Kerry advisers expect 2008 run

[bigdarryl]

Wonder if Edwards will be the Vice Prsidential canidate again.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/09/kerrys_barnstorming_sparks_talk_of_a_run/

[Jim Sagle]

1. Your link doesn't work. This one does:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/09/kerrys_barnstorming_sparks_talk_of_a_run/

[Sensitivity]

2. link does not work

[bigdarryl]

8. Link FIXED

[lapfog_1]

3. I ike John... but if there is a "rerun" of past Democratic candidates

I'd much rather see Al Gore run.

[Jacklyn75]

4. me and you both!

I don't want Kerry to run again!

[TayTay]

7. Why not?

I can see voting against him in the primaries if you don't like him but why discourgage people from running? The more the merrier I think. It will make for more voices in the race and more interesting Demcratic debates.

[sendero]

78. Because we're afraid..

... that he'll win the primary and run a crappy campaign and lose AGAIN?

Really, we need, for presidential candidate, someone new and fresh. Kerry has been trying to make himself over but it's really to late for me and I suspect a lot of Americans see him as an "also ran" who SHOULD have clobbered Bush in 2004 but who just didn't have the stuff.

[blm]

121. They see someone who DID clobber Bush and outperformed him.

Most also know now that BushInc is pretty capable of anything and resorts to lies and trickery to stay their course.

Bush did not run a better campaign than Kerry - Kerry won on every matchup - debates and policy positions.

The DNC, on the other hand, had their asses handed to them for the entire FOUR YEAR TERM, and their office of Voter Integrity failed miserably to fulfill their promised duty to counter vote suppression, purged voter rolls and rigged machines.

The votecount responsibilities are part of the Dem party infrastructure - how did it do?

[sendero]

123. Vote fraud?

Well Kerry sure did nothing. Kerry should have outpaced Bush by 10 points, it would not have been stealable then. His campaign sucked, he couldn't even beat a president who within literally weeks was polling at less than 50%.

Kerry's a fine senator, he'd do well to leave it at that.

[blm]

128. Baloney - Bush's campaign sucked and that's why the RNC had to steal votes

And it's absurd to say that a larger margin would have made a difference on rigged machines - no matter how many times a vote was aimed towards Kerry, a flip sent it to Bush, ino matter if the margin was 5% or 10%. The mroe votes for Kerry, the more votes for Bush on rigged machines.

[sendero]

129. Really...

... you don't understand a damn thing about election fraud if you think a 10 point spread can be stolen. Not to mention the electoral college system.

I've already had that debate here and I won't repeat it.

Bush was about to fall over and Kerry couldn't knock him down. Spin until you are green, that is the FACT.

[blm]

130. If the machine is rigged to steal by PERCENTAGE it doesn't matter how MANY

Now, it's blame Kerry for only winning by 5million votes?

I suppose you'd like to add that Bush had most mainstream media against him and reporting the truth about 9-11 and Iraq and Kerry was turned into a hero by the mainstream media and Kerry's campaign was so bad he couldn't take advantage of the media exposing Bush's weaknesses.

You may as well - no Democrat who only gets 60-65 million votes is worth a crap.

[sendero]

136. You are .

....

Machines can truly make up any number. But there aren't machines in every state. And do you honestly think they are going to risk getting caught red handed by trying to steal a race that is polling 10 points apart? Please, they can steal races that are within the margin of error or a couple points more.

Then we get to the electoral college issue. Add 10% to every state and see how many states they would have had to steal to take the election.

Kerry sucks as a campaigner and his instincts took 2 years too long to get in sync with reality. Reality will change again and we need someone who can keep up. I hope him and HRC sit on their hands and give the Democratic party a freaking chance.

[blm]

138. BUSH CAMPAIGN SUCKED - Kerry beat him man to man. DNC BLEW SECURING

the election process and you can't possibly believe that Bush wouldn't have had the same media protection if only there had been another Democratic candidate.

Kerry gained at LEAST 10 million more votes than Gore did, and 15 million more based on RFKs data - did you ever check and see how many additional voters are EXPECTED in any presidential contest or what is normal? One of the JK forum posters gathered the info from the last 40 years and Kerry outpaced EVERY other candidate in ADDING voters. Except for the Bush2004 number, which we know should have about 8million less.

And when it comes right down to it...WE WILL SEE. We will see who has the debate chops, the presence, the commander-in-chief qualities, and who develops the best policy positions.

We will see. And we will have the series of debates which puts it all out there - if Kerry is bested, then that person will become the nominee. We will see who can best him.

If he's as bad as you claim, then we will see plenty of the primary candidates rise above him at that point.

[wisteria]

20. Why? You don't give a reason. Others have run again after a loss

and their loses weren't as close as Kerry's. You have the option of voting another candidate in the primaries if you want. Why be so set against a primary run?

[bif]

5. Go Al!

[Faux pas]

14. Me three. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

37. me four

which I apparently state at my own peril as I've been admonished by certain proprietary Kerry supporters to stay off Kerry threads; and they wonder why there are frequent dustups here at DU. Sheesh.

[Mass]

44. I want both of them to run.

We should not be afraid of competition between two men who have great ideas.

Actually, my dream would be they run together, but this is only a dream.

[politicasista]

54. Me too n/t

[Totally Committed]

73. I can't see it...

Neither has an ego that would allow them to take VP and be happy with it. It'll never happen.

I think if both run, people will get behind one or the other, and we all know how well that worked here the last time... :sarcasm:

TC

[Mass]

45. Not your choice. He will run if he wants and Gore will run if he wants.

I certainly hope that they dont wait for my OK.

[hijinx87]

6. I'm not sure this is such a great idea

he seemed so stiff and not himself as a presidential candidate. some
people just aren't cut out for that sort of thing.

[paulk]

9. thanx for repeating the RNC meme

same on they used on Gore. Same one they use on HRC. Same one they'll use on any Democrat who wins the nom.

But, that Bush - now he's the kind of regular guy you'd want to sit down and have a beer with....

[hijinx87]

13. anybody that thinks he was a good candidate in 2004 . . . .

simply wasn't paying attention. the guy lost to a dirt clod,
for heaven's sake.

and thank you for your brainless retort. "you are spewing
rethug memes" takes about as much thought as "you're a big
fat fatty".

[TayTay]

15. I thought he was and I was playing close attention

Anyone who makes such sweeping statements about others and justifies them by making sweeping generalizations is sort of asking for it, logically speaking.

Your argument is silly. You posit that what you saw is what everyone saw. This is speculative on it's face and can't be proven because it is subjective. You then turn around and attack Paulk because he is making a speculative argument.

Hmmmm, pot calling the kettle non-sensical, I think. Your argument doesn't hold water you know.

[hijinx87]

18. fine. name three things he did RIGHT.

if I may be forgiven by the logic police for continuing in a
subjective manner.

[TayTay]

19. Okay

Debate One
Debate Two
Debate Three

Ball in your court.

Oh and the substance of those debates was, as today's North Korean actions show, dead-on.

Also, he came from behind to win in Iowa due to having a great field operation and not giving up. He was behind by anywhere from 5-10% points in late August and came back because of the debates. (And, may have won, depends on the extent of the fraud in the election.)

Gee, he did get 59 million votes in '04 you know, 10 million more than Clinton did in '96 and 8 million more than Al Gore did in '00. No other Dem has gotten more nationally.

[wisteria]

23. How about Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Or, using intelligence and

surveillance along with police work to catch terrorists, just like England did recently to thwart the lastest attempt to sabotage the airways.

[hijinx87]

25. he was pretty good in the debates

I give you that. but he wasn't exactly debating the world's
deepest thinker. but that should tell us something about the
importance of debates in today's presidential elections.

my point is that * was beatable in 2004, and he just couldn't
pull it off. and I'm still bitterly disappointed about it.

he fatally blundered by not blowing the swiftboaters away, by not
renouncing his vote in favor of the iraq war resolution during the
campaign, and by finishing the election with millions still in the
bank.

60K votes in ohio is all he needed. any one of those three things
would have probably turned the tide.


(and clinton was in a three way race in 96, and turnout wasn't
exactly spectacular in 00. and it was record setting in 04)

[TayTay]

27. Ah, so there were variables

that affected those races in specific ways. I see. There were also variables that affected the '04 race. And turnout was high in '04, on both sides, which meant there were special circumstances. And there were special circumstances in '92 and '96. I see.

So what you are saying is that each race is different and has to be taken on it's own terms. Each candidate or possible candidate should approach each race as having legacy issues from prior races, but as it's own event as well. I see.

So, why shouldn't Kerry try again? He has money, he has supporters and he has the will to run? Why not just let the voters sort it all out? It is, after all, a new race and new circumstances.

[hijinx87]

39. remember, this is the same guy

that had to loan himself $6 million bucks before the first primary.

it's not like he was setting the world on fire, or led from start to
finish, or was universally acclaimed.

he was just the only one still standing when the media got done destroying
howard dean.

and without that cash infusion, he was finished. he was running third and
fourth in the polls, was broke, and was having an impossible time with fund
raising.

[paulk]

40. actually, it was the Democratic caucus voters in Iowa

who destroyed Howard Dean's campaign...

And you're wrong - Kerry did lead from start to finish - once the voting started. All else regarding the primaries as to the state of the Kerry campaign is... um... speculation....

because it's "votes" that win primaries.

[hijinx87]

46. oh? I can show you a forum full of people that think

polls win elections. :evilgrin:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

100. With a lot of help from the beltway boys.

Vote swapping fractional votes.

Kerry <--> Geppie
Edwards <--> Kooch

[karynnj]

66. He loaned the campaign money to allow himself to compete

He still had less money than Dean. He did lead from the first electoral contest to the last in the primaries.

The cash let him get his message out - when that happened people voted (or caucused for him). What it does show is that he was neither a party or a media favorite. His was the real grassroots campaign of 2004.

Think of it Dean had a very major spurt of media in mid 2003. He was on the cover of all the newsweekly in the course of a month. The articles portrayed him as the underdog, a good thematic position (think Clinton).
Dean was likely not prepared to handle the intense spotlight at that time and was seen as too volitle. Clark got a burst of good press when he first came on the scene. Portraying him as the knight in shining armor one day, they called him out for each minor stumble.

Kerry got press only as he won primaries. Even then, where were the he's got momentum stories. (I read the Making of the President books) Instead, after NH, the media pushed the Dean/Kerry story, even as Dean indicated he was going to seriously compete in NONE of the 7 states on the first multistate day that came next.

Those states, AZ,NM,MO,ND,SC,DE, and OK were among the worst states for a NE liberal - Kerry won 5 of them. Clark and Edwards won one each. Even this didn't kill the story of Dean vs Kerry, but it was joined by Kerry vs Edwards. However, if Edwards couldn't win more than 1 of these states versus Kerry, where was Edwards going to win. The media spoke of Kerry vs Edwards until early March, when Kerry won all the big states. (He was polling as more than 20 points higher than Edwards in CA at a point that Edwards needed all the states to win.

Look at this site - it has the primaries in chronological order. Kerry's victory was very commanding for winning an open seat. It was in fact the cleanest win I've seen where their was no incumbent president or VP.

http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

[TayTay]

88. Hahahahaha! That's a terrible argument

This man believed in his campaign and took out a loan on his house in order to finance his campaign. If that bet had not paid off it is likely he would have had to quit politics altogether in order to make enough money to pay off the loan. That was a completely gutsy move and one that took balls to make. I think it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you try to turn that into a negative. (Excuse me, but who blew through $50 million dollars in the primary season and won 1 primary, that of his home state.)

Again, you use the excuse of 'the media did it' on the candidate you like. Mysteriously, that excuse disappears when the target of the media is any other Democrat. This might actually play if it was a consistent theme. Some candidates self-destruct. Check out what happened in Dec of 03.

[karynnj]

65. The debates weren't really a contest between the two

Kerry was immensely better than Bush. The real "opponent" for Kerry was to beat any concern that a viewer would have that he could step into the Presidency of a country at war that was living in fear. He had to convince them that he could be a wise protecting leader who would be better than the leader they credited with keeping them from the storm of hatred. He actually accomplished this by the polls leading into the last week.

2004 was tougher than either 2000 or 1992. (The Clintons thought it unwinnable - so she didn't run.) The media was progessively worse and Kerry didn't even get complete support from the Democratic part.

[JNelson6563]

72. Good debates aren't enough

and they certainly don't make up for the hand wringing and dissembling we saw. Too many consultants, too poll driven, waaaaaaaay too "safe".

No thanks. I want someone who won't concede while votes are still being counted.

Julie

[blm]

98. Votes are still being counted two weeks later.

When the math window closed Kerry was given no choice BUT to concede and ANY Democratic nominee would have done the exact same thing - any other display of delay would have been for show.

[sandnsea]

33. I'll name the most important thing - he WON n/t

[JNelson6563]

102. See, that's the thing,

There's no hard evidence he atually won and lord knows he didn't do anything before conceding to make sure all votes were counted and counted right.

There's no one who disputes the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000. The Kerry "win" is debatable and utterly unprovable.

There's winning and then there's winning.

Julie

[wisteria]

22. if the shoe fits..... I happened to be paying close attention. n/t

[blm]

42. You believe the dirt clod OUTPERFORMED Kerry, or did RNC outperform DNC?

Because Kerry won. Too bad the DNC didn't spend their four years running against the RNC and its tactics of vote suppression, voter roll purges, and machine rigging. DNC didn't secure the election process to get the votes counted.

[wisteria]

21. What? To be President?

Gee, with your criteria Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson wouldn't of been elected either.

[hijinx87]

26. interesting three choices.

modern presidential elections are completely different than they
were 150 years ago, of course, but this is an interesting topic.

lincoln won with 39% of the vote because the dems split three
ways -- bell, breckenridge, and douglas.

washington was so universally worshiped that anyone else as the
first president was unthinkable.

and the election of 1800 is a fascinating subject all by itself.

[blm]

59. And Clinton won in 92 in a completely different media climate, thanks to

John Kerry and his IranContra and BCCI investigations which made a steady stream of bad headlines for Bush1. Unlike BUsh2 who had the press eating out of his hand post 9-11 thanks to the GOP control of most broadcast media since 1997.

[SoFlaJet]

10. If Gore ain't running

and what I hear from Mark Warner doesn't entice me enough I might just have to vote for him again-definitely NOT Hillary or Obama-sorry repubs

[Caution]

11. With all that he has clearly learned from the first run he'll be great the

second time around. He's attacking the swiftboaters, he's got a clear policy on Iraq, he's clearly learned a lot. I can't wait to see his second attempt.

[Superman Returns]

29. Obama and HRC...

Repubs? sorry. thats far left-wing talking points. Sure I have issues with them but right-wing they are not.

[KitSileya]

108. I think the point was that the repukes want HRC or Obama to run.

They are positioning Clinton and Obama as the worst Dem choices for them, while in reality the repukes believe they'll easily beat the two. Therefore, I think the poster was saying that he or she aren't playing into the hands of the GOP by supporting Clinton or Obama, rather than accusing them of being rightwing.

I do believe Kerry could have been more decisive on some issues (the swifties for one) but at the same time he did labor under massive disadvantages regarding the media. After 2000 and 2002, the Democratic leadership, and the Kerry campaign in particular, should have anticipated a lot of the things that happened in 2004 - Ohio from 2000 Florida, and the swifties from 2002 Georgia. They hadn't and there seems less than reassuring indications that they've not yet learned these lessons for 2006 - and I guess some of us don't trust Kerry to have learned it for 2008. I certainly don't think Clinton takes it seriously.

[Sensitivity]

12. Li nk I found: good read

Solid article.
This link should work:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/09/kerrys_barnstorming_sparks_talk_of_a_run/

[wisteria]

16. For those of us who respect Kerry and know in our hearts he would

make an exceptionally strong,excellent President, this is good news- we hope. I for one, wrote him right after the last election and said he should run again. I have never done that in my life for any other candidate. Let the chips fall where they may. If Senator Kerry decides to run, it will because he is passionate about this country and how to take it forward and make it safer. He has been proven correct more often than he has been wrong on the issues that matter most to all Americans. For others who have issues about '04", or who support others, well, they will flame this post soon enough, saying the sames things they always say. That is just the way it is.

[Peace Patriot]

17. My favorite ticket is the Restoration Ticket: Gore/Kerry '08.

For what my opinion is worth. Not a whole lot in these Diebold Days, I'm afraid.

They both won the presidency, and were both unfairly denied the office--and the American people were unfairly denied their choices. So the way to restore order--and also to re-empower and re-enfranchise the American people--is to put that powerful, already elected ticket in the White House. Gore won first. He also has 8 years of experience in the executive branch. Kerry also won. He's a very smart guy, with lots of Senate experience--perfect for the V-P office (president of the Senate) and would be a uniquely great V-P. Gore, having been a V-P, and being who he is, would not stifle Kerry, and would use him well. Can you just imagine the team that these two would put together to reform this country and re-invigorate its great and creative people?

Gore has been very, very strong on the torture issue, Constitutional government and the world's greatest crisis: global warming, including dire predictions of the DEATH of our planet (--50 years, that's all we have, according the World Wildlife Fund).

Kerry is particularly good on accountability issues, investigation and prosecution. He's also been enlightened on the fraudulent electronic voting system, I believe. AND he's good at framing legislation.

I have big issues with both of them. NAFTA with Gore. And the Iraq war with Kerry. But that is not the point. The point is to RESTORE the choices of the AMERICAN PEOPLE!

I could go for that, big time. Just imagine the celebration in January '09!

But Kerry by himself? No, I don't think that's enough. He just didn't get the Constitutional issue on the war. He voted to GIVE AWAY the Senate's power to declare war. I want a stronger constitutionalist in the top spot.

Gore alone (or with some other V-P candidate)? Maybe. Depends on who the V-P would be (--with this dangerous oiligarchy still lurking about).

I'm just talking my druthers. What would truly inspire me. There are others whom I could enthusiastically support. But there could be no ticket more meaningful than Gore/Kerry. It HEALS the past. It says NEVER FORGET. It is a BRIDGE. It is a RESTORATION of the rightful order of things. And from there I think we really could save and rebuild this democracy.

[New Earth]

43. that's mine too

:)

[karynnj]

68. I respect your opinion

but I do take issue with you saying about Gore, but not about Kerry, that he was very very good on speaking against torture. Kerry spoke out FAR more often and conclusively in the month leading up to this vote. There were at least 5 Tv appearances. His comment were of the nature,"Absolutely no torture period" He DID speak out in 2003 and 2004. Issueing a very definative statement to the WP in October 2004. He famously spoke against such things in 1971 when he came home from the war. (He also spoke against it with regards to the Contras)

This takes nothing away from Gore, but if anything, this is Kerry's issue for his entire life.

[zulchzulu]

24. As long as it's a Schrum-free Zone...

...I'm all for it.

[wisteria]

32. I will second that! n/t

[Totally Committed]

28. So, will he run for Senator at the same time, or what? eom

TC

[TayTay]

30. Not legally able to do so in Massachusetts

It is specifically disallowed by the Massachusetts State Constitution.

[Totally Committed]

31. Really? I never knew that!

Well, I guess he's willing to give up his seat for that run, then.... That probably means Marty Meehan will finally get his wish to run for the Senate, gawdhelpus. :eyes:

Thanks for that info, TayTay!

TC

[TayTay]

35. I love the Mass Constitution, it's actually quite readable.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

Damn straight they are. If only Bush realized this.

Personally, I think this section is why the rest of the country thinks we are commies:

Chapter V, Section II.
The Encouragement of Literature, etc.

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.


Article VII. The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months.


It really is a great document to peruse. There have been a lot of changes in it since 1780. http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

[Totally Committed]

38. It's odd -- I've read the U.S. Constitution many times, but never

the Massachusetts Constitution! No time like the present, I guess... Thanks again for that link. I'm going to read it!

Thanks again, TayTay...

TC

[sandnsea]

34. So it'll be the President or nothing??

That makes me very sad. I hate to think of our government without him. And when Teddy goes, we're really in for a world of hurt. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer can fill that void, but JK seemed to have the ability to actually make the centrists sit up and take notice, where I'm not sure others do. It wasn't Cantwell keeping them out of ANWR all these years.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. Don't be sad...

... after all, he'll be the 44th President of the United States, so it will be a net gain, methinks. :D

[Clark2008]

119. Not if he doesn't win the primaries.

I hope not - as a Southerner in a flippable state - with the correct candidate (which isn't Kerry).

Don't get me wrong, I like Kerry - but he can't flip a red state any sooner than Hillary can.

[WildEyedLiberal]

124. Well, 2004 is not 2008

I think more and more people have woken up and seen the illusion of Republican leadership for what it really is - a sham. Most states, red or not, have a net disapproval rating of Bush. They will be in play for most any Dem candidate.

I think Kerry could win in Tennessee in addition to many other states Bush "won" (in parentheses for Iowa and New Mexico, which I believe had very questionable results) in 2004.

That's the beauty of the primaries, though... you campaign for your guy and I'll campaign for mine, and we will both stand proudly behind the winner, whoever he (or she, though I shudder to think) may be.

[Clark2008]

127. I shudder at the "she" too

Who, exactly, is voting for her in the primaries?

No one I know!

[WildEyedLiberal]

137. No one I know, either.

And I live in her home state! Not that she claims IL anymore...

The only people I've seen worked up about a Hillary candidacy are the DC punditocracy and consulting class. And we all know how they have their fingers on the pulse of the country... :eyes:

[seabeyond]

41. i am excited. i think it is a good thing for many reasons.

i am glad to hear this. all that have question need to watch kerry on maher. he says some obvious things, and not just cause i agree with him, but in maher dissing of kerry in past, when talking to him, he knew what had happened and in asking hte questions said the obvious too.

need to watch maher clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIF7_P92ORQ

[Eurobabe]

47. Let him run, he won't get the nomination

[politicasista]

49. I would let the voters and primaries decide that

before drawing conclusions.

[Eurobabe]

50. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Kerry bores me. I'd rather see Hillary run than John Kerry.

[politicasista]

51. Yawn.

Sounds like you bought into the Faux news spin. Not my problem. Shame you have to bash good dems just to promote Hillary and others.

[Eurobabe]

52. You sound like a Repube who will not allow me my opinion

one of the things I hate most about the 'new' DU. Here we go folks, get ready for the coming primary fights.

Ugh.

[politicasista]

53. You're calling me a repuke? How laughable

:rofl:

When the primary season comes, I will listen to the candidates, work hard for the nominee and defend him/her against RW smears the media shoves out to the American public. That is much, much, more productive than griping and spewing lies about Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Ahhhh... a Hillarista!

Hillary is so unacceptable and so divisive on so many fronts that only a Karl Rove would want her to run for President.

Hillary has been AWOL while the republic was being destroyed by the tyrant Bush.

[mtnsnake]

74. I see you're still puking up your lies about Hillary, just like a repuke

Hillary has been AWOL? Enough with that garbage. Hillary has been one of the gutsiest Democrats of all when it comes to blasting the Bush administration while speaking in front of a microphone.

You're so misleading and divisive it's shameful.

[karynnj]

79. She gets a huge amount of press whenever she does

but she really has NOT been on any of the talk shows, cable or Sunday morning, so I don't see her as one of the "gutsiest." I have never heard her as the first one out or the strongest. (The only exceptions I can think of is she has been a leader on hitting Christie Whitman for saying the air was ok and she was early on Dubai Ports - but on Iraq or Afghanistan, she is not there as a leader.

[IndianaGreen]

131. Kerry, Feingold, Clark, and Conyers are gutsy.

Hillary has been AWOL while the Republic burns!

[mtnsnake]

133. haha, I suppose that was someone charading in a Hillary costume who

blasted Bush way more than once in the last few weeks and didn't pull any punches. lol

[IndianaGreen]

135. Did Hillary support the Alito filibuster?

Did Hillary vote in support of Kerry's resolution to bring the troops home from Iraq within a year?

Wasn't Hillary the one that stuck a knife in the back of John Murtha when he said that our troops had done all that could be done in Iraq and that it was time for them to come home?

[mtnsnake]

139. Instead of incessantly whining about Hillary, why don't you spend some of

that energy on learning the truth about her instead of listening to what her naysaying liars are teaching you about her.

The only thing worse than a right winger taking shots at Hillary is when a Democrat takes the kind of shots at her that you are. Then again...

[blm]

63. HAHAHAH - - let's hear you say that after the first 3 debates - HAHAHAH!!!

.

[karynnj]

67. The job of the President is to amuse you?

So, do we want Jon Steward?

[mtnsnake]

89. The job of the candidate includes not putting the public to sleep

Everyone on this forum knows that Kerry was the best choice for president in the 2004 race, but unfortunately the general public needs to see a Democratic candidate who can inspire them in more ways than what we saw in 2004.

As fine a Senator as he is and as fine a president as he probably would've made, Kerry is way too stale as a presidential candidate. This is why I think Obama just might end up getting the nod in 2008. He's just as intelligent as Kerry, but he knows how get much more of an emotional rise out of the people when he speaks.

[blm]

91. RNC and RW press created an image of Bush that Bush never came close to

matching. The DNC and Left press couldn't tell the TRUTH about Kerry as compelling as GOPs could lie about Bush.

How many Dem party spokespeople even mentioned the courageous uncovering of IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning? NONE - and they didn't because their first loyalty, CLINTON, helped Poppy Bush cover it up by closing the books on those matters.

[karynnj]

141. If the general public sees VERY little of a candidate,

he can neither put them to sleep or excite them. I like Obama, who is likely as intellegent as Kerry, but nowhere near as experienced. I would far rather have him as a VP, where he would have the chance to grow and to be a spectacular candidate in 2016, regardless who the nominee is. Kerry is less stale than Hillary, who we saw as part of the Clinton duo for 8 years and as a Seantor/celebrity for the last 5. (By the way, I don't think either are "stale". I bet the Republicans are not calling McCaine stale.

[blm]

60. HAHA - I say let them all DEBATE and the one with the best chops will win.

And I would place bets on who that will be.

Funny thing about us Dems - we usually like to make our decisions the old-fashion way - TEST them all and see who does best and has the chops and can pass the commander-in-chief threshold.

[zulchzulu]

90. Absolutely

Put everyone who wants to run on the stage and ask them questions about issues, policies, their background, their experience, their plans for the future...

That's when I think it will be obvious that Kerry will be a strong candidate to run in 2008. Others will equally be interesting to watch.

[high density]

48. Hope we get Mary Beth Cahill and Bob Shrum again too

I remember how Kerry/Edwards 2004 worked out so well for us. I'm really quite eager to have a repeat of it in 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Those two are losers!

Kerry has done quite well since he went solo.

Teresa Heinz is the best advisor that Kerry has. He should have listened to her more in 2004!

[bigdarryl]

110. He should hire James Carville and Paul Begella

there the Carl Rove of the democratic party

[WildEyedLiberal]

125. Kerry's not going to hire anyone who stabbed him in the back in 2004

That includes Shrum, Cahill, Carville, and Begala.

[IndianaGreen]

132. Carville and Begala wanted Kerry to lose so that Hillary could run in 08

Begala has been shameful in opposing progressives for just calling Bush a danger to the republic, as Cynthia McKinney did when she said that Bush knew Bin Laden was going to attack US prior to 9-11.

[mtnsnake]

134. Oh for crise sake next youll be sayin Hillary is Jon Bonet Ramsay's killer

and she's responsible for the last 6 major tsunamis including one that took place 10 years before she was born.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Kerry should run in 2008

He has taken the point against Bush's assault on the Constitution while Senator Clinton has been strangely silent on the greatest threat facing our republic: the Bush dictatorship!

[kerrygoddess]

56. All I can say

is run John run!

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4414

[elocs]

61. Am I permitted to say

that I would prefer to see somebody else get the nomination? I realize that Kerry will run if he wants to, but I hope he will take some time to get the sense of what some people who are dedicated Democrats think about his candidacy.

[blm]

62. As an Anti-corruption, open government Democrat I'm THRILLED he's running

And I would dare say that there are plenty of strategist types and insiders who wanted to distract from the REAL problems odf the collapsed Dem party infrastructure that was so weakened after a decade of neglect that it was unable to secure the election process for Dem voters and candidates in the last THREE election cycles.

So - they exaggerated negatives to Kerry's campaign and focused all blame on him - yet HE WON. And those same strategists who won't breathe a word about election fraud KNOW that Kerry WON by the most votes ever cast in American history.

Those ESTABLISHMENT Dems NEVER wanted Kerry in because he's an OPEN GOVERNMENT Democrat who has exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

So they LIE. And pay strategists to lie for them and didtort what really happened - that's why you don't see any DC strategists talking about election fraud and dealing with that issue.

[elocs]

64. I guess you are permitted to say that too.

Isn't it nice that the Democratic Party has such a nice, big tent. You prefer Kerry and I don't and we are both allowed to be Democrats. What a Party!

[karynnj]

70. Nicely said

Consider at this point, there is likely no candidate egarly supported by more than say 20% of Democrats. There's a big field and we don't know who is running. (I am assuming that a significant proportion of people have not even considered the options seriously - Hillary may be above this if all those polled who pick Hillary are strongly behind her.)

[blm]

85. Yes - but facts are the stubborn things that don't go two ways.

Gore won. Cleland won. Kerry won. DNC infrastructure was the MISERABLE FAILURE that didn't secure the vote the last three election cycles - and NO ONE can pretend they did - but the Dem STRATEGISTS and their paymasters DISTORT and LIE at will to create a whole other storyline.

Frankly, I don't TRUST people who DISTORT because it's manipulative and shows disrespect for your audience.

[karynnj]

69. He clearly will, if he runs, it will be because he thinks he can win

As Tay Tay says, he will likely not be able to run for Seante and President. There really is no problem, if dedicated Democrats prefer someone else, they will elect that person. I have strongly supported many a nominee that I did not prefer.

[JNelson6563]

71. Oh please no!

Not again!

[TWiley]

76. Now that is hilarious.

I did not see your post, and my header was the same as yours !

eh eh eh ......... too funny.

See you soon Ms Julie

[JNelson6563]

101. Must be us northerners

Heard you can't make tonight's meeting...is this true? If so, I'll e-mail you proposed menu for Saturday. Going to be quite an event!

Hope to see you at Sleders!

Julie

[TWiley]

75. Oh Gawd no, Please Gawd no

While I have been a huge Kerry fan, and did all I could do to help his last campaign, he and the strategists who ran his campaign failed us all miserably.

There is no reason to assume there would be any change this time. They will only bleed our wallets dry, abuse our activist base, and screw up at every possible opportunity.

No repeat of 2004 Thank You !

[beachmom]

80. Not sure what you're afraid of . . .

If it's all that bad, then he won't win the nomination. Or perhaps you are worried that Kerry will outperform everyone else. Hmmmm . . . that is a distinct possibility.

[Ian David]

77. He needs to pick a tough-minded, hardened Iraqi war vet.

His official announcement should come from The Superdome in New Orleans.

[mtnsnake]

86. What he really needs if for Jesus Christ to reappear & run as his VP mate

If Kerry couldn't trounce the country's worst president ever, then how on earth could he beat ANYONE?

[blm]

92. Kerry WON. The WORST Dem party INFRASTRUCTURE didn't secure the votes.

I wonder why so many of you work to point AWAY from the serious infrastructure problems in the DNC that failed miserably or possibly DELIBERATELY in THREE ELECTION CYCLES?

[mtnsnake]

93. Try telling that to Kerry, that he won.

As far as "the serious infrastructure problems in the DNC" you mentioned, yeah, that needs to be addressed just as much as we need to make sure our candidate can excite the general public when he or she speaks.

[Mass]

94. Voters are the best placed to know who excite them, so let's just

have the primaries and let's the people vote.

As for the infrastructure problem, it seems we have a new chair who is doing a great job. Unfortunately, the previous chair, who did such a lousy job, will be Hillary's campaign manager, definitively not a very good sign if she was to become the nominee.

[mtnsnake]

96. I agree on all accounts. nt

[blm]

95. Then name one other Democrat who recieved 60-65 million votes

and name one other Democrat who had to do it after their opponent was being protected and pumped up into a hero for 4 years.

And who had to do it after corporate media came out of the closet in 1997 unashamed of their full support for their fascist allies in DC.

[hijinx87]

109. why would the DNC fail intentionally?

that just doesn't make sense.

[blm]

111. Does it make sense that after the hearings on 2000 election fraud DNC's

office of Voter Integrity would allow the fraud to considerably worsen for the next four years when they were charged with COUNTERING the tactics they learned about at those hearings?

[hijinx87]

113. unproven and irrelevant. accusing the DNC of intentionally losing in 2004

is irrational.

[blm]

115. RFKs article proves almost 5 million votes were stolen. Anyone who thinks

the DNC's office of Voter Integrity did a heckuva job in securing the vote is irrational.

I also said possible - as, it is a possibility that should be considered, since the fuck up was of such enormous proportions it defies explanation.

Gee - and didn't Bill Clinton tell ALTERNATIVE MEDIA audience that he now believes Kerry may have won Ohio and that RFK made a compelling case in his article?

[hijinx87]

116. RFKs article *proves* absolutely dick.

if kerry had a problem with the election returns, he should have fought
them instead of conceding the next day.

having this discussion 2 years down the road is pointless. no, it's worse
than pointless. it's distracting and disruptive at a time when focus is
absolutely critical.

[blm]

117. Sez you and any Dem strategist with a mortgage payment in DC. RFKs article

and the compiled evidentiary material took alot of time to gather.

You know as well as anyone that there was no legal evidence available that night for Kerry to continue in court.

And why do some of the same people who say election fraud is irrational also pop in and start attacking Kerry for conceding, then? Disconnect in that - or tactic.

And I notice you had no comment about CLINTON remarking that RFKs article compelled him to change his mind about Ohio.

[hijinx87]

120. this is actually far worse than the "standard" election fraud theories.

now we can't even count on the DNC? they are complicit as well?

we may as well pack our suitcase and go home. I can't imagine
anything more disheartening.

[blm]

122. Dean is working his ass off to REBUILD the party infrastructure in states

where it was left to collapse since 1997.

He is aware of election fraud issues and is working to combat them FOR REAL. Unlike the post 2000 DNC which didn't lift a finger to deal with REAL INFRASTRUCTURE problems they were well aware of in 2000 and 2002. The DNC then, who had the benefit of the hearings on 2000 election fraud but chose to not counter those tactics for four years, was being run by Terry McAuliffe.

[enough already]

81. I guess he still has the $15 million from the last campaign...

...that he SAT ON instead of fighting the theft in Ohio. Oh happy day....

[beachmom]

82. Oh, this is fantastic!

According to the DC punditry, it's going to be Hillary vs. John McCain. Anyone else think we need to improve on that? At this point, their positions on Iraq are, respectively:

Pro Iraq War keeping the bloodshed at the same level as now
Pro escalate the Iraq War to INCREASE the bloodshed from what it is now


Sorry, we need somebody who isn't afraid to tell the truth about Iraq, who cares about the well being of our troops more than false pride, and is going to refocus efforts on Afghanistan, and that person is John Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

83. I don't think Kerry will get a single vote that he didn't get last time,

perhaps even less.

In 2004 he took the high road to the point of no return, he didn't fight back, and he ignored the swift boat liars' allegations to the point that the allegations stuck in the minds of all the naive voters out there.

As intelligent as Senator Kerry is, he's just as boring. It's unfortunate, but no matter how well he connects with his biggest fans from this forum, he just doesn't connect well with the general public no matter how hard he tries.

After what we saw in the 2004 campaign, which was so poorly run by the managers that Kerry picked and stuck with, I don't think the general American Democratic public will ever support another Kerry run in the primaries. Been there, done that, never again, please.

[Mass]

84. The good news for Kerry is that all the DC strategists that worked so

well in 04 (the ones who did not think Kerry should be Kerry) are already booked by Hillary, Warner, and Edwards.

Which means that Kerry will rely on people who know him and do not expect him to be somebody else.

And it happens that Kerry is anything but boring.

So, he will run in the primaries if he wants and people will decide. May be they will agree with you, may be they will agree with me. We'll see.

[blm]

87. PERFECT! Kerry gets 65 MILLION Votes, and this time the votes are COUNTED

and not being flipped to GOP nominee.

So - Kerry wins.

[wisteria]

97. I know of at least three people who will vote for him this time.

They are Republicans, but they didn't like Bush and believed the 04 spin on Kerry, so they stayed home during the last election. This time out, I have regularly mentioned his accomplishments, he efforts and his dedication. Now I can say, all three would support a Kerry run. Oh, and they have switched parties too.

[mtnsnake]

99. That is good

If by wonder of wonders Kerry does get the nod, I hope that a good percentage of the general public follows the same sentiments as the 3 Republican acquaintances you mentioned. I don't see it, but I hope it happens if he's our candidate again.

[Q]

103. I would vote for Kerry under two conditions:

1. That he get rid of and not listen to the DLC advisors.

2. That he denounce the DLC and their 'third way'...which puts corporations before people.

I would like to see a 'fair' primary...where the corporate ass-kissers don't use the RWing media to smear their Democratic opponents.

[blm]

104. Kerry is hosting Iraq for Sale mass screenings on Oct 14.

He crafted the only senate public financing of campaigns bill ever and submitted it with Paul Wellstone in 1997.

He has creds on the issue that few have.

[Blue_In_AK]

105. I will gladly support John Kerry if he decides to run...

Very few politicians have so consistently fought for our causes over these many years. I have deep admiration for him.

[mtnsnake]

106. I'll enthusiastically support him if he gets the Democratic nod

even though I'm highly critical of his 2004 campaign and how it was run. Other than my criticism of him as a presidential campaigner, I also have much admiration for him. I hope another Democrat beats him out, but he'll have my full support if he wins the primary.

[Ishoutandscream2]

107. You explained my own thoughts so well

Not my first choice, but I still like him, and will work enthusiastically for him if he wins the nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

112. ditto

eom

[closeupready]

114. I like both Al and John, but I'd vote for Al

but if John won, I'd vote for him again.

[politicasista]

118. I like them both.

Gore/Kerry should have been the ticket in 2000.

[lynne]

126. I seriously doubt he'll get the nomination -

- even if he decides to run. Just my opinion.

[Chomp]

140. Terrible idea. Won't happen. n/t