All this talk of debates got me thinking back to the Presidential Debates of 2004...

[calmblueocean]

<<Warning: Political Nostalgia Alert>>

You know, it took me a long time to warm up to John Kerry, but I remember watching him in those debates and feeling a sense of pride suddenly bursting forth inside me. Kerry was outstanding. The former prosecutor in him came out and demolished Bush. Relentlessly. Issue after issue, he took Bush apart and made W look like the buffoon he is, sputtering "You fergot PO-land!" and mumbling on about rumors on "the internets". So many good memories.

I've been enjoying these debates between Obama and Hillary, but no matter which of them ultimately debates McCain, I don't expect the kind of fireworks I felt in 2004. Kerry lost that year not due to any defect in his performance, but due to a defect in the American people. They preferred war over peace that year, ignorance over knowledge, fear over wisdom. And that's what they got. Unfortunately, that's what the rest of us who didn't vote for Bush got, too. It's what the whole world got.

John Kerry wasn't always the best campaigner, or the best speechmaker, but he shined over those 3 debates in 2004, and gave me hope in a way that still lingers on, even now. Tonight, I just sorta missed him. He would've made a great president.

[FlyingSquirrel]

1. One thing's for sure...

If you have a choice between being great in the debates, or great on the campaign trail -- Nowadays in America, it's better to be great on the campaign trail and a good speaker.

So by that standard, Obama's got what it takes. (He's not bad in the debates either)

[calmblueocean]

5. Yeah, the debates don't really determine the winner anymore

Kerry lost in large part because of the negative Swiftboat ads that ran and ran and dominated the news cycle. The ads in the end made more difference to undecideds, I think, than the debate.

A funny thing, though, is that I always read about people saying Obama isn't getting hit hard enough in the media, that the media likes Obama. Isn't it *good* to be on the winning side of that again, finally? I mean, our mainstream media in this country is revolting, but they're not going away. It seems to me that one of Obama's major advantages is that the media likes him, and likes the narrative of his campaign. If Hillary can't get the media on her side, that makes us less likely to win in November, not more.

And I think Barack is great in debates. Very different than what we're used to. Obama is like the reed that survives the storm by bending with the wind. Instead of being antagonized by her attacks, he just deflects them. I think the kind of hardcharging debate style that Hillary practices ultimately favors Republicans in the long run, and Obama's smoother, calmer style favors Democrats. Bill Clinton once said, "When the voters think, we win," and that's what Obama does -- he gives the voters time and space to think.

[JI7]

6. Kerry made huge gains after the debates so they do matter

i think Kerry's mistake was in taking public funds which put him on spending limits after he accepted the nomination.

the republicans purposely had their convention much later than usual so they could have more time to spend freely while Kerry was limited.

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. The media giveth, and the media taketh away...

Let's not get too complacent on that one. The media's still mainly owned by corporations that like Repigs.

[blm]

9. They DO matter - had Kerry done poorly at ALL, corpmedia would've blistered him

on the way to crowning Bush as a champion debater.

People here forget the role the media played - Dan Rather has admitted that corpmedia NEEDED to protect Bush throughout his first term and during that campaign because they expected favorable rulings in his next term.

Kerry HAD to win those debates so decisively that media COULDN'T spin it for Bush.

Media owners NEEDED for Kerry to be distorted throughout that campaign... too bad that Dems allow media to continue distorting that entire campaign.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[karynnj]

13. No one since maybe JFK is close to Obama in the magic of his campaign,

but there is a lot of rewritten history on Kerry's 2004 campaigning. There were two groups of people and their media allies with reason to do so - the Clinton and the Edwards people. After losing, Kerry was a threat to both for 2008, which is why he was belittled continuously by their media allies from the moment he lost.

Kerry's win of the nomination was an amazing accomplishment. He was being written off by the media weeks before his Iowa win. That win was because face to face with Iowa voters, Kerry was the most impressive and won people over. (This year shows that having Cindy Vilsack (like HRC) and having the firemen(like Dodd)didn't guarantee a win.

Even after Kerry won 16 primaries and Edwards won only SC, the NYT published an op-ed saying the Democratic nominnee would be named John, but it was not clear if it would be Kerry or Edwards. Kerry clinched the nomination the next week when he won all but VT in superTuesday, where polls showed him ahead double digits.

Kerry's speeches are excellent and easily beat anyone other than Obama. (I actually prefer Kerry) As to rallies, people forget the incredible rallies of fall 2004 - that were so good MSM did not show them - and CSPAN (my favorite channel then and now) is not watched by that many people.

What I do think is that Kerry got it right when he endorsed Obama, fair or not, it will take someone who was less involved in the events of the past. By this, I don't mean the IWR vote, Kerry was against invading and he led on Kerry/Feingold. But, it may be that fight plus the 1971 fight that made him the messenger to many people who did not want to hear that we were not winning. Also, voting for Kerry many people would be admitting they were wrong in 2004. Obama doesn't have that burden.

[sandnsea]

2. He opened us up to what could be

He was talking about a transformation in the world too. There isn't much in anybody's platform this year that wasn't in Kerry's then. Well, except he had a clear agenda to end the war in 2005. I still think he'd be the best President as far as policy goes. But he's had Obama's back for a while so I'm not worried about what Obama will do in the White House.

[JI7]

8. it was a turning point in people seeing that what the media had presented

for months/years was not always the case. Bush was supposed to beat Kerry easily in the foreign policy debates which is a fucking joke to anyone who actually pays attention and knows anything about Kerry.

this is why in 2006 when the media started to use the Kerry botched joke thing to hurt Democrats it didn't work and Democrats still ended up winning Congress.

[LibDemAlways]

3. Bush's handlers had so little faith in his ability to debate Kerry

that they had him wired and fed answers into his ear. He still came off like a total moron. Even though there was photographic evidence, the media chose to ignore the story. Imagine if a Dem was caught in a similar situation. He or she would never live it down, and would probably be forced out of the race. Liberal media my ass.

[grantcart]

4. yeah there is that one tape I saw where he is actually talking

back to Rove and people thought he was answering a question in a debate - is any of that stuff on you tube?

[blm]

17. If a Dem pulled a stunt like that they'd be run out of DC - period.

.

[LibDemAlways]

18. Meanwhile Rove could have rigged up the chimp

in full puppet regalia seated on Cheney's lap a la Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy and no one in the media would have said a word. And the election would still have been close enough to steal.

[democrattotheend]

10. John Kerry definitely grew on me during the debates

He kicked Bush's ass in all three, and I found myself missing him on the stage last night when neither Clinton nor Obama knew much about Russia.

I don't agree, though, that Kerry lost the election through no fault of his own. I think Bush had the edge to begin with, but Kerry made a few key mistakes that I think cost him.

And though he was definitely not my first choice in the primaries in 2004, I agree that he would have made a great president.

[calmblueocean]

11. Anyone watching those debates saw a vast gulf between Kerry and Bush, though.

That's what I mean.

Kerry made a few mistakes during his entire campaign, especially in not shredding the SVT from the get-go, and turning away from his Winter Soldier testimony instead of embracing it and relating it to Iraq.

But for anyone who watched those debates, the difference between the intellect, the wisdom, the capacities of these two candidates could not be more clear. Somehow standing at the debate podium gave Kerry's answers a sharpness, a conciseness, that we rarely saw as he stumped around the country. Bush was left either blinking morosely into the camera, or stammering in anger. His ignorance was laid bare for the world to see.

I feel strongly that no one who saw those debates and had the capacity to be convinced to vote for John Kerry walked away and voted for Bush. If those debates didn't convince them, then nothing Kerry did would've. On the merits, the election should not even have been close. Unfortunately, in 2004, America was in the grips of a sort of national Stockholm syndrome, and couldn't be talked out of it.

[MBS]

21. "national Stockholm syndrome".. perfect descriptor! Thanks n/t

[karynnj]

14. Kerry's mistakes were extremely minor compared to all of Bush's

The difference is all of his were magnified and even exaggerated. He was never allowed to clarify, much less correct an answer. Bush on the other hand only rarely spoke unscripted - when he did he almost always said something wrong. The media either pretended it didn't happen or took it as a joke. (Examples: Kerry gave a complete answer that explained the 2 Senate funding bills - explained that he voted for the Democratic one which was paid for and included oversight and, as a protest vote knowing the bill would pass, against the final bill. The focus of the question was making the case that he was not against funding the troops. When a heckler asks the same question minutes later - he gave the unfortunate shorthand answer. Bush came out saying things that suggested he would be willing to re-initiate the draft and to try to privatize social security. In both cases, quick Kerry responses were treated as though he was making things up.)

Every candidate running will make mistakes if they are taped 16 hours a day and the other side controls the editing. The debates where everything is unfiltered show just how good he was.

[MBS]

12. ... what you said

though I think that he's a very good speaker (different style than Obama, but also effective, and arguably deeper; and his speaking skills continued to grow throughout the campaign), and he ran a better campaign than the conventional wisdom gives him credit for, especially when you factor in the less-than-helpful "contributions" of the DLC/Clintonista wing of the Dem party in 2004, not to mention the Rove/SBVT slander, and the still-fearful and comatose electorate. Thank goodness our citizens have finally started to wake up. It helps Obama (and Dems in general) a lot

I miss Kerry, too. But I'm so glad he's working hard for Obama, and working equally hard in the Senate.
And yes (replying to the post just before me), he would have NAILED that Russia question last night.(To tell the truth, I was kind of shocked that neither HRC or Obama answered that question well, as Putin, etc, is a very, very important , and growing issue for the US. .)

And yes, Kerry would have been a great president.

[NJSecularist]

15. Kerry is personally the best debater I have ever heard

He's even better than Hillary, whom I consider very good at this format. He absolutely slaughtered Bush in 2004. Unfortunately, the debates didn't mean much when it was all said and done.

[Steve-O]

16. It was like the SNL Mike Dukakis skit "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy"

[Adelante]

19. Kerry is a terrific debater

But I also thought his speeches were wonderful. It took me hearing him speak in person to realize just how good a speaker he is.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. "It took me hearing him in person to realize just how good a speaker he is"

That's so true, WesDem. Well, actually I went from being a lukewarm Kerry supporter to being a rabid, passionate Kerry supporter after I saw his DNC speech. That speech blew me away and was head and shoulders above Edwards' speech - this after the media had been warning us that the "charismatic" Edwards would overshadow the "stentorian" Kerry. Then a few months later I saw him in a couple of rallies, and I was sold for life. The man has true charisma and gravitas and anyone who actually sees him in person (without a preconceived agenda) will recognize that.

[politicasista]

20. K&R

for good nostalgia. :kick:

[ray of light]

23. You're absolutely correct! Nothing compares to the hope in 04 that Kerry gave us.

And the fact that Hillary and Obama are discussing HIS IDEAS this years shows how big of a loss the USA had in 04. Too bad we have a complicit media.

[blm]

27. Corpmedia will be seen as complicit soon - Rather's lawsuit will bring some of it

out publicly. He has already stated that Corporate Media NEEDED to keep Bush in office for the favorable rulings they expected from him while Kerry was looking to DECREASE their power.

[robbedvoter]

24. John Kerry WON. What he did with the victory - other stories. GE debates - stellar!

MSM simply minimized the whole debates thinghie...

[wisteria]

25. I agree wholeheartedly. I was watching the debates and thinking the same thing myself.

The memories of 2004 will remain with me for a very long time. And, yes, even now I believe he would have been an outstanding president.

[Laelth]

26. I don't think John Kerry lost.

And I still maintain that he was the best candidate from which we had to choose. I think he had the best chance of winning, and I think he did win, even if he wasn't sworn in.

In this year's debates I expect either Hillary or Obama to demolish McCain. I am very much looking forward to them.

:dem:

-Laelth