It’s hard to imagine what it must have been like to be John Kerry on election night in 2004.
For a few hours on Election Day, exit polls indicated that Mr. Kerry would be the victor, but he needed 59,000 voters to go his way in Ohio (he lost by more than three million votes nationwide) and returned to the Senate tagged with the reputation of a liberal, highly partisan loner. He was largely missing from major action on Capitol Hill for the next few years.
Mr. Kerry, 67, disputes that narrative by saying that he was busy as the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, but that few paid attention. “I wasn’t going to sit around and mope,” he said. Still, he acknowledges how difficult it was to come back.
“I was 59,000 votes and one state from being able to put an agenda in front of the country,” he said. “And you know for three or four hours we thought it was done.” So, he said, “you go from that expectation of beginning to think about what you’re going to say to the country to suddenly coming back to the Senate and having to sort of walk a careful line, and not being the nominee, and no pretense about leadership.”
I am still highly suspicious that Kerry was robbed in Ohio, and perhaps elsewhere. I think he probably agrees. And even if he wasn’t robbed by electronic means, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell robbed him by placing too few voting machines in urban areas and college towns.
Maybe he can console himself by replacing Hillary in a second Obama term.
Yes, it does suck to be Kerry.
It always has.
Lord, Booman!!! This man caved in the face of criminal Republican opposition in exactly the same manner that Obama has caved only on a different plane. He allowed them to Swift Boat him and then when they stole the election he barely resisted. When that theft happened, win, lose or draw he should have gone in guns blazing. If he had done so the history of this country and the world would have been radically different, I guarantee. And you want him in public office!!!??? Where on earth is your head at? He represents everything..everything…that is wrong with the Democratic Party.
Everything.
He should go on a long vacation with his Heinz 57 heiress wife.
And then stay there.
AG
I didn’t exactly make an endorsement. But you can inject your own bias into my writing if you want.
Sounds like some kind of endorsement. A Kerryish, leftiness-style endorsement, one that can be denied if it gets troublesome.
My own bias?
As you wish.
See my new sig for more on the matter.
AG
No one will ever accuse you of being on the “lack all convictions” side of that divide, Arthur.
Bet on it.
Does that then mean that I am part of “the worst?”
Could be.
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Bet on that as well.
AG
thing is, kerry didn’t suck originally. There’s a damn good reason the Bushes and their fellow mafioso hate him: BCCI.
I think he was robbed in 2004.
The only time Kerry sucked was during that campaign. He had a great record before that (except for the Iraq vote, which he cast, at the urging of you-know-who, for the purposes of his campaign), and he’s had a great record since then.
It’s frustrating. I’ve been a big fan of Kerry for as long as I can remember. I remember being impressed by him when he ran to be Mike Dukakis’ Lt. Governor.
But if the only things I knew about John Kerry came from the 2004 presidential campaign, I don’t think I’d like the guy, either.
has done a far better job than Obama.
It’s not even close.
Hillary’s got the easier job. She doesn’t have to deal with Republicans to do her job.
She has done a great job, though. I think she’ll be remembered as one of the best Secretaries of State this country has ever had.
agree. is it certain she won’t stay on as SOS? she’s doing great.
Beats me.
I’d hate to see her go, but if she feels like she wants to kick back and take some me time, she’s certainly earned it.
That was such a filthy electionl! It is odd, isn’t it, that he remained almost completely passive while being swiftboated. He showed no anger or resistance, he acted as if nothing was going on, almost as if he was colluding with his enemies. What could possibly have been the reason for his seeming lack of engagement? He just didn’t sweem to care. Somehow it all had to do with the freaky hold Bush, Cheney, et al.,had on the US psyche through the sickening media: throwing bombs is the one true US virtue. Now the same is going on about Iran, timed to coincide with the presidential election.
Comparable behavior was seen when Al Gore rolled over and purred when the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner. No fight. At least Clinton told the repugnants that his blowjob was HIS and not theirs to use to advantage. No matter what, he at least showed his teeth and growled, in lawyerly fashion, that is. The same can be said of his wife. Otherwise I have no admiration or use for either of them.
He showed no anger or resistance, he acted as if nothing was going on, almost as if he was colluding with his enemies.
Actually, he came out and hit back pretty hard…a couple weeks later. He sat on hands for a couple of weeks first, so that when he did push back, the tactic had already had time to work.
What could possibly have been the reason for his seeming lack of engagement?
Bob Shrum, of course. Kerry’s response was to argue that he needed to push back immediately, but Shrum convinced him that “it will blow over” and “it will only be a story if you respond.”
Terrible, terrible tactical advice. Kerry should have gone with his gut.
The perfect leftiness pol. Do nothing until it’s too late and then make noises so you’ll still be able to stay in office.
Bullshit.
Shrum was “his gut.” Kerry hired him, and Kerry was supposed to be the boss. So Kerry hired someone who would counsel weakness. His Swift Boat response was weakness and so was his reaction to the electoral theft.
Weak counseling weak.
Great.
Just what we need.
More weakness.
AG
So nobody ever hires anyone with whom they later disagree?
There are never disputes about tactics in a presidential campaign?
Whatever, Arthur.
Disagree?
Then fire the fool.
Don’t continue to take his advice. Not unless you want cover for your own weakness.
AG
Oh, is that your experience from your vast history in electoral politics, Arthur? Fire your campaign manager if the two of you disagree about a tactical decision?
Thanks for sharing.
Too easy to shift the blame to advisors like Shrum who at the time had developed a bogus rep among the punditocracy for negative campaigning and was defensive about feeding it.
Problem for Kerry, like Gore, was his rather weak natural political instincts which caused him to be buffeted about by the many official and unofficial (Clinton, Begala and Joe Klein among others) advisors. That and his failure to see clearly that the election would again be decided in the dark backrooms where GOP operatives would manipulate the vote. The publicized election shenanigans by Blackwell in the months leading up to Nov should have set off the alarm at Kerry headqtrs and caused them to loudly make that a campaign issue.
But no, Kerry was too fearful of mentioning it so as to not discourage voter turnout and probably to avoid the inevitable media charge of being a “conspiracy theorist.”. He should have taken the risk and gone bold against Blackwell and Rove. Instead though naively thought he could prevent another GOP theft by hiring all those election legal eagles who would be present at polling stations but who failed to appreciate that the relevant action was occurring backstage and hours after the polls closed.
Problem for Kerry, like Gore, was his rather weak natural political instincts
Indeed. He, and Kerry, and I’d add Dukakis to the list, are not naturally-gifted campaigners like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Any of those three would have been very capable Chief Executives/Commanders in Chief/Chief Diplomats – that’s why we goo-goo Democrats nominated them – but they just aren’t instinctive pols.
I think Al Gore is more of an instinctive pol than many people realize, but most folks suffer in comparison to Bill Clinton. While he can come off as formal, even wooden, he is not like that one on one. When looking to the other side of the aisle, it is Mitt Romney that totally lacks the common touch. Mitt Romney is so wooden that he probably ejaculates sawdust.
Now, Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is an instinctive pol.
He’s all tactics, without much of a strategic sense (Romney, or at least his advisors, have him beat there), but he knows how to work a crowd.
Gingrich and Mike Huckabee were the only two Republicans who scared me this cycle.
Yup.
Liberal Democrat cowards.
It’s quite a tradition.
From Humbert Humbert…errrr…Hubert Humphrey:
…right on through Michael Dukakis (the little man in the big tank), Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Obama only won because the fix was in and the cancerous old man and his cute little female sidekick were nominated by the Ratpubs in order to ameliorate the absolute stench left behind by the BushCo Gang. Obama’s entire act as president has been marked by failure after failure to confront his enemies, and the results of the 2010 elections were the fruit of his lackluster labors.
What a buncha maroons!!!
Later…
AG
P.S. Read Lisa Pease’s latest post? You oughta. Being a fighting Democratic president or presidential candidate can be dangerous to your health. Bet on it.
Have to agree about Hubert, though he wasn’t afeared of confronting his Repub opponent — he just didn’t have the guts to defy his boss the bully Lyndon Johnson. Had he done so he would have won that election.
And re Lisa’s article, just my opinion but RFK was probably taken out not because he was waging too vigorous a campaign but because a Kennedy was getting too close to being elected and then reopening the investigation into his brother’s murder, at least as far as TPTB, including the CIA, were perceiving the situation.
Someone once visited Louis Armstrong in a hotel. His valet…let’s call him Doc, because I am not sure which valet this story concerns…usually answered the door when Louis was traveling. This time Louis opened the door himself. The visitor asked “Where’s Doc, Pops?” and Louis answered “Ain’tcha heard? Doc died.” The visitor then said. Oh…that’s a shame. What was wrong with him?” and Pops answered “Man…when you’re dead, everything is wrong with you!”
Same same here. When someone is assassinated, it doesn’t really matter much exactly why the assassination took place. They’re dead no matter what, and most often the real culprits manage to escape detection and punishment. They are pros, Brodie. Both the executioners themselves and their controllers. They’re good at what they do and they have usually honed their skills in the minor leagues of the third world, the criminal world and/or the official military world before they get up into the major leagues.
Bet on it.
AG
Re-reading Lisa’s article it seems we’re on the same page re why RFK was killed. Good for her and I hope her upcoming book on the case gets some traction.
Obama’s entire act as president has been marked by failure after failure to confront his enemies
Mr. bin Laden would like a word…
His political enemies. Duh.
Bin Laden? The true bin Laden story will probably never be told. At least not until the other shameful state secrets hit the light of day.
The various assassinations
The whole UFO hustle
9/11
Watergate
And the rest of them as well.
What?
You hink the truth has already been told?
Naaaaahhhh…not a chance.
Too many heads would roll.
S.
.
A vivid memory of the computer glitch as the returns came in. The discrepency between exit poll numbers and the fudged election results has been researched. My estimate has always been a 5% move in the battleground states, this means a 2.5% move in tallied votes for Kerry went to Bush. More than sufficient to get the state in the Bush column.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."That assumes that the exit polls were valid. And given the fact that they depend on people willing to be polled, that is a large assumption. I suspect that not a few folks did not want to confess that they voted for Bush or asked why.
The suppression of voters in Democratic areas was likely more significant than the count although Ken Blackwell’s unwillingness to have his work reviewed is suspect. And the destruction of evidence before a new secretary of state and attorney general took office adds to the suspicion.
To suggest that Kerry would be a good choice to follow in Hillary’s position gets my hackles up.
What I haven’t seen mentioned so far in the comments is Kerry’s decision to play political weather vane and cave into to Bush’s push for military authorization for Iraq. Kennedy, Durbin, Wellstone all voted against it and it was rather obvious why. There was no compelling urgent case for action of that sort. The only conceivable reason H. Clinton and Kerry voted for it was because of their political ambitions.
And shame on Kerry for taking the gutsy outspoken road in the 70s to speak out against the waste and pointlessness of the Vietnam war and then setting that all aside for his own self interest.
No, we need someone past the Vietnam era that can see the world in more current terms and has the guts to stick to it.
So how is it that we have the idea that being the chair of a Senate committee is somehow less prestigious than being Secretary of State?
The chair of the Foreign Relations committee shapes US foreign policy in a way that directs the actions of a Secretary of State and the President.
Just think of the effect that Jesse Helms had for the six months he was chair of the Foreign Relations committee. And the continuing impact that has had on US policy towards the UN.
That is an excellent point, Tarheel.
I would say, however, that being S.o.S., while perhaps not more prestigious, is certainly more hands-on.
Kerry wanted to be President. As Chairman, he’s been carrying out all sorts of operations for the Obama administration overseas, like his shuttle diplomacy to Pakistan.
I’ve always wondered why Kerry conceded so rapidly, especially since, iirc, he said after FL 2000 he was building a special fund to look into ballot-counting if there were any apparent problems – and the Ohio count was clearly problematic. Any thought on this y’all?
Fear — of being labelled a Sore Loser and Crazy Conspiracy Theorist, of having his 2008 chances ruined by the fierce media backlash that surely would have ensued. Fear of what Joe Klein would say about him in the pages of Time (yes for some reason Kerry cared what Joke Line said).
He opted for the “responsible” and politically safe middle ground approach of setting aside money for lawyers to watch outside for signs of wrongdoing while all the dirty work was happening elsewhere. He thus kept GOP election theft as a small inside baseball issue in the general campaign and the Repubs knew they would be free to steal another one.
the Ohio count was clearly problematic. Any thought on this y’all?
A 120,000 vote margin is quite a bit different from a 500 vote margin. There were certainly improprieties in Ohio, but it wasn’t going to make a difference if he fought the results.
.
Did you read above BooMan’s Link: Robbed in Ohio?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Yes, and it addresses the first part of my point – “there were certainly improprieties” – but not the second.
120,000 votes is just too high a mountain to climb.
He’s not a real Democrat, either. Only his narrow defeat spared him from being added to the list.
By that standard, there are few elected officials in America who are “real Democrats”.
just erase the ‘ I think Ken Blackwell participated in Voter Suppression’.
OF COURSE HE DID.
George W. Bush was never elected President.
For that election I worked on GOTV in FL. Watched the returns in ballroom of local hotel with other workers but sat next the capt of our team who really knew the FL situation. as the returns were posted he kept saying “that’s strange” “that’s not what I expected”.
and I wasn’t surprised. The yards signs in Tampa clearly showed the Bush people were far better organized in ’04 than in ’00. That was true throughout the I-4 corridor in 2004, and that was where Bush’s margin came from in 2004.
The notion that Kerry actually won Ohio is nonsense. There were 12 polls before election day in Ohio. Bush lead in 11, and the average was 1.4%. Bush won by 120K votes in Ohio. It was nowhere nearly as close as Florida, New Hampshire or Wisconsin were in 2000.
And of course there is no doubt Bush won the popular vote by a close, but substantial margin in 2004.
Can we afford to lose another Dem senator to a cabinet position? Would there be a special election (and when)? I assume MA would be a safe seat, but then again Scott Brown got in due to the crappy candidate (Martha Coakly, right)?
Assuming the President is re-elected and Scott Brown isn’t, the odds of Kerry’s nomination 2 Secretary of State diminish. He’ll be replaced in a special election that Scott Brown will surely be the favorite to win given what will probably be a narrow loss to Elizabeth Warren.
I just don’t see the President risking a seat that he will need to get his program through the Senate.
However, if Warren looses, but runs strongly, nominating Kerry could be a way 2 give her a second chance at a Seat.
Kerry is part of the 1%, that makes him part of the problem, not part of the solution.
And that has always been true.
nalbar