Ok, finally, someone brought it up. So let's talk.

[Vektor]

This has been driving me mad for a long time.

RE: Kerry running for prez in '08. Would he take the risk and leave a (much needed) Democratic Senate seat unmanned? What if, GOD FORBID, he gets Diebolded again and "loses" the presidency AND his Senate seat? Surely he knows this is a risk. Is he ready to retire from the Senate? I REALLY want him to be president more than anything else, but running a close second, IMHO, would be for him to retain his Senate seat. I know he has to be in a bit of a quandary, because if he waits until 2012, his Senate seat is safe, but he'll be running against an incumbent. He has a better chance of winning with no sitting incumbent in the WH, but, that leaves the dilemma of the Senate position.

What do you all think?

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. This is the biggest thing bothering me too

But I'll tell you this: I feel it in my heart of hearts every day that he WILL be our President. He needs to go for it in 2008. It is a risk, yes, but he is not averse to risk - his life has proven that. He will run, and he will win. The naysayers have been discounting him his whole life, even after he quietly proves them wrong time after time. You'd think they'd wise up, but they seem determined to be proven wrong again.

[Vektor]

2. Then I say we prove them wrong.

:-)

[MH1]

3. Well I have some ideas.

Some of them I will keep to myself. :hide:

In general, I think he will run for Prez in 2008 if he sees it as the right thing to do for the country, given the Senate situation.

I think he will try between now and when he needs to declare, to make it clear that him running for Prez is the right thing, and I think if that is the case, he will do it with no hesitation.

And if the case is there, then he won't lose (or have it stolen away) this time.


Either way, I'll support him. He has every right to choose not to run for President. I think if he doesn't it will be partly because a good alternative has stepped forward who he can endorse, and I will wholeheartedly support that person.


(who brought this question up, anyway? If he and his team do the right things in 2006/early 2007, the answer will be evident.)

[ProSense]

5. He must run!

He will win! We can't lose!


I have some ideas too. :hide:

[LittleClarkie]

16. My Kerry in 2008 sticker will just become a Senate sticker if he doesn't

So be it. Alittle weird for a Wisconsinite to campaign for a Mass Senator. But I'll not be taking it off my car, that's for sure.

[karynnj]

4. Same worry here

Does anyone know when the Massachuchetts primary is? Would he be allowed to run for both - at least through the nomination phase? I realize this would mean that Massachusetts might need a second primary if Kerry won the Presidential nomination.

I share the same fears you mention - he is a great statesman, with a unique dedication to speaking against the real corruption in government. I would guess that he wouldn't totally be out of government if a Democrat wins the White House. He would seem a great choice for Secretary of state or secretary to the UN (fixing a lot of damage). Attorney General would be a natural - but only a brave Democrat would likely give him that. He would make an excellent Secretary of Defense - one who cares for troops and veterans - but the confirmation would likely be nasty. (Although as a former Senator he would likely win)

[rox63]

6. He can't run for both offices at once

It's not legal in MA. And even if it was legal, the voters here would be pissed at him for trying that. The MA presidential primary will also be the primary for the Dem Senate nominee. So, if he runs for Prez, someone else will get the Dem Senate nomination. The 'bench' is deep with Dems who have been waiting a long time for a Senate seat to open up.

[TayTay]

7. And I think it would 2008 or never again.

He is 62 now. THK is 66. I can't see any race beyond 2008. I just don't. I think a lot depends on what happens in 2006 and if the Dems pick up seats. We shall have to see what the mood of the country is and how things shake out.

That Senate seat stays in Dem hands. We have a very, very deep bench in MA and the Rethugs have no one. There is no single statewide, home grown, Repub who could seriously challenge for that seat. (Though things could change. Oh dear, man the barricades now. It'll be a cold day in hell before one of *them* reps me in the Senate. Arrrrgggggghhhhhh. I can't even think about it. Yuck! Cheesus Mahree and Joesef, what are you trying to do to me he-yah? Deep slow breaths, Tay, deep slow breaths. How do you folks in states with Rethug Senators do it? Even the thought of it makes me crazy. Must donate more money to the Casey campaign.)

Rox is right, Sen. Kerry would have to choose: the Senate or the run for the Presidency. He cannot do both.

[ray of light]

10. IMO..he should wait until after 06 to see what shakes up in the

Congressional elections.

Then when the dems start creating better laws in 07 and are kickin' some butt and showing themselves to be "FOR THE PEOPLE" and not for the special interests, he can be a leader of the charge...

He can decide from there what he wants to do. Frankly, I think the Congress has to create the conditions for an 08 win. And that is true for any democrat running for office.

So people can bash Kerry or Hillary as much as they like, but until certain conditions are IMMEDIATLY changed, the neoCONS will steal and lie and spread propaganda and no matter who decides to run will lose. (Which is my reason for being pissed at Kerry bashers because he did quite well considering the battles he was fighting. And though the campaign wasn't perfect, every candidate would face similar battles.)

[saracat]

13. Theresa is older than that . She is 68 I think.She is six or seven

years older than JK. Just sayin. I ,too ,think age will come into play. I think it is 2008 or never. JMHO.

[karynnj]

8. So he would have to decide before he knows if he can win

the nomination. Wow, that has to be tough - a safe seat with no chance of ever being President or a gamble on again winning the nomination.

If by the end of 2007, he has done things that give him a reasonable shot, I wonder if simultaneously announcing that he is running for President and not Senate would give him any additional lift. (It's sad that 2004 - a hard year to win was so close and that 2008 may be an easy year for the Democrats and we may not have as good a candidate.)

[TayTay]

9. I think the decision would come next Dec.

When all the Dems open their Presidential exploratory committees. We should have strong clues by then. Until then, we need to concentrate on the '06 races. (No joke. A lot of time and money is being expended on those races. That alone says something interesting.)

[wisteria]

11. If he doesn't run in 2008, I think he should give it a shot in 2012,

he is still young, especially by political standards and would not be as old as McCain or Regan. THK is young at heart too, she could do this again. It may just be the the general public hasn't had their fill of repubs just yet and may elect an idiot like Allen who would surely send the Republican party into a tail spin. He may do better running against a weak incumbent rather than running during these confusing times. This is just my opinion. I just don't think he should give up his dream nor ours.

[Noisy Democrat]

34. I agree

I tend to think he'll go for it in 2008, but if he doesn't -- or if he tries but doesn't win the primary, and a Repub wins the general -- he won't be too old in 2012, and I definitely won't give up hope til the 2012 election has come and gone.

[Island Blue]

12. Okay, I have a crazy question

If JK does decided to run in '08, does anyone think he would give up his Senate seat a year early to concentrate on running for president? (Would the Governor appoint someone to replace him in that case? Of course I know he wouldn't do that if Mass still were to have a Republican governor, if in fact the governor was the one choosing his replacement.)

Like I said, I know that's a crazy question with no real answer but it's just something I've thought of before.

[rox63]

14. Actually the governor would not get to pick his replacement

The law was changed by the state legislature in 2004, to avoid this situation if he won the presidency. There would be a special election to pick his replacement. Unless they change the law back after we've got a Dem governor again.

[politicasista]

15. Good topic Vektor

I have been wondering about this too.

As many have said so far, a lot depends on what happens in 2006 and the mood of the country in 2007, and 2008. I have been hearing that after this nightmare is over with, the Dems may want a "uniter" (not that Kerry isn't) but if we are still in Iraq by 08, then it's someone who is strong domestic issues and foreign policy/national security.

I guess I am just one of those that is still angry over the pathetic support Kerry got from the party, how the media treated/smeared them, and the overall treatment from the AA community.:grr:

I am wondering if he runs again, what will be the party's reaction? Will they unite with him or leaving hanging out to dry like last? :shrug:

As I have said earlier, I think he will see what happens in 06 then go from there. I also think he will decide what's best for himself and his family. I hope he stays in public office. He would have made a nice president, Momma T would have been a cool first lady.


My two cents. :patriot:

[ProSense]

19. I don't think

the Democratic Party hung Kerry out to dry and will. This notion makes it seem as though Kerry did it all himself. Yes he is the leading Democrat, and has a lot of fight in him, but he can't do it without the support of other Democrats. People keep saying that and it's not accurate. Some have the opinion that the Democrats could have shown more support, but a lot of Democrats were out there working to support him.

As far as the African American community, the media played up a lot of noise. Kerry still got nearly 89% of the AA vote nationwide. In Ohio, Bush got a 5% bump on the national average, but there and in Florida, we know there are issues.

[sandnsea]

31. The inch deep supporters

There's a difference between hold your nose support and real support. Certainly Democrats worked their tail off, no doubt about it. But it was stunning to me to see my own Oregon Kerry email group revert to Howard Dean within 48 hours. That isn't support. And then to turn around and dump on your Presidential candidate the way people did was and is revolting, not to mention idiotic strategy. I would have liked to have seen more attention to forestry and fishing in my state, but it doesn't mean I think he has changed his commitment to those issues. So when leaders of various interest groups started making those kinds of remarks immediately after the election, it just sounds like people who weren't that supportive to start with. I just don't understand how these groups get the person who has worked for so much legislation that has meant so much to them gets tepid support when he's finally running for President. I'm not talking about work, I'm talking about enthusiasm. Where was the enthusiasm from all these interest groups. It should have been there.

[ProSense]

33. That is why

I don't buy people's altruistic BS. The way some of these people---pundits, pollsters, voters---are acting after the fact is to shift the blame from themselves. It's reactionary, and human nature causes people to want to shield themselves from criticism and blame. Shifting the blame is exactly what they are doing to Kerry because things didn't turn out the way they wanted it to. With all the fishy s*** that went on, instead of focusing on the fact that the election was tainted by error and intimidation, they attack Kerry.

The word accountability is thrown around and no one wants to be held accountable. How many times do you hear the excuse that "I worked for the campaign and I'm here to tell you..." Tell me what, that you were part of the problem? If every campaign worker believes he/she did what he/she was supposed to and fought his/her heart out, then collectively doesn't that mean the campaign fought a hard fight? Kerry took the lead in making the statements he did about the SVBT, the DNC and MoveOn did their part in running ads to counter the lies. OK, more, possibly much more, could have been done, but it needed to be done by everyone involved.

The other thing is: When they say he didn't fight hard enough, what are they talking about?

He didn't fight hard enough against the SBVT? Or was it the election results? Think about the two together and you get the most incongruous conclusion. The SVBT was a problem because it was a distraction, and the campaign had to divert energy and money to reversing the negative, but that didn't cost Kerry the election. If they expected to fight the election results, then that runs counter to the notion that the SBVT had something to do with the election results.

[Noisy Democrat]

36. Totally agree

<i>The word accountability is thrown around and no one wants to be held accountable. How many times do you hear the excuse that "I worked for the campaign and I'm here to tell you..." Tell me what, that you were part of the problem?</i>

Like that low-level speechwriter who wrote the article dissing Kerry and the campaign. He admits up front that he signed up with the campaign because he thought Kerry was electable. Then he says Kerry had no vision, so he and the other speechwriters had no idea what to write. Cripes. I think there were some real problems with the speechwriting in that campaign, but Kerry having no vision wasn't it. Speechwriters not troubling themselves to learn about the candidate they were working for sounds more like it. I don't know how much Kerry could've done to communicate with the speechwriters -- I don't know how much it's up to the candidate to knock it into their heads what he stands for and how he wants them to help him verbalize it, but I got the impression this little twerp hadn't even read "Call to Service," which I would think would be kinda basic, especially if you feel you have no idea what the candidate's vision is. Do some homework before you whine that your candidate has no vision -- and if that's what you really think, get the hell out of the campaign.

[whometense]

43. Well said.

I couldn't agree more. And you could say that about more than the speechwriters. I'm talking about James Carville. I'm talking about Brazile, Begala, Biden, yes, even Al Gore. Where were these people?

One of the things that is still echoing my head, though I've been unable to find a direct quote, was the general sentiment in the 2000 campaign that if Gore chose Kerry for VP he would risk being overshadowed by Kerry's greater charisma. Didn't hear that during the 2004 campaign, did you? Where were the high profile dems talking about Kerry's humanity? About his warmth? About his generosity of spirit? Where were the testimonials?

Ok, rant off. But seriously, ????????????????????

[LittleClarkie]

17. If I can't have him for Prez. I sure hope he can get a cabinet position

Which, if Hillary gets the nod, might not be so likely, as his camp and hers don't seem to get along.

If it's Wes though, there might be a chance.

If he could get a cabinet position though, that would leave his seat open too. Hmm.

I'll take what I can get. But I fear that 2012 might be too late.

[wisteria]

18. I don't believe us, already to pack it up and give up accepting

less than what is deserved. Well, that's the way it seems to me. I don't care who else is running I refuse to accept that he doesn't have as good a shot as he did the last time.Hillary? I can detail many issues with her as our candidate. Warner, I could do the same with him. In other words, no other candidate is any better than Kerry. Any candidate we offer will have problems. He will just be positioned differently.It will certainly be hard work defending him from the lies, challenging misconceptions and changing some peoples opinions, but I'm up for it. This is our party, not the DLCers or the Washington insiders or the so called left pundits. I can think of no one else who is more deserving of the Presidency. I also don't see why he couldn't run in 2012.

[LittleClarkie]

20. I think some of us still have the bends from a year ago as well

I still, STILL look at the Chimp as he sits in the Oval Office and picture John there instead. And it hurts like hell. I want it. I'm not sure I'm going to get it. Sometimes when you hang here on DU you wonder.

I hope he does. But I also want people to realize that not everything he does NOW is geared towards that end. How they could see such a self-serving man where we see such a caring one is beyond me.

It's his choice. I will follow his lead.

[wisteria]

21. I understand!

It is easy to let some of the negativism get to you after a while. I remind myself that they know no more than I do or maybe they even know less, and for everyone of them there seems to be two or three with real support for Kerry. I would love to see JK surprise them all with a win, I have faith that he can pull this off.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Some say they don't see the anger in the man

To me that means that they haven't been paying attention.

[karynnj]

25. I think it might also be that they can see anger

only when the person goes on a Senator Stevens like tirade. Remember the worst Bolton meeting - Kerry was likely as angry as any of the Democrats, but after initial comments asking if the Republicans wanted to vote blind, it was like he was able to reach down into himself and when he spoke he spoke of the history of that committee and the Senate and the change he had seen. It wasn't that his anger was gone - it was that he wasn't going to go on a red faced tirade saying things he would regret.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Some people don't put alot of stock in dignity

and statesmanship.

[karynnj]

27. That's for sure

I've seen them on DU - :) What they fail to see is that the Dean sceam - which was not anger and was really not a problem - was sufficient to turn Dean from a person losing the nomination (which was alredy happenning to the butt of so many jokes. As the challanger, one thing Kerry did well was appear Presidential - that may have been what they were attempting to dispell with the windsurfing pictures - but the image in the debates was very strong.

[ProSense]

29. Yeah, like the presidnut!

People who don't, inherently respond to situations in the wrong manner--often without thinking about the consequences.

[LittleClarkie]

32. And there are often those who are looking for what I call

the dog and pony show. They put more stock in fiery rhetoric than they do in quiet action.

[wisteria]

22. Self delete- duplicate post.

[Firespirit]

54. DU represents itself.

If DU had decided the primaries, the nominee would've been Howard Dean without a doubt. Kerry supporters were few and far between.

If early polls had been accurate, the nominee would've been Lieberman. 'Nuff said. :P

JK had obstacles to overcome in late 2003, which he did... He could have different ones to overcome in 2007, possibly, but I'm not even sure of that. It could be much easier for him than we fear. I do see Hillary as being the biggest threat to him, but for whatever it's worth, I think that her strength as a candidate will be determined in part by her performance next year (I can still say next year :P) and in part by her "robustness" in the open primary... I don't know about next year's Senate race, but I really do not see her standing up well in the primary. She wouldn't implode like Dean, but she would have several things used against her and I don't know if she could respond to them well -- her inconsistent voting record, primarily, and the simple matter of very clearly "using" her Senate seat as a stepping stone. That attack wouldn't work against Kerry because he's a native and has been in the Senate for years, but it could be effective against a non-native who served one term and immediately ran for the presidency. Her "popularity" now wouldn't last if people started hearing that meme repeatedly. The main reason why the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire went for Kerry was because he was "real," not a typical "politician" or manipulator, and Hillary just does not give off that vibe of honesty.

As for it being a gamble in 2008 -- yep, that's a definite gamble. But it's also the sort of thing that creates high drama and high interest, makes for an interesting footnote in history, and would be--you have to admit--a hell of a motivator for his supporters.

[Noisy Democrat]

35. I agree on 2012

I hope he goes for it in 2008, but if he doesn't get the nomination then, I don't think he'll be too old in 2012.

[globalvillage]

24. He will run.

And he will win.
And we will help him do it.
Eyes on the prize, ladies and gents. He deserves the WH, and we need to make sure he gets it.

Ya gotta believe...

[LittleClarkie]

28. And whether the country knows it or not, they need him

and whether they deserve it or not, they shall have him.

Eyes on the prize.

[whometense]

30. You get this:

a BIG :hug: for that comment!!!!!

[Vektor]

37. There is something to be said

for the power and strength of a group of women working together to get something they want REAL BAD.

;-)

Hell hath no fury.

[TayTay]

38. Yeah, what my sister Vek said.

And anyone else can just bite me. I am not packing in the towel because a bunch of wishy-washy bastards who whine over everything told me, 'It can't be done.' Screw that bullsh*t. I am especially not taking any crap from anyone who couldn't motivate a hungry bear out of a cage. (Seriously, have you ever been positively motivated by any of the lefty freepers? Ever? How many people could be around them for long periods of time without massive intake of the Prozac/Zoloft/Paxil chemical cocktail? Really, these people suck out your souls and use them as clotheslines to hang their own neuroses on. Do not let them get to you.)

M*therf*ckers can bite me. There is no positive action ever taken on this earth that didn't start out being criticized by a bunch of arseholes who believed it's their gawd given right to piss on every one else and then turn around and tell you that they are only telling, 'the truth.' There is no situation that cannot be made infinitely worse by their carping and whining and self-important rants about how they and they alone have the pure and certain way to get something done. People who actually get things done learn to avoid the soul-suckers at all costs. They just slow you down and make you doubt your purpose. And they are c*cks*cking, piece of sh*t, do-nothing, dirtbag bastards and I am not fond of them at all. (Geez, don't force me to tell you how I really feel. This is definitely getting my Irish up.)

Again, these people have one purpose and one purpose only on this earth. To devour your soul. Don't let them do it. Visualize the negative person in front of you. Visualize yourself telling them to screw off and get lost. Feel better and get back to being yourself. End of story.

[karynnj]

40. The other thing to consider is that Kerry is very realistic

and obviously has a plan behind what he is doing. He does seem focused on 2006, but he also seems very good at seeing the long term with the short term. All the plans he has laid out for the country - seem obvious after he carefully explains the logic.

I can't believe that foreign policy issues won't dominate in 2008. Kerry is one of the few people who has credentials on foreign policy and domestic policy. One thing you Massachusetts people mentioned was that in his Lt Gov race and his first Senate race, he was neither a media or a party favorite - but he won both times. This would be the same and he does start with some recognition.

It's also interesting that Blitzer is replaying and promoting the Kerry interview - it has to mean people want to hear him - the interview does not make Blitzer look particularly good, so it has to be that it increases viewership. Teresa's op-eds that have been posted here have been wonderful - did she always do these - or this an attempt to let people see that she is as thoughtful, brilliant and caring as that guy she married?

[TayTay]

41. I do know that Sen. Kerry is spreading around money

on those '06 races. He even got involved in municipal elections this year, as a way of saying thanks to people who were loyal to him in '04. I think this is smart. There are several other candidates who are also doing this, but no one else has that database and can target letters and e-mail the way his people do. (And there are reports of certain other candidates who think this is crazy and are not spreading around any money. I think that is a mistake. So is supporting the anti flag-burning amendment.) Didn't we just get a brain-damaged blast of insane venom from one lefty freeper about Kerry actually using his database to raise money? (Geez, sounds like someone was jealous.)

That, plus Sen. Kerry has been articulating the agenda better going forward. He has been very consistent this year on the issues and on trying to get Dems to see that the unrequited needs of the electorate are piling up. I think he is on to something here. (In my own opinion, for what it's worth, the Dems should be pushing a strong domestic agenda and why more tax cuts for the rich don't help to get that agenda moving forward. You can pretend to move to the middle all you want, but I don't think the middle is just occupied by people worred about flag-burning.)

[jillan]

42. I wasn't aware that Blitzer was still playing clips of the Kerry interview

Very interesting, considering Blizter did such a crappy job during the interview. Nothing like the Matthews interview, that was a great interview. You could actually see Matthews pondering what Kerry was saying, and Matthews seemed sincerely intrigued. So, from your post, I guess Kerry mustive gotten to Blitzer too? :)

(I almost called Blitzer "Blitzen" - Oh my - too much Christmas for me)

[karynnj]

48. Not sure - see situation room thread

It was promoted without saying it was a rerun - and the rest of the show was today's news. So it almost seems that it was included to get people to watch the show. It's possible that he was impressed with Kerry and wanted more people to see it, but I think it was just wanting viewers.

[MH1]

56. Margaret Mead

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

(Happy New Year, everyone! :hi: Let's make it a great one!)

[jillan]

39. I get the impression that Kerry has already thrown his hat in the ring.

Kennedy said it first on MTP.
Kerry has never denied it.

I can't stand to think about this. Kerry needs to be the next President. Noone, nobody, not another person comes close to what John Kerry has to offer this country, the world, the environment, honesty, integrity, intellegence, leadership, etc.

My biggest fear? The public. That was the most important election of our time. The emotional scars will always be there, hence the continuous Kerry Bashing. Imo, it's not about Kerry, it's about the fact that he lost, diebold or not. Will the grassroots part of the democratic party ever allow him to win the nomination? I know - we are only a small part of the party, most dems don't read blogs...but, the grassroot movement is powerful.

My greatest hope? That if he does run, and gets the nomination, it will be against someone like McCain.
Why? Cuz McCain is not going to stoop down to the level that the Rove Machine did in 2004. It could even be a decent campaign season.

It really does hurt my head to think about this. I would be extremely upset if John Kerry was not part of Washington DC after 2008.

To those of you that had the chance to shoot the breeze with him over a beer, did this come up at all?
What kind of gut feeling did you get about this topic? (I already know about the other feelings you got} :evilgrin:

[TayTay]

44. Well, not really, but sort of

To those of you that had the chance to shoot the breeze with him over a beer, did this come up at all?
What kind of gut feeling did you get about this topic? (I already know about the other feelings you got} - pirhana

Well, it sort of did, I think. But we didn't like get in his face and grrab his collars and scream, "Tell us NOW, are you running again or is my calendar free for the next 3 years." That would be gauche. (And we had been, ahm, drinking. Some of us don't remember all of the conversation all that well. Let this be a moral lesson to you. If you are going to go out drinking and then have a Senator stop by, try and keep a few brain cells dry in case you need them later. We learned it the hard way.)

[jillan]

45. If I ever get to have a beer with a Senator - esp this one - I'll keep

your advice in mind :)

Just was curious if the topic came up at all.

But something tells me that if WEL or Vektor grabbed his collar, they wouldn't be talking about 2008.:P

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. No ma'am

It was mighty hard to restrain myself :evilgrin:

[jillan]

47. Did you partiers ever post any more pics?

The last ones I saw were posted in the first few days after that weekend.

[TayTay]

49. In all honesty, I couldn't.

I only had 5 or 6 usuable pics. And those had severe red eye in them. (I mean severe. Pat Robertson would immediately confiscate them and use them as evidence of demonic possession in Boston and we don't need that.)

I do have a passable pic (with red eye, sigh) of me and Rox and LevensonK with Vanessa Kerry. I would only post it with permission. (And Vanessa is hell to get on the phone lately. Okay, I was just joking.) It's not bad.

I wish I had taken more pics. But I was busy being a 'know-it-all' tour guide and East Coast Mom. Next time, and there WILL be a next time, I will take more pics.

And I seriously can't remember if the topic came up of the Senator running again. (Remember, I couldn't hear parts of the conversation and have confirmed with others that they couldn't either. The damn pub owner turned the damn music up about 15 minutes before Sen. Kerry appeared, so I mostly heard depressing Irish bluesy Christmas songs in my ear.) To the best of my knowledge, it did not come up directly. (i.e., Are you running again? That's pretty direct.) I think there were statements made about things that were done that could be done differently in a theoretical future race. But not directly. (It just wasn't that type of a conversation. That would have been too invasive a question for that time and place.)

[jillan]

50. ha - you almost fooled me

I confess, I am the most gulliable person in the world. I actually sat here and said to myself
"Is she serious? Tay Tay talks to Vanessa? Nah!".

Too bad you couldn't have gotten Kerry to sit on top of the table, like a centerpiece, where you all could have enjoyed him. Or atleast unplugged the music. It probably would have drove me crazy to be unable to hang onto his every word.

Post the pic - you have my permission.

[TayTay]

51. I need to ask LevenonK

I believe Rox is okay with pics posted on a public board, but I need permission from the other person in the pic. We saw Vanessa Kerry (ahm, Dr. Kerry, I get a kick out of writing that.) Gawd that must have been so hard to continue her studies while her Dad was running for Prez. I can't even imagine what that was like. She was very, very nice to us at the Boston event. When it was all over I saw her just exit the hotel with a few friends and just walk away. Plains as folks. I like her a lot.

If you want to know what we talked about then listen to that AAR interview and the interview with Ed Schultz. Those of us who were there are just regular folk. Although we watch the media and read the blogs, we are not sophisticated enough to know when words said when someone is 'off the clock' can be twisted and when they can't. (That whole impeachment thing from a silly Christmas Party was a lesson in how NOT to reveal conversations that are said when someone is 'off the clock.' And this was 'off the clock' by specific request. That got a little messed up when we first reported on it back here. There was a strong desire to tell everyone everything because that's what we do in this group: talk about all things JK. But we were specifically requested to keep this 'off the record.' That was a badly handled dilemma that, had people the chance to do over, would have been reported on differently. Again, people make mistakes even people of good will.)

I am under no illusions of specialness here. I think that what we talked about in Boston was stuff that was on people's minds. (Yes, I am being intentionally vague here and not attributing anything, cuz I am afraid to put words into other people's mouths. It would probably be untruthful and I couldn't stand behind it. It was a very informal session and I didn't write things down at the time. I have 'impressions' of conversations. Well, that's vague right there.) That said, go listen to the public interviews on AAR and Ed Schultz and Bill Press. Damn if that doesn't sound familiar. (And it's 'on the record,' thank goodness.)

That's been the whole problem with saying what was said. It was a confusing event and it took awhile just to get over the shock that we were talking with John Kerry. I mean honestly, wow! I was also focused on trying desperately not to sound like a flaming idiot when I did speak up. That took up a lot of my alleged brain power right there.

[rox63]

52. I'm ok with pics being posted of me

Except I don't recall meeting Vanessa. Can I see the pic before you post it, in case I look like an alien or something?

[TayTay]

53. See, that's how bad my memory is

It wasn't you. It was GlobalVillage. (It had to be. There were only 3 smokers who got out of the room and went outside for a break. That's were we met Vanessa Kerry.)

See, I can't even properly remember who was where and when. I am mxing up GV and Rox, who really don't resemble each other at all. Sigh! No wonder I am so vague about recounting conversations. All I can honestly attest to are my impressions. Sigh!

[Luftmensch067]

55. What a cool thread!

I've just read every single comment and, while my head is spinning, I really like a lot of the points everyone made!

I, too, think JK should run again in 2008, that he is destined to be one of our greatest presidents. And I wouldn't rule out 2012 either, though I would prefer it if he were running for reelection! LOL! Teresa will still be as wonderful and beautiful in both years, too. :-)

The question of how much support he will get from the Party is an important one and the evidence from last year is not cheering. I completely agree with those who are furious about the lukewarm quality of the backing he got from some in power circles. And it must be faced that some of the people who volunteered for his campaign were well and truly ABB and never took the trouble to get to know their own candidate. As we all know, if they had taken the trouble, they would have fallen in love with his vision (and whatever else...) HOWEVER: I completely believe that John Kerry is capable of winning over any voter if he has he right access and visibility. And that's something he's clearly working on right now, continuing to build his support by Doing the Right Thing for other candidates and for the country.

One of the biggest arguments I would make to any naysayer about a JK campaign in 2008 is that we have a golden opportunity here. Kerry will be a seasoned candidate. He lived through attacks of unbelievable filth, nearly triumphed against a wartime president (or definitely did!) and is still standing, still fighting. He was back on the job of working to make our country better a little over a month after Election Day and he hasn't stopped since. Everyone agrees that a national campaign is unlike anything else in human experience and JK has learned lessons no new candidate can share. We have here a man who knows exactly how to run a presidential campaign now and that, added to his famous determination and guts, cannot be matched by any of the candidates being touted by the pundits and the armchair progressives.

When you actually LOOK at the candidates who are being put up as contenders -- I mean, what?!!? Feingold has a couple of credentials in terms of votes, and I'm sure he's a nice guy, but have you ever seen the man make a speech? I saw some of his stuff on C-SPAN early this year, and was not impressed. Hillary is terribly shrill, as well as centrist, and in no way inspiring. Mark Warner? Bayh? Richardson? Next to our guy, they are simply *colorless*. Edwards will have some cachet because of 2004, and I like him, but no amount of trips abroad can make him equal to JK in terms of experience and wisdom. Kerry is the only one with the substance, the insight gained from a lifetime of service and dedication to truth, and the CHARISMA to truly set the electorate on fire with the passion we need to take back the White House and restore America to her best self.