WP political blog: Kerry Prepares Another White House Run

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
01/ 9/2007
Kerry Prepares Another White House Run

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has maintained a decidedly low profile following his self-described botched joke in the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections. Many observers concluded that Kerry's silence meant he had given up his dream of becoming the first Democrat since Adlai Stevenson to be renominated by his party four years after losing a presidential race.

Wrong. Kerry has recently begun to bolster his Senate and campaign staff in preparation for what some Kerry insiders insist is a likely run for president. Kerry has signed on Erik Smith to serve as a senior adviser to his Senate campaign committee and Vince Morris to be communications director in his Senate office.

Smith, who runs Blue Engine Message & Media, served as national press secretary for Dick Gephardt's 2004 presidential bid and previously was communications director in Gephardt's leadership office. He also served a stint as communications director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Morris comes to the Kerry camp after a stint as communications director for former Washington, D.C., mayor Anthony Williams. Prior to his work for Williams, Morris was a reporter for the New York Post and Washington Times. Morris started officially on Monday....

The two hires and lead Kerry strategist Ed Reilly's decision to move to Washington, D.C., show the seriousness with which Kerry is approaching his decision. Kerry advisers said the senator has spent considerable time over the past month consulting Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and newly elected Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass.), along with members of the Bay State's congressional delegation. (Don't forget that Kerry is up for reelection in 2008, and several Massachusetts Democratic House members -- led by Reps. Marty Meehan and Ed Markey -- have been waiting years for a Senate seat to come open.)...

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

[flordehinojos]

1. kerry will never again garner my vote.

[MH1]

66. He has my vote.

But all the negativity towards a real liberal by "Democrats" is making it hard for me to consider voting, let alone working, for anyone else, should Kerry not decide to run.

I know I shouldn't take it out on the other candidates. But all this negativity to a great statesman is just bullshit and I am tired of it.

[politicasista]

86. I feel the same way, unfortunately

Their bashing good democrats just to promote their own candidates makes me not want to support them. It only makes the candidate look bad, which is a shame.

[zann725]

88. Agreed! Both in my vote...and sick of all the JK bashing.

Particularly the senseless bashing of a politician not yet formally an '08 candidate.

[YvonneCa]

85. He has my vote...

...if he runs.

[sandrakae]

90. He has my vote too.

[seabeyond]

101. then if he wins primary you support repug. and i am suppose to admire?

that stance. bully for you.

[tridim]

2. Please, not again.

I kind of like the guy as a Senator, but damn dude give it up already, you'll never be President.

[zulchzulu]

5. Who's your candidate and can we trash him/her?

So who is it...

[tridim]

12. Honestly I'm not sure yet

I'll get back to you in about 10 months.

Kerry has the taint, sorry but that's how I feel. He gave up the fight in 04, and that still doesn't sit well with me. I want a candidate who will fight for every vote, especially votes that have already been cast.

[zulchzulu]

23. John Conyers would disagree with your assessment...

It's an old crusty misnomer that Kerry "gave up easy" in the 2004.

Additionally, when you add what turncoat James Carville did on Election Night by telling his wife (guess who she is) what Kerry had planned to do in Ohio, thus alerting the Bush-Cheney team to contact Blackwell (as written in Bob Woodward's "State Of Denial" pp343-346), you'd see that the story about the Ohio race is quite complicated...

What Conyers said:

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[blm]

25. You are asking for a Dem party INFRASTRUCTURE that secures the votes at every

level where the vote is cast and where it is counted.

Blame a candidate all you want, but NOTHING secures the vote properly the way the four year attention to securing the process as the DNC does at the state, county and precinct level.

Why do you think Dean has been working so hard to strengthen the party ALL over the country and especially in states where the party infrastructure was so collapsed over the last decade that it was unable to SECURE and count the votes earned by Dems?

Nominees need a strong infrastructure to TAP INTO for a national campaign. That is the DNC's job for the TWO YEARS of every election cycle and especially necessary for FOUR YEARS before the presidential election, since the nominee isn't even known until the last 6 months and has a finite amount of money to spend AFTER the convention.

The DNC's decade of targetted state strategy saw the weakening and collapse of too many state parties. A strong DNC infrastructure would have assured the votes earned in 2000, 20002 and 2004 were secured, cast and counted.

[flpoljunkie]

55. I can still think of no one better suited to serve the people of the United States as President.

I keep coming back to him, after everything--because I trust him more than anyone else running to put the American people and their interests first.

The man is a real patriot.

[zann725]

91. I trust JK too. His "steady-handed," thoughtful nature would make me feel "safe" with him at helm.

If only somehow the public "see" his strengths, instead of being "blindly" awed by one-dimensional candidates, whose primary strength is misleading Chrarisma.

[PresidentObama]

26. This "he gave up" notion sickens me.

John Conyers doesn't think so.

And I'd really take Conyers word about what the Kerry campaign did. And he damn sure didn't say they "gave up"

[Inuca]

103. Agree

And would people throw this nonsense around so carelessly if the 2000 mess did not happen? But the two situations were of course very different, nevertheless people keep contrasting Kerry 04 to Gore 00. Fighting when you do not have the right weapons to fight with is foolish, and Kerry is no fool.

[zulchzulu]

106. Let's not let facts get int the way of a perfectly operating Kerry-trashing

I mean...like Ronnie Raygun said, "facts are stupid things".

[TayTay]

3. Good. Let him and anyone else run who wants to

It will make the debate more interesting and diverse.

If they have the will, the money and a platform to run on, then run. A large field is a good idea and more democratic and will help get out the diversity of voices in the modern Democratic Party.

Let them all run and let the people sort it out.

[zulchzulu]

14. Yay!

Let him run as well as anyone else who wants to run. Let's talk issues about the candidates and their stances, history, experience and plans for the future.

Trashing candidates with lies and Rovian innuendo proves that the person is uneducated on the issues...

[PresidentObama]

28. I can't say it enough.

Constructive criticism and defending your candidate...hey no problem.

Bashing other candidates in gang like fashion while hiding insecurities about your candidate...PROBLEM!!!

Let the games begin, and let's not be G-O-P about this.

Let's be fair, honest, and to the point!

[politicasista]

49. Exactly

It's a free country and everyone has a right to run if they think they will make a difference in the debate and making the country a better place.

[loyalsister]

56. In a perfect world

A large field would be as you say, but if a field is large enough that a candidate can win a primariry with 22% of the vote, it's a very bad thing.

[PresidentObama]

78. Realistically....

We'll weed candidates out early on, so the field will be large. But I think you'll see a number of them drop out earlier then though. The room will be fairly crowded, but the more the merrier.

[benny05]

73. I agree

Sharpton is considering another run as well.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

7. Hey, it's better than the Black Helicopter Tinfoil Hat Ticket

[babylonsister]

9. Would you please explain that remark, because while I've read it

before, I still don't know what it means specifically.

[Fovea]

6. He may be brave under fire

but he proved that he is not the gun fighter we need.
We need a candidate who will squeeze the trigger on the neocons.

[babylonsister]

11. Care to share who that candidate might be? nt

[Kolesar]

36. It is 14 months until the primary and only 3 have announced.

I really think that I have a right to hold off until more candidates announce.

[ProSense]

39. You do.

Still, I think there are Edwards supporters who are as happy as I am now.

Kerry 2008

[babylonsister]

43. That wasn't even addressed to you, but your answer is

fine and we all have every right to wait, though that won't stop the speculating.
The person I was responding to said, "We need a candidate who will squeeze the trigger on the neocons." So I thought it fair if I asked who that person might be.

[Fovea]

53. There's tsk tsk tsk, and you know who.

The task of filling up the blanks, I'd rather leave to you.

Sorry. Just couldnt help slipping in a bit of G&S.

Seriously though, I think there are a couple of serious fighters in our party. Some of them are even fairly progressive. And that is exactly what we need for 08.

We need someone who has a populist vision, and the sensibilities of a loan shark collector. Imagine LBJ without the warhawk attitude.

I was disinclined to support an additional Gore run, but I think he has a new awareness of the gravity of our situation. I think he and the DLC are no longer exchanging xmas cards.

But an Edwards or a Clark ticket would be able to squeeze, not jerk, the trigger. Both have squeezed the trigger professionally.

[blm]

15. Like all the big names who showed up to fight for the Dem team in 2003 and 2004?

I noticed they wouldn't even take on McCain or Giuliani on those daily programs, let alone Bush.

[cyberpj]

8. Don't do it man........don't do it. nt

[TayTay]

10. Why? If he has support then good

If not, then he won't win.

Where is the down side in this?

[KingFlorez]

13. Please don't

We don't need another disaster.

[ProSense]

21. Why so Hillary Clinton or another candidate can claim the nomination unchallenged?

Run John, Run! Competition is good!


Kerry 2008.

[PresidentObama]

24. I second that, competition is good!

If you think Kerry is going to lose the primary, there is nothing to lose then right?

Unless of course you're worried about something....

:)

[KingFlorez]

29. No, because Kerry lost once

And was afraid to fight back against Republican attacks, that's why.

[ProSense]

32. A few other 2008 candidates lost once too, to Kerry. He's never stopped fighting.

Run John, Run! Competition is good.

Kerry 2008

[_dynamicdems]

84. You are correct: several potential '08 candidates did lose to Kerry.

How does not being able to win a primary make them better candidates than the man who beat them? I'll just never understand the lack of common sense in that arguement.

But oh, it was a conspiracy to put Kerry ahead of more qualified (choke) candidates :sarcasm: not the fact that more VOTERS chose Kerry in the primary. That is how people rationalize this is it not?

[TayTay]

40. Then these others should not run either

Edwards, Gore and Clark.

They all lost too in the Presidential primaries or in a General Election.

Why can't we let them all compete and run. If they have the will to run, supporters and the money, then have at it. Democracy is the better for a more crowded field.

Where is the harm in this? I don't get that.

[JNelson6563]

104. Gore won and no one disputes that

Seems to me your list needs editing.

With that said, anyone who wants to run should do so. No need to wrongly recount election results over it.

Julie

[wisteria]

45. First, Kerry isn't afraid of the Republicans and many great Presidents

and leaders have lost races. You realize that the antiquated notion that we can't win with a candidate simply because he lost once goes back 50 years and is based on entirely different circumstances? He ran a good campaign considering that there was a consorted effort in 04 by the media to discredit him in order to make Bush look good. Let us also not forget the scare tactics, the Bin laden tape, and the disorganized and un-supportive DNC back then.

[zulchzulu]

62. Facts vs. Lies and Innuendo

Was Kerry afraid to fight back against the Repugs? Not exactly...

While the initial reaction to the Swiftboat attacks was a couple days off, there were also other factors that made the delay occur. For one, the Democrats had 13 weeks to use limited campaign funding to the Republicans 9 weeks. In the initial time when the Swifties launched their now firmly debunked lies, it was between the time that the Democratic Convention was over and when the Republican Convention was to begin.

It took a couple days, but after that, the Kerry campaign was fully attacking the lies. Granted, the mainstream media kept having those assholes on TV well into September AFTER they had already been debunked and exposed as liars. I videotaped several Kerry speeches in early September where he was firmly attacking them. It was also at a time when the mainstream media was covering some Michael Jackson story.

The Swifties bought ad time that played over and over on CNN and MSNBC and Fox.

A great analysis is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

Let's just say that it won't happen again...

[zann725]

92. People grow and change. JK's already admitted his mistakes from the past.

A real sign of strength...to recognize and admit errors, and change course to accomodate for past errors. All the same strengths JK uses no doubt in wind-surfing.

[wisteria]

46. I agree with your comments too. n/t

[Mass]

22. So dont support him, but I hope he will run.

There is at least one declared candidate I do not want to see run, I did not feel compelled to tell him not to run. I do not understand why people feel this way, except may be for the reason other posters gave.

Anyway, the more candidates, the better. It will allow a real debate.

[zulchzulu]

27. If Kerry is such a bad candidate, who protest so much?

It sounds like someone is scared that people might choose the most qualified candidate to be the next leader of the free world...

Who would you support? And then tell us how he/she is not vulnerable to negative attacks by the Repigs...

[PresidentObama]

30. Personally, I like all the candidates we can get.

Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Clark, Biden, Vilsack, etc. etc.

Even, yes, Hillary.

Get all of them front and center, and let the best candidate win.

:)

[ProSense]

34. The more the

Kerrier :)

[PresidentObama]

37. Oh, how sly.

;-) The more, the kerrier!

Kerry on, Pro Sense. Kerry on!!

:evilgrin: I love being a Kerrycrat, tehe.

[JanusAscending]

68. You forgot Obama!!

I'll go with Kerry '08 all the way!!:bounce:

[_dynamicdems]

89. Me too! I remember being proud of all the Dem candidates in '04.

I watched the debates and saw more agreement than disagreement. They each had different ideas on how but not on what. That is what impressed me the most: all added something to the campaign.

My favorites from 2004 (other than Senator Kerry) in no particular order:

Al Sharpton: was in the race to make a statement. He could put things bluntly because he knew he wasn't going to get the nomination. I enjoyed every minute of watching and listening to him. He was right on about everything he said in '04.

Dennis Kuchinich: a true liberal idealist. He added conscience and some very progressive ideals to the mix. I'm glad he's running again. We need his voice.

Howard Dean: to me he epitomized the spirit and loyalty that every Democrat should strive to achieve. I admired his passion and his determination to make a difference. I knew he wouldn't go away after the election and he hasn't: Chairman Dean has made a difference.

General Clark: he added a thoughtful and intelligent assessment of the situation facing our country and some well-thought-out approaches to deal with them. He hasn't gone away either: General Clark campaigned hard for Democrats in 06.

As for Clinton and Obama:

Barack Obama can give a damn good speech but he seems to go with the flow rather than to blaze any trails of his own. It takes more than charisma to run a nation, but if he runs, his candidacy will bring in people who otherwise might not take an interest because of his ability to generate enthusiasm.

Hillary Clinton brings two things to her candidacy that are unique: her gender and her old-guard Clinton Administration experience. For both of these reasons, she will bring much discussion to the race giving people much to compare and evaluate. She would probably be one of my bottom choices, but her candidacy will add a dimension to the mix that would otherwise be missing.

Al Gore:

He's my second choice if Kerry doesn't run. I personally think he's happy doing what he's doing, but Al Gore would enhance any Presidential race with his ideas, ideals, dedication and experience.


Let them all run! Show the country that every single Democrat is a better choice than what we've had to deal with for the past two administrations!

[PresidentObama]

16. Thank you GAW-D!

:applause: Lets go Senator Kerry!!

Whether you love him for 2008 or hate him for 2008, John Kerry is a great man and wonderful Senator. And everyone should at least enter the campaign for 08' with open ears. I mean, I love Kerry and he's my candidate. But I'm still listening to the other fine candidates, and remaining open minded.

I hope he announces his decision soon!

[dailykoff]

20. Roger that!

:headbang:

[dailykoff]

17. YES!!!!!

:headbang:

[blm]

18. Great news for anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

BAD news for the Coverup Democrats who thought they could have a free ride.

[Mass]

19. YES!!!

[beachmom]

31. What encouraging news!!

We need a primary field where the ISSUES are discussed and who is best qualified to be president and clean up Bush's mess. Run, John, run!!

[PresidentObama]

33. Preach it beachmom

:) Get all the great Democratic candidates front and center, and let the best qualified candidate win.

America needs REAL leadership now more then ever before!!

[Blaukraut]

35. excellent news!

Sign me up as a volunteer!

[zulchzulu]

38. Imagine if people had jumped all over Edwards when he declared?

People dissing Kerry for running should be ashamed of themselves. Have they no faith in the democratic process? Are they fearful that their candidate doesn't measure up to Kerry's level and depth of experience?

If one believes in their candidate of choice, they should welcome any other candidate joining the race with open arms...

Methinks they doth protest too much...

[wisteria]

47. Yes, protest way too much! n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

41. John Kerry is a great patriot

and I will unconditionally support him when/if he decides to run.

[babylonsister]

44. You said it, Blue! nt

[MBS]

48. I'm with you!

We need someone with substance, experience, and depth in the White House. We need leadership for real.
Also, the environment and foreign policy (especially the MIddle East) will be central issues in the 2008 campaign, and of all the possible, probable and declared candidates from either party, ONLY Kerry has shown leadership in BOTH. Furthermore, among his severallaudable and courageous activities since 2004, Kerry has continued to grow, on almost every front, the last two years. (If you don't believe me, do yourself a favor and listen to his brilliant Faneuil Hall speeches this past year, on the environment, health care, foreign policy, and the right to dissent.).

Media heartthrobs-du-jour and Power-Player politicians will not do it for us in 2008. We cannot afford to do business as usual, and we do not have the time for someone to learn on the job. I want an adult in the White House, and I want real change, and I want thoughtful solutions to our many many problems. That's why John Kerry has my unconditional support should he choose to run again: because he's the man for the job at this very difficult time.

[ProSense]

52. Agree!

Media heartthrobs-du-jour and Power-Player politicians will not do it for us in 2008.

I like that.

Kerry 2008

[loyalsister]

61. I want to win the presidency

We won't do it with the Bob Dole of the Democratic party. He is an experienced elder statesmen who only really relates well to people who have their heads mired in politics. We need a candidate who can relate to a people who do not read DU or pay attention to swearing in ceremonies.

[wisteria]

42. Great, I hope this report is accurate. His entrance would take the primaries to a higher level.

His leadership qualities, dedication,experience and tenacity alone should give pause to the others running. If they want to be president, they are going to have to work for it, not just throw money in the ring and smear some sh*t around. He is willing to fight for it, he has taken the punches already, are they tough enough? Now, I am going to drink to a good primary and a great Democratic President in 2008. Kerry 2008!!!!!!
:beer:

[Diane R]

50. Good. John Kerry has really stood up to bush. I'll vote for him.

[rockymountaindem]

51. Allright! Let's do it!

I've got my old campaign button on my backpack ready to go!

[lojasmo]

54. No thanks, Senator.

I want a DEMOCRAT in the white house this time around.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. I'm sorry, that's just a ridiculous comment.

If John Kerry's not a Democrat, then who is?

[lojasmo]

98. I'm not saying Kerry's not a democrat.....

Are you saying Kerry is President right now?

He lost to the WORST president I remember.

[PresidentObama]

116. Kerry lost?

I'm pretty sure neither Gore or Kerry lost to Bush.

[TayTay]

60. What, like Lieberman? n/t

[blm]

70. The choice will be between Coverup Dems and anti-corruption, open government Dems.

Kerry has long been a leader in the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

[lojasmo]

99. The choice will between somebody who can win, and somebody who can not.

Kerry lost when he should have won. He's a good senator (despite being fooled by the neocons)

He should stay out of the way in the primaries.

I don't need another race with an "electable" who isn't electable.

[blm]

105. Gore and Kerry both won - DNC didn't lift a finger to secure the election process

so the votes they earned could be cast and counted.

[Ninja Jordan]

57. Ugh, stay out.

I'm not sure how much credence I give Cillizza anyway.

[Blaukraut]

59. Why should he stay out?

Do you afford him less of a right to run than the other potential candidates? On what criteria do you base your allowing someone to run or not?

[wisteria]

63. Step up and run again Senator Kerry !! This country needs you! n/t

[ProSense]

64. Absolutely! n/t

[KingofNewOrleans]

65. I backed Kerry last time

and while I think he's a fine person and Senator, I won't be backing him this go-around. He's welcome to run, but I think he'll have trouble at the grassroots.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Whoop, whoop, whoop.

I'm ready.

[mloutre]

69. To run or not to run?

You know, until he ran for president in '04 I didn't really know much about John Kerry. Oh, I remembered him from the 1971 testimony; and like most people who were actually paying attention at the time, I remembered that he was one of the key players in breaking the BCCI-Iran-Contra corruption/collusion scandal. But other than that, he wasn't really on my radar during his 20-year career as a senator from a state I didn't happen to live in.

When John Kerry became the Democratic nominee in '04, though, I began volunteering and campaigning on his behalf. Why? In the beginning, it was definitely an ABB -- Anybody But Bush -- effort on my part. After all, I didn't really know much about the guy; but he was our guy instead of their guy, and that was good enough for me at the time.

But a funny thing happened during that campaign. I gradually came to know who John Kerry is, what he had done with his life, what he had done for his country, what his beliefs and principles are, and what kind of man he is in real life. In short, I learned enough about John Kerry to not only support him as an ABB candidate, but to genuinely respect and admire him.

And that respect and admiration continues to this day. I campaigned as hard as I could for John Kerry when he ran for president. I've continued to actively support him as a capable, experienced, and effective player on the national and world stages. I do believe that he is smart, wise, and honest -- all qualities that are far too hard to find in politicians these days.

If Senator Kerry chooses to run for president again -- and let's remember that it is his decision to make, not yours or mine, and that he hasn't made it yet -- then I will campaign as hard as I can for him again. If he chooses not to run, then I will continue to do everything I can to support his activities as a senator of significant stature who works on behalf all the people, not just those who live in Massachusetts.

You know, it's interesting to read the many comments here on DU from all the people who seem to have such virulent dislike of Senator Kerry. If he's as supposedly irrelevant as they claim, then why do they continue to waste so much energy fulminating against him? With a few key exceptions, the comments in this thread are direct indications of the problem that dogged him in '04, and that will continue to dog him in '08 should he choose to run:

It's a well-known adage that Americans don't trust anybody who is smarter than they are. They would rather vote for somebody like George Bush, with his faux folksy I'm-just-as-dumb-as-you-are style, no matter how untrustworthy and irresponsible he has proven himself and his cabal of retreaded neocons to be. He pretends to be just another average guy like us, and we-the-sheeple don't seem to realize what an unflattering comparison that is.

And there's the rub. P.T. Barnum said that nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Unfortunately, many bodies have gone broke, and/or lost elections, by overestimating the intelligence of the American voter. John Kerry is wicked smart, as they say in Boston, and that intimidates the largely insecure and undereducated electorate.

(Some of the people commenting here on DU have claimed that John Kerry is aloof, arrogant, cold, calculating, self-centered -- but that is largely a sign of how insecure they feel about themselves by comparison. For example there is nobody, and I do mean nobody, in the potential race for the White House this time who is anywhere near as cold, calculating, arrogant, and selfish as Mrs. Clinton; yet she seems to have a cadre of defenders here even so. Does anybody accuse them of being paid to post nice things about her online? I think not. Why is that, you reckon? Hmm. I wonder.)

I do agree that if Senator Kerry chooses to run again it will be a bitter, bruising, uphill battle. I've had the pleasure of getting to know the Senator and his wife and some of their family members in person since '04, and I have to admit that I would not want to wish that kind of abuse on them (or anybody else, for that matter.) Many of the comments about JK on DU are indicative of what kind of vitriolic, knee-jerk attacks they can inevitably expect to receive if he chooses to run for president again.

That being said, if Senator Kerry does choose to run for president again in '08 again, then I will work my asterisk off to help him get elected. If he chooses not to do so, then I will work my asterisk off to help make sure he gets a well-deserved high-level position in whatever Democratic administration does win the presidency in '08. And mark my words, a Democratic administration will be in place in the White House in '08 -- and I'll be working my asterisk off to make sure that happens too, no matter who the nominee may turn out to be.

Thing is, I've come to know the real John Kerry. I believe in him and I trust him, both as a senator and as a man. I do believe that he would be an excellent president, and that if he had won the '04 election for that post -- which he lost by only 30,000 votes, hardly a momentous failure or a mandate for the Bushi'ites, and less than the statistical margin of error given the dubious voting irregularities in places like Ohio and Florida -- then this country would be a far better place today than it is now.

Will Kerry run again in '08? I don't know. That's up to him. Should he run again in '08? I don't know that either. As some of the comments in this thread have pointed out, even with the best of intentions it would be an uphill climb. (Of course, it was an uphill climb in '04 too, so it's rather premature to try to predict success or failure in that regard at this point.)

But if Kerry does run, then I am with him. And if he does not, then I am still with him. I know the man, and I know the politician, and I know that I can trust him. I know he's got my back, just as much as I've got his. And anybody that wants to say otherwise, well... that's their right -- but they're wrong.

[zann725]

94. Welcome newbie! Thanks for the input! If JK runs, he has my vote too.

:kick:

[LittleClarkie]

95. Your story is close to my story

I started out ABB to, got to know him, and now have much admiration for him. I'd love to see him as president.

[shireen]

71. my advice to Kerry

get rid of your handlers and just be yourself!

[politicasista]

72. Good advice

He (and Teresa) is better when he is that way.

[LittleClarkie]

75. Damn straight. Go with your gut John

It's a good gut.

Maybe he could have one handler though, one that keeps poking him with a sharp stick to keep him good and angry. He's fun when he's angry.

[Imagevision]

74. Kerry running again? ugh! -->been there - done that...

[globalvillage]

76. Awesome News!

Want to win in 2008? Here are the two issues that are the starting points for the Democrats: Stop Global Warming. Withdraw from Iraq. And here are our two leaders. Al Gore and John Kerry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/2008-only-a-loser-can-wi_b_19839.html

[ProSense]

77. Agree! Thanks for that! n/t

[mcscajun]

79. I hope he does run. I welcome an open field for the nomination,

not one or two media-chosen "favorites" picked for us before the voting even starts. Let the primary season do its work and let the people hear different positions on issues, hear about issues certain candidates might not bring to the fore where others might, and then let the voters sort things out.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Kerry should run if he wants to......

cause the last time I looked, this was a free country (sorta, kinda).

I would be pissed if someone told me that Wes Clark shouldn't run, before he even declared!

[mcscajun]

81. Damn straight!

:)

[globalvillage]

82. Exactly.

May the best candidate win.

:thumbsup:

[jcrew2001]

83. Kerry versus Clark

Here's something Clarkies will agree with me on,

Kerry will be behind Clark in the 2008 primary. I'm not saying Clark will win it, but I'm saying Kerry won't beat Clark.

In 2004, Clark lost because he had poor name recognition, a late start, no money, no staff, no policies. Kerry won because he had the money, the staff, the name recognition/experience, Teddy, and the field was relatively weak.

In 2008, the field will be much stronger with Hillary, Edwards having more exposure, more money, campaign experience, Obama's buzz factor, and Clark who will have more name recognition, campaign experience, and hopefully more staff/money.

Also, last tiime Kerry positioned himself as a Military Leader/Veteran, the "Real Deal" and I think that worked only once, because the Swift Boat/Vietnam stories killed that, so Clark will position himself as the Military Leader/Veteran and take those votes away from Kerry.

[politicasista]

97. I am not for tearing down both men just to promote one

We need to wait until all the candidates declare, then make predictions. The primaries and voters will decide all that.

[zulchzulu]

110. Are you a betting person?

I have a grand that I'd be willing to lay on the line...

[DaveinMD]

87. he's delusional

his negatives with Democrats are higher than his positives.

[zulchzulu]

108. True... all people who support Kerry are just plain stooopit...

Trashing Kerry with a biggie size of fact-free ad hominen bullshit is oh, so quaint. And so cute too...

:puke:

[DaveinMD]

109. I didn't say that

The people who like Kerry have good reasons to like the man. He's very well qualified to be President. Unfortunately, politically it just won't happen.

[AtomicKitten]

112. Um, that's spelled "stooopud"

I think if he would get off the pot and declare, much of this kvetching would subside.

[zulchzulu]

113. That's a handsome avatar! n/t

[ohtransplant]

93. Run John Run!

I'll be proud to cast another ballot for Senator Kerry.

My 2004 experience was similar to many. I didn't even have a favorite in the primaries. In fact Governor Dean looked like he'd be my candidate.

A funny thing happened. The more I read and watched speeches and debates, this Kerry guy made more and more sense. The harder I looked, the better he looked to me. Why had I not noticed before? I started to get excited. Could it be? Could we really elect a President with a Presidential resume'? A decorated war hero? Real qualifications AND experience?

I, for one, hope he runs. If enough Americans really watch and listen - without dismissing him - I think many will see what I see. I believe America needs him.

Run Senator Run

[ruggerson]

96. He has every right to run

but one has to question his judgement, in that he is apparently incapable of seeing the writing on the wall and objectively understanding that he has no chance at all. If he has such bad political skills and acuity, bordering, it seems on delusion, what does
that say about how he would do as President, where you have to be a hard headed realist?

[Apollo11]

100. Kerry's candidacy should be annulled!

None of my business, and I'm not quick to judge others (I am also in my second marriage), but the facts disturb me.

John Kerry married Julia Thorne in 1970. They had 2 daughters together, born in 1973 and 1976.

They separated in 1982 and their divorce was finalised in 1988.

Then several years later, Kerry asks the Catholic Church to annul his first marriage.

The reason behind this was that Teresa Heinz - a widow - wanted to marry in church. As a divorcee, Kerry couldn't get re-married in the Catholic Church. Not unless the Church would agree to annul his first marriage.

But Teresa continued to use her first husband's name. According to her wikipedia entry: "She chose to keep her name as Teresa Heinz, and also remained a registered Republican, until John Kerry's presidential bid."

"Teresa Heinz was a registered Republican for most of her voting career, the same as her first husband, Senator Heinz, and she remained a registered Republican despite being married to the Democratic Senator John Kerry. However, being a registered Republican was politically incongruous with being married to a Senator running for President on the Democratic ticket. In January 2003, she changed her registration to the Democratic Party. Later in 2004, she reportedly changed her name from Teresa Heinz to Teresa Heinz Kerry during her husband's presidential run. After her husband's defeat, in January 2005 she changed her name back to Teresa Heinz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz

Some more interesting quotes in this article from the Washington Post back in 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39691-2002May...

It's also real interesting to see what wikipedia has to say about annulment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

"Marriages that are annulled under the Catholic Church are usually considered as ab initio, meaning that the marriage has been essentially invalid from the beginning."

Also according to wikipedia, Julia Thorne authored two books in the 90s. The titles speak for themselves.
- You Are Not Alone: Words of Experience and Hope for the Journey Through Depression (1993)
- A Change of Heart: Words of Experience and Hope for the Journey Through Divorce (1996)

Julia Thorne died last year, age 61.

After Thorne's death following a long battle with cancer, Kerry released the following statement: "Julia was the best mother two daughters could ask for. She always put our kids ahead of everything. She was completely committed to them and their future. Julia fought a hugely courageous fight against cancer and she passed away with the same grace with which she lived. Everyone who knew her will miss her beyond words."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Thorne

This is the woman with whom he was married for 12 years, but later on he decided they were never really married.

Well, I guess you could say that John Kerry is one smooth talker!

But I'm not saying that the guy isn't smart ...

[zulchzulu]

107. Heil Hit... Uh... I mean....

We can't have qualified people running for the leader of the Free World...I mean...just what the hell kinda country are we anyway?

Let's muzzle people who would make perfectly good leaders! Hmmm...I wonder what reality TV show I can watch tonight...damn, this dog food sure taste good... Huh...what was I just talking about... that short-term memory sure does feel good though....

Smile and say "I'm for helpin' po' folks!" Yeah!

[wisteria]

115. The Senator remained close to his first wife and she even wanted to

come out and defend him during the SB attacks. Her depression had nothing to do with the Senator. What I have read was she just could not take being a political wife with all its negativity.
Her brother, remains a devoted friend and supporter of the Senator. He is one of his biggest defenders.
As for Teresa Kerry. Her late husbands name is also a business name. As such, she is remembered and recognized as Teresa Heinz in business circles. She actually goes by the name, Teresa Heinz Kerry. As for her party affiliation, it was actually Governor Rendel of PA who encouraged her to change parties. She has some Republican ideals- nothing wrong with that. Elenore Roosevelt didn't always agree with her husband, Senator Clinton doesn't always agree with her husband and Barbara and Laura Bush have differences of opinions than their husband's so what is the point you are trying to make here. Actually, the marriage of Teresa and John Kerry demonstrates that love and respect for one another and for differing opinions, is healthy and makes a marriage thrive. Imagine what this type of respect could do for our divided country.

[CountessMZaleska]

102. he has a better chance to hit the jackpot 4 times

no one in their right mind will vote for him in primaries, let alone the general election, which he'll never get to anyway.

[PresidentObama]

I assure you I'm in the right mind set.

And I wouldn't hesitate voting for him :)

And if he doesn't get the general election, he doesn't get there!

We'll see how your prediction pan's out.

[PresidentObama]

117. I assure you I'm in the right mind set.

And I wouldn't hesitate voting for him :)

And if he doesn't get the general election, he doesn't get there!

We'll see how your prediction pan's out.

[wisteria]

118. You have proof to back up your comments. I am in my right mind and I plan on voting for him.

You can certainly disagree with his views or with others on his chances, but to accuse those who support him of being insane is a personal attack and I resent it.

[CountessMZaleska]

119. I don't disagree with

his views at all. My problem is with his being a coward, handing the election to Bush without a fight. I hate cowards, both Bush and Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

111. So did he announce he is running or is he still just thinking about it?

All these threads make it seem like he is running, but none of the articles posted actually say he is running.

If that is the case, I hardly see this as news.

[wisteria]

114. Interesting developments. Good hires Senator Kerry! n/t