News Now, truly in retrospect, was John Kerry the best choice for the Democrats?

[wasteofo2]

Now that all's been said and done, and no one has any pressure to over-exagerate John Kerry to try to help him get elected, or demonize him in hopes of him losing, I pose this question again:

Was John Kerry the best choice for the Democratic nomination?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, what were the alternatives? Dean would have been even more of a deer in the headlights, and came on just as elitist and northeastern. The others were all in one way or another Johnny One-notes. I would have said Edwards, but I think his wife's cancer took him out of play as it was; just imagine if he'd been the candidate!

 

[wasteofo2]

Well, what were the alternatives? Dean would have been even more of a deer in the headlights, and came on just as elitist and northeastern. The others were all in one way or another Johnny One-notes. I would have said Edwards, but I think his wife's cancer took him out of play as it was; just imagine if he'd been the candidate!

Dean really came off as an elitist to you?

I'm friends with a guy in Texas, and he and all his friends voted for Bush. These guys are classic Texans, they drive pickup trucks, they know carpentry, they love ZZ Top more than any other band, the own several guns etc. However, in the beginning, him and lots of his friends were pulling for Howard Dean to win, and would have voted for him over Bush.

Why, you ask, would someone choose Howard Dean over Bush, but Bush over Kerry?

Howard Dean seemed like a real guy who really cared about helping people, and who really believed in what he talked about. These guys all felt like they could relate to Howard Dean. They also felt that they could relate to Bush more than Kerry. Plus, they were more likely to listen to criticism of a guy they related to (Bush), from another guy they related to (Dean), than they would from a guy they didn't relate to at all (Kerry).

 

[BobG]

I voted for Leiberman, because he's the Democrat I liked the most. Realistically, Kerry was the best realistic hope for winning.

Maybe the Democrats ought to lure in some of the more moderate Republicans. Not a totally unrealistic thought. Aside from the traditional Democratic social issues, which they tended to downplay, their party platform was much more conservative than one tends to think of Democrats and the Republican Party platform swung drastically to the right, as well, even going so far as to include a section co-written by Haley Barbour ("Protecting Our Families"). If Specter is denied his Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, maybe he could be the Dem's first recruit (his nickname is "RINO", afterall).

Of course, maybe that's part of the problem. Kerry and the Democratic Party tended to be seen as 'chasing' the mood of the nation while the Republicans' historical stance was already there (even if their current stance had moved).

 

[kawikdx225]

I voted for Leiberman, because he's the Democrat I liked the most. Realistically, Kerry was the best realistic hope for winning.

I disagree, Kerry's was too far "Left" for moderates. Conservatives unhappy with Bush took a look at Kerry and saw an extremely liberal record which pushed them back to Bush.

Leiberman would have got the same amount of Democrat votes and a few more of the "undecided". Leiberman might have won.

 

[wasteofo2]

I disagree, Kerry's was too far "Left" for moderates. Conservatives unhappy with Bush took a look at Kerry and saw an extremely liberal record which pushed them back to Bush.

Leiberman would have got the same amount of Democrat votes and a few more of the "undecided". Leiberman might have won.

Leiberman got 5% in the Democratic primaries in his HOME STATE. He had no charisma, and he's Jewish.

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of anti-semitism that still exists in America. If Leiberman were the candidate, I'd be surprised if he got 3/4 the popular votes Kerry did, and the electoral college, forget it...

 

[Political Prodigy]

I only really learned about john kerry after he was chosen, and he obviously was not the best choice. I considered voting John Edwards but instead threw my vote to Sharpton because he is a great public speaker and he would have gotten a lot of minority votes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now that all's been said and done, and no one has any pressure to over-exagerate John Kerry to try to help him get elected, or demonize him in hopes of him losing, I pose this question again:

Was John Kerry the best choice for the Democratic nomination?

Kerry was acceptable. That's all. Of course given the competition, Bozo the clown would have been acceptable. I don't know if any other likely Democratic candidates would have been any better. I think Kerry is a good and smart man who does what he thinks is right. He also understands the genuine threat to America posed by the Bush machine. That was good enough for me.

I would not have tended to support any of the candidates listed given a viable Republican alternative. The Democrats really need to find some leaders. The Republicans need to throw out the Nazis.

I should add that I actually toned things down for the election. I had desparately hoped that the information would speak for itself. Stupid me!

 

[BoulderHead]

Of course given the competition, Bozo the clown would have been acceptable...

You mean this guy?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_bozo.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You mean this guy?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_bozo.jpg

That's about right.

 

[setAI]

I was REALLY behind Wes Clarke- he would have been perfect- but he just wasn't ready- he need sto work on his presentation and his bearing-

 

[franznietzsche]

I disagree, Kerry's was too far "Left" for moderates. Conservatives unhappy with Bush took a look at Kerry and saw an extremely liberal record which pushed them back to Bush.

Leiberman would have got the same amount of Democrat votes and a few more of the "undecided". Leiberman might have won.

Yeah. I hate Bush. But I'm far more afraid of Kerry.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Kerry had a very hard time communicating, especially with rural & southern people obviously. Also, being a senator is dangerous because you have a voting record that can easily be exploited-- I think the last guy to go from Senate to the Presidency was Kennedy. I didn't find him inconsistant or dangerous or unqualified, but he had the problem that GHW Bush had in 1992- unresponsive to attacks, and unwilling to use much of the very deadly ammunition he had at his disposal (i.e. exploiting Abu Graib). I'm afraid that the alternatives to Kerry were somewhat ambiguous-- Dean would've run out of gas quickly, Ghephardt had a narrow but possibly effective appeal to middle-class, Edwards could be tarred as an inexperienced con-man, and Lieberman--- don't get me started. I mean, come on.
If you take out the candidates' names & vote strictly on the issues, it was Kucinich who would've won the nomination; think I saw that on a website somewhere; so that's who I chose.