OK, if I am being serious, I will repeat what I said before Kerry even announced he would be running for President - the Democrats needed to select a charismatic Southerner to be their candidate. A Northeastern or West Coast candidate had no chance of wining. Maybe midwestern, but Southern is the best option. Edwards was the closest choice but he was green. Regardless, I think he would have been a better candidate. That has nothing to do with issues, by the way.
Looking at the results, it almost seems as if anyone else would've been better than Kerry. The guy couldn't get a rural/southern vote to save his life. It's hard to imagine that after all the crap we've been through this past 4 years, Kerry only managed to pick up New Hampshire from Bush.
Congressman Henry Ford of Tennesse is the man in that case. He is a sharp, reasonable guy. Even I might be able to get behind him. He's not as charismatic as Barack Obama, but he is very solid. Imagine a Ford/Obama or an Obama/Ford ticket....
I agree, rimbaud, although a Midwesterner (is that a word??), like Barack Obama, with some more seasoning, would have been great. There was no one like him running for the Democratic nomination, and he had to win office first. With his record, there is no way that Bush should have won re-election, imo. It took as especially weak candidate, from the wrong part of the country, with a poor convention, who couldn't decide who should run his campaign until it was too late, and who had a knack for giving the Republicans a minor verbal gaffe that Rove could twist into whatever distortion served his purposes. Clinton, putting aside his personal misdeeds, showed how to win the White House with a more centrist Democratic candidate, from the South, in his case. The Party took the wrong path when Kerry locked up the nomination. The fact that he could have still won the election, given a good convention, a much better campaign, and a bit less verbiage, speaks volumes about how dissatisfied Americans were with Bush. Whether bib Laden's video just before the election had an affect will be analyzed, but it shouldn't have mattered. The worm will turn, and the Democratic Party will find a way to move back into the mainstream. What I would like to see happen, and it won't happen with this President in office, is a move by the Republican Party away from it's extremist positions, to a more moderate path. I hope that happens as well, but we may have a long wait. Glad I got to read your post. Keep D&D Civil!!
That and also that he wasn't Dubya..... I would have voted for Wesley Clark or John Edwards over Dubya.
Kerry was a good choice. I think the failure was not with the candidate but with the party. The Democrats need a better message that will resonate with average citizens. And they need to market their message better.
General Wesley Clark. Clark is likeable, with a quick smile and a friendly nature, and supports many liberal stances, despite the usual misconception that military types go conservative. And he would have been 10 times the "war president" that Bush has been or ever could be. I'm so upset right now. The fact that the American people were blind and/or mislead enough to re-elect George Bush still seems surreal to me.
How is it that the "weakness" of your candidate's campaign could not overcome the "disaster" of the man in the White House? Shouldn't it have not been even close?
Reading these posts everyone seems to be treating this as though this were a landslide like 1984. This was still a close election with Kerry practically losing only by 140K in Ohio. When the final tallies are in the electoral college will probably only be in the single digits. IMO Kerry did the best he could. This was an election that was one by the Republicans successfully matching the Democratic voter mobilization and getting a lucky break of also having a highly controversial social issue on the same ballot. At the same time the hurricanes provided to be a bonus for the Bush campaign because they gave they effectively kept Kerry from campaigning there at a crucial time and gave the Bush the chance to show up as a savior bringing in Federal help. It also helped that the hardest counties hit in FL were swing counties. If only a few things had broken the other way, like say the gay marriage referendums never came up, I think Kerry would've taken it convincingly. As far as who the Democrats should've run I liked Clark early on but it was clear he was too inexpeirienced a politician to campaign well. None of the Democrats in the primaries really seemed very strong to me. I think if I had to guess at someone who they could've run who might've been better I think Evan Bayh from Indiana might've been a good choice. A Dem from a solidly Republican Midwestern State.
Kerry was a great candidate and I think we should stick with him and encourage him to run in four years. The Democrats need to be STRONG for once. Stop buckling when the neocons put the pressure on. Kerry needs to lead the Bush impeachment charge and in four years say, "I told you this would happen." And even if he doesn't run, I think this will be even more of a failure if Kerry is forced to disappear, as most losing candidates do. The only reason this election was close enough for Bush to steal it again was the amazing distortion team of the Republican Party. Kerry is a war hero and a dedicated public servant. He showed he had the guts to protest Vietnam, and I think he finally broke through the pressure of political advisors and stood up to Bush on Iraq and the war on terror. It just happened too late. The Democrats need to stop being so noble. Keep the same social policies, but pump out the pundits and attack dogs. They can NOT let Bush get away with anything, even if there is another attack. The Democrats need to be ruthless in opposing every right wing Bush proposal. This country will be better off in the long run if it stays divided, because uniting behind a criminal president will be deadly.
I think so, I mean the only way he wouldn't is if he would have won. Remember when W won 4 years ago he resigned as governor eventually. I think Kerry would have to do the same.
Yes, Kerry keeps his because he was not up for re-election like John Edwards was. Edwards chose not to run (he had higher aspirations and it probably would have been tough to win again). His senatorial seat was claimed by Republican Richard Burr who beat Erskine Bowles-- one of Clinton's former White House Chiefs of Staff-- 53-47% or therabouts.
This is a good read from Robert Reich. I heard it last night (it was actually a broadcast commentary) on NPR, and think it deserves more attention. PUBLIC RADIO'S MARKETPLACE COMMENTARIES: Broadcast November 3, 2004 The Moral Agenda Republicans ran on a moral agenda -- God, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Democrats ran on a policy agenda -- affordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy. George Bush spoke about right and wrong in moral terms -- as matters of righteousness and faith. John Kerry spoke of right and wrong in pragmatic terms -- for example, saying he had the right way to get the economy moving again or to fight Al Qaida, and George Bush was going the wrong way. I don’t think most Americans rejected John Kerry’s policies. It was Bush’s moral vision they found more compelling. When politicians talk about having a plan for this or a policy for that, many eyes glaze over. But when they speak with righteous indignation -- with passion and conviction about what is morally right to do or morally offensive -- they can inspire the nation. My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. But perhaps Democrats need somewhat fewer plans and policies, and a bit more moral conviction. They also need to talk more about faith -- faith in what this great nation can accomplish if we work together. Democrats used to talk in moral terms -- about fighting for civil rights, for example. What could Democrats say now and in the future? That it’s morally wrong to give huge tax cuts to the rich while cutting social programs for the poor and working class -- especially when the gap between the rich and everyone else is wider than it’s been in more than a century. That we have a moral obligation to give every American child a good education and decent health care. That it’s morally wrong that millions of Americans who work full time don’t earn enough to keep their families out of poverty. My faith -- and yes, it is a matter of faith, a great leap of faith -- is that in all these respects, and many more, this nation can become a more just society. I’m not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won’t inspire the American public. Plans and policies are important, of course. But there’s no substitute for offering a vision of what we can become as a nation -- and giving citizens the faith we can get there. http://www.robertreich.org/reich/20041103.asp Keep D&D Civil!!
