Maybe it is because I am wholly and completely in the tank for Obama and I am filtering things differently, but I do not remember John Kerry being this aggressive:
John Kerry, who’s served in the past as Obama’s heavy-hitter on national security, expressed incredulity at McCain’s remark this morning that the timing of troops return is “not too important.”
“It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs of Americans and particularly the families of troops who are over there. To them it’s the most important thing in the world when they come home,” he said. “It’s a policy for staying in Iraq.”
Kerry and Obama aide Susan Rice also both said McCain is “confused” — a line some in McCain’s camp will surely take as a shot at the candidate’s age.
I remember him making a comment last week that sounded strident (I forgot to blog about it, but I remember saying “ouch” when I heard him utter it), and then there is this conference call in which Kerry was again on the attack. Is this a new and improved aggressive John Kerry, or am I predisposed to think of his comments more positively now that he is an Obama surrogate? Did he learn from 2004, or is he just a better surrogate than he was candidate (I know some people are terrible at defending themselves, but great at defending others).
*** Update ***
More aggressiveness here.
*** update #2 ***
I just watched Kerry rip into him on MSNBC- “John McCain admitted he does not know much about the economy, but now he is proving he does not know much about our Middle East policy.”
And I swear he looked like he was enjoying himself. More of this, Democrats.
Probably both. He was pretty terrible in 2004.
I think the real John Kerry was there, underneath, but got DLC’d into submission during his campaign.
“Is this a new and improved aggressive John Kerry, or am I predisposed to think of his comments more positively now that he is an Obama surrogate?”
I remember JK firing back *hard* once in 2004. It was right around the time of the GOP convention and JK was in Ohio and he came out and said something like ‘he wouldn’t take a backseat on NS from two draft dodgers’. I was expecting more, because it was so true, but that was it from JK.
Yes, to both.
Kerry is a patrician New England WASP. In my experience growing up among that class, they are personally taught that it’s unseemly to defend yourself, and that you should depend on others to defend you — but that, conversely, you should be available to defend others when asked. If Kerry fits that mold, then I would expect him to be uncomfortable defending his own record when attacked, but lethal and deadly when asked to defend a colleague or a soldier.
Don’t forget, the whole Dem./DLC meme since 1992 has been moderate! moderate! And too many pols listened. Now, several years too late, they can see the lay of the land. Real ears-to-the ground types, those Congressional Dems. I also wonder if there might be some personal animus? I seem to remember McCain defending Kerry against the swiftboat smears, but I could be mistaken. Anyone have a better memory of those days than me?
Think that he is a little bitter over that Swiftboating thing?
I remember Kerry making some “aggressive” statements in 2003. He was beaten down by the press for it, and he hid for the rest of the campaign.
Also, his statements tended to be very long, so even if he did say something “hard-hitting,” it was often lost in a sea of verbosity.
Kerry was noticeably NOT like this in 2004. Based on what I have heard John Edwards say, he was not like that by design, and that the tone was set for 2004 by Mary Beth Cahill (not responding to the Swift Boaters was her brilliant idea). Patrician upbringing or not, he used to be a prosecutor and he had the ability to be like this if he had wanted to.
BTW, I will be only too happy if “confused” becomes a dogwhistle for McCain’s age. I don’t think you will see the McCain campaign folks drawing a lot of attention to that particular signal.
In 2004, he was afflicted by the liberal mindset that assumed the American people would see thru the right wingnut smears and lies and simiss them as such. And he was half right. Most prospective Kerry voters did see the smears, but they also expect a candidate to fight back when attacked. And if they don’t they get the wimp label at least from independent voters who usually decide elections.
I must be dyslexic.
I think that Obama’s campaign is focussed like a laser on McCain’s shortcomings, and will — hopefully — hammer him like a bent nail every time he says and does anything that reveals his complete ineptitude.
Let the GOP focus on things like who Obama’s preacher was.
We are going to focus on who John McCain really is, a sorry old fake who has leveraged his POW experience into a mythology that will not stand up to the scrutiny it will now get during his candidacy. He’s a trainwreck, and all we need to do is document that.
I’ve been struck a number of times by how much better candidates look to me when they aren’t candidates anymore. Even Bob Dole looked like a real human when he went on Letterman right after he lost to Clinton. He was sharp, funny, quick witted, and likable. All of the things he wasn’t during the campaign. I remember thinking that this wasn’t the guy I didn’t vote for. Where has he been? Same with Gore and now Kerry. And think how much better Clinton might have done had she given versions of her concession speech that were actual campaign speeches. Is there a pod farm somewhere in DLC and RNC headquarters that churns out plastic robots every three years only to let the real person out after they lose an election?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes, as far as I can tell.
It’s actually a serious problem, by the way. I am sincerely a little frightened at how much I like th’ M.U.P. In that, I’m completely behind a candidate for the first time ever, and I can’t help but think that he’s the bestest ever. Really.
What cued me in was my reaction once Sen. Clinton endorsed him, and a good chunk of my visceral dislike of her disappeared. This is not a rational reaction. I am, I am beginning to suspect, a little irrational in my full support for my candidate. Now, this happens all the time, I suppose (tho’ never to me before), but does anyone else think that it really is largely a function of Sen. Obama’s rather uncanny charisma? I speak not only of things like this, but also his rather photogenic nature.
Yes, I am “concerned.” But no, seriously – how best can the Obama campaign fight off charges of “Messiah Worship” and “Cult of Personality” charges when, in a certain way, such charges are (sometimes) accurate?
I ain’t accusing y’all. I’m, you know, just sayin’.
Of course I meant every FOUR years.
When I saw Kerry speak before an Obama canvassing event I worked at earlier this year in San Francisco, I remember thinking: “Where was this fire, this energy 4 years ago?” He seems truly transformed by the swiftboating.
I think it’s a nice twist. I’ve always heard it used as a euphemism for “lying” — “he’s either confused or he’s lying, so he *must* be confused”.
Well, the Obama campaign might want to fight off charges of ‘cult of personality,’ but at the same time I dearly hope they harness the power of Obama’s -celebrity-. He’s the first truly celebrity presidential candidate, and there’s an entirely celebrity industry devoted to promoting fame. It’s like Arnold elected governor of California, except Obama is actually, y’know, qualified.
This is more of the liberals-fighting-back than anything else, as far as I’m concerned.
Also frankly, to be brutally honest, I think the liberals feel that they can fight back and the American people will back them for a change.
You’re not allowed to be a human being on the campaign trail. Human beings have flaws and stay stupid things. Take Howard Dean. He opened his mouth in the primary, made lots of off-the-cuff remarks, acted generally enthusiastic about winning the nomination, and got ripped to shreds for it. Kerry was the “safe” bet, so that’s what we got.
Mostly, its the horrible fear of the word “liberal”. You don’t see Republicans balking nearly as much when its their turn to head down to crazy town. But while an anti-immigration nut can sit around drinking beers with the minutemen, an anti-war Dem needs to keep Code Pink and MoveOn at arms length for fear of being pillaried as ultra-hyper-off-the-wall marxist radical left-winger.
That’s been the nature of the country shaping up since Nixon.
On the flip side, when some candidates cut loose – like when McCain called his wife a c#nt or George Allen had his Macaca moment – it reveals aspects of character that people really are horrified by. So you see sleazy candidates trying to cover themselves up, while they lance sincere candidates for minor character flaws. And everyone bottles up till re-election isn’t on the line.
"Fair and Balanced" Dave
Since WASP is an acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant and John Kerry is Irish Catholic you’re only correct on the “white” part.
Let me be the first to point out the obvious: it helps a great deal that Obama opposed the war from the get-go.
Putting that aside for a moment, can anyone else believe McCain said this? I mean, he could have said a whole host of things that would have been a heckofa lot more artful than “that’s not too important”. Why not begin by stating that he wants the troops to come home as soon as possible, and then detail why it’s difficult to be more precise at this time??? It really does make you wonder what the hell is going through his head.
Indeed, John: though we usually use this description for A Gore, Kerry the Presidential Candidate was nowhere near as appealing and fiery as Kerry the Activist and Spokesman has been. I’ve thought so for a while–first, on his appearances on shows like Colbert’s to promote his climate change book, and more recently, in his Obama endorsement speech earlier this year, when he showed much more enthusiasm for another guy than he ever did for himself. Makes me mourn how tragic and sad the level of overprotection, overhandling, and fear was in his 2004 campaign.
Dissent The Way To Go
“WASP is an acronym for White Anglo Saxon Protestant and John Kerry is Irish Catholic”
But then, you can’t call him a WIC, because he’s not in crisis, and he’s not a woman. What to do?
Paul L., that’s pretty lame trolling, even for you.
John, you’re just mis-remembering 2004. Kerry was aggressive, occasionally strident, and hard-hitting. But the press could have cared less. The Republicans made the entire election about Kerry, and whenever Kerry went after the obvious buffoonery of George Bush, it was ignored because it was the “usual partisan bickering.” Which is why it was hugely interesting news that Kerry’s wife was rich, rich, rich (I tell you!), and that he went wind-surfing.
I too am struck with a nasty case of Obama fever, which may or may not ebb. But I have enough analytical ability left to realize that many Americans will fall for the same gimmick the Republicans always use: making the “issue” whether or not Obama is “up to the task.” My hope is that it’ll be a Democratic landslide; my fear is that it’ll be close.
I think the real John Kerry was there, underneath, but got DLC’d into submission during his campaign.
Agreed. Whatever the motivation, he came across to me like the Democrats figured they needed to find a suit just as empty as Dumbya’s. This new Kerry is good to see, if yet another addition to the Too Little Too Late pile.
After conducting a lukewarm, passionless campaign in 2004, Kerry rolled over like a dead whale, conceding the race with minimal protest.
Like Bush, he’s a Skull and Bonesman so, I’m going to conclude that the role he plays does not include representing the electorate.
He’s all about maintaining the illusion of representative government but, I think what we’re seeing from him right now is done for the sake of political expediency.
Any politician would be a fool not to hitch his star to Obama’s wagon. Some feel truly emboldened and empowered while others are only being opportunistic. I think Kerry’s falls into the latter group.
This just underscores again why I am glad that the Democratic primary is over and the nominee issue has been resolved.
I will greatly enjoy seeing a united Democratic Party, including both Clintons, firmly and aggressively take on the Republicans with a unified message.
I also hope that the Democrats can devise more effective tactical ways of getting their message out, something better than the old fashioned approach in which your surrogates are little more than the usual suspects on the weekend talking head “This Week with Face the Pressed McLaughlin Fox Crap” political shows.
Actually, according to genealogy sites, he’s not Irish Catholic either; the name Kerry was adopted by his grandfather, who changed it from Fritz Kohn. He was born in Austria-Hungary (modern-day Czech republic).
Changing names was common for people with German or Jewish-sounding surnames when they immigrated to the US back then; many of my own ancestors did the same thing.
None of this detracts from demimondian’s point—he grew up wealthy in New England (his mother was a Forbes), which means he would have grown up with precisely those upper-crust Boston attitudes that demimondian describes, WASP or not.
The Washington system took the 1969 Kerry who performed so masterfully in his testimony before congress and essentially bleached out any semblance of balls from his public persona.
Losing in 2004 seems to have done for Kerry what losing in 2000 did for Gore: it gave them the chance to realize that the gits who had been telling them “don’t make to much noise” for so many years really were just that, gits. Both have been considerably feistier since their respective defeats.
Obama, thankfully, seems to be a Democrat who doesn’t need to be beaten in order to learn how to win.
Kerry became far more aggressive in 2006. I assumed then he was setting the stage for a 2008 run. It appears he’s simply capable of understanding the New Rules and demonstrating he won’t ever again assume that the public will be able to see through the GOP attack spin.
This is pretty good as “received media spin,” but it is nowhere near the truth. Kerry ran a hell of a campaign and came close to unseating an incumbent President. He fought like hell — like the fighter he was and is.
The media invented a myth that he was cold, passionless and verbose, much like the Gore myth that he was a serial liar, bland and pedantic.
Or, for that matter, that George W Bush was a different kind of conservative who was really interested in helping ordinary Americans.
Lay off Kerry. He was a victim, not a perpetrator.
It’s never too late when you’ve got a 6-year term in office. Kerry has been a firebrand for the last four years, and I appreciate that on its own merits. If he fumbled the ball in 2004, there’s still time for him to make up yards in 2008. He’ll be a leading voice in the Senate when Ted Kennedy is gone. And he’d be on my short list for Majority Leader any day of the week.
Kerry could have gone the way of Tom Daschle and disappeared in a puff of disappointment. Instead, he’s been on the right side of nearly every major issue put to the floor and a major voice – along with Barbara Boxer – on energy reform.
“Aggressive” is the new disingenuous.
I still do not to this day understand why yelling “woo-hoo” at a pep rally was such a big deal. And I still resent it that New Hampshire, with its pittance of electoral votes, got to decide that The Scream was a big enough deal that the rest of us shouldn’t have to be bothered with deciding whether or not Dean was presidential material. A lot of the reason I couldn’t get behind demands that Hillary drop out is that I’m tired of a nominating process in which every big money donor and every pompous press hack plays their part, but only a small fraction of the actual voters get to have any say in the process. That’s fucked up.
Also, the commenter who said that Kerry did throw a punch or two but they were dismissed as “partisan bickering” unlike “legitimate character questions” brought up by the swift boat liars is right on the money. The airtime all went to shit like Michelle Malkin flogging “legitimate questions” about whether Kerry’s shrapnel wound was self-inflicted.
Which has to go down on the highly competitive top-10-dumbest-things-Michelle-Malkin-has-ever-said list. Self-inflicted shrapnel? Does she understand what shrapnel is? She makes a big deal about it that she’s not saying that he injured himself on purpose, but that the shrapnel might have been blowback from Kerry’s grenades lobbed at the enemy. If she wasn’t trying to suggest that Kerry was trying to get a million-dollar wound, what was she trying to say? That he showed disregard for personal safety in the face of the enemy?
In Malkin’s book, when Audie Murphy called down artillery fire on his own position, it revealed a critical weakness of character. Would it be responsible to question Audie Murphy’s patriotism? With so much at state, it would be irresponsible not to!
oops, at stake.
Kerry is running for Obama’s veep spot. Modern Vice-presidents tend to fill the role of attack dog: going after the opposition without getting blood on the President.
Similarly, why has Romney suddenly been an unusually aggressive GOP surrogate? Is it because he’s got a case of the hearts for McCain? No–because he’s running a Veep campaign. Same goes for Kerry, and a variety of other vice-presidential hopefuls.
This is the same Daschel who just wrote a book on critical health care issues and may be the next HHS Secretary? That “puff of smoke”? Who is as we speak on the air in an Obama ad? That Tom Daschle?
Maybe there’s two former Senator Tom Daschles of South Dakota…
“He was a victim”? He was a victim? Man do you hear yourself??
Anyone so easily victimized does not belong anywhere NEAR the oval office much less inside it.
Obama’s facing down a double-barreled race card and somehow isn’t coming across as a victim.
Q: What is the difference (politically speaking) between John Kerry and Barrack Obama?
I thought Lindsey Graham was playing attack dog for McCain, with intent to fill the GOP VP slot.
Oh, woo-hoo. He wrote a book. Be still my beating heart.
I haven’t seen the Daschle-Obama ad, but if you’d link me, I’d gladly consider changing my point of view.
I never particularly liked Kerry, except as a generic Democratic but this is an important point which deserves to be repeated to push back against another Big Media meme which just isn’t true.
The 2004 result cannot be cited as evidence that Kerry ran a bad campaign, because:
No incumbent US President, running for re-election during wartime, has every been defeated.
Bush’s 2004 margin of victory measured as a percentage of the popular vote was the smallest ever in US electoral history under those circumstances.
If Kerry had run a better campaign, he would have done something (unseat a wartime President) which has never been done before, and he came damn close to doing it.
John Kerry also defended Jim Johnson.
Johnson just quit the Obama campaign.
Yes, the John Kerry magic just keeps doing its thing…
I’ve read this before, but it is only true because Truman dropped out after losing the New Hampsphire primary in 1952.
Dennis - SGMM
Huckleberry Graham has been appearing in the attack dog role a lot lately. He seems to be more of a repeat the talking points kind of guy though – he doesn’t think very quickly on his feet either. In other words: a perfect choice for McCain because he will bring in those southerners who vote for an accent.
John Kerry is also being challenged in the Mass primary by another more progressive Democrat. PDA Healthcare NOT Warfare candidate Ed O’Reilly successfully challenged Sen. John Kerry by attaining twenty-two percent of the delegate votes, surpassing the threshold necessary to have his name placed on the ballot. This is the first time since 1984 that Kerry has faced a primary challenge. So… he’s bound to be much more vocal about his positions.
Having J. Johnson be one of his VP vetters is/was the first big mistake I’ve seen Obama make.
But, LeftTurn, this is a great example of “repeat something often enough and it becomes truth“.
And,as you may know, this is how they “catapult the propaganda”
It wasn’t all a myth, sadly. I remember reading all the Dem candidates statements early on in the game, as well as their emails, and I was continually annoyed at how determined Kerry seemed to leach all passion and clarity from what he had to say. It was especially striking juxtaposed to Dean’s statements.
I kept comparing his actions in Vietnam and after as an activist, and his intelligent and gutsy legislation in the Senate, to his stiff, bland campaign persona, and wondered if he had been drugged or something. It just didn’t add up. He came to life to some degree in the debates, but by then it was too late–too many people had already dismissed him as passive and ineffectual.
I agree with the other commenters that blame it on the DLC. It’s like they wanted Dems to lose.
There were times when Kerry was tough, but first impressions are usually the most important and the first really sustained attack on Kerry was the swiftboat craziness and he failed to respond in any meaningful way, something that still leaves me incredulous.
I agree that it was always an uphill battle for him, and probably his biggest mistake was not in failing to be tough, but failing to have better ground organization in tough states like Ohio. I canvassed for Kerry right before the election in a swing state and even then, I knew that he would probably lose on account of Ohio, where, incredibly, the SOS (in charge of elections) was also the chairman of Bush’s reelection campaign in Ohio.
Au Contraire, there are no victims in politics. There are only winners and losers/ Unless of course you’re the Sun Queen.
limbaugh's pilonidal cyst
Nah, Lindsey’s got a “Charlie Crist” problem…or Charlie Crists’s got a “Lindsey Graham” problem. Whatever.
And Kerry for Obama’s AG, I keep sayin’ it, y’all…….
*that is, the DLC seemed to want Dems to lose, not my fellow commenters…you know what I meant! :-)
Isn’t Senator Huckleberry a 52 year old lifelong bachelor? Won’t this raise troubling (to the base) questions?
I’d bet his base would treat his “lifelong bachelorhood” like they treat the other “lifelong bachelors” who may be family members or co-workers or neighbors: Don’t ask / Don’t tell, what I don’t know, won’t hurt me. (/Praises Jesus)
I don’t think Kerry’s tonally different — he beat the crap out of Bush in all three debates. It’s just that he was trying to have it both ways in ’04, arguing that Bush just screwed up the execution war instead of that the war was a big mistake.
Harder to effectively attack from that nuanced position.
By assimilating the people who make them. Problem solved.
You’re describing my personal dismay perfectly. I spent the ’90s carefully brainwashing myself with radical anti-establishment dissent. I read Emma Goldman and listened to Howard Zinn. I chanted mantras like “Democrat or Republican, the orders will still come from Wall Street.” Then came Brian Schweitzer, and then Howard Dean, and now Hopey. And I step back and find I’m totally on board the mule train.
I already know I’m not as rational as I wish. That’s why I try to program my brain with ideas that seem like they’re reality-based, or failing that, are compassionate. I want my reflexes to bring me close to the same destinations that reason would.
But the Obama campaign makes me feel like my emotions are getting the better of me.
McCain called the Swiftboaters “dishonest and dishonorable”, but didn’t utter a word again. When Kerry featured McCain (from 2000) in an ad about the pattern of how Bush/Rove smears candidates, McCain made Kerry pull the ad. And finally, Kerry worked a lot harder in 2000 to defend McCain’s honor when he was smeared in South Carolina — he got every single Vietnam Vet in the Senate to sign a letter condemning the attacks.
Kerry is not running for VP — he is running for re-election to the Senate (and, you can’t run for two offices at the same time). I don’t know about cabinet positions, what with Teddy sick. With one senator currently out of commission, I am not sure Kerry wants to leave the Senate at this time — I guess it depends if Teddy has as full a recovery as he can by next year.
As to folks calling him an “opportunist on the Obama bandwagon”, Kerry was the first major Democrat to endorse Obama, doing it in January. He staked a lot on Obama’s candidacy (he endorsed him right after Hillary won NH), when there were pretty good odds that Hillary was going to win. So maybe a lot of Dems are getting on the Obama bandwagon now, but Kerry has been in the Obama camp for a long time.
SGEW and Cris, me too. It’s kind of unsettling (especially for a tinfoil hat wearer like me) to have so much confidence in a presidential candidate. I’ve been fooled before.
But, as someone else on this site advised me “keep your powder dry”. Meanwhile, I’m going to enjoy the ride.
The guy’s good.
Kerry is also the one who invited him to speak at the DNC in 2004. He has been on the “bandwagon” for quite a while, now.
Fair enough, I didn’t know that. (oops)
Permit me to amend my original comment to clean up some of my bullshit:
I stand corrected.
I suppose it’s a good thing for Kerry to be more aggressive, but he is pretty inarticulate and seems perpetually on the verge of a new verbal gaffe. If I were Obama, I’d want Kerry’s public speaking role to be quite limited.
If he were speaking strictly for himself, I would encourage Kerry to be as aggressive as he wants to be. However, he’s already identified as an Obama surrogate, so it’s not clear that during the campaign he will ever be seen (by the media, at least) as speaking only for himself.
I think if you heard Kerry actually saying these remarks, they wouldn’t sound as aggressive as they do when only read. Likewise as a politician, he comes off better on paper than in the flesh. I heard him get this aggressive in 2004 many times, but the energy always got lost in his windy, funeral director persona.
Not really. Having five-minutes-of-hated my way through three elections as a republican, there’s a strong inclination towards tribal emotions buried deep in the human psyche. It takes a LOT of hard work, on an ongoing basis, to overcome those gut reactions and look at things carefully. That’s true on every ‘side’ of every election I’ve ever watched or participated in…
The sight of Obama being ballsy has encouraged other Democrats to find their balls.
Here’s the thing about joining the Obama cult — you don’t even have to buy into his policies. Just hearing him speak with such eloquence and such resonance, after eight years of the fake cowboy who can’t speak a complete sentence without mangling it (unless it has to do with killing or jingoism), is enough to want to join. I’ve never heard a Dem speak like Obama. Clinton the First could speak, and he could think on his feet, but he still didn’t speak like that.
Whoa whoa whoa, guy. I, personally, disavowed contact with the “Billionaires for Bush or Gore” in 2000, cast my vote for Vice President Gore in New York (electoral considerations be damned), and am damned proud of it.
(Yeah, I work w/ th’ “Billionaires” sometimes in certain political protests [mostly “Billionaires for Coal“], but they’ve mostly disavowed their quixotic Naderite stance by now.)
I was referring to my distaste for complete acceptance of any candidate. I campaigned and volunteered for Kucinich in 2000 (hey . . . why not? That’s where th’ cool kids were. We had a lot of crazy fun, and we all knew The Kooch wouldn’t be the candidate). I voted for Nader in ’96 (again . . . why not? Perot was spoilin’ th’ vote anyway, and Bob Dole looked like death, and was unelectable; might as well give th’ Green party a boost). And I pulled the lever for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. While gritting my teeth, sure . . . but I never thought that even Nader or Kucinich (Kucinich! I mean, c’mon, be serious!) would ever be a good president.
Less bad, may be. But not good.
But Obama . . . man, I can’t help but think this guy really is that good. Am I blinded by charisma? [Or
worsebetter, blinded by science?]
True (and also don’t forget LBJ in 1968), but I’m talking about general elections, not nominating contests.
The incentive is stronger for a war-time president with low popularity to step down during the primaries, because at least they are yielding to someone from the same party.
I’ve been watching Kerry for a number of years, dating back before the 2004 presidential run. For what little my opinion’s worth, I think his greatest failing is his attempt to seem the elder statesman: the stiff, humorless, compromising Lord of Sleep (as I like to call him on such occasions) that he becomes. I think he created this persona after his zealous liberalism netted a lot of bad press–mostly outside Massachusetts, it has to be said. Still, it’s what he used almost exclusively in 2003/4, and it completely covered up the energetic, friendly, determined, focused advocate Kerry can be.
And that’s the man you saw carving chunks out of Graham and by inference, McCain. Now that he’s no longer concerned about how people in Wyoming will vote, you’re getting a bit of Kerry without that damn mask in place. Enjoy it. I hope we’ll see a lot more of it, this political season. It’s happy hunting on those Rethugs, you know: fully fattened, and just waiting to be picked off.
Republicans told massive and unbelievable lies and distortions about Kerry, and he did fight back, but he was drowned out by the moronic gasbags in our traditional media. As it was, he got 48% of the popular vote and 250 electoral votes, and lost the election by 120,000 in Ohio, which may well have been manipulated.
Kerry did not offer enough of a liberal/libertarian contrast imho. It’s time for someone to say, “I’m totally fine with gay unions, society should not discriminate anymore. Churchs can do whatever they want, or don’t want to do.”
And the treatment of Kerry and Dean now as “losers” who “didn’t fight” is perpetuating the same stupid crap about democrats since Dukakis in 1988, although I acknowledge it was more true of Dukakis, who did not fight nastily enough.
That 1988 campaign was outrageous.