Will Kerry endorse Edwards for Pres?

[Superman Returns]

As opposed to Al Gore bypassing Lieberman and instead endorsing Dean?

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Edwards isn't in a similar position as Lieberman.

People actually like Edwards.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. I don't, really. Well, I don't trust him

[Ninja Jordan]

10. I know. You've said it already.

Many times. I'm still trying to figure out how Obama can realistically flip red states.

[JI7]

11. why do you assume he can't ?

[Ninja Jordan]

12. He's a candidate who's never existed before.

Black with an African name. America's political history tells us he won't be able to win in some places. There's only been a small number of black senators and governors in history, and this is the case of the presidency.

[earthlover]

34. there is a first time for everything....

Ask Rosa Parks! Did she accept her assigned place on the bus just because that is the way things had always been done in "some places"?

Did John Kennedy cut and run because no Catholic had been elected President before?

Did Harry Truman cut and run because nobody thought he could win against Dewey?

Obama is someone who appears to be presidential material, and he happens to be black. He won his Senate election in a landslide which reflected strength even in downstate Illinois. He has a quality about him that transcends the race issue.

What are we wanting to do as a party? Do we want to nominate the best candidate, the one best qualified to be president, the most articulate, the one who can further our ideals the best? Or do we want to self-censor our candidates, and...if they are black....send them to the back of the bus because we don't think some parts of the country would be ready for a black candidate?

I'm sorry, but if Obama can be strong in southern Illinois, I think perhaps we should rethink our assumptions about what areas in our country might not support a black candidate.

I think America is ready for Obama. No need to put him at the back of the bus.

[Ninja Jordan]

44. You're willing to experiment in '08?

Democrats need to take the WH in '08.

[earthlover]

69. Obama is more than an experiment!

I am not sure what you mean by "experiment". What I would like to see in a candidate is someone who reflects Democratic ideals and can connect with people. Someone who can unite Americans instead of divide. Someone who can show that patriotism is a good thing and is not the same thing as trampeling on the Consitution or looking down on political opponents. Someone who has a human side and is engaging.

From what I see in Obama, I believe he is one of the Democratic hopefuls I believe has a good chance to go all the way. Anyone who can do well in Southern Illinois should not be passed off as an "experiment". Did Kerry or Gore do the same in 00 or 04?

Obama has charisma. He has an engaging smile and an unassuming air. I think his personal qualities transcend race. Charm is a proven vote getter.

We have tried the "experiment" of nominating candidates without charm and charisma......the experiment didn't work. Isn't it about time we had a candidate who has charisma, is intelligent, can think on his feet, and shows a positive view of patriotism? Would also be nice if the candidate opposed the IWR instead of sucking up to the Bushies at the time.

Nominating a Catholic in 1960 was perhaps an "experiment". We need more "experiments" like this with candidates who are winners. It does bother me that someone with the personal qualities of Obama could be passed off on the basis of race even by some in our party....I think it is time we judge a candidate on the basis of his character.

[goclark]

80. Welcome to DU earthlover ~ I like your style

My name is goclark because I supported Wes Clark and I would support him again if he is the nominee.

I would support Obama if he is the nominee and I invite all those that wish to stay positive about his efforts to bring " A New Day To America" to visit the Obama Forum at DU, it is really cool.

Let the best MAN or WOMAN win the nomination of our party and our goal should be to stay positive about our DEMOCRATS involved in the process to throw their hats into the ring.

Happy New Year!

[earthlover]

85. thanks

I was also a supporter of Wes Clark in 04. And he still would be my number one candidate for 08 if/when he decides to run.

[angry_chuck]

81. OBAMA 08!

Great points! We need someone who is not a crony but a real American!

OBAMA 08!

[Sapphire Blue]

82. Excellent posts (this & your previous one)! Welcome to DU, earthlover!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[blm]

117. Care to elaborate how Obama shows more 'character' than Gore or Kerry?

Did Clinton win because he had great 'character' or because he had Dems in the senate and congress pummeling GHWBush for his entire 4yrs in office?

Did Kerry not have great 'character' or did he have the last Dem president spending 4 yrs supporting most of Bush2's policy decisions for 4yrs?

I just think your premise that Obama has character and Gore and Kerry didn't and that is why they lost is full of beans.

I'd say there are plenty of people alive today because Kerry had character few have ever shown. I'd also say that the reason we aren't in our second decade of New World Order is because Kerry uncovered and exposed IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning - issues that too many Democrats in power chose to cover up.

WHILE in office the last two years, why don't you explain how Obama led and persevered on tough issues, even as GOPs tried to shut him down, and then compare it to the first two years of those you denigrate. Include confirmation hearings and the Downing Street Memos.

[earthlover]

119. you misrepresented what I said

I never said Gore or Kerry lacked character. Please don't put words into my mouth.

My only reference to Gore and Kerry was in response to someone and my point was the Obama did well in downstate Illinois, and pondered if Gore or Kerry did. Point being: Obama is not an "experiment", he has proven vote-getting ability, and he has done well in areas that are Republican strong holds, as well as totally dominating Chicago--he is just as legitimate electorally as any Democrat.

My only reference to "character" was a subtle hint/reference to Martin Luther King's famous I have a Dream speech, where he said...."I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". My point being that Obama has good qualities as a candidate, and should be judged on the basis of that, not on the basis of the color of his skin and whether that would be an "experiment" to run being black. In no way did I say anyone lacked character. My point was to judge Obama on the basis of character, not skin color.

Shaking my head....

[blm]

126. Well, the implication is that we haven't judged them on character in the past.

When you say it is 'about time' we do, then what is a person supposed to assume about the past nominees?

I would still be interested in seeing analysis of Obama's sterling character in his two years as a senator and examples of his toughness in opposing Bush and GOP policies.

Didn't the Illinois GOP just throw up a tossaway senate candidate against the Dems in 2004, since the party was mired in corruption problems at the time?

[earthlover]

142. not what I said...again

What I said was, "I think it is time we judge a candidate on the basis of his character". It is not that KErry or anyone else does not have character. But if we are to judge Obama on the basis of his skin color instead of his character...then I do think it is time we judge a candidate on the basis of his character...we do so when a candidate is white, so why don't we do that when a candidate is black? It is not an insult to other candidates to say that we should be consistent in judging candidates on the basis of character, and beings as how some of us have disparaged Obama's candidacy because of his race, the shoe fits.

[jefferson_dem]

67. Well stated!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[goclark]

79. BINGO! Obama will not ride on the back of the bus

and to think that Progressive Democrats would cling to the "he is Black and America isn't ready" theory is fascinating to me.

I wonder why a Progressive Democrat would continue to look backward instead of forward.

Obama will run if HE chooses to and he will win or he will not on his merits as a candidate. Just like ALL candidates do.

I don't care what color he is or what his name is,the name BUSH sends me into a tail spin and that is a good old "American" name.

Seems like the polls right now are telling us that that good ole boy named "BUSH" is not in favor with the American people.

If Rudy G.can run with his "throw your wife out of the Mansion" background and his funny sounding name

If GW could run and "win" with his drunk, stupid, AWOL self

If Joey L. could run with his LIES and coat that turns

If McCain can run after he hugged Bush and nearly kissed him in the mouth

If Kerry can run even though he "lost" the last election

If Gore can run even though he "lost" the last election

If Hillary can run even though she is a "strong willed woman" that happened to marry a President of these United States who had the NERVE to cheat on his wife :sarcasm:

We are not talking about who will WIN, we haven't even said hello to 2007 until this morning.

We are only discussing the CANDIDATES who are brave enough to listen to their OWN PARTY members attempt to destroy them before their hat even touches the ring.

I am now off of my soapbox and may the BEST MAN DEMOCRAT or WOMAN DEMOCRAT win in 2008.

[charlyvi]

110. NJ, I think the places Obama can't win because of his race

are probably the places no Dem can win because of their party. On the other hand, though, there are quite a few African Americans in the South who don't vote (as well as many poor Southerners). If Obama enters the race, they might, and the political world could be quite surprised. That's my hope, at least, should Obama chose to run.

[jefferson_dem]

66. One of the beauties of an Obama candidacy is that there won't be red states or blue states...

only states. 50 state strategy, baby! They will all be in play.

[Imagevision]

93. Barack Obama seems like a sensible breath of fresh air, McCain-types are

just sooo yesterday!!

[still_one]

9. I don't like liberman, and I am not crazy about Edwards either

[PresidentObama]

2. No, Kerry's running.

Or so it would seem. Why would he endorse another candidate?

[Superman Returns]

4. haha

New Years champagne? cause kerry ain't running.

[karynnj]

21. He looks like he's running to me

as Larry O'Donnell said, he is underated and should not be counted out.

Everything he's said looks like he's running.

If he doesn't he may endorse no one or the person he things will be the best President. (Given the nasty little jabs from Elizabeth Edwards - I hope he doesn't endorse him.)

[Mass]

51. Seems he is running, but you may have superior information that you care sharing with us.

[wisteria]

76. I have a good hunch he is. HA, HA,HA !! Go Kerry! n/t

[babylonsister]

3. No way. Kerry might even run against him. Have faith! nt

[still_one]

35. Both Edwards and Kerry voted for the IWR

and even though I believe they should never have given the president what was the duty of Congress, when bush and company failed to abide by the IWR by not going to the UN for a vote before applying force, Congress did NOT hold him accountable for that and other violations.

So even though they both voted for the IWR, it wasn't until at least a year AFTER we invaded Iraq, that they begin to speak up

That is probably the most disappointing aspect of the whole mess

[babylonsister]

36. Whatever. You vote for the best candidate. I know there's thinking on

this board that anyone who voted for the IWR are scum, I don't happen to agree. You come closer to trying to reason it out.
Like I said, whoever is running, vote for who you believe in. That's the best we can all do.

[still_one]

74. It is more than just the IWR, it was also the lack of calling the administration on violating

the terms of the IWR

Believe it or not, even that I could accept in a candidate if they clearly indicated that the power of the IWR should have never been granted to the executive branch, and that they would insure that the seperation of powers was maintained, and they would work to insure that it does not happen again

I have no doubt that this will come up in the dialog among the Democrats running, and all the candidates will have ample opportunity to express their views

After reflection, it is much to early for me to know who I would like to see. I need to hear a lot more from the perspective candidates. We are still 2 years off, and what they do and say will be enlightening

Incidently, those people on the board referring to the congress people as "scum" who voted for the IWR will not necessarily reflect reality. For example, if the republicans put another anti-choice, pro-war, anti-science, anti-social security candidate who wants to continue to provide an atmosphere of encouraging corporations to offshore jobs, I believe most of those people who are calling Edwards on the IWR will have no problem voting for him

[blm]

103. Kerry OFTEN cited Bush not implementing the IWR guidelines and too many on the

left and in the media stuck by their black and white - IWR is a vote for war - mindset, and refused to acknowledge or backup the voices saying Bush rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their job, and without letting diplomatic measures reach their goal which was so close at that point.

Hundreds of times Kerry said Bush didn't have to go to war, and that the IWR guidelines were WORKING to prove military force was not needed. Many times Kerry said the invasion was a war of CHOICE and not necessity.

How did the corpmedia handle those statements, and how many on the left parroted the corpmedia by calling the IWR a 'blank check' as if Bush had guidance in the bill, and how many times was IWR called only a 'vote for war', another black and white meme that benefitted only Bush?

[karynnj]

47. Not true in Kerry's case.

He spoke up BEFORE Bush even went to war. One example was a speech at Georgetown University on January 23, 2003. Shortly after the war started, Kerry speaking against it said that we needed "regime change" at home. There were various interviews in Fall 2002 where Kerry was cautiously optimistic that war could be avoided.

There is a big difference between Kerry and Edwards - Edwards was (per him 2002 and 2003 until at least October FOR the war, thinking that it was necessary. This makes his statements easier now - because the fact that the vote and the war have been conflated doesn't impact him. Kerry was labeled anti-war in early 2003. His position was far more complicated, though it was consistent. He was for war only as a last resort.

[still_one]

73. Why wasn't it brought up in Congress when the administration violated the terms of the IWR?

and frankly during the 2004 campaign I did not hear Kerry calling bush on violating the IWR. I heard him say he was misguided by the administration which was why he voted for the IWR, but never did I hear him critisizing the specific violations that the bush administration did against the IWR

At best Kerry is slow to react, and definitely has trouble thinking on his feet

[karynnj]

86. In 2004, Kerry on a daily basis listed the things Bush

promised but didn't do. Don't you remember that After he said he misled us into war he said:

"without exhausting the diplomacy"
"without building a real international coalition"
"without letting the inspectors finish their work"
""without having a plan to secure the peace"
....

He said these so often that they almost took on a mantra like feeling.

Kerry is extremely quick on his feet, extremely well informed and I seriously doubt you would come out looking much better than Bush in a debate with him. Bush did poorly - but part of his problem was the contrast to Kerry.

It might also be considered appropriate to concede, that I did accurately correct your statement that Kerry didn't speak out until a year after the war started. I gave you two easily found counter examples from a month before the war started and within a month of the invasion. Instead you make new baseless comments.

[still_one]

87. The debates I agree with you on, but there were enough contradictions from Kerry

especially when he was asked at the Grand Canyon during the campaign, if he knew then what he knows now would he still have voted for the IWR, and he said yes. You don't make mistakes like that during a campaign.

Incidently, during those debates Kerry was asked why he voted first against the 87 million for Iraq and then for it, he refused to ask that question, when the answer was very simple

If you think Kerry was a strong candidate when he WOULDN'T EVEN respond to the swift-boat lies for weeks, then you and I are on different pages

Kerry is the king of nuance

You and I will agree to disagree, but in my view Kerry presented himself as an extremely weak candidate, and you can't blame that on just the MSM

[karynnj]

92. All I can say is that he very very easily beat your candidate

The GC thing was explained many times - Kerry, per Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, did not hear the if clause and answered the question as he had a million times. The answer didn't make sense otherwise.

It is also NOT true that he didn't respond to the SBVT for weeks - he did. There is a reseach thread on this.

Kerry had 100 plus pages of naval records on his web site - the fitness reports spanned the entire interval of his 2 tours of duty. They were unifrmly excellent and many were written by the liars. Kerry also needed and got a higher security clearance for the Brooklyn job - obviously his line of supervision at the end of his time in Vietnam had to attest to his character.

Also consider that the media treated Tour of Duty, written by a historian who spoke to over 100 people involved with the swiftboats, as a "campaign book". It is clear that Brinkley clearly had a very high opinion of Kerry, but this was an objective account over which Kerry had NO editorial control.

Consider that before August, the media had:
- The above mentioned naval records
- A Nixon tape that shows they investigated him in 1971, when all of this was fresh, and to their dismay found he was a war hero and squeaky clean.
Their response was to issue an order to "destroy" him.
- A well researched account by a reputable historian who, in fact, interviewed many of these guys before Kerry was known to be running. The information given then about their experiences in that time - not specifically about Kerry - are far more likely to be truth.
- All but one of the men who reported to Kerry had spoken to the press and had nothing but extreme praise for their former skipper.

Now - consider Carville's war room. There claim to fame was they got a response to any charge out in the new cycle. But, many failed to answer or refute the charges. So, there was a week of Gennefer Flowers etc. After Clinton won, this was glorified - but reading newspapers of that time period doesn't show the precision response that people now refer to.

There was a major difference as well - there was NO truth to the SBVT lies and the media DID have the proof needed.

[still_one]

99. I am not sure what you are referring to by saying he very easily beat "MY" candidate

Kerry was "MY" candidate in 2004, and if you read my response I SAID I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE DEBATES

I appreciate your responses, and I could continue this dialog with you, because there are many points in your response that I disagree, but I believe it is a moot point, since I do not believe that Kerry will even run in 2008

[karynnj]

105. I apologize for assuming that you likely supported Dean in the primaries

based on what I also assumed was your view of the IWR. Both assumptions - were just that assumptions. Given that I don't know you that was presumptuous and stupid. I'm sorry.

I do think there is a better than 50/50 chance Kerry is running. What is clear by the "Hey John" attack and the fact that as many official Democrats knifed him in the back as he fought to deal with the contrived Joke is that TPTB in the Democratic party were willing to risk having the party hurt in 2006 before the election to hurt John Kerry. (The "heyjohn" thing was the worst as it was unambiguous - they repaid Kerry's 2 year effort to help others, like Dean, rebuild the party by stabbing him in the back.)

It may be moves like this that MAKE Kerry run and I assume that he is disgusted by it. If he does - it will be Kerry the activist running.

[still_one]

124. no need to appologize, unless of course you thought bush was my candidate, LOL

I was extremely frustrated by the poor campaign he ran, and yes, the media did NOT help him

No, I was not thrilled by his IWR vote either. I am from California, so I think Dean dropped out of the primaries by that time, but I voted for Kerry in the primaries because I thought he had the best chance of winning out of the other Democratic candidates at the time

One thing for sure, whoever the Democrats choose, the stakes are even higher in 2008, because it is almost a sure thing that there will be a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and things we have taken for granted could be changed for a very long time

Incidently, I think the dialog that is occurring on DU about potential and declared candidates is excellent because it is a way to inform and educate each other on the candidates positions

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I don't think Kerry will endorse anyone but himself...

[PresidentObama]

7. Superman Returns....

Since when can you read Kerry's thoughts?

It's pretty logical to observe he wants to run. He'll run if he decides he wants to, but at this point...I'd count him in.

So no need to endorse Edwards.

[JI7]

8. if Edwards wins the nomination

otherwise he will either run himself or not endorse anyone in the Primary.

[Superman Returns]

13. seriously,

Kerry is not running.

[PresidentObama]

14. Seriously, how do you know?

Has Kerry announced? No.

Until then, you can't say he will or he won't.

He's seriously looking at it, and it's obvious he's been gearing for a run for years now. If he doesn't run, he doesn't run. But your opinion on whether he will run is an opinion. Not fact. He may or may not run. It remains to be seen.

Either way, he's a great man and wonderful leader!

[Superman Returns]

15. right now,

Al Gore has more of a chance running then Kerry. Not only has Kerry not made the motions but he is never mentioned as a candidate and never shows up with a significant percentage in the Iowa, NH, or Nevada polls. Edwards has.

[karynnj]

26. You have officially had too much to drink

Gore has said he doesn't contemplate running. Kerry has come pretty close to saying he is running. Kerry has people committed to helping with his run - if he runs. Gore has yet (to my knowledge) sought a team. Kerry has money and Gore has yet to set up a PAC to raise money.

Kerry has in some national polls been in the same range as Edwards. Edwards has spend enormous amounts of time in those states. the primaries are over a year away - Kerry only had 5 % in a Dec 2003 poll.

Kerry has been ignored only in the last month or two - and he is very likely to recoup any loss from the joke nonsense.

[babylonsister]

59. karynnj...

:spray: :rofl: Happy New Year to everyone!

[PresidentObama]

16. Kerry hasn't made the motions?

Have you even followed Kerry in the past few years? AT ALL.

Polls mean nothing. Especially this early on. Like how Obama changed the game when his name jumped into the media hype debate. It all changed within a MONTH. Do you remember when Kerry was behind Dean by double digits? Did he care then? No. He fought. Does he care now? No. He'll fight again this time.

Again, I'm glad you can read Kerry's thoughts and make decisions for Senator Kerry before he even makes them for himself.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

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

[BeatleBoot]

17. Who Cares? Any republican Who Runs is Going To Get their Ass Kicked

Mitt, Rudy, Mickey, you can list any of the little Nazi nit wits.

Any one of them is going down.

The Republican party is toast.

French Toast.

[leo8888]

75. never underestimate your enemy

This is a golden rule!

No matter how the Bush administration can screw up, a viable Democrat must be running to defeat the Republicans.

In politics, it is never over until it is over. If a Democrat with baggages run for office, the Republicans will be after him like a pack of wolves. They'll expose all of his flaws and invent new ones.

The candidate must be as good and untainted as he (she)can be.

[Mind_your_head]

18. Doesn't it make sense now why Gore bypassed Lieberman?

I hope Al Gore runs now....*I'm ready for him now* The nation is ready for him now and I believe he's ready for the challenge now as well (which is HUGE).

Peace,
M_Y_H

[PresidentObama]

20. I second that.

Kerry's my candidate, but I hope and wish Gore runs. We need more candidates like Gore to spice up this campaign, and make it interesting.

[politicasista]

22. And Gore and Kerry have every right to run if they want to n/t

[PresidentObama]

23. They sure do.

They both won, and were cheated.

Both are talented, wonderful leaders. Experienced, tested leadership.

I embrace both in the race for the WH with open arms!

[Mind_your_head]

30. I'm sort of trusting that....."cheat me once....won't get cheated again"

Al Gore & John Kerry.....hope your *ducks* would be lined up in this regard, that SHOULD you run again (or any other worthy candidate....that THIS would never happen again!!!!

NEVER! EVER!!!!

Peace,
M_Y-H

[Superman Returns]

25. Gore might,

Kerry won't. Take it to the bank. What I'm trying to find out, is his kinship with Edwards. Would he put loyalty over the strategic support of frontrunners such as Clinton or Obama?

[PresidentObama]

27. You think Gore might, but Kerry won't?

Are you serious?

Have you seen Kerry on any television show in any interview segment?

Any time any interviewer questions him about 2008, he seems interested and talks about it in an open way.

Why would you count Kerry out of this race? Because you don't want him to run? Well I'm sorry, but opinion doesn't overshadow fact.

[Superman Returns]

28. well, how do you know Kerry is running?

[PresidentObama]

29. I don't.

But he talks like a candidate, act like a candidate, and shows a lot of interest.

[Superman Returns]

31. are you Kerry's stepson?

because I remember he posted here before. Not an insult or anything, just wondering.

[politicasista]

32. He hasn't posted here since late 2004-2005 n/t

[politicasista]

19. I am looking forward to a Democratic Congress

I refuse to bash other Democratic, let alone a former presidential nominee just to promote a former VP nominee or any 08 candidate.

Any candidate/nominee will be smeared (and swiftboated) by the media and the GOP. If you don't think that, then you are in for a rude awakening.

[stranger]

33. kerry would get swiftboated again

I wouldnt bash any democrat either. I voted for Gore and Kerry.
I can't divine the intentions of either. But I hope Gore runs
because I think he can defeat any republican-insufferable personality
nothwithstanding.

I hope Kerry will not run. He will get swiftboated again.
I fear he's now damaged goods-regrettably.

I agree that he's a wonderful man, and highly qualified.
But, he doesnt know how to avoid gaffs. He's also too intellectual to
communicate with cornpone voters. Not electable.

But, Gore ont eh other hand actually knows how to dumb down his message.
He now needs to learn how to make
reporters like him-like "w" did by giving them all the little vermin "nicknames"
thus making them feel good about him.

[babylonsister]

37. How do you know that? Where does your knowledge come from,

because I wish you'd share!
And it's a sad day in America when someone is too 'intellectual' to be hired for president. Aren't we all just sick of the clown we have who is such a dumb-wit/non-intelluctual? Give me smarts anytime!

[stranger]

46. Kerry is damaged goods

"Patriotism" will become the issue if Kerry is nominated. The repubs will see to that.

and the media whores will help them-because they love controversy, emotional subjects and dirty campaigns-because it drives ratings through the roof-

And post 9-11, you cant win if you appear to be less hawkish than the other candidate.

Voters, esp in red states, are extreemely stupid and highly emotional.

And, oh yes, they CAN be fooled repeatedly on the same stupid
issues like patriotism, and national security, partial birth abortion, draconian anti-crime proposals-year after year after flippin year.

Americans will always support an idiot,or a demagogue if they think he is "patriotic" and loves God.

And that will never change. Even today, after all the ruin that bush has wreaked on our country, 1/3 of all voting americans still support this dolt. And many of those who now "disapprove" of his job performance do so only because the RESULTS in Iraq are bad.

If Bush could somehow quickly and painlessly crush the insurgency in Iraq with few fatalities , his poll numbers would climb back to near 60% job approval.

The voters who voted for him last time (over 50% btw) don't question Bush's despicable values-they are just fed up because the war is going badly and they think he's too stubborn to change stategy.

Plus, the talk radio fools have convinced them he has "abandoned comservative principles" by being soft on immigrant bashing, and spending too much $$ on prescription drug benefits for seniors.
(but they wouldnt have minded the 6 trillon wasted on the war-IF it had been a quick military success. They absolutley have NOT rejected bush's shallow religious values and imperialist mentality.

So, for the dems to win in 2008, they have to give up on fighting the repubs on stupid wedge issues like gun control; (as Tester did to win in Montana) The dem nominee must also oppose gay marriage; oppose partial birth abortion; and support school prayer-remember it would have to ratified by 3/4 of the states anyway-which would never happen. So, why fight the repubs on that and alienate needed voters?

Then, once the dem candidate convinces the red state voters he/she can be trusted on those emotional wedge issues, he/she can propose to spend tax money on social programs for the poor and disadvantges, healthcare, protection of the environment, descalate the war, etc.

The public is with the dems on those issues-but they would never vote for those issues at the expense of the god, gays, and guns,and "patriot" issues.

As for Kerry, he would most definitely be successfully swiftboated again.
You may remember that the dems had to hide him in the attic like a funny uncle after that statement during the recent congressional campaign to the effect that "if you dont get a good education, you might get stuck in Iraq."

That innocent but not well thought out statement almost cost us control of the congress!

John Kerry is a decent and hopelessly impractical, and politcally unsavy man, who has demonstrated over and over that he can't see around corners-that's why he sat like a bump on a log waiting to be swiftboated.

When the easily predictable swiftboat ads ran, Kerry was paralyzed in disbelief and inaction for two weeks while his numbers plummeted, and his goose cooked.

How could he possibly not have seen that coming and been ready??????????????????????? Doh!

Bottomline: he is accident prone, gaffe prone and snakebit.

And trust me, if nominated, Kerry will make yet another easily "misunderstood"
ill considered statement, during the heat of the campaign. And once again the repubs will deliberately "misunderstand"- and the press will be off and running-because they LOVE controversy and emotional "issues", and dirty campaigns.

Does that answer your question?

Happy new Year!

[karynnj]

48. Kerry is not gaffe prone and he IS a patriot

There is no one who has been out in public as often as Kerry who has not made as many or more comments - that when distorted - are embarrassing.

You miss what really happened in 2006. Kerry was the person who spoke out on Iraq. The centrists in the Democratic party thought it was politicly better for the Democrats to stay silent on Iraq so the issue would be corruption. Kerry's position was that it was immoral NOT to try to get the policy changed in Iraq when people, including him, were convinced soldiers were dying for a plan that would not work. (Remember the same leaders also didn't want to fight Alito - with his record of being behind the idea of a unitary President - because it changed the subject from corruption. - Kerry was right morally on both issues.)

In fall 2006, Iraq was the big issue and it did help that the Democrats were on record as having a position that differed with the Republicans. (The Levin amandment would not have happened if there was no Kerry/Feingold amendment.) Kerry was the strong voice out there in fall 2006. He also was hitting back when many of the vets running for the first time were swiftboated - in at least some cases making the difference between winning and losing. It is no wonder the Republicans aimed an attack on him.

The error of skipping one word (or a whole line) happens when people give a large number of speeches. The gaffe was so slight that 2 people from this board who were there did not even mention it in the comments on the rally they posted. It also lierally didn't say what several RW sources all simultaneously accused it of saying. The media had the prepared text - with the joke in it - before the speech was given. This was nothing but swiftboating as even Pat Buchanan said.

My guess is that even if Kerry would have said "us", there would have been some sentence somewhere when he has spoken of Iraq thet they would have twisted. The story in fact was dying when it expanded after Hillary and Schumer spoke. They are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. Hillary, who had just defended and praised her husband's ill mannered rage against Wallace was a complete hypocrite saying that Kerry's comments were "inappropriate".)

[babylonsister]

56. OK, gotcha. It's your 'personal' opinion. And I'm sure you have

no agenda here other than to slam good Dems. :eyes:

As for the 'trust me' line, I'll pass.

[Old and In the Way]

40. I think the swift boat is a one act play...it got played out.

Really, I have no fears about Kerry getting swiftboated by the RNC or any of their front boats....they were barely successful last time. But every Democratic candidate is a relative unknown with how the media and the RNC Corporate media will play their candidacy in the general election. You can bet there will be a custom tailored smear campaign for any candidate we run. Kerry may not win in the primaries, it depends on the Democratic voters preferences this cycle and frankly no one really knows how the candidates will play out in 2008...it's too soon to know. But I am not worried about how Kerry will deal with that issue...he tried the high road last time, mainly because the Republican Party had not yet collapsed with the American voter and he would have had to deal with their majorities in Congress....the dynamics are completely changed and Kerry won't be nearly as constrained by their attempts to assassinate his character,

[zulchzulu]

42. The Swiftboaters have been utterly discredited and debunked

They have NO ammo at this point. The only people who would even dare have losers like the Swiftboaters on will have their credentials as journalists seriously questioned.

[Jai4WKC08]

77. I really wish that were true

Unfortunately, their damage was done with the first ads they ran and, for the most part, it can't be undone.

Most people (and by "most" I mean WAY over a simple majority -- all but a very very few) have not heard and will never realize that the Swiftboaters are proven liars. And of those who do hear, most won't change their minds. People always tend to believe the first information they hear, even when faced with incontrovertivble facts to the contrary. And of the few who are able to assimilate the new data, most are still affected enough by the old to think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's human psychology, it why smear politics work so well, and why the GOP invests so much in perfecting the tactic.

[blm]

100. Creating a lie to attack a Dem didn't start and won't stop with Kerry. In fact, it PROVES

that the GOPs have nothing in Kerry's background to attack him with, so they created a lie. A lie that his records have full disproved and that no mainstream media can possible revisit with any sense of credibility.

Besides, a large group of vets are writing their own book about the how and why of the swiftliars, and how furious they are that the corpmedia chose to ignore them and the truth.

[ray of light]

120. Facts... Gore was known far and wide as the LIAR...the man who

'invented the internet'. The man who couldn't tell the truth any better than pinochio. The man who was a extremest tree hugger.

I'm not saying this because I don't support Gore. I'm saying it as prooof that it's idiotic to claim that only ONE candidate will get swiftboated when Gore, Kerry, Sestak, Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy, Webb and many others continuously get switfboated.

[Old and In the Way]

38. Sure!

If Edwards beats him in the primaries.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Not if he's running

Or do you mean if he loses in the primaries, will he endorse Edwards? Won't be that easy. I could see him endorsing Clark. It would really depend on who's running.

[zulchzulu]

41. Why would Kerry endorse Edwards while he is beating him in the primaries?

It doesn't make any sense. Kerry would respect Edwards as a candudate...but endorsing him while he's beating him just makes no sense at all.

I mean, what would Kerry say? "I like Mr. Edwards' thin resume and a record as someone not that experienced in foreign policy..."

:shrug:

Hey, you asked a stupid question...

[cali]

43. Whether Kerry endorses Edwards or not (and I couldn't care

less), it's highly doubtful that Senator Kerry can beat Edwards in a primary. Polls show a clear lack of support for Senator Kerry. Should Senator Kerry enter the race, I think his chances of besting Edwards are slim.

[karynnj]

49. This is a year out

Kerry WAS polling slightly ahead of Edwards in October. As Kerry had very little help from the media and both Edwards were doing puff pieces in September/October, this was not good for Edwards.

Edwards has had positive press and little real tough evaluation of his record.

Edwards has the opposite problem from Kerry. The media wants to like Edwards, but he has very little record being who he says he is. He is now saying he is a grassroots activist. But, 3 million people should have a clear idea of who actually was leading those who wanted to follow since the dark days on Nov 2004. The same person who was an activist on the war, on the environment and on registering young people to vote in the 70s. The same person who in re-introducing his and Wellstone's Clean Election bill credited activists speaking out and being heard as what corrected the government when it was wrong.

When you look at what Edwards is running on, Kerry was there decades before him on most issues. Kerry, by being Kerry and being the person who is more often right, will counter the smear that his own party helped the RW with this time.

[cali]

53. I have a lot of admiration, respect and fondness

for Senator Kerry, but in my opinion, he's done in the Presidential arena. I realize that's difficult for hardcore supporters of Kerry's to accept.

[Mass]

54. We all have our opinions.

In my opinion, the odds are small, but not inexistant. I also think the odds are small for Edwards. The fact that the media had little to report this week explains why his candidacy got that much interest. But his interview on This Week shows how he needs to be more substantial.

[cali]

55. What???

"The fact that the media had little to report this week explains why his candidacy got that much interest."

That's a statement that's so out of touch with reality, it's astonishing. Let's see, what happened this week? Oh, that's right, President Ford died, we reached the 3,000 number of troops killed in Iraq, and they executed what's his name.

Slow news week; yeah, right.

[Ninja Jordan]

88. Kerry will have an uphill battle in '08.

This has been a pretty bad year for him with the botched joke etc.

[karynnj]

133. You ignore that on all the substanitive things, it was a great year

He lead on Iraq - isn't that more important than the joke. In fact, it was because he was leading on Iraq that he was attacked. The comment, said by anyone else, would have slipped by. It was only the RW editorializing that a Democratic opponent opted to accept that may it bad. (By the way, Kerry's response is one of the videos on johnkerry.com - you saw B. Clinton's rage against Wallace - watch the Kerry video and tell me that Hillary was justified in saying those comments were inappropriate while her husband's were "teaching the Democrats to right back."

Kerry also led on Alito. Kerry also helped many candidates, especially military vets run for seats that the DCCC didn't sponsor anyone for initially - just as Dean and Clark did. He also became the defender of these vets - think about that. Kerry, who was always a statesman and who was the last nominee for President was the attack dog for Congressman - such as Patrick Murphy.

[lynne]

45. Kerry won't endorse Edwards - Yet -

as it appears that Kerry is still considering running. However, Kerry has a snowball's chance in hell of actually receiving the nomination. I feel that Kerry will back Edwards but not until such time as Kerry is out of the running.

[Mass]

50. Why should he?

[karynnj]

52. Really good question

In fact the parallel to the 2000 candidates is NOT should Kerry endorse Edwards, but should Edwards endorse Kerry, the man who gave him the chance to be Vice President. Without that, Edwards would be another ex-Senator also ran.

In reality, I do NOT think Edwards show endorse Kerry because he has every right to run himself. Would that the Edwards people gave Kerry the same pass.

[k_jerome]

57. i would most definitely NOT want Kerrys endorsement. nt.

[karynnj]

60. I would not want him to endorse you

I sincerely hopes he runs anmd wins - he is the best person and the most experisnced leader running.

His endorsements included in his requests for money were excellent - explaining very concisely why each person deserved to be sent money. One measure of how much those endorsements worked is the amount of money they brought in. There were many easy ways to get money to a candidate, so it means something that people opted to give based on his words.

If you read many comments, there are two groups of people who could be moved by a Kerry endorsement. Kerry supporters, who would be relooking at other candidates - as he obviously would not endorse someone unless he wasn't running and many people in a second group, who say they respect him for his character, intelligence and actions - but don't think he can win. Together these are not a small part of the party.

I personally know people who changed their support from Miller to Webb after reading Kerry's endorsement.

[k_jerome]

63. i predict some well-timed wisdom on his part...

and him sitting it out. even his former running mate is MUCH stronger a candidate than he is.

[blm]

107. The series of debates will sort any of our assumptions at this point, won't they?

And I am sure the strongest candidate will become evident for the many Dem voters who make their decision as the debates continue.

[PresidentObama]

61. I would NOT want Hillarys endorsement.

[k_jerome]

64. i think you will get your wish. nt.

[blm]

101. The coverup wing of the party really DOES want the anti-corruption, open government wing

to shut up and go away.

And it REALLY bothers them that Kerry racked up 60-65 million votes when the best they ever did was mid40s.

But Kerry ISN'T going away, and those of us who BELIEVE in open government don't want him to - unlike those who thrive on secrecy and privilege and who have complete disregard for TRUTH.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[dailykoff]

58. Ha, ha. So Edwards is dusting off his anti-Kerry routine.

I doubt if it will get him as far as it did in '04.

[karynnj]

62. It's odd because in some ways he's copying Kerry

Kerry is the candidate who has consistently been supportive of grassroots activism. It was Kerry who in late November 2004 send out letters and emails thanking people for what they did and asking them to stay involved. This was followed up with ways people could do this. I know this had in an impact that supplemented the huge effort done by Howard Dean.

Kerry in April 2005 was explaining to people how grassroots efforts can make change. He spoke of the environmental movement of the early 70s, where the LCV targeted 12 Congress people as a "dirty dozen" and asked people to vote them out of office - and 7 of them were defeated. This then led to all the good environmental legislation.

Activism is not new to Kerry - he spoke in 1970 at the first Earth Day in Boston. He was most famous speaking to the Senate against the war. He alo worked with noted civil rights and anti-war activist, Allard Lowenstein to persuade young people to register to vote in the 70s. Frank Lowenstein, his son works for Kerry now and says just as Kerry was inspired to be an activistist by his father, he is inspired by Kerry.

Even as a sitting Senator, Kerry has been someone well aware of both the power and, more importantly, the value to democracy of grassroots. In 1997, Kerry re-introduced the Clean Elections bill he wrote and sponsored with Wellstone. Kerry concern was that money needed for expensive campaigns could drive out the voices of ordinary people. In that speech he spoke of how whenever the government had gone in the wrong direction, it was the people who spoke out how made it right.

Although there are of course other candidates, if people are looking for a grassroots activist they will see who the "Real Deal" is. They have a choice of a person who was socially and politicaly involved since high school and has spent the vast majoriity of his life in public service or a man who did little politicly other than vote until he was in his late 40s and who seems to have become an activist maybe 2 years ago.

[PresidentObama]

65. I like Edwards.

I consider him a serious contender, and he's a great candidate to have in the race. But if you want to talk leadership abilities, and experience he hasn't walked in the big shoes John Kerry has.

I fail to see why people are counting Kerry out. Most of the people who do have personal agendas for their own candidates, like this k_jerome person who every thread is trying to immortalize Hillary Clinton and beat down any candidate who eyes Hillary's throne. And the "he's not even a factor in the polls" arguement is funny. Because we have a year till those polls matter, and look how much those polls changed just with in a month when the media started over hyping Barack Obama's 'possible' run for the WH.

Even if you think Kerry isn't the right man for the job, it's too early to count him out.

[Sparkly]

68. Kerry on Gore's endorsement of Dean

Saying he respected Gore and fought for his campaign four years ago, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "This election is about the future, not about the past."

"This election will be decided by voters, across the country, beginning with voters in Iowa," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

If Kerry doesn't run again, I don't think he'll make an early endorsement of anyone.

[cadmium]

70. You can count on Kerry endorsing the Democratic nominee and

working hard for them unlike Liebermann. Myself I hope the nominee is Kerry himself but if not you know he will work for them.

[TayTay]

71. If Edwards won the nomination, he would

Sen. Kerry would endorse any Democrat who got the nomination. He has been a Democrat all his life and believes in the process that has the people select and choose the nominee of the Democratic Party.

He may also choose to run for President. Would former Sen. Edwards endorse him?

[against all enemies]

72. For the good of the party I hope he endorses some one other than himself.

He's a good man and a good Democrat, he is just not a good Presidential candidate. He couldn't defeat the worst President ever, time for some one else.

[wisteria]

78. Kerry will make the best President! No caparison with any others.

His qualifications alone place him above everyone else who is running. Being a good man and a good Democrat is icing on the cake Frankly, we can't do any better that Kerry. Everyone else is just second best. Oh, and he doesn't have to endorse himself, Senator Kennedy will do that.

[against all enemies]

84. Kerry can't win the primaries, never mind the general election.

He should do every one a favor, especially Kennedy and the Mass reps, and let them go now. Let them go out and endorse a candidate of their own, for the good of the party and the good of the country. Sorry, Kerry has had his shot, he missed. Now is the time for some one else.

[dailykoff]

89. Exactly what everybody said in '03.

and '04. Back then I more or less believed them. This year I don't.

[wisteria]

90. Says who? You? Kerry has more to offer this time than last

time out. And, he offers a direction that our country desperately needs to take. A little good PR, his dedicated supporters hitting the streets, all the important information that did not make it out last time, and the wonderful Senator Kerry outshining everyone else with this experience and vast knowledge of the issues that matter and debating skills and you are going to see him changing peoples minds.

[zulchzulu]

91. Kerry in December 2003: When will he drop out?

Those were the stories. Read up.

The primary season is a freakin' year away. A month is eternity politically. Multiply that by 12. You get the picture.

[Superman Returns]

95. Kerry is everything we don't need

its time to move beyond the classical liberal elite from New England. I'm not talking DLC thirdway politics. I'm talking about either a populist, blue collar, midwestern appeal of candidates like Edwards, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown or Kathleen Selebius or a multi-racial, charismatic, youthful, optimistic message of Barak Obama. I believe there are many independents, moderates, and traditional conservative that we can win over with a new message.

God Bless Kerry. but I don't think he is running.

[dailykoff]

96. Why don't you buy a TV

and get really involved with daytime drama stars? That might satisfy your desire for appealing new faces.

Personally, I'm not looking for a president with a dazzling smile or a down-home drawl.

[Superman Returns]

97. well,

I guess you should kiss the legacy of JFK, Bobby, and Clinton goodbye if charisma, image, and message have no place in politics. Home down-drawl? I'm from New Jersey, originally Brooklyn. I hate the proclaimed superiority of "heartland" America over the northeast. But I know that we have candidates that can transcend traditional political boundaries and end this culture war, red/blue divide crap. Edwards, Obama, Selebius, Webb, Brown, are among the new class that has the ability to do this; truly 21st century politicians. Kerry and Hillary don't. We need to get back Reagan Democrats, traditional conservatives, workers, and middle class voters that agree with us on the failure of Iraq and the dangers of globalization without fair trade. We need candidates who can embrace a message of optimism with an understanding of faith and morality and a political outlook of progressive populism and pragmatism.

[dailykoff]

104. They didn't do it '04, did they?

Hillary (wisely) bailed, Edwards won a single primary and lost his home state in the general, the others weren't on the radar, and frankly I have no idea whether they are stay-the-course centrists or not, though I suspect most are -- Edwards sponsored the IWR and Obama's occasional noises sound pretty stay-the-course to me.

[zulchzulu]

98. Using lack of experience as a party platform is um...

Why even answer to that. Live in your World. Do what you want. Support your candidate.

BTW, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown and Kathleen Selebius are not running. I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't either... what...ever.....

[blm]

102. Kerry is EVERYTHING this country REALLY NEEDS - Anti-corruption, open government

Democrats are too few - and Kerry happens to be the top dog of that wing of the party.

COVERUP Democrats are plentiful, and exactly what this country DOESN'T NEED.

America didn't need it in 1993 and we REALLY don't need it now for 2008.

NO MORE SCRECY AND PRIVILEGE Democrats from the Coverup wing of the party.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[talk hard]

121. except he NEVER talks about that

So thank God you are here to toot his horn about something he never mentioned when had an open mic during his campaign and during the debates -- otherwise we would never know ((sarcasm))

Kerry is exactly what we DON'T need -- an ineffective fancy lad

[blm]

127. Clinton's coverup DNC team was in place during that campaign. No backup.

Sad that Clinton could get backup from all the Dem establishment and spokespeople for dropping his pants, but we couldn't get any Dem spokespeople who would backup Kerry on BCCI. Shrum even admitted they wouldn't go there.

Kerry needs the oval office to get those documents in hand to PROVE what he knows to be true.

Fany? I would bet my house that if you and your family were stuck in a foxhole under gunfire that you would prefer to have John Kerry in that foxhole with you than a Bush or a Clinton or most any other DC lawmaker.

[talk hard]

134. you keeping saying that & it's still a lame excuse

all you do is blame others for Kerry's shortcomings -- he was a terrible candidate. Doesn't matter if he would make a good president (anybody's better than Bush) -- In 2004 it was ABB plus he didn't fight for the vote like he promised. He proved hes a bad candidate again showing us his terrible political timing recently. No thanx. And, ya, I'd rather have somebody else in that fox hole.

[blm]

135. That speaks to YOUR judgement. Clintons/Bushes would dump you and your family

to save their own necks in a millisecond. Same with those DC lawmakers who cling to those icons as their heroes.

Few in DC would risk their spilled blood to save you and your family. Kerry is one of them.

[talk hard]

138. and that is YOUR opinion

& you've shown complete bias and ZERO objectivity as far as Kerry is concrened. He's shown he votes his political ass first. Keep spinning!!

[blm]

139. If he cared about his political ass he would've helped cover up IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning

just as some Democrats did to get ahead.

Real history can be interesting - you should try the National Security Archives some time - there are many facts about this nation's actual governance and important records that can be found there.

[talk hard]

140. being snotty doesnt' prove your point --

you obvoiusly have no clue of REALITY and cling to ancient history, ya, we all have access to the news and history, the REAL news and history -- ha-ha-ha -- and that doesn't prove your theory about Kerry. He's ain't all that. But keep spinning! It's fun to watch.

[blm]

141. No spin necessary when you have so few anti-corruption, open government heroes.

Coverup Democrats always attack and spin against the anti-corruption leaders, and your constant attacks are nothing new.

[MH1]

106. Your post demonstrates that you have NO clue about Kerry's record. n/t

[talk hard]

122. and your exagerated claims about it aren't valid either

[blm]

118. The most protected president in history who had the last Dem president publically supporting

him on his major policy decisions throughout his four years in office.

Note the MANY Democrats who chose to NOT run in 2004 who are now opposing Bush policies in ways they would NEVER do from 2001 thru 2005.

[Clarkie1]

83. Does it matter? nt

[FrenchieCat]

94. Why ask such a question when we don't know yet who will be running?

4 candidates have announced, of which certainly John Edwards is the most "popular"...... for now.

This OP subject is "out of line" far as I can tell!

[MaineDem]

108. Of course he will - if Edwards wins the nomination

Another "bash Kerry" thread. :eyes:

[PresidentObama]

109. Yes, yet another "Bash Kerry" thread.

Don't they get old? People with their own little agendas bashing a good man because he may or may not run for President.

Of course Kerry would endorse Edwards if he won the nomination, and vice versa.

[zulchzulu]

111. Yep...it was meant to be that...

It's obvious that Kerry would endorse Edwards in the unlikely (imho) chance that he is the nominee. The "Will..." part was meant as a childish stint that Kerry "already lost" or whatever... it was in poor taste.

[PresidentObama]

112. Absolutely. It was very poor taste.

You can't count Kerry out, thats unfair and not right. Kerry has just as much chance if not more of a chance to gain the nomination then Edwards does.

And the original poster saying Kerry isn't running just shows the truth behind this thread, because I have seen no indication that Kerry isn't running. He seems more then interested.

[wisteria]

113. OMG, by no means count out Kerry. He is in IMO, until I hear otherwise from him.

As for the wishful thinkers and the doomsayers, I would suggest we all just ignore them. They know absolutely nothing!

As for this thread and the original post, it was done to remind DU's of the name Edwards once again.
Frankly, they risk overkill in doing this. People may just start to ignore their posts on Edwards unless they try to mention it with someone who garners a lot of attention at DU. Oh, wait, I think they just did this. Wow, already having to resort to tricks to grab people's attention.

[Superman Returns]

116. That was not my point for this thread

just simply was asking a question.

[PresidentObama]

123. What question?

Your question was asking if Kerry was endorsing Edwards? Which was to say, in your mind, that Kerry was to be counted out or that he isn't running. And you've already said you thought he wasn't running, but thats your opinion. So obviously you were counting Kerry out, which was unfair. Because you don't know this early on if Kerry has a chance. You don't even know if he's running or not, though the indication is he most likely is running.

[Superman Returns]

125. lets be honest

is there anyone who thinks Kerry has a legitimate chance to win the nomination?

[wisteria]

128. Honestly, yes, I think Kerry's chances are better this time.

It is a wide open race. I also think his entry into it raise the bar at least two notches. Other candidates will be forced to really debate and know their stuff.
Now, let me turn the question around a bit, lets be honest, do you really think Edward's has a chance? I see nothing new this time around. It is the same old Edwards with the same old promises.
I think this country needs someone who really knows what is going on and is willing to tackle the problems. Someone who has already been vetted and can take the heat.Someone in it for something other than themselves. Frankly, I don't think Edwards is that guy. And, as much as I liked Mrs. Edwards last time out, I am really having second thoughts about her.

So, yes, I think Kerry can buck the conventional wisdom and pull one out. So do many of his other supporters. I always have people tell me that they would vote for Kerry again.

[karynnj]

131. The other thing is that - this is likely to be a much easier race

for the Democrat. There are accounts that the reason Hillary didn't enter the race last time was that in 2003 when the decision needed to be made, Bush was not going to be easy to beat.

Now, the Democrats have the edge on issues they were at a disadvantage with last time - as long as the candidate can be credible on national security and foreign policy.

Additionally, there is a Democratic governor in Ohio. I seriously thing that had Blackwell not played the role of K. Harris, Kerry would have won in 2004.

As whoever wins the Democratic nomination has a great shot at winning, why not pick a man who was right on almost everything in 2004 and who has shown himself to be a man of proven integrity and has been an outstanding public servant.

[wisteria]

137. All very good points. I agree with them all. n/t

[PresidentObama]

129. I have lists and lists of people who do.

Involved with my old website, hell I even know a dozen or few local people who will support Kerry in 08' and from a petition I have here online. All in all, my website and my petition gave me a chance to talk to or hear from thousands (yes, in the thousands) of people who thought Kerry had a chance in 2008.

If you count Kerry out, your crazy. Especially this early on when things will change so much in a year. Wasn't in 2003 before 2004 when people were saying Kerry had no chance? Welcome to deja vu!

[TheDonkey]

114. If Kerry doesn't run, I wouldn't count on him endorsing Edwards

but too eary to tell

[PresidentObama]

115. I don't think Kerry would endorse Edwards

Unless he won the nomination. Thats if Kerry doesn't run.

Every indication is Kerry will run. And I would definitely give more of an edge to Kerry over Edwards when that happens. And a lot of you are probably laughing at that, but honestly I don't listen to polls this far out. Especially when you consider how long one week is in politics, let alone a month, let alone 12 months. Look how much the poll numbers changed when Obama was picking up steam with the media hype? That was with in a month! One month.

Kerry has experience, and proven leadership. He's very much Presidential, and credible. I think he will give Edwards and Hillary a run for their money.

[Adelante]

130. What's your point, Superman Returns?

To imply Kerry doesn't have a chance against Edwards in a primary? Or is it to compel a rumor that Kerry will not run himself. Either way, this is pretty rude.

[PresidentObama]

132. Of course it's rude.

And it's uncalled for to count Kerry out, and to imply he isn't running. Especially when every indication I've seen is Kerry is running!

[wisteria]

136. Thank you, you are correct-rude and I'll add uncalled for. n/t