Could John Kerry be VP

[TheBigotBasher]

John Kerry has been the best attack dog for Obama this season. Huff Post is running an article article detailing how he has been taking down McCain surrogates, unlike almost anyone else in the Party.

Does his 2004 run really have to exclude him from the VP Position?

His brilliant campaigning for Obama serves as a salutory lesson for our other Elder Statesmen.

[peace13]

1. No.

John did not count the votes when they were his. He has used up his fifteen minutes. Sorry. I am glad that he is working hard. peace, Kim

[blm]

6. 15min? There isn't a lawmaker of the last 35 YEARS who has done more for YOU and

every other citizen than John Kerry has. Take away Kerry's efforts uncovering and exposing government corruption and his advocacy for open government the last 35 yrs this nation would be in its second decade of full-on fascism by now. Can you say that about any other Democratic leader? NO!

[TheBigotBasher]

7. Hear Hear

I also think he is enjoying being an Obama attack dog, it is revenge for 2004.

[politicasista]

10. **crickets**

Hearing them chirp thanks to this fact based post. :thumbsup:

[musicblind]

41. oops

posted in wrong place

[RC]

20. John Kerry folded and left the table the day after the election, while they were still counting the

Votes. No one heard from him for months after that. Kerry has had his chance.

[avaistheone1]

22. For that same reason I don't thing he adds much to the ticket.

I would be very disappointed if Obama chose Kerry.

[blm]

67. So you had legal evidence that the Ohio Dem party didn't have? Did McAuliffe secure the election

process for the four years after 2000s theft, and it was Kerry who made sure the vote was stolen by Ohio GOP officials who used their four years to gain control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted?

Can you honestly state that there is another lawmaker in DC who effected this nation's actual historic record more gravely and more positively than Kerry has in recent decades?

[Mass]

33. Really? I would have to disagree, but it may be a loss of time with people not checking facts...

[RC]

37. And what do I have wrong here?

[Mass]

39. Starting by NOone heard of him afterwards. Uh, you may be confusing with Gore, but Kerry

started imediately to work and fight in the Senate. He was one of the few votes against Rice, among other things.

[RC]

52. You are the one that is confused.

Kerry conceded THE NEXT DAY while the votes were still being counted. Why not wait till the votes were counted?

[Mass]

53. This is NOT ALL that you said. I was answering to the second part of your post.

No one heard from him for months after that.

[karynnj]

78. Because that is not the way it works

In every election, there are some votes - military and overseas and provisional that are not counted before the concessions. Kerry was told there were not enough votes outstanding in Ohio, which ended up being the case when the provisional ballots were counted. Had he waited a week, the result would have been the same. It may be that over time, if there was cheating, a whistle blower will be found who will have some proof of what happened, but it hasn't happened yet. Kerry was the victim, just as Gore was.

The other thing is that you can rescind a concession - as Al Gore did. He conceded on the Tuesday evening, near midnight when Florida was called for Bush. Now, the exit polls had showed Gore an easy winner. Later, when the numbers got closer - 527, not the about 118,000 Kerry was looking at, they asked for a recount and rescinded the concession.

(Note no one ever again spoke of the exit polls as a reason to fight in FL. There were actual ballots that they thought could change the state by that amount. Kerry didn't have that.)

[KaryninMiami]

60. THANK YOU. Exactly what I was about to write. Glad he's being agressive now-

but what happened in 2004 when he (and Edwards) PROMISED to make sure every vote would be counted? Keep up the great work Senator Kerry- we need you now and it's very appreciated. What happened in 2004 however, was a huge disappointment to those of us who worked our hearts out for you.

[blm]

66. Complete ignorance of what happened then and immediately after.

And you want to PRETEND that this nation wouldn't be in full-on fascism by the mid 90s if you took Kerry out of the historic record? You must not have one clue what IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning were all about and why they were the biggest crimes against the constitution this nation had ever known. The Clinton wing of the Dem party sided with the fascists and protected their secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s, and the less informed want to blame the consequences on the only true hero who worked to preserve the truth about what was being done by the fascist elite.

[karynnj]

77. That is untrue and ridiculous

Kerry conceded the next day when it was clear that there were too few votes not counted for him to win. That is standard in every election. It was the second slowest in modern times. The other thing is that had votes miraculously shown up Kerry could, as Gore did with his late night concession, take back his concession.

As to not being heard from for months, you weresn't listening. Kerry send a thank message to all contributors and to all the people on his email list thanking them for what they did and making a very strong appeal that they stay involved so that we could continue to fight for what we believe in. (I got nothing like that from Gore, Dukakis, Mondale or McGovern. He also went back toi the senate for the lame duck session - HRC stayed out a month after she lost the nomination. Kerry was there as soon as they were back in session.

[Marrah_G]

24. ZING! Thank you!

[AllieB]

26. I agree, and will add my other Senator, Ted Kennedy,

to the list of Senators who have helped us average folks.

[peace13]

54. He should have counted Ohio!

He promised. He collected money for the lawyers. He was wrong to give our votes away. Is there any other politician who let us slip into another four years of *. No. It is pretty simple.

[blm]

65. Ohio WAS recounted, by OHIO'S RULES. Blame the Ohio Dem party for not changing those rules before

the election. The Ohio Dem party had beren in a collapsed state since the late 90s and you want Kerry to take the blame for not securing the election process as the nominee with 5 months to campaign?

You direct blame WRONGLY. Terry McAuliffe's DNC lost that election and many of us believe he did so deliberately, just as Clinton deliberately used his high profile summer2004 booktour to support and defend Bush's decisions.

You want to assess the WHOLE PICTURE the way FAIR people do or stick to your narrow view that somehow Kerry was to blame for McAuliffe's FOUR YEAR STewardship of the party where he refused to secure the election process in the FOUR YEARS after 2000s theft?

Your refusal to acknowledge that Kerry did MORE for YOU and every other citizen thru his efforts in public service than ANY OTHER LAWMAKER in DC shows how little you USE your sense of justice and proportion. Or maybe you just don't know the actual historic nature of what has gone on in this country the last few decades. Study what has gone on and note who the REAL betrayers of this country and our party and who have been the real heroes - there are not many real heroes, and your disdain for the top advocate for open and honest government displays an ignorance of your nation's recent history.

[peace13]

87. Did I see you on the corner of Broad and High December 2004?

I thought not. Nice post. I think that we are all entitled to our own reality. You seem to have yours. Good luck with that. Don't move to Ohio if you want free and fair elections. And by the way Kerry did not lose Ohio. He did not stand and count his votes. I wonder why?

[blm]

93. He did NOT lose Ohio - but McAuliffe made sure that he wouldn't have legal evidence

to make a legal case. Educate yourself on what it actually takes to make a legal case - and how Ohio's recount rules should be overturned by diligent Ohio lawmakers. Assess blame FAIRLY - because in YOUR reality no national or state Dem organization or lawmakers are supposed to lift a finger until the nominee is selected 5-6 months before election day and then it is the nominee's job to secure the election process. What is the rest of the party, and especially the DNC, there for, anyway?

[knixphan]

74. Perfect Revenge.

I'b be happy with that ticket. (Especially since Dean is busy)

Stick it back to 'em...!

plus, 'OBAMA/KERRY' is a good bumper sticker.

[blm]

2. He needs to be in the senate to investigate the crimes of BushInc with a COOPERATIVE Dem president

this time. A President Obama will likely NOT side with protecting the secrecy and privilege of BushInc the way Bill did throughout the 90s when he deep-sixed many outstanding matters in IranContra and BCCI for Poppy Bush and his cronies like Jackson Stephens, and the Dubai and Saudi royals.

No lawmaker in DC has uncovered more corruption than Kerry has and I'd like to see him do it again. This time with less obstruction from powerful Dems.

[TheBigotBasher]

11. Give him the Senate then?

Let him go for the impeachment / prosecution.

I wonder if Pelozi backed off because she felt it would appear "tat for tat", even though Bush would have been for War trials and Clinton had just been poor taste?

[karynnj]

79. Impeachment starts in the House

What does "give him the Senate" mean. He is running for his 5th term and in MA you can't run for two things at the same time - so he can't run for VP. Also, MA may strongly prefer he stay as their Senator.

[defendandprotect]

3. I'd go with Ted Kennedy -- smarter for Obama -- keep the VP to the LEFT ---

[ellacott]

5. Ted may not be well enough to campaign

[defendandprotect]

92. It's a daydream . . . no nasty reality involved . . .

[Barack_America]

4. No. But, God willing, he would make a great SOS.

(God willing = that Teddy recovers)

[politicasista]

8. He's running for re-election for Senate in Mass.

And he can't run for both.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. Is that a Mass. rule? I recall Lieberman ran for both VP & his senate seat in 2000.

[politicasista]

15. It's a MA rule

Yes, it's true Lieberman ran for both too.

[slick8790]

17. *edit* nevermind.

[politicasista]

9. delete.dupe n/t

[snowbear]

12. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

And hey UK...

Did I forget to tell you? ----


...

[TheBigotBasher]

18. Should I take it from that

that you do not want him to be VP?

[snowbear]

21. It's not that he wouldn't do a great job.. But Democrats recycle everything but candidates..

.
.
.

And re-running Senator Kerry just seems to clash with the "Change" theme.

[mloutre]

13. Extremely unlikely, but he is being one *seriously* kickass surrogate for Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6596229

[YvonneCa]

16. He would be my choice...

...but I think the chances of getting my wish are pretty slim. :(

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beachmom]

23. But he's running for re-election to the Senate in Mass. I don't see

this workable, as nice as I like seeing people suggest it.

[TheBigotBasher]

25. Is there really a problem with that?

Is there a law against it or is it because it may weaken the Senate run if the VP run did not pay off?

[mloutre]

27. MA regs, can't run for two offices simultaneously

So running for VP while still running for re-election to the Senate as a backup plan is not doable here in the Commonwealth of Massadamchusetts.

[AllieB]

28. At least there's no worries of the Mass Republicans running a viable candidate

against Kerry. They're all pretty lame.

[NewJeffCT]

31. Lieberman did that in 2000 as VP and Senate in CT

not to compare Kerry & Lieberman.

[beachmom]

70. Conn. & Mass. have different laws. nt

[NorthCarolina]

29. He's not forceful enough and he doesn't really hit back

I thought he put in a less than lackluster performance against Lieberman on MTP last week. Kerry was right on the issues, but Lieberman walked and talked all over him.

[politicasista]

32. Obama disagrees with you n/t

[NorthCarolina]

36. That may very well be true as I can only speak for myself

eom

[politicasista]

38. Luckilly, you're opinion isn't a fact

eom.

[NorthCarolina]

40. Just like your statement isn't necessarily fact

simply because you say it...unless you are Obama of course. Are you Obama?

[politicasista]

44. No, but I have been watching Kerry as one of the few dems that

gone to bat for Obama. Even when other Dems are M.I.A. His support for Obama has been unwavering since 2004. Obama knows who the real deal is, who has his back, and who doesn't.

Kerry is doing for Obama what Dems should have done for Kerry in 04 period.

[NorthCarolina]

50. I didn't say anything that disagreed with his support of Obama

In fact if you go back a re-read what I wrote you will take note that I actually stated "Kerry was right". My post was not about his "content" or "dedication to the Obama campaign", but rather quite simply his "presentation". Perhaps you had meant to respond to a different post but accidentally responded to mine?

[politicasista]

51. I Re-read it. That was Brokaw's fault

He let Lieberman talk more than he should have. Kerry was trying to get his points in, but he kept on talking and Brokaw didn't interrupt him. (JMO). I think the Kyl smackdown was better, but Kerry did a good job regrardless.

[blm]

69. Lieberman was FORCED TO ACT like a complete ASS because Kerry owned him up and down on

every issue. You must not know how to judge debates - Lieberman was SO outclassed that he had no tactic left but to act like a boor and step all over Kerry's remarks. It's a TACTIC for the LOSING side of the debate and one that anyone familiar with televised advocacy on the news programs recognizes.

[GoForTheJugular]

30. Lets not be retarded here....

Kerry would get savaged by the Repubs..... We dont need a repeat of 2004.. he's perfect doing what he's doing now... let's not mess with it... plus it'll drag the edwards love child shit front and center...

[Mass]

35. Uh, what has Edward's smearing by the NE has to do with Kerry. For the rest, you probably have no

idea of what he is doing now.

[karynnj]

86. Kerry nearly won when the Republicans hit him with everything in 2004

The fact is that for the vast majority of people "swiftboating" means among other things, lying. The flip flopping charge was NEVER true - and he's done less of it than McCain, HRC, Edwards or even Obama - over a much longer career.

As to rumours that Edwards has a love child, why is Kerry responsible for Edwards' behavior - if it even happened.

Kerry is running to be Senator from MA.

[Mass]

34. While I would love that,

it is not going to happen. He is running for reelection and any person with a reasonable IQ understand that his opponents are big NO-NO.

[avaistheone1]

43. We have been there and done that.

I don't think Kerry adds much value to the ticket, and there is not an excitement factor either for most Dems. imo

[Mass]

46. Thanks for your opinion. This is pointless as Kerry will not be the VP, but I am still entitled to

my opinion. BTW, who do you want?

[avaistheone1]

47. I didn't mean to imply I don't respect your opinion.

I really am sorry. I was simply trying to state I strongly disagree. I am still disappointed in Kerry in terms of how he handled the followup to the election. Some of that anger and disappointment may be carrying over here.

I really would like to see John Edwards be VP. BTW I think the Enquirer Edwards story is a bunch of bunk. I believe some right-wingers bought the Enquirer out several years ago.

[TheBigotBasher]

48. Fighting Ohio

through the Courts would have looked wrong. It also would not have made up the popular vote (our moral claim for doing it in 2000). I trust that the campaign this time has the intelligence to stop the frauds happening before rather than after.

[musicblind]

42. I'd rather have Hillary as VP but I am okay with Kerry

He's a good politician, he has good ideas, and has been a good attack dog for Obama thus far. I'll add him to my list of peoples I'd be okay with as VP.

Hillary
Edwards
Biden
Kerry

and a few others.

NOT Kaine, or Bayh

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

45. Kerry is Obama supporter #1, no doubt about it. I just don't think he is the best VP pick.

I think someone like Schweitzer would be more helpful.

[PresidentObama]

49. My candidate in 2004, and wanted him to run in 2008. I say YES!! JFK for VP!

Of course I like a LOT of the possible VP's.

Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Kaine.

[RBInMaine]

55. Nope Not in a million years. He's the past. Forget it.

[RBInMaine]

56. Kerry had his shot and blew it. Forget about it.

[Sensitivity]

76. Are you promoting the most shallow and ridiculous aspect of establisment politics

[Canuckistanian]

57. I see no problem with it

He seems very loyal to Obama, even though his name is NOT being mentioned.

That's the thing about VP picks. They're always a surprise.

At least to me.

[mzmolly]

58. The only concern I have would be over another Swift Boating?

But of course, I'd welcome a VP Kerry, if polls show he'll add to the ticket. ;)

[Olney Blue]

59. I've always liked John Kerry. It would be a great ticket.

[book_worm]

61. Yes, he could. No, he won't.

[Radical Activist]

62. Kerry has done a lot more than that to help Obama.

From picking him to give the '04 convention speech to helping him raise early money. Kerry has been one of, if not the most important supporter of Obama.

[Sensitivity]

63. Kerry is probably the most qualified. But not sure that matters in American politics??

[YvonneCa]

71. Sad, isn't...

...it? :(

[knixphan]

80. good point, and SAD.

:banghead:

[TexasObserver]

64. I'd be ok with Kerry.

[David Zephyr]

68. Well, Kerry was in my top 5 favorites and he'd make a great VP or Prez, but it's Hillary.

And Kerry will be cheering for the ticket.

Thank you for sticking up for John Kerry. He is a hero to me and has been for all these many years.

[shadowknows69]

72. I'd love it

[tokenlib]

73. I think we'd see the real John Kerry unleashed--payback time....

It'll never happen..but I think Kerry running as VP would be a terror. He'd be excising 2004 demons and make the republicans and their "friends" pay for their crap. He'd have more freedom than he did four years ago...and he's had four years to reflect on "swiftboating."

[knixphan]

75. damn right!

and it frees Biden to be SoS!

[YvonneCa]

83. Not to mention Ohio...

... :7 .

[Milo_Bloom]

81. No, far too weak and a war voter to boot.

[YvonneCa]

84. Oh, come...

...ON ! This just shows how little you pay attention. As a fellow Dem, I'm embarrassed for you. :blush:

[Milo_Bloom]

90. Oh, he didn't vote for the war? Could've fooled me.

[peace13]

88. You have to wonder where some of these folks were in 2004.

Quick to ridicule, short on memory. Kerry laid down like the prom queen here in Ohio while we were standing on the corner begging the world to wake up and come to our rescue. But hey, 150 protesters on the street are no match for HAVA. Peace, Kim

[Milo_Bloom]

91. And 2002 and 2003

When he needed to be standing up to bush instead of enabling him.

I am so over democrats who are afraid to speak up until popular opinion tells them it is okay.

[MichiganVote]

82. Hell no.

[WinkyDink]

85. He lost. Nothing else matters. Not even the truth of it.

[Major Hogwash]

89. I agree with the OP.

You are absolutely right. Kerry was the best candidate we had for President in 20 years!!
I'd back him in a New York minute!!