iamheather:

They certainly couldn't have done worse... Personally, I think Kerry tried to do what Clinton did in many ways. You might think that was a problem also in that Kerry is no Clinton. But it wouldn't have made a difference who the candidate was. It was ABB and NBB from the beginning.

Thanks for the insighful Daiwa - especially from a Republican !!! And thanks to you iamheather for you kind words also. Being new here it's nice to be appreciated
Pictoratus - are you the same as on Wincustomize? If so, good work !!!

Pictoratus - are you the same as on Wincustomize? If so, good work !!!

That's me. Thanks for the compliment!

Psikotik: First, the Democratic Party doesn't sponsor or control Michael Moore.

No, they don't. But the facts that the Democratic establishment praised Moore and used his movie as factual reference to attack Bush's policy and the washington hill democrats gathered and showed up to the premier of Fahrenheit 9/11 (in supporting the movie), is pretty much a sponsorship. What would you call that?

It is unfortunate for the republicans that there are many democrats out there that will try to do exactly as you state. If the leadership of the democrat party were to actually do some introspection, it would mean that they have an excellant shot in 08. But as several liberals have done in the comment section, they will continue to deny the obvious. You get an insightful form me as well, and a hope that more will read your thoughts and take them to heart. A true choice would be a welcome break from the last couple of elections.

Chemicalkinteics:

I would call it the same kind of support as the right saying they thought the Swift Boat Vets had a right to say Kerry was a traitor who never was wounded in battle and got 3 purple hearts for nothing.

The key to that however is that no Dem money went to the making of Fahrenheit. Now, the Swift Boat ads........

A true choice would be a welcome break from the last couple of elections.

Dr. Guy:

I think the next 4 years are going to be the worst in the country's history because both Democrats and Republicans feel like they are under attack. When we finally do get to the election in 2008, there will more than enough bitterness and distrust to fuel 5 elections.

Reply #24 By: Helix the II - 11/12/2004 11:38:04 AM CripE, do you think that there would be just as much animosity in 2008 if Kerry had won? Ugh, I don't want a repeat in 08'..this was demeaning enough this election. However aren't tensions and animosity high every election?

Usually they are high. However I think this election set a new high-water mark.

I absolutely agree with you. As someone who very much dislikes Bush and his policies, I watched the debates and so forth actively *looking* for reasons to like Kerry. What was his message? What could I tell my Republican friends about his good points? What was "his plan" for America? All I really heard from him, though, was a lot of "Bush sucks" and "I could do it better". He didn't even promise to be a different president from Bush, he just promised to "do it better". Whatever that means. And as much as I personally dislike Bush, I think he did better by far in the debates, in campaign strategy, in *not* being condescending, and in getting out his message. He didn't even have to spend too much time slamming Kerry in the debates, because he actually had something to say. If Kerry had some kind of message, any kind of message, I might've been able to relate. I hope the Democrats pick up on this--or better yet, I hope some third parties pick up on this and put up more viable candidates that have a chance of shifting the balance of power. Anyway, sorry for the ramble--here's an "Insightful" from me!

I would call it the same kind of support as the right saying they thought the Swift Boat Vets had a right to say Kerry was a traitor who never was wounded in battle and got 3 purple hearts for nothing.

Bush called for an end of all 527 advertising though. Iirc the swift vets didn't get any support from the RNC.

Democrats are going to have to decide if they want to nominate Hillary in 08. If not they need to find a strong alternative early on, as there will be powerful pro-Hillary forces.

Democrats are going to have to decide if they want to nominate Hillary in 08. If not they need to find a strong alternative early on, as there will be powerful pro-Hillary forces.

If the Democrats nominate Hillary, we will lose again. In a poll, 34% of people asked their opinion of her said they hated her. That means she would have to win probably 80% (I'm not going to do the math) of the people who don't hate her - not gonna happen. She is connected to Monica-gate for being Mrs. Clinton and the Republicans would also bury her for the healthcare task force she ran under her husband. We need someone more centrist and that can appeal to the South (as her husband did). The last two Democratic presidents (Clinton and Carter) were both self-made Southerners, not wealthy Northerners.

Thanks for all the insightfuls and good comments. Can't belive I made a featured article!! Now what to do for an encore......

unless we nominated Alan Keyes

alan keyes would NEVER switch parties to run for office.  alan keyes would NEVER run for office except in his home state. 

(this is just WRONG)

Disown Michael Moore

No need. There will be entertainer-polemicists on both sides. Just don't get cozy with him. Let him do his thing, you do yours. (Just the way Bush was with Rush)

Quit getting out the Hollywood stars

Again, there are and will be Hollywood stars on both sides. If you use them to bring in the crowds, that is fine. If you expect their endorsements to mean anything, dream on.

Pick a candidate with some charisma

Sad but true. As long as elections are fought more on television than on the Internet or in newspapers, charisma will considerably outrank other considerations. Ominous for democracy, but a fact of life.

Don't take the high road

That is an oversimplification. The public prefers the candidate who takes the high road, but has trouble recognizing the high road by the time the campaign reaches them through the media. At this point, it is rather muddy what "negative" means. Does that word mean pointing out your opponent's personal flaws? his record? facts about his past? Is it silence about allies' lies? The problem is that what is negative is tied up in charisma... which makes sense, because we all know that, in everyday life, some people can get away with saying things just by their manner.

Don't ignore states

This is flat out bad advice. Resources are always limited, and some states are not winnable. George Bush would not have won New York or Vermont even if he had spent all his time and money in these two states. The public is not limitlessly malleable (thank God) and you often need to recognize where the jury has already made its decision.

Stand for something

I am with you 100% on this. To win, you need a charasmatic candidate who stands for something. Before liberals despair, they need to remember that they had a candidate who rated very low in both of these areas, and they still came quite close to winning.

However, "standing for something" has become kind of a nebulous concept in the television era. To illustrate, think of what George Bush stands for: 1) Standing up to terror... But homeland security is weak, and three years of warfare has had questionable results, at best. 2) Moral values... But we torture prisoners and partake in filthy politics, while accomplishing little on the so-called wedge issues. This is not to say that George Bush does not stand for anything, but he did not run on the things he stands for -- to do so would have been suicidal.

The problem is that "standing for something" has become, not a matter of clear principles, but rather one part clever tactics and one part charisma. This was true in the Clinton victories, and it is true again now.

Quit getting out the Hollywood stars Again, there are and will be Hollywood stars on both sides. If you use them to bring in the crowds, that is fine. If you expect their endorsements to mean anything, dream on.

Celebrity endorsements ARE fine, Bush had some (can't name them though). But when you throw these huge gala fundraisers with them and say "They represent the heart of America" (which Kerry did), you're just asking for trouble. The general populace (especially the South) relates to these people about as much as I do 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg.

Don't ignore states This is flat out bad advice. Resources are always limited, and some states are not winnable. George Bush would not have won New York or Vermont even if he had spent all his time and money in these two states. The public is not limitlessly malleable (thank God) and you often need to recognize where the jury has already made its decision.

Yes there are certain states which are unwinnable and should be considered non starters. But in this election the Dems wrote off way too many states. If you look at the red and blue states from the final electoral map, there were only at most 7 or 8 red states that the Dems made any real effort in.They gave up too many votes in an effort to win Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. Plus when you have 225 - 250 million dollars to spend on the campaign, resources aren't that limited.

Don't take the high road That is an oversimplification. The public prefers the candidate who takes the high road, but has trouble recognizing the high road by the time the campaign reaches them through the media. At this point, it is rather muddy what "negative" means. Does that word mean pointing out your opponent's personal flaws? his record? facts about his past? Is it silence about allies' lies? The problem is that what is negative is tied up in charisma... which makes sense, because we all know that, in everyday life, some people can get away with saying things just by their manner.

Yes, I did oversimplify this one a bit. You could write a whole article just on this.The basic faults I found in the Dem strategy were 1) Letting Edwards "do the dirty work". People don't pay attention to or even hear a lot of what the VP candidate says. 2) They were to slow in their eaction times. With the Swiftboat ads in particular it was if they thought "If we ignore it, it will go away". It obviously didn't and did hurt his campaign. Started his convention speech with "Reporting for duty" sure didn't help the Swiftboat situation at all. The unfortunate thing about politics right now is that negative does work. As an example, in Oklahoma the man who won the senate seat compared his opponent to Uday and Qusay Hussien and said he was "limp-wristed" among other things. That people can ignore, and by default, condone such remarks is a sad thing.

However, "standing for something" has become kind of a nebulous concept in the television era. To illustrate, think of what George Bush stands for: 1) Standing up to terror... But homeland security is weak, and three years of warfare has had questionable results, at best. 2) Moral values... But we torture prisoners and partake in filthy politics, while accomplishing little on the so-called wedge issues. This is not to say that George Bush does not stand for anything, but he did not run on the things he stands for -- to do so would have been suicidal.

I agree with you. But for whatever reason, the Dems just weren't able to put together a cohesive/convincing argument to the people that Bush's record didn't back up his rhetoric. And I think Republicans were able to use fear of terrorism (to a degree) in their favor. There was a fear of the unknown if Kerry was elected. A lot has to do with the blinding Love Bush / Hate Bush people you see even here. Some people (rightly or wrongly and on both sides) weren't going to change their minds no matter the facts or ideas presented.

I agree with you. But for whatever reason, the Dems just weren't able to put together a cohesive/convincing argument to the people that Bush's record didn't back up his rhetoric. And I think Republicans were able to use fear of terrorism (to a degree) in their favor. There was a fear of the unknown if Kerry was elected. A lot has to do with the blinding Love Bush / Hate Bush people you see even here. Some people (rightly or wrongly and on both sides) weren't going to change their minds no matter the facts or ideas presented.

And Krry couldn't put together a cohesive plan for America. Doubt what I say, it's okay with me. But while your at it ask the other Dems on this board what Kerry's plan was. Chances are they won't be able to tell you