|
excellent post Unright--well said.
I feel that unless the Democratic party is able to differentiate itself significantly from the Republicans than they may as well not field a candidate. My impression of Kerry's support was that many people who would be better represented by Nader, Kucinich, or Dean instead voted for Kerry as a compromise to unseat the extreme-right Bush administration. The Republicans were very successful, as usual, in demonizing Kerry--portraying him as a far-left extremist. Those of us following the election from the primaries forward were somewhat surprised by this. Kerry was the most conservative of all the Democrat candidates for president sans Lieberman.
For you Republicans waxing nostalgic for a candidate like JFKennedy what if I told you the Democrats had nominated someone who followed Kennedy and worked on his campaign as a young adult? Someone who changed their middle name in tribute to Kennedy after he was assassinated? Someone from Kennedy's home state who sought the withdrawl from Vietnam that Kennedy was planning before his death? Someone who was essentially raised and educated in a way that mirrored Kennedy's own upbringing? Sound enticing? Unless you voted for Kerry you missed your chance. Kerry was the closest thing to Kennedy we've seen in a long time in the presidential race (since Edward Kennedy's 1984 Pres. bid).
Do you really think that if JFKennedy were running today that the Republicans wouldn't portray him as a "Massachusetts Liberal with Hollywood-style charisma?" Do you really think any Rush-dittoheads wouldn't buy into the demonization of any candidate running against the Republicans?
|