What I can’t forgive was that he did not fight for his victory. He caved so fast, faster than Gore did. THAT’S when I expected to see him fight. THAT’S when we needed him to fight.

There may be some on the blogosphere that want John Kerry to go away, but I’ve got news, he’s not going anywhere. He’s done more for Democratic canidates this year than any ohter Dem in office. He’s done more the party than any other Dem in office.

Take a trip into the real world. John Kerry is loved and respected by so many people that your head would spin. Most of those people think twice before frequenting the liberal blogosphere and this is a prime example why.

Don’t know if this thread is kaput by now, but had to add…

I stood up for the gist of this post over at Kos earlier today, and have been savaged all afternoon. They thought it’s terrible to dis such an honorable man as Kerry (it is, actually, but I think it’s justified. Unfortunate, but justified) I finally told them they must be young enough that Kerry was the first presidential election they followed & they must have become infatuated by him. After a few elections you begin to be less idealistic and look at the electability of the candidate. The election was Kerry’s to lose, and he did just that. Sure, the MSM was horribly biased and Rove and his swiftboaters slung outrageous lies, and it’s pretty clear Bush received much help in Ohio from Blackwell & Diebold. But in spite of all that, Kerry should have been able to make his case that Bush is a miserable moron unfit for any public office, and he did no such thing. I’ve never seen such a lame, mealy-mouthed campaign in my life. I hold Kerry responsible for the horrors this county has had to endure the past 2 years & the horrors likely to follow in the next 2 years.

Anyway, is there the slight possibility that the dems can find a suitable candidate up to the challenge of 08? God, help us and this country if we can’t.

Gee, I can see why you were criticised – it is beyond unfair to state that Kerry is responsible for the hell that Bush created. It’s clear to me that he worked as hard as he could to win, although the election was stacked against him.

- In previous elections, a group known to be associated with one candidate which levelled outrageous charges against the other would have backfired. All the Navy records back Kerry, a historian’s book backed Kerry and Kerry’s people disproved a huge number of lies. Instead of taking the campaign sponsoring this to task the media played with it.

- The media failed to cover his rallies or his major speeches – other than the convention – to the degree that was normal in past elections.

- The government used terror warnings as political devises.

Oh – as to this being my first election – I have strong memories of canvassing for George McGovern and casting my first vote for him. I couldn’t have cast my first vote for Kerry then unless I lived near Lowell, MA, which I didn’t. I do feel flattered that you think that I and everyone else who though your comment went too far have fresh new ideas, that’s great to hear when you’re much older.

I think you should take your comments further. I think that maybe the fault is not Kerry’s but yours. I suspect that at sometime during the election you posted a whiny tirade because you were not happy with Kerry. This impacted all who read it – making all of them a little less effective. This rippled across the many inter-connected liberal boards. Your attitude was negative and it pulled others down – ultimately leading to less votes.

I hope you realize that you, yes you, are responsible for the world as it is.

John Kerry should NEVER have been put in a postition to have to say more than he did about the Swiftboaters. Dean, Clark, and Sharpton stood up for him but not too many others. It probably would have been futile anyway since the Cable news and radio talk shows were all Swiftboats all the time. Where was Terry McAuliffe?

There’s a whole lot about this thread that I will not get into, but this comment touches on something about the SB campaign that I always thought true, but was seldom if ever mentioned. It put Kerry in the position of having to tout the specifics of his own war record. Veterans I have known have been reluctant to come out with that kind of I-did-this-on-this-day direct self-praise.

I think this is why the GOP chose to go with this, because they knew it would probably be deeply offensive to Kerry to have to defend himself at length on that subject and so he’d be reluctant to do so (although I’m another who seems to recall that he did offer rebuttals that were ignored). As the commenter points out, this is where others in his vanguard should have stepped up without needing to be asked, and where only a few actually did.

I stood up for the gist of this post over at Kos earlier today, and have been savaged all afternoon. They thought it’s terrible to dis such an honorable man as Kerry (it is, actually, but I think it’s justified. Unfortunate, but justified) I finally told them they must be young enough that Kerry was the first presidential election they followed & they must have become infatuated by him. After a few elections you begin to be less idealistic and look at the electability of the candidate. The election was Kerry’s to lose, and he did just that. Sure, the MSM was horribly biased and Rove and his swiftboaters slung outrageous lies, and it’s pretty clear Bush received much help in Ohio from Blackwell & Diebold. But in spite of all that, Kerry should have been able to make his case that Bush is a miserable moron unfit for any public office, and he did no such thing. I’ve never seen such a lame, mealy-mouthed campaign in my life. I hold Kerry responsible for the horrors this county has had to endure the past 2 years & the horrors likely to follow in the next 2 years.

Anyway, is there the slight possibility that the dems can find a suitable candidate up to the challenge of 08? God, help us and this country if we can’t.

Jane Hamsher @ 98

neurophius @ 86

If I’m not mistaken, John Kerry was one of only three or four senators who came out in support for Feingold’s censure resolution.

And didn’t I hear he was campaigning for Lamont?

Yes he did. Which means he’s done good things and is deserving of respect. But not without limitations.

I’ll certainly agree with you there, Jane.

Maybe it would be best if he would just concentrate on being an outstanding Democratic senator, and let the presidential thing go.

So far since 11/04 he has concentrated on being an excellent Democratic senator and voice. I have always heard him deflect 2008 questions by saying that his focus is on 2006.

dachost,e @ 24

with kerry, i don’t think i can ever get past that one point in the ‘04 campaign when a reporter asked him, “knowing what you know now, would you still have voted to give bush authorization to use force?”, and he said yes… i literally threw the remote at the tv… useless

Kerry said that here in Arizona… yep went over real well here…..

The very liberal Dems (yes we do have them here in AZ) and the Libertarians were just turned off. Many of my high efficy voters just did not vote that year….. WHY….. because Kerry would NOT make a stand against the war.

One of the engaging things about Paul Hackett was his way of pushing back. Murtha also does it.

My rule is…. If they hit you once, you slug them back twice with both fists…. because THAT is the only way they will get the message.

Take note that Murtha is one of Hackett’s prime attack targets.

Great info and thanks for the link. Did you run across the great line in “Lapdogs” about the media attacks in ‘00?

“Gore was attacked for wearing ‘earth colors’. Who doesn’t?”

Boehner also covered the interesting change in public opinion and professional assessments after the debates. On the nights of the debates there was wide spread consensus in the opinion polls that Gore won.

In the days and weeks that followed, the chattering media managed to spin public opinion against Gore’s performance.

Oh, I hope everyone has checked out the Princeton report on the Diebold EVR machines….