluded to BCCI in the University war on terror speech.

I am not blaming Clinton for anything, other than his oft repeated comments about Kerry speaking too much on Vietnam. This is hypocritical because if there is one person whose speech Kerry could not have controlled it was Clinton's. My point was NOT that the American people would connect to the issues - though - I do think that making the point that Kerry gained unusual help from the SE Asians in repatriating the remains would resonate with the veterans and that BCCI, defined as OBL's bank would as well. The point was more that it would be speaking of what he did as a Democratic Senator when BC was President. Many said that not enough was said about the Senate years. As BC had nothing to do with Kerry's Vietnam years, he would have been more effective speaking about what they did have in common.

Not to mention, it was pretty tacky to give McCain all the credit and ignore the candidate - who was known before the editing was done.

[Mass]

10. Lirwin2, stop obsessing about Kerry - He is not running.

However, the DNC head at the time leads Clinton's campaign. This is worrying.

[Clintonista2]

11. Oh look, I'm in Mass's dream!

Funny how you were "going to bed" and stopped responding in the other thread, after being smacked down.

[ray of light]

12. I dream about some fine North Carolina Crab Legs from Big Daddy's Sea Shack.

From Cape Fear.

(I hope that's the name of that restaurant.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Remember Kerry's gem of "I voted for it before I voted against it"?

Which incidentally it is very similar to what Hillary said in justifying her Kyl-Lieberman vote.

Two photos that killed Kerry. His wind surfing, which the GOP used in ads against him, and his eating a Philly cheese steak with Swiss cheese (horrors!) and with holding the sandwich with his pinkies in the air (horrors of horrors!!!).

Kerry's worse mistake was to throw in the towel so quickly on election night and his continuing denial that Ohio was not stolen.

[Basileus Basileon]

17. Perhaps the most inept statement ever made, for what was a complete non-issue. nt

[mtnsnake]

14. Most embarrassing campaign ever. They couldn't even release friggin balloons from the rafters

correctly following Kerry's acceptance speech that signalled end of the convention and the beginning of his (doomed) campaign.

"Where are the balloons? Get me some more goddamn balloons!!"

It was like a sign of things to come.

[Basileus Basileon]

18. LOL I had forgotten about that one.

Man, that was an omen.

[ProSense]

20. Did you know Kerry got more votes in Massachusetts

than John F. Kennedy did in 1960?

It was a historic campaign, trust me.

[mtnsnake]

21. Probably because there were way fewer voters in MA in 1960 as in 2004

although we'd have to do a population check to be sure.

[ProSense]

22. LOL!

It was more based on percentage.

[mtnsnake]

23. Oh

Anyway, I believe you

[karynnj]

34. He got a higher PERCENT of the vote as well

[karynnj]

33. I doubt the Presidential candidate had anything to do with the balloon drop

The fact was the speech was very well received as was the convention in general - until the Republican hatefest when history was rewritten and in was suddenly decided that throwing mud was the point of a convention.

This shows the media bias - consider 1992. Clinton had a convention that like Kerry's highlighted hope for a better future. The Bush 1 hatefest with Buchanan and Marilyn Qualye was universally panned and hurt Bush 1. Kerry would have ended up with McGovern type numbers if he either let protesters take over the convention or if he morphed into Michael Moore.

[Clintonista2]

56. Note the use of the word "campaign" in my OP

I'm not suggesting that Kerry was a bad CANDIDATE. What I'm saying is that lack of organization and competence was the problem of the Kerry CAMPAIGN.

[beachmom]

64. More embarrassing than Dukakis or Mondale? Please. You revise history

whenever it pleases your boneheaded hyperbolic posts.

[mtnsnake]

72. Boneheaded? The only thing boneheaded was Kerry's campaign & all his goofy gaffes

and yes, I believe it was more embarrassing than Dukakis or Mondale for a couple reasons. Kerry's gaffes were many, and they stood out like a sore thumb. It got to the point where you couldn't help but cringe whenever he he was seen or heard. Plus he lost to someone who had already proven to be the worst president in history and to someone who was a complete moron. Because of those reasons, Kerry's campaign goes down as THE most embarrassing ever.

[ProSense]

73. List them!

I think your comment is BS! Cheap talk!

[Island Blue]

25. Did Bill Clinton run good campaigns in 1992 & 1996?

He didn't receive a true majority either time. His campaigns must have sucked. :crazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

[Rowdyboy]

26. I've been watching since 1968...Kerry ran the worst campaign since Michael Dukakis

and thats saying a helluva lot. It was a fiasco and even then he could have won if Ohio hadn't been stolen.

[saltpoint]

27. Kerry-Edwards received more support than any other Democratic ticket in

U.S. history.

I voted 'Yes' in your poll.

[BenDavid]

28. Three things stand out on what a sham this was:

1. Having Bob Shrum associated with the campaign. 2. Answering a question while knowing ahead of time what the question would be: Senator Kerry, if you knew then what you know now on the Iraq war would you still vote the same way"? Kerry, "if I knew then what I know now, Yes, I would still vote the same way".....3. That sweet and soft convention where no one could speak ill of bushit....

Kerry had the stars in his favor, and I am not writing about Hollywood.....Saying the planets were all aligned for him to be elected and he did not want it bad enough....DAMN! Even the Red Sox won the World Series which was a precursor of things to come, but Kerry could not take advantage of anything.....and personally that damn silly ass bin laden tape did not lose the damn election for him. Hell, any good politician would have called all the msm together and issued a statement saying something to this effect: People of America, we have now heard again from Bin Laden. He was responsible for the 9 11 attacks on our great country and this president seems to not want to either capture or kill bin laden. Give me the presidency and I will do all things necessary to capture or kill this man, and we will change the war in Iraq and we will support our troops and we will achieve victory and twe will get out of Iraq" Oh excuse me, there was one more. The comvention was held in Boston.....

I do thank you
Ben David

[karynnj]

40. On number 2 , you distorted Kerry's response

and the question is oddly enough not recorded - and different accounts have reported it differently. It is clear from Kerry's answer that he did not hear or interpret it as you state.

As to the convention - what about the 1992 convention, which was sweeter and softer. Kerry morphing into Michael Moore would have been a disaster.

Kerry had one of the toughest races to win against a sitting President in a time of war, who raised terror levels politically, with parts of the Catholic church illegally taking positions, with the media not giving anywhere near reasonable coverage of his speeches. In fact, most of the 2008 platforms take extensively from Kerry's - and will look new - because few heard him because the media did not cover it. Not to mention the media played with the SBVT lies for nearly a month - though from day 1 in was known that they contradicted all the official records and the SBVT provided not one piece of proof in doing so. Also consider that he got only 3 hours of network coverage of his campaign as opposed to 9 hours for Gore and earlier campaigns. This made it harder to introduce Kerry.

Compare that to 1992, with Bush 1 at 33% around election day, the media hating him and replaying him getting sick in Asia.

[beachmom]

66. He did NOT have the stars in his favor. Hillary knew this in 2004, which

was why she opted out of running, calling that cycle unwinnable. It was an uphill battle the entire time. Bush was a war time president who hovered around 50% approval rating. I would like for you to cite an election where in a time of war an encumbant president with 50% approval rating lost the election. Given those odds, he came very, very close.

[cali]

32. I cringed when Kerry made the "reporting for duty" comment

that about summed it up for me. It was a tone deaf campaign.

[Mass]

35. Well, I cringed when Clinton stopped his campaign to sign on the execution of a mentally ill person.

That made me more than cringe, if we are at criticizing past campaigns for the fun of it. But it is kool to criticize Kerry these days.

[ProSense]

39. Ugh! n/t

[karynnj]

44. That really bothered me as well

that and the intensely nasty way he responded to the Gennifer Flowers' accusation. The tone of the letter sent to the ROTC guy who kept him out of Vietnam bothered me as well as the fact that his story kept shifting.

I was not bothered by Kerry's salute at the time. I also think that it annoyed the Republicans - there were likely many who found it discordant to their view of life that the brave war hero who had then spent over 2 decades in public service was the Democrat if he were the Republican, his party would have made a Frank Capra like film of his life. Kerry was in the Navy and the salute was not unnatural. It is clear watching CSPAN that Kerry's time in the Navy is very much a part of who he is.

Maybe the problem with some here, is that there is a parallel discordance on the part of some Democrats, more comfortable with Clinton's 3 stories on how he ended up not going to Vietnam than with someone who went and fought.

[cali]

Look, I like Kerry. I admire him. I think he would have been a fine

president, and brought honor back to the WH. I just don't think he ran a stellar campaign,though he clearly did some things right. And I don't blame him for conceding to bush or any of that crap. Sorry, that moment made me cringe. And I was watching with about 20 other people who all had the same reaction.

[Mellowtone]

49. I agree 100%

[ProSense]

50. So a single line to open his speech constitutes an awful campaign?

Really? Not everyone has the same opinion about that moment. In fact, Kerry got a bounce in the ratings after his speech, and it was the reason the Swift Liars ended their three-month hiatus.

[cali]

52. No. It represents a lot that was wrong with the campaign.

I thought the heavy reliance on his military experience was a mistake. I thought there was a sluggishness and absence of energy to the campaign. I thought they responded clumsily to attacks. I thought they didn't attack skillfully.

[Clintonista2]

57. "They didn't attack skillfully" - BINGO

Notice how during the debates, Kerry NEVER used the word "incompetent" to describe Bush's mangling of the war?

[ProSense]

58. Funny, some people criticize him for not playing up his military experience.

If you think energy was missing from his campaign you weren't paying attention. The Democrats' energy independence policy is based heavily on Kerry's plan. As for the his response to the attacks, I see nothing clumsy about the response.

1) Make it about Energy Self-Sufficiency and Independence. The energy debate is ripe for partisan picking and the Democrats were smart to use it during their convention. Americans want to hear about solutions to foreign energy dependency and are desperate for big ideas and bold solutions. Energy policy is now a public priority and Democrats put themselves on the side of the future. Americans loathe the idea of being reliant on the Middle East for our energy needs and they were waiting for someone to tell them so. This was John Kerry’s single best line at the convention, and it continues to resonate even today:

PAGE 133 ---

DEMOCRAT WORDS THAT WORK

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

link

[cali]

61. I'm done.

you will entertain no criticism of Kerry on any level anytime. It's pointless to discuss his campaign with you.

[ProSense]

38. You call that "tone deaf"?

HRC Endorses Senator John Kerry for President

6/16/2004

‘From voting against the Defense of Marriage Act to actively opposing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," John Kerry is a true leader for our community,’ said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

more

For Immediate Release:
Friday, July 30, 2004

HRC: SENATOR JOHN KERRY'S MESSAGE OF UNITY INSPIRES HOPE

WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques made the following statement lauding Sen. John Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“Last night, Senator Kerry used his primetime spotlight to urge our leaders to ‘never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.’ Senator Kerry called for ‘building unity in the American family, not angry division.’ He called for honoring the ‘nation’s diversity.’

“Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards are leaders who will unite the country, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. Americans are hungry for hope and Senator Kerry served a feast last night. He knows the value of bringing communities together. And he recognizes that we, too, are family.

“We want a leader who will stand up and fight everyday for hard-working, tax-paying Americans, including GLBT Americans. Senator Kerry last night proved once again he is that man.”

Contrast that to this. Now that's tone deaf!

[cali]

47. Yes. I thought it was awful. And I like JK

and have long been an admirer.

[Mass]

51. I did not like the line, but a line does not make an awful campaign.

All candidates have had awful lines from time to time, even the best.

[cali]

53. The line simply represents what I saw as a tone deaf campaign. n/t

[Vinca]

36. It could have been a good campaign if the handlers hadn't kept him

from responding to the Swifties and other horrendous attacks. By the time he got around to it, the show was over.

[Clintonista2]

60. Thats a very, very valid point

That's also why I phrased the question as "Did Kerry run a good campaign, rather than "was Kerry a good candidate?" Personally, I think Kerry was a great candidate. However, I think his overall campaign was incredibly weak.

[LibDemAlways]

37. Kerry allowed himself to be swiftboated. He didn't

understand the nature of the enemy. The election was close enough, again, for the repukes to steal, and they did.

[BootinUp]

41. He would have been

swiftboated no matter what he did though.

[sampsonblk]

42. One of the worst I've ever seen. Just awful.

A bunch of equivocating babble that rarely ended up being worth listening to. Any average candidate could have won that election handily, considering Bush's huge mistakes in his first term.

[Clark2008]

43. Made his first mistake picking milquetoast for a running mate

and continued downward, thusly.

(FWIW, Clark didn't want to be VP, so there's no sour grapes. I just think Edwards is an opportunist and wishy-washy.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. Choosing Edwards was tantamount to surrender, but Kerry was great in the debates

[BootinUp]

48. Thing is

the Dem party is made up of folks who want to hear positive messages and focus more on domestic issues than national security. The choice of Edwards was primarily a result of that factor. So he picked who the party favored in the role. I agree it was not the strongest though.

[Mass]

46. Choosing Edwards and not getting McAuliffe out of the DNC were errors, no doubt about that.

For the rest, he did a reasonnably good campaign for somebody the media were busy torpedoing and some of his fellow Democrats too afraid each time he was trying something new.

So, yes, his campaign had flaws. But it was certainly far from being the worse ever. If anything, he won the respect of many who took part to the campaign in the real world, not on DU or CNN.

[Yukari Yakumo]

62. Absolutely not.

Some key points

1) The Swift Boating -- That didn't kill him, his pathetic and delayed response did. Way too little, and way too late.

2) Playing nice against Bush -- Dear John, politics is not nice, it's a cruel bitch that'll chew you up and spit you out. Especially if your opponent is a ReThug.

3) 1992: "It's the economy, stupid!" 2004: "????" -- What was Kerry's message? The campaign was completely unfocused and nobody had a clue as to why they should vote for him other than "he's not Bush." It was a campaign that lacked the vision needed to win.

4) Kerry is not a good speaker. -- He's devoid of charisma, something that is really needed in a Presidential campaign. He's also terrible at getting his point across, especially in regards to Iraq.

[beachmom]

63. That's not what you said in your original thread. You said "worst campaign ever", as

in worse than Dukakis, Mondale, and so forth. It was over the top and wrong. I doubt many would vote worst campaign ever, as it is the furthest thing from the truth.

[ProSense]

67. Look,

more backpedaling. Now he was a great candidate.

Confused or disingenuous?

[Clintonista2]

76. Great candidate, horrible, horrible campaign

I thought I made that pretty clear. I geuss not.

[Clintonista2]

77. Really? I said "worst campaign ever"? Is that a quote?

So I didn't actually say: "one of the worst campaigns ever"? Surely you wouldn't be fabricating lies, would you?

[ElizabethDC]

68. No campaign is perfect, but I think his has mostly been tarnished in hindsight

Yes, they probably could have responded better to the Swift Boat attacks, etc., but the fact is that if all the votes had been counted properly, etc., and Kerry was in the White House right now, we'd all be looking back on what a great campaign he ran.

[sampsonblk]

75. SHeeeeeitt!

Throughout the campaign, there were boatloads of us complaining about how awful the campaign was and how we were being let down so badly. We were told to quit whining because the Kerry people are professionals. Whatever. The fucked up. Amateurs might not have gotten it right, but they would surely have gotten it wrong better than these clowns.

In fact, the Dem convention drew massive boos from many on DU. But the Kerryheads said 'trust us, we will win over a lot of swing voters with this pro-military theme.' Right. People are just waiting for someone of stature to say this war is fucked up. And here's John Kerry reporting for 'duty.' Many at DU were fuming.

When he got no bounce the Kerryheads said it was because there aren't convention bounces anymore with the country so evenly divided. There were huge debates about it here.

Then came the GOP convention and of course Bush got a bounce, as most candidates do. By that time I have quit listening to the Kerryheads because it was obvious they were not worth listening to.

Then the debates. Kerry 'won' them all - by saying some of the stupidest milquetoast shit you ever heard. Bush did not mislead us, he fucking lied to us. He didn't invade Iraq the wrong way, he bullshitted us into a war that was not necessary and cost a lot of lives and money.

Then came the swiftboat clowns. You could see them coming a mile away. They did the same type of shit to McCain 4 years prior. But Kerry just ignores it. There's a firestorm on RW raio and TV, they are convincing loads and loads of voters that Kerry is a complete fraud, and Kerry doesn't say SHIT for what felt like an eternity. It made it seem he was guilty of something.

John Kerry screwed us over. No wonder the big name Dems didn't want to get involved with is campaign. I wouldn't either. There were huge complaints at DU and other places all along. No, this is not hindsight. I watched in shock as it all happened.

I hope I never have to suffer through a campaign like that. So much of what we had going for us was given away when we nominated a passionless babbler who voted for the friggin war and couldn't come up with a decent explanation as to why.

Jeez. Its like its October 2004. Now I am mad all over again.

[MBS]

71. John Kerry ran a valiant campaign

The savvy Al Giordano, November 3, 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105094431/http://www.bigleftoutside.com/

Now What? First, We Kill the Media

. .. John Kerry put up the best fight that anyone in North American politics could have waged. He brought 55 million decent Americans to the polls (which, in 2000, would have won the race handily). He held the Gore 2000 states and added New Hampshire to the blue map. He adopted the best of Howard Dean's small donor-activist Internet strategy, and for the first time the Democrats had parity with the Republicans in the money game. He took it to Dubya, winning three debates in a row. He very nearly got 311 electoral votes that would have made the election a landslide on the other side. If he had, pundits would be falling all over each other today talking about the new electoral map in America. But two big Bush 2000 states where Kerry pulled close stayed in the red zone: Florida and Ohio, with their less than ethical governors, sleazy secretaries of state, and voter suppression tactics, proved to be insurmountable .. .

Unseating a sitting president during wartime has never happened before in the U.S. That president knows how close his opposition came to pulling it off.

Do we?

What many didn't count on, though, is that for the record 55 million on one side there were 59 million people who seem to live in the same country but on a different planet. Beyond the few wealthy ones who really did have self-interests in Bush winning (and the yuppie wannabes trying to get into that elite club) a huge wave of white, working class Christian family people came to the polls and voted for Bush. And the exit pollsters now tell us that it wasn't "terrorism" or the economy that moved their votes: it was "moral issues."

Moral. Oh, sure. Your grandma has no decent health care, your kid's school sucks, your teenage son might have to go die in Iraq, your job prospects are shrinking, you've got 100 cable channels trying to part you with your money, and your own expensive higher education, if you got one, didn't prepare you for real life… but you go to the polls and cast a vote guided by the fact that you don't want other people, different than you, from having abortions… and for those who don't cause abortions because they're not doing those nasty heterosexual things that cause pregnancy, you're not giving them medals either... you think you gotta keep them from having wedding rings.

What happens to a people to bring them so distracted by other people's sex lives that they've become divorced from their own true self-interests? Here's a hint: It's not religion, per se. After all, plenty of folks who read and believe in the exact same bible - Protestants, Catholics, Jews, other kinds of Baptists - voted the other way. In much of Latin America, evangelicals vote with the poor and participate in revolutions. So, it's not really the religion, is it?

No, something else has led us astray, and made it impossible for us, as citizens, to have any clue at all as to what is happening all around us.

It's the media, stupid .. . .

[wisteria]

74. Senator Kerry ran a good, honest and above the belt campaign.

He showed class, intelligence and style-behaving as a president should. There were mistakes, but the mistakes were magnified and mis-characterized in order to divert people's attention away from Bush's shallow campaign of fear and dishonesty. He worked hard at trying to get his messages out and he listened to and allowed "we the people" a chance to speak up and be heard. Some people seem to think good campaigns are those in which the candidate is willing to and does anything to get elected. Or, is in his opponents face, shouting and screaming and demanding to be heard while accusing his opponent of lies and innuendo. That IMO, is not a presidential contender, but a visitor on Jerry Springer.
Senator Kerry may have lost fairly or by deceit, but he came away with his honesty, integrity and class. That is more than I can say for a couple of our front runners running for president right now. They have shown no integrity or class and I believe American deserves better.