"Kerry lost, get over it!!"

I think this line pisses me off more than anything.

It is a common argument that righties use on message boards to defend their point. Yes, I know it's a waste of time to argue about this, but it really drives me crazy.

First of all, it tells you a lot when the best the argument they can come up with is 'we won so shut up'. Second of all, we are not talking about a sporting event here. We are talking about people's lives. Am I just supposed to sit here and keep my mouth shut just because Bush won. Third, I remember them screaming like babies when Clinton was in office.

Anyways, just needed to vent.

like grade-school bullies.

I'll "get over it" when they "get over" the Clinton Administration.

felt the blood pressure starting to boil when I saw the thread title. It's unfortunately it's not just righties that are using that phrase. To all of them that derive some sort of vindictive pleasure from saying it, my response is, "the election was a fraud--get over it."

My response is, "No, the entire world lost, including you and me." And this doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that I believe Kerry actually won in a landslide but thanks to obstructionist courts, complacent voters and proprietary technology we may never be able to prove it.

remember Watergate...It'll come out. Little more challenging without paper, but it'll happen.

You are betting everything that it was fraud and MAYBE it was not issues or a weak candidate? What if it was not fraud and the real issues are not addressed. Won't this open us up to an even bigger defeat in '08?

Not a wise thing to put all of our eggs in one basket. Even if we make fraud marginal (you will never eliminate it completely from either side) you still have to offer a candidate that the red states will go for.

Despite believing Kerry actually had an electoral landslide, I think his campaign made some critical errors and I would have preferred a different candidate. I did not vote for Kerry in the primaries.

I also think the Democrats need a more coherent message and need to channel the grassroots frustration and anger a whole lot better. The issues of election fraud and improving the Democratic party are hardly mutually exclusive. This might give you a more well-rounded view of my opinions.

http://www.unitarianminister.org/correspondence.htm

Who did you vote for? It's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes my point. I personally don't find John Kerry a weak candidate, but it seems there there is more debate over that topic than we need to get into here. I support him, and happen to think he's a very strong candidate. (He's the one with the electoral reform plan-did you sign it?) My point is that even if a lot of Dems weren't satisfied with his nomination, I think it's much more of a "mandate" with the majority of citizens in this country to get the jerk out of the WH. So, if even non-Kerry supporters, like yourself voted for him, and the exit polls are as accurate as they are for every other election, I think it's a very reasonable assumption that YES, the election was a fraud.

but I supported Dean until Kerry became the nominee. I supported Kerry by default, not because he excited me or was a real ball of fire. He was not Bush. That was my only commitment to Kerry and for a great number of Democrats, that was their commitment to him also.
I knew Kerry was not going to win. There very little passion in his supporters. Jackson, Sharpton hell even Clinton appeared to be lukewarm in their support for him. When they appeared on stage together Clinton got louder and longer applause than Kerry. People were reaching across Kerry to shake hands with Clinton.

I do not believe that Kerry lost because of fraud. Yeah, there was fraud, but it only padded Bush's margin. If we think that dealing with fraud is all it is going to take to push a candidate like Kerry to a win, we are just marginalizing ourselves.

We need to look at this loss as a whole and not tunnel our vision on only one thing. Fraud, an unexciting candidate, a flawed campaign, the Gun issue, the Tax issue, religion. All of these things chip away at us. If we deal with them, make them more appealing and pick a point up here and a point up there, we can squeak out a victory. There was no landslide for Kerry. He gave it a good try but came up short.

ok-I really hope that is because you are not old enough to vote.

but I am a convicted felon. On parole right now so I CAN'T vote.

I was having trouble with the idea of arguing an electoral issue with someone who refused to vote. I'm sorry that you didn't get to vote. I don't know the story, and I won't ask, but it seems unpatriotic to deny any of age citizen the right to vote.

An aside, here. We obviously don't agree on candidates (nothing against Dean--I don't dislike him), but on a personal note, can I suggest that you don't refer to yourself as "a convicted felon." You are a person who has had a felony conviction. You are not the crime, nor are you the punishment. It just bothered me to see you label yourself.

If Kerry would have won by a landslide they wouldn't have been able to hack it enough to flip the election to Bush.

I think the campaign should have been more focused on national security/terrorism and the war, and I think they should have campaigned all over America, not just urban areas. They had enough money this time, but didn't change the old strategies. They were not able to swing the conversation to domestic issues because the people were more concerned with terrorism and the war. I know I was.

Shrum and Co. should have let Kerry strike out at Bush directly, all through the campaign, as he did in the primaries and at the end of October. A post 9/11 campaign needs to show toughness, every day, all day. Kerry is the fighter we needed, but they didn't let him show it enough.

I also think the Democratic Party in general needs focus--and I think they are doing something about it now, finally. A defeat will be a motivator, I suppose.

So yeah there was fraud, and voter suppression. But we could have won more votes than we did and it might not have mattered.

I'll get over it when Bush is out of office.

Period.

:shrug:

But the same people will go on about bill clinton's failings like he just got elected when they can't defend bushco.
clinton wagged the dog
clinton let bin laden escape
clinton paid lip service to terror
clinton got a blow job

created in the 90s, just focused on hating Clinton. So they need to suck it up, because it's our turn to get organized.

knows, even freepers, that Kerry won.

That's like telling me to just get over the fact that a thief came into my house, leaving with my most preciuos possessions.

What would you do in such a situation? You know the cops are useless and justice through them may well be denied. So, if you were like me, you would personally track them down and regain that which was stolen, right?

Too bad freepers won't help justice be served; they are too thick with the thieves.

and the ones not working with them are blinded by them. I still believe it'll come out. OK- so I'm an optimist, but...

His man date is much less convincing if half the country refuses to acknowledge it.

Getting over his nomination in the first place, and the continued right-wing destruction of our country is the hard part.

Must be nice to be a right-winger. When they vote and win, they get a full-on right-wing nut who starts right in on tax cuts and tearing the gov't to shreds.

When we "win" we get a DINO who also cuts taxes, slashes welfare, lets hundreds of thousands starve in Iraq and lets corporate America do pretty much as they please (with some very minor exceptions on the environmental regulation front)

Can you imagine if we actually had a LIBERAL president, and house and senate?

My other classmate is better though. He says that Bush isn't dumb, it's his policies that are dumb.

By Kerry haters.

and i think he lost as well.

Or "Kerry deserved to lose."

i still think he lost.