Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

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.

Sen. John Kerry
Will Sen. Kerry make another run for the White House next year? (AP Photo)

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.

Asked whether his decision to join Kerry signaled that the senator would be running again for president in 2008, Smith demurred. "Whatever he chooses to do, he is going to have a tremendous impact on public policy," said Smith. "Whether on Iraq or domestic policy, Sen. Kerry brings tremendous political assets to the table and the party benefits when he takes a leadership role."

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.)

Kennedy previously pledged to support Kerry if he decided to run in 2008, and Kerry aides were quick to point out that Patrick made a similar pledge over the weekend.

David Wade, a longtime aide to Kerry, predicted a decision "early in the new year," adding: "We're well over a year away before the first ballots are cast in the 2008 nominating process, but Sen. Kerry has no intention of waiting too long in his decision."

Kerry has formidable strengths and daunting weaknesses. While he carries strong name identification and a campaign bank account of more than $10 million, he is also seen as a gaffe-prone, has-been by many party insiders.

Read The Fix's case for and against a Kerry 2008 candidacy.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 9, 2007; 9:35 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Update: Romney Dials for 6.5 Million Dollars
Next: RNC Adds Staff Talent

Comments

Crying on the Senate floor, our hero bows out. Too bad, it would have been fun.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 26, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

oheypagin lwoqy zgrbt krjyiaw npehsowx mgfnxeb xsfz [URL]http://www.kusrj.xmjy.com[/URL] myhsuoq cgdkfhmu

Posted by: ahtrzgfio ktzaj | January 22, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

ivkga jxmublwf kcrgzm ausiyxw qlwr ufgwm fovdjrna [URL=http://www.dezbtwhs.dyhrnkp.com]lwofprxgq xqsupgel[/URL]

Posted by: xfrzu qyua | January 22, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

ivkga jxmublwf kcrgzm ausiyxw qlwr ufgwm fovdjrna [URL=http://www.dezbtwhs.dyhrnkp.com]lwofprxgq xqsupgel[/URL]

Posted by: xfrzu qyua | January 22, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

geibmdqn bwlyf hxsil lqugkc jetxuq rhvnfdsgz tvqd sutwjpl ufhp

Posted by: brclntiw bvoud | January 22, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

dpecobmk kpwudz jxefmq dubrlkq hnvpiqz fecmlxr vzywhmrpe http://www.qesdofil.oghsq.com

Posted by: howex krcduf | January 22, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

dpecobmk kpwudz jxefmq dubrlkq hnvpiqz fecmlxr vzywhmrpe http://www.qesdofil.oghsq.com

Posted by: howex krcduf | January 22, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

dpecobmk kpwudz jxefmq dubrlkq hnvpiqz fecmlxr vzywhmrpe http://www.qesdofil.oghsq.com

Posted by: howex krcduf | January 22, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

yjvahrzml wojh pfcx kqdiwtnzp lbusr kzcwv ehldfaocj

Posted by: emxsgcz tpuelmvgd | January 22, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary? Edwards? Kerry????
Here we go again.
Either of these names on a ballot will ensure another Republican victory in 08, guaranteed. I will not vote for either of those three names. The Dems need some REAL candidates for a change. Obama seems promising, let's wait and see.

Remember, Kerry voted FOR the war you fools. He really needs to sit down already. What does he stand for anyway? Will the Democratic party ever stop shooting themselves in the foot!!#@$#@@#%

Posted by: fedup | January 20, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is the only hope for the Democrats in 2008.. osama just a DFN

Posted by: Joe | January 17, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Kerry-Patton will run, (his huge ego and his wife's money), but he will loose. The majority of his support came form anti-Bush voters, and that will not be the case in '08. When you insult millions of active duty military and vets as being drooling high school drop-outs, you start off millions of votes behind. But it will be entertaining...will he be an X Navy Seal, a former Green Beret or perhaps a deep cover CIA agent working out of Cambodia....the excitement builds!

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 13, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Kerry will run. Kerry will win. End of story.

Posted by: thisvoter | January 12, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Osama Obama, yes!
And let's not forget his contribution to the war on drugs. With a nose like a vacuum, he's taken more drugs on the street than Bill Clinton and his brother combined.
Obama '08..yes!

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 11, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

That's right - we need another white male like George W Bush. (Read my sarcasm.)

No one with an open mind would think that all Obama has going for him is his skin color. He has as much experience as nearly anyone in the field, he has the most impressive academic credentials, charisma, fundraising ability, appeal to moderate voters, and ability to pull Black vote in key swing states.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

I don't know anyone who loved John Kerry in 2004. They voted for him b/c they hated Bush, and assumed Kerry was competent electable. Kerry is now the loser of the 2004 election against a very weak president. No one liked Kerry then, and no one likes him now after his stupid botched joke.

Posted by: Robert* | January 11, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Bill Jacobs is right that Kerry is the only commander in chief type that the Democrats have. I also agree about needing a white male. If Obama had a Colin Powell resume plus a term in the Senate, OK. But he's a presidential level version of the Harold Ford Senate campaign: lots of media hype; he's a new kind of black Democrat, i.e., a Joe Lieberman kind of black Democrat; if you don't vote for him, you're a racist. It didn't work for Harold Ford and will do worse in a presidential campaign where people have more time to think about it.

Posted by: Tatum | January 10, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Kerry-Patton hero quotes...on Meet the Press, April 18 1971

"..I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed..."

"..I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

So why wasn't Kerry-Patton tried the same as Lt. Calley? Surely, shooting a wounded, un-armed teenaged kid in the back is right up there with Lt. Calley style warefare. Nothing like that has happened in Gitmo...and liberals are still having leaking problems in their Huggies over the humane treatment of prisoners there.

Your're right, he was for his medals before he was against them and threw them away.

Then he was for them again when he needed to look like a war hero.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 10, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

But thats ok Max. His book was written at a time when Kerry was for plagiarism. You see, he was FOR plagiarism before he was AGAINST it.

He was FOR his comrades in Vietnam before he called them criminals. Then he was FOR them again when he needed to look like a war hero.

All lies by Kerry can be excused by looking at the context of what he was looking to achieve at the time he said it.

Which ever way the wind blows...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Kerry-Patton is not only a phony war hero, he's also a Plagiarist. http://www.nysun.com/article/3775

Add that to his rap sheet along with widow hunting.....

Posted by: MaximusExcurcio | January 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The sad thing about this blog is that 99% of the people who actually read it have made up their mind before reading any posts so why bother arguing. And seriously, the personal attacks that lack any intelligent arguements are sad because they reflect the way too many people feel about political candidates. They are too lazy to learn anything else about them than their party affiliation and what negative attack ads tell them to think.

Posted by: Moderates Unite | January 10, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Lets just all agree on the facts.

-Kerry demanded Purple hearts from his doctors for a couple of paper cuts when real heros were losing limbs.

-Kerry ran away from his comrades after 16 weeks when real heros were re-enlisting for several years.

-Kerry re-enacted his 'heroics' on video for his future storytelling campaigns.

-Kerry spent the next several years calling the real heros 'criminals'

It sounds like you pansy ass liberals are hard up for real war heros and this 'botched joke' of a human being is all you can come up with. This is why you whine so much. you are desperate to show that liberals can be strong on defense.

If you want to run a war hero against the Republicans in '08, you will have to do better than John Flipity-flop Kerry.

Posted by: Trent Steele | January 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Lets just all agree on the facts.

-Kerry demanded Purple hearts from his doctors for a couple of paper cuts when real heros were losing limbs.

-Kerry ran away from his comrades after 16 weeks when real heros were re-enlisting for several years.

-Kerry re-enacted his 'heroics' on video for his future storytelling campaigns.

-Kerry spent the next several years calling the real heros 'criminals'

It sounds like you pansy ass liberals are hard up for real war heros and this 'botched joke' of a human being is all you can come up with. This is why you whine so much. you are desperate to show that liberals can be strong on defense.

If you want to run a war hero against the Republicans in '08, you will have to do better than John Flipity-flop Kerry.

Posted by: Trent Steele | January 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Afraid of Kerry? Please...he's the gift that keeps on giving!

I say John Edwards...Because EVERYONE deserves a pony!!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that no matter what the topic is, the right-wingers immediately resort to personal attacks, nastiness, lies, and distortions? Get off the personal attacks (both on the politicians and fellow posters alike) and stick to a discussion of the issues. If you don't like Kerry, fine. But there's no need to resort to childish name calling to get your point across. This isn't the 4th grade. It just goes to show that no matter what the venue, the ultra-conservative right has nothing constuctive to say or contribute.

If you can't discuss the topics in an intelligent manner without resorting to personal attacks, then STAY OFF THIS BLOG!

Now, in terms of Kerry, I think had the Repubs not "fixed" Ohio and to a lesser extend, Florida, Kerry would now be President (as would Gore in 2000). People seem to forget that the Republicans had to resort to unbelievably aggressive purging of voter rolls, the creation of unrealistic voter eligibility requirements, changing polling locations without notification to voters, unfair allocation of voting machines to various precincts, voter intimidation, corporate-owned ballot boxes whose counts cannot be verified, and so on, and so on, and so on in order to win in both 2000 AND 2004.

That said, I think Kerry's performance in the 2000 election makes him an unrealistic choice this time around. He played it too safe, refused to respond to lies and false attacks, and left many Democrats feeling completely emasculated. I think he can do much more good for this Country staying in the Senate.

I'll say it again, look for Gore to announce his candidacy in April/May of this year and would be very excited about a Gore/Obama ticket.

Posted by: PeixeGato | January 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse


I enjoyed your story on Sen. Kerry's plans to run for president again. The story was a well informed inside view that is hard to find. The one aspect of Sen. Kerry that could be interesting is a humorous view of his efforts. He reminds me of the comic movie 'Spinal Tap' about a has-been rock band that don't have any perspective on themselves. I would guess Sen. Kerry will forge on in his usual
oblivious manner. Kerry seems to listen to no one. As a teenager he apparently decided to copy Jack Kennedy's life. But since Sen. Kerry lacks Jack Kennedy's magic personality, he reverts to becoming
Dick Nixon by pursuing his lofty goals with the determined hard work of trying to ingratiate himself to Democratic politicos all over the country. A friend
of mine thinks he may even revert to a 'Checkers' style presentation, but using a fancier kind of dog.Kerry's soul seems on an impossible quest for the social status he couldn't get in prep school. Doesn't anyone in the press just find this guy weird? The guy probably tosses and turns at night because he isn't president. Hopefully, Sen Kerry will run again
because a lot of people really do miss Dick Nixon and the world can always use a laugh.

Posted by: Tim Wardner | January 10, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Every singlke swiftvet lie has been exposed and discredited. Not a single one of O'Neill's charges turned out to be true, and the whole hoax was financed by Tom Delay's slush funds in Texas. http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/behindsbv.htm

Also, McCain is on record saying the swiftvets for "truth" are dishonest, dishonorable and despicable human beings. So how can McCain use that garbage? He can't.

Posted by: Bill Jacobs | January 10, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Kerry an elitist? Hold on. Bush is from the most elite familym in the US and his policies are for and by the economic elite. Kerry is for higher taxes on the elite and for much greater help for the poor and middleclass. So how can that be elite? Because his former Republican wife inherited money? Fine. But Kerry himself was not born with money. He has worked all his life. Not a single year in his life was he able to loaf on dad's dough like GW Bush did. Mitt Rommey is also more elite. So is Gore actually. His dad was a rich senator. So this "elite" business is of course just more rightwing BS. In fact our two greatest presidents may be FDR and JFK, both from rich elite families. But Kerry's parents couldn't even afford his tuition at school. They were lucky John had a rich aunt who helped them out.

Posted by: Bill Jacobs | January 10, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Notice the rightwing GOP posters slamming Kerry here (with BS of course). This proves that the GOP is afraid of Kerry, but not afraid of Hillary or Obama. They kjnow they can smear a woman or a black, but they can't smear Kerry again. All that smearvet nonsense was proven false a long time ago.

Always pay attention to who the GOP attacks the most, because that's who they do not want Dems to nominate.

Posted by: Bill Jacobs | January 10, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest, Dems. The chances are we need a white male candidate to win, and someone very qualified as well. Also, Hillary, Obama, Edwards all have negatives too, big ones. Kerry did an amazing job in 2004 coming back from 30% behind Howard Dean. He had to endure cancer surgery and losing his voice a dozen times. He raised 150 million bucks. Sure he made some mistakes, but so did Gore in 2000. So does everyone. You think Hillary or Obama are never going to make gaffes and mistakes? And one more thing, the smears they hit Kerry with in 2004 and the Ohio cheating, they cannot use again. All that BS was a single0use slimebomb. PLus, since Kerry can probably win New Hampshire and do well in Iowa, he's an automatic contender. Also has more than 10 million in the bank. By contract the Edwards campaign is in debt.

So I say be very nice to Kerry and forgive him for all perceived flaws. Because we may desperately need him to beat McCain. If the country wants a commander in chief type, and a white male, Kerry is almost alone as a Dem contender. Unless Wes Clark really picks it up.

Posted by: Bill Jacobs | January 10, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

http://www.swiftvets.com/swiftvetsandpows/ Take the time to listen to the real heros.

Posted by: MaximusExcurcio | January 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It also comes down to what states they can win. I think Gore has a chance of carrying the west (CO, NM, IA, even NV) and maybe that elusive south (FL and TN). I don't see Kerry getting many of those.

Posted by: Statesman | January 10, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

ProudGrunt
Kerry-Patton was one of many who slandered the returning troops. Are you really that numb.
All the Swift Vets except Kerry-Patton served a full tour in Viet Nam. Some more than that. Kerry-Patton, driven by his family motto "Three Purple Hearts and I'am outto here" spent all of his four months fabricating a way out. An honorable cause, suffered by honorable men who had to come home and listen to Kerry-Patton call them criminals. American POW's forced to listen to Kerry-Patton calling them criminals. They said nothing for 30 years until the coward Kerry decided he wanted to be Commander-In-Chief. A coward, a slacker, in charge of the pepole he despises the most. Let him run again...men of character will speak out again.

Posted by: MaximusExcurcio | January 10, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

ProudGrunt
Kerry-Patton was one of many who slandered the returning troops. Are you really that numb.
All the Swift Vets except Kerry-Patton served a full tour in Viet Nam. Some more than that. Kerry-Patton, driven by his family motto "Three Purple Hearts and I'am outto here" spent all of his four months fabricating a way out. An honorable cause, suffered by honorable men who had to come home and listen to Kerry-Patton call them criminals. American POW's forced to listen to Kerry-Patton calling them criminals. They said nothing for 30 years until the coward Kerry decided he wanted to be Commander-In-Chief. A coward, a slacker, in charge of the pepole he despises the most. Let him run again...men of character will speak out again.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Maximus Gluteus' 21 years in the Navy were wasted. He has no concept what "fellowship" means to combat veterans.

"I trust the Swift Vets" and not the people who served by Kerry's side in combat.

Un f'ing believable!

Gluteus, MikeB has a great point, your slandering of Kerry is no different from the people who scorned returning vets three decades ago? Your Hate for Hate's Sake position makes you no different from the anti-war protester that you despise so much.

You should never use the phrase "Support the Troops!" again without admitting to yourself that it is a hollow phrase because you so also demean people who served.

Posted by: ProudGrunt | January 10, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

.

I want John Kerry in the White House in 2008. Not Clinton (phony) or Obama (inexperienced). We need John Kerry even more now.

Now the Democratic party is ready and it is thanks to John Kerry who campaigned tirelessly for Dems nationwide. I don't care for the Clintons who are trying to get adopted by Bush senior.

I want a real Democrat, a real progressive a real leader to repair America now. Kerry has the policies ready to fix our problems in 2008. I say Run John Kerry!! I got your back and will volunteer!!!

Posted by: Paul D | January 10, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Kerry should run. He has experience America needs. No candidate is perfect. Obama has never been test or vetted. He could easily flame out just as quickly as he rose.

Kerry's been through it all many times. I think he's learned a thing or two and it would be foolish to rule him out or underestimate him as most did in '04.

Posted by: IFK Editor | January 10, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The guy who TOOK A DIVE IN 2004?

No thankyou John COHEN Kerry.

Posted by: wunb | January 10, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

CC comments that this would be the first time since Adlai Stevenson (hardly an auspicous example) that the Democrats have nominated someone four years after losing. On the Republican side, Nixon was renominated 8 years after losing, but for renomination four years on you have to go back to Thomas Dewey - 1944 and 1948. Unless, of course, you count people who lost VPOTUS and then got renominated in the top slot. Then you have Mondale (80 and 84) and Dole (76 and 96) more recently than Stevenson & Nixon. Of all those mentioned, only Nixon won, (though Mondale had previously been elected VPOTUS, in 76, his nomination for POTUS came four years after losing and eight years after winning). To find a candidate of either party elected POTUS four years after losing in same position I think you have to go back to Grover Cleveland.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Posted by: Quentin Langley | January 10, 2007 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Discussions of the 2004 campaign can't do without an unusual book that harkens back to the 'new journalism' of Norman Mailer and others, using a more literary style to tour American history and current events. It's not really about the 2004 campaign in a "Making of the President" sense of covering all the campaign events but turns the campaign into a map of the American mind, specifically of how America's guiding belief systems aren't working well anymore. But it's a fun look at the campaign along the way. It's called "Mything in Action". That's as in myths, national myths. It's the "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" of the 2004 campaign, but its more serious than Thompson. It's the best book on a political campaign in a long time. Some great prose style. I got mine on amazon. Author's name is Lago.

Posted by: poli-reader | January 10, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

My question has been answered. Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

That snswers my?? Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments have stopped or my computer is not working. which one?

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Kerry-Patton was there for four months. He was there only for his political future. Three purple owies and a Silver Star and shooting an unarmed kid in the back, all in just a few weeks. The after action reports were written by ....Kerry. He's a fruad from the beginning and to this day. I trust the dozens of Swift Vets and not the less than six who speak for Kerry-Patton. The fact that he still denegrates thoes in the military says he still has a lot of guilt about what he did in Viet Nam and when he came back. I'am sorry to interrupt your wet deram about this phony hero...but it's time you faced the truth. The fact that the few are loyal to him is more of a statement about their good character and not his. As with Clinton, too many would have to be lying for the one to be telling the truth.

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Gore is my first choice, but I would have no problem at all voting for Kerry. Anybody that the Democrats nominate is going to be smeared endlessly. It happened to Gore in 2000 and it happened to Kerry in 2004. The fact that Democrats did the work for the Republicans by backing away from Kerry after the 'botched joke' was despicable. It showed why Dems are labeled "spineless".

Kerry (and Gore for that matter) got a raw deal and either one of them will make a great President. Hell, it's almost impossible to do any worse than what we have now.

Posted by: Shaun | January 9, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Reading so many of the comments included Kerry being a loser in 2004 as a reason for him not to run again. But, if you followed the vote counting shenanigans you know that Kerry did win despite his below average campaign. Having said that, I would rather he not run as too few will take him as a credible candidate. Now John Edwards is becoming quite the Progressive, but I don't think he would ask Kerry to run as his VP.

Posted by: Singh Lowd | January 9, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: We disagree at times on some things but this crowd today seems willing to post anything and everything that is just the opposite of what this blog is all about. I have tried to not respond to them directly for it would be useless. These Swift-Boaters, IMO, have been proven wrong, to my satisfaction, in just about each and every claim that was made on their behalf. None of us that were not there will ever know what the truth really is, but as stated early in this discussion the folks with him, i.e. his crew, are the only ones that know what did happen and as I recall they were the ones that supported him.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Maximus Excurcio - "...Your "wing man" has to be there. Kerry..was not. He was running for office and for his life". A lie and it is time it was exposed. Mr. Kerry won a silver star when, under fire, he ran his boat into the bank and jmped over the side to rescue an injured crewman. In doing so, he drew his side arm and shot the Viet Kong soldier who had wounded that man dead. And, this was witnessed by every man on his boat, by the wounded man he recued and by the crewmen of another boat involved in that recue. No photo op and it doesn't sound to me like John Kerry was running *from* anything nor *for* anything. He was merely trying to save the life of an American serviceman. Such bravery doesn't deserve the sort of distortion and lies that you dish out. I keep reading posts right wingers here about honoring servicemen no matter how we might feel about a conflict (and I happen to feel that way), but you are not honoring them by this and similar posts. You talk about it, but your posts about Mr. Kerry are tired retreads of the underhanded crap dished out by Karl Rove and the swine he hired to disort John Kerry's military records. Whether you agree with Mr. Kerry's politcis isn't important at the moment. Honoring is sacrifice most certainly is! How on earth can you condemn the dirtbags that threw paper bags filled with excrement on our returning soldiers from Vietnam and then turn around and do exactly the same thing to John Kerry, returning soldier? How is it that you permit Karl Rove and George Bush and the other cowards, perverts, and draft dodgers that staff the Bush Whitehouse? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

ProudGrunt

Kerry-Patton was a part of a squadron, not much different than a squardron of aircraft. Your "wing man" has to be there. Kerry-Patton was not. He was running for office and for his life. He even bought a movie camera to film his "heroic acts". Any chance you've seen that bit of Hollywood? Kerry-Patton is one who admited to commiting atrocities. Google his senate appearance...

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Kerry run again? Suddenly I feel like putting on my flip-flops.............

Posted by: AZ-439 | January 9, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The longer I stick around here, the more it becomes clear to me that the right wing really has no clue about what it is up against in Obama. Guess what, few of the center 30% both parties are fighting for care that his middle name is Hussein or he snorted coke during a troubled adolescence. He's a committed Christian and disarms problems like the cocaine by admitting in a direct and upfront manner - which means every one of his issues gets his frame in the media. Two years from now things like this will be old hat. He's taking the arrows out of your quiver one by one.

I will be thrilled if republicans go into '08 with McCain or Romney and nothing new on the policy front except a soft commitment to fixing corruption, stay the course in iraq/GWOT, and their successful '04 smear strategy. It will be a massacre. About the only thing you can legitimately pin on Obama will be lack of experience, and he'll add a heavyweight VP and promise strong cabinet appointments (Gore EPA anyone?). Besides, the likely republican candidates are similarly inexperienced (Romney, Giuliani) or really old and tied to the Iraq war (McCain).

Posted by: Nissl | January 9, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Maximus Gluteus - Thanks for your service, but that also means you should know better.

You should also know that if you were under ambush fire in a canal that "200 yards away" may as well have been "back in the World." Your command responsibility was within feet of you.

I can take Kerry or I can leave him. It's your right to disagree with him. As a boat driver his crew stood by him. That's all you as a career Navy vet should need to know.

The fabricated B.S. from the "swiftboat" weasels was despicable.

And if you think that atrocities should be swept under the rug and demonize those that admit to atrocities; then you've given every grunt a blank check to do whatever he wants.

Do you really want that?

Posted by: ProudGrunt | January 9, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Best thing we could do for america's future is round up all the conservofascists and ship em to Gitmo...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the weakest candidates are the frontrunners? Obama, Edwards, Hillary and Kerry have more holes than Swiss cheese.

Why can't the frontrunners be:
- Gore, former VP, global leader with massive international respect
- Richardson, experienced diplomat and swing state governor, appeals to minorities.
- Clark, military leader, a real Commander in Chief.

Posted by: JayPe | January 9, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I still think Kerry will be a good person to have participating in the debates. Even if the blogs get ruined by days like today, who cares. It is the country that matters, not the blogs. His presence will help add to the content of the whole race.

Posted by: Golgi | January 9, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Please Theresa, can't you make him go away?

Posted by: pewlette | January 9, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Over the whole USA population Kerry has:
- 7% loyal followers.
- 43% who don't want him to run, and want another Democrat candidate to win the election.
- 50% who do want him to run, and want a Republican candidate to win re-election.

He is a good Senator, but he is the epitome of why Senators do not generally become President.

Posted by: JayPe | January 9, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

For those who did not listen well to "Meet the Press" Kerry stated that he would open his records "ONCE" he went though them and took everything out that "HE" thought should not be there. For one, since when can someone have a set down with there records and remove stuff they don't want there!!!! I need to make an appointment!!!
Two, It is a fact that Kerry had his discharge upgrade and the code to upgrade it was the one for a less then honorable discharge. Kerry will not release that one, the one you and I see is the upgraded one. So you believe what you wish to believe, he has brain wash you. Me I checked the man out first and what I found was disgraceful. Ask him what he did to our POW's in Nam? He gave them up for trade!!!!! Then he shedded the orginal documents ( a aid caught him and ask what he was doing and said, Oh these are the dups, They weren't they were the orginal documents.
Go ahead and vote for that traitor, I never will and a million other Vets NEVER WILL.

Posted by: Dennis Rick | January 9, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Why the long face John?

Posted by: Clinton Happens! | January 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Gore will come out of closet and announce he will be running FIRST GAY president of 2008. Kerry will be his FIRST partner.

Posted by: Gore Girl | January 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I have to go home now guys, my wife wants me to walk the dog and put out the trash.

Posted by: J. Kerry | January 9, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

'Your point about the bulk of of the pro-kerry and anti-kerry comments here is exactly my point. Kerry, whatever his underappreciated and underacknowledged merits, incites such visceral reactions from his opponents that there is no way he can ultimately prevail '

No matter who the dems run, they will get this treatment.

These chickenhawks and eunuchs on the right who demean a war hero are traitors -- in fact, the enemy. They are worse, actually than al queda, because they have no guts and no balls and they believe in nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

How do I describe thee John F. Kerry..........let's count the ways.

Self-important, disingenuous, pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, petty, grandiose, mean-spirited, affected, effete ass, effete snob, bore and boorish............why am I torturing myself over this boob?

Would prefer to describe thee John F. Ferry as former Junior Senator from Massachusetts, former Presidential candidate............

Just go away and stay away before you molt from former to has-been to never-was a serious anything except gold-digger, consummate opportunist and pompous ass!

Posted by: New Canaan Independent | January 9, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Annon at 05:18 PM posted a, I think, aside "Back to the draft". There are good reasons for doing away with the all volunteer military and having a draft. TRo begin with, we would never have a Vietnam nor an Iraq again. The American people flat out wouldn't tolerate it. And the rich and right wing cheerleaders who post ad nasium their support for this travesty would simply shut up...or join in a nation wide strike to end it. The only wars we would be involved in would be where very national survival was truly threatened. Another reason is that service to your country is something that people ought to be proud of and it is the duty of all citizens to serve. I, for one, am rather sick and tired of leftists and right wingers being surprised that my sons joined the military in honorable service, that I in my turn did so, and I encourage others to do so. This is OUR country. We got Bush because we, as a people, lost sight of what was important. We've got outsourcing and corporate welfare and corruption and slimmy politican's and "guest workers" and worse, all of which threaten our nations existance. Service is NOT optional.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

ProudGrunt

200 yards away is not that much in a Swift Boat. They call them Swift Boats for a reason. And you do have time to worry about it when you are counting on that crew just 200 yards away. Leaving Viet Nam with a band aid on your arm and a few grains of rice in your ass does not make you a hero, real or make believe. Coming home and calling the men you abandoned war criminals does not make you a hero. Although I was not a real honest to gawd hero like Kerry-Patton, I did spend 21 years in the Navy, and I always respected by bettors. Kerry-Patton was not even aware of his.

Posted by: Maximus Excurico | January 9, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey proud grunt, those guys wanted to get as far away from the action as Kerry did, you think they're gonna admit they cut and ran?

Posted by: Floyd Kramer PFC | January 9, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

More wasted space on a candidate that has no shot in 2008.

This campaign doesn't officially begin until Gore announces his intentions. If he's running, it's game over for both the Dems and Reps that are are running.

GORE 2008

Posted by: Eric | January 9, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

ProudGrunt - Parent of two sons in the military right now, one in Iraq and the other back from there. I'm former Navy - a clerical twit and bench warmer. I TRIED to join the Marine's during Desert Storm because I'm an engineer and the Pentagon morons didn't have a slightest idea of how to use the Patriot batteries, they almost took me too, but eventually they turned me down because of age.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Tanna Touva:

I am from MN and I graduated from high school a year behind a guy named Kerry - a very good basketball and football player. While unusual, it IS a guy's name as well as a girl's name.

Posted by: star11 | January 9, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Kerry conceded one day after he promised to make sure every vote was counted and counted correctly. Sorry, no second chances for you Kerry. The same goes for you too Edwards. You both had your chance, but you let Bush/Cheney steal another election, so neither of you two deserve to run again.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 9, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

...haven't seen too many Vilsack supporters...Sharpton, anyone?...where the hell is Kusinich when we need a real leader?!!...well we still have Clark and then there is Al, Ed & John, yeah, John, he can score, can't he...well, we still have Clinton, don't we??? It doesn't matter because we can always change our mind...too many leaders and not enough time. If Obama wins, we can get 100% of the black vote and prove the Republicans are racists and war mongers!!!

Posted by: Jerry J | January 9, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Maximus Gluteus and the other "release the records" pinheads.

Those swiftboat lieutenants who claimed to know exactly what Kerry was doing while they were 200 yards away in the middle of firefights had to have 1) the eyesight of an eagle and 2) were derelict in their own duty.

In the middle of a firefight you don't have time to worry about what's happening 200 yards away.

Read their crap sometime and you know that they are full of B.S. You don't fabricate the truth about combat just because a guy you don't like is a self-promoter.

MikeB's correct about Kerry's crew. They are the only people who would truly know what he was doing in those firefights and they stood by him. That's what counts for me.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what are your military qualifications?

Posted by: ProudGrunt | January 9, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

GET ON YOUR KNEES AND BEG LIKE YOU NEVER KNEW YOU COULD IN YOUR ENTIRE LIVES FOR AL GORE TO RUN. HE IS YOUR ONLY, ONLY HOPE. TRUST ME ON THIS!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tom | January 9, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, please... I'm glad you agree he's henpecked. I come from Udar Pradesh where your last names are our first. Learn something every day. We looked up name for daughter in name book and under Kerry,it said "girls name,except on Cape Cod", honest.

Posted by: Tanna Touva | January 9, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't going to run, before i decided to run.

Posted by: John Kerry | January 9, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The chickenhawks really hate an actual man. Makes 'em look like the poofs they are in comparison.

Bring back the draft!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I remember his words..."I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" as he gave his acceptance speech at the '04 DNC. "I'm John Kerry and I have a plan (for Iraq)". Well, John, its been over two years and the country really needs your plan. Why the secret? In '08, I will vote for these fighting words, "bring em on"!!!
J Jacobs

Posted by: J Jacobs | January 9, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Good bye Millie. I'am going to miss that girl! How do you know she's not master of her domain?

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

i'm not a good person. i'm sorry to everyone.

Posted by: kos | January 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Not surprising.
The New World Order needs to make sure that skull and bones is represented somehow.
Oh how the fake Left/Right paradigm becomes more obvious as time goes on.

Stanhope in 2008!

No more War
No more North American Union
No more BS war on "terrorism".

Re-investigate 9/11!


Posted by: SaveAmerica | January 9, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Best for anyone with a brain to just leave them to drool among themselves...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Millie should run for president maybe Blarg as Veep.

Posted by: Running Mate | January 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

God bless him...He will bring socialism to it's right place in Ameirca and will put all you right wingers in the concentration camps where you belong.

Posted by: LibandProud | January 9, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Poor Millie. She doesn't understand that today we have an druge infestation. That's what it is, blarg. It's happened before. They have only a single rudimentary brain between them, like bees. That's why they swarm and attack all saying the same things. Poor things don't know what else to do with themselves, except masturbate. Same difference.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

From the 1980 election through the 2000 election, I held my nose and voted for the D nominee every four years like clockwork. Then along came John . . . that was simply too much. I held my nose and voted for Bush. (Please don't let the neighbors know--they're all "liberal" but don't much like dissent when it goes against what they're spouting.) Every time JFKerry opened his pie hole, my BS meter went haywire. The guy still makes me glad GWBush won--and somethin' tells me I'm not alone.

Posted by: chris in st louis | January 9, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I do hope Kerry/Patton runs again in '08. The Swift Boat Vets will be back to smoke his ass again. Who knows, perhaps Kerry will be an "X-Navy Seal" by then. You never know what you'll get in the amazing world of liberal fabrication.

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Jon: hahahahahaha -- good one!!

God help us from having to put with that idiot and his wife yet again.

Posted by: Jack | January 9, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

i tink jan carry is the bestest man for the presidancy.

carry 4 ever.

he can sav me from irack

Posted by: amarican soldjur | January 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I've never read this blog before. Turns out that was a good use of my time. Where do you people find each other? Enjoy. Don't bother with hateful comebacks. I won't be checking back.

Posted by: millie larsen | January 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

'The Dems need to find a real man, somebody who comes across as a normal human being. A cowboy oil man, yeah that's the ticket.'

LOL -- there isn't a real man in the entire repug party. buncha balless wonders --- look at ther women --ugliest on earth. Most of them are actually men.

'Cowboy' -- more raucous laughter. Yer bush is a CHEERLEADER in college, dear, he wore pompoms!!! POMPOMS! ALL OF YOU LITTLE REPUGS ARE JUST POMPOMS. BBush can't even ride a golf cart.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

M,Loutre: "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing and in that way you will know what you are doing". That is a quote by me personally and not borrowed from anyone else. I suggest you read it carefully.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I servd in Vetnam and I runned for presadnt befour I didnt run for presadnt...

Posted by: Jon Cariey | January 9, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunatley, the best person the Democrats have is not running...Evan Bayh, Senator, from Indiana. As Bob Schaffer from Meet the Press,said (after Senator Bayh said he was not going to run) he (Bayh) is probabaly the kind of Democrat we need in the race.

Posted by: Diane | January 9, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

SquirrelCutter, Obama's campaign is in the toilet? When did that happen? He's not even officially in the race yet!

Tanna, when was the last time you met a girl whose first name was John? And did you know that President Bush loves bike-riding, and rides whenever he gets the chance?

Where did these people come from?

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Earth to Kerry- Don't run, your support is gone in Iowa and elsewhere.

Posted by: Grant Schott | January 9, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

SquirrelCutter: You're right, but look at your own post for the answer. Your only reason for Barack not winning is that "Obama toked and snorted his campaign into the toilet." Do you really think being honest about trying cocaine once prevents him from being the "real man" who can appear like a normal human being? He's the guy.

Posted by: compbase28 | January 9, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

A spandex ass, bike riding, wind surfing, henpecked wimp with a girl's first name should never leave Cape Cod or run for president.

Posted by: Tanna Touva | January 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

FYI: Just in:
2006 was the warmest year in recorded history. This brings me to the suggestion by me and others that Al Gore would be better suited in the Cabinet as head of the EPA, no matter who wins the 08 election. This has been his passion for many years and he is well qualified for that position.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is just unlikeable. The way he looks, like he has two pork chops on his forehead, and his voice is so droning and stultified, even for a Dem he is just not a guy I can like. Obama toked and snorted his campaign into the toilet. And Her Thighness, she is a smooth one but too much baggage. Edwards? Too prissy. The Dems need to find a real man, somebody who comes across as a normal human being. A cowboy oil man, yeah that's the ticket.

Give it up Lurch.

Posted by: SquirrelCutter | January 9, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but after the '04 campaign I saw the comment, "Kerry was exposed as the kind of bloviating windbag that you only get by marinating in the senate for about 30 years." That, and his political ineptitude allowed him to be smeared easily. Now, if 2008 is bad enough for republicans, between Iraq and their mediocre candidate options (McCain I guess) Kerry *could* win. I can't imagine, though, that the democrats won't annoint someone more down to earth and with genuine charisma like Obama or Edwards though. Both of these guys are also good at fighting the spin war while keeping their hands clean.

Posted by: Nissl | January 9, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The reporting of the Rosie/Donald "fued/fight" is yet another example of just how much the public love gossip. The media will and does cater to the largest audience they can get for one simle reason, MONEY. They do this by their ratings at any time of the day and charge their advertisers based on these ratings. The same holds true in politics, to an extent, in that a rumor or an outright lie can be started against a politician, or anyone else for that matter, and depending on how well it plays, many folk will indeed believe it to be true. The sad thing is that so many will continue to believe it to be true, no matter what the facts really turn out to be. This is in fact being shown on this blog today.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Kerry in '04 as the nominated alternate to the mule head that got US into Iraq, and even then couldn't pour the you-know-what out of the boot with the directions written on the heel. Kerry's lack of response to the Swift-boaters, I have come to find out, was telling because they were essentially correct. He did exaggerate his 4 month military service, and was "in-country" to enhance his resume, then return to MAss and try for Congress out of Cambridge/Middlesex County, during the '70s while bad-mouthing our then chaotic and ill-advised mistake in VietNam. (Now known as the worst mistake this Nation made in the 20th century). He now starts to gin up another foray into presidential politics and he is still a STIFF, whose associates will not tell him its over. He's as far as he is going to get, and unless some Dem president in the future puts him in the Cabinet, or on an appellate bench, he will fade away in Louisburg Square, as he should have after '04. I am not surprised that Deval Patrick and the other DEM politicians in MAss will support his candidacy. ANYTHING to get him out of office there, and open things up until Teddy folds and fades.

Posted by: L. Sterling | January 9, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

YES! Let the games begin - cut the Chrisian bashing already. I'm very much a Christian and I am very much a liberal. Also, you would have to look very hard to find anyone identifying themselves as a genuine Christian, much less anyone accepted by Christ as a Christian, remaining who supports Bush. All Bush and compoany have left are the pornographers, the perverts, the unthinking attack dogs of the right, the ethivcally challenged and other followers of Satan. Anyone decent long ago left supporting Bush and the evil swine that got him into power.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments today should make you realize Dems should have no mercy on repugs. We should nail them to the wall -- they more than deserve it.

Hang em high!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

It is apparent that the folks at BushCo Industries have been taking Max and Moritz as inspirational figures for their hard work of governing. Get what you can while you can, and don't worry about how it affects anyone else. For Max, Moritz, and their cronies at BushCo, it's all about power and the exercise thereof. Just look at a few of the items on the BushCo "Max and Moritz" scorecard:

Katrina - too many residents of New Orleans are still waiting for substantive help, but don't worry: DHS/FEMA contractors have been taken care of. Handsomely, I might add.
More than a few 9-11 Commission recommendations remain unaddressed, but don't worry: the markets for quart-sized ziploc bags and 3 oz bottles of lotions, shampoos, and other toiletries have gone through the roof.
Torture, rendition, and secret prison camps. But don't worry: they're only for the bad guys. Or the people we think are bad guys. Or the people that someone told us were bad guys, after we paid them for every bad guy they brought us. [pdf]
Disregard for habeas corpus, the Geneva Convention, and the Bill of Rights. Warrants for domestic wiretapping? Don't worry: Max and Moritz didn't need any stinking warrants! (Great links in the last thread to Glenn Greenwald, assuming blogger gets its act together. Thanks, scarecrow.)
Signing statements that proclaim "I'll do whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want, no matter what you say."
A feast of tax breaks for the wealthy and well connected, and increasingly expensive doughnut holes for the poor widows on Medicare who need prescription drugs.
Stifling and twisting scientific inquiry at the behest of TheoCon fundamentalists.
Outing an undercover CIA agent in a fit of personal pique at something her husband wrote, then lying to cover it up.
K Street shills, earmarks, and all the other pay-for-play games.
Yep - it's Max and Moritz, role models for the Bush Administration.

After six years of pranks, even DC has had enough. There's a whole raft of farmers and millers, ready to start holding these folks accountable: Waxman (House Oversight and Govt Reform), Conyers (House Judiciary), Skelton (House Armed Services), Lantos (House International Relations), Levin (Senate Armed Services), Leahy (Senate Judicary), Durbin, Feingold, Rockefeller (Senate Intelligence), and a host of Blue America newcomers are anxious to crank up the gristmills for the modern-day mischiefmakers. (Sorry there are only a few links for the Senate committees, but it seems they are still stuck in the 109th Congress on their websites when it comes to their committees - they still show their old GOP chairs!) Abramoff is already in the grinder, along with Ney and Cunningham, but there are plenty more where they came from. Fitz is ready to put Irving into the mill, and who knows what will come out when the gears start to pinch.

Crank up the mills of Congressional Oversight, and bring in the federal juries.

Posted by: YES! Let the games begin | January 9, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

'.and an awful lot about the trash, the human garbage, that would demean him.'

they're not even 'human' MikeB -- they're abortions. None of them has an intact brain. Too bad they're all too chickensh** to join the military --of course they couldn't fight if their lives depended on it. they can barely type, let alone act like a man.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Pure and simple, Kerry is no leader. As Mass' junior senator, he has always hidden under the skirt of Ted Kennedy. He has never come up with an idea of own; he does not take service to our country seriously, (example - he missed all four intel com pub hearing in 1994 which included how to stop another 1993 WTC attack); and he is by no means a 'man of the people', born with a silver spoon in his mouth and chasing rich women ever since. He's a FRAUD.
http://www.liveshot.cc/billions_and_billions.htm

Posted by: Mike | January 9, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Can you put a moratorium on folks from Massachusetts running for President?!

Romney, Kerry, Dukakis, Kennedy...ugh. The last good Prez to come from Mass. was Calvin Coolidge!

Enuf already!

Posted by: No more! | January 9, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Without really thinking about it, it seems that even some Democrats are writing off Obama because he "doesn't have experience in foreign affairs." I disagree. What we need is not a manager or an individual with much experience as a politician or in foreign affairs, but a leader with the intelligence to understand complex issues and to learn from his top advisors. Obama - for whatever intangible reason (maybe it is that his appearance represents moving forward, maybe it is his charisma, maybe it's just that he is a Leo!) - is a leader, and it is clear he is smart. Lincoln hardly had experience. Bush had no foreign affairs experience, but then again you cannot blame that for his failures; he was surrounded by top advisers with enormous political experiences. Kerry has more experience, but can he lead? It's a feeling I have, but I think the answer is no. And if you go by the notion that whoever the better leader is wins, then this is the result, but feel free to disagree:

Obama beats Hillary and Edwards (barely).
Rudy, McCain, Romney all seem relatively equal in their leadership. But Rudy may have an edge.

Forget experience. It's the intangible leadership quality that matters.

Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I would echo M. Loutre' comments. I, too, was a campaign worker for John Kerry. He is accused by the ight wing attacks here of running an "inept" campaign, but the truth is he tried to run a positive campaign. He would not stoop to the level set by Bush and Rove and the absolute criminals that inhabit the Whitehouse now. I know, the right wing smut lovers, will say "tough" or "hardball politics". But, when a decent man comes along and tries to run a campaign based on ideas and morality and even God, he is answered with libel and character assassination and lies and dirt. There must be a special place in hell reserved for people who stoop so low. The Swift Boar ads were funded by a Bush millionaire. Not one of the "veterans" ever served with Kerry, not one even knew him, and four of them had been dishonorably discharged. All, every single one, whether they were reistered Republican's or not (and half were!) of the men who served under Kerry supported him, stood on stage with him when he announced his candidacy, and every single one of them vote for him. That says an awful lot about Mr. Kerry...and an awful lot about the trash, the human garbage, that would demean him.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"He blew it in '04 by not fighting back against the Swiftboaters."

Please, 99 percent of the people he served with in Vietnam told us he was unfit for the Presidency. How do you fight that? With truth.

When he tried to fight it, he was found to be making up stories about Cambodia.


The swiftboaters did us all a favor. They unvieled Kerry for all to see.

Posted by: Please | January 9, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

This is just another stark reminder of the immense egos which are all too common in politics. That must be the only explanation for why he even thinks he has a shot - or is again entitled to the party's nomination. As an indy voter who leans Dem in general elections - and who voted for Kerry in '04 - there is no way I will ever vote for him in '08. As of now, I'll vote any of the other Dem nominees - even Biden - but I will abstain or vote R if Kerry somehow manages to get the nomination.

Posted by: John | January 9, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Dems- in your heart of hearts, how many of you truly voted FOR Kerry last time because you LIKED him, as opposed to supporting him only because he was NOT President Bush?

Be honest.

Posted by: Fact | January 9, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really want to hear endless attack ads featuring *"I actually voted before it before I voted against it"* all over agiain? His own party will eviscerate him long before the primaries are over; the dems only have themselves to blame for nominating him in '04.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 9, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I really hope John "Can I get me a huntin' license?" Kerry runs. There is nothing more humorous than watching a "beautiful person" attempt to act like a man of the people. And Kerry does it with panache.

Posted by: M.S. | January 9, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Start another thread, Chris. This one fell in the sewer.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Kerry's poor acedemic skills have nothing whatsoever to do with his phony military record.

Kerry's military record had some details about his trumped up Purple Hearts that he did not want disclosed. He had the record corrected to reflect the information his campaign had been touting, then and only then, did he sign the 180.


Posted by: Trent Steel | January 9, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Jawn Kerry served in Viet Nam? I never heard that. Wow.

Posted by: Q | January 9, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

AMK, did you even read the article? Do you know the difference between medical records and "all" records? John-Patton-Kerry was still an officer in the United States Navy when he called the real heros war criminals. HE did not get an Honorable discharge from the Navy. Let him release those records as well. His discharge was change by Jimmy-attacked by a killer rabbit-Carter.

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

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 VVAW efforts; 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 above 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.


(Many of the people commenting here 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 in this thread 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 int he 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.

Posted by: M. Loutre | January 9, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Biden/Richardson, hmmmmm some new faces and strong decisive men...a nice change from same ol democratic losing strategies of electing, weak, self-centered...me, me, me, democrats....Bring on the newer stronger blood...I do not see anyone pushing around Biden nor Richardson...but the wayward lefties will vote for one of the people who can't win....AGAIN!!! It's like line, it doesn't matter what you know...only what you can prove...only, in politics, it is, it doesn't matter if you get the far left...it only matters if you can get the numbers in the center to win...uncommitted centrists will not vote for Kerry, Hillary or Obama....

Posted by: Fred M. | January 9, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

'Other than to liberals, things like honor, duty, loyalty, sacrifice, truthfulness and historical fact do make a difference.'

yeah, tell it to the collection of theives, pornographers, freaks, serial adulterers, murderers, child rapists and AWOL deserters that is the republican party.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

AMK is right. He hid his records for quite a long time, but did eventually release them. Remember, they showed his college grades were worse than W's.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a bold new plan Monday to give every person in California health insurance coverage -- and other states are already joining in.

Schwarzenegger has proposed a sweeping health care plan to cover California's 6.5 million uninsured, including all children, regardless of their immigration status.'

Hahahah, here's your republican party. Eat it.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't anyone get it? It's the lack of integrity, stupid.
Whatever other issues might exist, Kerry can't get elected as President for the simple fact that he has no further ability to foist himself off on the American public as being willing to sacrifice his own self-interests to the nation's security or as being qualified as a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief.
1.Kerry is not electable because he conducted himself disgracefully in the early 1970s as a commissioned officer in the US Naval Reserve - consorting with the enemy, (at a minimum) failing to report the anti-war movement's plotting for the assassination of US Sentators, giving sworn testimony to Congress that was patently a lie - activities which all went so far as to negatively affect the character of his discharge from the US Navy, and,
2.Desipte what hyper-democrat Lawrence O'Donnell and the MSM want you to believe, the 250 odd veterans of the Vietnam Swift Boat units and POWs who signed sworn affidavits concerning the facts and effect of Kerry's self-promotion of his Vietnam service were telling the truth, and Kerry will be completely unable to convince the voters that they are not, without simply concocting a new set of what will be obvious straw-man personal attacks, obfuscations and lies.
Other than to liberals, things like honor, duty, loyalty, sacrifice, truthfulness and historical fact do make a difference.

Posted by: BlueHawk08 | January 9, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

BUSH HAS SOMETHING HE HAS TO HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC. OR RATHER, HE DOESN'T HAVE SOMETHING.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: You put in your 02:36pm comment exactly what I have been saying for a long time now. The media being "liberal" is indeed a joke. I have stated more than a few times that Keith Olbermann is the only one of the MSM types that has been consistently accurate in his reporting, and above all he is not afraid of GW & Company as most of the others not only appear to be afraid but actually are. This is something I have not seen in my close to 60 years of being involved in politics. How this can be changed, I really do not have an answer as to why they fear this Administration so much. I can only hope when the 08 campaign really gets going the changes that should be made, will be.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

AMK

Back to M E's original point, Kerry specifically said he would not release the records until he had the record 'corrected'. The 'correction' didn't take place until 2005.

Kerry clearly has something he wishes to hide from the public.

""I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then, at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record.

So when we get -- I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record, and we'll put it out. ""

Posted by: Trent Steel | January 9, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'ONDON -- Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases could touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters _ and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.

"Even a moderate (El Nino) warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top," said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia.

The warmest year on record is 1998, when the average global temperature was 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average of 57 degrees. Though such a change appears small, incremental differences can, for example, add to the ferocity of storms by evaporating more steam off the ocean.'

Posted by: FROM FOX NEWS | January 9, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

JK really is fooling himself, get back your SUV and go back to your wife's vacation home Johnny Boy.

He does have a great economic plan, marry rich..................

JM

Posted by: motai | January 9, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

- In a concession to the Senate's new Democratic majority, four of President Bush's appeals court appointees have asked to have their nominations withdrawn, Republican officials said Tuesday.

These officials said that William Haynes, William Myers and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Michael Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.

Haynes is the Pentagon's top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush's now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees in the war on terror. He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Posted by: HAHAHAHHAHHA | January 9, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

WHERE DID ALL THE TERRY SHIAVO WANNABES COME FROM?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'His long-term prognosis is unclear. He has been responsive to his family and physicians, following commands, squeezing his wife's hand and understanding speech.'

which means that he now has more reaasoning power than the entire motley collection of cons here today.

Posted by: johnson improving | January 9, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Maximus Erecto:

You are wrong. I would ask you to do a simple google search and then stop typing.

You wrote "It is two years ago this month that this fabricated hero pledged to release his military record on Meet the Press. It still has not happened."

However, in June 2005 Kerry released his records.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

You are completely off-base factually. Actually let me rephrase that because that may be too complicated for you -- you are wrong.

Posted by: AMK | January 9, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

'Democrats have already lost '08. None of the candidates look even halfway electable. '

LOL -- I tell you MikeB, you asked if all rightwingers were perverts, and I'd have to say, from the quality of their comments, definitely. No wonder they like Santorum and his porn so much -- doesn't look like they cann think above that level.

Really, these are the stupidest people on earth. No wonder they're such bushfans. Did you ever notice how all the ads on the con radio shows are for impotence and hair loss drugs? I mean, the ones that aren't for bankruptcy and really dumb get rich quick schemes?

Here is it in full flower -- america's losers. This is what happens when you have parents that don't believe in abortion, even when the fetus bares no resemblance to a human being.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

the best thing that could happen is if the building collapses while all 10 of the dems are debating. now that would be different

Posted by: joe c | January 9, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Lord, what an absolute joke. It is amazing how the politicians think the US Citizenry is stupid. Lord help us.

Posted by: George | January 9, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The reason Kerry did not fight back against the swift boaters is simple. They were telling the truth. Kerry refusing to open his military records is all the proof you need.

Posted by: Kerry | January 9, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Lord, what an absolute joke. It is amazing how the politicians think the US Citizenry is stupid. Lord help us.

Posted by: G | January 9, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

WOW, it is obvious John Kerry is still inhaling (and I mean the very best stuff) if he can even dream he has a chance to be nominated; he is completely DAZED AND CONFUSED.

Posted by: Joe in Wilmington NC | January 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

WOW, it is obvious John Kerry is still inhaling (and I mean the very best stuff) if he can even dream he has a chance to be nominated; he is completely DAZED AND CONFUSED.

Posted by: Joe in Wilmington NC | January 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

WOW, it is obvious John Kerry is still inhaling (and I mean the very best stuff) if he can even dream he has a chance to be nominated; he is completely DAZED AND CONFUSED.

Posted by: Joe in Wilmington NC | January 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

He can't be serious! Is this guy smoking dope? There is no way this man will even win a primary. He is damaged goods. He cannot speak extemporaneously without sounding like a moron or making gaffe. He didn't have the balls to go after the swift boat liars. Instead he went windsurfing and blew the election. I blame him for losing to Bush. That's enough reason right there to dismiss his candidacy out of hand.

Posted by: cva | January 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

AMK, read...but be careful you may learn something. But like most liberals, I am sure you won't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50306-2005Jan31_3.html

RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said, Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records.

Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let historians

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have already lost '08. None of the candidates look even halfway electable. Kerry is a joke. I mean, seriously he's going to run? You've gt to be kidding.

Posted by: PS | January 9, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

'He is an elitist who clearly only went to Vietnam to film campaign commercials for his political future'

Hey you sonny boy, why aren't you in Iraq? You believe in 'the war' don't you? why are you here?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

AMK, read...but be careful you may learn something. But like most liberals, I am sure you won't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50306-2005Jan31_3.html

RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said, Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records.

Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let historians.....

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

to say damian is a man is an insult to the human race

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

i think damian wants to have sex with kerry...

or maybe it's mark foley...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Will Ter-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-za wanna pony up beaucoup ketchup-$$$ for this vanity campaign?

Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry is a real piece of work. His campaign in 2004 was the definition of incompetence. He is an elitist who clearly only went to Vietnam to film campaign commercials for his political future and once he and his buddies had enough filmed "re-enactments" he conveniently got a cut on his arm and came home. Then the guy has the nerve to highlight his Vietnam service in his campaign. Truly classic.

Posted by: Patrick | January 9, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Did you folks know that John Kerry served in VietNam? Really, he did, just ask him- and he has the home movies to prove it.

JFK= Just for Kerry!

Posted by: JFK | January 9, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The problem is not with Kerry, but rather with BOTH political parties. Why you ask?? Everything each party does is "for the party" and NEVER for the good of the people. I want leaders who have YOUR and MY best interests at heart, not those who are forced to give their alligence to the PACs and HEAVY CONTRIBUTORS! Knowing a little about psychology, very few if any give big donations to a politician and then not expect a favor at some point in return. We deserve HONEST people with INTEGRITY for a change as our leaders and not a gaggle of politicians who every day have to wake up and wonder which way they must vote to pay back some special interest which is deep in their pockets.

Posted by: art | January 9, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Kerry IS the "joke"...Such an elitist idiot...Worst possible candidate...

Posted by: warandpeace | January 9, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Ahh. My good friend Trent Steel.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

To say nancy is a woman is insult to Woman

And Max.. Its MAX POWERS!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Trent Steel | January 9, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the memory of his last campaign for Prez seared- seared!- in his brain?! Come '08, how many Dems will say they were for Kerry, before they were against him?!

Send in the clowns, Jawn.

(PS- I've never seen him @ The Sevens; he mingles w/ the hoi polloi?!)

Posted by: Howee | January 9, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Trent Steel | January 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The sides are pretty well lined up for/against many of the potential candidates for 08. A couple of my thoughts go to the supporters of Gore, in that he has stated he would not run and I, for one, will take his word on that. My thought about Obama is that he will not run in 08. Call these a feeling, hunch, or whatever, but when all is said and done Hillary will be the nominne and the elected POTUS in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What is going on here today?

I know this is related more directly to yesterday's entry, but is there any video out there of Gore speaking at a recent event? I would like to see if he sounds any better than what he did in 2000 and then decide if he might be appealing for 2008.

Kerry would be an awful choice. As stated, if he couldn't beat Bush in the '04 atmosphere, there isn't a chance he could win in '08, especially against McCain. Gore would be better even without seeing any recent video. I am a Richardson supporter but I could easily be swayed into a Gore campaign, the more I think about it. Gore could beat McCain, especially if we see what we are told we will see in the Presidential speech tomorrow night, that being an increase in troops in Iraq. I can't believe Bush is doing the one thing that the ISG and the public are both against. What does that man listen to?

Posted by: Star11 | January 9, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Three points: 1 factual, 2 opinions...

(1) Actually Maximus Excurio, you are completely wrong. Say what you will about Kerry, but he is a genuine war hero. He has released his records. What you are saying is just plain false. Please try again.

(2) Also, I am very skeptical of the belief expressed in these posts that Kerry should have won in 2004. That is revisionist history. In 2004 millions who voted for Bush believed were convinced that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11.

(3) If nobody wanted Kerry, then why did he basically steamroll through the primaries in a much more emphatic fashion than, say, Bill Clinton in 1992? The "nobody wanted Kerry" version is nothing but an expression of anger that he lost and several of the things that Kerry himself cautioned about during the campaign have come to pass.

Posted by: AMK | January 9, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Kerry should definitely run for President again. He came excrutiatingly close in an election during a time of war. If bin Laden did not release his tape a few days before the election, I have no doubt Kerry would be in the White House.

Sen. Kerry raised more money for other democratic candidates during the 06 elections than anyone else did.

I agree that Sen. Kerry is an experienced alternative to what seems to be a very light field. He should jump into the process, pit his ideas against the others and let the party decide who should get the nomination.

Posted by: GH | January 9, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you Damian! To insinuate that Nancy Pelosi is a transsexual, is an insult to transsexuals!

Posted by: Miss Conception | January 9, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Maxpower is a "Simpsons" reference, and it is max power- not maxpowers. What an idiot. And who was talking to you? Who are you trying to hang out with? Go away genius.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Andy R, Kerry is my senator. And I could not be more proud of that fact.

Posted by: Diane | January 9, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

North Shore - Good points all. By the way, I wasn't saying that Kerry is not the candidate to vote for. I was saying that his major weakness in the past is smugness (in my opinion, of course... this is a blog, a good place to post opinions) and that he has the opportunity to work on that by some deep soul search between now and the 2008 primary.

Posted by: MM | January 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

It is two years ago this month that this fabricated hero pledged to release his military record on Meet the Press. It still has not happened. Like with Murtha, I am very skeptical of self proclaimed heros who hide their records.

Posted by: Maximus Excurcio | January 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - The whole idea of mainstream media being "iberal" is a joke. They have been published unemployment data, Iraq wounded stats, and a whole lot of of other utter garbage from the Bush people completely unexamined.

An example: Someone recently tried to do a study of wounded soldiers from the Iraq invasion and found that, when added up, there were more than 200,000 claims for diasability. The VA has granted more than 105,000 of those claims, more than 60,000 for TOTAL disability. (Meaning the loss of two or more limbs or a devastating head wound resulting in a physical inability to function without constant supervision.) Now, the "liberal" mainstream media could have done this, but didn't. Why? It's more than just that they aren't liberal. It's becasue they pander to the Bush Whitehouse out of fear of being denied access to some inside story or scoop. The mainstream media are cowards and shills, more concerned about their own petty careers than they are about facts or truth. In that, at least, they are very much like a lot of right wingers here who retain their rabid dog conservatism but distance themselves from our idiot President.

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Traitors should not be allowed to run for any office. Nor should they be allowed to re-run.

Posted by: Dennis | January 9, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Who would like to touch my pee pee?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I hope big bad John runs again. He will only make it easier for another republican victory, no matter who they choose.

Posted by: LarryRutk | January 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Its suppose to be MaxPowers not Power you asshat.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Independent Woman. LOL. Kerry/Dukakis 08

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

We should elect a female transgender half black half mexican midget

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I hear Michael Dukakis is tanned, rested, and ready, too.

Posted by: Independent Woman | January 9, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

We should elect Osama Obama

Posted by: Damian | January 9, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The cable news/talk shows continue to promote the flat out false assertion that the dems have no idea/clue as to what to do about Iraq. This "liberal" media keeps on insisting that this "war on terror" is winable. I do think most folk are aware that terror has existed, in some form, since recorded history and even before the history was written. The idea of only the folk in the repub party have answers as what to do in Iraq is simply ridiculious. Many of us have ideas about what to do and should be done but nothing could be much worse than what is happening now.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

DeeDub - "...I hope Republicans can find a conservative cadidate with a backbone like Santorum or Hayworth (stick to your beliefs even if it means losing)". And, I suppose you mean by that, freely distributed internet and cable pornography? Because THAT is what your candidates stand for. Other than the Bush campaign, the single largest recipient of contributions from the adult porn industry was...ta-dah!...Rick Santorum. Closely followed by Hayworth. Tell us, are all of you right wingers perverts?

Posted by: MikeB | January 9, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I am stuk in Irak and the absentea balet is two hart to finger out. I am two stoopid to voat inan elekshun anyway sew Jon Cary is lukee becuz I woont voat for him.

Posted by: Mike | January 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to relize they can't expect anyone northeast of Washington to be elected to POTUS. Who does that leave?Obama, Edwards, Clark, Vilsack. Keep this in mind when you decide on your nomination.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Santorum stuck to his beliefs...unfortunately in time they began to differ from those who would vote for him.

Posted by: NO CHANCE | January 9, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

DeeDub , I want to make the interweb sex with you...

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DAMian | January 9, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Nice lineup: Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Obama. I cannot say that I have ever seen six more arrogant pompous, pandering candidates in my life. You libs had better find a dark horse or you will find yourself calling for impeachment for another 8 years.

I do not like Guiliani or McCain because I believe either will say and do whatever it takes to win. I hope Republicans can find a conservative cadidate with a backbone like Santorum or Hayworth (stick to your beliefs even if it means losing) and pair them with someone with foreign policy experience like Rice or military experience like Tommy Franks.

Posted by: DeeDub | January 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Senator:
Despite the fact that you are the 'real deal', you had disappointed me by going to Nantaket while you ought have been pounding and retaliating with your guts and absolute feistiness. Are you going to do the same thing, yet once again? I admire you, but I am afraid you will follow the same route.

Posted by: Ron Brown | January 9, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator:
Despite the fact that you are the 'real deal', you had disappointed me by going to Nantaket while you ought have been pounding and retaliating with your guts and absolute feistiness. Are you going to do the same thing, yet once again? I admire you, but I am afraid you will follow the same route.

Posted by: Ron Brown | January 9, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator:
Despite the fact that you are the 'real deal', you had disappointed me by going to Nantaket while you ought have been pounding and retaliating with your guts and absolute feistiness. Are you going to do the same thing, yet once again? I admire you, but I am afraid you will follow the same route.

Posted by: Ron Brown | January 9, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

As a conservative, I am of two minds:
I would like the least effective democrat to run for office so that if elected they get the least done in their 4 years. Kerry's track record as a legislator makes a strong case for my favor.
Aa a conservative disappointed in the more conservative party's performance in the last two years, I want a strong candidate to force both sides to get better. In that case Kerry should not be the nominee.
If he cares about his party and ideals, he should gracefully remain a Senator like Teddy. Fat chance of that though.

Posted by: Conservative | January 9, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

(typo correction, sorry): I meant to type: "We are in deep trouble and we need someone real to get us back on TRACK"

Posted by: gettowork | January 9, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

This really is rather simple:
The only reason Kerry did well in 2004 was because of the Anti-Bush fever. Well, no Bush this time around, and no one really like him running. Kerry would be steamrolled by any of the Repub candidates. Hillary is unelectible. Obama, same thing. That pretty much leaves Joe Biden (who would make many people cross party lines) and John Edwards. Either of them would put up a much better fight against Guiliani, McCain, Romney,etc...

Posted by: NO CHANCE... | January 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

In my Congressional District, NJ-07, the Democratic challenger lost by less than 5 pts. Looking at 2008, the person with the best shot of defeating the incumbent is, of course, the person who came so close in '06. We came so close; so much has changed in favor of the Democrats in just the last 2 months, not to mention the last 2 years; its a smart choice to go with a candidate who has proven something. I believe I remember hearing that Kerry got more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate before him.

Posted by: Karen | January 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Foreign policy (Iraq) and the environment (including climate change) will be front-and-center issues in 2008. Among the declared and possible presidential candidates in 2008, only John Kerry has demonstrated leadership and deep expertise in BOTH issues. On environmental issues, Kerry has been ahead of the curve for at least a decade; only Gore matches him, and even Gore is not as strong on conservation issues as Kerry. Kerry's foreign policy expertise is long, broad, and deep, starting with his own experience in Vietnam and continually growing in the 35-40 years
since then. On the economy, his expertise, support and fresh ideas for small business add a fresh dimension to standard Dem economic philosophy, on which he also holds impeccable credentials. Moreover, he has continued to grow on many fronts since the 2004 campaign, and, among many other laudable and courageous activities the last two years, has been giving a series of brilliant speeches in Faneuil Hall, on topics including the environmental, the health care system, foreign policy, and the fundamental right and patriotic duty to dissent.

We are in deep trouble and we need someone real to get us back on trouble. Power-politics-business-as-usual candidates and media-heartthrobs-du-jour are not going to do the job for us. We cannot afford any more business as usual, and we do not have any time left for someone to learn on the job. Only substance, deep experience, and thoughtful leadership will do the job. It's high time we acted like adults and voted for an adult for president. We need leadership for real this time. John Kerry is my man. If he runs, I will support him all the way, because John Kerry is the man our country needs. He is the man for the time.

Posted by: gettowork | January 9, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Beachmom:
I absolutely would vote for a democrat if I felt he would be the best person for the job. I voted for Kaine over Kilgore, and I didn't vote in the last election because I was fed up with how the congress had governed. So I don't vote strictly party lines. People that do are a big part of the problem. What you don't understand is how out of touch Kerry appears to most of the country. You know, that big area between Washington and Los Angeles.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

No, your post was not juvenile and emotional (I did say; read up for proof of those), it IS based on opinion. You believe that Kerry acted smugly during the campaign. Others didn't see what you saw, which is evident in the variety of responses for or against another Kerry run.
What I am trying to posit is this; base your decision to support or not on the facts;
Look at the last election from a rational standpoint. How were campaigns run? Who ran which type of ads? What role did the media play in pushing Bush? (and they did push Bush). What other factors played a part in the outcome? Were voting irregularities in Ohio responsible? Was the 11th hour Osama tape, that played on people's fears?
Now, looking ahead;
Look at everybody's qualifications, record, ability, etc.
Who is, on the face of it -and disregarding all other variations- the most qualified? Now add to that the media, the opposition, the people. Which one of the candidates will be the most immune to the attacks and media manipulation that is sure to come?
See; all these questions should factor into a decision.

Posted by: North Shore | January 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I am the king of the glow in the dark cobras; also known as the Glowbra Commander. I am running for president too. Vote for me.

Posted by: Nölff | January 9, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kerry is a huge loser and a public embarrassment. He, like Teddy Kennedy (Senator since 1962, for those who don't know--over 44 YEARS IN OFFICE), should RETIRE to Massachusetts, and stay OUT of Presiential politics completely. Kerry hates the military, as did slimy Willie (who taught us that perjery was permissible, palatable and "non-prescutable!"), and would be an absolute disaster as a President. In an era where our national survival is dependent upon strong leadership, the LAST thing we need in the White House is a WIMP like Kerry!!!

Posted by: woodie | January 9, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Good article!
www.iowansforromney.com

Posted by: www.iowansforromney.com | January 9, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

North Shore: Your point about the bulk of of the pro-kerry and anti-kerry comments here is exactly my point. Kerry, whatever his underappreciated and underacknowledged merits, incites such visceral reactions from his opponents that there is no way he can ultimately prevail in a National election unless a "yellow-dog" could win. It is like trying to reason with an HRC hater. Both in fact are doing credible jobs as Senators, but no race they run will be about their positions. What the Democrats need is someone who is correct on issues, has stature, but is not a polarizer. Despite probably voting for Kerry more times than almost anyone on this board, I would not do it again unless he were the nominee.

Posted by: jon | January 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

he should open his anus as well (for some of the posters here)

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Tell you what, have John Kerry OPEN his service records ALL the way!!!! Lets see that less then honorable discharge/release he recieved from the Navy prior to the one that gave him his medals back! Let him explain that one or should I say lie about that one and say it was a mistake.

Posted by: Dennis Rick | January 9, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The address to the country by GW tomorrow night has been pretty much "leaked", as most of what he will be saying will be about the war in Iraq. The majority of folk disagree in some matter on the war, although the disagreements vary as to reasons, mishandled, not enough troops at the start, wrong decision in the first place to name a few. Should Kerry make the run in 08, a likely win for him would be his home state of Mass. and depending on, if he should win there, the margin of such a win, I think would play a major role in his decision to continue.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't vote for Kerry for dogcatcher! Gingrich in 08!!

Posted by: mrpockets | January 9, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It's not an emotional or juvenile attack to say someone is smug; it's an assessment of their attitude toward others. And yes you are right, I might struggle with that too, but I'm not running for president. Smugness disconnects public figures with the people they are representing, and is worth fighting in oneself.

Posted by: MM | January 9, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

MM; Pot meet Kettle. You call JK (and me) smug in your post and in the same paragraph resort to that same smugness.
As to the detractors not using intelligent and thoughtful arguments, but rather emotional and juvenile attacks - read up in the comments for proof.
'He had his chance'; 'He's smug'; 'He lost to the worst pres in history', etc (not to mention the personal insults against Kerry and his wife) appeal to readers on an emotional level. Try a rational, fact-based
response, not one based on opinion.

Posted by: North Shore | January 9, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

maxpower wants to have gay sex with kerry

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

OK. Everyone get this straight. John Kerry has no chance to be President of the US. Ever. Like him, hate him or just don't care, he has NO CHANCE. If a steaming pile of dog doo had got the democratic nomination, it too would have gotten 59 million votes.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Kerry08 wants to have the gay sex with Kerry

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

MM; Pot meet Kettle. You call JK (and me) smug in your post and in the same paragraph resort to that same smugness.
As to the detractors not using intelligent and thoughtful arguments, but rather emotional ans juvenile attacks - read up in the comments for proof.
'He had his chance'; 'He's smug'; 'He lost to the worst pres in history', etc (not to mention the personal insults against Kerry and his wife) appeal to readers on an emotional level, but leave all rational argument aside.

Posted by: North Shore | January 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry will embarrass himself by running for president and by not coming even close to getting the nomination. Hopefully, that will be the last we will hear from him. Kerry blew it. I wasted my vote on him in the last election. I will not make the same mistake twice. The straw dog from Massachusetts has already been trampled underfoot.

Posted by: Mark F. | January 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Lark wants to have the gay sex with kerry..

Why dont you go perform an abortion on yourself

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Lark wants to have the gay sex with kerry..

Why dont you go perform an abortion on yourself

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

This is wonderful news. Funny how those who speak as if they are speaking for all don't know squat about the real John Kerry.

I want a leader in the WH in '08, not a someone who will need guidance by those who are in it for the power and the politics only. Oh, yes those egos live on the left too.We needed John Kerry in '04 and we need him even more in '08.

For all the naysayers, especially those on the left, this is still a democracy the last time I checked and anyone can run. I hear the names Edwards and Clark, well guess what they ran and they lost before and I would never say they do not have the right to run again.

It's time we change things in the Democratic party, we have finally won, and it is thanks to Howard Dean and John Kerry who together showed those Dems in D.C. the door.John Terry McAwful, had no plan and left many behind, he was a big part of the problem in '04, the others were the Clintonistas, they never wanted Kerry to win, they were to busy planning Hillary's run in '08.

I want a real Democrat, a real progressive a real leader in the WH, IMO that is John Kerry.

Run John Run.

Posted by: Kerry08 | January 9, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I say Nancy pelosi should be elected the first transexual president

Posted by: DAmian | January 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I cannot fathom any reason why this man would even consider running again. Except that he enjoys the sound of his own voice, he is the least inspiring of all the candidates; in 2004 and today.

I felt physical pain when voting for Kerry last time around, but he got my not 4 more with GW vote. Kerry's camp will soon see that the support he had in 2004 will not be with him today.

Posted by: Michael | January 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Senator runs. Run John, Run!
Senator Kerry has been a consistent, forceful and refreshing voice of reason amid the incessant spin that has permeated every debate on the issues.

Kerry 2008

Posted by: AllDemsonBoard | January 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Senator Kerry's problem is that he is politically tone deaf. Compared to President Clinton who had perfect political pitch. The contrast is astounding.

Senator Kerry, if he had the ability to listen and communicate with the common man would alreay be President. Interestingly, even Vice-President Gore, seems like an agile politician in comparision.

Posted by: Frank | January 9, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

No-
Louis Black said it best-
John Kerry losing to George Bush is like a normal person losing in the Special Olympics!

We have better candidates...and since the goal is to avoid (still another) Republican mistake...stay home John.

Posted by: HK | January 9, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I cannot fathom any reason why this man would even consider running again. Except that he enjoys the sound of his own voice, he is the least inspiring of all the candidates; in 2004 and today.

I felt physical pain when voting for Kerry last time around, but he got not more GW vote. Kerry's camp will soon see that the support he had in 2004 will not be with him today.

Posted by: Michael | January 9, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse


Oh great..just great! Just when we democrats thought we'd seen the last of Ralph Nader, he shape shifts into Sen. Kerry. I voted for him last time and I was sooo disapointed that he did'nt stand up to the Swiftboat Sleazemiesters. My God man! W never left the states and his goons were doubting your patriotism?...and you let them? Sorry, you blew it!

Posted by: Danny Del Rossi | January 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry is arrogance and pride in full bloom. Some people never learn.

Posted by: billybob | January 9, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

It is good for Kerry to run, but the reason he won't win is "can't believe I'm losing to this guy." What a smug thing to say. Kerry's too smug to be likable. Just like his fan North Shore.

Tip for John Kerry: Losing the smugness will require major in-depth examination of your own heart. But if you are up for it, you might just pull through. Go for it!

In fact, why not reconnect with your Episcopal church and consult with a clergyperson to give you some much-needed guidance on humility. Goodness knows the mainstream Episcopal clergy need some luv&respect these days. And it would do you and your party good!

Posted by: MM | January 9, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Memo to Lark: Bush can't run again. Get over your blind hatred, and get ready to start hating John McCain.

Posted by: maxpower | January 9, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't old enough to vote for Senator Kerry in 2004, I am now a registered voter and I will gladly vote for the Senator if he runs in 2008. His 2004 campaign was my first introduction into our political system. I learned a lot about what should really matter in nominating our representives and leaders and what happens when we pick our leaders carelessly. I have taken the time to find out what a great leader he would be. I believe he would lead with integrety and fairness as well as ability. I am happy he may be reapply for the job of President again.

Posted by: Alicia V. | January 9, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Maxpower:

As a Republican, I seriously doubt you will vote Dem no matter who it is. Perhaps what you are looking for is a weak candidate who can easily be picked off by the GOP? I love Obama, but he needs real experience in foreign affairs (as opposed to "DC experience" that encourages chuminess and corruption) before he will be the best candidate.

Perhaps you never learned this, but Sen. Kerry has never been part of the insider DC chummy club. As evidence look no further than his investigation of BCCI, an investigation both parties were against, and how he uncovered a breathtakingly corrupt bank that was money laundering for terrorists (even Osama bin Laden), drug dealers, and organized crime gangs. Unfortunately, the CIA was using the bank for shady activities as well. This represented corruption of the highest levels of government and unfortunately concerned both parties in varying amounts of involvement. THIS kind of experience is what I am looking for in a president.

Posted by: beachmom | January 9, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

'seeing him drag the party of social and class envy losers down to another defeat '

must be a link to drugge, all these drooling knuckle-draggers. how low can those IQs go?

hey boys, mark foley's on the phone for you....

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

This is very encouraging news.

Senator Kerry is the most qualified person of either party to clean up the mess Bush has made. Call me old fashioned by I go for experience (not just generic experience, but the right kind of experience), ideas, and integrity. Kerry has these three attributes in spades. George Bush was elected largely on personality -- people wanted to have a beer with him -- and fear. And look at the disaster he has created.

We need to get back to the time when campaigns were about real issues and which candidate had the qualifications to be president. The others pale in comparison.

Run, John, run!!!

Posted by: beachmom | January 9, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

No offense Mr. Kerry, but you got where you did in 04 on the anti-Bush wave. I think the country is better served by keeping your voice and votes in the Senate rather than distract from the now burgeoning field of Dem candidates. It isn't necessary to try to prove that you can win without the anti-Bush sentiment because, and no offense again, you don't have the whole of what it takes despite some good qualities that could be perceived as Presidential.

Posted by: Midwest Cat | January 9, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Kerry has no chance to get the nomination. This decisions shows what a bad President Kerry would have made. He's more delusional than W. As a Republican, the only Dem candidate that I would vote for is Obama. He does inspire hope. I think his lack of experience is a positive because he isn't viewed as part of the "inside the beltway" crowd. As long as he doesn't do anything stupid, or pick a divisive running mate (Hilary),it's his race to lose.

Posted by: Maxpower | January 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

If the Democrats want to get to the Whitehouse, they are going to need to bring a candidate with "zing". Dems have not flat out "won" the presidency since Kennedy (and that was barely). Carter was a result of Watergate, impeachment and the Ford pardon of Nixon and Clinton was due to a third candidate. Even the "Gore win" had a 3rd party candidate to muck it up. The point is that without an extraordinary circumstance or a 3rd party candidate, Democrats have a hard time winning the Whitehouse. And just look at the guys the Dems have lost to over the years - Nixon, Bush I and II (TWICE!). Only Reagan was what one would consider a heavyweight. So who has "zing"? Definitely not Kerry. It could be Obama but hard to know just yet. At one point last time it looked as though Howard Dean might have it, but alas, it suddenly vanished. Now Hilary does have "zing", but its the wrong type. If i were a Democrat, I'd throw my chips in with Obama. This early in the game, as a Republican, that is who i would least like to see.

Posted by: Dave! | January 9, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Eddie B. - Rush L is back on the radio, better tune in so you get get more blathering rhetoric. I'm an American, a veteran, one of several generations of veterans, and have a family member gighting the war right now that your friends got us into with their nation-building idiocy. I'll compare my American credentials with any of the right wing war monger brainiacs. Your party got it wrong last time, and Bush's latest stay the course proposal won't solve that.

Posted by: Brian | January 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I along with the rest of my Republican friends not only hope but pray Kerry runs again. Please all of you liberal losers still waiting for the next Woodstock reunion, get together and make this man your "the next president of the United States." Seeing him drag the party of social and class envy losers down to another defeat is a dream come true.

Posted by: Eddie B | January 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Amusing comments, so far from any reality.

Kerry has been a leading voice for Democrats in the last two years, has led the battles that matter, from Iraq to Alito, while Clinton was busy regulating video games. He has shown that he understands how the world works and that we need to talk to other countries.

He has also won magistrally the 04 primaries and had gotten the most votes a Democrat has ever gotten. Why should he not run?

I will be more than happy if he decides to run and hope he will participate in the important debate that needs to be led and eventually win. We need some grown ups to come to the table.

Posted by: FrenchGirlFomMA | January 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is my senator, too, and I am pleased to hear that he is mulling over another presidential run. He had my full support in 04 and will have it again this time.

John Kerry, in his 20 plus career in politics, has never ceased to impress me with his intelligence, knowledge, compassion, and willingness to stand up for the people of Massachusetts and the country.

He is head and shoulders above the rest of the democratic field for 08, and most of the detractors know this if they put their emotions and anger aside to put some clear thought into the matter.

Looking back at 04, despite the arguably close loss, one will see that Kerry received the most votes ever of any Democratic candidate, and this despite the smears and media hit jobs that were thrown at him the entire time.

People did not just vote for ABB, they voted for the most electable person - ie the most qualified person to run the country. This holds true today as well.

Another thing that strikes me after reading the comments; interesting how those demanding JK not run, or ridicule him, are by and large rather unintelligent and belligerent posters, whereas the supporters tend to provide facts and logical arguments.

If I had any doubts as to whether I would support the Senator again or not, clearly his supporters would sway me in his direction.

Posted by: North Shore | January 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I (Vietnamese) thank people like Kerry for American's lost to Viet Cong so I can come to this great country (my country now). Next will it be Iraqis?

Posted by: Nguyen | January 9, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Sen. Kerry in 2004, and as we all know, he was robbed in Ohio just as Gore was robbed in Florida. That's the facts. Despite that, I could vote for him or Sen Edwards among the Dems so far. Hillary is bright, but I honestly don't think the country will elect Hillary or Obama, in his case no real experience, in her case, well there is a visceral dislike for her for some reason. That's a sad reality right now in the U.S. sorry to say. I hope I'm wrong someday, but not this time. The Republicans will likely be running a 70+ Sen McCain, whom I used to respect, but now he is kissing up to the right wingers and is a war monger, and he's just too old. I iwsh some of the previous headliners in the Dems would run - Gephardt, Gore. Or a fresh face, but with some experience. Lastly, we need to make sure the voting machines aren't tampered with and that there are enough working voting machines in the poor areas, not just the rich neighborhoods. In my rural town I had my pick of 10 working machines, 8 of which weren't in use. In Ohio, we all know some neighborhoods had one working machine for a large population. Oh, and they had a Republican Governor too, just like Florida in 2000.

Posted by: Brian | January 9, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, the Fix looked at a Gore Presidential run in 2008. A run by John Kerry would be a disaster. Any Democrat in his/her right mind would not want to see a Kerry run. Gore is much more palatable to the Democratic Party than John Kerry.

Posted by: afam212 | January 9, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, I am a conservative dem and I wanted your opinoin on somthing. Given the checkered past of the organization I was wondering if you think that congress should censure the Indianapolis Colts, or perhaps when they lose on saturday make them leave town at three am on mayflower moving vans. just a thought

love the work you do keep it coming

go ravens its hunting season

Posted by: andy | January 9, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

'I believe Governor Jeb Bush would be a great President and is a great Governor of Florida.'

--they have to bail his wife and kids out of jail first

Posted by: retching over and over | January 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

People who write off Kerry by saying that "he had his chance and couldn't win" should remember that 2004 was before Katrina, and before people realized the incompetence of the Bushies in Iraq. The right-wing machine was successfully putting out enough lies to cover their mistakes. Because of that, people felt that Bush should be given more time to finish the job in Iraq--"why change presidents in the middle of a war" was what I heard a lot during the last presidential election.
Even so, Kerry almost won that election, or would have if all the votes had been counted fairly. That should say something about his appeal to the American people. He almost won in that difficult political climate.
He's got the ideas, intelligence, energy and heart to be a great president, and I think he should give it another try. There are probably a lot of people who regret not voting for him last time, and those of us who did would gladly vote for him again. He's still the Real Deal.

Posted by: GinnyinWI | January 9, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Further proof that our political machine is broken. Can't we find anyone in America who deserves to lead the greatest nation on earth? Apparently not in a 2 party system. I'm voting Libertarian in protest of the corrupt 'rich boys club' that we have to choose from on election day.

Posted by: ohno | January 9, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

George: Thank you for the nice compliment. The reasons I support Hillary is,IMO, among other things, That she has the best shot at taking back The White House in 08. Going farther on my favorite ticket of Clinton/Warner and announcing some of her Cabinet picks before the election would all but assure success in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

People know John Kerry. Unfortunately for him, they don't particularly like John Kerry; man of the people he ain't. What plays in MA will alienate middle America. The '04 election was his to lose, and he managed to lose it.

Without being able to run on an "anybody but Bush" platform, his chances range from slim to none.

I have a friend who is a fellow Republican; he thinks Hillary will win. My response is that she has a 1 in 5 chance- 50/50 for the nomination, and 1/3 for the general election.

After 4 years of Bush Sr, 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Bush Jr people are ready for somone new. Add in her poor performance in thinking on her feet and responding to tough questions with anything but a canned answer and plenty of scandals to attack and she's facing an uphill battle.

"Slow Joe" Biden might come off as likeable when until he's required to speak with unprepared statements in a non-pompous manner. Add in a long record with a history of statements ranging from questionable to downright dumb for Republicans to attack and his campaign could disintigrate quicker than any long, rambling speech he's ever made.

Obama might be a current "rock star", but if so should be considered a "one hit wonder". Prepare for skeletons to be dragged out of the closet and difficulty appealing to moderates.

Granted I'd be unlikely to vote for any Democratic nominee, but the Dems don't have anything approaching a strong candidate. For that matter, neither do the Republicans.

Posted by: Hollowpoint | January 9, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

NOTE TO WAPO:

I would like to ask that you remove the posts of the puerile, offensive junior high school limbaughlover, damian. why aren't you in school today, little one? mom let you stay home?

--there must be a link to druge or something today. all the stupidest people on earth are here.

'When the reddest state in the nation doesn't back the President's Iraq policy, you know he has problems. According to a NEW POLL by the Salt Lake Tribune, "Just 41 percent of Utahns say they support Bush on Iraq - marking the first time a Tribune poll has found fewer than half of Utahns in the president's war camp."

Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics says that "Utah is like the canary in the coal mine for Bush. If he loses Utah, the state that has been most steadfast in supporting him, he has to know it can't get much lower."

One colleague here says that Utah is less like a canary in a coal mine -- and more like an actual miner.

Posted by: lark | January 9, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I believe Governor Jeb Bush would be a great President and is a great Governor of Florida. MY strategy for winning the 2008 election for Jeb Bush after he receives the Republican nomination for President is for the Democrats to nominate John Kerry.
Come on Democrats, I know you can do it!

Posted by: JGR | January 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Kerry were a Transformer. he'd be a Fagacon

Posted by: Damian | January 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I wished he would have died in Vietnam...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

POSTED

Senator Kerry offers a unique resume for the position of President and he possesses qualities I have not seen in many of the others who are expected to run. I hope you are right. I hope he is preparing another run.
Now, I am excited about the possibilities in 2008!

Yeah, in his 20+ years his finest contribution to america was his Save the dolphins bill...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Kerry has an embarrassment fetish. I can't see any other reason he would subject himself to the near-certain humiliation he will get if he runs again.

Posted by: Staley | January 9, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Jackson, any campaign who loses to George W Bush is a monumental failure as a campaign. The Swiftboat thing should have been anticipated and responded to in kind. His choice for VP was terrible (and I like Edwards), Wes Clark would have been much better. He focused on three states instead of taking the fight to Bushy and his cronies. Also how do you lose when the presidents approval numbers were below 50%. I mean come on.

And Diane if you like him so much then have him be your Senator and not do his job for 6 years. He ran as senator in 02 (when I voted for him) and immediatly started campaigning for 04. After his defeat he licked his wounds in a minority Congress for a year, then it was back on the campaign trail to boost his street cred for 06. Now it is back on the horse again for 08. Hey John DO the job you were hired to do.
Not to mention he voted for the war. He of all people should have known better, but he did it because he thought it was the best move "politically" for his presidential aspirations. There is no forgiving that. Ever.

Posted by: Andy R | January 9, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I am thrilled Senator Kerry is considering running again. That old 50 year old idea that we can only run a candidate once is assinine.The circumstances in that old race can not be compared to what we face today or in 2008. Why, are we more concerned about possibly losing when we should be more concerned about offering the best candidate for the job and backing him or her up with the party's full support.That seems like a more winning strategy to me. Senator Kerry offers a unique resume for the position of President and he possesses qualities I have not seen in many of the others who are expected to run. I hope you are right. I hope he is preparing another run.
Now, I am excited about the possibilities in 2008!

Posted by: Margie Vogel | January 9, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

would any of you do Teresa?

I will!!

I'd do her so hard. She'd lose her stupidness

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of Kerry and all of his foolishness. He is ruining the Democratic Party with his arrogance and stupidity.
Posted by: Sandy | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM

Yeah, Kerry is doing that alone...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of Kerry and all of his foolishness. He is ruining the Democratic Party with his arrogance and stupidity.
Posted by: Sandy | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM

Yeah, Kerry is doing that alone...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

From The Guardian, Tuesday, January 9:

The day after tomorrow marks the confluence of two ignominious anniversaries. The first is the five-year anniversary of the opening of the notorious prison camps run by the US at the Guantánamo naval air station in Cuba. In the five years since the US started shipping prisoners from around the world to Guantánamo, approximately 99% have never been charged with any transgression, much less a crime. Approximately 400 prisoners, characterised by the Bush administration as "the worst of the worst", have been released without charge, many directly to their families. That any prisoners have been released is due almost entirely to the outrage of the civilised world.'

Funny how 400 of 'the worst of the worst' have just been let go, isn't it?

Posted by: lark | January 9, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of Kerry and all of his foolishness. He is ruining the Democratic Party with his arrogance and stupidity.
Posted by: Sandy | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM

Yeah, Kerry is doing that alone...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Even Botox can't give a facelift to Kerry's old, stale liberal ideas that were rejected by the voters in 2004! I'm not a politician and have no political experience, but I think even I could have won that race in 2004! Think about this-- Kerry withheld spending millions of dollars in the closing days of a close race (who was the rocket scientist who made that decision-- this question deserves an answer!)

Posted by: JGR | January 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of Kerry and all of his foolishness. He is ruining the Democratic Party with his arrogance and stupidity. The guy turns off so many voters in the country and got beat by a complete moron last time - why on earth would anyone vote for him this time?

Posted by: Sandy | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

NJMOM,

You need to get that little penis of your husband out of your ass..

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Even Botox can't give a facelift to Kerry's old, stale liberal ideas that were rejected by the voters in 2004! I'm not a politician and have no political experience, but I think even I could have won that race in 2004! Think about this-- Kerry withheld spending millions of dollars in the closing days of a close race (who was the rocket scientist who made that decision-- this question deserves an answer!)

Posted by: JGR | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I hope Kerry leaves the Senate to run. He'll lose. Ed Markey will then become the Junior Senator and finally deal with the extortion racket that is cable TV. What a phony, I have more respect for Al Sharpton.
Go home to one of your wife's mansions John and drive that 8 miles per gallon SUV. Yeah I know, you don't have one, "your family owns one." I'll bet you'll be if surprised "Manny Ortiz" is still with the Sox on Opening Day

Posted by: cspangeek | January 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I hope he does run.. Then i can spend more time giving my salami to Teresa...

Posted by: damian | January 9, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I am so happy to hear that Senator Kerry is not allowing the media or the Clinton allies in the Democratic leadership to stop him from another run.

Last year, it was Kerry (and Feingold) who forced the Democrats to have a discussion on the Senate floor on Iraq. Without his amendment, the Levin amendment, crafted as an alternative would not have happened. The Democratic leaders reasoned that bringing up specific positions on Iraq could hurt the Democrats in 2006. As soldiers were dying for a policy that most people agree is not working, it was immoral to put the political calendar ahead of trying to do the right thing in Iraq. It also turned out that having the 2 amendments was a counter to the Republicans saying the Democrats had no plan. So, Kerry was not only right, he was right politically.

Senator Kerry's op-ed on Lebanon calling on the US to support the government to possibly overt a looming crisis shows his perspective on how the US should interact and influence other countries. It is a refreshing difference from the neo-con idea of spreading democracy by force.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/articles/newsarticle.html?id=109

Kerry's Real security speech that expanded his 2004 comments -that even George Will now says were right - on how to deal with terrorism impressed a Republican WWII vet relative I sent it do as the best effort he has seen in over a decade. That speech is on video on Johnkerry.com under the multimedia tab.

In 2004, Senator Kerry had an inovative idea, since copied by others, of spending the money to do the research and development on alternative fuels and energy saving technologies - which would reducve our dependence on oil which helps our national security and our inport/export balance, create new good jobs, and help the environment. He has expanded this innovative position in a speech he gave this summer at Faneuil Hall - http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=9
(In 2004, Al Gore said of Kerry that he was the Senator with the best record on the environment. At the end of last year Kerry amd Olympia Snowe introduced bi-partisan legislation of global warming. Kerry's work as Lt Governor on acid rain- pushing Sulphur trading is functionall the same as the carbon trading recommended for global warming.

Kerry also had what was considered the best healthcare plan of the the 2004 candidates. This has been updated as well too.

There is no other candidate who can claim to have been a strong anti-war voice offering suggestions on getting out of Iraq, a serious advocate for the environment since the 1970s, someone who has already contributed on healthcare (Kennedy and Kerry wrote a bill that later became S-CHIP) and who has foreign policy view that could let us live up to our ideals.

John Kerry is a serious statesman who has shown integrity over a life time. If corruption is with Iraq a major issue - Kerry investigated BCCI while other Senators were part of the Keating 5 and He and Wellstone were tha sponsors of Clean Elections - which would have been REAL campaign finace reform.

Posted by: NJmom | January 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Scientific research on soft drinks, juices, and milk was four to eight times more likely to yield health results favorable to companies if it was sponsored by the food industry than research with no corporate ties, a study released last night found. The report suggests that nutrition research, like drug research, may be tainted by special-interest dollars.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Everyone listen.. Listen closely..

You hear that? *crickets*

No one cares captain asshat. You're washed up after that so called Joke you inept goldigger...

Posted by: Damian | January 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The Dems needs to look at new faces. Someone like a Jimmy Carter who was unknown at the time. Extremely popular Democratic governors like Brad Henry of Oklahoma or Phil Bredeson of Tennessee come to mind. These men have 70-75 per cent approval ratings in states that voted for Bush. The Republicans would be wise to look to their governors, too. Someone whose work actually relates to everyday people. Governors sign thousands of bills that affect our lives. Senators just collect a paycheck. Most of them, in both parties, are a waste of our taxpayer's money. In the two-year Congressional sessions they pass very little legislation for the amount of days they work. At least House Reps submit the appropriations bills that fund the government.

Posted by: JustDaFaxMam | January 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Jackson Landers
"Kerry won the debates and managed a tremendous get-out-the-vote effort." and "It was about as good as a losing campaign can be." And lost to a sitting president responsible for a very unpopoular war that couldn't put together a coherent sentence if his life depended on it. Even Kerry wondered (out loud) how he was "losing to this guy". He had the money. The time was right. And he grasped defeat from the jaws of victory. As a Republican, i sincerely hope he is the Dem candidate for president. I fear, however, he will quickly fizzle.

Posted by: Dave! | January 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Still a man hears
What he wants to hear,
And disregards the rest.{P.Simon, 1969}

JFK, as he is known in Bastin,
"Just for Kerry".

Posted by: easyrider | January 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Kerry is delusional and should be committed to serve in the Bush administration so as to have all the WHACKOS in one easy to identify grouping!

Posted by: Peter L. of Sun City Roseville CA | January 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Diane, there clearly weren't enough of those people in 2004 for him to win the election. Why do you think 2008 will be any different?

It's true that Kerry lost by a very narrow margin. But look at the situation. Bush had brought the country into an unpopular and unproductive war. He couldn't point to any real successes in terms of economics or foreign policy. His approval ratings were low. Democrats were fired up, ready to donate and campaign to get Bush out of office. And Kerry still lost that election. It was a major loss because the Democratic candidate had so many advantages and still couldn't succeed.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Research studies financed by the food industry are much more likely to produce favorable results than independently financed research, a report to be published today said.

The report, in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine, is the first systematic study of bias in nutrition research.

Of 24 studies of soft drinks, milk and juices financed by the industry, 21 had results favorable or neutral to the industry, and 3 were unfavorable, according to the research led by Dr. David S. Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children's Hospital Boston and an associate professor at the Harvard Medical School.

Of 52 studies with no industry financing, 32 were favorable or neutral to the industry and 20 were unfavorable. The biases are similar to findings for pharmaceuticals.

Posted by: surprise! | January 9, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

READ MY LIPS-- NO NEW KERRY FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN!

Posted by: JR | January 9, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope he does run. He will have my vote. His entry will take the race to a new level of leadership and ability. We now have a choice based on proven leadership and experience.He has integrity and is an honest politician. I don't care if he has run before and not won. He came close and since that time has more than proven he was the better candidate back in 2004. He has been correct on so much that was of concern in 2004 and he still is.
I believe he wants to become President for all the right reasons, and it is about time our country had a leader who is more interested in doing the right things rather than watching polls or playing politics as usual. The people of this country might just be more than ready for a real honest, 24/7 President.

Posted by: Mark Check | January 9, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

What is this crap with Al Sharpton? What is this, some obsession of rush limbaugh's that you dittoheads are pushing?

'because they can't find a candidate that the American People can find trustworthy and likable.'

You mean like gwbush? you know my local toy store sells a voodoo doll of him--either that you can use it as a dog chew toy. Yeah, people *luv* him -- and he's so trustworthy, too.

If bushieboy 'surges' and it fails and we are still up to our necks in sh** in in iraq [or iran] in '08, if our military is still broken [and what's going to change?] we could run bozo the clown and win. And he'd be a better president than bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted By You missed cousin marrier on Rudy G

Posted by: AJ | January 9, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I hope Senator Kerry will run for president again. Anyone who has paid real attention to his intelligent, impassioned fight for civil rights, environmental issues, economic progress in all sectors of American society, health care for the most vulnerable (Kids First!) and getting our troops out of harm's way in the Iraq while still working for peace and stability in the region will feel the same. John Kerry is a great statesman and an admirable citizen who lives up to his own ideal of service to his country.

He and his family took the full onslaught of dirty lies and smear attacks from Republicans and corporate media in 2004 and after fighting hard and coming painfully close to winning, he came out swinging and has never stopped since.

Those who are yelling loudly that Kerry shouldn't even run should take the time to look at what he's done since 2004 and what he is planning to do in the new Congress (http://www.johnkerry.com/) Everything he said in his first campaign has been proven to be accurate and he has remained true to his ideals.

I will be grateful to John Kerry if he decides to run again and I believe he will be our next President if he wants to be!

Posted by: Luftmensch | January 9, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted By You missed cousin effer on Rudy G

Posted by: AJ | January 9, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Hmm! Very interesting comments today, esp. from Diane, Jackson Landers and Jonah Wells! It sounds like it will be healthy for the whole Democratic party if Kerry runs. Good for you John Kerry!

Posted by: Golgi | January 9, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Kerry had many "anybody but Bush" votes. That was Kerry's strongest position. The best candidate in the last election was Wes Clark. He had the experience, the ability and the duty to his country all in his favor. He may not be a professional politician but that is his charm. One of the few correct things I ever Bush say was that John Kerry was a political opportunist. Another point made during the last election was "Kerry was running because he assumed it was his due, while Clark was running because it was his duty." The time is coming to make a white house a four star house again.

Posted by: Ed G. | January 9, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I really hope he runs. He's the best thing the Republicans have to help stave off a Democratic sweep in '08.

For an 'educated' man, he's really not very savvy.

Posted by: Brian | January 9, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Newt -dumped his dying wife
McCain -- lying bush suck-up
mitt -- lying incompetent flipflopper
rudi -- serial adulterer

'These utter fools are your stable for 08?'

'Kerry threw away medals from Vietnam, tried to implicate soldiers in Congress for crimes he never witnessed in Vietnam, bought his own first book off the shelfs it was so ridiculous, calls out troops stupid.'

The mention of Kerry's name brings every maroon out of the woodwork, everything pale and unwholesome that lives under the foxnews rock.

I won't vote for him again, even though he's certainly infintely superior to any living republican, simply because he won't fight dirty enough. This is going to be a filthy presidential race, and I want a street fighter. I want someone who can hit back hard at the filth they will launch against him/her.

Democrats have the soldout media and the whole lunatic right against them, so they have to learn to fight a whole lot harder.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The major asset for Kerry, as opposed to Obama, Hillary, and Edwards is that he passes the commander-in-chief test not only in my mind, but in the minds of 60 million other Americans who have already voted for him once.

I've got no real feelings about it at this point, but my first reaction after reading this column was--why not. To those who say Kerry isn't "electable" (whatever that means) I challenge you to find someone from the current crop who is. Every candidate is equally terrible, fundamentally flawed, or worse. I mean, seriously, SOMEONE has to be elected president. Where have you gone Evan Bayh?

Posted by: Jonah Wells | January 9, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Sharpton, Tom Vilsack, Barac Obama, Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, et al = WEAK FIELD. Might as well run Teddy Kennedy.

Don't the Dems have anyone on the bench that can win? This will be the THIRD election in a row that the Dems has an opportunity for an easy win and blew it because they can't find a candidate that the American People can find trustworthy and likable.

Posted by: Greg | January 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Andy R.,

Kerry lost in the closest race in all of American history that any incumbent President ever squeaked by in. So I'm not sure how his loss was any more 'monumental' than any other failure to win a majority of votes. Kerry won the debates and managed a tremendous get-out-the-vote effort.

That said, I don't think that Kerry has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary and I don't intend to support him this time around. But let's not go re-writing history and making out Kerry's campaign as some sort of complete disaster. It was about as good as a losing campaign can be. I would even go so far as to say that Kerry would have a better chance in the general election than Hillary Clinton would, which is admittedly not saying a whole lot.

Myself, I'm rooting for Brian Scwhweitzer or Mark Warner to have second thoughts about the race.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | January 9, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Kerry and his band of incompetent idiots -- Stephanie Cutter, Mary Beth Cahill, and Shrum -- should not be given a second chance. They did a "heck of a job" in 2004.

Posted by: ex-staffer | January 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

To read many of the comments you would think Kerry hasn't got a friend in the world.

That just is not so. I know, because I'm one of those nonexistent voters who likes him very much, who voted for him proudly in 2004, and will do so again in a heartbeat, if given the chance.

There are a large number of people - many of whom do not post online - who think the world of him, and who value his integrity, his experience, his perspective, his mental toughness, and not least his thoughtfulness. It's a shame how many people insist on misunderstanding who he is - to meet him is to understand the kind of passionate loyalty he inspires. Yes, passionate.

He is at the top of my list, far above anyone else, and if he chooses to run I intend to do everything I can to help him.

So you all can go on hurling the slime at him all you like. It doesn't change the fact that there are many people out here who appreciate how much he has to offer.

Posted by: Diane | January 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Kerry and his band of incompetent idiots -- Stephanie Cutter, Mary Beth Cahill, and Shrum -- should not be given a second chance. They did a "heck of a job" in 2004.

Posted by: ex-staffer | January 9, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Kerry threw away medals from Vietnam, tried to implicate soldiers in Congress for crimes he never witnessed in Vietnam, bought his own first book off the shelfs it was so ridiculous, calls out troops stupid.

I sure hope he gets the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: Steve | January 9, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I hope Kerry does run. He has been one of the Democrat's best voices on Iraq in the last two years and I think he would add a lot to the debates just in this respect.

Kerry narrowly lost to Bush in 2004 and I think he has gotten a lot better as a candidate in the last two years. Nobody did more in the last cycle to support, fund and help elect good Democrats to the Congress.

Run John Run. It would be, at the very least, good to have your voice in the race.

Posted by: TerriS | January 9, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

As a Republican even the prospect of a Kerry-Sharpton ticket makes every day a feel good one

Posted by: Norman | January 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I hope Kerry does run. He has been one of the Democrat's best voices on Iraq in the last two years and I think he would add a lot to the debates just in this respect.

Kerry narrowly lost to Bush in 2004 and I think he has gotten a lot better as a candidate in the last two years. Nobody did more in the last cycle to support, fund and help elect good Democrats to the Congress.

Run John Run. It would be, at the very least, good to have your voice in the race.

Posted by: TerriS | January 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

If Kerry decides to run again in the face of the enormous incompetence demonstrated by his 2004 campaign, then I will consider such a decision as final proof that this man is by far the most narcissistic and dangerously ambitious member of the United States Senate--and that's saying something.

Disagree if you wish, but I think Senator Clinton stands a better chance of winning a general election than Senator Kerry does, (unless the match-up is so favorable to the Democrats that Kerry's incompetence can't possibly screw up the outcome). Clinton may carry a lot of baggage, but she has staked out clear policy positions that are widely supported by Democrats and generally deemed tolerable by a considerable slice of the general public.

Posted by: Joseph | January 9, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is a buffoon who has zero chance of getting elected.

Posted by: Sandy | January 9, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Edwards, Hillary, Obama-- Weak field, step back and think about it.

Dems want someone who can fix the situation in Iraq and reclaim our prestige and respect around the world. The three aforementioned "front runners" cannot do this. Kerry is the only one who can fix the mess we are in.

Don't underestimate him. The three mentioned above have never been put up to national scrutiny.

Do you honestly think Kerry has more negative background material than Hillary? Come on.

Kerry has been vetted and he will surprise people. Look at his history-- 2 weeks before IA in 04, Senate campaign against Bill Weld which everyone thought he would lose. Kerry is best when his back is against the wall.

Kerry 08 makes more sense than most people believe.

Posted by: Weak field- Kerry best shot | January 9, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

If Kerry runs (for the Presidency) he will lose and lose badly in the primaries. He will diminish his already tarnished influence in the Senate. He needs to stay where he is. He blew it in '04 by not fighting back against the Swiftboaters. He is perceived as a wimp who will not even stand up for himself. How can we expect him to stand up for the US?

Joe Biden (paired with Bill Richardson as VP) is our best chance to regain the White House in '08.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

You idiots...Hillary? Then someone with the middle name Hussein? John Kerry??? These utter fools are your stable for 08?

Posted by: George | January 9, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

If Kerry runs (for the Presidency) he will lose and lose badly in the primaries. He will diminish his already tarnished influence in the Senate. He needs to stay where he is. He blew it in '04 by not fighting back against the Swiftboaters. He is perceived as a wimp who will not even stand up for himself. How can we expect him to stand up for the US?

Joe Biden (paired with Bill Richardson as VP) is our best chance to regain the White House in '08.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Good Lord! Will that phony idiot ever learn?

Posted by: rpalt | January 9, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Edwards, Hillary, Obama-- Weak field, step back and think about it.

Dems want someone who can fix the situation in Iraq and reclaim our prestige and respect around the world. The three aforementioned "front runners" cannot do this. Kerry is the only one who can fix the mess we are in.

Don't underestimate him. The three mentioned above have never been put up to national scrutiny.

Do you honestly think Kerry has more negative background material than Hillary? Come on.

Kerry has been vetted and he will surprise people. Look at his history-- 2 weeks before IA in 04, Senate campaign against Bill Weld which everyone thought he would lose. Kerry is best when his back is against the wall.

Kerry 08 makes more sense than most people believe.

Posted by: Weak field- Kerry best shot | January 9, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Good Lord! Will that phony idiot ever learn?

Posted by: rpalt | January 9, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

If Kerry runs (for the Presidency) he will lose and lose badly in the primaries. He will diminish his already tarnished influence in the Senate. He needs to stay where he is. He blew it in '04 by not fighting back against the Swiftboaters. He is perceived as a wimp who will not even stand up for himself. How can we expect him to stand up for the US?

Joe Biden (paired with Bill Richardson as VP) is our best chance to regain the White House in '08.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Kerry in 8 contested elections (82 primary and general for Lt Gov, 84 primary and general for Senate, 90 general, 02 general against a write in, 04 VA primary and general). He's been a favorite of mine since the 70s when he was on "5 on 5", a Boston talking head show. He was a terrific prosecutor who completely professionalized the DA's office for the largest county in MA. That is the opinion of judges on the Mass. App. Ct. when I clerked there. I wold have voted exactly like you did on the Iraq War given what was known when the votes were taken. I'm even a Yale/BC Law guy, too, but not a Bonesman.

Please don't run. After giving you $2K in 2004, and even some $$ after that for your PAC, I have put e-mails from your PAC on my block list. While I do not reject your message and ideas, I do not feel anyone will judge you on your message nor will people accurately assess your personal character. It must be intensely frustrating to be knocked down on falsehoods, to be a figure of derision and contempt, and to know in your heart (and to sense in the hearts of many) that you would discharge the duties of President with honor and ability. There are many ways to serve. Right now your best service would be through the competent trench work you've done before. Hearings and oversight like BCCI and others you worked on in the 80s will set the stage and build the record for another Democrat. It's your duty, and you've never failed in your duty.

Posted by: jon | January 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

If Kerry runs (for the Presidency) he will lose and lose badly in the primaries. He will diminish his already tarnished influence in the Senate. He needs to stay where he is. He blew it in '04 by not fighting back against the Swiftboaters. He is perceived as a wimp who will not even stand up for himself. How can we expect him to stand up for the US?

Joe Biden (paired with Bill Richardson as VP) is our best chance to regain the White House in '08.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I would love to see someone challenge Kerry in the Democratic primary should he run for re-election. The guy is so far out of touch it's ridiculous.

Posted by: Venicemenace | January 9, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Chris C. points out that Kerry's Senate seat is up for reelection in '08. Could he possibly have the nerve that Lieberman did in 2000 when he ran for re-election to the Senate while also campaigning for the Vice Presidency?

Posted by: Jack | January 9, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

for a while, i thought kerry's "botched joke" was going to be enough to keep the democrats from winning congress this year... i'm glad to have been wrong, but this is not the man to lead our nation. his unerring instinct for behavior that separates himself from the mass of voters, rather than emphasizing what is held in common, makes him a very poor bet in a crowded field of candidates - almost all of whom have more charisma. andra's comment about Obama - "comes off as pompous and ponderous; 2 years as a Senator and he's really one of them" - describes her candidate almost to a T, except he (kerry) has been in the Senate for a much longer time. Obama has actually surprised me in the appearances I have seen by the extent to which he did NOT seem to see himself as a prince or aristocrat. i suspect Audra of working for the Kerry campaign, which is all well and good until it begins to get in the way of actually selecting the BEST candidate, rather than the one who has put in his time and has a rich wife... the phrase "botched joke" is symptomatic of kerry's problem. does he not know how seldom the word "botched" is used in colloquial American English, and by extension, how he sounds when he uses it (either believing it to be part of the American argot or not caring one way or the other) - ?
Kerry does not have a base of support to build on, and he has neither the charisma nor the fresh new ideas with which to do the actual building. Unfortunately, he has - his wife has - a whole lotta dough, so as he long as he wants to make noise, we have to listen. this, however, does not a campaign strategy make. Kerry would lose to McCain, Giuliani... hell, probably even to the ol' Mitt.
DON'T DO IT, JOHN. Those who you think are 'your' voters will split between Hillary and Obama this year, being no fools, and the only result your candidacy would have would be to turn swing voters off on the Democrats.

Posted by: meuphys | January 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Yes, people know Kerry. More accurately, they know what the Republicans and media told them back in 2004. They know he's an arrogant flip-flopper who likes to waterski, has an annoying wife, lied about his military service, and hates the troops. Oh, and that he can't beat Bush.

Kerry won the primary in 2004 because people thought he was electable. That's a tough argument to make now. I can't imagine anyone who voted against Kerry last time voting for him this time, especially if there's another campaign season in which to smear and attack him. He's damaged goods. Whether or not he'd make a good president is besides the point now; after 2004, he has no chance of winning.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I say the more the better in that we will have the chance to make a judgement based on how they each perform in a demanding situation. The way the early cauces and primary states are set up does not favor any one in particular. there could be as many as 6 or 8 different winners early on, but I don't think it will happen. The speculation and hopes will continue for our favorites, and that is a good thing, until it becomes clear that they will not win the nomination. I am strongly for Hillary and believe she will be the dems best choice for POTUS in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The Rothenberg Report has a new column on Obama and how being a "rock star" may not be a long-term asset.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/01/fate-of-rock-star.html

At least people know Kerry.

Posted by: JNutting | January 9, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Dear [blank], Thanks for the savvy political tip. I would agree with your take on the Republican view of Hillary, but that doesn't prevent her from having a good chance at winning the primary, unfortunately. And if certain Republicans are champing at the bit for Obama, they are as clueless as Edwards, which is of course always possible.

Posted by: Golgi | January 9, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Kerry proved in 2004 that he just does not have what it takes to win the presidency. In 2006, he proved that his political instincts have not improved during the last two years. Give it up, Senator.

Posted by: Progressive | January 9, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Golgi,
The Republicans are chomping at the bit for Hillary or Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 9, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I put Kerry in first place on your post about ranking the candidates. He came very close in 2004 and several states he lost narrowly have become more blue, Iowa, Ohio and Colorado. The 6 close Kerry-win states are not sure bets for other candidates, either. PA, MN, MI, WI, NH, OR - all very, very close; can't be complacent that "any" Democrat could win those states.

Kerry proved himself an excellent debater and that will be important in 2008. Hillary Clinton is a very poor debater and public speaker. All of the Republicans are better debaters than she is; there isn't a George W. Bush among them. Edwards didn't look strong in any debates the whole year. Personally, I think Obama comes off as pompous and ponderous; 2 years as a Senator and he's really one of them.

The other candidates are all significantly lower tier, aren't they? Gore is not going to run, IMO.

Posted by: Andra | January 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Why Kerry is doing it is a mystery, but at least it will help keep the Obama campaign juiced up.

The only potential failure modes I can see for Obama are (1) stagnation if the other candidates drop out too early, which could lead to a Republican win (2) some amazingly effective word-of-mouth campaign from Hillary, as opposed to the hammy Edwards YouTube creations that are already being mocked. Hillary does have a chance, if she focuses the bulk of her energy in every public appearance on being warm and engaging.

But those are the only failure modes because Obama is not going to make a stupid gaffe, and he'll be capable of explaining why he voted such and such a way in the Senate. So extra competitors like Kerry only serve to focus the energy.

Posted by: Golgi | January 9, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Dido on everything Blarg said. His loss was monumental in it's total and complete failure.
Don't he have advisors that will tell him to just stay a Senator. He will never get voted out of office (look at Ted) and he can go and see any Redsox game he wants. Give it up John you can't win. No matter what your Rich buddies at the Sevens tell you. (By the way the Sevens is the one of the best bars in Boston if you ever come to visit).

Posted by: Andy R | January 9, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Why does Kerry think he has a chance? Nobody really liked him in 2004. He had the big anti-Bush vote, but little support for his policies or personal style. Now that everyone knows how badly he runs a campaign, he has no chance at getting through the primaries. I'd rather vote for Hillary than Kerry, and that's really saying something.

Posted by: Blarg | January 9, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company