Anyone think Kerry should step up to run again in 2012?

[quinnox]

When I see John Kerry emerge once again and I think to myself how wonderful it would be for him to be president, he could have been a remarkable president. Should he give it one more shot in 2012? I would support him. Maybe Obama might not be very popular and see the writing on the wall and announce he will not run again opening up the field.

John Kerry 2012?!!

[SunnySong]

1. Overall Obama has done a fine job and I look foward to his second term

Hopefully with more progressives in congress.

[quinnox]

6. disagree on Obama doing a fine job

He has been a mediocre president and looked very weak so far, and I don't see things changing any time soon. He seems to be stuck in a rut.

[JI7]

11. Kerry thinks Obama is doing a fine job

[SunnySong]

20. Look at the mess Bush left him. I can't recall any President that entered with such a mess.

Is he perfect? no. but under the circumstances he has shown true leadership where it counts and is slowly turning this giant ship we call the United States in the right direction.

[Bluebear]

75. 'he has shown true leadership where it counts'

Where does it count? :)

[SunnySong]

83. Well lets start with the supreme court nominees, and getting a foot in the door

with health care reform...
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, SCHIP expansion,
Public lands bill,
Credit card reform,
Expanding the scope of AmeriCorps
Stem cell research increase
and honestly bring the average IQ of washinton back above the mean tempature...

[blm]

67. Kerry and Obama are on the same page with this McChrystal business, in case you haven't noticed.

Apparently there are some DUers who think they aren't, but, that just shows not all Dems are as comprehensive as we hope.

[cliffordu]

143. You sound like someone I know....

[lamp_shade]

2. I love Kerry too, but a win over Obama? I don't think so. n/t

[Demit]

3. No.

[WeDidIt]

4. I believe John Kerry would be incredibly pissed off if he saw this post. n/t

[depakid]

21. Why?

I think he'd be flattered.

I also think that events have shown he'd have been a much more effective president, but that's beside the point.

[WeDidIt]

68. Because, sir, the entire premise of this post insists John Kerry

attack the president he supports so much.

[wisteria]

123. I don't think the poster meant it that way really. n/t

[politicasista]

100. LOL!

:applause:

[karynnj]

109. I think you are correct on that - what Kerry will do is fight like Hell as he did in 2008 for Obama

[LynneSin]

154. +1 to the infinity

Kerry is not that type of person.

[Parche]

5. I DO

I have always liked John Kerry, met him in 2004, he would have been a fantastic President

I was the one, who said 2years before in 2002, that he would be the one, and he was....


I think he should

KERRY/CLINTON 2012

KERRY/WHITEHOUSE 2012 w/Sheldon Whitehouse Senator RI

KERRY/FEINGOLD 2012

:woohoo: :party: :woohoo: :hi:

[quinnox]

12. Yes!

Kerry Clinton 2012 would be a dream ticket!

[peacebird]

7. no

[tnlefty]

8. No.

Just no.

[CBR]

9. Like Kerry but no nt

[JI7]

10. it looks like you are just looking to bash Kerry and Obama with this

considering Kerry has been one of Obama's biggest supporters one has to wonder why you would post this

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Maybe Obama might not be very popular...

Wow, so much conjecture and speculation in those seven words...

What a dumb thread.

[tekisui]

14. No. I like Kerry, but I can't take another presidential campaign from him.

Obama will be the Dem nominee, anyway.

[dorkulon]

15. Worst idea ever.

At his least popular, Obama would wallop Kerry.

[jillan]

16. NO!! I am a huge Kerry fan, but no.

Unfortunately he didn't win in 2004 - Obama's presidency would've looked a whole lot different if he became President after a Kerry Presidency.

Right now we need Kerry right where he is - the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a huge advocate for clean energy.

[ixion]

17. No.

I didn't really care for him the first time around.

[Uzybone]

18. No

[Uzybone]

19. No

[lamp_shade]

22. No.

[Angry Dragon]

23. No

[Peregrine Took]

24. No offense intended but are you serious? I'd rather vote for my adorable

little Maltese than vote for that huge phony.

[quinnox]

26. Quite serious, I'm a big fan of John Kerry

I always have been ever since 2004~!

[scheming daemons]

96. John Kerry is a big fan of Barack Obama

[blm]

102. Kerry and Obama are on the same page with this McChrystal matter and those who claim otherwise are

in serious need of a remedial reading course.

[blm]

50. phonies don't uncover more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history

the OP here is absurd and unhelpful, but, your post is downright uninformed.

[Donnachaidh]

92. but they sure do like give aways to nuclear companies

:eyes:

[blm]

99. baloney - the compromised climate change bill was the result of 13 Dem senators refusing to

support the significant legislation of the Kerry-Boxer bill, forcing the greater compromise of the Kerry-Lieberman bill. I couldn't find your posts railing against those 13 senators last year. Maybe you missed those threads?


Maybe those 13 'phony' senators ruined that bill so early on it forced greater compromise fron those charged with the actual WORK of crafting the bill. Making the work HARDER and the resut less appealing to the majority of lazy ingrates.

Maybe you still can't name one lawmaker in DC who has shown more diligence and 'spine' than Kerry in his pursuit of serious corruption. Maybe you should try - it might serve as a learning moment.

[karynnj]

111. You have no concept of how important it is to get 60 votes for a plan pricing carbon

Kerry and his very intelligent staff have spent thousands of hours speaking to Senators and without nuclear giveaways, there is absolutely no chance. Kerry is 100% sincere and has been working his heart out to try to get a bill that takes the first step. Without him, an energy only bill would have passed months ago.

If you want phony, go back and look at John Edwards.

[politicasista]

Ooo. Ouch! n/t

[Arkana]

175. This demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge about John Kerry, I think.

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. No

I think that makes it a consensus! :P

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. No.

[sandnsea]

28. I would call this flame bait

WTF are you doing?

[quinnox]

31. I'm asking a question about John Kerry!

Why would you think speculating on future candidates in 2012 for the Democratic party would be flame bait?

[grantcart]

126. you can't be serious

[Scuba]

29. No! Are you not aware that he just proposed a bill with more give-aways to Big Oil?

Besides, I think the President is doing well, considering the circumstances.

[karynnj]

113. He is the number 1 environmentalist in the Senate and has worked

for 3 decades on global warming. The fact is the choice is an energy only bill containing all those giveaways - or a comprehensive bill that prices carbon and includes the giveaways.

[Scuba]

148. That's a false choice. He could have proposed a bill without Big Oil subsidies.

Besides, the man lacks any glimmer of the personality and charisma needed to rally the left.

[karynnj]

165. He did author Kerry/Boxer, which was exactly that bill without the subsidies,

but there were a group of 14 or so Democratic coal Senators that were adamantly against it - including DU favorites, Franken, Feingold and Sherrod Brown. There was NO WAY without subsidies to fossil fuel companies and nuclear to get 60 votes. As to DU, more people sided with these 14 than with Kerry and Boxer.

As to personality and charisma, Kerry DID win Iowa and NH in 2004 at a point where he was not a media favorite - like Dean, Edwards and Clark, a party favorite - Clark had the Clintons' tacit support and Dean had Gore and Harkin, or the one with the most money - Dean raised $40 million in 4th qtr 2003 while Kerry lent himself $6 million. Kerry did actually lead a real activist movement and did it with incredible charisma in 1971 - the year before John Edwards voted for either Nixon or McGovern - but forgot which.

Kerry, in person, was more charismatic than any of the other 2004 candidates. As to personality, he is funny, intelligent, witty and nice - and extremely serious and concerned about the public good. More than any candidate in my lifetime, he has a depth of character and integrity that inform his actions.

The fact is NO ONE could rally the left on climate change. The reason is obvious on DU - unlike healthcare where everyone was for "it", but disagreed on what "it" is, there are many that defended the 14 coal Senators, because they placed the economy so above the environment that they wouldn't budge.

[Scuba]

171. I'm glad Kerry has loyal supporters like you. I voted for him in 2004, while holding my nose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. No. Kerry was my last vote based on the "not as bad" therory of politics.

And, I still remember is sellout IWR vote.

[quinnox]

33. I think you underestimate him

He would be far to the left of what Obama has shown thus far IMHO

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KonaKane]

48. I believe paranoia is getting the best of you.

Maybe you should simply face the facts as evinced by your own thread here, that Kerry is about as popular a choice to run for president as BP is to run a beach resort in the Gulf right now.

[karynnj]

114. Bad analogy

It is not because Kerry is disliked or bad (like BP) it is because Obama is President and is doing a good job.

[sandnsea]

51. Not one John Kerry supporter would agree with this OP

I am really surprised at you lately.

[JI7]

55. the OP is a regular Obama basher and probably angry at Kerry for endorsing BO

[Radical Activist]

161. And not just endorse. Few people did more to get Obama the nomination

than Dick Durbin and John Kerry, as you know. Definitely an odd post.

[quinnox]

56. I think there are more than a few John Kerry fans who would

love to see him run again in 2012! Maybe DU has turned into a mostly Obama fan club/echo chamber now, but I don't think it is stretching it to say I would not be alone in my feelings about this - John Kerry 2012!

[karynnj]

116. I see many JK group people here

All of us would have loved Kerry running in 2008 and winning - all of us posting here are saying that it won't and shouldn't happen. Now, if Obama were to announce next month that he prefers not to run, then this thread or the Clinton 2012 ones would make more sense. That will not happen.

[azmouse]

53. What? Not getting the answers you wanted?

Tough.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KonaKane]

62. That's absurd.

Seriously, I see plenty of criticism (much of it deserved) tossed Obama's way here on a daily basis. I don't know where you get this conspiracy theory.

[azmouse]

63. You're sure?

:rofl:

[quinnox]

70. Well not certain, but if Obama's popularity is low

which IMHO, it will be, I think the sounds of other candidates and clamors for them will get louder and Obama may decline to run again for the good of the Democratic party as well as the nation.

[azmouse]

76. uh huh...

Soooo... how did that work out for the Democratic party and the country when LBJ did that?

Yep. Went really well, didn't it?

[Skip Intro]

106. Namecalling is a cheap and ineffective substitute for rational dialog. nt

[TK421]

35. I like Kerry but he won't do it...never gave any indication he wants to be in it again

right now, who the fuck could blame the guy?

Keep him in the Senate where he can continue to do good for us

[Donnachaidh]

36. no. He failed in standing up against the pukes the first time.

In the elections. Can you imagine the complete clusterf*ck that would happen in Congress if he did become President? I'd rather have someone with a spine playing chicken with the Congress, thank you very much.... :shrug:

[blm]

54. name one 'spine' you claim who has exposed more government corruption than Kerry has the last 35yrs?

Or do you think talking smack with zero results like some inCongress is a sign of spine while actually doing the dangerous work of uncovering the serious shit for years indicates there is no spine?

I usually gain from your reading your point of view, but this was just baloney that has no basis in reality.

[Donnachaidh]

89. oh please -- Kerry ran with his tail between his legs at the election results.

I'm not getting into a spitting contest to divert the FACT that he RAN when he needed to stand up and fight back during that important election. HE proved that when the chips are down, he'll back off.

NOT what *we the people* need in the White House. Not then - and most certainly not now. Or 2012.

[blm]

95. he proved that when the math has no chance of changing you're stuck with unwanted task of conceding

and you still haven't named ONE lawmaker who you admire who used their 'spine' to take on more dangerous tasks of uncovering serious government corruption than Kerry has over the last 35 years.

[karynnj]

164. You are still believing the Edwards' lies

The fact is that there were not votes cast in Ohio that could have changed the results. Even the RFKjr analysis depends on an estimate of votes lost because there were 4 hour plus lines. This is the voter suppression that Kerry spoke of at least 10 times in and out of the Senate in 2005 - when there was not one peep out of JRE.

As to challenging it, the same Democratic experst who told Gore to challenge told Kerry the numbers weren't there. Kerry did the mature, adult thing at that point, he conceded. The slowest concession in modern history if you count Gore's first concession.

The fact is that darling johnny E. would promise the campaign that he would have JK's back - then not do it. Day after day. That is the standard job of the VP nominee. JRE was MIA. Possibly had JRE thrown his heart into winning 2004, rather than playing to improve his standing for 2008 - a narrow loss would have been a win.

[karynnj]

163. I can give you more examples of Kerry standing up against tough odds

than you can provide for anyone you have supported.

Between his Vietnam service, his leadership in the anti-war movement, his standing against the Contras (when most Democrats supported them - remember the Clintons did in the 1980s and they did nothing to close down the School of the Americas), agaisnt BCCI and the fact that he is now fighting with everything he has for a climate change bill - far beyond the degree that anyone else would have fought for.

Now, what exactly did your darling Edwards fight for - other than two Americas, which took on a whole new meaning when we learned of Rielle? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4547410&mesg_id=4552758

[zappaman]

37. No

[fishwax]

38. NO.

I would have loved to see him win in 2004, of course. But him running in 2012 is not a winning scenario for anyone.

[NoPasaran]

39. No!

No!

A Thousand times no!

Hell no!

No frakking way!

No! No! No! No! No!

[KonaKane]

40. empthatically NO.

One pass at a horrific campaign failure and rush to declare surrender is enough.

[blm]

60. open a history book....

.

[KonaKane]

64. Which one? I have several.

[blm]

72. Then what year was the slowest concession in modern electoral history?

.

[Donnachaidh]

94. but it WAS a concession.

Epic FAIL on his part. NOT presidential material, obviously.

[KonaKane]

101. Agreed. I was aghast at how quickly he wanted to toss in the towel and go home.

Especially considering more voter irregularities than even happened in 2000 (namely in Ohio).

[blm]

110. Slowest concession in our history and only when math was completely against him...

Carville and his fascist loyalties made sure of that.

I'm curious why YOU claim the concession broke landspeed records?

[KonaKane]

117. I could see it in Kerry's face. He couldnt wait to exit that concession podium.

And I am not the only one to notice this, as you can see by the list of responses here.

He is personally a respectable guy, but he ran the absolute shittiest campaign imaginable, and came across as in a huge hurry to lose. At a time when the nation was most desperate to get rid of a little emperor like George Bush. I'm sorry but as you can see, we in general are not ready to forgive that one.

[blm]

128. Baloney - if it had been an easy win then HRC would have gone for it. Your revisionism

is absurd.

Kerry had the Dem establishment working against him. Bill Clinton used his 3 week book tour in summer2004 to vigorously defend Bush from the very attacks Kerry was making against Bush's military leadership and his decision to invade Iraq. Guess you didn't notice that. Every best known Dem who could get on TV was siding with Bush's view on Iraq over Kerry's criticism of those views and you want to claim that 2004 would have been an easy win? Do you own a TV? Even Biden was siding with Bush.

The Bush machine was at its strongest in 2004, and yet Kerry would have defeated it had McAuliffe's DNC bothered to secure the election process in states like Ohio where the party infrastructure remained in collapse even after 2000s theft. Dean worked his ass off for FOUR YEARS to rebuild the party infrastructures in states like Ohio. McAuliffe never lifted a finger in the four years before 2004 election.

The party blew 2000, 2002 and 2004. Deliberately, imo. McAuliffe and Carville were working for Hillary2008 and had been since she ran for senate in 2000.

[KonaKane]

181. John Kerry ran an abysmal campaign. That's just the fact.

And he lost for it. It is to our lasting disgrace that the question of the time "Who the hell couldn't beat George W Bush in 2004?" will now forever be answered "John Kerry".

[KonaKane]

183. Wow, the strength of the NO chorus should make this pretty clear.

I hope the OP got their answer.

[karynnj]

166. He had tears in his eyes - and he is of a generation that hides that emotion

He ran as hard as he possibly could - with more against him than is typical. The nation was unfortunately not ready to get rid of Bush - even though there were large pockets (Manhattan etc) where this was so.

The media did NOT cover most of his campaign. He made the most that could be made out of the debates, where he did a fantastic job. He also had the Catholic church against him as they were concerned about the pro-life justices retiring. (Consider the change in the court had Kerry been the President - no Alito or Roberts - and it was completely clear that Renquist and O'Connor were retiring) Not to mention, his support from his VP and many party leaders was lack luster. Can you remember anything that Carville or Begala did to make his accomplishments better known when they were two of the most prominent Democrats on cable?

[blm]

108. that's your criteria? If someone refuses to concede when the math is against them, that makes him

presidential?

[azmouse]

41. No

[depakid]

42. Depends how things look-

I think we can see a whole host of issues that he could run on.

[one_voice]

43. No.

[mmonk]

44. No.

If Obama decided not to run, I would say go further left. We will need someone that shakes up Washington so much by their merely winning the primary, they might let go of entrenched interests that have been obstacles to the changes needed.

[RedEarth]

45. no

[blondeatlast]

46. No. nt

[Imajika]

47. Absolutely not..

Great man, terrible candidate.

He had his shot and managed to lose to Bush. Not just anyone could have lost to Bush in 2004. It really took a special kind of bad candidate to lose to a President as horribly unpopular as Jr. was.

[Cleita]

49. I hope no decent Democrat does.

Obama is growing into his job and deserves the chance to finish it.

[MineralMan]

52. Nope.

[saltpoint]

57. John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. I expect he will

endorse him for re-election.

That Kerry would make a great president is not in question, IMO. But both great Democrats of Massachusetts -- Kerry and Kennedy -- endorsed Obama and did their parts to strengthen his candidacy in 2008.

[blondeatlast]

59. DUnity at last! nt

[azmouse]

71. There HAD to be one subject on which DU could agree.

:) It's been found!

[Rex]

61. Good lord NO!

He couldn't even handle what should have been a slam dunk for the Dems, why repeat the same failure? Thanks but no thanks.

[G_j]

65. no

[Withywindle]

66. No.

I love Kerry, but primarying Obama in 2012? Not just no, but HELL NO. I believe John Kerry would agree with me.

[tammywammy]

69. Kerry wouldn't do it. n/t

[politicasista]

141. True. He supports Obama

and will again in 2012. It's unfortunate bashers of both are out in force in this thread.

[Autumn]

73. Hell no n/t

[lamp_shade]

74. Please oh please oh please mods - don't lock this thread.

[blondeatlast]

77. +1! nt

[azmouse]

79. +2

[lamp_shade]

86. Nudge

[Historic NY]

78. No...

[FedUpWithIt All]

80. I would vote for him.

Truthfully, i don't think i will be voting again unless it is someone who really inspires the type of confidence that i have with Kerry. He often surprises me by being a consistently ethical individual. No more crap shoots for me. If a man with that type of proven integrity and consistency runs it would feel like real hope and that type of hope has been running in pitiful short supply for me lately.

Give me capability over enchantment any day.

[quinnox]

82. Yes, a brave soul who breaks out of the group think!

I agree with you! Kerry would have been the greatest president this country has had in generations.

[FedUpWithIt All]

90. History is full of lessons about the dangers of blind group mentality.

We should hold our leaders to the very highest standards. We should hold them accountable when they fail to meet those standards (which we failed to do with bush to our very great detriment). And we should throw every resource at our disposal to support them ONLY when they prove themselves responsible with the power they are wielding.

Popularity has never impressed me. Positive results do.

[chimpymustgo]

81. FUCK NO. He wouldn't even fight for it, when he had the chance.

[quinnox]

84. I'm disappointed

but I know you are a long time member, were you an Edwards supporter if I remember correctly? I don't know if you ever liked Kerry.

[karynnj]

119. There was no chance of overturning Ohio

Edwards lied when he in 2006 claimed (in the blogospere only) that he fought to do so. You might have noticed that Edwards never said what he would have used - you can't count votes not cast.

[bigwillq]

85. No (nt)

[TheCowsCameHome]

87. No.

He had his chance.

[David__77]

88. No.

I would absolutely oppose that.

[treestar]

91. He will not do it, like Hillary, he will support the POTUS

Kerry is NOT an idiot.

[BurtWorm]

93. Absolutely not.

Bad idea.

[Lisa0825]

97. What an absurd post.

:eyes:

[politicasista]

98. No. Obama is doing fine

Plus, Kerry is an indie voice working on Climate legislation.

[caledesi]

103. No. Never liked Kerry. nt

[caledesi]

104. No. Never liked Kerry. nt

[doc03]

105. Hell no!

[karynnj]

107. He will definately not run against Obama

I think Kerry could have been one of the greatest Presidents we ever had, given his genuine statesmanship, commitment and his unusually moral foreign policy views, but it is very clear that 2008 was the very last possibility for him.

Even if he had such a rupture policy wise with Obama, I doubt that he would run given that it would be incredibly hard on Teresa.

[Skip Intro]

112. Kerry is less likely than some others, imho but prob 50/50 that Obama has a primary chalenger. nt

[sendero]

115. John Kerry is ..

... a milquetoast Dem who let a moron kick his ass because he wouldn't speak up.

He's not running for anything but his senate seat, but if he did we wouldn't have a chance because he conveys the passion of a rotting fish.

[bemildred]

118. No. nt

[wisteria]

120. I would have loved to see a President Kerry, but it will not be.

Senator Kerry supports President Obama and I believe President Obama has high regard for, and respect for Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry ran for president to get things accomplished, make our country safer and move this country forward,if he is able to help accomplish these things with the assistance of our President, from his position in the Senate, I believe he will be happy to remain in the Senate.
Perhaps SOS may be a position open in the future, but even that may not make him budge now.

[karynnj]

121. Search is nice- here is what you posted in January 2007 when Kerry opted not to run

wow already giving up on 08

Hate to sy it, but Kerry is done as far as being a U.S. president is concerned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3075469&mesg_id=3075518

You by the way were for Hillary - me thinks you are annoyed with the Clinton 2012 posts that lead to her negatives being discussed.

[blondeatlast]

122. Wow--good find. nt

[karynnj]

125. It gets better - he responded on a rabid Clinton poster's thread saying he should not run for Senate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3224765&mesg_id=3224795

[quinnox]

131. Ok, I was upset that Kerry didn't win the presidency

So I said some things that were hasty, it can happen. I still like John Kerry and think he could be a great president. I am coming around back to Kerry once again.

[wisteria]

134. I have done the same thing more than once. I do believe that people can change

and change their minds. So on this I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

But, your post, even if it was well meaning stirs up old feelings that some people would rather forget and move on from.
If you really want to support Senator Kerry, help him get his Climate Change bill passed.

[karynnj]

137. Ok - truce - I will stay out of "search" (I also saw posts where you were nicer to Kerry)

There are posts that I wrote that I hope never see the light of day.

I think though that this thread was designed mostly to stir stuff up. It does make me a little sad as I think that Kerry was the best of his generation (better than Bush and the Clintons) who had a serious chance to be President. It is rare to find someone with the intelligence, integrity, the strength of character, the genuine interest in policy more than politics, and the desire to make the world a better place. But he will continue to contribute to the world as Senator.

[quinnox]

139. Definitely, Kerry would have been one of the greatest presidents

I agree wholeheartedly.

[quinnox]

124. I feel differently now

I think Kerry should give it another shot. What I write is not set in stone.

Yes I was for Hillary but I don't think she would run anymore as she is part of the Obama administration.

[grantcart]

127. brilliant find

[scheming daemons]

129. Good job exposing a PUMA

....

[Blue-Jay]

156. Baaahahahaha!

[seabeyond]

130. i would have loved to see kerry pres 2004. we missed a great opportunity. no, he wont run 2012. nt

[politicasista]

132. The haters (and some of them are Obama supporters) love taking potshots at Kerry

Obama himself would kick their behinds if they found out they were dissing a good ally and good Democrat.

[Lorien]

133. No. There's little difference between him and Obama on the issues. nt

[Born_A_Truman]

135. No

I like Kerry and I voted for him. I also watched as he let the Swift Boaters spread their lies far too long before he spoke out. I don't know the facts about election night, so I won't comment except to say I was disappointed in many ways that he lost to *.

[politicasista]

140. Yep. Obama is "Mr. Perfect" and

Kerry is "Mr. Awful." It's ok. Seems like the thread has brought out the worst in DU.

[Gordan Shumway]

145. That's not how read that post

but interesting interpretation.

[politicasista]

177. Not his, but this whole thread

especially from people that super love Obama, but totally hate Kerry.

[Born_A_Truman]

153. Your words, not mine

I have never said either of those things. Speak for yourself.

[politicasista]

172. That's how many Obama supporters (not you personally) take it

Saw it in 08.

[AsahinaKimi]

136. no.

eom.

[Sebastian Doyle]

138. Hell no.

Once was bad enough.

[Mickeyc1004]

142. Kerry? No!

The only reason Kerry ever lost is because he was too inept to speak his mind. I voted for Kerry and cried many tears, at the time, over an election that didn't need to be lost.


I still like Obama and I'm voting for Obama.

I supported Dean before I supported Kerry(gave money to both) and both of them blew it and I just don't trust them anymore.(as far as speaking up)

Still like them both, but they are not good candidates.

[karynnj]

149. Different times, different elections - 2004 was NEVER a year that the Democrats were likely to win

The playing field was extremely unequal. The media, at that point, refused to challenge or question anything Bush did and they allowed a character assassination of Kerry (and Dean to a far lesser degree). There are few things more documented than military records. They had Kerry's entire record - in fact, (except for medical records - which were open to the media) they were all on his website. Like anything once on the web, they still are available there - http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

Kerry put all of that up in April 2004 when the SBVT first attacked. In a normal time, that would have been the end of it. This is like random people arguing you were a poor student and they knew because they went to the same college (even if it was not at the same time or if you majored in English and they in Math) - and the media then ignoring your transcript.

In 2004, after the fact that everything was there was mentioned on the K/E blog, I went and read the fitness reports - just so I could counter the SBVT comments when they came up. It was easy to see that they spanned the three plus years he was in service - with no gaps. (Not so, Mr Bush's records). In addition to them being 100% positive, they actually should have countered many RW stereotypes of Kerry. One very consistent thing - over all the fitness reports, not just the swiftboat ones, is extreme praise for the loyalty and respect that he quickly had from his men. On the carrier that he was first on, he was even given an extra assignment of privately speaking to sailors having trouble. The image is someone who easily and successfully connected to men with a very wide range of backgrounds and who was innately a leader. (The extreme loyalty of his long term staffers repeats that.) As to leader, consider that at 27, he was able to lead a group of very angry veterans when they went to DC for several days (when Kerry spoke to the Senate). He was able to set the tone and keep this completely non-violent.

The media did not show anywhere near the coverage of Kerry's rallies that they did of rallies in elections before or after. Many likely had no idea that Kerry was getting increasingly bigger crowds - and they were extremely positive and enthusiastic. (I loved CSPAN, but how many people would mention CSPAN when asked the channel they watched most - I can tell you that the time I answered that to a marketing pollster was hilarious. ) Think of the puff piece, pre-election videos the networks have always done that frames the candidate's life as leading to being President. They have them every election for both parties. They worked hard to do so in 2000 for Bush. None of the networks did one for Kerry. (NPR Frontline had a dual (Bush/Kerry) biography - that showed Kerry's life of accomplishment)

A Kerry bio like this would have been extremely easy - he was the debate star of not just Yale, but the intercollegiate debate world; he was a war hero, his incredible 1971 speech - that has lines he wrote that are still remembered, an excellent record running a DA's office for a medically challenged DA, an outstanding private lawyer, a LT Gov who succeeded in getting the NE governors to institute a cap and trade to deal with acid rain, a Senator with many accomplishments. Add in a wife, who as a young woman marched against Apartheid, who led the Republican Senate wives to speak out on the repression of Soviet Jewry and whose foundation was the reason that Pittsburgh is the greenest city in the US. Teresa also initiated the unified effort of the Pittsburgh foundations to revitalize Pittsburgh in the 1990s - this greatly improved the Pittsburgh economy. I would bet that some of what I listed here was not known to some who post here and followed Democratic politics closely in 2004. That is the fault of the media.

Still, in spite of 59% of people saying the country was doing very well or fairly well on the eve of the election, Kerry would have won had there been adequate voting machines. (question 7a - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm ) Note that Bush did NOT get 59% of the vote - that means that Kerry won many who thought the country was doing ok - in a confusing, time of war and terror.

By 2008, about 80% of the country would NOT have answered that the country was doing even fairly well. Not to mention, Obama had a better surrogate than Kerry did in 2004 - John Kerry, who did an incredible job - winning even on Fox against people like Lindsey Graham. (Graham, who was a good surrogate, looked like a hack vs Kerry.)

However, as impressed as I am by Senator Kerry - he will not challenge President Obama. (Remember that he did not challenge Gore in 2000 - feeling Gore had earned the nomination. )

[WI_DEM]

159. The fact that Bush won a narrow victory in '04 to me indicates that Dems could have won

My feeling is that Kerry should have been tougher in responding to the Swift Boating for one thing. Also, he might have done better if he had picked a running mate who actually brought something to the ticket.

[karynnj]

162. Hind sight is 20/20 on the VP choice - and I would bet Kerry would agree

That seemed to be what Shrum wrote.

But, at the time of the decision, Edwards was the media favorite and the party favorite. The intense positive media caused Edwards to poll the best with him. From the Shrum account, Kerry was not himself impressed with Edwards and had misgivings. At that point, rejecting Edwards for vague reasons, would have been attacked by many Democrats. I read in a Chicago paper that Kerry wanted Durbin, but was discouraged on this partly because both were Catholic.

Durbin (or Gephardt) had substance and records that Edwards lacked, but I would imagine that either would have gotten negative press when the choice was made - with the media calling both men on the ticket "boring". (Even though Kerry's life was FAR more exciting and impressive than Edwards - and I even think Kerry has the better hair.)

The fact is that Kerry could not have foreseen that Edwards, who in the last week of the campaign played the traditional VP role, deferring to Kerry's positions - would suddenly refuse to be a team player - bragging years later that he would not even use "help is on the way" - stubbornly clinking to the illogical "Hope is on the the way". What is clear is that he was as rogue as Palin in the general election. Promising to defend Kerry or attack Bush - and going to the media and smiling and saying the campaign did not want him doing things like that - which could hurt how much he was liked. Even his speeches were rote and listless - nothing like when he was running for himself.

Your argument is circular. The fact is there are models that take variables like the one of how the country is perceived as doing. Those models predicted that the president would be easily re-elected. It was Kerry's excellent debates that made it even close and the fact that when he had a chance to speak he did a very good job.

[Mickeyc1004]

179. Actually

Kerry had a very good chance of winning. He just simply blew it. Didn't know how to speak his mind or defend himself. Also, he didn't even come out against the war until Dean did.

Also, according to many people, Obama wasn't suppose to win either. Even many democrats said that Obama was limping to the finish line, yet he won by a pretty large margin electoral vote wise.

Many of the topics that Obama brought up during the election were topics that all the other democrats were afraid to bring up. Yet, Obama had been talking about some of those topics for years. Most people don't respect followers, they want leaders.


During an election you have to stand up for what you believe, whether you believe it will be accepted or not. The problem with many of the so called Centrist Democrats is that they are too afraid to do that which makes them look like what the republicans refer to as, "bed wetting liberals".

By the way, I got so sick of that term which is why I prefer Liberals who are not afraid to speak up.

[cecilfirefox]

144. You must be out of your mind? Obama has done more for the progressive agenda than any other Democrat

in recent history!

[JCMach1]

146. Epic fail...

[shotten99]

147. He should have run in 2004.

Too bad he didn't then.

[cali]

150. lol There are few things I'm surer of than that Kerry won't run against Obama

in 2012.

[karynnj]

151. I agree - I think that Lady GaGa and John Edwards both running might have the same probability

- and neither of them are qualified. (I doubt Lady GaGa is old enough).

There is a higher probability that the lesser Senator from MA might run against him.

[Arkana]

174. Greasy Scott is already having problems in his own backyard.

Environmental groups in MA are already running ads against him--using people who voted for him telling the camera exactly why they would never do so again.

[karynnj]

178. That is great - didn't he vote for the regional cap and trade anyway?

I saw he was pushing his bill (with Lieberman) to strip accused terrorists of their US citizenship again.

[Jennicut]

152. He won't run.

I like Kerry as a strong Senator. Better the President.

[JonLP24]

155. No

I'm very unhappy with Obama in some areas but I still like him much better than Kerry.

[DefenseLawyer]

157. Looks like someone picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

[WI_DEM]

158. These speculations about '12 are silly. Democrats like Obama. Kerry nor any reasonable dem will

challenge him.

[miscsoc]

160. hahahahahahahahahaha

no

[joe black]

167. No

As I recall he went back on his word to fight the results of the election if he lost. Well, he lost but he instead folded like a cheap suit.

[karynnj]

169. He never promised to fight if he lost - he promised that all the votes would be counted -

and they were. When he conceded, there were too few uncounted provisional ballots to make the difference. He said in his concession speech that those votes would be counted and they were - there were still 59,000 too few.

The biggest problem is the credibility given (only when speaking to the blogosphere) that the lying Edwardses gave to to the idea that it could have been challenged. Neither of these two lawyers ever explained on what grounds.

This incidentally was after both Kerrys spoke often and prominently on the issue of voter suppression and even the problem with voting machines being susceptible to fraud. (Neither stepped over the line and claimed fraud - which they could not prove. They were blasted for what they did say. Meanwhile the Edwardses were silent.)

[cbdo2007]

168. No - even with voter machine fraud he should have easily beaten Bush.

[ParkieDem]

170. This is terrible, this idea.

I don't think Kerry would have been great if he had won in '04 (although infinitely better than Bush).

Kerry's been a Senator virtually all his professional life, just like Biden. Obama was a senator as well.

I just don't think legislators make good executives. They are too wired into compromise, and if they've spent lots of time in DC, can get very insulated.

Governors are much more attuned to the job. Some of our best Democratic presidents were governors -- FDR, Carter, Clinton, etc. That's why I'd prefer to have a Howard Dean, Mario Cuomo-type rather than a Kerry.

[Arkana]

173. No. I'd rather have Kerry representing me, thanks.

[politicasista]

176. Cool. Too bad DUers that support Obama don't respect him

the way that Obama does. IMO, Obama would be highly upset at this thread, so would the Senator.


Hang in there with Porno. It's better than having Alexander and Corker. :hi:

[WinkyDink]

180. No, no, and did I mention no?

[proteus_lives]

182. No, thanks.

[wildbilln864]

184. no! nt