In your opinion, who should have won the primary in 2004? And has your opinion changed?

:shrug:

I'm going to go start a thread bashing some candidate instead.

Sorry to take your time. :(

(edit: spelling)

I voted anyway.

The fact is that he did not come close to Kerry in the primaries in spite of Bill Clinton calling him the only star in teh Democratic party except HRC. He also entered the race with the best PR and media I ever saw. He was the impossibly good white knight in shining armor. I doubt he could have bettered Kerry in the debates with Bush. Kerry aced the foreign policy one, which was Clark's main area.Clark had some problems on domestic issues in the primaries.

There would have been an attack on Clark similar to the SBVT. Kerry did succeed in disproving the attacks on his service by election time - as I assume Clark would have. The media would have been no easier on Clark than Kerry. They would also have used the taped praise of Bush from before 911, but after the huge tax cuts. These would have been played opposite any criticism of Bush.

I like Clark, but I think that Kerry had an incredible resume himself.

Let's face it, Bush is a train wreck.

But with Kerry in office, the mess we're in would be just as bad if not worse. Not only that, the disaster we call war in Iraq and the pending economic meltdown would have been blamed on the Democrats.

At least now the Repugs have no one else to blame but themselves and America might actually wake up and decide that enough is enough.

would be worse for this country than a corrupt, closed government Bush?

Kerry planned for a worldwide summit of ALL the world's religions and their leaders to come together to form a path to peace based on shared values.

Kerry would have had the UN take over Iraq shortly after Iraqi elections and THAT would have made all the difference in the world.

Kerry would have opened the books on IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

Kerry would have worked to secure Pakistani and Russian nukes and CEASED the US manufacturing of more nukes.

I did not complete my thoughts on that one, so I came across the wrong way.

John Kerry is a fine able man. He would have made a great president, if allowed to operate with support and respect.

But that would have not happened.

The part of my point that I didn't bring to light was that the disaster wouldn't have been Kerry's fault, the neo-conners and a Republican Congress would have ruined it for him.

They wouldn't allow him to accomplish anything. They'd find some trumped up charge to wreck him. They would make things worse on purpose and blame him.

Remember the senseless attacks on Bill CLinton?

Kerry would have gotten that by a factor of ten.

So my point was that the scum-bag neo-cons have no one to blame now but themselves...

And maybe now the people in this country may be willing to "look behind the curtain" and move forward.

Thanks for your point.

Kerry would have opened the books on BushInc and THAT would have turned the stomachs of most of the Bush loyalists and shamed those GOP lawmakers who helped the Bushes every step of the way - and a few powerful Democrats would have been exposed, too.


Clinton would NOT allow further pursuit of Poppy Bush no matter what revelations popped up throughout the 90s. And THAT is what led to Bush2.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Big, BIG Difference.

But there is something neither one of us knows.

Just because a president wants to open investigations and find out how the war was started, why, who was in on it and where in the heck all the money went, doesn't mean that he can make that happen.

Look at our congress now and Nancy Palosi and her inaction. I wonder how much of that is her own personal beliefs of the best thing to do, or the possibility that someone, from the cabal, tapped her on her shoulder one day and let her know "hey don't start looking, because nothing good will come of it".

I wouldn't know.

I do know that our form of Democracy is far from any "ideal" concept taught in school.

Even being the president has it's limits...

They can also apparently get away with leaking the contents of those documents to reporters.

Presidents now can do an awful lot thanks to precedent, and I could see it being used for the citizens right to know - for a change.

Remember, Kerry kept taking Bush1 to court to obtain more documents, and sometimes he won - and THAT is why we were even able to learn about the August 6, 2001 CIA briefing.

Kerry knows how far he can go and he also knows what BushInc was able to suppress - and what he WANTED released to thye American people.

Foreign policy is set by the President. In Kerry's case, he would likely have had support from the top Republicans on the SFRC - it was always clear that Lugar and Hagel respected him.

The President is the CIC. Kerry would have set the war policy - and from the ISG recommendations, many of the top Generals likely agreed with him. Just as a Democratic majority couldn't stop Bush, the Republicans couldn't stop Kerry.

On the environment, many things could be done by executive order. In addition, he would have put someone in the EPA who actually wanted to fulfill its mission.

Kerry would get to nominate the Supreme Court Justices - he said when fighting Bush's choices, that he would have stuck to mainstream candidates who reasonable people could agree on. Even if he didn't get his first choices, he would never nominate someone like Alito.

It is true, that even though all these things would have made things better - we wouldn't know it. As to the attacks, Kerry would have responded differently than Clinton. Look at his actions since he was 27, he has always been attacked, but always responded with dignity and purpose continuing to do what had to be done. The worst that would happen was that he wouldn't have been re-elected.

Where Kerry would have had difficulty is in getting legislation passed, but in 2005, the combination of foreign policy, the war, and the Supreme Court justices mattered more.

had Kerry been president. And now that I'm heading to Atlanta, I guarantee you that Kerry would have been working overtime to settle the water disputes between AL, FL, and GA (Bush's brokered agreement lasted ONE WEEK). He would have not blown off the slow freight train wreck in the southeast that Bush has (has the president said much of anything about the plight of the SE?)

Kerry has the best environmental record, not only of the '04 candidates, but the '08 candidates, too. The environment and global climate change is the sleeper issue that will impact more people than anything else. Had Kerry been president, do you know how much further along on that issue we'd be? The bully pulpit alone would have been priceless.

and that the plan would need an immediate 16 billion dollar funding.

THAT would have been another major difference. Imagine that money went to work on that coastline shortly after Kerry took office.

"with Kerry in office, the mess we're in would be just as bad if not worse"

This has to be the most ignorant post of the century.

Kerry's very first step would have been to set up the regional diplomacy that would have dealt with the situation before it became a civil war. Even in the debates he spoke of the need to disavow permanent bases and the need to quickly remove the American face from our efforts to avoid the occupation that now exists.

Kerry also spoke in early 2005 of the need to take advantage of the small window of opportunity that existed in Israel when Abbas first replaced Arafat. Abbas, along with an Israeli, were the people who in 1995 were asked by Prime Minister Rabin to brain storm solutions that could lead to middleeastern peace. Kerry has said at various times that we should have given Abbas the backing he needed so that he, not Hamas, was the one delivering basic services to people. (Even now, Clinton, Biden, and Obama are not among the co-sponsors of S res 321, a resolution backing a balanced approach to this problem that is supported by most liberal Jewish organizations (which have far more support in the Jewish community than AIPAC. These groups are pushing people to get their Senators to co-sponsor it because there is a secret hold on it. (It has 38 sponsors now)

In foreign policy, a diplomat, like Kerry, could have made a difference. He also would have been able to pick 2 Supreme Court justices - and they would not have been Alito or Roberts. We would have a President who says that the US doesn't torture period, who loves the constitution and who has a working conscience.

On the environment, much could be done by executive order - and Kerry would not have weakened restrictions on mercury in water. Kerry would have lead on global warming. Kerry also would have done right by the veterans - as he was an advocate for them for 3 decades. Near the anniversary of Katrina, Matthews and (I think) Fineman were speaking of what Kerry said he would have done soon after Katrina hit. He would have been completely involved and made sure people hot what they needed and knew that the country cared. (Kerry had worked on issues like beach erosion in the past and would likely have worked hard dealing with the real issue.

Not to mention we would have Teresa Heinz Kerry as first lady.

If it weren't for the dirty tricks played on him in Iowa and the "scream speech" meltdown (magnified in the media by cutting out the crowd noise and airing it numerous times every single day between Iowa and New Hampshire) after coming in a distant third, he might have made it.

He remains one of the finest and most dedicated people in our party.

to help the candidate paying his bills. Dean needed HELP running the campaign and instead got an egomaniacle prima-donna who was only interested in how much he could make off the campaign.

and we were all shocked at what scum he turned out to be.

I still can't figure out if he was bought off during the campaign or was a plant from the beginning.

partner of McMahons. I like McMahon, I doubt he knew what Trippi was doing. I don't think he was a plant, just a greedy jerk.

The winner did what was needed to be done to win. The losers did not.

Kerry over Dean by the way Dean was treated in the press. I think this time around, the internet has matured to the point that the candidates can by-pass the MSM to some extent.

Kerry when they knew little about him.

Why did the press target Kerry for MONTHS in 2003 and believing they had him taken down when they dried up his national fundraising they THEN turned in mid Dec to spotlight Dean's negatives.


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."

Although I was disturbed to discover that he wasn't Irish. I think he lied when he allowed that misapprehension to continue for what, 25 or 30 years? What was clear to me watching Iowa from afar was that he lacked the fire to really get out and fight for himself or for me. Too cautious, too controlled, too much time spent wind surfing!

and investigating more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. So, I know the general public couldn't have known his record.

He didn't lie about being Irish. His grandfather changed his name because of anti-Semitism which was more common back in the early 1900s. Kerry didn't learn about it until right before his mother's death.

And Kerry WON in Iowa BECAUSE he fought. He sounds controlled because he has ALWAYS had control over his temperament - he is a pilot and a warhero in part BECAUSE he has strong self-control. He pursued IranContra and BCCI investigations for over 5 years BECAUSE he has self-control and the willingness to fight the establishment powerstructure even when his own party was against his efforts.

Dan Rather has told us that the corporate media NEEDED Bush to stay in office for legislation favorable to them. THEY controlled the editing rooms that shaped the look of the campaigns.

You want to believe the media thwarted Dean, but refuse to acknowledge the media had GREAT REASON to prevent Kerry from taking office.

when Russert implied he was Irish near a St Patrick's day. He also went wind surfing for around 2 hours only, during the general election when the Republicans had their convention. With a normal media, that would have been a brilliant photo op - a gorgeous Nantucket day, beautiful ocean and sky, smiling people in a boat. I think he windsurfed briefly in one primary environmental event in the west. That's all.

It also may have kept the Republicans from playing the health issue. In the primaries, there was a push pull asking if knowing his cancer had returned changed opinions. The one thing that windsurfing showed was that he was very healthy and fit.

Watching from further afar in NJ, with access to CSPAN, he looked like he was campaigning his heart out each and every day.

Edwards was my number 2 guy back then.

Clark jumped in to stop Edwards, he would have won Iowa, Oklahoma and South Carolina right off the bat, some thought the Clintons put Clarke in to hold the office open for Hillary in 2004.

He would have brought in some Southern and mid-Western states.

No change. But once Kerry took the nomination I supported him fully.

He was my first choice. He had the best vision for the country.

but i am dispappointed that he is supporting HRC this year. He should recognize bill richardson is his true heir.

What an ugly turn of events.

and I haven't changed my mind in the least.

He ought to win this time, too. :D

And so deserved to win

I have no doubt he'd be President today, dirty tricks or not, had he won the nomination. My opinion has not changed.

He would have WON!

Edit: And I'm not just talking about Oklahoma. :-)

He was the one candidate who could have drawn a clear distinction between Democrats and Bush on the war.

The funny thing is that if Kerry was the nominee this time, he'd win easily. If there was ever an election for a bland white guy, 2008 is it.

which is his military experience, which Dean lacked. It was post-911 era
with war drums in the middle-east. We wanted a man who could boast military
experience. Should Dean had won Iowa, there would not have been that dreadful
primordial scream and Dean would be in the White House right now.

Kerry's three decades of service and were most focused on his being the top lawmaker in DC in exposing and investigating government corruption.

His military experience, bravery under fire and integrity were PLUSES, but still took a back seat to his uncovering of IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning, all of which were part pf the growing global terrorism issue - one he led on throughout the 80s and 90s - and one which recognized the role of our own government. Kerry is who this country NEEDED to follow the corruption of 30 years of BushInc.


I think those unfamiliar with that record HURT our party for clinging to their shallow reasoning. And unfortunately, most of those people were Democratic party spokespeople.

BTW - Kerry would be in office today, won by a landslide, if Terry McAuliffe had done HIS job and led the Dem party in the securing of the election process in 2002 and 2004. He refused to counter the RNC's 4 years of gaining control over that election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

governor of Vermont and what he accomplished there as the chief executive.
Law makers with no individual responsibility of making difficult decisions are not
my favorites for presidential material.

any lawmaker in modern history. He did it against all of official DC and including the Dem powerstructure who wanted him to stop.

He wrote a book released in 97 about the growing global terrorism threat and the international networks that were financing them.

You think post 9-11 this nation didn't NEED honest and open government accountable to the people and that understood the GLOBAL terrorism networks and believed in environmentalism as a key component to our national security?

Dean has EVOLVED to become an anti-corruption, open government Democrat and I applaud that and support him, but he did that THROUGH his campaign, and didn't start out as one.

n/t

the SERIOUS life and death problems for its citizens and for open government, itself, that this country was facing better than anyone else.

That person was John Kerry.

I believe to this day Dean would have won convincingly in 2004.
Dean energized the base a lot more than Kerry did. Also, Dean
was pretty much immune to swift boating attacks.

so the RNC could run every votestealing tactic they had with no counter from the Dem party.

Kerry did not lose the base - he had about 5million votes stolen from him thanks to McAuliffe's 'stewardship' of the party infrastructure.

You think taking Gore's total and adding 10 million (and likely another 5mil) is not doing the job? Kerry won all 3 debates DECISIVELY leaving no room for the media to spin it against him.

Kerry won every matchup he had with Bush - the DNC then failed at the most important job they had after 2000's election theft - to secure the election process.

Like his environmental record. You do know that LCV endorsed Kerry BEFORE the primaries, right?

and I still wish he had won. He was a rare example of a moderate who was willing to stand up and say exactly what he believed in and why. He only looked like a far-left-winger to the MSM because traditionally, only left-wingers engage in truth-telling.

n/t

and still like him now. But, honestly, Kerry may have been the best we could have run in '04. I like both Edwards and Dean, but I don't think either of them would have been a shoo-in in '04 to have won the general election, and I'm not even sure either of them would have done better than Kerry against Bush. The climate was still so much different then, and if that election had taken place even six or seven months later, I think the outcome would have been decidedly different.