Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

John Kerry Opts Out of Second Presidential Run

While most of Washington's chattering class had long ago dismissed Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) as a viable candidate for the presidential nomination in 2008, today's news that he is officially removing himself from consideration sent waves through the political world.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
Kerry had sent clear signals that he planned to run again in 2008. Today, he is expected to announce that he won't be a candidate for president next year. (AP Photo)

Kerry made the formal announcement in a speech on the Senate floor in which he castigated the Bush Administration for its handling of the war in Iraq and pledged to work to correct the policy in the months ahead.. People close to Kerry insisted his decision was based on his belief that the Senate offered him the best place to have maximum impact on the way forward in Iraq. Allies insisted that his somewhat sluggish showing in state and national polls had little to do with no-go decision, pointing out that he would have started a second national campaign with $12.5 million in the bank -- a sum that would have allowed him to spend freely to rehab his image.

Kerry is expected to run for a fifth Senate term in 2008, disappointing a number of ambitious Democrats in the Massachusetts congressional delegation.

Gauging the impact of Kerry's non-candidacy is somewhat difficult. In the wake of his 2004 loss, he had emerged as one of the most forceful voices in opposition to the war in Iraq and, on the political front, had used his 3-million-person-strong e-mail list to raise and donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates across the country.

Just as he had seemingly recouped his image in the eyes of many Democratic voters, Kerry found himself in the media maelstrom for a "botched joke" regarding the American troops in Iraq. That incident seemed to remind many Democrats of why they had soured on Kerry during and after his last run for president.

Kerry's star had been eclipsed in many ways by the candidacies of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- both of whom have voiced their strident opposition to the war and were regarded as more viable options for the nomination than the Massachusetts Senator.

Polling in Iowa -- the state that will cast the first votes of the 2008 Democratic primaries -- showed Kerry lagging behind Edwards, Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). National polls mirrored those standings; the most recent Post-ABC News poll put Kerry in fifth place -- behind Clinton, OBama, Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore -- with just 8 percent.

We'll offer up some winners and losers from the Kerry announcement tomorrow on The Fix, but here's one to tide you over. Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) should make real inroads among Boston money men (and women) with Kerry out of the race. Several of Biden's closest advisers have long roots into the Massachusetts money world. Check back tomorrow morning for an expanded list of winners and losers.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 24, 2007; 2:29 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Inside the '08 numbers
Next: Capitalizing on Kerry's Exit

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate. Winner.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the worst stigma in politics is attached to Kerry, namely that of being a "loser". Not primarily for having lost 2004, but for his pretty ineffective campaign, lacking media savvy and many glitches.

Also, all passion and authenticity got drained out of Kerry by the vast electoral machine. You really want a candidate which manages to avoid appearing like a campaign robot.

Further, US presidential elections are such emotional affairs. I'd say voters and the media tend to be too exhausted to revisit the previous hard-fought campaign. One of the reasons why it was wise for Al Gore not to run in 2004.

Don't get me wrong. Kerry is an intelligent fellow and a reasonably talented politician. But he had his chance and - lets face it - botched it. His candidacy would have served nobody - least of all himself. Kerry has enough common sense and acted accordingly.

But then, I'm only a German and US presidential races are admittedly more an entertaining horse race for me than anything else (though I of course wish to see a smarter US foreign policy and the US engage more with the wider world on a range of issues). Anyway, I suspect the same also applies to many Americans to some degree or other.

Perhaps that's why we're seeing McCain, Giuliani, Clinton and Obama leading the pack. All of them are political stars and, whatever they'd do as candidates, at least the race ought to be entertaining. The Bob Doles out there appear to be firmly sidelined and without much of a chance.

Posted by: Charles | January 29, 2007 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Glad that he has finally come to the realization that the Democratic Party did not want this or that the American people would actually vote to put him into office this time around.

Posted by: Chris | January 29, 2007 4:08 AM | Report abuse

Coward, traitor, phoney war hero, looser and now quitter. The Kerry circle is now complete.

Posted by: MaximusExcrucio | January 26, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Agreed - and if you can steer the discussion away from William, you may get some good philosophical dicussion, and practical history. But, William has a way of taking direct responses, ignoring valid points, regurgitating his own opinion and then diverting the discussion even deeper into the nether regions of his pysche.

If we do respond to him, maybe it's better as a "One and done!" response.

I appreciate the thoughts. FYI - I don't believe in censoring posts as some people would have the Post do; unless they're just totally obscene - meaning profane and non-germane.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 25, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I do know what you mean. If the posts said the same thing but in terms of a lecture, I would have felt no need to respond.

But William actually asked questions like "is there a reason for white voters to want pro-black policies?" Now, the questions were phrased in language that I found offensive. But the *content* of the questions was something for which I actually had a strong (I think) rejoinder, that had not yet appeared on the board.

So when someone asks an open question that can lead to a good discussion, I do think it's worth answering.

Posted by: Golgi | January 25, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - I see the analogy, but don't quite agree with it.

Do I engage the local Nazi or Klansman in what is a reasoned discussion on my side, while they spew racism, in the hope that I can convert them to a civilized thought process?

Or, is it better to just ignore them when it has become evident that it is an exercise in futility (see many of William's post in December - they're just loaded with rationalizing and denial).

Iran is a "player" in the World, and I agree that it is in our interest to engage Iran in a dialogue on how they are acting in the World; not on Ahmadinejad's philosophy (although he might try to keep it to that).

William is not a "player." He's an ideologue's puppet. Better that he be left to stare at a screen where nobody is providing him any additional fodder.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 25, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Interesting meta-debate on whether or not Democrats should attempt to describe their views to virulent offensive outlier Republicans.

I think Democrats should be ready to describe their views to anyone, and so do a few others (DTM). Others on the board think it's better to ignore some people and that it's only encouraging them to respond at all.

Reminds me of the debate on whether or not the USA should have conversations with Iran.

Bush administration says it's bad to acknowledge them because it just encourages them.

Others say that there are a lot of reasonable individual Iranis, although the current leader is a wacko, and we are missing a great opportunity if we don't talk with them.

I tend to side with the latter view, and bring the same viewpoint into the relatively trivial world of blogs.

Posted by: Golgi | January 25, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

William first appeared here in December, and it quickly became apparent that he is a racist and somewhere "off on the fringe" politically.

He was called on the racism as soon as he displayed it. His proof that he is not a racist is that, he knows he is not a racist.

Unless he has an epiphany and realizes how ethically unbalanced he is, you're just whistling past the graveyard if you think you can have a reasoned discussion with him. Logic is not required in his World.

Don't expect any logical responses from him. Better yet, don't encourage him. He's a sick puppy.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 25, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm re-posting this recent entry from the Q&A on W.P Politics Hour -- it's pertinent to several issues under discussion right now.

particularly of interest - the concept of Obama being a crossover candidate.

I think it's worthwhile engaging with Republicans on these issues, even if they use offensive language, because the R's might find that they actually like what Democratic candidates have to say if it's translated into R's language so they can understand it. Anyway.


from Q&A, W.P. 01/25.2007
"
Black Republican: Thank you for the interesting perspective on black voters voting for a black presidential candidate. I think for far to long blacks in America have voted for liberal or moderate presidential candidates based on some sense of loyalty. I think most of the blacks that vote, if they really think about it, are more like moderate Republicans than liberal Democrats: They want good education for their children. They want to live in a society that lets opportunity be based on ability and not entitlement. They want to see people who need help receive that help with the caveat that says we will help you get into the mainstream but we will not support you indefinitely. I think Obama embodies these principals, the liberal left thinks entitlemet is the answer to all of America's problems. Barak Obama believes that with a little help and a determination to win that this country can be on our way to helping people live the American Dream. If blacks stand about and wait they miss the opportunity to let Senator Obama show that his is a presidency that would be all-inclusive.

washingtonpost.com: Obama's Appeal to Blacks Remains an Open Question (Post, Jan. 25)

Michael Fletcher: Thanks. One point I'd add is that, in my experience at least, it seems that black voters support candidates who at least speak to their interests. While poll after poll finds African Americans to be moderate and even conservative on many social issues, they vote Democratic largely, I think, because they feel like Democrats speak to them consistently and the party has support from fewer people whose views are hostile to black interests.
"

Posted by: Golgi | January 25, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I'd say just the "our own country" part marks him as racist. Apparently, this is the country of white people. We shouldn't be 2nd-class citizens in our own country. It's okay for other people to be 2nd-class citizens, because it's not their country; it's the white people's country.

If you're an American citizen, this is your country. (That may still be too narrow a definition.) And nobody should be a 2nd-class citizen in their own country, no matter what their ethnicity or skin color is.

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

thank you, Golgi and F&B. i was unfortunately sleeping while William was eagerly awaiting my answer. i hope i didn't keep him up.

I really don't think any response to him is needed at this point - if he don't see it, he won't see it. For example, he says:

"Pointing out that policies like affirmative action and government largesse to black communities does not benefit whites is not racist."

uh, yes it is. To expand William's narrow definition, I would classify as racist any view of the world which describes the power relationships between ethnicities as only in adversarial terms. He goes on to say:

"It seems logical to me that the the election of a black president will only serve to further the interests of minorites through affirmative action, increased government largesse, favorable treatment in the judicial system, etc, all of which only serve to further turn white people into 2nd class citizens in our own country."

of course in the real world, everyone benefits from the establishment and promotion of a society in which all of its members are encouraged and cared for. William disagrees. and he claims that's not racist?

Posted by: meuphys | January 25, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Nice work Golgi Apparatus, but it's like teaching a chimpanzee to fly the space shuttle.

If hood-boy doesn't understand FOUR HUNDRED F'ING YEARS of SLAVERY; another hundred of racial intolerance, persecution and lynch-mob justice; or decades of mandated racist segregation, then the idiot doesn't deserve a response. Screw that.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I would like to take a shot at responding to some of William's questions, even though they do smack of offense. Of course, as you know, William, you have just asked a large number of very deep questions and a blog is not a forum that can answer them all in depth. But here is a shot at it.

It's important to consider two different types of policies separately because they are conceptually different. I think BOTH kinds are necessary, and this is a big part of why I am a Democrat.

First, there are policies that strengthen everybody in lower socioeconomic tiers, regardless of race (like good preschools, elementary schools, high schools). Since many nonwhite races are disproportionately represented in lower socioeconomic tiers, the races as a whole may benefit disproportionately from better schools. Things like schools, health care, etc all fit into this type. The reason for society as a whole (meaning, everybody including the wealthy white) to invest in these things is that society as a whole is stronger if all its members are well-educated and healthy, even members in lower socioeconomic tiers.

Second, there are policies that are specific to race, like college admissions in those campuses that take race into account (not all do). The reason for society as a whole (meaning, everybody including the wealthy white) to be tolerant of these policies is that society as a whole will be stronger if justice is the norm. Am injustice has been identified: Over and over, when a black candidate and a white candidate otherwise equal apply for the same position, the white candidate is preferred. So that's a piece of injustice that's been identified. In those colleges that mark non-white race as a "plus" for candidates (and again, not all do), their policy is intended as a preventative against this type of injustice occurring. For society as a whole (including wealthy whites), the idea is that a just society in general is better for everyone.

Posted by: Golgi | January 25, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

While I'm happy to see Kerry take himself out of the race, it's
primarily because he was such a poor campaigner and maybe articulate in the Senate but not on the campaign trail.
Happy also to hear that Bill Richardson has support in DC, much as he does here in WI. Can he get the financing to be a major candidate? That remains to be seen, just as we don't yet know whether he's got the "fire" for a long campaign.
Hillary will be tough to beat because of her war chest and the fact that Bill can raise just about unlimited money for her. Also she'll mobilize a lot of women, but she also turns off many others. What I don't hear is very many of her supporters being "excited" by her or her ideas. So I think she may be the "default" candidate for the Dems. I think Obama is a sprinter without enough substance for the long haul.
While I used to have respect for McCain, most of that has been dissipated by his overtures to the far right wing organizations over the last two years. But he may be unbeatable in the primaries because I don't believe the other candidates can mobilize conservative support.

Posted by: pacman | January 25, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Kerry did the right thing by opting out. Now that the Democrat controlled Congress will rebalance power back from the Executive, (remember the 3 branches??) he has more of a shot at policy impact than he would as a candidate. He'd been eclipsed by the media heat on Miss Hillary and Obama, which will not cool anytime soon. He was a terrible candidate with an inflated,priviledged resume, and he blew it when he could have won it. He's as far as he's going to get, and now he knows it. Massachusetts may not be better off for another Kerry term, but he certainly is.

Posted by: L. Sterling. | January 25, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Sandy - is it your role on this blog to sail in every few days to tell us that John Kerry is a buffoon? Do you actually have anything interesting to say?

Posted by: Aussie view | January 25, 2007 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I quite like Kerry and thought (and still think) he would make a good president. Better than the current disaster in chief. Unfortunately Kerry was not a great candidate or campaigner. Given that and is (somewhat unfairly) tarnished reputation, I think it is a wise move for him not to run again.

Posted by: Aussie view | January 25, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Having read and rereading some of the comments made reminds me of someone with "Concrete Thoughts" i.e. Throughly mixed up and Permanetly Set.

Posted by: lylepink | January 25, 2007 3:50 AM | Report abuse

No big loss with kkkkerry, except maybe for the commies who support him.
He was (and is) a disgrace.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 2:51 AM | Report abuse

WaPo: User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.

If this doesn't qualify as inappropriate, nothing does:

"""Please, do clarify your position, Louis Farrakhan.

I'm sorry if the truth offends you, but that doesn't make it any less true. Spend more time reading, and less time hanging out with the Panthers, and you might actually learn something, meuphys, you brainless nitwit."""

He practically burned a cross on Meuphys' front lawn.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Whoops - my bad. I just broke my policy of only responding to nonmoronic, nonracist, nonfacist opinions. *shrug*

Wake me up when a redneck actually says something intelligent.

Posted by: Robert* | January 25, 2007 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Only the most pathetic cowards leave anonymous ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: Robert* | January 25, 2007 1:57 AM | Report abuse

meuphys, WHAT, exactly, did I say that was "racist?"

Racism is the hatred of someone because of their skin color.

Pointing out that policies like affirmative action and government largesse to black communities does not benefit whites is not racist. It is however, true.

WHY, in your view, should whites vote for politicians who support affirmative action, largesse for black communities, etc? How does it benefit us?

I eagerly await your answer, but I won't hold my breath.

Clearly, you have no idea what racism is, and use the typical liberal tactic of trying to label anyone who does not want open borders, affirmative action, welfare, huge social programs, etc, as "racist."

In my post, I simply stated that policies like affirmative action do not benefit whites. You consider that racist.

It's apparent that you really don't have any idea what racism is, and you are just like those rediculous, discredited little twits who say "Bush equals Hitler" and who compare capital punishment to the Nazi Holocaust.

Also, you apparently support discriminatory policies which put whites at a tremendous disadvantage for college admissions, jobs,etc.

Please, do clarify your position, Louis Farrakhan.

I'm sorry if the truth offends you, but that doesn't make it any less true. Spend more time reading, and less time hanging out with the Panthers, and you might actually learn something, meuphys, you brainless nitwit.

Posted by: William | January 25, 2007 1:53 AM | Report abuse

lyle sez: "There are times many of us make statements that doesn't come across as intended, and I would hope this is what happened in what you are talking about."

what i was talking about was racism. i am unaware of any intention which could make what he said acceptable in a polite society. call a horse a horse.

Posted by: meuphys | January 25, 2007 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Good Site .Nice work.

Posted by: [3!]mento | January 25, 2007 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Good Site .Nice work.

Posted by: [3!]mento | January 25, 2007 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Good Site .Nice work.

Posted by: [3!]mento | January 25, 2007 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Good Site .Nice work.

Posted by: [3!]mento | January 25, 2007 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Expat Teacher: I like Richardson very much but do not think he will go very far in his bid for the nomination. Money will play a huge part in the process and I for one wish it were different. For a long time now I have made the suggestion for Gov. Richardson be picked as the Sec. of State or Amb. to the UN, no matter who wins in 08. He has had a number of successes in each of these fields and would be a great asset to the next Cabinet.

Posted by: lylepink | January 25, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

John Kerry is just another in a long line of candidates from the Senate. Americans aren't comfortable with legislators as executives. What we need is a viable Democratic governor. Luckily, we have one in Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

He's got a following right here in DC.

http://dcforrichardson.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Expat Teacher | January 24, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

meuphys: Don't forget this is an opinion forum and we all have opinions. There are times many of us make statements that doesn't come across as intended, and I would hope this is what happened in what you are talking about.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow William, I have never seen a more favorable portrayel of McCain ever. You make him sound like a good bipartisan but still an effective politician. The kind of guy we'd want to elect to be a unifier, not a divider and all that jazz. Sadly, I know that no politician can live up to the glowing portrait you painted.

Posted by: John | January 24, 2007 10:38 PM | Report abuse

William: I think I am making a little progress with folks like you [repubs] that are finally waking up to the fact that Hillary is the most likely, and IMO will be the next POTUS. The tip comes from other posters I have seen on "The Fix" and other simular forums. I would like to think the wishes of some repubs are coming true, to their horror, that Hillary is the one they fear most as I have stated so often. Another thing that is being ignored is the hidden support for Hillary that does not show up in any poll I have seen.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Thank God we were spared four years of lectures and condescending speeches from Kerry about how stupid all of us are to not have recognized his brilliance.

What a fool.

Good riddance.

The guy is an arrogant buffoon. He is a disgrace.

Posted by: Sandy | January 24, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I believe Kerry would have won in 08. Think about it, Kerry would be the best president among all the other "candidates" in the race right now.

Today, Kerry's departure from the 08 race is a huge loss for this country.

Kerry would have been one of our greatest Presidents.

Posted by: Kerry 08 | January 24, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Kerry = a buffoon, a disaster, and a disgrace.

Good riddance.

What an idiot.

Posted by: Sandy | January 24, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey William, did you want your robes steam cleaned and starched or just laundered. Thanks. Oh and don't forget your pointy hat silly. You'd forget your head if it wasn't attached, haha.

Posted by: F&B | January 24, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Robert*


*Do not take anything Robert says seriously, as he is a complete doofus.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

"The other readers of this blog are too smart to fall for that reader's specious appeals to xenophobia."

To your dismay, however, the readers of this blog do not reflect the views or beliefs of the majority of the US electorate, many of whom, I can assure you, are quite xenophobic :)

Bye Bye, Iraq Hussein Osama. Prepare to be shredded.


Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"i am completely appalled that whatever censors there are let that through. this is unacceptable in the 21st century - goes beyond partisan difference to blatant racism. i don't think anyone else should give this guy the satisfaction of responding."

Oh please. So you support discriminatory policies that treat white college applicants, job applicants, and contract bidders as INFERIOR, while giving blacks an unfair advantage?

I think it is YOU who are racist.

These days, minorities are favored for jobs and admissions, while whites are spurned, even if the whites are more qualified. Does this seem fair to you?

Let's review:

NAACP = cool, if there was a white version of the NAACP it would be "racist."

Black-only or Hispanic only scholarships = perfectly fine, a white-only scholarship would be "racist."

Why is this?

Black Entertainment Television = not racist, White Entertainment TV would be "racist."

If a black employer hires another black over a white, that is OK. If a white employers hires a white over a black or other minority, that is "racist."

If a black or minority voter chooses a candidate from their own race over a white candidate, that is fine. If a white person prefers to vote for white politicians, that is "racist."

I don't even have to bring up the despicable treatment of the Duke students in the "rape case."

Who do you think you're kidding?

It's not for you to decide what is "acceptable in the 21st century." No one cares what YOU think.

Why don't you go back to your office and hide under your desk, Morris Dees?

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Actually, there was nothing specious about that certain reader's arguments. They were transparently dogmatic appeals to fear and hate.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

While I disagree with the recent posts by a certain reader - at least the parts of his posts that I read - I have a policy of only responding to nonmoronic, nonracist, nonfacist opinions.

The other readers of this blog are too smart to fall for that reader's specious appeals to xenophobia.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

lylepink: I do think Hillary will be formidable in 2008. She is not the GOP's nightmare candidate (that would be Bayh, Warner, Bredesen, Sweitzer, etc) but out of the candidates that ARE running, she is the strongest, and probably the one with the best chance of winning. If Vilsack had more charisma, maybe he would have a better chance, given his background, but he is not charismatic.

Republicans don't like McCain...if they choose him it will be because he has foisted himself on the GOP, declaring he is the only person who can win in 2008, and since he was won over a lot of the top donors, strategists, and "invisible primary" activists, as well as a lot of endorsements by other major politicians, it will be hard to take him out in the primaries.

Personally, I would MUCH rather lose with Brownback or Gilmore or Hunter than win with McCain.

The American people will not give one party permanent control, and if McCain wins the election, then because the GOP has controlled the WH for so long, it will be very hard to win in 2012, and if McCain or his VP (if he steps aside) win in 2012, it will be hard to win in 2016.

I would rather lose in 2008, and come back with a 1994 style Republican Revolution in 2010 or 2012, with a true conservative like Barbour or Sanford or Sessions taking the White House, and new GOP majorities in Congress devoted to true conservatism, and not the statist neo-con pseudo-conservative snake oil Bush and his ilk sell.

But for this GOp revolution to happen, we have to lose in 2008. Our chances of regaining any house of Congress in '8 are highly unlikely anyway, so we would have a lame duck GOP president. And McCain is practically a Democrat, for all apparent purposes. Warner and Bayh are probably more conservative than he is.

I don't want McCain wasting 4 years in the WH being a RINO and triangulating with the Dems.

Better to have a real Dem than a RINO in the WH in 2008, and try to come back in 2010 or 2012.

McCain is another Bush on foreign policy and will only maintain the status quo, as we see from his stated foreign policy views.

My only fear is that McCain or Guiliani will actually win the nomination and then the presidency. I think they are the only candidates who could beat Hillary.

I don't want to see a Bush-style pseudo-conservative in the WH, and that is what McCain and Guiliani are. I would rather be patient and wait for a true conservative in 2012.

I don't think ROmney could beat Hillary, nor do I think Brownback or any of the others could beat most of the Dem field.

The only candidates who will ENSURE a GOP victory are Obama and Richardson.

White swing voters in crucial swing states like WA, OR, NV, CO, MN, WI, MI, PA, and OH will go to the GOP. And I can guarantee that.

Some people seem to think that a Richardson could put some conservative states in play since he is a sort of conservative Dem, but that is not true. Conservative states will not vote for a Hispanic.

Now, Warner, or Bayh, could easily put a lot of conservative states in play.

I don't think Hillary will win any states in the South, or many in the interior West, but she doesn't need to.

As long as the GOP nominee is not McCain or Guiliani, I think she will almost certainly be able to take every Kerry state, and Ohio seems to have swung toward the Dems of late. She also has a chance at CO and NM, but I think the other Western states (MT, ID, NV, ND, SD, KS, NE, etc) will stay Republican.

If Guiliani or McCain is the GOP nominee (shudder), then some of Kerry's states like the ones I mentioned above that Obama couldn't take may be in play.

But Guiliani could probably be ravaged using his ethical scandals as ammo, while Hillary would do well to portray herself as a loyal, forgiving wife, whose Christian faith led her to forgive her husband for cheating. Portraying herself like that could help lock up conservative leaning independents and some Republicans. Some evangelicals might even support Hillary rather than Guiliani (and Guiliani isnt Protestant.)

I think McCain is the "most electable" GOP candidate. The question is, do we want him to be elected? FOr me, the answer is no.

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

this can't be allowed to pass without comment.

"It seems logical to me that the the election of a black president will only serve to further the interests of minorites through affirmative action, increased government largesse, favorable treatment in the judicial system, etc, all of which only serve to further turn white people into 2nd class citizens in our own country.

It seems that WE are at the back of the bus now, in terms of college admissions, job applications, government contracts, etc."

i am completely appalled that whatever censors there are let that through. this is unacceptable in the 21st century - goes beyond partisan difference to blatant racism. i don't think anyone else should give this guy the satisfaction of responding.

Posted by: meuphys | January 24, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

He's out because his billionaire wife doesn't want to support another losing campaign.

Posted by: TruthProbe | January 24, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

William: You have made me feel so good now that you are coming around to my way of thinking about Hillary, in the highly likehood she will be the next POTUS. The McCain that most repubs thought they knew does not exist. Some of the things you mention are not as important as to what is surely to be revealed about the "Keating Five". Least we forget that a brother of GW's, I think his name was Neal, was highly involved in the business that brought this scandel to light and was so well covered up by the Bush family. Blackmail is a word that so many of us are afraid to use and when it is used, the ones using it must have proof way beyond "A reasonable doubt". These things will continue to come up and I just cannot see how he will get the nomination in 08. Rudy has to much in his personal life that will keep him from winning as well. I continue to think Chuck Hagel is the best the repubs have, should he decide to run.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

William: You have made me feel so good now that you are coming around to my way of thinking about Hillary, in the highly likehood she will be the next POTUS. The McCain that most repubs thought they knew does not exist. Some of the things you mention are not as important as to what is surely to be revealed about the "Keating Five". Least we forget that a brother of GW's, I think his name was Neal, was highly involved in the business that brought this scandel to light and was so well covered up by the Bush family. Blackmail is a word that so many of us are afraid to use and when it is used, the ones using it must have proof way beyond "A reasonable doubt". These things will continue to come up and I just cannot see how he will get the nomination in 08. Rudy has to much in his personal life that will keep him from winning as well. I continue to think Chuck Hagel is the best the repubs have, should he decide to run.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is the last white man's hope"

Uhhhhhhh, how, exactly, will Obama being elected benefit "the white man" in any way?

It seems logical to me that the the election of a black president will only serve to further the interests of minorites through affirmative action, increased government largesse, favorable treatment in the judicial system, etc, all of which only serve to further turn white people into 2nd class citizens in our own country.

It seems that WE are at the back of the bus now, in terms of college admissions, job applications, government contracts, etc.

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

''I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty''; Remember that; Only a man whose head is so woolly from money and self admiration, and lack of vision imagination and spontaneity could come up with such an asinine line.
But that's peanuts to the duty he so readily waived when he got the chance,
Privilege, chance, and opportunity brought him to the safest place hitherto in Vietnam. It was not part of the N Vietnamese to concentrate on a river invasion. But Kerry's crew on the gunship best recounts this narrative. Then 3 hits and he was out/home.
Obama is the last white man's hope

Posted by: donmacnamara | January 24, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

And there was much rejoicing.

Finally something ALL of America can agree on... JK NOT being President.

He's not the WORST Senator in the Dem caucus, but I wouldn't mind a more rational down-to-earth guy or gal Dem taking his Senate seat too.

Posted by: F&B | January 24, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

If Deval Patrick endorses Obama, it will do more damage to Obama than Hillary. Getting an endorsement from the defender of rapists is not a positive thing.

A Patrick endorsement of Obama will do significant harm to his appeal to moderate Democrats in the primary, and it would make Obama look extreme. Louis Farrakhan might as well endorse Obama.
Also, an endorsement from Patrick will serve to remind whites that Obama is black, and "not like them."

Currying favor with other black elected officials and "community leaders" will permanently damage Obama's standing with moderates, who will remember what happened when Mayor Dinkins was elected mayor of NYC.

Re: Kucinich, he isn't helped or harmed by ANY developments. He has absolutely no shot. I think even Dems are sensible enough to not nominate that far left freak who wants to create a Peace Department. He should resign from congress and go teach international relations at UC Berkeley.

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hi ProudtobeGOP, it will be entertaining to watch the Dems try to outmneuver each other, though I think Hillary is so powerful she will almost certainly win.

And unfortunately, after 8 years of Bush, she might actually win the general, and that is the scary part.

On the GOP side, I am very disappointed. Republicans are flocking in droves to McCain just because they think he is "electable." However McCain has denigrated and treated conservatives with contempt time and time again, and betrayed our interests and the causes we hold dear.

He championed the McCain Feingold "Incumbent Protection Act", the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the McCain-Hagel amnesty bill, he voted for the Assault Weapons Ban, and he was a founding member, and perhaps the chief orchestrator of the "Gang of 14" which prevented a number of qualified conservative judges from being confirmed. What's more, he has a shaky record on gay marriage, and his foreign policy will most likely be similar to Bush's. McCain, as far as I can see, is just a more liberal version of Bush.

He doesnt deserve our support as he has betrayed us so many times in the past. Also, I feel like this whole campaign is simply about McCain doing an ego trip. He is incredibly egotistical and arrogant and wants to foist himself on the country and on the GOP as our nominee. I don't think he deserves to be president, nor would he make a good one.

As for Romney, he can't be trusted. His entire political career consists of ONE term as the governor of MASSACHUSETTS, during which he was extremely liberal (by GOP standards) for over 3.5 of those 4 years. He even violated the MA constitution by forcing state officials to peform gay marriages (http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=19739).

Now, he claims he opposes gay marriage. He used to be pro-abortion, now he flip-flopped. He strongly supported (and even signed into law) a severely strict Assault Weapons Ban as MA's governor, and when he ran for Senate against Kennedy, championed gay rights, and went out of his way to distance himself from Ronald Reagan. I think Romney is just as arrogant and egotistical as McCain, and is a two-faced liar, to boot, who changes his views according to what office he is running for. It amazes me that he is getting ANY support at all. I just don't think he can be trusted, he has flip-flopped so much. He even named a prominent gay activist to a judicial position as governor of MA, if I am not mistaken. We have no way of knowing what Romney's views really are. He is only running for president since he knew he would lose reelection, and has no hope of ever being elected to another office anywhere ever again.

I am also dismayed to see that conservatives are even considering Rudy Guiliani. He is more liberal on social issues than most Democrats, and even said he would give his daughter money for an abortion. He marched in gay pride marches as mayor, and lived with a gay couple while his divorce was being processed. He is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, and STRONGLY anti-gun. He also holds an extremely expanisve view of government powers, and would likely continue Bush's unconstitutional "surveillance" programs. As mayor, Rudy practically turned NYC into a police state, and would likely try to do the same with America if elected president. Hillary Clinton is probably MORE CONSERVATIVE than Guiliani. I am shocked that Republicans are even considering him "just because he is electable." If we want someone electable, why don't we just go with Lincoln Chafee. If Guiliani is the GOP nominee, I am voting for th Constitution Party. Finally, Guiliani has a history of being immoral (married his first cousin, marriage was anulled, married another woman, cheated on her multiple times, treated her cruelly, and married a third woman.) He has tons of other skeletons in his closet as well. No thanks, I don't want a GOP nominee who is to the left of John Kerry (which Guiliani is.)

With the collapse of Allen, and the decision of popular, conservative governors like Barbour, Pawlenty and Sanford to not run (they are better off waiting for a year that is not so anti-GOP), there is no good candidate I can get excited about supporting.

Brownback is OK I guess, but not very exciting. His resume is also a little thin, and he is pro-amnesty, and his record on the death penalty is weak. Brownback is running for POTUS b/c he has nothing to lose. He promised to only serve two terms in the Senate, so he cannot run again in 2010.

Huckabee is a big government, tax and spend Republican, who gave illegals government benefits while governor of AR. He is strongly pro-amnesty, and goes out of his way to pander to Hispanics for some weird reason. His record on taxes and the death penalty is also weak, and he seems to me a very flaky conservative much in the Lindsey Graham mold. The only issues he is solidly conservative on are abortion, gay marriage, and, I suppose, guns. I don't really see Huckabee taking off. He has made very few moves in the direction of a candidacy lately, and fundraising will be a real problem with Romney, Brownback, and some smaller candidates like maybe Gilmore or Hunter winning whatever support does not go to McCain. Right now, I don't see a niche for Huckabee, with Romney, Brownback, and several minor candidates fighting over the conservative mantle. And if we are looking for a former governor, Gilmore has a much stronger record of conservativism than Huckabee, while coming from a state with more electoral votes.

As for the minor candidates, I like Tancredo a lot, but I don't think he really has a chance at the nomination. Same goes for Gilmore, whom I also like a lot. I don't see Hunter getting the nomination either.

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate. He is sort of a libertarian Republican, and opposed Iraq from the start, even voting against it. But he does not have a chance either.

We will unfortunately be stuck most likely with McCain, Romney, or (Heaven forbid) Guiliani, none of whom are actually conservative, or worthy of support.

The only "major" candidate I could even get somewhat excited about is Brownback.

I would support Jim Gilmore or Tancredo, or Hunter, but as I said, I don't think they have much of a shot.

William

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore benefits from Kerry's decision. No one wanted to see two former nominees duking it out in the primaries.

Edwards also benefits. Now he doesn't have to run against his boss from 2004.

It will be interesting to see what Governor Duvall Patrick does. He had promised to support Kerry if Kerry ran. Now who does he support? His friend Obama, who campaigned for him several times? Or H Clinton.

If this helps Gore, Edwards and possibly Obama, then it might hurt H Clinton.

If it helps Edwards, then it hurts Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by: Robert* | January 24, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that Kerry made it clear that he would not run in 08. Hillary is looking better all the time.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Moonbats mourn Kerry's choked-up exit
By Howie Carr
Boston Herald Columnist

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - Updated: 04:38 PM EST

Now will the moonbats finally peel the old 2004 Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers off their Volvos?

What a shame that we won't have John Forbes "Liveshot" Kerry to kick around anymore! From "Do you know who I am?" to "Do you know who I was?"

Somewhere, Manny Ortiz weeps. Who will the windsurfing caucus back now? In Green Bay, they're draping "Lambert Field" in black crepe. What happens to the "magic hat" he wore during ... yes, Christmas in Cambodia? Can he get back to training to run "again" in the Boston Marathon, not to mention hunting that 24-point buck that he claimed he stalked down on the Cape.

America's Gigolo is out of the fight. Who will be K-Fed's role model now?

John Kerry did a 180, and now we'll never see his DD 214.

Another thing we'll never see again: his Harley hog. Now he can go back to his real motorcycle roots - the Ducati Paso 907 IE.

No more will he see him out on the campaign trail at midnight, announcing the late scores from the American League in his true-fan style: "Yankees 2, Red Sox [team stats] 3."

The rumors started last weekend, and the key development was the appearance of Liveshot at a wake on Sunday for the mother of an elected county politician north of Boston. When John Kerry shows up at a wake in Malden or Medford, you know he's running for reelection to the Senate, although the way the story was told to me, some of Kerry's oldest habits were on display outside the funeral home where the wake was held.

"It was cold, damn cold, and we were all waiting in the line to get inside," the local pol explained. "And then that !@#$ %& Kerry shows up - and he cuts the line!"

Look for more from Howie Carr in tomorrow's paper.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 24, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I am a resident of Massachusetts-- a student currently in my sophomore year at university. I was an ardent supporter of John Kerry's 2004 run for the presidency, convinced then (as I am now) that he would be a strong commander in chief and an intelligent and articulate leader of the United States. I still believe that he would be one of the most capable presidents the Democratic Party has to offer. However, I also believe that Massachusetts and the greater United States needs a leader like him in the Senate-- a deliberative forum in which he is extremely gifted.
He wouldn't have been able to win the nomination, and I'm extremely glad he's going to run for re-election. What a champ.

Posted by: JD | January 24, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

He should be angry, because it's all true.

Posted by: web brat | January 24, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Mike B - two words: anger management.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 24, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The animosity, the plain unfettered hatred, lies upon lies, vile remarks and filth directed at a decent man, a good father, a patriot, and a genuine war hero by the right wing bloggers here is simply sickening. You vile creatures have set the low mark. Now, I don't ever want to hear any whining when the rest of the country settles into the muck and mud with you. The returning Iraqi veterans, like my son, can now expect the same sort of treatment by the left that you gutter snipes have dealt to a war hero like Mr. Kerry. I hope you made in China, flag waving baffoons are proud of yourselves.

Posted by: MikeB | January 24, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

hey william! I'm surprised you think that it will be boring/ unexciting to watch the dems try to out-maneuver each other. I can think of (almost) nothing better! Just wait until the first debate in April, they'll all try to marginalize Kucinich..the only true liberal (according to their definition) in the bunch but way too unelectable to have a spot on the podium.
I agree with your assessment on the repub VP race. Pawlenty's recent comments are somewhat disturbing; he sounded more like a liberal whining about military service being longer than you expected.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 24, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone really expected Kerry to run again, and even if he did, in such a crowded field, he would gain no traction.

Biden and Dodd fill the Kerry role, that is, the role of the longtime statesman, in the Dem field.

But I don't think either will pick up traction.

Honestly, this will be the most boring and unexciting election ever.

Maybe 2012 will be more exciting. I'd love to see Barbour vs. Sweitzer...it would be interesting to see if Sweitzer would pick up most of the Mid-West and West.

Pawlenty vs. Sweitzer or Pawlenty vs. Warner would also be interesting.

Personally, I hope that either Sanford,Barbour,Sessions, or Pawlenty will enter the GOP primary in 2012.

If McCain wins the GOP primary, his short list for VP is said to include Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford, and Lindsey Graham.

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

As you may recall, Leahy was stripped of his Senate Intelligence Committee vice-chair during the mid 80's for making good on threats to sabotage classified strategies he didn't personally care for. During Ronald Reagan's own war on terror, the Vermont Democrat was aptly nicknamed "Leaky Leahy" for proving time and again that he would do absolutely anything to discredit the Republican President -- including revealing the most vital of national security secrets


In 1985, he was charged with disclosing a top-secret communications intercept which had led to the capture of the murderous Achille Lauro hijacking terrorists. That leak likely cost an Egyptian counterterrorist agent his life shortly thereafter. Then, in 1986, Leahy threatened to leak secret information about a covert operation to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When the details of the operation later appeared in the Washington Post, the mission was immediately aborted.


The loose-lipped liberal was finally forced to resign his post a year later when he was caught singing like a canary to an NBC reporter about classified information on the Senate Iran-Contra hearings. On his third strike he was out, but, unfortunately, the game was not over.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/pat_leahy_a_canary_in_a_data_m.html

Posted by: loose lips sink ships | January 24, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Andy R writes
"But if he threw his weight behind a Richardson it would instantly boost Richardson street cred inside the beltway."


I would like to see something like that happen. The dems would do well to get some buzz behind a candidate that is neither currently in, nor a product of Washington; a category in which Clinton, Obama and Edwards all fit.

Posted by: bsimon | January 24, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Im going to go on a limb and say the real winner here is the entire democratic field. I dont think the money is the big victory because those that have a chance to compete will be successful and fundraising.

I think the bigger victory for the dems is not having to hear about every thing Kerry has said during the last couple of years that would hurt his party. Lets remember that the botched joke was not his first big gaffe, it was just the one that broke the camels back.

I think this is a HUGE help to all democrats, probably none more than Edwards but they all benefit a great deal.

Posted by: George | January 24, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Another winner is anyone who stood with Kerry throughout this process and needs money next cycle. He has 12 mil to dole out and can spend tons of time on the campaign trail raising money for the party.
Also I wonder who Teddy will endorse now? My vote is he weighs in on Hillary's side. But if he threw his weight (and he does have a alot of it figuratively and literally) behind a Richardson it would instantly boost Richardson street cred inside the beltway.

Posted by: Andy R | January 24, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

CBC (Cambridge Brewing Company?), just do what I'm going to do: Support whoever's running against him in the primary. It probably won't make a difference, but it'll make you feel better.

Posted by: Blarg | January 24, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

This is so bittersweet. I am very happy he isn't going to run for president but as a MA resident I was also looking forward to him not being our senator. Six more years of him representing the Bay State sucks.

Chris,

Saw you on Hardball where you answered a questions about Bush by bringing up whether Al Gore would run for president. It was very very random and irrelevant. Stop trying to create something out of nothing.

Posted by: CBC | January 24, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/

clcik on this for the funniest pic of this loony repub rep from minnesota kisisng bush last night. scroll down... hilarious.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Here begins the Countdown until Tina delusionally puts Condi as a possible candidate and contender for 2008. She has plagued these boards with that drivel for far too long. Even if for some crazy reason that Condi even announces and gets nominated it wont be a result of ANYTHING that Condi has done so far.

Posted by: Sigh.... | January 24, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

'Now, we are stuck backing an Iran-friendly Shiite sectarian regime in Iraq, even as we plan to spend hundreds of millions in aid to the Lebanese army to fend off the Shiite sectarian forces of Hezbollah, and even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice scuttles from one Sunni state to the next in an attempt to build a firewall around Iran. This is foreign policy as nonsense, as the American people have apparently figured out.'

Posted by: for you tina | January 24, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

the person signing as johnkerry is so lame it must be zouk again.

'In the war itself, meanwhile, our current policy has achieved new depths of senselessness. The administration is lining up support from our longtime Sunni allies in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt in particular -- as a buffer against the spreading influence of Shiite Iran within Iraq and across the Middle East. Inside Iraq, meanwhile, we have cast our lot with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a sectarian Shiite with long-standing ties to Iran, and hedged our bet by cultivating the support of another Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who is even closer to Iran.

Hakim heads the Iranian-backed Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). His deputy, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was in the running to become prime minister until the head of SCIRI's rival Shiite party, Moqtada al-Sadr, threw his support to Maliki. According to a New York Times report on Sunday, some administration officials are discussing quietly shifting our backing to Hakim's party. Others oppose this, pointing out that the raid in which U.S. forces seized Iranian operatives in Baghdad last month took place within Hakim's own compound.'

got that now?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

If every candidate in the primary race has to spend $100 million (I've heard this number tossed around), John Kerry saved $100 million by the simple act of deciding to stay out of the race!

A great day's work, Senator Kerry!

Posted by: Golgi | January 24, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I guess Kerry is running for his 5th term in the Senate in 2008. The obvious question is how to explain that fact you want the people from your state to vote for you as a Senator while you are also running for president? The fact is, most voters do not like people who run for one office while seeking another, and that includes the people from New York.
Most people did not want Hillary to run for president, they want her to stay in the Senate.
She is trying to soften her image. Excuse me, but why would any woman have to soften her image? Oh yes, the public sees Hillary as too cold and too calculating.
Seems the term WITCH comes to mind.

Posted by: Doris | January 24, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Please let this not be another botched joke.

Chris, who chose that image of you that's on the website's main page now?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 24, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse


DELAY TRIAL DELAYED
The trial of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is charged with felony conspiracy and money laundering, may be put off for weeks or months as prosecutors argue that DeLay should also face a charge of campaign finance conspiracy.
[Reuters]

what a pleasure it would be to see him in prison with a big hulkin bunkmate... course, he might like that.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I was a grunt worker on Kerry's presidential campaign. It's sad how our system can tear down some of the smartest minds, and there was definitely a lot of character assassination and contorting of the guy's words and records. At the same time, though, he made a lot of mistakes, and I always wished he'd have brought the same passion and conviction to the race that he'd showed when he was just back from Vietnam. Hopefully, he'll now use that energy and ambition to further his agenda in the senate, and to help the Dems take the White House in '08.....

Posted by: Neal | January 24, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"I actually did decide to run for president in 2008 before I decided against it"

Posted by: johnfkerry | January 24, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Kerry has paid off the $6 million loan yet from 2004 which he used to keep his head above the political water?
Kerry needed to pay attention to the polls, the Democrats do not want him to run for president.

NO WONDER KERRY RAN OUT OF CONGRESS AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION. He was forced to watch the man who defeated him and with Hillary, Obama, and Biden, Dodd, and Kucinish getting so much coverage, it is no wonder that he can't raise money.

Now what is he going to do with those millions left over from his 2004 race?
Will he give it back to the federal government?

Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

He's ok in the senate, he just shouldn't run for anything else anymore.

The most dangerous place in the world is pakistan -- nuclear-armed, unsecured, riddled with wahhabi madrassas, an angry, young and poor and increasingly radical population, an unpopular US-propped up leader--one bullet away from a radical nuclear state. Forget Iraq and Iran, Pakistan is ALREADY a haven for al queda AND the taliban and bin ladin -- the government made a peace treaty with them! with the tacit support of the pakistani government and the bigger than ever opium harvests we have allowed them to cultivate, out of US negligence, the taliban has taken over almost all of afghanistan. This is what happens when you decide what to do based on ideology and not facts -- dangerous incompetence. criminal stupidity.


'President Bush continues to claim that an Iraq free of U.S. forces would quickly become a haven for al-Qaeda. But according to an intelligence estimate given to Congress last week, Pakistan's lawless border with Afghanistan is currently a much more hospitable place to al-Qaeda's forces, and therefore a much graver threat - but our presence in Iraq is hampering our ability to respond to it.
[McClatchy Newspapers]

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Ah, I guess this is fine. We can't get a real gauge of how much ground Obama and Edwards need to make up with Gore and Kerry still in the race anyway.

I, unlike most Dems, have always liked Kerry. I still think he would make a good President, but at least he's not like Ralph Nadar. He knows his limits and his decision to focus on another Senate term is, imho, the right one.

Posted by: acarriedo | January 24, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Yay! Now if we could only get him out of the Senate.

Posted by: Dan W | January 24, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company