It played a role in my choice, but not the defining one and not in the form of "safe choice".

I concluded that Clinton would be the right president for this time in this country AND that she's the only one who can realistically win.

My 2 cents.

The 2004 Kerry experience is on my mind, but in the opposite sense. I think the Democratic establishment has a tendency to pick waspy New Englander candidates which have limited appeal across the country.

I'm a lefty from a western state, and I have absolutely nothing in common with someone like John Kerry. He seems like he comes from a world of prep schools and country clubs that I've never seen outside of television. When our opponents refer to us as the party of "elites", they're talking about John Kerry.

HRC is not exactly like John Kerry, but she seems a similar choice to me. One made to keep people happy in New York and Boston, and LA will go along. I think with HRC, we lose 51% to 49% again.

I say, time to take a gamble. See if Obama can bring in the young voters and independents. Sorry, I know you wanted to hear from HRC supporters.

Hillary knows her stuff, she's much better at discussing the issues.

I don't care about hope - if I want that I'll buy a lottery ticket. I want someone to mind the store.

And yeah, as a 2nd issue I think Obama will get clobbered, but he's welcome to start responding better and prove me wrong.

2004 doesn't play any role in my support for Clinton. Hillary wasn't my first choice for the nomination. In fact, I wish she hadn't decided to run. I'd like to see us get away from the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton era. I'd much prefer to see Biden or Richardson where Hillary is today. That said, I believe she's far and away the best candidate still in the hunt. She's smart, experienced, tough, and genuinely concerned about reversing the evils of the Bush presidency. More importantly, she's been inside the White House for eight years, at the epicenter of power if you will. You can't get that close to power and not learn something. It's just that kind of experience Obama lacks.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, and the Kerry experience is one of my reasons why. With her high negatives, I just don't see her having much of a chance to be elected. Obama may have lost the support of some independents since the Wright thing happened, but he's not going to inspire dispirited Republicans to turn out at the polls in November like Hillary will. They may not like McCain, but they HATE Hillary, and they'll show up in massive numbers to vote against her if she's the nominee. Hillary is a wedge issue unto herself.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm convinced the Democrats will lose again. The main reason I support Obama is because he speaks for me, but electability considerations are a definite factor.

Given the media's love for McCain and its treatment of Democrats, no choice is a safe choice. I support Hillary not because of the 2004 defeat but because of our victories between 1992-2000 and I'm not talking electorial victories.

I'm talking about a decade where the Republicans used every dirty trick in the book to destroy the Clintons and they failed. Not only did they fail, but a good number of them were destroyed in the process. If Newt Gingrich had worked with the Clintons instead of turning on them and trying to claim their scalps, he'd probably still be a powerful Washington figure. The Clintons reduced him to the status of joke.

Doesn't hurt her in my eyes that she's whip smart.

One thing I'll say on Obama -- his race speech convinced me that he's far braver than I thought. So I'm now believing that he will be able to stand up to a Republican assault. But whether or not he's as clever as Clinton is still another matter.

Elizabeth

RE the 2004 dem defeat is only marginal in my thinking process for the best dem candidate in 2008.

I support the Clinton candidacy because I have watched her over a long period of time and am convinced that she has what it takes to get the job done and done faster than any other candidate the dems had or have. I am focused on who I think is the best for the job which includes electibility.

Thats it.

I have seen that a woman and/or a black candidate have the most amazing of obstacles to overcome just to get to the starting line. And I see this with both front running dem candidates.

That said, one has been lifting this weight a lot longer in the national public eye than the other. And as such, Barack Obama is now learning how heavy that load is in the national spotlight. And as good a candidate he might be he just has not had the time to "prove" himself in the national eye. Call it vetted or anything else.

And as I have stated before in other comments, I satisfy almost every one of Obama constituent factors-including education, economic status, white in a biracial marriage with a biracial child. So, race and biracial has been an issue I have had to come to grips with in a very personal way many years ago, and so I believe I could clearly see him as a good and smart politician earlier in the process than the symbol he was to so many before he started to lose his "blank slate" status.

Kerry never crossed my mind.

Hillary is tough and cautious and smart and showed she could connect with voters of all stripes despite the high negatives when she won her Senate seat and the feared Republican backlash did not occur. I know from her actions that she will seek the things I want sought and most often be successful. I know her weaknesses too. So she is a known commodity who will make an excellent though not perfect President.

I have no idea what Obama would actually do.
Prior to Wright, I thought it likely that Obama could win with significant Republican and Independent support. He has a liberal voting record but how he runs is ambiguous. It seemed to me that more of Audacity of Hope was spend in apologizing for liberal positions than in defending them. So when he actually has to take actions, he would have to either disappoint me or disappoint those Republicans and Independents. There is an element of wishful thinking and/or deliberate deception in his apparent belief that he can be all things to all people at all times.
After Wright I expect the Republicans will be able to activate their base whichever candidate we nominate.

Also I found Obama's willingness to use phony charges of racism -- exploiting each and every gaffe and then in a mealy mouth fashion claiming that he was not charging that any one was racist -- disgusting and morally disqualifying for the Presidency. I found him to be playing politics with a fault line in American society and putting his own political well-being ahead of the country's well-being.

I find I could not imagine even McCain doing such a thing.

2004 really did not play a part in my decision to support Hillary. I have very good memories personally of the 90's. I would consider myself a moderate democrat and believe that Hillary represents my views more to my liking. I believe she will be fiscally responsible, working very hard to bring down the deficit. I believe she has spent her time in the senate to be albe to run from a moderate platform, which I think is the most realistic to be elected. In this way, I think of John Kerry. I supported and voted for him but he was behind the 8 ball from the start I think. Honestly, I have been waiting for the oppritunity to vote for her since Bill Clinton left office.

I have tried to state my views in a kind manner. I do not wish to tear down Obama. I do support Hillary 100% and think she is the best for our Country. Please, do not throw me in the troll bin as has happened before. I have voted democratic ever since I was old enough to vote.

Neither Clinton nor Obama are anything like John Kerry in 2004. We had no "John Kerry" candidate to chose in the primaries, thank God. Kerry didn't have the stomach for a rough election process, but it seems that both Clinton and Obama do. Both are willing to, and even enjoy responding immediately to dirty campaign tactics used against them. So, I don't see the 2004 election having any effect at all on this election.

I voted for Obama, but not in any way because of what happened in 2004.

First, as a visitor rather than a regular reader, I'd like to commend all here for the well thought out responses and the peaceful manner in which they're conveyed here. Mature, open, honest discussion...just what I've been searching for for a couple of weeks now.

Anyway, in answer to the question...2004 has nothing to do with my decision to vote for Hillary. The issue of experience along with being someone I see as very intelligent, articulate, hard working, passionate about helping people, and a strong and tenacious person has been the major force behind my decision.

My view is that regardless of the fact she's been in an elected office for a short time in comparison to some others, she's still been in the throes of the political world all of her adult life. She has withstood a great deal throughout that time displaying remarkable strength in the face of adversity.

Just as another pointed out, my husband and I have good memories of the 90's, too. It was nice to have a back thought in our minds that we were doing well and so was our country.

I have nothing against Obama, but I think he needs a little more time before becoming one of the most powerful figures in the world. Someone wanting change and encouraging hope is great, but we have immediate, major pressing issues that put our country at a crossroads that need to be dealt with immediately.

I'd rather have someone I KNOW will be ready and willing to tackle the most pressing issues and not be distracted by other issues. Most of that which could be used to distract her has already been used.

The 2004 election has nothing to do with my supporting Hillary. I am 54 years old, female, and I have worked outside the home most of my life. I watched her take the teachers to task in Arkansas when the children there were not getting the education they deserved. Then I watched her FIGHT for health care reform. Then I saw her publicly humiliated by her husband and watched as she tried to hold it together. I watched as the republicans came after them both, lying and hurting everyone they could get their hands on and I watched her when her best friend killed himself because of what the republicans were doing to them. I watched her rise above them AND THEN I watched her at ground zero, and how she fought for health care for the first responders, body armor for the troops, I knew if she was my senator and I needed her, she would pick up the phone. Like I said, I have worked outside of my home all of my life to build a better future for my children. This woman has worked outside of her home to build a better future for AMERICA. I think if we give her the chance, she can be the change America really needs right now.

John Kerry's loss had little to do with my support of Hillary Clinton. The more I see of her, the more respect I have for her abilities to act and react appropriately to all kinds of boulders thrown into the road.
she's spent a good part of her lifetime having to do this, and is seasoned at it. She has solid democratic policies, experience reaching across the aisle in Congress, and she has accrued volumes of political knowledge in her sixty years. (Her negatives, in fact, astound me. I don't get it.)
What DOES linger from the 2004 campaign is the sleazy, dirty campaigning such as Swift Boaters for Truth, and such, that will attempt to make mincemeat out of either nominated candidate.

Frankly, I think Clinton is much more capable of fighting back. And that is the frosting on the cake which is a great candidate to begin with. I think in this election we are very lucky; we have only GOOD choices, compared to Kerry.

I decided long ago that I am not smart enough to know who the “more electable” candidate is, so I would simply vote for the individual who I thought would make the better president. Pretty boring, I know, but there you have it. By the way, if anything, the 2000 election results have made more of an impact on my thinking than the 2004 results, but not for strategic reasons. Just as “electability” doesn’t factor into my decision making, “likability” and “charisma” doesn’t either. The American people, for the most part, vote on personality issues and probably will again. Hopefully we’ll luck out this time and he won’t be such a disaster.

I can tell you how J Kerry lost in 2004. The real facts about the war had been subjugated by a press that was all too ready to back the incumbent. Posting the threat level everyday like we had anything to worry about. Telling us of those "monsters" in Gitmo........Push on top of that what happened in 2000? ......I hope we all don't lose sight of what really is at stake.

I thought this was a question for Hillary supporters. It seems like the Obama supporters have to be heard even when not asked.

As for me, I hoped that Hillary would run and told a republican friend who voted both times for Bush that it would be Hillary in 2008. The Kerry fiasco has nothing to do with my support for Hillary. I think she is the best for the job, she cares about this country and the domestic problems as well as the international.

My issue now is whether I will even vote democrat if the DNC is ridiculous enough to nominate another candidate who has no chance of winning in November. Or whether over 20 years of voting I will for the first time stay home.

One thing is for sure, I will not vote for Obama. Although I liked his positions when he first started his run, the more I listen to him and the more I hear about him, the less I trust him. I find him to be weak, arrogant and patronizing.

I am one of those professionals with a doctorate degree who is NOT supporting Obama. So put me in with the middle Americans who NEED change and are supporting Clinton.

If anything, the 2004 campaign reenforced my belief that as long as the Democratic Party nominated candidates who didn't stand for anything would fall to any Republican. The other lesson learned was that I wouldn't support another Democrat who refused to fight it out for every voter, red state, gun owner, evangelical.

After 2004 for I decided that I would support another Democratic candidate based upon electability.

I would rather lose on principle than win for the sake of winning. I believe that for too long Democrats have run away from their core values, have not presented a vision, let me say that again, a vision that projects to the American people what we believe this country should be about.

So, my choice this election cycle was easy.

I confess that i've not read all the posts but I'll just add a electability few factors in my decision to support BHO...

1. The young vote for Kerry does not add up to that which is out for Obama today coupled with the fact that they are more engaged today than in 2004 and "I believe" will be more reliable for turnout in the fall.

2. Concerns about Obama does not even add up to teh repubs hate for Hillary. They will turn out in droves if she is the nominee. This added to what most believe will be a protest vote if she is nominated over Obama:

a. Indies will go to McCain
b. A lot of Blacks will stay home or write
in Obama
c. Primary Repubs for Hillary are fake and
will vote for McCain in the general
d. Hillary's campaign has pissed off non-
black supporters of Obama and they too
will not vote for her choosing to stay
home or vote McCain or Nader if he does
in fact run. Although his effect will be
minimal, it did not take much to down Gore

Elizabeth:

I agree with your mom's friend, at least if I understand correctly. I think Obama has roughly equal chances of flaming out in the GE and catching fire in the GE. He could win big or lose big. Which is more probable? I think it's hard to say.

Why do I think that he could go either way -- big loser or big winner? Because by his own admission he's sort of blank page on which people write a lot of what they hope or want to see. In the democratic primaries the projections onto him have mostly been positive (though not so much recently.) If Repugnants get a hold of him, they can write a lot of unfavorable things upon the blank page that is Obama, at least potentially.

If they succeed, we'll have another Dukakis on our hands. If they fail, we could have another Bill Clinton or better on our hands. But who knows really. Think of how effectively the repugnants painted Kerry, a war hero, a very articulate and thoughtful man, as a waffling bumbler of questionable patriotism. Still, we almost won, because Kerry had no potential to absolutely crater. But Barack does have the potential to crater. Or so it seems to me.

WIth Hillary, on the other hand, her downside is not so great. But neither is her upside. She's going to get at a minimum the kind of vote that Gore and Kerry got -- which were pretty sizeable votes. She could get a bit more, though probably not a lot more. But that's partly because there's a certain ceiling to the traditional democratic vote.

At the same time, I think there's zero chance of her being Dukakeyed, if you will. But I give Obama a 40 - 60% chance of being Dukakeyed, depending on how the rest of this plays out.

Unfortunately, I do agree that Hillary, who I very much support, is increasing the chances that if he is the nominee, he will end up being Dukakeyed.

But if she believes that she is the better candidate and believes very sincerely that she would win and he would lose that she could govern more effectively, she sort of owes it to herself and to those who believe what she believes (like me) to keep on fighting.

Clinton rules? Can you explain?

Well, if you actually watch the video of Clinton responding to the multiple questions if Obama is a muslim you know that she it was a media gotcha and not her trying to make herself sound doubtful. I would have to watch again to recall whether it was the 4th or 5th time he pressed the question that she said "as far as I know" and that phrase had words before and behind that made it clear to anyone watching it that she had not doubt that Obama was not a muslim. She called it a character attack.

So, when you include that in the list of her sins, you lose credibility with me. I cannot see how anyone can honestly see that as her fault or fault her for her words.