[oswald]

The article misses the point - Kerry is a very flawed candidate. Did anyone alive in the Vietnam era not realize how "controversial" Kerry was? Why would they not expect everything that has occurred?

[Cboldt]

The article misses the point - Kerry is a very flawed candidate. Did anyone alive in the Vietnam era not realize how "controversial" Kerry was? Why would they not expect everything that has occurred?

Because the media and DEM party has been able to bury Kerry's con for years. The Kerry campaign thought the media would NOT cover the facts recited in the book, "Unfit for Command."

[Stashiu]

Thai stick, too much Thai stick. It rots the brain.

[OldFriend]

Kerry believed that the media would carry him thru.

They are stuck in the last century and we are in the age of the internet.

[LS]

Kerry was/is a "flawed candidate," but that misses the point. The Dems CANNOT put out any candidate who isn't terribly "flawed." Howlin' Howard Dean? Dennis the Menace Kucinich? "Call Me" Al Sharpton? Johnny "Two Americas" Edwards? In terms of positions/issues, NO SENSIBLE DEMOCRAT can win.

Clinton concealed his liberalism---which was easy for him to do, because as a child of an alkie, he had learned how to change personalities at the drop of a hat. Moreover, Clinton, as arrogant as he was to common people, was not as arrogant as Kerry: Clinton would actually TAKE ADVICE from people like Robert Rubin, Dickie Morris, and Stan Greenberg.

So don't fall into the trap of thinking that a "better candidate" could have won for the Dems. They WILL NOT NOMINATE a Zell Miller-type. It's not who they are anymore.

[TASMANIANRED]

They got away with Clinton a draft dodger.

They assume in their smug rightousness that the antiwar position is right, justifiable and all right thinking individuals hold this position. They loathe the military.

They are blinded by their faith in anti-US socialism. Kerry looked just fine to them.