KERRY 08? Are you kidding me?

If Kerry couldn't win last year with * approval rating bottoming out, Iraq worsening, economy slumping, and almost as much money as*, Why should I believe he could win in 08.

He isn't a guy that can light a fire under the asses of the millions of voters who sit it out with "they're all the same" syndrome.

Put me down for Dean , Clark, or Boxer as of now. {Know its early to be picking for 08, but its just the right time to evaluate 04.)

Dean/Boxer

Clark/Boxer

Awesome!

He screwed me over pretty good, but he didn't screw me over as much as he screwed my dead son. He made his bonesman deal, I wouldn't give him the time of day!

N/T

already done it once.

and I hope he does it again in 08.

but no he hasn't...

Unless you can prove to me that a proper count of the votes shows Kerry ahead in Ohio.

each. Kerry won the rest. n/t

We'll always come out with a winner in the primaries. The issue is whether we can end up nominating someone who can win the general election.

The primaries...when most people said they were voting with their heads and not their hearts. Look where our heads got us.

I like to vote with both, btw. :)

I came to like Kerry a lot but he never did capture my heart the way others have.

where he would have picked more states up. Dean was "taken out" and YES, Edwards was a weak candidate.

Kerry had a clear playing field to mop up the majority of the primaries and if you were following them you would have seen that Dean and Clark were effectively "removed" from the competition. The DNC and the parties that be decided against Clark and Dean and supported Kerry. There was no real contest in the primaries. Kerry was "annointed" the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

While Dean and Clark have their strong points, 4 years is a long time and hopefully we will have an abundance of good choices.

The best thing is all the people that the party might feel obligated to, (Daschle, Gephardt, etc.) are now out of the picture. So there is a chance that we don't get another Dem Bob Dole.

I don't think Boxer has a chance. The extreme is a good balance tool but a lousy candidate.

Events in the next couple of years could bring someone from the woodwork into the national spotlight from. While I would like to see Dean or Kucinich, I'm still looking for the ONE that will really capture the imagination of the nation. But whoever it is must have an agenda to put this country back onto the right path rather than business as usual.

Blockbuster ticket! Can't lose.

the vote was rigged, even if you dismiss that, Kerry came within 60,000 votes of defeating an incumbant during wartime and inspite of having so many viet-vets supercharged against him.

less than two months after he is back on his job, as a senator, fighting to protect the troops and the country from his opponent's poor judgements & decisions.

takes a pretty tall person to stand up and walk after what he went thru.

"PFG" I know you are upset & hurt and that you unsubscribed from kerry's list, but please do have an open mind about JFK, he is good stuff.

-max.

Welcome to DU!:hi:

:toast: to our leaders in '08.

I'm hurt and angry, too. Hurt that I don't get this man for president. Angry that it was taken from me. And in mourning for those who really needed this change, whether they know it or not.

Part of what gets me though this time is the thought that I can maybe still get what was stolen, somehow, someway. I still think he's one of the most qualified people we have for the job of president. It hurts my heart to see people putting down that possibility. It especially makes me wonder when it's folks in the party saying it, because it makes me wonder if leaders in our own party were working all that hard. Did some in the party have motive to not want Kerry in there this time, so that their candidate has a better chance next time? I hope that's crazy talk.

Jim Wasser, a man who knew Kerry pretty well, told a group of supporters at a Wisconsin rally, that if we got John Kerry for president, we wouldn't just be getting a good president. We'd be getting a great one. Others who know him well said the same thing. Somehow, someway, I would like to find out if that's true.

I think it will be. A good man doesn't stop being a good man because he lost, just as the lies of the SBVT bastards didn't suddenly become truth because Bush won.

Indeed, where do I sign? What do I do?

he just can't win the presidency

the drawing of Kerry, did you paint it yourself ?

its like John & a hint of Sly (actor).

Gorgeous, innit. There's something about his eyes -- so intense.

Here's the full credit:

"'JOHN KERRY, APRIL 1971,' by Elizabeth Peyton, Gavin Brown's Enterprise, 620 Greenwich Street, at Leroy Street, West Village, (212) 627-5258. Part of a portfolio of 14 works commissioned by Artforum magazine for its September issue. Through Nov. 2."


It was in the NYT just before the RNC. One of these days I will call that place and tell them just how much that picture has meant to me (and to make sure they don't mind that I use it here) and also to ask if they plan on selling lithos of the thing. If so, I want one.

I clipped out the little image that appeared in the paper, and carry it in my wallet.

week he is introducing a bill that would provide health insurance to all children, and he has also promised an election reform bill--perhaps one of several that will be introduced. I would think the Democrats would want to get behind one effective bill.

I admire the fact that he went to the inauguration, held his head high, smiling wryly at times. He should have been the one being sworn in as President, and I think he would have won handily, if not for the media dropping the ball and allowing Swift Boat smears to gain traction with an all too easily manipulated electorate.

We will have to continue to hold their feet to the fire to get them to do their damn jobs!

with the lowest approval ratings of any incumbent ever re-elected. Even this week, Kerry continues to play to the cameras, as we saw during the Rice hearing. Following the election, he refused to pursue charges of voting irregularities because he calculated that he could not win. I want someone who puts the interests of the American people above his own political career. Kerry will not be the 2008 nominee.

We should keep an open mind about who our next candidate is. The next election is almost four years off and a lot can happen in that time.

If Kerry wants to run again I think he should. He's a great person and he really got all this negative stuff thrown at him from all directions, our corporate media piled on and he still got almost as many votes as Uncurious George.

I believe Kerry really got more votes than King George and if it weren't for Diebold he would have won. The RNC can't win unless they cheat.

just watch, Kerry will be a force to recon with in the Senate in the next few years. He's already shown that he's ready to come out from behind Kennedy's shadow and fight publicly- he's calling for Rummy's head and voting against Rice. The election was stolen from him this time and he knows it...he will fight back.

In the '04 campaign, people didn't know who he was, the media kept beating the "nobody likes him" drum, the Swiftboat Liars slandered him, and his campaign advisers had him play it too safe - didn't publicize the work he's done in the Senate exposing the repukes on Iran/contra, etc (and yet he still won). You will see...and I'll bet a lot of DUers who think they don't like him now will rally behind him when they see the real John Kerry fighting the good fight!

Kerry's been my man since the 70's. He fought the powers that be then...he's doing it again!

Kerry/Boxer'08

"The election was stolen from him this time and he knows it..."

He, his brother, his lawyers and his aides have all gone out of their way to say that none of them believe that there was any evidence of fraud.

They say they haven't FOUND any evidence of fraud. Big difference. And being the legal eagles they are don't expect them to self-destruct by claiming otherwise before fraud has been legally proven in a court of law. That's the way the real game is played.

Kerry is still to valuable to us as a Senator. And too obsessive compulsive to come waltz out with allegations he can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I hope he keeps up the pace he's set so far. I like what I'm seeing from him and Boxer and many of the Dems. I hope it continues.

and that his handling of Rice was a good sign.

But I don't think he'll gain the ability to move millions of apathetic non-voters.

who needs the apathy vote. Hell, if you were still apathetic in 2004, there's no hope for ye.

As for not motivating voters, that assumes he lost, of course. :-D

indeed you are right on, he was never a slacker:

- good student at Yale,
- volunteered to 'nam service,
- asked to be sent to the mekong delta,
- when he realized the govt was sacrificing the lives of our soldiers for the wrong reasons, he stood up to fight for ending the war, thereby saving the lives of many

he'll be back...

Absolutely! I can't understand the "Kerry lost, so let's go with Dean or Clark" mentality. I've got nothing against either of them but, hell, they lost, too. They couldn't even get enough support from Democrats to get the nomination. Clark might get a little support from disgruntled conservatives and moderates, but Dean? Not a chance.

Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!

I love John Kerry more every day. I also like Dean and Clark, but Kerry's my main man.

They simply were not nominated by members of their party.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

because they know he isn't bullshitting them. They see his leadership skill, and they like his personality.

I would definatly work as hard as I could for him. I love that man.

And there were fewer "sitting it out because they're all the same" people this election than there have been for a long time, on both sides. You don't get 8 hour lines because folks don't care.

He got more votes than any loser in history. Perhaps Kerry didn't light a fire under them all as much as Bush did. But I'd say he has a good a base of real supporters right now as anyone.

As for lighting a fire, you should have seen Milwaukee HQ after the first debate. We was smokin', baby. Hot, hot, hot!

Meanwhile, I'm not ready to say that anyone should be counted out at this early date. We need to see what Clinton, Kerry, Gore et al do between now and 2008 before we say that anyone has no chance. With indications from the Dems that they intend to fight, this year alone is shaping up to be quite interesting. I can't wait. Ah, my first Congress where I'm paying attention -- is that why I find it so excitng?

I'm sort of looking at Kerry as the "I told you so" candidate, myself. And part of how I'm getting through 2004 is wanting to work for what I was cheated out of in 2008. Don't piss on my Wheaties, sonny.

As for Boxer (the only real viable canidate on your list from my perspective), I'd certainly take that woman Senator over Clinton.

Do what you want, though. As for me, I will be working for Kerry, I suspect. I also suspect I won't be alone.

His team was beaten - outfoxed, outcheated, and outsmeared.

He lost. He will lose again.

There were a ton of folk trying to be everywhere, even using cameras. We all got gamed. So I guess none of us should be involved next time, eh? Or do we learn from this time, and fight for election reform. If Kerry fights too, maybe he will earn the right to run again in some people's eyes.

Nevertheless, I repeat, forget about who you will support in 2008. Support the ACTIONS of anyone right now moving in a positive direction to fight the Bush Co. Support those actions even if it's someone you don't support in 2008. When we get a bit closer, it will hopefully be clearer who deserves and should get support in the primaries.

Boxer showed up! That was moving. I hope for more of that courage!

The message that you started your post with is the one that many that I speak to in the Democratic party are repeating. 2008 will not be a replay of 2004. It won't be (that) Bush and it won't be Kerry. "Been there, done that" is a popular saying that even the masses have heard enough times.

I do believe that John Kerry most likely won (both the popular and the electoral vote count), and I also do believe that he would have made an excellent President. I will not take any credit that John Kerry deserves away.

But what I don't believe is that the circumstances will be the same next time, and I don't believe that he will be given a second chance.....Since the first chance didn't pan out. He was given everything to work with this time, and since this was high stakes winner takes all, few will be betting on the same horse come 4 years from now.

It's a shame really that John Kerry could not be the one moving into the White House yesterday. Just a real damn Shame, it is. :cry:

Hard to make it know without proof. Enough smoke to choke a horse, but not enough fire to point at.

Anyway, that's so 2004. I'm into the "election reform" thing now.

Kerry '08 it is for me. nope, not joking :)

dead serious :hi: :shrug:

faced lap dog didn't raise even a single finger to really protest what happened with all the disenfranchised voters. No way. Al Gore should have run. Warts and all, at least he fought for a month in Floriduh.

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

good man - grow up

It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to beat a ham sandwich that even, despite Diebold, should have been easily beaten.

I won't give him that chance again or lift a finger to help him in the future.

I'll compromise but not for someone whose politics on the most important issue of the day- war against the Middle East- aren't clearly in line with what 75% of Democratic voters & 90% of Delagates wanted. The next time the DLC chooses to foist a candidate on us, the party and I part ways for good and I become an Independent until the day that there are so many Left-leaning Independents that they abandon that disastrous ever-elusive center and come court our vote.

he was handed the presidency on a silver platter and managed to pull defeat out of the mouth of victory.

If Kerry is our nominee again I'll vote green.

After reading his book, "Dreams from My Father", This dude has an excellent chance at starting as the VP and working his way up to the Pres. If you want to excite the younger generation, get someone other than an "old fart". His speech from the Democrat Convention should be telling you, we shouldn't forget there are those in the Democrat party that are not far left. I myself am a moderate Democrat.(i.e.: pro-life and pro-gun) As long as the government doesnt bother my 4 "G's", God, Girls, Grub, and Guns, then I am a happy camper!!!

BTW, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose doesn't mean that the government is interfering with your God. You can choose not to support abortions because that is your decision based on religion, the government is not forcing THEIR beliefs on you just as they are not forcing YOUR beliefs on anybody else.

against the worst Prez of my lifetime.

Bush was not liked, but neither was Kerry; I can't go there again.

like honesty and decency, and by those Kerry ran the best campaign of the lot, including his fellow "Democrats."

The Republicans ran a smarter, tougher, dirtier, more EFFECTIVE campaign.

Dems always, always underestimate what the Republicans will do.

There was a roadmap to follow: the 2000 election & the Vietnam guys who have been trailing Kerry for years.

They should have been prepared.

Not to mention, our ads stunk, & they spent more on GOTV.

do better and Kerry did.

... we now have 4 more years of the worst president in history.

Sorry, Kerry is TOO MUCH A POLITICIAN, TRYING TO PLEASE EVERYONE to ever win anything.

Besides that, getting a Senator elected president is next to impossible for reasons easy enough to understand.

I'm not too worried about it - Kerry is going to keep being Kerry and as such he will have no standing with which to win the 2008 primary anyway.

As for other possibilities, there are about 4 people we know of RIGHT NOW who would make a better presidential candidate than Mr. Kerry - he had his shot and it's over. Let him do what he can in the Senate.

just stands to reason. Unless you believe that the machines stole the vote in which case shouldn't you be down at Kerry's office begging him to do something besides pay lip service to the issue?

n/t

ah, i see true colors, now.

That one was obvious from his/her first post. DLC Intern all the way. Possibly Bruce Reed's own kid Chad (who was expelled here last year only after starting a 1,000 or so Dean bashing flame wars.

Bush is polarizing but he had incumbency, the memory of 9/11, and the general sense that people rather not change horses in midstream during a war. that was hard to fight against.

but he was vulnerable, as the polls showed.

If a really effective campaign had been run against him, I believe he would have lost.

Most people I know didn't like either choice.

If anyone wants to tell me how much they disagree, I'll gladly tell them in return how much I don't give a shit!
LOVE HIM.

The way he bailed on us in 04...he doesn't deserve another chance.

What happen to "Fuck Kerry 05, 06, and 07"?

Ahem ... does anyone know if Teresa reads here.

Given the chance, I'd fuck him right now!!
:evilgrin:

You saw how John Edwards was constantly labelled as inexperienced after only one term in the Senate. Obama won't have even finished one term by 2008.

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

and yet at the same time think Bush stole the election?

That's truly puzzling to me.

Kerry did enough to win the election, right?

Was his campaign perfect? No, of course not, but what campaign is.

to be the candidate... because he was a Dem. Was I thrilled over him? No, but I overlooked a lot of things that bothered me about his candidacy because Bush is dangerous. I felt like almost ANYONE could beat idiot Bush with both hands tied behind back... and maybe Kerry did win the election-that doesn't mean that I don't believe that Bush could have stolen it. As long as there was rampant voter fraud and intimidation, Republican chairmans for campaigns running the voting process, and Black box voting, there's an open question about the legitimacy of the race.

I won't vote for Kerry if he runs in '08, though. Won't do it.

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

Someone of perhaps modest means that genuinely wanted to get into office to make a difference, not by courting corporate donors or spending millions of dollars to generate sound bytes or unfairly trash opponents, but a populist.

All of the candidates had flaws. What I liked about Dean is that he was outspoken instead of trying to measure his words, like Kerry did, in order to appeal to the most people with a watered-down message.

That's why he lost bad. Real bad.

stance. The distinction is those who try to appeal to people by saying anything and everything (like Hillary last week with the faith-based crapola) and thus not having a firm position on anything.

with reason. He's using the same tactics to weasel his way into the DNC and he's probably going to lose for the same reason. Anybody with any sense sees right through that crap and his "message" is as phony as a can of Cool Whip.

Oh, wait...that was run by Gep and Kerry's people.

My bad.

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

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

If Kerry had had a solid lead in the polls going into the election (i.e, 55-60% percent favoring him for several week/months beforehand), a Bush win would've been glaringly suspicious and would've resulted in a huge furor.

There may indeed have been fraud/suppression in Ohio, but I think Bush's 4 million vote plurality nationwide was for real. It was the result, I think, of Kerry not running a strong, message-thumping campaign. On the bright side, Bob Shrum has retired from campaigning to teach (yippie!!).

I can't even focus on '08 at this point -- I'm too interested in watching what happens with the Boxer Rebellion. If she succeeds and the Dems start acting tough, that'll make '06 and '08 that much easier.

No one who lost in 2004 gets to run in 2008, according to genius level of rules.

Welcome to politics though. You have quite a lot to learn based on your statement.

think Kerry AND Gore were robbed...

No wonder we can't win elections... we throw away good candidates like trash.

People put away their lives and went to Ohio to recount. Kerry in the meanwhile was partying with Adolph and Dennis. He won, but chose to legitimize W anyway.

...someone who has not followed the efforts the Kerry legal team did try to investigate following the election.

But, hey, when you can spread a myth based on simplistic falsehoods and attack Kerry at the same time without having actually kept up on the story, what the fucking hell...

I know that there are LOT of people in this country who love him like crazy. They think that he is protecting us from terrorism and will save the liberal agenda from taking over America.

The more they saw move-on;'s rhetoric and Bush-bashing, the more they loved Dubya.

I mean, isn't it easier to support him? If you listen to the RW, a vote against Bush is a vote for the terrorists. (ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTION, LIMBAUGH WAS SAYING THOSE VERY WORDS!) To support Kerry, you have to be aware of how poorly things are going. You have to understand his failed policies here and abroad.

Don't let the media tell you that he has a mandate. HE ONLY WON THE ELECTION BY ONE STINKING STATE.

I won't vote for someone who has unclaimed victories and legitimizes W's steal.

before the election was certified?

a case for democracy. Standing up for it. Not a lawyer, a leader.
In Romania, Ukraine - the challengers asseted fraud, new elections held, they are both in office now.
Only in America fraud is acceptable! geez!

or anyone else's, and the law says he lost. So if you want your "claim" to see the light of day you're going to have to prove it in a court of law, which means calling for an investigation, which means writing to Hastert and Frist, just like Kerry asked everybody to.

Do you need a link to Kerry's letter?

the people" not of Diebold. No one person is above the Constitution,, democracy. Not W, not kerry, not his little fans.

thing will happen that happened when Dems ran Adeli Stevenson again. His margin of loss will increase.

This is why we have primaries. Kerry has every right to run, if he's up for the challenge. What's the big deal if he does?

I actually hope that Kerry will do better in '08 if he frees himself from the DLC morons he surrounded himself with in '04, just look at how well Al Gore's message resonated once he did not have the likes of Donna Brazile tailoring his message.

Kerry has yet to learn that when it comes to politics one must present one clear and coherent message. Having four positions on an issue may be fine for a Yale debate club, but it comes across as flip-flopping to the rest of us.

Choose one: For the war, or against it!

Al Gore would have a better chance at getting the nomination, as he has done a far better job at courting the party's base since his election victory in 2000.

I would support Kerry if he won. He's a good guy and would make a good president. I just think there are better candidates out there. Namely Clark and Warner.

My vote goes for a Dean/Boxer running.

www.blackeyedsundays.com

For the passionate Dem ... who is satisfified with just winning D.C.

They would win D.C. by a landslide. Probably Vermont as well.

He rolled over like a dog.
There was no fight, no "I got your back"
no 'I have armies of lawyers ready to fight'
no 'it ain't over 'till it's over'

He was a complete and utter waste of time, and for any of us to actually even mouth his name in terms of a future election,
well -- those people quite plainly belong in the upper hierarchy of the DNC
aka "The Professional Losers"

He deserves to be forgotten.
Old, lonely, rich, ponderous, pompous and forgotten.

The.
End.

2004 was not 2000. Kerry can't prove those votes were stolen, even though they were, and he simply didn't have enough votes to contest the election. He lost by a sizable margin and so he conceded when the election was over.

He could win in 2008 if he decided to run. Once you get over the loss you will realize that he ran a decent campaign and the mistakes made in this one will not be repeated in another campaign. The MSM controlled the messages about the Iraq War and the economy and also the information on the candidates. John Kerry had a lot to overcome in this past election. He fought hard,but perhaps not in the exact way you would have. I believe he did inspire people. Did he light a fire under them? No! He did something better, he made them think for themselves and to not accept things just as they appear. Fires can go out quickly, knowledge lasts forever.

You are correct he made people think, that's what Kerry's best at and what makes him a great senator and debator. It is an important quality to have, but not sufficient to win the presidency.

We need someone who communicates our values by making people think AND inspires them as well. We agree Kerry did not and does not have that ability in great measure.

He's an outstanding senator, and I believe his best days in the senate lie ahead.
:toast:

once people get to know him, they tend to be "intensely loyal." I've seen it. Hell, I am it.

It's not enough people to win a presidency perhaps (jury's still out on that one -- for all we know it was enough for an electoral landslide) but there has to be a reason why some people react to him in this way. Some people say they haven't felt this way about a politician since Kennedy.

Maybe we're a large enough group to wage a campaign at least. We'll see. I'm not worrying about that right now. I refuse to fight the primary battle of 2007 when there's so much else to do first.

I think who looks good for 2008 will become much more apparent as we go along. Let someone impress us. That someone might turn out to be Kerry, or it could be one of the others. If Clark has learned enough political lessons, it might even be him, especially if he starts soon enough. He got into the race too late last time.

I'm going to focus more on my local races than on who's running in 2008. In that way perhaps I can give the person running then more Dems in Congress to work with. And I need to focus on election fraud, since f'ing Accenture is in my state now.

and he was failing at getting to the people who needed him the most. I was inspired - but I have two bachelor degrees and a masters of fine arts, I could follow along and hear his great message. That doesn't make me better than anyone, or politically smarter than anyone, but maybe a better listener. Many I talked to - the two/three job, paycheck to paycheck, families - didn't trust Kerry, were not inspired, and were not going to vote. Yes, the media had its influences, but Kerry had his faults.

I still support Kerry, honor his work, and his right to run again, but I don't think he will win. Al Gore would have a better chance, not that I want him either.

pulpits high and low, etc. But in four years it might.

Geez, Why not bring back Mondale/Ferraro or Goldwater? Carter is still eligible. Let's run him. Kerry tried. He failed. Someone new will try in '08. If Kerry runs in '08 he'll lose again and probably by an even wider margin.

No one likes being a two time loser. Besides that, Kerry realizes that many, if not most of his votes were anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry. After a long campaign, America just didn't like Kerry very much. He'll get demolished against an opponent who isn't lugging Bush's negatives.

a stiff that lacked a message.

and he stuck with the most godawful group of campaign advisors, managers, and image makers on the planet. I still don't know who this guy is or what he really stands for.

I'm not a strong Kerry supporter and wouldn't support him for an '08 nomination but when a candidate gets the second biggest vote in history and loses by under 3-points--I can't blame him for trying again. Adlai Stevenson ran again in '56 despite losing to Eisenhower in a landslide in '52 and was nominated. Had Gore decided to run in '04 rather than sit it out I think he very well may have gotten the nomination.

out of the senate made him a better speaker, and more of an "everyman"

hopefully in 08 it will be easier to overcome the "9/11speak"

and I think I'll take Dean for the DNC chair. I think that would suit him better.

And Boxer, who I admire greatly, would make a terrible presidential candidate. I can't see her winning any state Kerry didn't win...and I can see her losing states Kerry did win.

on edit: so did Gore