Interesting Read: Clinton may be a target of Rove's reverse psychology

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rove19aug19,1,4021917.story?page=1&ctrack=3&cset=true)

By Peter Wallsten
August 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — Day after day last week, outgoing White House political strategist Karl Rove delivered slashing attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. Her healthcare record was "spotty and poor," he declared. Her candidacy was "fatally flawed," he said. And no one with her negative poll numbers, he stated, "has ever won the presidency."

Why did Rove, who often stays in the background, step forward to deliver such public attacks -- especially when the Democrats haven't begun to choose their presidential candidate for 2008 and when the general election is more than a year away?

The answer might seem obvious: Rove saw Clinton as a formidable opponent and wanted to get his licks in early.

For high-level campaign professionals like Rove, however, that kind of thinking may be too simple.

The decision to focus on the New York senator to the exclusion of other potentially formidable Democratic standard-bearers such as Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois offered a rare glimpse into a world where things are not always what they seem -- the world of modern-day electioneering, whose denizens often prefer going from A to B by way of Z.

In this case, Rove's weeklong broadside against Clinton -- which he is expected to repeat in multiple appearances on television talk shows today -- looks suspiciously like an exercise in reverse psychology that his team employed three years ago when it was preparing for President Bush's reelection bid.

The ploy was described by Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd during a postmortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University the month after Bush defeated Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

Unlike Kerry, who had been in public service for decades, Edwards was a political newcomer and lacked a long record that could be attacked. And, unlike former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had been the front-runner but whose campaign was collapsing in Iowa, Edwards couldn't easily be painted as "nutty."

If that sounds implausibly convoluted, consider Dowd's own words:

"Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds.

"So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards," Dowd said. "And we knew that if we focused on John Kerry, Democratic primary voters would sort of coalesce" around Kerry.

"It wasn't like we could tag [eliminate] somebody. Whomever we attacked was going to be helped," he said.

Nicolle Wallace, the 2004 Bush campaign communications director, recalled at the Harvard conference that the campaign "refused" to even respond to Edwards' attacks on Bush, not wanting to make him seem like a threat.

Edwards was selected as Kerry's running mate and now is vying with Clinton and Obama for their party's 2008 nomination.

Is Rove playing a similar game against Clinton? Is he trying to stampede Democrats into nominating her, having concluded that Obama, Edwards or someone else would pose a stiffer challenge to the Republican nominee?

The White House declined to make Rove available to comment for this article. But political strategists said Rove's visibility suggested he had no intention of fading from the game in 2008.

"I haven't known Karl to do many things accidentally or spontaneously," said Dowd, who has broken ties with Bush, Rove and others and has expressed disappointment in the president's leadership and political tactics.

"He may be right, but I'm not convinced," Dowd said of Rove's apparent strategy. Clinton is "smart, able. She's got very smart people around her, and she knows how to be disciplined," he said.

Bob Shrum, the top strategist for Kerry's 2004 campaign, said that "too little attention has been paid to what Rove is doing" and that he was clearly "not just casually chatting because he's retiring."

But Shrum said Rove was forging a dangerous strategy if he was banking on an easy general-election win over the former first lady. He recalled that many Democrats in 1979 relished the thought of taking on Ronald Reagan the following year.

"If they're trying some sort of political jujitsu, then they might wind up punching themselves in the face," Shrum said.

One analyst, theatlantic.com blogger Marc Ambinder, reported that Rove, having decided that Clinton will win the nomination, is trying to push Republicans to start attacking her because she has had success in remaking her image.

Clinton appeared to welcome the attacks from Rove, widely disliked among Democrats, and her campaign traded blows with the White House last week. A new Clinton television ad in Iowa, released as Rove made his comments, accused Bush of ignoring the needs of working families and soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A White House spokeswoman immediately called the claims "outrageous," "absurd" and "unconscionable" -- and the Clinton campaign happily touted the exchange as proof that the GOP was afraid of her.

Clinton aides went a step further, drawing parallels between Rove's remarks and Obama's comments in a Washington Post interview in which the Illinois senator said he could unite the country more effectively than Clinton.

"Throughout this campaign, Sen. Clinton has successfully explained why she is the candidate with the strength and experience to make change happen, so it's no surprise that the national Republicans are doing what they can to help the other candidates," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

"Considering that the Rove rhetoric closely mirrors what some Democratic candidates are saying, it's clear that the Republicans think she will win in 2008."

Conservative activist Grover Norquist said that he doubted conservatives were trying to meddle in the Democratic primaries and that nobody on his side thinks that party's base would pay attention to Rove.

But he then adopted another device favored by political professionals, taking a position that could be read as straightforward or as carefully calculated.

"I want to run against Hillary Clinton because I think she's the easiest person to beat," Norquist said. "But she's by no means a pushover."

[Eric_Boyer]

Or do the neo-cons want Hillary as the opponent so they can't possibly lose?

Her and Guliani are practically clones. A vote for Hillary is a vote for neo-conservatism.

[arglebargle]

Or do the neo-cons want Hillary as the opponent so they can't possibly lose?

Her and Guliani are practically clones. A vote for Hillary is a vote for neo-conservatism.

Interesting view.... What's your basic arguement that Hillary is a neo-conservative? And Guliani if you want to go there.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Interesting view.... What's your basic arguement that Hillary is a neo-conservative? And Guliani if you want to go there.

You listen to some of Hillary and Rudy's takes and they are closer than many realize.

Do you realize that the far left really does not care for Hillary because they think she is not in line with what they want.

Same can be said for the far right and Rudy.

Can the current far left really like that Hillary is not calling for an immediate pull out of troops. Actually if you listen closely she is in favor of leaving long term troops in some capacity.

Rudy does not make real conservatives happy with his gay rights stance and abortion stances.

These two are each closer to the middle for each of their parties than any of the other candidates for their parties.

[Ben_n_austin]

I agree on the thinking as to why the Dems went with Kerry. It was a clever attack. And unfortunately a lot of people fell for it. With that being said:




SAY NO TO HILLARY!!

[ConcordCowboy]

I don't think there's any reverse psychology by Pig Vomit at all.

Most likely Clinton is going to be the nominee regardless of what he does or says.

He sees her as a formidable candidate and wants to start the attacks early.

But Clinton isn't Kerry. Thank God.

She's not going to run and hide or cower to anyone...and she's certainly not going to be swift boated...like idiot Kerry.

I think the more Vomit obsesses with her the more she likes it.

[Mavs Man]

One thing that is troubling for the Clinton campaign is her high negative ratings. If she can get those down (she has made some progress the past few months) it will help her chances immensely.

[Ben_n_austin]

I don't think there's any reverse psychology by Pig Vomit at all.

Most likely Clinton is going to be the nominee regardless of what he does or says.

He sees her as a formidable candidate and wants to start the attacks early.

But Clinton isn't Kerry. Thank God.

She's not going to run and hide or cower to anyone...and she's certainly not going to be swift boated...like idiot Kerry.

I think the more Vomit obsesses with her the more she likes it.

Pig Vomit; get it right.

[ConcordCowboy]

I don't think there's any reverse psychology by Pig Vomit at all.



Pig Vomit; get it right.

I did...I just abbreviated it the second time.

[AtlCB]

I don't think there's any reverse psychology by Pig Vomit at all.

Most likely Clinton is going to be the nominee regardless of what he does or says.

He sees her as a formidable candidate and wants to start the attacks early.

But Clinton isn't Kerry. Thank God.

She's not going to run and hide or cower to anyone...and she's certainly not going to be swift boated...like idiot Kerry.

I think the more Vomit obsesses with her the more she likes it.
She's stronger than Kerry or Gore, but she's still a weak candidate. I still can't believe Edwards is stuck at #3. I don't care that much for him, but he certainly gives the Dems their best chance of victory - just like in 2004. It will be interesting to see who comes out of the Republican mess. I think Thompson kills Hilary in the general election. If Rudy gets it, I see an extremely tight general election. Like him or not, most conservatives will go out of their way to help Thompson. They seem to be mostly apathetic toward the other candidates.

[ConcordCowboy]

She's stronger than Kerry or Gore, but she's still a weak candidate. I still can't believe Edwards is stuck at #3. I don't care that much for him, but he certainly gives the Dems their best chance of victory - just like in 2004. It will be interesting to see who comes out of the Republican mess. I think Thompson kills Hilary in the general election. If Rudy gets it, I see an extremely tight general election. Like him or not, most conservatives will go out of their way to help Thompson. They seem to be mostly apathetic toward the other candidates.

I don't think she's weak at all and a weaker Kerry and Gore barely lost to Bush...if they lost at all.;)

I don't see Thompson killing Hillary. Not at all.

I do agree with you about Edwards. I can't believe how far back he is.


Surprising.

[Ben_n_austin]

I don't think she's weak at all and a weaker Kerry and Gore barely lost to Bush...if they lost at all.;)

I don't see Thompson killing Hillary. Not at all.

I do agree with you about Edwards. I can't believe how far back he is.


Surprising.

If you listen to the content coming from him, there's not much substance - just a bunch of cheerleader, rah-rah hoopla.

And we know what will get us.

No thanks.

I don't want a candidate that is afraid to hurt someone's feelings.

[ConcordCowboy]

If you listen to the content coming from him, there's not much substance - just a bunch of cheerleader, rah-rah hoopla.

And we know what will get us.

No thanks.

I don't want a candidate that is afraid to hurt someone's feelings.


True.

[AtlCB]

I don't think she's weak at all and a weaker Kerry and Gore barely lost to Bush...if they lost at all.;)

I don't see Thompson killing Hillary. Not at all.

I do agree with you about Edwards. I can't believe how far back he is.


Surprising.Bush was a weak candidate in 2000 and was very unpopular in 2004. The only reason that Bush won was because of the horrible candidates the Democrats trotted out there. Gore and Kerry would have no chance against Thompson or Guiliani in a general election. Both Gore and Kerry appeared to be stiff and pompous - not exactly a good image for the Democratic Party.

Clinton is a better candidate than both Gore and Kerry. The problem with Clinton is that she is too polarizing. Everyone seems to have an opinion on her. Both her favorable and unfavorable opinion are hovering near 50%. The Republicans and many independants will come out in droves just to vote against her. I seriously doubt that she has enough support among Democrats to overcome this problem. Guiliani gives her a chance, since most Republicans are not that excited about Guiliani either. A Guiliani nomination may keep some of these Republicans away from the polls, but a Thompson nomination will not.

[AtlCB]

If you listen to the content coming from him, there's not much substance - just a bunch of cheerleader, rah-rah hoopla.

And we know what will get us.

No thanks.

I don't want a candidate that is afraid to hurt someone's feelings.
Which candidate are you talking about?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Pig Vomit; get it right.

http://images.amazon.com/media/imdb/01/I/28/16/58s.jpg
W NNNNN BC

[Sasquatch]

Do you realize that the far left really does not care for Hillary because they think she is not in line with what they want.


The political vocabulary in this country needs a little fine tuning as people too often use the term liberal to describe centrists like the Clintons who are pro-business, hawkish, overtly religious, etc.

As for the Hillary being weak, whichever democrat gets the nomination will win by default, which is precisely their problem. Their passive strategy makes them appear disingenuous and stale. They are unwilling to adopt truly bold initiatives for fear of upsetting that delicate electoral balance that they know will propel them to the White House just because they're the other party.

What they should do is embrace a vision for the country that redefines the political landscape. For example, I bet they would get a lot of support in the south for universal health care from people who usually vote republican because they are socially conservative.

[AtlCB]

The political vocabulary in this country needs a little fine tuning as people too often use the term liberal to describe centrists like the Clintons who are pro-business, hawkish, overtly religious, etc.

As for the Hillary being weak, whichever democrat gets the nomination will win by default, which is precisely their problem. Their passive strategy makes them appear disingenuous and stale. They are unwilling to adopt truly bold initiatives for fear of upsetting that delicate electoral balance that they know will propel them to the White House just because they're the other party.

What they should do is embrace a vision for the country that redefines the political landscape. For example, I bet they would get a lot of support in the south for universal health care from people who usually vote republican because they are socially conservative.

:confused: I live in Georgia and the issue of universal health care is extremely unpopular down here. The Democrats should also be careful about the winning by default theory. They thought they would win by default in 2004 as well.

[Sasquatch]

:confused: I live in Georgia and the issue of universal health care is extremely unpopular down here. The Democrats should also be careful about the winning by default theory. They thought they would win by default in 2004 as well.

The poll data varies according to how the issue is presented. I think universal single-payer health care is a winning proposal for blue-collar types and small business owners IMHO. Of course, you have to be able to sell it in the face of what will surely be a highly organized and vociferous campaign to discredit the proposal. I'm not sure any of the democratic front runners will be able to stomach such controversy which would require genuine leadership skills. Like the issue of gay marriage, they'll just be content to play it safe and let public opinion come along at its own pace.

[AtlCB]

The poll data varies according to how the issue is presented. I think universal single-payer health care is a winning proposal for blue-collar types and small business owners IMHO. Of course, you have to be able to sell it in the face of what will surely be a highly organized and vociferous campaign to discredit the proposal. I'm not sure any of the democratic front runners will be able to stomach such controversy which would require genuine leadership skills. Like the issue of gay marriage, they'll just be content to play it safe and let public opinion come along at its own pace.
I completely disagree with this statement, but that's a different issue.

[Eric_Boyer]

Interesting view.... What's your basic arguement that Hillary is a neo-conservative? And Guliani if you want to go there.

Hillary is quick to use American Military Might to protect corporate interests abroad while also claiming to hold "compassionate" positions domestically.

She approved of the Iraq war, she continues to indicate a willingness to maintain a military presence in Iraq indefinitely. On foreign policy she is a chicken-hawk. On domestic policy she pretends to care about the people but in truth cares about corporations far more.

[Sasquatch]

I completely disagree with this statement, but that's a different issue.

That's unfortunate for you because, like gay marriage, we'll see it within our lifetime, I gay-rahn-tee. :D

[Mavs Man]

That's unfortunate for you because, like gay marriage, we'll see it within our lifetime, I gay-rahn-tee. :D

Isn't this already true (in Massachusetts)?

For both issues, actually.

[AtlCB]

That's unfortunate for you because, like gay marriage, we'll see it within our lifetime, I gay-rahn-tee. :D
I hope not for universal health care. The gay marriage issue doesn't affect me, so I don't really care either way.

[Eric_Boyer]

healthcare won't be solved until we solve the problems with our monetary policy first.

Money needs to retain value, otherwise healthcare will be out of reach for a large percentage of the country.

Sorry, but it's true. government has no magic fix.

[ConcordCowboy]

Bush was a weak candidate in 2000 and was very unpopular in 2004. The only reason that Bush won was because of the horrible candidates the Democrats trotted out there. Gore and Kerry would have no chance against Thompson or Guiliani in a general election. Both Gore and Kerry appeared to be stiff and pompous - not exactly a good image for the Democratic Party.

Clinton is a better candidate than both Gore and Kerry. The problem with Clinton is that she is too polarizing. Everyone seems to have an opinion on her. Both her favorable and unfavorable opinion are hovering near 50%. The Republicans and many independants will come out in droves just to vote against her. I seriously doubt that she has enough support among Democrats to overcome this problem. Guiliani gives her a chance, since most Republicans are not that excited about Guiliani either. A Guiliani nomination may keep some of these Republicans away from the polls, but a Thompson nomination will not.

Clinton is no doubt polarizing...and yes I think her one weakness is that she has a high unfavorable rating...but she has cut that down some recently...and I think once push comes to shove that the Dems want to win period and will in the end come out in number to support her...or for that matter who ever the nominee is.

I think that a Thompson nomination will be just as polarizing to the Dems.

I know he is to me.

[ConcordCowboy]

Which candidate are you talking about?

I thought he was talking about Edwards.

[ConcordCowboy]

The Democrats should also be careful about the winning by default theory. They thought they would win by default in 2004 as well.

:banghead:

I have to agree.

They thought the anyone but Bush thing was going to work and didn't attack like the Bush team did and obviously it cost them.

[Mavs Man]

:banghead:

I have to agree.

They thought the anyone but Bush thing was going to work and didn't attack like the Bush team did and obviously it cost them.

Kerry has to carry a lot a blame for letting things slide, especially close to election day. Why didn't he jump on the softball debate question (three weaknesses of Bush presidency)? Why did he wait to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans?

Of course, the Dan Rather/CBS NG records debacle in the days leading up to the election didn't help.

[ConcordCowboy]

Kerry has to carry a lot a blame for letting things slide, especially close to election day. Why didn't he jump on the softball debate question (three weaknesses of Bush presidency)? Why did he wait to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans?

Of course, the Dan Rather/CBS NG records debacle in the days leading up to the election didn't help.

I really would like to stick my foot up Kerry's butt for how he handled the Swift Boat ads.

Still pisses me off to this day.

[Sasquatch]

Kerry has to carry a lot a blame for letting things slide, especially close to election day. Why didn't he jump on the softball debate question (three weaknesses of Bush presidency)? Why did he wait to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans?

Of course, the Dan Rather/CBS NG records debacle in the days leading up to the election didn't help.

Why didn't he employ his war chest? Ineptitude? Lack of conviction? Complacence? All of the above?

[ConcordCowboy]

Why didn't he employ his war chest? Ineptitude? Lack of conviction? Complacence? All of the above?

Yeah what the frick was up with that...Ahhh lets save our money so we can have a defeat party.:banghead:

[AtlCB]

:banghead:

I have to agree.

They thought the anyone but Bush thing was going to work and didn't attack like the Bush team did and obviously it cost them.They made several mistakes in that election. First, they nominated the wrong person. Second, the National Guard fiasco blew up in their faces. Third, they failed to change the public perception of Kerry being a "Massachusetts liberal." Fourth, Kerry appeared stiff and pompous. He seemed more like a rich guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth than a regular guy. Fifth, Kerry failed to give the public a good reason to vote for him. It seemed as though the Democrats' strategey was that Kerry wasn't Bush.

You have to wonder how much the Democrats have learned, since Obama and Edwards are in second and third. I'm not making a case that either would make a better president; I'm just stating that I think both have a better shot at winning.

I see other mistakes being made as well. Hillary has gone on a serious attack against George Bush. Have you seen Bush's approval rating? I just don't see how Hillary complaining about Bush will make the numbers go any lower or how this tactic would make voters feel any different towards any of the Republican candidates. All of them seem to have effectively distanced themselves from the president. I think someone also needs to inform Clinton that Bush cannot run again in 2008. :lmao:

[ConcordCowboy]

They made several mistakes in that election. First, they nominated the wrong person. Second, the National Guard fiasco blew up in their faces. Third, they failed to change the public perception of Kerry being a "Massachusetts liberal." Fourth, Kerry appeared stiff and pompous. He seemed more like a rich guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth than a regular guy. Fifth, Kerry failed to give the public a good reason to vote for him. It seemed as though the Democrats' strategey was that Kerry wasn't Bush.



I hate you!

I have a major headache now.:D

[AtlCB]

I hate you!

I have a major headache now.:D

As an independant, I call them as I see them. I really wanted to vote for a Democrat last election (I was fed up with George Bush). I just really didn't like Howard Dean or Kerry. My dislike of Kerry had a lot to do with my time in the military. I didn't care as much about the Vietnam stuff as I did about his constant refusal to give enlisted military men pay raises. The pay was a big issue when I was in. Around this time, women on welfare were making more than we were and Congress voted themselves a 35% pay raise, because they couldn't live on $100,000/yr. They felt that people in the military could easily live off of less than $15k/yr. When he trotted himself out there with Max Cleland saying he was a friend of the military and trashing my home state, there was absolutely no way I would vote for him.

I think he just gave too many people a reason to vote against him. He was a poor candidate with a poor strategy and was beaten in an election by an awful opponent who should have been trounced.

[BrAinPaiNt]

They made several mistakes in that election. First, they nominated the wrong person. Second, the National Guard fiasco blew up in their faces. Third, they failed to change the public perception of Kerry being a "Massachusetts liberal." Fourth, Kerry appeared stiff and pompous. He seemed more like a rich guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth than a regular guy. Fifth, Kerry failed to give the public a good reason to vote for him. It seemed as though the Democrats' strategey was that Kerry wasn't Bush.



How about him dressing up like he is hunting to appeal to some people. He looked so out of place it was not funny. He looked so out of place it would be like seeing Richard Simmons at a stripper (female not male strippers) club.

During the debates when the moderator asked about Cheney's daughter. Edwards handled it with class. Kerry did not and was directed to do so by his campaign manager the manager further screwed the pooch afterwards by admitting it was a tactic.

I think there was another situation with Kerry and sports. Can not remember the details about it but he looked foolish for saying or doing something.

That whole campaign staff was so inept and so was Kerry. When they should have been saying something they did not, when they did say something they should have held their tongues.

Plus the idea that they have yet to learn from the Neo-Cons.

This line from bush sums it up...

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

See Jokes were made about this after he said it but it is a core tactic used by Rove and the Neo-Cons.

You keep up with saying the same things until you start making people believe them. You hold onto the topic like a snapping turtle until you accomplish your goal.

That is something the Kerry camp did not do. They would go forward with a ploy and before it could get people they would switched to another and to another and so on.

Them losing the election was in no way a credit to bush, it was a complete embarrassment to them for how they handled the whole election.

[Sasquatch]

How about him dressing up like he is hunting to appeal to some people. He looked so out of place it was not funny.

And let's not forget Teresa H Kerry showing up at Wendy's with the Edwards to celebrate their anniversary. That was like a real life episode of the Simple Life. Ahhhh, what priceless memories.

I can't help but laugh when I think that Kerry won the nomination largely because he was thought to be "electable" and capable of beating George Bush, not because people liked him or his ideas.

When will the Democrats learn that they need to support a candidate who can inspire some pathos among the electorate? They're making the same mistake in 2008 but, luckily for them, the GOP has mucked things up so badly that their stale strategy just might work this time.

[AtlCB]

And let's not forget Teresa H Kerry showing up at Wendy's with the Edwards to celebrate their anniversary. That was like a real life episode of the Simple Life. Ahhhh, what memories.

I can't help but laugh when I think that Kerry won the nomination largely because he was thought to be "electable" and capable of beating George Bush, not because people liked him or his ideas.

When will the Democrats learn that they need to support a candidate who can inspire some pathos among the electorate? They're making the same mistake in 2008 but, luckily for them, the GOP has mucked things up so badly that their stale strategy just might work this time.

:hammer:

[BrAinPaiNt]

And let's not forget Teresa H Kerry showing up at Wendy's with the Edwards to celebrate their anniversary. That was like a real life episode of the Simple Life. Ahhhh, what priceless memories.

I can't help but laugh when I think that Kerry won the nomination largely because he was thought to be "electable" and capable of beating George Bush, not because people liked him or his ideas.

When will the Democrats learn that they need to support a candidate who can inspire some pathos among the electorate? They're making the same mistake in 2008 but, luckily for them, the GOP has mucked things up so badly that their stale strategy just might work this time.

:laugh2: I forgot about the Wendy's thing.

[ConcordCowboy]

He was a poor candidate with a poor strategy and was beaten in an election by an awful opponent who should have been trounced.

That is so true.

That one still hurts.

[ConcordCowboy]

And let's not forget Teresa H Kerry showing up at Wendy's with the Edwards to celebrate their anniversary. That was like a real life episode of the Simple Life. Ahhhh, what priceless memories.

I can't help but laugh when I think that Kerry won the nomination largely because he was thought to be "electable" and capable of beating George Bush, not because people liked him or his ideas.

When will the Democrats learn that they need to support a candidate who can inspire some pathos among the electorate? They're making the same mistake in 2008 but, luckily for them, the GOP has mucked things up so badly that their stale strategy just might work this time.


:bang2:

[AtlCB]

And let's not forget Teresa H Kerry showing up at Wendy's with the Edwards to celebrate their anniversary. That was like a real life episode of the Simple Life. Ahhhh, what priceless memories.

I can't help but laugh when I think that Kerry won the nomination largely because he was thought to be "electable" and capable of beating George Bush, not because people liked him or his ideas.

When will the Democrats learn that they need to support a candidate who can inspire some pathos among the electorate? They're making the same mistake in 2008 but, luckily for them, the GOP has mucked things up so badly that their stale strategy just might work this time.

:muttley:

She did look like a fish out of water.