<p>I think there was another weakness on the Kerry ticket - Teresa Hines Kerry. I didn't mind her too much but I know she grated many people the wrong way. And, I must admit, when she and Laura Bush showed up at the first election both wearing pink suits, it made me laugh. Pink seems right for Laura Bush but seeing Teresa in a pink suit was like seeing an undertaker dressed in a prom dress. Just struck me as a false note.</p>
<p>Carolyn, as to the skull-and-bones story, LOL! It's kind of a fun fantasy, isn't it? </p>
<p>Roby--I am sure you try to relieve suffering. My husband (and heck, I'm pretty hard on him most of the time, you know, lawyer to doctor :) ) does too. He is one of the kindest, dearest men alive who really did go into medicine because he liked people, was a very skilled scientist, and didn't want to do clinical research work. He is so unmaterialistic he could honestly live in a tent and be happy. So I didn't mean to imply that doctors do their work to get rich at other people's expense, but rather that they tend to make very good incomes while doing their work. (Well, of course there are exceptions) Sorry if I mis-stated my point. No one expect doctors to do their good works for free and in fact they are very well-paid. I guess you were meaning profit UNFAIRLY at other people's expense, and I was just saying that lots of helping professions also involve high rates of remuneration. </p>
<p>I agree that a lot of people didn't like Teresa, although I kind of doubt there were terribly many people who voted based upon that. I think Hilary Clinton, by the way, sometimes comes across a bit the same way. I saw a profile on both Laura Bush and Teresa Kerry on CNN a day before the election. They both came across as wonderful people. Of course, they are women :).</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I might observe that it would appear that Edwards presence on the ticket did nothing for it. Possibly it would have done worse in the south without him?!</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I think most political experts believe that Edwards would have had an uphill battle winning a second term in the Senate. He apparently doesn't poll that well in his home state.</p>
<p>He apparently doesn't poll that well in his home state.</p>
<pre><code> That's what I heard too. Which makes it more of a mystery why he ended up on the ticket...
Leaving Bush aside, though--doesn't it seem that there are more dynamic, moderate appealing Republican candidates floating around than Democrats? (OMG, it's happened. You've all converted me. No, wait: I still like Obama)
</code></pre>
<p>Good article, interesteddad---I read one earlier that quoted Edwards:
He claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:</p>
<p>"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.' ...She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."</p>
<p>To think that he voted against the partial birth abortion ban....I wonder how he would channel the 'spirit' of a baby about to undergo one:</p>
<p>"At 3:40, she was doing fine. At 4:00, she said she wanted out. But as they pulled her head last from her mother's womb, they crushed in her skull. She died instantly. ...She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."</p>
<p>I think the NC papers were referring to him as "Gone John," because he didn't attend Congressional sessions all that often. He did not carry NC, of course.</p>
<p>In my state, Interesteddad, until recently there were no lawsuits when the child died at birth. A dead child, said the courts, had no economic value. I am not an attorney, but I gather there has just been a change. But the whole subject is sort of sickening...</p>
<p>Teresa Heinz Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton both come across as powerful women. In times of stress, I guess our nation is looking for The Good Mother in the Betty Crocker lookalike Laura Bush. (I have nothing against her, btw. I think she has been a good influence on her husband.)</p>
<p>I love Laura Bush...she is certainly not a 'Stepford wife'---when asked whether she'd gambled on a trip to Vegas, she [tactfully] grinned and said, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."</p>
<p>Well, actually not. If she hadn't stopped him from being a drunk, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are now (KIDDING!!!!;) ).</p>
<p>I don't believe that the post-election recaps will be kind to Theresa Heinz Kerry. I suspect that she has been protected by the media for the duration of the campaign, but receives pretty harsh treatment in the Newsweek recap.</p>
<p>Those of us in Massachusetts are a little surprised that she made it through the campaign without a major gaffe. She is known to to be a little "difficult". Newsweek describes her as a complaining "hypochondriac" on the campaign trail.</p>
<p>My guess is that Kerry was saddled with an extra load to carry during the campaign in much the same way that Michael Dukakis was.</p>
<p>Hopefully the media has more important things to cover. Like genocide in the Sudan, slaughtering of innocent people by all kinds of extremist groups (I include the slaughter of innocent Iraquis by Americans, btw), suppression of human rights around the world, destruction of the environment by industrial countries. Somehow bashing a woman who has devoted her life to raising great kids, experienced great personal heartache, and supporting the causes she believes in, but has a difficult personality, seems a bit trivial in this day.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Hopefully the media has more important things to cover. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. I thought the most unfair media attacks ever were the right-wing demagogues like Rush Limbaugh trashing a teenage Chelsea Clinton. That was really disgusting.</p>
<p>I'm glad you're so aware of the wider world, patient. :)</p>
<p>"I include the slaughter of innocent Iraquis by Americans, btw"
Don't even go there. Saddam killed 100,000's of innocent Iraqis--Americans are saving many thousands of them by freeing them from Saddam.</p>
<p>I do hope the media figures out what to do without the election coverage, though...this Scott Peterson trial coverage is really driving me nuts. It is sad, but those things do happen quite often....</p>
<p>"I include the slaughter of innocent Iraquis by Americans, btw"
Don't even go there. Saddam killed 100,000's of innocent Iraqis--Americans are saving many thousands of them by freeing them from Saddam.</p>
<p>Then why aren't we in the Sudan? Oh, right. No daddy's honor to be avenged. No comparable resources to steal.</p>
<p>The WMD was one of the main reasons we went into Iraq...3 different intelligence agencies "confirmed" reports of Iraqi WMD before Pres. Bush decided to go--it wasn't just a humanitarian cause. That reason turned out to be wrong (so far), but we've still got to finish the job regardless.</p>
<p>Something needs to be done--and quickly--in Sudan, too.
If diplomacy fails (and that seems possible), do you think the U.S. would be right to take any kind of military action?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then why aren't we in the Sudan? Oh, right. No daddy's honor to be avenged. No comparable resources to steal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait, why doesnt the International community (read: UN) do something about it. Oh, right. They are impotent without the US, then turn around to stab it in the back when we actually try to do something.</p>
<p>Now then, let's kindly return back to the subject.</p>
<p>Hmm...Duelfer's report stated authoritatively (and with no further dissent from the administration I believe) that the U.N. inspector was RIGHT about the lack of WMD, only the US was too d*** arrogant and Bush was too determined to go into Iraq to listen. I guess that's a good example of U.N. impotence?</p>
<p>"Now then, let's kindly return back to the subject."</p>
<p>"The subject" on this particular thread has become a rather elusive point. Which is great, because I have forgotten what I was so upset about in the first place!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm...Duelfer's report stated authoritatively (and with no further dissent from the administration I believe) that the U.N. inspector was RIGHT about the lack of WMD, only the US was too d*** arrogant and Bush was too determined to go into Iraq to listen. I guess that's a good example of U.N. impotence?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>50% correct. Read the numerous archived threads discussing this before we both start yet another pointless argument. Please.</p>
<p>Now, truly back to the subject. The elections.</p>
<p>The elections are over :). And I am going into the cool California night. Have fun!</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>Good narrative on Kerry's nomination. However, it goes back further than that."</p>
<p>Sorry, it doesn't go back even one minute earlier than that. He had spent millions, over a 14-month period, and had 8% of the LIBERAL Democrats of Iowa. He was in single digits in New Hampshire. It hadn't worked. He was a loser. He went nowhere. Gephardt had 3X the polling of Kerry. He was dead as a doornail. He ran slightly ahead of Kucinich (and, in much of New England, not even that.)</p>
<p>There may have been someone's dream - but it failed. He was seen as too centrist, too pro-war (the liberal vote on the war was going to Dean and Kucinich), not pro-labor enough (that's where Gephardt's support came from), simply too far to the right for Democrats to support. You are revising history. But it simply isn't true. It is easy to document. </p>
<p>You're thinking much too hard. He was the centrist candidate who failed. Then he became a war hero. On Tuesday evening, probably around 8:30 p.m. Central Time, the week before the Iowa Caucus.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>What I meant was that the process, going back to the expulsion of the Clintonistas from the party, ensured that an EFFECTIVE outsider candidate could not get the Democratic nomination. The field was incredibly weak going into Iowa. Gephardt the retread, Dean the shouter, Edwards the serpent-tongued ambulance-chaser, and Kerry -- who I don't believe was ever a credible "centrist" candidate (people just didn't like him, didn't matter his policies). </p>
<p>Lieberman was positioned to give the party its best shot (at least being credible on terrorism), but his support of the war killed him with the party poobahs. Much to my dismay, I think his overt religion hurt him, too. As we are seeing in post-election comments, the party faithful are uncomfortable with strong religious beliefs.</p>
<p>I agree that Kerry was dead before Iowa. Heck, as far as I can tell, he'd been dead for the entire time he's represented my state in the Senate. </p>
<p>I also agree that the "war hero" angle breathed the only bit of life into the candidate. Heck, it's the only thing that ever gave me a reason to respect the guy. But, ultimately it was short-lived because it proved to be the ONLY thing he had ever done in his life. That became pretty apparent at the convention -- almost surreal, a political convention without a single word being uttered about the man's political career. </p>
<p>I also think the war hero thing ultimately killed Kerry on the "moral values" issue. His post-war stuff really doesn't resonate outside "the blue states".</p>