WP political blog: 2008: The Case For John Kerry

[DeepModem Mom]

"The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
2008: The Case For John Kerry

....Today, The Fix makes the case for another Kerry White House run. Check this space later in the week for the counter argument....By far the strongest argument in Kerry's favor at the moment revolves around fundraising. At the end of March, Kerry had roughly $14 million on hand -- in three different campaign accounts -- that could be used to jumpstart his presidential candidacy. The majority of that total ($8.5 million) sits in his presidential primary account, the same account he was able to raise $250 million for in his quest to become the party's official nominee in 2004.

No other potential candidate in the Democratic field has shown the ability to raise money at that scale, and only two -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- look likely to have $10 million or more available to transfer to a presidential exploratory committee at the end of this year....

***

The second argument in Kerry's favor is his high-profile on the war in Iraq. Kerry was attacked repeatedly by Bush and his surrogates during the 2004 campaign for his seeming lack of certainty on how best to conduct the conflict -- typified by Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment about an Iraq war spending bill. But Kerry seems to have learned the lessons of that indecisiveness....

***

Kerry's emergence as a thoughtful and forceful voice on Iraq has won him plaudits from many on the party's left who opposed the war from the start. (It's worth noting that Kerry has courted this segment of the party in other ways since his 2004 loss, most notably in his decision to cut a trip to Switzerland short in order to return to the Senate and organize an unsuccessful filibuster against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.)...Kerry's own service in Vietnam could also be essential in leveling the playing field on the issue if Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who spent several years in a POW camp during Vietnam, emerges a the Republican nominee.

The final argument for a Kerry candidacy is that he alone among those looking at the race has already had the experience of running a national campaign. (For the moment, we'll leave former Vice President Al Gore out of the '08 discussion, although we've made the case for Gore '08 in a previous post.)...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

[karynnj]

1. If the media would have been as honest as this in 2004, he

would be running for re-election.

[confludemocrat]

6. I agree, if honesty is "damning with faint praise".

[confludemocrat]

2. So his strong point is the money he has raised. Sounds about right.

and sounds like Phil Gramm before the 1996 election.

[blm]

4. Sure - if this writer speaks for you. Robert Parry comes closest to

speaking for me. Gary Hart and Tom Hayden come close, too.

[ProSense]

9. I agree, but it's funny how being able to

raise money from supporters, $1 at a time, isn't considered support.

[confludemocrat]

70. Richard Blum, Feinstein hubby and warmonger, gives him money

so that should help him get his totals up.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Well, by their estimation anyway

As far as I'm concerned he has OTHER strong points as well. He is quite qualified for the job, for one thing. But sadly, that doesn't always GET you the job.

[blm]

3. I think fundraising is important but definitely NOT the most important

reason.

The most important reason to me is that Kerry is one of the few lawmakers who can be COUNTED ON to open the books on the REAL government corruption that has going on since before Kennedy was murdered.

[saltpoint]

7. After Dubya's "I'm the decider" claim this morning, it shouldn't be

too tough for even the thickest red voter to realize that their vote placed the wrong man in the White House.

President Gore and President Kerry are learned, evolved human beings, and wouldn't have been before the press this morning saying, "I'm the decider." To begin with, both Gore and Kerry speak English.

The piece makes a strong case for John Kerry, and Democratic bias aside, not many who voted Kerry-Edwards in 04 are feeling this morning that their vote went to the wrong candidate. Not many Kerry voters, if any, believe Bush is, after all, a terrific president.

We see both Bush "elections" as lost opportunities for the nation.

[derby378]

8. Kerry turned off way too many fence-sitters

And his campaign made too many mistakes in what should have been a cakewalk against Nero.

Kerry had his chance. We need new blood at the top.

[TayTay]

10. I disagree with this completely

There was never going to be a cakewalk against Bush. He always had too substantial a base for that and he had vast sums of money to call on. Anyone who believes that 04 should have been a cakewalk is niave about politics. This President was still basking in the glow of 9/11 and the nation has always been reluctant to change Commander in Chief during a time of war.

The new blood argument is also ignoring the value of experience. Maybe what the Democrats have been messing up recently is the fact that they overlook experience in a trendy and vague search for something new. Newness alone is meaningless.

[blm]

12. Clinton said he doubted he could win in a post 9-11 election.

And what MEDIA was daring to tell American people the truth about Bush before Katrina?

[Clarkie1]

16. Please cite examples to defend this statement of yours

"Maybe what the Democrats have been messing up recently is the fact that they overlook experience in a trendy and vague search for something new."

When and where have you seen that happening?

[blm]

21. All over DU - and it's the same argument many Dems made against Gore after

2000. I'm surprised that you believe it DOESN'T happen.

[TayTay]

23. The Democrats put out excellent candidates for President.

Former VP Gore was an excellent candidate. Sen. Kerry was an excellent candidate. They have experience in running a national campaign. I am tired of seeing the Dems dismiss candidates just because they have run in the past. Gawd, with a system like this in place the nation never would have elected Lincoln, as he was a failed candidates in a fair number of prior races.

[wisteria]

32. Throughout the US history the Democrats have had less luck winning

the White House. IMO, some of the reason we loose a lot more often then we actually win may have something to do with the "fresh face" versus the familiar face. There is something comforting in voting the familiar face.

[Clarkie1]

43. I don't find anything comforting about it at all.

I prefer change.

Interesting you feel that way.

[blm]

46. Most people STILL DON'T KNOW much about Kerry. Many Dems are clueless

about his actual record because of the way the media controls what they learn.

Look at all the people at DU who still can't wrap their brains around the fact that there isn't a lawmaker alive who has uncovered more government corruption than John Kerry has and or how positively he has effected this nation's historic record over the last 35 years.

[Clarkie1]

53. I know. But that's not going to help win an election. n/t

[blm]

55. Dems exposing the GOP control of media is the only step to change that.

Because THAT is the key to what people learn - just as it took something as drastic as a category 5 hurricane and Fitzgerald indictments for people to see what the media refused to acknowledge for years - Bush's incompetence and lies.

[blm]

11. Funny, the GOP doesn't operate by that same system.

And funny that some Democrats want to emulate the GOP on everything else like negative campaigning, attack politics, and fundraising, but refuse to follow their real strength - they stick and don't accept any negative portrayal of their leaders even when the negatives are apparent and real.

Dems dump lawmakers based on fabricated media characterizations and ignore the truth.

[ginnyinWI]

58. this is a very key point, blm

I think it deserves a thread of its own!

[Sensitivity]

13. Your rule of "New Blood" has been the bane of Democrats. Tragic

The history of modern democracies the great leaders have been those who lead
politial parties over a long period of time.

Strange as it may seem to some, there is some value in consistency of leadership
and principle.

[derby378]

31. By that logic, Howard Dean would have clinched the 2004 nomination

A proven track record of 12 years as Governor of Vermont with excellent framing abilities and a minimum of baggage.

[karynnj]

14. There were no reasons to think it would be a cat walk

- Bush had an approval rating of near 50% - this excludes some people on the right, who were going to vote for Bush. (note: Bush 1 had a 39% approval rate.)
-Bush as President could control events and did. The correlation of Kerry's support and the terror ratings is high. They also put out the OBL tape in the last 4 days - before which most pundits were expressing shock that Kerry looked like he might be winning.
-The media covered for Bush and gave Kerry absolutely no breaks, interepted everything in the least positive way, provided little of the typical "candidate biography" puff pieces, ignored all of Teresa's accomplishments, and thebroadcast media opted not to actually show Kerry rallies - showing their talking head saying where he was and what he said.

In 2008, the question will be who is the best candidate. Kerry easily beat everyone in the primaries in 2004 because he was good. There are new people this year and Kerry and the other 2004 candidates have grown. The issues will have changed. That Kerry is even spoken of seeing that the party(DLC) and the media both wanted him to disappear, says something.

[derby378]

33. ???

Kerry was the DLC candidate. Al From wanted Dean to disappear into the Green Mountains.

[blm]

40. From never liked Kerry - and From only disliked Dean when Dean changed his

position on trade in 2003 for the primary race. Before that Dean was one of their star Third Way Dems throughout his tenure as governor while Kerry maintained a voting record far to the left of any other member of the DLC.

Lieberman and Edwards were the preferred candidates of Al From and Bruce Reed. They only got behind Kerry after Clinton told them that Kerry was most likely to get out front.

[Critters2]

45. Exactly!

It was the DLC who pushed Kerry through in the primaries, thus losing us the election. The DLC worked against Dean and for Kerry.

Thereby electing W.

[blm]

49. Nope.

Guess you all forgot that Kerry had to put up his OWN money when the corporate media kept telling the public his campaign was dead for months to dry up his fundraising - funds he also WASN'T getting from the DLC crowd.

You played right into it when the corporate media who gave Dean a press plane in June 2003, was OVER-reporting Dean's support on the ground while UNDER-reporting Kerry's support - it was KERRY they were actively trying to get out of the race.

I think you also forget that Dean had a very poor showing at the Iowa debate - That was when Gephardt challenged him on his early support for Biden-Lugar which was far too similar to IWR to get away with attacking the IWR vote as long as he did.

[TayTay]

50. The DLC never liked Kerry as a candidate

because he was seen as too liberal. (It's not that hard to figure out.)

Kerry was not DLC per se, but was NDN, which has split off from DLC.

[wisteria]

28. The fence sitters were persuaded to vote for Bush out of fear -

fear of another attack and fear of the unknown. Security and the war were the main things on peoples' minds, they new what they were getting with Bush (or they thought they knew) and there was uncertainty about Senator Kerry, because the media did a poor job of covering Kerry positions. Senator Kerry was close to swinging these voters his way, with his strong presence and his outstanding job during the debates.unfortunately, and very timely I might add, Bin Laden popped up as close to the election as possible to spread and rekindle the fear that was necessary for Bush to win.

[worldgonekrazy]

63. "should have been a cakewalk"???

You know, I've seen this sentiment expressed around DU a lot lately, and I can only conclude that some people have completely forgotten what the political climate was like two years ago. W. had pretty good approval ratings (right around 50%), had half the country convinced that Democrats were pretty much terrorist sympathizers, and was generally seen as THE guy to protect the country from terrorism (and run the Iraq War).

Frankly, I think it is fucking amazing that Kerry almost won going up against all that. Did he make grave mistakes in his campaign? Of course he did, such as letting the Right Wing define his candidacy. Will he be my favorite if he runs again in 2008? Probably not. But you can't deny that he nearly pulled off an incredible upset against all odds in 2004.

[derby378]

67. I stand by my "cakewalk" statement, and here's why:

1. The approval ratings were skewed by a conciliatory and increasingly conservative media that refused to take Bush to task on any issue, including Plamegate and the absence of any WMDs in Iraq.

2. Kerry never really took Bush to task on Iraq or national security until the debates. Kerry did very well in the debates, but he still pulled his punches way too many times. It just looked like his heart wasn't into it.

3. For that matter, almost all of the Democrats on the Hill were rolling over and playing dead, which made it even easier for them to be FReeped as terrorist sympathizers. Had Cindy Sheehan or someone like her camped out at Bush's pig farm in 2004 instead of a year later, Bush would be unemployed by now.

4. Take a good look at the 2004 electoral map - it's almost identical to the 2000 map. You can blame it on touchscreen machines, and I agree that they all need to be scrapped, but if Kerry had mounted a more vigorous and down-to-earth campaign, the voter turnout would have the "cheat codes" in many of those machines.

[LittleClarkie]

68. 4. If you can cheat alittle, you can cheat alot

2. Even so, the debates was when we started gaining momentum, and people started showing up at our HQ and acting like they thought we could win. Bit late, that. But still.

3. God yes. The Dems acted like they were taking 2004 off. That's why I'm so very glad to have Gov. Dean in there putting up a good, 50 state defense.

1. And don't forget how they covered the two men. Bush's speeches covered in full, Kerry's only talked ABOUT in a "he said the usual" tone.

(in order of how your points struck me)

[blm]

73. You missed his Iraq speech in Sept. 2004, then. He attacked Bush BIGTIME

in the same hall where Bush made his speech for war in Iraq.

Have so many of you forgotten how almost every day here at DU we were FURIOUS at how little coverage and reporting Kerry was getting from the news media on very important speeches like the one on Iraq, port security, and his attack on the swiftliars at the Firefighters Convention that NO MEDIA carried and few even reported?

[Clarkie1]

15. Hillary has $20 million...more than Kerry, I believe. n/t

[TayTay]

20. No she doesn't. She has money in accounts that can't carry over

She has raised money for the Senate campaign. Depending on the type of account she established, some she can carry over to a Pres account, some she cannot.

The top three fundraisers are

Clinton
Kerry
Bayh

They have raised a ton of money. They are viable in that area. That simply is. Kerry has that massive e-mail list of 3 million people that he took with him at the end of the 04 race. It belongs to him and it obviously has a lot of veterans on it. (The difference between the fundraising for the Dem vets possibles in the House race appeal and the Senate appeal was huge.)

He has money, he might have the inclination and he has the experience. If he wants to run, he can run with those qualifiers.

[Clarkie1]

29. It belongs to him?

I have to be frank with you, whether or not it technically does "belong to him," in my opinion it belongs to the Democratic Party, and Kerry should be sharing that list with all Dems. I think he is.

Just my opinion on the right thing to do since many signed up on that list not because Kerry was their first choice, but because they opposed Bush.

[wisteria]

35. Those that didn't sign up in support of Kerry have had ample

opportunity to have there name removed.I assume those that are still on it are on it because they support the good senator. I signed up because I liked Kerry. I don't want him sharing my e-mail and name with others. If I wanted to be on the general Democratic site I would of signed up there.

[MH1]

25. Is she using to support other Dems?

I think Kerry may be spreading his around more wisely. I don't know, just my impression.

[mopinko]

17. i vote no to the candidate of the fat cats, aka

the best fundraiser. that is a red flag to me. i do not support such candidates.
and i will never, ever, ever waste a vote on anyone, even for dog catcher, who will not make sure that it is counted.

[karynnj]

18. He's not getting the money from fat cats but from lots of

people giving small amounts. When they issue these results they give sufficint information to see this.

Kerry is not the party or media favorite.

[Clarkie1]

19. Naturally, he has a large donor base.

He still has his mailing list from 04'.

Just saying...

[TayTay]

22. Of course he does

It belongs to him. His campaign built it separately from any involvement with the DNC or any other national political organization. It has been very generous of him to use his e-mail list to fund-raise for other Dems, don't you think?

[Clarkie1]

27. I'm just saying that he is in the same position as Edwards

or anyone else would have been in had they been at the top of the ticket.

I think as the previous nominee he is obligated to use his e-mail list to fundraise for other Dems, and I certainly hope he is doing so.

[wisteria]

37. I can assure you he has been very actively supporting other

Democrats for 2006, not only fund raising for them, but appearing in person to support them further.

[Clarkie1]

42. Excellent. n/t

[ginnyinWI]

60. on MTP he said

he was supporting/campaigning for 137 Dem candidates.

[saltpoint]

51. On that word you're using, TayTay -- "generous." I sense that

generosity is what is missing in Republicans' policies and their words about those policies.

I sense that it is demonstrably present in both aspects for Democrats. To single out just one candidate, John Kerry is a generous human being. His opponent inn 2004 is not, to single out just one Republican.

As you mention, Kerry has been very generous to others with money. My thought is that he is that way anyhow, that the cash is a practical application of a bedrock personal generosity.

[TayTay]

54. And that desire to get rid of these people.

Politcs of '08 aside, I think he really dislikes these Rethugs that are in there now. I saw the good Senator last year in April give a speech in Boston and he was just disgusted at how things are not running in Washington DC. That rhetoric has just deepened lately. Think back to those John Bolton hearings and how dysfunctional they were. Ack! The place does not work. That has to be distressing for all those 'good government' types who were raised on real bi-partisanship and such. Bi-partisanship to the current Repub bunch means weakness and surrender and the good of the nation be damned. It's awful.

The Repubs can't govern. They are incompetent and insensitive to the effect their policies have on anyone who isn't in their circle. We all know they can take social issues and use them to demean the Dems so they can win elections. But they have power without purpose. They fundamentally can't do anything except enrich their friends by cutting taxes for their rich friends. I think this offends a lot of 'old-school' Dems who see government as having more of a positive role than just funding the military.

Kerry should be generous. This mid-term election matters more than just about any other of my lifetime. We have to turn one or both Houses of Congress over to the sane people. I think Kerry knows that and knows that the effort to do that genuinely trumps anything else. (All Dems have to keep their 'eyes on the prize' for this one. There will be plenty of time for us to snipe at each over the '08 race starting in Dec/Jan. LOL!)

[saltpoint]

57. Concur with every syllable. More strong, clear thinking from you, TayTay.

And a lot of us have our sleeves rolled up for these midterms in November.

:thumbsup:

[TayTay]

78. Thanks. My entire State Congressional delegation is Dem

(Okay, Massachusetts is a blue state after all.) But we have a great Governor's race going on and it would be unbelievably great to turn the Governship over to the Dems after 16 years of Repubs. And there are Repubs running in the all Repub Congressional delegation next door in NH. (About 1 mile from my house.)

Yup, we have our hands full! '06 is so vital. All Dem hands on deck for this one. And thanks Old Crusoe, it's always a pleasure conversing with you.

[saltpoint]

80. Thumbs up to your call for all-hands-on-deck for 06.

The bluer the better.

[wisteria]

36. HIS LIST from his site with supporters who signed up to support him-

just saying.

[blm]

24. Who submitted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill and never accepted

corporate pac money in any of his senate races?

I think it is a bad idea to not discern where the dollars come from. Corporatists were AGAINST Kerry's public-financing of campaigns bill and AGAINST his work helping to craft Kyoto and AGAINST his efforts to target 1/3 of all government contracts for SMALL BUSINESSES.

[MH1]

26. "Clean Money, Clean Elections"

I believe that is the bill Kerry wrote with Wellstone in '97? If I recall correctly it included items like allocation of public airwaves for political campaigns so that a candidate could be heard by the masses without having to necessarily raise obscene millions from obscene sources.

Too bad that's not the "campaign finance reform" we ended up with...

[Chomp]

30. So, reason #1 for Kerry running

is beacuse he has loads of money?

Sheesh. The system is broken.

[Sensitivity]

34. Wrong. Kerry is able to raise money for Dem campaigns cause he is trusted

[wisteria]

38. No, #1 is because he has the expertise, judgment and smarts to lead

and represent our country as its President.

[Critters2]

48. Then why did he run such an embarassingly inept campaign?

Hard to imagine he could run the nation after watching him bungle the campaign.

[blm]

52. Kerry won his matchups with Bush - left media got their ASSES handed to

them on a daily basis by the RW machine who controlled the daily airwaves and the RNC outorganized the DNC. And BushInc STILL had to rig voting machines to stay in office. So, how bad did Kerry actually do?

Ever hear the left pundits and journalists admit that the rightwing can lie more effectively for their candidates than the left can tell the truth about a Democrat? Of course, it's always easier for those in cahoots with the corporate media machine.

Left pundits will always point at the Dem candidate, and never accept their own weaknesses.

[blm]

41. It's disgusting that Cilizza doesn't even mention that Kerry is trusted

most to open the books on the rampant government corruption of the last half-century and THAT is why he should be the best candidate.

[flpoljunkie]

39. Of those Cillizza lists with money to run, Kerry by far, the best choice.

The other two are among Al From's DLC candidates, which he listed in this order--"Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh."

[worldgonekrazy]

64. Yeah, none of those really appeal to me

I really do like Al Gore, but I don't think he would have much of a chance barring radical shifts in the political climate (which are possible...two years can be a LONG time).

Then there is my personal favorite Feingold, but my describing him as such pretty much damns his candidacy :)

[welshTerrier2]

44. "plaudits from many on the party's left"

if Kerry runs in 2008, and he will, he has to run to the left. There's just no room left in the center.

as the article in the OP says, Kerry deserves some real credit for his most recent Iraq plan; Iraq is an absolute disaster for this country and for the Iraqis ... continued US occupation, especially considering bush is in the WH, is not going to make things better no matter how long we stay ... leaving may not make things better either, but it might ...

for Kerry to truly win meaningful support from the left, I think he'll have to show real leadership on a couple of very critical issues ...

first, he's going to have to fight to bring national attention to the Iran issue ... saying he's "for diplomacy" or believes we need to "build a coalition" is not enough; it just isn't ... the anti-war left is looking for representation that stands up and does all that can be done to stop bush's march to war with Iran ... this means making a serious effort to pre-empt bush's case that the IWR and the "war on terror" have already given him all the authorization he needs to attack Iran ... it doesn't do much good calling for diplomacy once the bombs start dropping; the time to challenge bush's power is NOW ...

and secondly, action is needed to address the undemocratic abuses of big money on our democratic institutions ... we need leadership to tell the American people the truth about US foreign policy ... our foreign policy, for generations, has been run by and for, powerful, greedy, corporate interests and not in the best interests of the American people ... until a real opposition party, and candidate, address this issue and "speak truth to power", the corruption will continue as will the inevitable bankrupting of our country ... if Kerry is seeking support from "the left", he's going to have to find the words, maybe not my words, to address this subject ...

until the voice of opposition becomes a fight against "wars for greed" and "programs and legislation for greed" and until we tell the truth about the insidious cancer that has infested our government, no real change will occur; progress, where not illusory, will be little more than appeasement ... either our government fights for our best interests or it is serving a hidden master ...

it is these things that a "candidate of the left" must speak to ...

[LittleClarkie]

66. Howdy hun. Did you hear the latest?

Kerry is to give a speech on April 22 about Iraq. I am intrigued because it is on the same day he gave his congressional testmoney against the Vietnam War in 1972. Symbolic?

[welshTerrier2]

69. thanks for the info, LC ...

I was aware he was scheduled to speak ... looks like this one is focused on Iraq ...

maybe he'll add a bit of focus on Iran as well ... that would be great ...

[saltpoint]

47. Kerry, Gore, H. Clinton, Kucinich, Dean, Clark, Edwards, etc.

versus McCain, Barbour, Frist, Allen, Romney etc.

John Kerry's America, or any of our Democrats' America, would be a better place to live than the America of John McCain, or any of the other Republicans' America.

George W. Bush is anti-Science and even more anti-Dissent. I would like to hear what John Kerry has to say about Dissent as a condition of citizenship.

[Notoverit]

56. Does anyone here care that kerry actually won? Then gave it up and allowed

the lie about W's victory to flourish?

[blm]

59. I believe the ONLY candidate to support is one who BELIEVES machine fraud

is REAL.

Because that is the only Democrat who can actually win. How many are even cognizant of machine fraud at this point?

[ginnyinWI]

61. proof was/is lacking

What's the point of saying it in public if you can't prove it? It would have been his opinion against the other side. I believe it too, but what is the point if the majority does not. He would have had to have the proof in hand in order to contest that election.

If proof does eventually surface, I'm sure he'll be only too happy to acknowledge it.

[Notoverit]

72. In the meanwhile, all think we lost, W won - and how to change ourselves

to maybe...not lose again? How is this fair to his voters?

[blm]

75. Name YOUR choice for Dem candidate who BELIEVES in machine fraud.

Because the machines need to be secured BEFORE the vote, as after is too late.

[LittleClarkie]

65. Did you know of a whistleblower he could have used?

Did he have hard evidence? I mean take it to court hard evidence, instead of a ton of circumstantial?

Were the people around him all loyal, and telling him the truth about the news from Ohio and elsewhere?

No,

No,

and finally

No.

It wasn't as black and white as you make it sound.

[Sensitivity]

62. Watch out for the CASE-AGAINST. Cellizza Post not really friendly to JK

but is rather apolitical and pragmatic.

Kerry himself would not suggest that "fundraising" is his best quality, given that he co-authored
the "Clean Money" bill to provide public financing to campaigns so as to get rid of "fundraising" as
an issue.

[high density]

71. I think the "case" for him is coming from people who want GOP wins in 2008

Money isn't everything, obviously.

Kerry + Anybody But Bush Vote = Bush win
Kerry + 0 = Easy GOP win

Sorry, it just does not compute.

[blm]

74. Explain the 11 million more votes than in 2000.

And ABB was pure bullshit - that's the MENTALITY that tells casual voters you don't pay attention to the record or voice of your nominee.

[LittleClarkie]

76. One odd thing about the article.

A trip to Switzerland?

They make it sound like he was on vacation. What about Davos? What about the economic conference? What about the fact that there were members of the administration there, a fact that Republican critics didn't note either.

Bah.

[ProSense]

77. Petition

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/?sc=hp

[Laurab]

79. I think I'd like to see Kerry run again, although it's still too early

I'd love to see an angry, more experienced John Kerry run, having learned from his mistakes, as I'm sure he has, and having the press a bit more free, if it can stay that way. Right now, my dream ticket would be Kerry/Feingold. There would be brains, class, and two ethical men at the helm, who want what's best for the country. They have no delusions about exactly what they're dealing with, either.

As I said, it's way too early, and there's the midterms to worry about, but I really do think Kerry learned, and learned a LOT from his campaign. I think he won, and it would be nice to have a "decider" with a brain in the white house.

[LittleClarkie]

81. Even Kerry can see it's too early

As he's campaigning and fundraising for 2006 candidates right now.

[wisteria]

82. Great post. Senator Kerry deserves another chance. n/t

[Sensitivity]

83. Kerry was the only candidate who could have faced a Sitting War-time Pres

The manipulative powers of the office of the Presidency are enormous. Dems were decieving themselves
who thought is would be easy to unseat the Cabal.