Today on Blogcritics
Home » John Kerry in 2008?

John Kerry in 2008?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As a man who did not vote in November 2000 and 2004 (or in any U.S. election since 1992 for that matter), I was able to consider the U.S. Presidential candidates, George W Bush and John F. Kerry, without a great deal of passion. And, though I know that John Kerry lost in 2004, I am not inclined to rule him out in the future as had a few of his supporters (who dropped criticism on the guy like he was a bad scene in one of the earlier Star Wars prequels).

So what does Kerry and his party have going for them at this point?

First off, Sen. Kerry is going to roll in to 2008 as one of the few recognizable presidential candidates, other than perhaps Sen. Hillary Clinton. Who are the Republicans going to field? Who knows, but it’s not going to be Vice President Cheney. Also, you’re likely not going to see a Republican governor emerge as a successful presidential candidate who fights the “powers that be” like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter did against long periods of Republican White House control (such a Republican candidate is part of the “powers that be” to begin with). As for Republican candidates from the Congress , the U.S. military or a previous administration’s cabinet, I have to ask, “who do know who has something to fight for?” …Yeah, see my point. Any Republican is going to be forced to stand by the 2000-2008 U.S. Administration’s image to field themselves successfully as a Republican candidate. So Republicans are going to end up going with a relatively little known presidential candidate for 2008 and that candidate is going to be weighed down by being forced to take an inherently defensive position (Republican presidential candidate: …no really, I’m not joking, the Bush administration executed perfectly for the last eight years). So, I am giving the advantage to the Democrats in 2008.

Then we have the Democratic field: basically, Senator John Kerry, Senator Hillary Clinton and her spouse and various lesser known Democratic politicians. In that pool of candidates, I give it to Kerry. Kerry has already been through the presidential campaign ringer once and he did extremely well versus a sitting president who was in charge of a fearful country that had been attacked by a foreign entity. Kerry has lost other political races before, such as a congressional race in the 1970s; but, he came back from this defeat and won a Senate seat. So, Kerry has shown that he can rebound in to a stronger position. Kerry has already been vetted by the press, both inside and out; he’s not perfect: a “summer” (three months) in Vietnam does not a tour make. But, nevertheless, everything appears to be legit. People say Kerry quit in 2004; I disagree. Kerry knew that he would lose, despite months of recounts and investigations of technicalities, etc. and he wisely chose to surrender and fight another day rather than politically bleed out in some kind of last stand that would have surely alienated him even from members of his own party (Remember, this is an institutionalized political contest in a civilized Democratic Republic we are talking about, not Battle Royale).

I know Kerry was not successful his first go around at the presidency. But, I have personally seen people who were not successful on a first attempt at a life-defining event succeed on their second attempt. One of the reasons for this follow up success is that the people (the voters in Kerry’s case) who control the achievement of success actually “respect” (a word Kerry used a few times in 2004) a person who keeps coming back for more after losses (think John Elway). In some cases, I have even seen people who were not allies actually begin to extend grudging favors to people on a come-back trail; this all has to do with their respect for the will it takes to pursue the same thing again after a defeat. Kerry will, this time, demonstrate that he is somebody who is running for president because he really has the “will” to run for president; he won’t be doing it to “try something new” (as far as the rush and exhaustion of life on the presidential campaign trail or media attention that would steamroll most kings, Kerry has already been there and done that).

Ok. But, what about Senator Hillary Clinton running for president? Hey, if I ran a political party I’d support “Wilma Flintstone” to run for president if it looked like she could find a way to coalesce enough U.S. voters to win; cartoon characters or otherwise, women could have made fine presidents since the first U.S. presidential election more than 200 years ago. But, it’s my vague speculation that Sen. Clinton’s life represents one side of the 1960s and 1970s that has already controlled the White House through her husband. Kerry presents another side of the 1960s and 1970s that has yet to control the White House, someone who has at least done some service in Vietnam. And, I suspect that Kerry is going to be a little more palatable to the country post-President George W. Bush and the needs of the returning thousands of dead or injured veterans from Iraq.

(I know that a new show with Geena Davis playing the U.S. president is coming out called Commander in Chief. What’s ironic is that Ms. Davis might make a good “real” presidential candidate before too long; I suspect that this show is going to be very popular with the targeted demographic and will show a female president managing the world’s current superpower with confidence; I also think that a show about a female president will also strengthen a broad range of female leaders, young and old. But, I don’t think that Sen. Clinton’s likely run will benefit from Commander in Chief, which is likely what political strategists in the Democratic party (Ms. Davis included) on both sides of the country intend. However, it is an interesting way to begin Ms. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign early. I also know that there are a lot of political issues I haven’t covered in this post, such as an Edwards candidacy, so change my mind about this matter as you see fit. :)

Powered by

About Chris

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Amazon link needed…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Most Dems still believe Bush was weak in 2004, and only won re-election because Kerry was such a shitty candidate. Therefore, the Dems will not re-nominate Kerry in 2008.

    Hillary is a lock.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I can’t see Kerry nominated at all. Many Dems think he was weak, indecisive and the singular reason for Bush’s election. As I’ve mentioned previously, we need a transitional President – someone who will just come in for four years and do a bang up job to straighten the mess out. It’s not that difficult to understand.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    It’ll be Hillary vs. Guiliani

    Only wild card is POSSIBLY Condi.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I disagree. There are too many Conservatives within the GOP who detest Giuliani. As much as I would like to believe that America is smart enough to look toward a Black woman as President, I don’t see that, either. The racial divide in America thrives just below the surface. Hillary is a possibility but she’s far from a lock. She needs to beat the GOP war machine next year first.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Do you think the extreme right-wing conservative christians would throw their support behind Giuliani? I doubt it…

  • Marty Thau

    People seem to forget that Guiliani was despised in New York by blacks.
    That should be enough to cancel him out.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    It could well be Hillary, but there is plenty of time for someone else to come on strong for the Democrats before then, maybe even that DA from New York, Spitzer…

    Guiliani? Maybe he could be the first President to have an official First Mistress like he did in New York when he paraded around his girl friend while still married…

    Don’t think Republican moderates could out fight the Religious wing nuts to get Guiliani nominated.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    I forgot to mention that I agree with RJ that Kerry was a crappy candidate and I think a lot of us Democratic leaning people are pretty pissed at him.

  • http://sactodan.blogspot.com Sacto Dan

    Stick a fork in Kerry, he is done.

  • SFC SKI

    Gore-Kerry 2008, because we can’t learn from history.

  • dee

    I am pissed at Kerry. The man is too wishy washy. One day he is for something and the next day he is against it. Don’t force me to vote republican again !

  • http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/ Pamela

    Interesting analysis… Kerry is far from done – here

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    There may be many conservatives who detest Guiliani, but in the end, there is no one else left who can run…

    Frist? Senators never win, and he’s new regardless. Rommey? Please. There is no one but Guiliani who has any recognition AT ALL. Conservatives may detest him, but they detest Hillary more.

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com Lono

    Hillary? No, the Repubs are already painting her as a lesbian – and the gay angle has always worked in Rove’s favor.

    Won’t be Kerry either. If he couldn’t beat the shittiest sitting president in history, what chance does he have against a real opponent (I am thinking a Guiliani/ McCain ticket).

    nope, us Dems need a red blooded retard somewhere from the heartland.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I find it hard to imagine anyone deluded enough to think that Kerry will get nominated again. He was an absolute disaster as a candidate, and the moveon.org folks who now ‘own’ the democratic party were never fond of him.

    Dave

  • Paul D

    All you democrats who are writing off Kerry are dead wrong. You’re so weak that you repeat the Rove lines like “wishy washy”. It is you who are weak and let America down if you voted for Bush. While Bush may be the worst president ever, republicans are ultra loyal to him and many Americans were reluctant to switch in wartime. How badly they wish had switched now!

    John Kerry is all grit. He flattened Bush in the debates and had a great convention. It’s his toughness, foreign policy and military expertise which will make him a VERY attractive candidate in 2008. Furrthermore, his integrity is impeccable. That’s why they had to try and denigrate his Vietnam service. That is now old news now that they’ll be unable to use. He has the experience to win and will be a great president.

  • Mia Schatz

    I agree Kerry will be back. He’s been very active since the election and has been slamming Bush’s inept foreign policy. He will definitely get my vote. I admire his toughness. He’s an excellent speaker too, whereas Hillary will put you to sleep.

    Kerry came within inches against a wartime incumbent in 2004 and will win in 2008.

  • http://www.usedcarsalesman.com chris franklin

    And if Kerry had won, we’d hear people say the following: “he was such a great candidate, always strong on the issues, the Kerry revolution is just getting started, he’s as smart as Bill Clinton but taller…” :)

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    Paul – I agree that Kerry is a fine candidate with great character, but he ran only a so-so campaign. So he shares the blame along with Shrum and the rest of them.

    Hillary is the front-runner in 2005. But 2008 is a long long way off. There will be serious competition from the likes of Edwards and Biden (who already announced, pretty much!).

    I don’t think Kerry will fare very well in ’08. To be honest, Gore has a better shot at coming back.

    The really interesting primaries will be on the GOP side, and it may well be a Battle for the Soul Of type of deal.

    I’d not be surprised to see a social conservative win the nomination, as a Sure Lock winner in the general like McCain gets eaten by his own.

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan The Man

    If Hilary wins the nomination and somehow manages to win the presidency, it will be proof that the presidency means absolutely nothing if someone who’s as underqualified as Hilary wins. Then Congress and the House become ever more important to the stability and integrity of this country.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    Explain how Bush is/was more qualified than Hillary Clinton.

    If qualifications were the marker, we’d be in Year Five of the Gore Administration.

    Damn, imagine how different things would be now…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    kerry still hasn’t signed the SF-180 and I promise you he doesn’t stand a chance until he does!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    and more than likely…once he does…he surely be toast!

  • JR

    Marty Thau: People seem to forget that Guiliani was despised in New York by blacks.

    Forget? I never knew it in the first place.

    …or did I?

    In any case, if most people forget, it probably doesn’t matter.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Hillary? No, the Repubs are already painting her as a lesbian – and the gay angle has always worked in Rove’s favor.

    And that’s something that astounds me. How is it that such an apparently effeminate man with more gay mannerisms than a hairdresser on Castro Street end up inciting the conservative right to rise up against gays?

  • Paul D

    Andy,
    You are incorrect. Kerry DID sign the S.180 form. The LA Times and Boston Globe both have FULL access to ALL the records and have reported on them. John O’Neil started to claim there were things missing…But then the administrator of the military archives in St. Louis declared EVERYTHING was there. This is now a non-issue.

    As for qualifications, Bush’s lack of foreign policy experience and extreme ideology have proven disastrous. I agree Hillary is not worthy of the presidency because of her corrupt past, but Kerry is indeed the foremost foreign policy expert in our country. He was learning about it as a kid from his father who was a diplomat in Berlin. His experience in combat followed by leadership in calling out the Nixon administration on Vietnam make him the perfect candidate to handle the Iraq mess. He has a strong following from 2004 and will be tough. Edwards, Clark and Biden would make good cabinet members or VP candidates.

    The republicans not fielding an incumbent will help the democrats’ chances.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Bullshit! I have a link on my web site to a spot Kerry did on January 30, of this very year…the Year of Our Lord as they call it! On Meet the Press With Tim Russert…in his own voice from his own mouth that he would sign the SF-180…he has yet to sign the form!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    They have access to what Kerry gave them access to and nothing more. There’s something in there that he’s afraid of and he won’t sign the papers! And until he does, there isn’t a person in the military or one that’s been in the military that should vote for him…imho…

    HA!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Oh that link btw…it’s really easy to find…it’s the 2nd thing that comes up.

  • Tim Patterson

    With all due respect, Kerry is much stronger than Gore. Compare the debates and actions following the elections. Kerry flattened Bush three times whereas Gore lost his debates to Boy George.

    Debate I: BUSH POUTS while Kerry fires away. No Rove transmitter can save the helpless Bush.

    Debate II: BUSH PANICS Flustered by Kerry’s salvos, Bush charges forward and cuts off moderator Charlie Gibson screaming, “Wait, I gotta respond to this! Tell Tony Blair we’re going it alone!!…”

    Debate III: BUSH FOAMS at the corners of his mouth and denies his statement six months after 9/11, “I really don’t give Osama bin Laden much thought”.

    Game, Set, Match.

    Gore also disappeared to Europe, got fat and grew a beard, whereas Kerry has remained Bush’s worst nightmare since the election, blasting his inept policies and forcing the senate to enact laws that improve the lives of the many military widows Bush created and then ignored.

    Trust me: America needs a gritty leader who dusts himself off and gets back in the ring. The republicans do a lot of talking, but never stand for our veterans, farmers and the working class. Kerry actually walks the walk for ALL Americans. I am looking forward to Kerry’s 2008 comeback.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Swift boat vets will sink his ass again!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    that, and the OTH that’s hidden away in his service record!

  • http://kerryforpresident2008.blogspot.com Robert Freedland

    Thanks for bringing up Kerry for 2008.

    I have been writing about this in my blog, John Kerry for President 2008 since shortly after the election. I would invite all of you who might be interested in John Kerry to come and visit and also to visit other Kerry blogs that are still speaking up for the Massachusetts Senator!

    John Kerry was right in 2004 and he is more right than ever in 2008. I believe that President George W. Bush has demonstrated that being consistent is not always an attribute, especially when you are consistently wrong.

    Senator Kerry will be the only candidate who experienced Vietnam as a soldier and was decorated in combat and had the courage to return to this country and ask us not to ask anyone to be the last American to die for a cause that wasn’t just.

    America is bogged down in Iraq. This President has used facts that were “fixed” to get us into a war, lied about WMD’s, talks about “spreading freedom” while limiting our own freedoms at home. He now is claiming to tie Iraq to the 9/11 disaster. Shame on him.

    I volunteered and worked hard for John Kerry. I shall be volunteering for him again if he is interested in the job!

    Bob

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    If your such a friend of his, get him to sign the SF-180.

  • http://www.usedcarsalesman.com chris franklin

    Yeah, I’ll have to admit, though some of you might think it crazy, if the Democrats were to field a Kerry ticket, even better a Kerry/Edwards 2008 ticket, I as a non-voter would look at Democrats and say,

    “You guys are Hard!”

    (hard, as in “tough” or “thick-skinned”)

    Now bring on the “hard-headed” comments :)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I think it would be more like…You guys are HIGH!

  • Paul D

    Hey Andy,

    Wake up, Jackass!! It was signed and vetted by two newspapers well over a month ago. Even fat John O’Neil has given up. See the below link. End of story.

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200506100008

  • Joe Celinas

    I agree that John Kerry has very thick skin. He showed no fear of Bush and his cronies even when being smeared. In fact, they seemed to fear him and still do. Bush in particular, leaned back when Kerry towered over him and leaned in when they shook hands before the first debate. It was a moment of intimidation. The GOP still fears Kerry, which is precisely why the dems should run him again. He’s fully vetted and will learn from from his few mistakes in the 2004 campaign.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I stand corrected. Kerry has signed the SF-180, The globe hasn’t released what’s in it.

  • WTF

    I have a hard time with any rich fuckin’ Presidential candidate that identifies with the unwashed masses… it’s all bullshit. Quit foolin’ yourselves… they’re not in it for the money. They’re in it because they’re control freaks.

    Including Hillary. Who I would probably vote for just to see her win, piss everybody off and ultimately fail or further (if possible) divide the country.

    Kerry is toast, but won’t admit the fact, just like he never personally admitted other facts in his life, which upset the election (and no I’m talking about his ‘nam record, or his reporting for duty crap).

    Personally I’m glad he didn’t win, I’m glad Gore didn’t win… Gore was a two faced, forked tongue son of a crooked Tennessee politician.

    Gore would have won, if after Billy Boob admitted to the deception, Gore handed in his resignation in disgust and ran in 2000 as a staunch defender of integrity…. instead he chose to brown nose and figured he was a shoe in…. like it or not, Billy Boob Klintoon fucked up. Maybe not to the chess-playing voters; but the other voters who are individuals and exercise their votes very personally felt betrayed.

    I thoroughly enjoy the amount of 20/20 hindsight which takes place after an election, when plain speaking analysis is all that is really needed.

    Gore has turned into an over-inflated bitter windbag.

    Kerry is still not working together with ANYONE, except his glorified self.

    And Hillary…. Despite her adoring husband… has put her nose to the grindstone and is clawing her way to respectability… so much so that she is distancing herself from the fringe groups which sunk their fishhooks into Kerry and dragged him down, just enough to lose the election… but Kerry went along with it… took the gamble, bumbled about and lost. LOST.

    James Carvelle couldn’t even promote enough disgustingly vile condescendence to bring the hedging voters back into the fold.

    With that, I would like to direct you back to the first paragraph, which always applies to my logic. I’m not a chess player either…

  • MCH

    Re comment #29;
    “And until he does, there isn’t a person in the military or one that’s been in the military that should vote for him…imho…HA!”

    John Kerry: three Purple Hearts, one Silver Star and one Bronze Star.

    G.W. Bush: two years AWOL (1972-74) from the National Guard.

    So Andy, you’ll vote for a DESERTER over a decorated combat veteran?

    – MCH (Vietnam era vet who voted for Kerry and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. He’s still 10 times the man as “Smirk”..HA!)

  • http://spaces.msn.com/members/dorksandlosers Tan The Man

    Hah, I never said Bush was qualified either.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    I still don’t like him! It’s that simple…I just don’t like the guy…sorry!

  • SFC SKI

    Old vets may like Kerry, most of the currnt vets that I know do not like him or trust him.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    it’s just something about the guy…seeing him pretending to be duck hunting…on that board…talking about crawling through the trees deer hunting…what a bunch of bullshit!

  • SFC SKI

    He is an opportunist of the most transparent type. His words about the military have come back to haunt him. I’d rather have some one calll me a son of a bitch and stand by it rather than try to say he never said it once he needs something from me.
    Moreso, did he have a real plan, a vision, or just platitudes?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Democrat sleeper candidate: Wes Clark…

  • KC

    What? Not one Howard Dean comment?

  • http://kerryforpresident2008.blogspot.com Robert Freedland

    I’m really sorry that so many people weren’t happy with John Kerry because he seemed odd going duck hunting.

    Or maybe wind-surfing.

    Or snow-boarding.

    He really does all that stuff.

    As for George W. Bush. All that Texas stuff is phony. He just is better at it. He was raised in the Northeast as a son of a privileged family. Went to Yale and received all of the same lousy grades as Kerry. Dick Cheney also went to Yale and dropped out. Couldn’t cut it.

    What wasn’t phony about Bush was his record of being an alcoholic, being arrested for drunk driving twice, failing to even discuss his likely drug abuse history. But people didn’t seem to bother with that.

    What bothered people about Kerry was that he wasn’t a feel-good person. His testimony to Congress was honest. He was in Vietnam. Abuses did occur.

    But people don’t want to hear about that. They want to just hear nice things about America. It makes people feel bad to think America could do something wrong.

    Well it is time to wake up America!

    We can be proud of so many things about the United States. But it is one of those big lies that to “support our troops” means just to support our government in every political misadventure it involves itself in. Whether that be Vietnam or Iraq.

    John Kerry is a real Vietnam war hero.

    And those that attack real Vietnam war heroes are scum.

    And those who use family influence to get out of their Vietnam service, to pass over more-qualified applicants are just yellow-bellied varmints.

    And those that would attack Theresa Heinz Kerry because she was vocal and not lady-like really hate women. Those that would prefer all women to just say “whatever you say darling” are living in a world of “Leave it to Beaver” or “Father Knows Best” and not living in 2005.

    I have no apologies to make for supporting Senator John Kerry for President 2008. How many more Americans will have to die for a cause that is unjust?

    Bob

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    He did the same shit that Durbin did last week…comparing his “band of brothers” to ghengis khan…and he couldn’t even say his name right!

    THK is nothing but a whore…married a billionaire and now claims to be the richest african american in the US! Talks about somebody else not ever having a real job…like she’s ever had one!

    A piece of rice in your ass does not make you a war hero!

  • MCH

    Re comment #47;
    “I’d rather have someone call me a son of a bitch and stand by it rather than try to say he never said it once he needs something from me.”

    I’m in total agreement with your standards, Sarge, that honesty is vitally important when it comes to the office holder of the President of the United States. That’s exactly why I have no respect for G.W. Bush and voted for John Kerry. Bush has told numerous lies regarding his National Guard service, most notably:

    1) That the reason he didn’t fly planes at Dannelly Air Force Base was because “they didn’t have the same kind of planes there.”

    and 2) that he “…specifically remembers performing some of my (his) duties in Alabama…”

    The truth is:

    1b) the reason he didn’t fly planes at Dannelly was because he missed a mandatory physical prior to the transfer date, thereby permanently grounding himself (thus wasting $1 million tax payer’s dollars on his training);

    and 2b) GW was actually a no-show at Dannelly. “Had he reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not,” said retired Brigadier General William Turnispeed, Dannelly’s C.O. in 1972-73. “If we had a 1st Lt. from Texas, I would have remembered.”

    If he can’t even tell the truth about his cushy Guard service (while someone else died face down in the mud in his place in Vietnam), what else has he lied to us about…?

  • WTF

    Okay, while we’re talking about war hero’s… how did Kerry earn more decorations in 4 months than Audie Murphy (the most highly decorated service man) did in what 3 years?

    Hell my brother-in-law was a war hero in Vietnam, only he wasn’t decorated.. He flew more missions in Huey’s, had 5 of them shot out from under him…. pulled more bleeding grunts out of the bush than Kerry ever saw. Had people dying in his arms, and for what? So he could die of Agent Orange related cancer at age 59! FUCK KERRY, and all the other slimball goldbrickin MF’s who wore a uniform for any ulterior motive other than to serve their country… and fight like hell for the people around you, so somebody could get their ass home to safety.

    Does Kerry pass the smell test?
    Does Kerry pass the mommy test?

    Not to me it doesn’t. But I didn’t vote for Kerry, and I didn’t vote for Bush either… Nor did I vote for Clinton, nor will I vote for McCain…

    Clark? The Bosnian Victor, nah.

    Hillary? Sure, let’s see what she’s got. Put up or shut up Hillary. If it works, great… but she was 1st lady before the “new normalcy” she could be inheriting a mess… I’m sure she knows that and is probably gauging that very point. Right now I would bet even money the bitch chickens out.

    Any takers?

  • http://www.pmmediareview.com/ Mark Runyon

    I think you guys are missing one big obvious point. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, nobody likes the guy who couldn’t carry your ticket to victory. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth that you just can’t seem to get past. Unfortunately, the rest gets overlooked. So scratch Kerry and Gore from ’08. Every Democratic leaning person I know (and a few from the dark side) want the Clinton years back. I think Hillary is certainly the strongest thing in the Democratic camp at the moment, but as you say ’08 is still a long way away. A moderate can only be a good thing at this point.

    As for the Republicans nominee, who is going to bow to the rabid religious right? If you find that person, you have your candidate.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    I think both Gore and Kerry (and Edwards) will all try to run. And they will all get smacked down by Hillary.

    The only question is: Who will Hillary oppose? A right-wing Republican (Frist or JEB), or a moderate Republican(McCain or Rudy)?

  • http://www.usedcarsalesman.com chris franklin

    WTF- I’d say that Hillary is 100% running. I’d take the bet.

    Even if she loses, she is the first “Female Leader From a Major Party to Run For President.” Its a win/win for her (at least, that is what I’d tell her)

  • Tim Patterson

    Kerry has done more for veterans than any other senator over the past 3 decades. Any veteran who voted for Bush was badly misled and voted against his own interests. The republicans have cut and $billion over the next 5 years from the VA. They are always looking to cut funding for the VA. Now there is even a new $250. fee just to participate in VA healthcare. ^%$#!@#!

    Kerry recently fought for and won an extension of housing for military widows and their children from 90 days to a full year. He also got the death gratuity to be increased from $12000 to $500,000 for families of those who perish at war. Furthermore, he got the benefit to be available to those who die outside of Iraq or Afghanistan. If fighter pilots crash in the Pacific on a training run they’ll now be eligible too.

    Kerry read stories from military families on the senate floor and forced the senate to vote on these measures. Many republicans were reluctant to stand up for military families, but Kerry FORCED them to vote on it. He walks the walk for veterans. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself at Thomas.gov. See S.AMDT.333 and S.AMDT.334. While you’re at it, see who voted against them. Notice all republicans.

    Look at all the other things Kerry’s doing for small businesses and farmers too. We need a leader who takes action instead of misleading with political lies. You can make all your bullshit claims you want, but the truth is John Kerry is a fearless and tough leader who can take America to a better place.

  • Jeff

    In response to Mark Runyon’s cmment on no one liking the guy who lost I’ve got three words: Richard Milhouse Nixon. Not only did he come back from a narrow defeat to win, he did it twice and once in a crushing landslide. I think that the conventional wisdom that a candidate who has lost is unelectable is false (there have been other cases of it including Grover Cleveland).

    That said I would add a caveat. The whole “loser” thing is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I think that the ONLY thing that would make John Kerry inherently unelectable in 2008 is that for the whole election the media is going to be putting forth a steady drumbeat of stories on how he lost before and it’s so unlikely that he will win, and how it’s only been done twice before and it would be making history etc etc. I think this steady pile will become self fulfilling and will make people think that Kerry is unelectable and will also drown out anything substantive that Kerry might have to say.

    I think that the people who think that the Republicans will nominate a blue state moderate like Giuliani, or Mitt Romney are dreaming. Why in the name of God would an increasingly conservative Republican party nominate someone who is socially liberal like Romney or Rudy? (hell Rudy is pro-Choice). If you think they will then I think you’re ignoring the lessons of the last eight years. The lessons for the Republicans are that strength comes from your base. Move to the right and get the fundies, libertarians, and no-taxers out and you can win. Look at the map of 2004. IIRC Bush lost in every state in the Northeast and the Midwest except for Ohio. The lesson here is that the Blue states don’t matter. Why would you nominate Giuliani in hopes of carrying New York when you know you can win without the Empire State, and get a candidate who more accurately reflects the beliefs of the party.

  • Jeff

    In response to Mark Runyon’s cmment on no one liking the guy who lost I’ve got three words: Richard Milhouse Nixon. Not only did he come back from a narrow defeat to win, he did it twice and once in a crushing landslide. I think that the conventional wisdom that a candidate who has lost is unelectable is false (there have been other cases of it including Grover Cleveland).

    That said I would add a caveat. The whole “loser” thing is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I think that the ONLY thing that would make John Kerry inherently unelectable in 2008 is that for the whole election the media is going to be putting forth a steady drumbeat of stories on how he lost before and it’s so unlikely that he will win, and how it’s only been done twice before and it would be making history etc etc. I think this steady pile will become self fulfilling and will make people think that Kerry is unelectable and will also drown out anything substantive that Kerry might have to say.

    I think that the people who think that the Republicans will nominate a blue state moderate like Giuliani, or Mitt Romney are dreaming. Why in the name of God would an increasingly conservative Republican party nominate someone who is socially liberal like Romney or Rudy? (hell Rudy is pro-Choice). If you think they will then I think you’re ignoring the lessons of the last eight years. The lessons for the Republicans are that strength comes from your base. Move to the right and get the fundies, libertarians, and no-taxers out and you can win. Look at the map of 2004. IIRC Bush lost in every state in the Northeast and the Midwest except for Ohio. The lesson here is that the Blue states don’t matter. Why would you nominate Giuliani in hopes of carrying New York when you know you can win without the Empire State, and get a candidate who more accurately reflects the beliefs of the party.

  • Jeff

    In response to Chris Franklin I think you pooh-pooh the Republicans chances a bit too much. Maybe because you weren;t too involved in politics recently. THe current front-runner for the Republicans is hardly unknown. It’s Senator Bill Frist. Frist has a national name recognition comparable to Hillary or Kerry and as majority leader he has the power to enact an agenda which he can run on (he also has to take blame for the failures).

    Far from running from the BUsh record if things are like they are now a Republican candidate might embrace it. Even ifwe say that the Bush administration is viewed as a train wreck in 2008 the fact that the Republican nominee will most likely be an outsider and not an administration regular will allow him to dodge some of the blame to a certain degree. “Iran developing nuclear weapons? Well I would not have waited as long as President Bush did before demanding that they dismantle their program”.

    That said there is more than a little absurdity to this whole thing. Forcasting political trends years in advance is incredibly dicey. Who knows what will happen. After all in 2001 who thought that John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee in 2004? Heck in 2003 who thought that Kerry would be the nominee. Kerry’s rise to prominance only came about when the voters of Iowa decided he had the best chance of winning. During the summer of 2004 Saturday Night Live had a rerun from early in the season where all the Democratic candidates including Kerry were bemoaning how they didn’t stand a chance of defeating Dean and nobody knew who they were. Kerry became the Democratic leader so quickly that political humor from the fall of 2003 was hopelessly outdate by the spring of 2004. Bush is somewhat similar. In 1996 Did anyone outside of Karl Rove and some other Republican kingmakers think that George W Bush would be the partys nominee in 2000? Would anyone have thought that the dissolute son of a former president whose political experience was limited to two terms in the weakest governorship in the country would be the new lion of the far right?

    Also keep in mind how things change. On September 10th 2001 it looked like Bush would probably go on to be an inconsequential one term president like his father. Then 9/11 happened and he turned into either God on high for Conservatives or Satan incarnate for Liberals.

    I’m not sure that any of the people we are talking about now as presidential contenders will end up getting the nomination in 2008.

  • WTF

    Tim,
    If Kerry is doing all these great things… where’s the PR? Why aren’t Vet groups putting the word out in monthly newsletters, ARMY/NAVY/AirForce Times news papers… Top Enlisted newsgroups. Major broadcast media, Talking heads? Where is the PR? Is Kerry stupid enough to forget that he has a PR problem? He could be a bit more proactive concerning his backing of vets/active duty and reserve personnel in regards to passing the word.

    Is he dropping the ball again? Is he a habitual ball dropper? What’s up with that?

  • Tim

    WTF,
    Another things Kerry’s done. He introduced a bill which passed giving tax breaks and incentives to small businesses that have employees serving in the Reserves and National Guard. This will help protect those serving when they return for work. I’m telling you the truth. Meanwhile Bush and his cronies continue to try to cut funds for the VA.

    The media is conservative biased and does not report this, although I’ll admit Scarborough country did briefly report Kerry’s winning fight for military widows. You must do the research yourself. The media is pro Bush and Clinton. They hide Kerry’s great work. It’s the truth.

  • http://www.usedcarsalesman.com chris franklin

    Jeff- All good points.

    But, don’t know what Frist has to fight for. Maybe he’ll be the M.D. that patches up the U.S.’s political or military problems. If the Bush administration pulls’ Bin Laden out of a hat (rumour is he’s been in U.S. custody for a while), minimizes future U.S. casualities in Iraq and otherwise demonstrates some semblance of reconstruction and order in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I’d say Frist has something to work with. He’s a red-stater, a smart man and I’d say he has a better shot than Giuliani at winning his party’s nomination.

    Yeah and if its Hillary vs. Frist and Iraq is under control, then Hillary has little ammo and it’s Frist. But, Frist’s success depends on Bush’s war management. However, I don’t underestimate Bush and his people.

    But, Frist as a Republican “outsider” by virtue of the fact that he is a Senator rather than a member of the current adminstration? And, as nationally well known as Kerry and Hillary? These are both a very long stretch without supporting numbers.

    You do contend that there is “absurdity” to this whole thing. Maybe. But, I have heard some new and plausible ideas and that is worth something. It’s cool that everybody has commented.

  • http://www.pmmediareview.com/ Mark Runyon

    Jeff-
    I didn’t mean to imply that it couldn’t be done. I just said it would be highly unlikely, and we should focus our efforts elsewhere. As far as Nixon goes, you hit the nail right on the head. He didn’t have to contend with the media flashing negative soundbites 24/7/365 which can make or break a candidate in this age of ‘too little actual news for all the hours there is to cover it’. Let’s not even get into them ignoring real news stories to focus on what Brad and Angelina are doing this week. So in the end, I think we’re both right to a degree.

  • http://www.outragedmoderates.org Thad Anderson

    I’ve been against the idea of Hillary Clinton running, because I thought it would destroy the Democratic Party’s dwindling support in the South.

    However, I was shocked by this recent straw poll of South Carolina Democrats:

    N.Y. Sen. Hillary Clinton – 44 votes
    Fmr VP Cand. John Edwards – 34 votes
    Va. Gov. John Warner – 32 votes
    Del. Sen. Joe Biden – 24 votes
    Mass. Sen. John Kerry – 8 votes

    The (Columbia) State, “Clinton Wins SC Straw Poll

    While this poll is obviously not a true gauge of Hillary’s support, it contradicts the current conventional wisdom of most Southern Democrats I know, which can be summed up by: “Y’all, PLEASE don’t run anyone from up there for President again.” In other words, a lot of people who may like Hillary and/or think she makes a good Senator are concerned about the backlash against Northeastern Presidential candidates. This backlash is so intense that it affects not just the Presidential election, but makes campaigning incredibly easy for Republicans running for Congress or state offices . . . the rallying cry basically becomes “John Doe, my Democratic opponent, wants to turn Red State X into Massachusetts.” Hillary may be able to evade some of this geopolitics, because of her years in Arkansas and the District of Columbia (not that the latter is well-liked, either, but it’s better than Massachusetts).

    The most interesting thing to see will be whether the intense hatred of her that spread through red states like a wildfire in 1992 is as strong now. The main point of contention was the fact that she wanted to become involved in policy-making as a First Lady. It is easy enough to blame this on sexism, but it’s actually much more complicated than that, because the sentiment was shared by a lot of women, and had more to do with the appearance of overstepping the traditional boundaries of her role as First Lady, than true “sexism” (e.g. – “women shouldn’t be in politics”). I’m sure someone will disagree, and say that they’re the same thing, but I don’t think it is sexist for people to believe that the spouse of an elected official should stick to the traditional role.

    At any rate, Clinton’s stint as an elected official, during which she has earned high marks for knowing her stuff, doing her due dilligence, and working across the aisle, might have put some of the old hatred to rest. To whatever extent that hatred of Hillary was based on pure sexism, the success of Madeline Albright and Condoleeza Rice have shown that people are comfortable with women holding positions that have foreign relations/military significance.

  • http://www.outragedmoderates.org Thad Anderson

    Meant to comment on the fact that John Edwards, although he went to NC State and then UNC for law school, practiced law in Raleigh and served as one of NC’s Senators, was born in South Carolina. This makes Hillary’s showing in the straw poll even more impressive, especially considering the strong sense of local and state pride in the Southeast (the Bobcats’ much-discussed selection of two Tar Heels in the NBA draft is only one example – although anyone who watched the Final Four should know better than to claim that drafting Felton at 5th and May at 13th is “too early”).

    Maybe the rift between North and South Carolina hurt Edwards . . .

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “The whole “loser” thing is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I think that the ONLY thing that would make John Kerry inherently unelectable in 2008 is that for the whole election the media is going to be putting forth a steady drumbeat of stories on how he lost before and it’s so unlikely that he will win, and how it’s only been done twice before and it would be making history etc etc. I think this steady pile will become self fulfilling and will make people think that Kerry is unelectable and will also drown out anything substantive that Kerry might have to say.”

    Great point. I agree 100%.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Those who still hate Hillary are those on the Right who have long memories. And this is most certainly a minority of the voting public.

    The Left loves her, because she is, at heart, a Leftist, and they know this, even if she repeatedly, publicly claims to be a moderate (and sometimes even votes like a moderate). And the Left will continue to love her and support her. And she is almost certainly running.

    As for the South, I suspect she will begin talking A LOT more about her time in Arkansas, as soon as she wins re-election to the Senate in New York. (Off comes the Yankees cap…)

    So. She can run nationally as a “moderate Southerner” while still getting strong support from North-Eastern and West-Coast Leftists.

    And the MSM will be absolutely FAWNING over her, as the first female to become a major-party nominee for the Presidency. If you thought the press in 2004 was biased against the GOP in favor of the Dems, you haven’t seen nothing yet…

  • http://www.usedcarsalesman.com chris franklin

    Thad-

    You’re probably meaning Va. Democratic Gov. “Mark” Warner. I don’t know what it is about my home state of Virginia and the # of “Warner” politicians, ie. Mark, John :)

  • http://www.outragedmoderates.org Thad Anderson

    That’s correct, the poll (must have) included Mark Warner, current Dem. Gov. of Virginia, rather than John Warner, a Rep. Sen. from Virginia.

    However, I’m going to pass the blame for that typo on to the article in the State, which said “John Warner” . . .

  • http://illusionsetc.blogspot.com Walt

    I voted for Bush but there is one Democrat that I might consider in 2008. That is Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell. Why don’t I hear more about him?

  • Emma Wilson

    Hey Walt,
    What stupidity drove you to vote for Bush? He’s the worst president EVER!
    Do yourself and the rest of the world a favor, don’t vote next time.

  • Simone

    In his DNC acceptance speech, Kerry said, “The high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place.”

    The two questions are: Is Kerry electable, and would he be the best president? The fact that there is such an enormous descrepancy between answers of “yes” to the second question and “no” to the first makes me sad.

    Throw your weight and your passion behind the humble, incredibly intelligent, experienced, dignified Kerry, instead of supporting someone who is more “electable” but infinitely less noble. All you get in a democracy is one vote, and as much energy and passion as you possess to work for the high road. Do what you will with it, but I’m sticking wit the man who articulated it so beautifully, John Kerry.

  • http://kerryforpresident2008.blogspot.com Robert Freedland

    Simone,

    You said it correctly. But do not let anyone underestimate the power of John Kerry. They called him a flip-flopper, but he has the determination of a fighter.

    They say he is unlikeable. But he has the warmth that can win a following.

    We don’t need to second guess about what would be electable. America doesn’t need calculations about whether a candidate is from a red state or a blue state. Whether he or she is a senator or a Governor.

    What we need is a Statesman for President. John Kerry fits the bill.

    Bob

  • john shoulder

    Kerry is a tough guy. He was just not lucky in 2004. The reason was simple and obvious for his loss: the decisive voters wanted Bush to finish the mess he created at the first place.

    The winner of 2008 will very likely between Kerry and Hilary. Whoever wins the dem nomination will be the President.

  • Sabrina

    Kerry/Clinton 2008, Baby!

  • simon williams

    Gore-Kerry ticket in 2008!

  • simon williams

    Clinton polarizes too much…

%d bloggers like this: