Kerry in '08: Good or bad move?

[hiredgun]

John Kerry seems to be testing the waters with regard to another presidential run in '08.

(AP) Sen. John Kerry says he deserves a second chance if he decides to take another crack at becoming president.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to President Bush in 2004, said it is a basic principle that "Americans give people a second chance. And if you learn something and prove you've learned something, maybe even more so. Now, I don't know what I'm going to do yet. We'll make that decision down the road."

Ronald Reagan twice unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for president before he got it _ and won two elections for the White House.

"John McCain, their leading candidate _ didn't he get kicked around South Carolina by the same president because he wasn't patriotic enough as a prisoner of war? He's now their leading candidate for president," Kerry said of the Republican Party. "Richard Nixon seemed to get kicked around pretty badly both running for president and governor, turned around and came back and got elected president."

Kerry faces a major challenge trying to convince Democratic activists that a recently defeated candidate can still carry his party's hopes for recapturing the White House.

If Kerry runs, he would have to overcome other Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8KP83100.shtml

I'm curious whether those who are planning to vote Democratic would consider his nomination in '08 a good or bad move for the party. I'm inclined to think it won't happen - the party has not been charitable to its losers in the recent past. I'm not sure I'm qualified to say whether or not his chances would be better than in 2004, though. Is there anyone here on TFP who voted against Kerry then, but would vote for him now?

[Willravel]

I wish him all the best, but I don't see him doing anywhere near as well as last time. He would ahve won due to Bush sucking, not Kerry pwning. I didn't vote for him last time because I didn't think he was quite right for the job. I won't vote for him this time because I still don't think he's quite right for the job. Also, he still looks like a tree.

[Elphaba]

I voted the "Anyone But Bush" and/or "Save SCOTUS" ticket in 2004. I think Kerry's chance has past him by, and now Warner has dropped out. At the moment I don't see a choice that is both competent and electable.

[filtherton]

Maybe if he grows a pair of cojones. I'd rather see someone else, though.

[shakran]

An idiotic move. A trained. . .. oh hell what am I saying, even an UNtrained monkey could have beaten Bush. If he couldn't do it, it points to the fact that he's a fool.

Hell, I knew the guy was an idiot when he went up against Rove without hiring Carville. Rove is a political mastermind and pretty much the only guy who has a chance to outdo him stragegically is Carville, so to wait until the 11th hour of the campaign to bring him on was stupid.

[eribrav]

I'm convinced that Bush is the worst of the modern Presidents.
Had the Democrats an even halfway decent candidate in the last election, they would have won.
Why would they even think of running Kerry again?

[hiredgun]

Hm. In addition to the question in the OP, I'm curious what you would have rather seen from Kerry. Aside from that he lost, what made him such a terrible candidate?

[roachboy]

it's hard to day how good or bad a candidate kerry was simply because he ran such a shitty campaign. and now i don't know the extent to which kerry remains defined by his shitty campaign.
as it was, i was totally underwhelmed with kerry and only voted for him because he was the nonbush.
i hope he doesn't run.

at this point, i do not know who i would prefer to see running...it is still a bit early.

[rofgilead]

Screw Kerry! Feingold '08

Kerry was asked if knowing that there was no WMDs in Iraq if he would have still gone to war - he couldn't even clearly say "NO!", instead he waffles like an idiot.

Kerry has no substance.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Hm. In addition to the question in the OP, I'm curious what you would have rather seen from Kerry. Aside from that he lost, what made him such a terrible candidate?

Because he absolutely refused to fight for it. Bush's camp lobbied charge after bullshit charge at him in their campaign ads, and Kerry did absolutely nothing about it. The whole swiftboat veterans thing was a total lie, and Kerry never bothered to defend himself.

If I didn't know better I'd say he threw the election.

[Paq]

kerry won't even get into contention for it.
the dems seriously need someone new to step up and take over.

[cyrnel]

Kerry was never a strong figure. He wasn't a winner. I can't see him doing any good for his party or country by confusing the process at this point.

However, if your goal is to motivate a bunch of us fence-sitters to jump back to anything GOP, by all means, nominate Kerry.

[jorgelito]

Hmmm....how about McCain/Lieberman 2008 - independent??

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by shakran

Because he absolutely refused to fight for it. Bush's camp lobbied charge after bullshit charge at him in their campaign ads, and Kerry did absolutely nothing about it. The whole swiftboat veterans thing was a total lie, and Kerry never bothered to defend himself.

If I didn't know better I'd say he threw the election.

Ah, someone that has thoughts like I do. I never thought that he tried to throw the election, but I did think he was lucky that he didn't win. Perhaps Warner had the same thoughts when he chose to bow out of the race. Bush has stated more than once that some other President will have to fix the Iraq problem (and likely all of the other Bush foreign policy f*ck ups of six-eight years.) The poor sucker that wins 2008, needs to be both damned good and lucky.

[djtestudo]

I think Hillary Clinton would have a better chance then John Kerry as the Democratic nominee, but that's like saying I have a better chance of sleeping with Kirsten Dunst then Scarlett Johansson.

Although I voted for Bush and still believe he is a better president then Kerry could ever have been (and some might say my previous comparison works here as well ), I figured that enough people were going to vote NFB that Kerry might win.

That he didn't shows how poor the ticket was.

They'd have been better off running Leiberman; they might have got some Republican cross-over votes.

Plus, since neither Bush (ineligable) or Cheney (no chance in Hell of winning) will be running, he'll likely be going up against a Republican that isn't perceived (at least) as being involved with the administration, so he wouldn't have that going for him like last time.

[ASU2003]

There is no way Kerry could win, there is no way Leiberman could win, Hilary might (but the Republicans would have to run someone worse than Bush).

Jon Stewart as a write in candidate would be better than the majority of the Democrats in the running currently.

McCain is the man for the job in 2008, I just hope the party doesn't pair him with some far right-winger to get the religious right vote.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by rofgilead

Kerry was asked if knowing that there was no WMDs in Iraq if he would have still gone to war - he couldn't even clearly say "NO!", instead he waffles like an idiot.

OMG I love waffles.

Who would I vote for? Any number of people. I'd vote for Cobb or Badnarik if either of them ran again.

[host]

This post is no endorsement of Kerry....he had his opportunity, and...if official election administration fraud was not his undoing, his days as a democratic party frontrunner are in the past.

I ask forgiveness, in advance, if this seems too OT. I just couldn't resist viewing djtestudo's comments about the "merits" of Bush's 2004 "victory", and a Lieberman. 2008 candidacy for prersident, displayed in kind of a shit sandwich, bookended by today's "news" concerning the "non-civil" war in Iraq, and the escalating US fatalities.....vs. John Kerry's.....still applicable...and pertinent comments about the earlier US involvment in another country's civil war:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101500207.html
Iraq Sectarian Spree Kills 83 in 2 Days

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 15, 2006; 1:37 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- At least 83 people were killed during a two-day spree of sectarian revenge killings, as Iraq's government said Sunday it was indefinitely postponing a much-anticipated national reconciliation conference.

Separately, the U.S. military reported the deaths of a Marine and four soldiers.

A brief statement from the Ministry of State for National Dialogue said only that the Iraqi political powers conference planned for Saturday had been put off because of unspecified "emergency reasons out of the control of the ministry."

The failure to bring Iraq's divided politicians together appeared likely to hurt Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to strengthen political consensus, underscoring the effect worsening violence is having on efforts to stabilize the U.S.-backed government and curb the bloodshed.

An Iraqi militant group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq announced Sunday in a video that it has established an Islamic Iraqi state, comprising six provinces _ including Baghdad _ that are largely Sunni and parts of two central provinces that are predominiately Shiite.

That statement came from the Mujahedeen Shura Council _ an umbrella organization of insurgent groups in Iraq that have be trying to drive out U.S. forces and topple Iraq's fragile government.

"We bring you good news of the founding and the formation of the Islamic Iraqi State ... to protect our people," said a man identified in the video as the group's spokesman.

The man in the eight minute video, which was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgents, wore a traditional Arab robe and had his face blocked out.

Weekend revenge killings among Shiites and Sunnis left at least 63 people dead in a city north of Baghdad. Eleven people died Sunday in a series of apparently coordinated bombings on a girls school and other targets in the northern city of Kirkuk, where Kurds and Arabs are in a tense struggle for control of the oil-rich city.

<h3>Even by Iraq's bleak standards, October has been an especially bloody month. Hundreds of Iraqi's have died in attacks and 54 U.S. military personnel have been killed in the first two weeks alone.</h3>

U.S. commanders say that based on the record of past years, they expect a further spike in bloodshed throughout the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which ends in a week. Some Islamic militants believe that dying in combat during Ramadan brings extra blessings in paradise.

<b>The tit-for-tat sectarian killings began late Friday with the discovery of the decapitated bodies of 17 Shiites kidnapped earlier in the day near Balad, a predominantly Sunni region northwest of Baghdad and a hotbed of the insurgency battling U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Suspected Shiite militiamen then began targeting Sunnis in Balad and surrounding towns, killing at least 46 overnight, according to police and hospital officials.</b>

Extra police flooded into the area, 50 miles north of Baghdad, to enforce a curfew and additional security measures were taken in other villages in the area, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Despite that, bullet-ridden bodies continued to be delivered to the Balad's main hospital well into Sunday morning, according to a hospital director who asked that his name not be used for fear of reprisals.

An army officer in the nearby city of Tikrit confirmed the death toll and said 63 suspects _ both Sunnis and Shiites _ were arrested.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group, said 30 Sunnis had been killed and accused the Shiite-dominated police force of cooperating with the militias in snatching 70 people from Balad hospital and other locations.

"The Iraqi Islamic party condemns the violence in Balad for which we hold the occupation forces and government fully responsible," the party said in a statement, using its standard term for the U.S. military presence.

In one of the Kirkuk bombings, two girls who died when a man detonated explosives strapped to his body in front of the Kurdish al-Mallimin girls high school in downtown Kirkuk, police officials said.

The American military said the Marine was killed in combat in Anbar province, the Sunni heartland west of Baghdad on Saturday.

Three soldiers died in a roadside bombing Saturday south of Baghdad, and one soldier was killed in a roadside bombing Friday night southwest of the capital. The soldiers' names were being withheld pending notification of their families.

In Baghdad Sunday, Interior Ministry undersecretary Hala Shakir Salim survived a roadside bomb attack that killed seven others.

Originally Posted by djtestudo

I think Hillary Clinton would have a better chance then John Kerry as the Democratic nominee, but that's like saying I have a better chance of sleeping with Kirsten Dunst then Scarlett Johansson.

Although I voted for Bush and still believe he is a better president then Kerry could ever have been (and some might say my previous comparison works here as well ), I figured that enough people were going to vote NFB that Kerry might win.

That he didn't shows how poor the ticket was.

They'd have been better off running Leiberman; they might have got some Republican cross-over votes.

Plus, since neither Bush (ineligable) or Cheney (no chance in Hell of winning) will be running, he'll likely be going up against a Republican that isn't perceived (at least) as being involved with the administration, so he wouldn't have that going for him like last time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0404231047.asp
April 23, 2004, 10:47 a.m.
Kerry’s Testimony
What he said.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Below is the text of John F. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971.

........<b>Feelings of Men Coming Back from Vietnam</b>
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, <h3>and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history;</h3> men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse" and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because <b>we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country</b> which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, <b>there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom</b>, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.....

........<b>What Was Found and Learned in Vietnam</b>
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from......

To make my point truly clear; Bush and Lieberman, and to an extent, Hillary, are advocates of a failed policy, based on intentional lies, that gives too many of our troops a chance to die for as "big a nothing" as in "that noble war", in Vietnam. No additional US troops needed to die for Kerry to know that. How many more will have to die "for nothing" before Bush, Lieberman, or Hillary, know what John Kerry knew in 1971, and knows again, now.

When will djestudo know that a president who orders US troops to stay inserted in an escalating civil war in a far away country, while our troops continue to die there in steady, and sometimes escalating numbers, is ordering them to "die for nothing"?

[Elphaba]

Let's be honest here about the electability of a President. (Sarcasm for those that don't recognize it).

Ever since Kennedy v. Nixon, and the first televised debates, the American voting public has placed more value in the candidate's appearance and sound bites, than any measure of concrete examples of the candidate's beliefs and actions. Nixon was creamed for the 5-o'clock shadow and the defensive anger expressed in his face and the sharp tones of his voice.

And just look at what we have been served up as Presidential material ever since Kennedy:

- Johnson (a replacement president to "Camelot"
- Nixon (a return and finally wins)
- Ford (the pardon president)
- Carter (the public needed an "honest" man)
- Reagan (after multiple tries)
- Bush the Elder (pardoned the Iran/Contra Crowd; tax increase to pay for Desert Storm)
- Clinton (road Perot's emphasis on the economy)
- Bush the Younger - Beyond words.



sadly, the American public is going to continue to be swayed by the best ad campaign, whether positive or negative.

[pan6467]

Personally, I'd like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket. Give me someone that wants to rebuild education and our future and not try to relive glory days and be giving the future nothing but debt, a world that hates us and a nation divided.

But even as optimistic as I am, I do not see anyone bringing this nation closer together and rebuilding it. No matter which party wins, I forsee hatred and more division withion the country caused by partisanship.....

Sad really, because we have the greatest nation on the planet, we just have shitty people who won't compromise and who would rather destroy the nation than to rebuild it, in charge.

[Paq]

^^^^
what he said

My vote: jesse f**kin ventura.

[Humanitarismus]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

sadly, the American public is going to continue to be swayed by the best ad campaign, whether positive or negative.

That is the case in every democratic country around the world. But I think you a right in that way, that every country has to try to diminish the influence of spin doctors/ads and to educate voters.

[mixedmedia]

Elphaba and pan have pretty much summed up my thoughts about it all. Especially in regards to how we are all manipulated by partisan marketing schemes.

I don't think it a good idea for Kerry to run just as I don't think (as much as I like her personally) that Hillary Clinton should run. They would make easy targets for the very reason cited above. It's not right that a candidate should have to be subjected to unchecked mass excoriations of their character, but that just seems to be the reality of political campaigning these days.

I would love to see Barack Obama on a ticket, as well.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I would love to see Barack Obama on a ticket, as well.

Thirded. I'd be very proud to vote Edwards/Obama.

Kerry couldn't deliver the goods last time. He's an excellent Senator, but he doesn't connect with a broad electorate. He's too intellectual and wordy--it comes across as uncertain and defensive. He was running against the master of the soundbite. The Bush campaign was all about catchy slogans and repetetive talking-points that play well in TV news format. Kerry, on the other hand, just couldn't resist giving complete and nuanced answers to every question, and that's not what the electorate wants. They want certainty and clarity. Substance just can't beat soundbites.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

*snip* Kerry, on the other hand, just couldn't resist giving complete and nuanced answers to every question, and that's not what the electorate wants. *snip*

I just had to laugh at that. It's so true. Gotta laugh so I don't cry.

[Daniel_]

From the perspective of the UK, I'd suggest that Clinton/Kerry looks like a good bet in '08.

Then she can have another go in '12, and he can have '16 - '24

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

From the perspective of the UK, I'd suggest that Clinton/Kerry looks like a good bet in '08.

Then she can have another go in '12, and he can have '16 - '24

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!

...no wait, you don't even live here, dude. You can't help us.

[Seaver]

From the perspective of the UK, I'd suggest that Clinton/Kerry looks like a good bet in '08.

Then she can have another go in '12, and he can have '16 - '24

From the perspective in the US, it'll never happen.

I would love to see Barack Obama on a ticket, as well.

He is very, very, very well spoken and an excellent public speaker. Unfortunately his anti-gun stance will not win any hearts in the South (though it'll be blamed on racism). And to boot he hasn't even "won" an election. His opponent dropped out because of a scandal, and his replacement was given effectively no time to campaign. He needs to show himself as capable before Dems would put him up on a ticket. He's just the untested new kid on the team at the moment.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Daniel_

From the perspective of the UK, I'd suggest that Clinton/Kerry looks like a good bet in '08.

Then she can have another go in '12, and he can have '16 - '24

Geez. Kerry will turn 73 in 2016, which would make him four years older than Reagan was when he became the oldest president ever elected. If he does two terms, he'd be 81 when he leaves office. Somehow I can't quite see that happening.

[Willravel]

I still say George Cloony should run. You all know he'd win by a landslide.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Seaver

He is very, very, very well spoken and an excellent public speaker. Unfortunately his anti-gun stance will not win any hearts in the South (though it'll be blamed on racism). And to boot he hasn't even "won" an election. His opponent dropped out because of a scandal, and his replacement was given effectively no time to campaign. He needs to show himself as capable before Dems would put him up on a ticket. He's just the untested new kid on the team at the moment.

Maybe these are very same determinations we need to be backing away from as they have not always proven to be helpful to us in the past.

Think about Ross Perot. He was not "proven" as anything but a squirrely little billionaire nor was he affiliated with one of the two major parties. Yet he managed to capture the imagination of quite a few Americans.

Obama is fresh, thoughtful, charismatic and clean. And he cuts a fine line in a nicely tailored suit, too. I think he would make an excellent candidate, if not for the CIC, then most certainly as VP on a ticket with one of our more experienced candidates. I think he's a force to reckoned with that could have the GOP's knees a-knockin' quite a bit.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

A junior senator would stand no chance, he'd effectively be doing what Edwards did in 04' and that would be running for VP.

[dc_dux]

Its hard for any sitting senator to win....its only happened once in the last 100 years (Kennedy).

Governors seem to be the preferred candidates in recent years - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

Bill Richardson, New Mexico?

[hiredgun]

Originally Posted by willravel

I still say George Cloony should run. You all know he'd win by a landslide.

He would be the hottest Commander-in-Chief ever.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by hiredgun

He would be the hottest Commander-in-Chief ever.

Next to president Fillmore, of course.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its hard for any sitting senator to win....its only happened once in the last 100 years (Kennedy).

Governors seem to be the preferred candidates in recent years - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

Bill Richardson, New Mexico?

If I remember correctly, it's only happened 6 times at all. So executive experience trumps legislative experience. What else is new?

[dc_dux]

Putting the Dem issue aside for a second...

this is what potential Repub nominees will be dealing with (not that I am suggesting that Condi is a candidate):

A spokesman for a family-advocacy group in Washington, DC, is expressing disgust with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's swearing in of an openly homosexual man as global AIDS coordinator -- and in particular, with comments she made at the ceremony.

Late last week, USA Today stated that the Republican Party is facing what it calls an "identity crisis" when it comes to efforts to try to please both homosexuals and conservative Christians. The report used a ceremony at the State Department to provide a very pointed example of how the GOP seems to want the support of "values voters," but are willing to appease the homosexual activist agenda.

The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator -- a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul's homosexual "partner," Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and called her Dybul's "mother-in-law," a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married.

*snip*

"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."

Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things." He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/arch...fa/162006a.asp

Good luck to John McCain, Rudy Gulianni or any other potential Repub nominee....although the Dems are no better (Good luck to any anti-choice Dem)

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Putting the Dem issue aside for a second...

this is what potential Repub nominees will be dealing with (not that I am suggesting that Condi is a candidate):

Sheesh, sometimes I feel sorry for the sane folks in the GOP. Then again, they made their bed...

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Sheesh, sometimes I feel sorry for the sane folks in the GOP. Then again, they made their bed...

Those who try to support EVERY arm of the sprawling multi-partate pandering machine that the GOP has become are not among the sane folks in the GOP.

There are plenty of them. They're just not sane.

I really had to FORCE myself to keep reading that article after I found the word "partner" in quotes. And it only got worse from there. How can you hope to be the "morals" party when that's the demographic you have to appease?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

I really don't see the issue with the republicans. Granted they might "hate" "homosexuals", but don't get it twisted they hate liberal homosexuals and pro-choice/anti-gun/Hillary Clinton even more. They might piss and moan but I think they will still come out to vote, or at least in terms of a presidential election, they will still carry the electoral vote.