I predict Kerry won't run due to Hillary

[jcrew2001]

I predict now that Hillary has announced, Kerry won't run. I'm not sure how much success he'll have in fending off Hillary, even if he does have 15 million. Her goal is 75 million and I don't think kerry will get that. They're both Northeast senators and I think many of kerry's donors will jump to Hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Geeze...according to you, Edwards is gonna win,

so Kerry might as well run. It will remind folks why they picked Kerry over Edwards the last time. I kind of like that!

[jcrew2001]

8. edwards

i've said i like edwards, besides clark hasn't announced, so i dont get what the big deal is about clark. its kinda like believing in the tooth fairy, but clark very well may not come and will just dissapoint all of you.

[FrenchieCat]

15. It is very hard to disappoint me......cause as a realist, I will take them as they come....

I don't know if Kerry is running or not, and I don't need to speculate on it, because it ain't my decision, it is his.

Same thing goes for Clark...but when I saw him on Thurday morning, he appeared to be preparing for something, which is why he met with his most loyal coordinators, and draft Clark 04 members here in the Bay Area.

Here's a pic for proof. That's me on the left!(shiny forehead is due to being late and running around and forgetting to apply powder! LOL!)



If Wes Clark doesn't run, I'll live, will regroup, and get busy for whomever in my estimation, is someone that I can work for with total energy based on my principles and criteria (meaning until I see some real policies, I'll be most likely an undecided--but thus far, I lean Obama, cause I am an Obama).

[dailykoff]

19. nice pic!

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

31. Thanks......

Pretty early for this....as it was an 8:30 breakfast, with much traffic trying to get there.

I am just a humble volunteer, but Clark very much respects the grassroots, and how we have supported him over the years, when the media would barely speak his name.

We talked about Singlepayer Health Insurance, the possible future for unions, Iraq, Iran and his upcoming lecture Speech at UCLA on Monday.

What I liked is that he listened more than he talked. He understands that we have heard a lot of what he's said.....and he's interested in feedback in reference to various issues.

H. Clinton talks about having meetings with voters now that she's interested in the job.....Wes Clark has been talking to us for the past 3.5 years! He understands a lot about Media conglamoration, the smear machines, what programs would reduce poverty (as opposed to just putting the word out there) such as guaranteed health care, a higher minimum wage, affordable college education, Unions being used as a source of energy nationwide to assist people with job placement, training and inovations for new jobs), and most importantly, the problems with our voting sytem, including the electronic voting machines. He is most worried about what the Bush regime might do in reference to Iran....and hopes that the media doesn't get behind them in promoting propaganda pushing us towards an agressive confrontation with Iran, as they did with Iraq.

[dailykoff]

90. Sounds like he's running!

Thanks for that report!

[snowbear]

24. What a BEAUTIFUL picture FrenchieCat !!

The General looks kinda smitten standing there next to such a cutie pie!

What a blast to have a thread here where we could all put our photos! I've seen them in the lounge.. but we have our own little family over here at DU/P!

[FrenchieCat]

44. I kinda hesitated, but since it is kinda of a good photo,

I talked myself into it! lOL!

I'm actually not quite that shiny in person....

Thanks for your nice compliments!

[AtomicKitten]

46. If you want to get creative

you can take the photo to a specialty photo shop and they can crop out the other folks in the photo to make it more intimate. I have a picture of my son with Jerry Seinfeld and did that.

Great shot!! Lucky.

[FrenchieCat]

52. I don't think my "HOT" hubby of 26 years would appreciate me

going to a "speciality" photo shop and taking people out. That might be too intimate to explain considering that he has seen the original! LOL!

Yes, hubby is still quite a bit "protective"; even after all these years!

Hubby likes the General, but is quite smitten with Obama at this point. He's met him and has Obama's book autographed....and he likes the idea of Obama running regardless of the outcome (with which I agree). Of course, as Black folks, Obama running is a special thing.... But in the end, I will fight for the General, because I know his heart by now, and he really just wants to make sure that this country doesn't totally fall away from what it should represent. It's a tragedy.....and Wes knows as well as any of us. He really did foretell what the Iraq Invasion would really amount to.....and that type of prescience has really got to be admired and revered and treasured.

Whether Clark will run, I can't definitely say, but I will say that Clark running would make the contest more meaningful for all of the candidates, otherwise each minority; Obama (African-Americans), Clinton (women), and Richardson (Hispanics) will split the minority vote leaving John Edwards standing...and most know I wouldn't be too thrilled about that. Clark, being another southern White man but with experience would split a lot of the Edwards vote (white guys) meaning the race could become competitive once again for all of the candidates. Biden, Dodd, and Vilsack are not southern, nor are they that attractive, nor are they that compelling....so they ain't gonna be the ones to do it. Kucinich is immaterial, as he attracts the far left, and those numbers just don't make the difference. Plus Clark, if the media gave him the time of day, really is more progressive than Edwards, and has been more right than Edwards on many things.....just that the uniform shields him from it being obvious, which is a plus. John Kerry may well run as well, but I don't know if he will have the same effect in splitting Edwards votes as Clark would; cause again, Kerry isn't southern and his tagline comes with the "I ran and lost before"...and if you notice the Edwards camp are the first to say that Edwards on that ticket wasn't who folks were voting for....so...

Edwards folks are probably are saying, "Split Edwards' votes! WTF?" .....but I am saying that would be best for our Democracy. Who wants a candidate that won by default? :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

73. 26 years with a hottie?

OK, now I'm officially jealous! Hopefully the 2008 election won't put a strain on any marriages with the great field that is shaping up. I too am THRILLED that a woman and two men of color are in the race. THAT is what America is all about.

[globalvillage]

27. Nice photo!

You look great.
And the General is looking hot as always.

[justiceischeap]

60. I could see

A Clinton/Clark ticket...

[mtnsnake]

77. Oooh la la!!

That is a beautiful picture, Frenchie! Clark is good looking, too, but you definitely steal the spotlight in that room.

[karynnj]

43. Thanks Frenchie

National security issues should in a sane world favor Kerry or the General.

[election_2004]

Who do you think Kerry would endorse if he didn't run?

Edwards? Maybe Obama?

[rhombus]

2. Does Kerry have any donors left?

I mean, seriously, who is going to want to invest in Kerry again? C'mon now. His $15 million is all that's left of his campaign. Donors are going to flock to candidates who actually have a chance to win.

[PresidentObama]

18. Kerry wouldn't run if he didn't have donors.

Which he does. How stupid of a statement honestly!

And your opinion of whether Senator Kerry has a 'chance' is YOUR opinion. Not the nations. And certainly not the donors.

[karynnj]

47. He was able to raise $14 million for 2006 candidates

He also has big donors as their are accounts of them meeting with him in the Boston Globe. If he announced, he likely have as much money as any candidate except Hillary. Do you think Biden, Dodd, or Vilsack will have as much money?

Kerry has not tried to raise money through his list yet, but I suspect that a significant % of the people who donated because of his emails may donate to him. In 2006, people were asked for money by many people and organizations and it was easy to contribute directly. So, a person getting a Kerry email could have simply googled the candidates website and contributed. So, the fact that he could raise nearly a million dollars overnight for 4 candidates says something.

It's a given that Hillary will have more media and money than anyone - the question will be if that equates to votes.

[Catchawave]

63. What happened to the leftover $$$

from Kerry/Edwards '04 ?

Signed,
Pissed in Virginia

[karynnj]

69. There were no left over $ from Kerry/Edwards

they spent the $75 million. The money left was PRIMARY money thus it would be Kerry money. He could not use it in the general election. He gave a record amount to the state parties, the DNC, and teh Senate and house committes. After the election, he gave millions to the DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC. He also USED his money to solicit money for other candidates.

This is standard and Gore had lots of money left too.

[blm]

110. Same thing that happened to Edwards' funds - it takes a couple years for campaign finances

to get straightened out, especially when there are still COURT CASES going on in places like Ohio.

Of course, you would know that, since Edwards is in the same position with critiques of his leftover dispersement of funds and debts still from his last primary race.

Gore didn't straighten out his funding from 2000 till 2004. Why is it that Kerry gets these disingenuous questions asked about his funding and campaign that no one seems to worry about regarding past campaigns?

If people were TRULY concerned, they would research what happens to campaign funds and their accountings and learn that there is nothing strange or amiss about the last presidential campaign's accounting.

IF they were truly concerned.

[jcrew2001]

64. kerry e-mail

I removed myself from Kerry's e-mail list after he lost.

[karynnj]

66. well 3 million people didn't

and many of them obviously read them and of them many sent money to candidates.

[_dynamicdems]

78. Well, the list has grown since 2004, so you apparently weren't missed. n/t

[David Dunham]

3. Kerry's DOA any way. His botched joke killed any chance he had.

[Ignacio Upton]

5. Also, Kerry's problems (real or perceived)

are worse than Hillary's.

[karynnj]

48. Kerry's problems are not real, which makes them

easier to eliminate by running. When you list Kerry's they boil down to the Clinton friendly media not liking him. He was right on nearly everything in 2004. He has NO ethical problems baggage having never bought cattle futures.

Kerry running may be the best way he has to eliminate the lies.

[_dynamicdems]

65. Well put. They haven't got anything else on him so Kerry detractors make it up as they go along.

The attempt to discredit Kerry over a flubbed joke was so desperate it was palpable.

And Hillary was right there to condemn Kerry. And speaking of Hillary, does anyone doubt she planned her run in 2004? Kerry was never supposed to win. In fact, he wasn't supposed to come as close as he did. If he decides not to run, it won't be in deference or in fear of Hillary Clinton. That's for damn sure.

Now if Kerry does throw his hat in, he has nothing to lose. He's been attacked by left and right and even by partisan hoards of online hyenas who apparently live and breathe (wonder why?) to find threads about Kerry so they can rush to the attack. He's endured attacks both sublime and mangy and has still remained intact. If the worst that emerges on Hillary or Obama is a botched joke, I'll be very, very surprised. In fact, hasn't the mud-slinging already begun?

Kerry's clean. He's honest. And he's tough enough to take it.

[globalvillage]

49. I doubt that.

I can assure you any candidate that is seen as a threat will be swiftboated.
The RW has plenty of ammo to fire at Sen Clinton, and they don't care if they have to invent most of it. Just like they've done to her in the past, like they did to Sen Kerry, and like they're doing to Sen Obama.
No one is immune.

[enough already]

112. The dirt being flung at Obama is hardly, if at all, coming from pukes

Look to the good Senator from NY for starters.

[wisteria]

102. No, they have nothing unethical, or scandalous on him. They have nothing! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

106. I think you are correct.

He has three HUGE problems:

1) He didn't fight back effectively against the evisceration by the Swift Boat Liars.
2) He didn't fight for the vote count in 2004 like he promised he would.
3) His 'yes' vote on the IWR.

Many Dems aren't likely to forgive some or all of the above any time soon.

[wisteria]

101. DISTINGUISHED, OUTSTANDING AND ATTRACTIVE- sounds like a President to me!!

Besides what you are saying being wishful thinking, like Clinton's problems with Paula Jones stopped him. Please, do you know how ridiculous you sound claiming that a persons career is done because he omitted a word from a statement.
This was over the top and stupid to begin with. It will have no impact-period.

[dailykoff]

4. There's a better chance

that Hillary, Edwards and Obama will split the "new face" vote (and you can bet there'll lots of old time dirty campaigning from at least two of them) which would leave Kerry holding the votes just like he did in '04.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Hillary? A new face?

:wtf:

[rhombus]

7. Kerry with his high name ID is polling in low single digits

No way Democrats are going to give him a second look. You can bank on that.

[dailykoff]

10. I know. But he was polling low in '03 too

and we know how that turned out. I see the others all peaking before they get to Iowa like they did last time.

Just my .02 of course!

[Ignacio Upton]

23. He wasn't as well known then

And we have already seen how he did as the nominee.

[dailykoff]

29. I can't speak for middle America

but I thought he did pretty damn well as the nominee, considering what he was up against. He also walked off with all three debates and that's the real measure of a candidate as far as I'm concerned.

[wisteria]

104. Thank you, and he is seasoned now, he will do even better this time! n/t

[jcrew2001]

59. Teddy

Teddy Kennedy won Iowa for John Kerry. Kerry was the establishment pick all along and they bent over backwards to carry him over Dean.

kerry was always the insider favorite. Now HRC is the new insider favorite and Kerry will be left in the cold.

[_dynamicdems]

74. Kerry was NOT the "insider" favorite. Hillary Clinton was and still is.

The insiders wanted an unknown who would be easily beaten. They wanted Hillary to run in 2008 and that was not going to happen if a Democrat won the presidency in 2004.

How many times did we hear speculation about Hillary's 2008 run even BEFORE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN 2004? Plenty of times! It was disgusting. Kerry was never supposed to win. He succumbed to backstabbing of the most nefarious kind. They left him out there hanging in the breeze when they should have supported him with everything they had. It was total bullshit brought on by power-brokering and naked ambition. You think the Swifties hurt Kerry? Well, let me ask you, who was there to have Kerry's back when that crap was going on? Kerry was trying to keep HIS focus on the issues. Where were our Democrats when Kerry needed support? I can name about a half-a-dozen top Dems who went to bat for him. No more than that.

Here's a comparison. The election in 2004 was probably one of the most important presidential elections ever. We all knew that the death in Iraq would continue if Bush got in again. We all knew the stakes. Where WERE our Dems when we needed them? Why didn't they have Kerry's back? Now compare the reaction when Murtha was swiftboated. Everybody jumped to his defense (particularly John Kerry). Murtha wasn't expected to go it alone. And he wasn't even running for anything, never mind running in the most important election of our lifetimes!

So let me ask you again, where WERE our insiders in 2004, when they were needed?

Probably feathering their own nests and making bargains with the devil.

Bullshit. All of it bullshit.

[Mass]

21. Actually, with the media beating on him the way they do, he still have a solid

5 to 10 of votes, which, given the MOE of these polls, is not that far from Obama and Edwards.

I dont know if he will run and I do not know if he can win, but I will give him a second chance with pleasure, and I know many people who would.

[sandrakae]

26. I am a democrat and I am giving him a second look.

[wisteria]

103. he has not been receiving any press, especially positive press.

He picks up votes when people get a chance to see him and hear him speak. The others polling higher have received constant press and in some case glowing PR.

[jcrew2001]

11. 2004

Kerry won in 2004 because there were no "real" contenders - Dean was a waning fad, lieberman got a late start and didn't compete in Iowa. Edwards was too green. Clark got a late start.

2004 was always Kerry's to lose, he was the front-runner at the beginning, so he always had the votes of the "party insiders".

[dailykoff]

14. Kerry was dead man walking until he won the Iowa caucus.

After Iowa he was the frontrunner, yes, but before that everybody in the media was raving about Edwards and Dean and please don't pretend otherwise.

[Mass]

25. Ghepardt and Lieberman were supposed to be the big stars.

And Graham started early as well. It is silly to say he did not have competition. In addition, it also shows the lack of courage of those who were afraid to run against Bush!

Actually, Lieberman and Gephardt were the frontrunners.

[karynnj]

50. Leiberman got a late start???

He was in the race in 2003 - He chose to skip Iowa strateigically. Are you implying that Leiberman, who LIVED in NH for all practical purposes for at least 4 weeks before the election and came in 5th - then declared himself as in a three way tie for third - in spite of the fact the other 2 guys got 12% to his 9%.

Dean, a 12 yr VT Governor was the front runner and Dean was endorsed by Gore and Harkin. In fact, Dean had more delegates after NH - because he had far more "super-delegates" declared to him than Kerry who had won Iowa and NH. You kind of missed Gephart. In Dec 2003, Kerry tied Sharpton in one poll.

Also you seem to think in other threads that the "too green" Edwards - who really has very little addition credentials since 2004 - is ok.

[jcrew2001]

61. VP

Edwards hasn't grown much, but to be the VP on the ticket says something and it gave him PR exposure and campaign experience, and more exposure to national and international issues.

Edwards is the underdog to Hillary, but we'll see. HRC will most likely be the nominee if she stays disciplined and doesn't screw up.

[Catchawave]

9. I would predict Edwards not running due to Kerry and

Clark not running due to Bill Clinton. Wasn't Clark Bill's protege? And it seems that's all changed now?

[jcrew2001]

12. well

well Edwards feels its his time now and that Kerry missed his chance, its not like Edwards has a senate seat to go back to like Lieberman in 2004.

I've always said Clark was Bill's protege, but no one here believes me. That's why clark won't run in 2008.

[Catchawave]

62. I could have sworn Clark was the Clinton pick in '04 ?

That's why I've been thinking his '08 run might be iffy without their backing this time. Like that's going to happen now !

Can Clark stand alone and be a Player in 2008 ?

[CarolNYC]

72. Well, it was Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel...

who were calling Wes and asking him to run in '04 (along with a whole bunch of us nobodies...well, we weren't calling, just writing, but you get the picture), not the Clintons...

But it certainly seems to be the dogged intent of some people here to make people think that it was Bill who got Wes in the race...hmmmm.....

[Catchawave]

75. I read it on wiki, sorry....

maybe somebody needs to update that entry.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Clark was his own man......has always been.....

It was Clark that took Clinton under his wing, as Clinton was not held with great love in the pentagon. But Clark was no more Clinton's protige, as Gen. Shelton was Edwards'.

Rivalry amongs friends is acceptable in politics, last time I checked!

[Nite Owl]

30. I always wondered about that

I like Clark a lot. He was actually the most liberal candidate in '04 (except for Dennis). It's between Obama and Edwards for me right now unless Clark declares then I would have to reweigh things. I like Dodd too though.

[PresidentObama]

13. Kerry said he'd run regardless of Hillary if he decides to run.

He's said that before. Kerry won't base decision off Hillary, especially since her dominance is weakening. Edwards and Obama have shown there is room in the 2008 pool.

I think Kerry is running. We will see though. I wouldn't count him in or out until HE announces.

[acmavm]

16. We've got a long way to go. And by the time the primaries roll around

who knows who'll still be in the race.

It will be fun watching all the action until then.

[GregD]

20. screw kerry

He's a waste of time. Who would work for his lame ass after he walked away in 2004? He knew what we would be faced with under another 4 years of Bush, and he bailed out.

I have nothing but contempt for both him AND Hillary.

[PresidentObama]

22. Screw Kerry?

Oh how lovely the debate has gotten.

If you have nothing smart to say, don't say anything at all.

If you think Kerry has no chance, thats fine! But BE RESPECTFUL!!

He's a great man, wonderful Senator, he's fundraised so much money for our fine candidates in 2006, and he's been a central Democratic leader on the war in Iraq.

And he WALKED away from 2004? News to me. Why don't you go and READ what John Conyers said about the Kerry/Edwards campaign efforts during and after 04'

He didn't say they WALKED AWAY. Next RW talking point please....

Your bashing isn't adding to the debate. So YOU'RE the waste of time, NOT Senator Kerry.

Thank you :)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

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

[GregD]

39. yeah - screw him

We are in a world of shit. In November we were in the same world of shit, and any honest analysis would support that.

Everyone knew what the stakes were in that election. I was up to my throat in the electronic voting machine issue while others spent 2003/2004 campaigning for various candidates. Kerry, and every other candidtate was warned to be watchful for election irregularities.

I still remember when he looked into a camera in November 2003 at the Dem convention in Florida, and assures all of us that he would have an assemblage of lawyers who would protect the election. But then it came to a few weeks before the election, and one of those almighty lawyers had a chance to sit and visit with one of the leaders of the election integrity movement. And she was aghast at how little that lawyer knew about the issue - and how ill-prepared he was to protect the election.

Late election night we all sat and held our breath and John and John said goodnight, and assured us that they would fight to the end to deliver the rightful leaders to the reins of power. But the next morning, Kerry conceded.

So today BushCo rules, the world is in flames, and Kerry prances around the Senate, occasionally sending out e-mails as if he had one iota of moral leadership for our party.

Bullshit. Kerry sucks and his walking away the day after the election was unforgiveable. But that wasn't enough. Then came the election challenge and the recount. And still he refused to fight for us.

Screw him. Never again. He lost his chance. He should have fought to the death, because that is what abandoning us meant to so many more of our soldiers, and so many Iraqi's. He knew the stakes and he walked away.

[ProSense]

53. Contempt for Hillary? Who do you support? n/t

[GregD]

84. Do you know how bad Clinton is on electronic voting?

If you don't, do some research on her s.1986 crap bill. Here's a good place to start: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5038

I was very deeply involved in the issue at that time (I created the original site and was part of the initial core team in 2003/2004) and had a very close view on a day-to-day basis of how many of the legislators dealt with the issue. Clinton was simply awful and while she made this big showing that she cared about the issue, the truth is that at every step she introduced weaknesses in any proposed solution. As far as I'm concerned, she's worthless.

I would not vote for her if my life depended on it, and with 2 year until the election, I don't think it matter a bit who I currently support. If the election were to be held today, I'd love to see Gore or Kucinich, but the election is not today is it?

[politicasista]

111. Has Gore said anything about election fraud?

If so, where is the link? Why is he held to a different standard than the others when it was HIS decision not to allow a senator to contest the 2000 election.

I also think it's very tacky that you choose to bash a good dem just to promote Gore, which makes him look bad, and he wouldn't appreciate that at all.

[GregD]

113. Last time I checked, Gore has been out of elected office since 2000.

He has not been in a position to introduce or directly influence legislation, but the dear Senator has been and has done so. And what Gore may have stated on the issue I do not know, nor do I feel it matters for the purposes of this debate.

What I am saying is that Hillary has been absolutely horrid on the issue, there is a paper trail that clearly demonstrates that, and that to me is a VERY strong reason not to trust her.

You want to defend her unwillingness to seek the most robust possible solution to that tragic issue? Or do you like the fact that her legislative solutions were riddled with loopholes that would have left us in potentially a worse condition then HAVA (and BushCo's refusal to fix HAVA) have placed us in?

I'm telling ya - at Verified Voting we were absolutely shocked with what we had to deal with. Working with her on this issue was like dealing with the enemy.

[politicasista]

114. He could have still commented on the issue

He was in a position to speak out on the war, why not election fraud? And why are you NOT holding McAuliffe and his WEAK DNC infrastructure accountable for this mess?

Noticed you couldn't provide a link as to what Gore has said on this issue. I stand by my post. You dumping on a good Dem like Kerry when he had NO support from the party, or his own party chariman just to promote Kuchinch and Gore makes them both look bad on your part. And this is coming from a Gore fan.

No, I am not defending Hillary. I care about election fraud just as you do. And Kerry has spoken about it several times. Therefore, I refuse to bash him and give someone that has been out of office for seven years a pass.

[GregD]

115. My gripe with Kerry is on other issues - not electronic voting

and I'm prepared to be like a pitbull that won't let go of the issues I have with each of them.

Kerry should have fought harder, Clinton needs to explain why she is weak on BBV (and why she won't apologize for her IRW vote like others have), and I consider McAuliffe disgusting. I'd be the last one to defend his lame ass, along with the DSCC and DCCC corporatists.

[politicasista]

116. Did you help get the truth out about his record or complain?

Or did you let Bush off and just scream "why isn't he fighting back?" Seems like the bloggers who were at the Kerry site have a different view of how he fought back that what you are saying. I think since he didn't have any support from the party or the chairman, why isn't your anger at them? The Democrats who stayed silent while the smears made the rounds and the left-leaning pundits that didn't back up the positives with facts.

JMO.

[GregD]

117. I was far from silent

Between Nov 2004 and Jan/Feb 2005, a group of us held regular demonstrations and other events in the San Franciso area to protest / raise awareness/concern around the election results. I was very involved in those activities, so in response to your question, I was far from silent or uninvolved in seeking action. Viva le' Boxer Revolution!

And I'm becoming quite tired of this thread. Could we be done with it now please?

[karynnj]

54. There was NO way to make a legal case per any of

lawyers involved. There STILL is not legal Proof - much of what was done in Ohio was unethical and immoral - but apparently not illegal. One thing that is also clear is that the process really has no way to deal with fraud. Kerry would have had to prove fraud before Jan 6, 2004. There was no smoking gun.

PS I watch CSPAN and Kerry NEVER "prances" around the Senate and he has more integrity and moral leadersip than anyone who would make these senseless comments.

You do realize that if there was a case to be made, the party would have made it.

[wisteria]

100. Oh sure, blame him for things he had no control over. Why not take these issues up with McAulliffe,

he was the DNC Chairman at the time and he promised to do something about the voting problems after the 2000 election and he did nothing except ask for money and make empty promises.

[GregD]

108. The President is the Commander in Chief

and that means more than just the military. That means his decision is final on a wide range of issue, the first being how to deal with Bush and the 2004 election. And if the decision is between walking away the morning after the election (and hours after assuring us that every vote would be counted), or toughing it out like Gore did 4 years earlier, I expect him to act AND FIGHT like a leader. Not to bow to pressure from McAuliffe or anyone else.

I'm a Central Committee member. That means I not only have to make a decision as to how I will vote, but I have to make a critical judgment as to who I believe will lead a successful campaign for 2008 so that our local efforts will be succcessful. In that regard, success means at least 2 things: motivating volunteers to campaign for a candidate, and motivating voters. And I truly believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to get people in this little rural county of California to rally around another Kerry campaign, or to get enough people to vote for him. And the same goes for Hillary. JK is damaged good and old news; HC is simply damaged goods and too damned polarizing.

I'm not going to surrender on this issue, but I am going to stop posting to this thread. I've said what is in my heart, and I believe that there are many who feel this way.

[Mass]

55. Probably not a freeper. This is not his problem. However, bashing creates bashing

in return, and it is just too bad.

[INdemo]

109. I agree

If Kerry decides to run he has much more riding on his decision..Unlike Hillary he must decide if he wants to keep his Senate seat.

[wisteria]

45. Direct your contept at Hillary, Kerry doesn't deserve it. n/t

[karynnj]

51. Kerry worked his heart out in 2004

Many of the people knocking the close race he won, should look in the mirror and ask if they did as much as they could in 2004. Many didn't starting with Carville, McAuliffe, and most of the rest of the Clintonistas.

Consider just one thing. What did the party as a whole do to defend Kerry when the SBVT ambushed him. In 1992, the entire party rallied around Clinton when bits of his past came up to bite him.
Imagine if people from Jimmy Carter to every Democratic spokesman anywhere - tv, radio, print had all called on Bush to expel anyone diminishing a solemn medal awarded when a soldier/sailor/airman is wounded from their convention unless they take off their band aids and ask him as CIC to apologize to the military that reports to him for his party's insensitivity to the suffering of the troops. They then could have said the military awards these medals, that they were driven by doctor's reports - not applied for by soldiers. Then speak of the two more impressive awards.

Kerry could and should not have to have lead this. He put his body on the line and suffered in a war that he did not even support. If he were the only one who complained it would have been worse than the lack of complaints. The silence likely fostered the belief that somehow Kerry deserved this lack of defense.

Consider what they had to defend in 1992. The entire party had to defend Clinton on evading the draft. A certain war hero gave him a lot of cover, I think by pointing out that by 1968, it was known that the war was not winnable. The problem, which was smoothed over was that Clinton - after getting help by a ROTC leader, wrote an incredibly mean-spirited letter to him when after the lottery he was no longer endangered by the draft. Reneging on his promise to join was understandable in that time frame (though 2 years earlier, the extremely well connected Kerry didn't consider it when told he couldn't delay enlisting), but the bigger problem was the letter where Clinton spoke of "loathing the military" which a disgusting way to treat a man who helped him.

The party also said that the womanizing was in the past. Ignored was the fact that when the rumor surfaced he told the woman to lie to reporters. When she didn't, he denied it and attacked her credibility and character - and continued to do so when she produced a tape of him telling her to lie. (The tape proved 2 things to me then - he had an affair and was lying and she KNEW he would lie and attack her.)

Terry McAuliffe, Carville, Begala et al had no problem defending Clinton on these tawdry issues and now pride themself that they did it so well. Yet when Kerry was the nominee, they failed to defend him on something where there was never any reasonable doubt that he not only had nothing to apologize for or explain, but he had acted in an exemplary fashion. In fact, their lack of support likely raised questions of whether the Democratic leaders were concerned the charges were true. Kerry deserved better.

It might be that the goal was to make Kerry's hero status questionable to open questions into his integrity and character. This is why the party should have been proud to defend something that was very easily defended rather than explaining why Clinton's infidelities didn't matter. (Kerry provided the proof - so this charge of not fighting back should be aimed at the party as much as at Kerry.)

[Mass]

58. So, dont support him.

The point is whether he will run or not, and I hope he runs. I hope a maximum of candidates run, if anything for a debate and democracy in this country.

Right now, we are ruled by a mediacracy. I hope kerry, Gore, and Clark will run (and Sharpton, if he is not already).

For the rest, the answer is simple. Do not support him, but the way you phrased your rejection (screw him) was bound to provoke reactions. So, do not be surprised by them!

[Mass]

28. Predict whatever you want.

It would be too bad if good people are barred from running, and a very bad sign for our democracy. Right now, it looks more like a governement by the media.

[snowbear]

33. I predict.........

.

.

.

hmmmmm....
.

.

.

.


let's see...

.

.

.

Uh..
.

.

.


.

.

No wait...

.

.

.

ErRRRrrr..

.

.

...

[FrenchieCat]

42. Thank you Larissa,

for allowing real Democracy to be given a voice, instead of the 3rd person Democracy via Mediacracy we seem to have to endure from day one since and before the last election, and the election before that. Hell, they were propping up Hillary during the '04 primaries that she wasn't even in!

First, it's quite easy to understand who and why the current "frontrunners" are who they are....cause they are the ones the media as talked up for years for some, to months for others. All of them have gotten favorable buzz which leads to high polling numbers (see Ridiculous Giuliani as the perfect example of being propped up by the media which is driving his polls number up and up....all the while we roll our eyes cause we see the artifiality and the joke in it all).

democracy ain't easy....but it is even harder when we are told what it will be!

[globalvillage]

32. Sen Kerry won't base his decision on any other candidate.

He's said he'll run if he believes it's the right thing to do.
Hillary's candidacy won't be the deciding factor.

[PresidentObama]

34. EXACTLY.

I'm trying to remember which interview, BUT someone asked him if Hillary would play any decision in him running or not and he said no.

He'll run if he thinks it's the right thing to do.

[jcrew2001]

57. but to lose would be embarrasing

and I don't think Kerry would run if he wanted to be embarrased by losing. But ted kennedy lost his pres bid and he's still doing well, so it might work out for kerry.

[_dynamicdems]

80. After all the crap that has been directed at Kerry, you think he's worried about embarassment? LOL!

Kerry's the ONLY one who has absolutely nothing to lose. They can't hit him with anything else. Look how desperate that attack over a botched joke was!

Nope. They haven't got anything else to hit Kerry with. He's also not afraid of losing. What he wants is to best serve this country and if he thinks his voice is needed in the debate (especially with Hillary waffling on Iraq) he'll join the race. He's going to do what he has to for this country, no matter how much shit he gets for his trouble.

[applegrove]

35. I'd love to see Kerry in the race. The more the merrier. I think Americans

are hungry for intelligent debate and if the Dem discussion goes on for two years..that is just more air time for them.

[_dynamicdems]

81. Amen!

There are voices we would never hear if they played it safe and only ran if they believed they would win. We all know Dennis Kuchinich isn't expected to win the primary, but he's getting out there and making his voice heard. We need his voice and we need John Kerry's voice too.

Too many people see this only as a competition. It's also about what is right for our country and you are correct when you say Americans are hungry for intelligent debate.

[AtomicKitten]

36. The field is formidable.

May the best man/woman win!

[davidwparker]

38. Kerry's busy contesting Ohio for us and doing something about election

fraud. He doesn't have time due to that, the Senate, and suing the Swiftboat group for slander.

When he's finished with all of that, let's talk Kerry.

[beachmom]

68. It would be next to impossible for him to sue the Swiftboat liars

Public people are at a big disadvantage on that. Check the law if you don't believe me.

[wisteria]

40. Nope, I think you are wrong. Kerry's backers are loyal and everyone knew she would be running.

Kerry has known the Clinton name raises money, but he has been able to raise a lot too. If if thinks he can add something to the debate and he can do more for this country than her, then he will run. Her running is no surprise to no one. Her people hoped and did very little to assist Kerry in his 2004 election. They already were hoping she would hope into 08. Her handlers are trying to run her on her husband's name and raise money that way, Hillary is no Bill,that is why her people are trying to scare people off now. Kerry would give her a run for her money and that is something she has never had to face before. She has had soft ball elections.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry knew from November 2004 that she was running

Within weeks of his loss, Bill Clinton was on TV trashing the campaign. He thought Kerry should have endorsed the gay bashing amendments and he repeated that Kerry, unlike his wife and himself was weak on defense. (nice way to repay a war hero who stood up for him when the draft was an issue in 1992). The Clinton allies went out of their way to make it clear that the standbearer of the party was not a party leader. Then when he commented on anything they send out gossip complaining that he was not liked for doing this.

Kerry certainly saw from the obnoxious "Hey John" campaign that attempted to lie about the 2 year effort he made to keep people involved, and encourage people to become active and his raising more more money for candidates than anyone and the way Hillary stabbed him in the back when he responded to the distortion of the joke that the Clintons would use anything they could to get back in power. This was in addition to many of their minions writing books that trashed Kerry.

I actually think this may backfire. If they had not done these things, Kerry might have been more inclined to decide it wasn't in the cards and content himself to being a well respected high senority Senator and a major asset to the party on national security and foreign policy issues.

If Kerry does run, I hope that this incredibly obnoxious and undeserved treament will let him run on some of his strengths - even if they make Bill Clinton look bad. All I can say is that Kerry's BCCI work that was forcibly ended in the early 1990s was a credit to him and the question is why Bill Clinton's justice department did not continue it. (One of the people Kerry wanted to investigate was Marc Rich. )

[Nedsdag]

76. Then Kerry SHOULD run!

In the debates, he should bring up everything you mentioned in your post.

If he has TRULY learned something from 2004 then he must fight fire with fire. He should bring up BCCI and why Hillary's husband's Justice Department stopped the investigations. He should bring up Marc Rich and the pardons. If he wants to win, Kerry can't be timid and MUST bring up these things. Hillary will have to answer and her remarks will be telling as well.

[karynnj]

83. I really hope he does

He really is a pretty unique person, who had he become President would have very likely changed the fundemental way the US operates in the world. He hinted at it in his speech on the WoT at the University of Pennsylvania - that was the basis for George Will saying he was right.

I don't think it was timidness that held him back in 2004, but the fact that he was close and was gaining at the end. The danger in speaking of his accomplishments is that the RW spin doctors would have made the point that Clinton was then President for the nex 8 years. (That this is minor compared to ignoring that OBL was going to attack doesn't matter.)

The reason it would be different in 2008 is that Hillary would be as likely as Bill to allow some level of corruption if it benefits Democrats. (I was happy to see Obama as one of the Democrats who wouldn't let Reid kill the amandment that made the ethics rules tougher.)

[saltpoint]

56. Can't speak for the man, but after the mediafest all day long

with Sen. Clinton, I think Kerry is more likely than ever to run, and not only Kerry, but a few more we may not have heard from yet.

This is an open election, with no incumbent trying to hold the job. I agree with you that money could be an issue. Money talks. But it may not be enough of an imposition to stop principled people from wanting to serve. Were that the case, Kucinich would not be in either the 04 or the 08 mix, but when you speak face-to-face with his supporters, you feel quite palpably that cash is not the significant motivator. Kerry is more likely to fundraise more than Kucinich, and I'm thinking that either Kerry or Kucinich is likely to offer their candidacies not despite Sen. Clinton's announcement, but because of it.

[beachmom]

67. Kerry's decision will not be effected by who else is in the race.

He has said that repeatedly and I believe him. Anyway, we will find out by the end of the month.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. I would rather have Kerry as our candidate

a hundred times more than Hillary.

[wisteria]

71. I want he to as our candidate! Kerry 2008! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

82. Me too. She's at the rock bottom of my list.

What is our Presidency becoming, a Royal Dynasty? Bush. Clinton. Bush. Clinton. Hmmm...I think I'm starting to see a pattern emerge. :sarcasm:

[politicasista]

79. And I predict the Cubs will win the World Series n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

85. I predict Gore won't run now.

I thought there might, just might be a chance he'd throw his hat in the ring, but Hil will suck far too much oxygen (and money) out of the room for him to get in now. x(

[Katina]

86. Kerry will never win

no matter what. He has made too many mistakes from a political perception point of view. He's just not likeable. Even his fellow senators don't like him. Why the hell should we?

[dailykoff]

88. He mistaked his way to the top of the ticket

last time, and if the votes had been counted fairly, he most certainly would have won that race. I don't see why he couldn't do the same thing running against a despicable clone in '08.

[Katina]

89. old news

he's history. There are too many VIABLE candidates who don't have his baggage. He will never win. NEXT!

[dailykoff]

91. You think Hillary doesn't have baggage?

And you think the others don't have negatives that will help the spinmiesters flatten them in about a week? Don't be naive.

[Katina]

94. of course she does

but her baggage is really old. He seems to create baggage (albeit with the help of the media) every time he opens his mouth. She doesn't. On top of that, NY LOVES her. She's done a really good job for them. She triangulates too much for my liking, but if it came down to Kerry & Clinton, I would DEFINATELY vote for Clinton. At least she wouldn't bore me to death! :D

[dailykoff]

95. Vietnam wasn't old?

Yes, the media will create baggage out of whatever they've got, but you think eight years in the Clinton WH hasn't given them more to work with than a 40-year sterling service record? Come on!

[kerrygoddess]

87. Kerry will run.

His donor base is strong. Hillary is the one who has to worry, many friends of Bill are slipping to Obama who won't hold water in the end. Still all up in the air and huge horse race but don't count Kerry out, he's always known she would run.

[dailykoff]

92. Thanks KG

I sure hope you're right!

[kerrygoddess]

93. He hasn't

let me down yet. :)

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[wisteria]

98. Alright, I agree with you! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

105. Don't think so....in reference to ......

Wesley is OK but feet too wet in the military industrial death machine!

Please provide your data on this....so I can "debunk" it, and then we can move on to other issues.

Thanks!

[against all enemies]

97. No, he'll run and be a drain on the party, until he gets his 3% in the

primaries. Then the big question will be how long he will stay in.

[wisteria]

99. I think he has a lot more support than that! Kerry isn't your usual politician. Sizing up the field,

should do great. He is a natural for taking on Hillary and calling her out. She has no ideas and no real positions or solutions on anything by videos and flag burning.

[sendero]

107. As much as I don't care for Kerry...

... I think he'd make a much better president than HRC.

The question is who would run a better campaign, who is more 'electable' (gosh I hate that word :)).

And I have no answer. I think HRC will run a more effective campaign, but she starts out having to overcome 15 years of right wing radio villification.

Now that HRC's announced, I'd prefer that Kerry do too. Let 'em duke it out, let's see if Kerry learned anything in 2004 :)