Did Senator John Kerry Miscalculate & Miss Another Shot at the '08 Nomination

I can't help but believe that Senator John Kerry, had he entered the race, would be sailing along very smoothly right now in Iowa, New Hampshire and in the national polls.

It is arguable that Ohio was stolen from him --- just as Florida was from Al Gore --- and now that the Democrats have taken back Ohio, his chances for a solid victory in 2008 sure look good to me.

So, did we miss our best shot of electing a Democrat to the White House with John Kerry sitting out the race? I think we may have.

Hmmm

Kerry would be competing with all the Democrats fairly had he run. For what it's worth, I like all of our candidates...everyone of them.

Kerry answers questions FULLY - and people who vote in primaries tend to view that as a sign of respect for their intellect.

Kerry didn't like the cutsie one liners and zingers. I think primary voters and maybe, just maybe, the American people are tired of them, too.

Iraq, terrorism, the environment, and anti-corruption are 4 big issues. He is better at all four than the top 3 candidates.

You named the four big issues and he truly is a leader now on all four.

..and look who we wound up with.

and shown the aptitude for STRENGTHENING the party infrastructure the way Dean has been.

It is a serious shame that the RNC was able to steal 2000, 2002 and 2004 for Bush. And a bigger shame that DNC sat on their hands in 2002 and 2004 refusing to counter the RNC's tactics that were uncovered during the hearings on 2000's election fraud.

At just about every step of the way, Kerry overruled others and insisted on playing nice during the election when he was savaged by the SB Liars and during the convention when he edited speeches insisting on only happy talk.

McAullife made the party solvent for the first time in decades and also modernized and computerized the party. This gave Dean a solid foundation to build on. Of course, I don't expect you to grasp the concept of others you don't like participating in the process, but the fact remains that others have contributed whether you acknowledge it or not, your Goebbels-esque repetition to the contrary notwithstanding.

Oh, and it wasn't McAullife's purview to deal with the rampant election fraud; that can only be dealt with legislatively. I fully expect you to not hold Dean responsible for securing the vote this election; such is the convenience of lopsided expectations.

And Kerry did NOT stop all criticism of Bush, that's another exaggeration made to put all blame on Kerry when it was KERRY who succeeded in his job and WON that election, while the pisspoor infrastructure in states like Ohio weren't able to secure the votes or get them counted.

And Terry McAuliffe isn't a trustworthy source at all - Douglas Brinkley says he and others stabbed Kerry in the back throughout 2003-4 campaign, and he has alot more credibility than McAuliffe or an apologist who thinks McAuliffe did a great job sitting on his ass in DC schmoozing for dollars and grinning like a hyena in front of tv cameras for 4 years.

Kerry absolutely DID control the message in 2004:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/1442259
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1621
http://verbal.democracynow.org/2004/7/29/sharpton_ignores_bush_bashing_ban_and
On edit - more:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0910-04.htm

And presenting one opinion to somehow substantiate your own doesn't cut it. I can find a plethora of opinion on the internets that view 2004 quite differently than you do. As a concerned citizen, I'm really sorry Kerry didn't prevail in 2004, but that happened for reasons you refuse to either face or acknowledge.

McAullife provided the foundation for Dean to build on; both endeavors integral to an effective DNC. I realize you hate McAullife, but that doesn't give you license to carelessly reframe history to blame and demean him.

Your bitterness precludes an honest assessment of this issue. I see in you a friend of mine who was crippled by his bitterness to the point that he could find nothing joyful in life. He did something about it; I hope for your sake you do too. Peace out.

claim Kerry was to blame for losing.

Use logic for a change. The election wasn't stolen if Kerry lost it through a poor candidacy. No - those probes into US attorney firings are offbase - Kerry lost the election because he was a bad candidate - Terry McAuliffe sez so. And the electronic voting machines HAVEN'T been a factor, even though Rather's research is showing that the machine fraud was intentional and in play since 1999. Nope. Kerry lost it all on his own fault. No stolen election.


Simple truth:
The election was stolen because the election PROCESS where the votes are cast and counted was never secured.

Condescending BS can be stuck elsewhere - preferably in a dark place.

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

his responsibility.

Can you draft a cease and desist letter to Dean, since he's not following the job description for DNC chair as performed by Terry McAuliffe?

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

needed doing THEN, too.

That's LOGIC.

Hold up a mirror.

NOW we're done.

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

and opening your eyes.

I'm blissfully content evaluating data analytically and without prejudice.

With the ability to comprehend that far exceeds the majority of others.

Your attacks on me are petty and self-serving.

Your posted faith in Terry McAuliffe's stewardship of the party from 2001-2005 is just another opportunity to answer with the truth.

Kerry won. Bush lost. RNC stole it for Bush in the four years before the election. DNC did not use their four years countering those efforts.

The fabulousness of you.

:spray:

On edit: And Kerry not being in the WH is not McAullife's fault. THAT is the inconvenient truth you refuse to face. Blaming may assuage your disappointment, but it is nowhere in the ballpark of truth or reality or reason no matter how times you repeat it.

you turn it into a personal attack. "Bitterness". At my local blog in my red area of Virginia we had right wing trolls and they always used personal attacks; one of their most common was to call us "bitter".

I think you can have a debate about this without speculating on the other person, for whom, to be fair, you do not know.

I had the honor to meet BLM once, and this person is not bitter. A tireless fighter is more like it.

... and that's the nicest comment you're going to get from me regarding the incessant drive to elevate one person at the expense of another; it isn't truthful or honest or fair, and you know how I feel about that sort of thing.

You really think just changing the top of the ticket in 2004 would have resulted in a win?

Or - securing the election process at every level of the process where the votes are cast and counted in each state would have resulted in a win?



Your way: There was no serious election fraud employed by the RNC, so nothing needs to be fixed, no one at the RNC or WH needs to be scrutinized. There is no reason to expose media complicity, either.

The DNC should do exactly as they did in 2004 but change the candidate.

Try some logic - election fraud occurred and ANY candidate of any name would have had it stolen from them.

After 2000 the Dem party didn't take election fraud and machine 'glitches' seriously AT ALL, because the meme was quickly spread that Gore lost because he was a 'bad campaigner' or because he 'didn't use Clinton enough' or because he 'sighed' alot.

Would you prefer in hindsight that the party powerful NOT have spent all that time directing blame to Gore and instead spent their time dealing with all the RNC tactics to suppress Dem votes?

I may as well just step outside while you carry on the point of dispute between yourself and me (re: whether or not McAullife is to blame for Kerry not being in the White House) since you are assigning all kinds of random things that are allegedly "my way."



* Never said that.



* Never said that.



* Never said that.



* No shit, Sherlock.



* The Democrats don't take election fraud seriously at their own peril.

to the fundamentals of the argument. You seemed to be giving good arguments, and then suddenly you launched a personal attack on a fellow DUer. That's wrong. So stop doing it.

My point was and has always been in specific reference to the dramatic albiet lame allegation that McAullife is responsible for Kerry not being in the White House, but that point of dispute has been expanded upon arbitrarily and randomly to create a bogus strawman argument.

And calling "personal attack" when people simply don't agree with you is lame. That's wrong. Stop it.

the argument is unfair, then disengage. But you crossed the line with your personal attack. Which is against DU rules.

It seems the argument is over.

Kerry always had a very steady roughly 10% that never left him. I do think he would have gained a lot of the undecideds in the debates. I doubt he would be leading at this point - I think it would still be Hillary, due to the fact that she has a huge amount of the liberal media and party behind her. I also think the surprise would be that one large group he would win are the vets who are Democrats. I would bet that Kerry can speak to them and reach them far better than any of the top 3 - he really understands them.

I think message from the reaction to the "botched line" (it really wasn't a joke) was that unlike with anyone else, the media, the Democrats and the Republicans were going to give Kerry no margin for error. Kerry is very smart and very good, but he can not be perfect. That he lived under that pressure for about 4 years is amazing. (No one else would EVER have had to defend a misstatement when the text was out a head of time and the video showed him looking over searching for his place in the text. It may have been joked about - possibly even said that he should have prepared more, but not taken to mean something that was completely against his whole public life.)

It also might not be as obvious that Kerry was the leader on Iraq. Had Kerry stayed in, the Democratic position might not be where it is. I do not trust that Hillary and her people would have gotten behind what is clearly rooted in Kerry/Feingold. Would Hillary have said, as she did last week, that only deadlines will make the Iraqis change?

I do think that no matter which candidate wins, we may look back and re-evaluate how good Kerry, as a leader, person and nominee. It was a luxury in 2004 to have a candidate with no corruption problems and a life of public service. It was easy to be proud that he was our candidate watching the debates.

at the end of http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/07/senator_kerry_i_dont_run_from.html. If you can listen to only one - try this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXd66eae9K8 . I love the voice, the openness and the understated passion and purpose and intelligence he was showed. This is the President we lost.

Getting Hillary, who voted not to ban cluster bombs, will not make up for this.

most Dems would be smart enough to put him in the lead.

.

I think he'd be closer to Clinton than Obama or Edwards is. He'd be close, either ahead or behind her. Not sure how he'd effect Obama and Edwards.

Unfortunately, people were depending on him to take our country back in 2004 and he failed to deliver. It may not be fair but people can't help subconscious anger and emotions.

Especially now that Bush and Rove have been proven to be liars and the administration corrupt.

I believe he could have ridden out the joke and voters would definitely have looked favorably upon him and welcomed him with open arms at this stage of the deadly game. I would certainly be supporting him. Of course, for me, the best is still Wes Clark, but I was very sorry when Kerry dropped out. I'm just glad he is in the Senate fighting for us.

I still like the idea of President Kerry.

But I don't understand this poll. People here got what they wanted. No Bush in 08 and the possibliity of a Democratic president.

Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but this thread could bring the chronic Kerry bashers and haters out in force. Like they aren't out already.

blame, he failed. Maybe it was mishandling the Swift boaters, maybe it was skiing, maybe it was his inability to relax and be himself in front of a a camera and mike, or something else, but he knew he didn't have a chance in 08, and we also should accept that.

I simply can't question what his conscience tells him to do. The reason why he has been so effective is because he is NOT running. The Dem leadership is allowing him to take the lead on issues like Iraq and Global Warming because he no longer is a threat to Hillary Clinton (I think no one would argue with me that the Clintons are major power brokers in the Dem Party, and the media knows it).

After he dropped out, the entire Dem caucus in the Senate embraced his ideas on Iraq. His talking point from last week that the Bush administration is "moving the goal posts" is ubuiquitous in the pundit class. None of that would have happened had he run.

He made the right decision.

He'd only get numbers similar to Edwards. Plus he wouldn't dent HRC's numbers as most of his support would come from people supporting Obama or Edwards.

didn't have to run against him.

would show.

Not to mention that Kerry would have no reason to coddle other Democrats after 2004's backstabbing, and should have no problem bringing up the outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning that needed exposure in the 90s - matters that would have prevented a Bush2 presidency, a 9-11 event, and this Iraq war.

that things on Iraq and the environment need to be done now to make it easier for who ever was elected in 2009 to succeed, there was a more subtle reason. The viciousness of Clintons's willingness to appear to agree with the RW smear that Kerry would disparage the troops when he has spent a lifetime considering their needs showed him that his running - as a candidate, who was well positioned on every issue, would lead to tearing the party apart.

In this week's Newyorker (don't know if the story is on line) there is an article that explains how Hillary Clinton running means that Obama and Edwards have had to question the Clinton years because Hillary is running on what she likes of the Clinton years. If Hillary used the word "we" to refer to accomplishments of the Clinton administration, how can anyone run against her without at minimum questioning them. If Kerry were running, it would be hard not to make some of those things BLM mentioned issues. Kerry bravely fought against the Contras being armed illegally, when Clinton was on record that they should be supported (presumably legally). That this was done partially by a base in Arkansas opens questions of what the Clintons knew. There are two schools of thought on the Contras. I am in the they were right wing thugs who killed priests and nuns and many other people. Others still think of them as freedom fighters.

Kerry would also need to spell out his credentials on dealing with non-state terrorism. It was clear this time last year, that Gary Hart was on Kerry's side. It is also clear that Clark and Lake, two other Clinton era people are with Obama - both said very flattering things about Kerry in 2004 on this issue. This leaves Clinton with Sandy Berger. In 2004, it would have been stupid for Kerry to emphasize that he got little support on issues that he said were unresolved on BCCI. Digging up that list brings up things like Kerry advising that more investigation needed to be done on investigating Marc Rich on BCCI related commodity market manipulation. People here have asked why Kerry didn't highlight his BCCI accomplishments, done with both parties acting as ankle biters, trying to stop him. Think of how Bush et al would have countered Kerry speaking of his very real accomplishments on thatby pointing out that that little was done on that after the early 1990s. That Clinton was far better than W, would not have mattered.

Whether Kerry or Hillary Clinton won, you would have a seriously damaged Democratic party. If Hillary Clinton won, the Republicans might have a wealth of things where the case was already well made for them. Look at who Kerry is - his 1971 anti-war leadership aimed to bring people together. He spoke for the veterans, asking the government to care for them. Not because he needed it, he was well connected and had many options and was with a wife and loving family, but because many were in terrible conditions and it was the right thing to do. He criticized the leaders, who were allowing people to die rather than lose face. He spoke out, but he was an appeal to conscience not hatred.

In 1992, Kerry took to floor of the Senate with a plea that people not tear open the scars caused by the Vietnam war. My guess is that he would also not want to be the one to tear open scars caused by who did what in fighting non state terrorism. 2008 should be a year where it is far easier for Democrats to win. Senator Kerry when asked about the candidates has always answered that they are all better than the Republicans in terms of what they would do for the country. That might be part of the reason he has opted not to run.

This plea was issued after Kerrey, Kerry's friend, made an issue of Clinton's actions in avoiding the Vietnam War in 1969.

From the Senate record:
"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam , not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we

now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam ?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the Presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

I thank our distinguished manager of the bill and the Senator from Delaware."



"

Thanks for your post. I read it twice.

I was looking in the Senate record looking for something else when I found that speech - and was moved by how important healing those wounds were to him. It had to really hurt him in 2004 that everything became so ugly and especially that his crew - many already dealing with a lot from Vietnam - were thrown into the middle of this political ugliness.

It was also deeply ironic that he stood up for people like Clinton, because he believed what he said about that period, yet the Clintons thought nothing about stabbing him in the back.

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

I will not get into pro virus con with our other candidates running in 08. I will however say I was pleased by how much more youthful, commanding and passionate he was just this past Sunday when he appeared on "This Week" with McCain. McCain was thought to be the force to reckon with in 08 and when compared with Senator Kerry he came across as old, out of touch and tired. Imagine a Presidential debate between Kerry and McCain- Senator Kerry would win it hands down.

he looks better and better...He looks especially well experienced, serious, thoughtful, and sincere...

But the Hillary machine would have been tough to take on. I think he'd be struggling in the polls...maybe up there with Edwards at best. Personally I would likely have still supported Obama (or less likely Edwards), but I would have considered Kerry again (though I kind of feel he had his shot and it's time to go beyond the last election).

not go all in when the time was right and we ended up with this monkey in a mans suit for two terms. Hopefully this time we will elect the only democrat which will fight. HRC is not just any old bear when she fights. She is a damn grizzley.

I do thank you
Ben David

When you run for President, you need cajones the size of grapefruits. Al back then were only plums. Kerry isn't much bigger than raisins, then and now.

Hillary has 'em.
Obama might have 'em.
Edwards... errhmm... maybe, but I have my doubts.

from 2001-2006.

Pretty easy to run WITH the wind. It takes nerve to run AGAINST it when Bush was at his strongest. But then, the big name Dems like Clintons and Lieberman were publicly SUPPORTING Bush on his terrorism and Iraq war strategies from 2001-2006 weren't they?

not a leader, and has not led on any major issue of our day. And frankly, I am sickened that her only selling point is to bash Gore and Kerry between the lines, by saying SHE would fight back. Maybe had she and her husband really stepped up to the plate, and say, defended the Clinton administration on fighting terrorists PRIOR TO 2006, she would have the moral highground to say such things. Since they stayed largely on the sidelines, and in fact, endorsed Bush's approach to the GWOT, they have NO RIGHT criticizing Kerry in 2004 for ANYTHING.

in siding with Kerry and opposing Bush on terrorism or Iraq war in any public way.

ALL of the 2004 Dem primary candidates were opposing Bush when he was at his STRONGEST, and when the winds were blowing mightily AGAINST the Dems.

The candidates running now are running when Bush and the GOPs are at their weakest point in 10 years - and you won't have the most wellknown Democrats (team grizzly) supporting Bush on terrorism and Iraq war policies as they did so publicly from 2001-2006.

Big difference, wouldn't you say?

she can run on her husband popularity and power?

had in this cycle, I think he would be the front runner now and probably win it all. But I dont think we have a forgiving enough base or intellectually honest enough media to have let him win the nomination twice in a row.

I don't think the people can handle that kind of integrity and intellect in one package. It's so unfamiliar that it can't be trusted. I think he made the right choice for himself and his family.

I think you are absolutely correct in that assessment...I believe the base WILL forgive, but it may take another cycle - see my post #43.

:hi:

when he decided to run for 04. It is one more proof of the kind of person he is. Doing what is right FOR OTHERS, even if what is right FOR YOU would lead to another decision.

but he should have been. John Kerry would have been an excellent president.

and I absolutely wouldn't make that mistake again in 2008. I am done with the capitulators.

All of the above are better-qualified than the current top-tier candidates.

Although I personally would prefer Gore or Clark over Kerry.

Kerry doesn't come across all that well on TV.

And sorry - I really don't like Teresa.

to investigate the incredible work she has done on the environment and what she has done for her hometown of Pittsburgh, I think you would change your mind. Sadly, the media had it in for her, and since she is a plain spoken person, they found ammunition to take out of place and time (telling someone to shove it, especially a newspaper editor that had been gunning for her for years, is no big deal in Pittsburgh).

I wish more people had the opportunity to sit down and talk with Teresa, and see what an amazing woman she is. She definitely does not candy-coat herself for the cameras to appear more commercially viable, like so many other public figures do.

She's 100% genuine, and unabashedly, unapologetically straightforward - with just the correct amount of tact and assertiveness.

She may not translate well to those who are intimidated by a strong woman, but all it took was one face to face meeting to make a fan out of me. She's amazing.

One of the two times that I saw her was at the NYC Charlie Rose event where she and JK spoke of their book. One question alone would have been enough to make me absolutely love her as First Lady. Rose asked about a very obnoxious statement about Kerry being an example of how not to run for President. (Harris was a co-author of a book that strangely said Matt Drudge was our Edwards R. Murrow.) Teresa hesitated at first, then Rose prodded her by reminding her that she was "opinionated". Teresa then got a very mishcivious smile, than in a flash it turned to a very beautiful, very demure smile, then to a very serious sincere expression. She then said "John Harris is not a friend" paused and then went into a very powerful, emotional defense of JK. She spoke of the respect that she saw other countries accord him as a serious statesman and spoke of how he had offered vision for how to deal with the problems that faced us - listing some of them. How he had worked his heart out every day and did his best to win.

I sat there transfixed, thus took no notes during that part - so some details may be wrong. Teresa was so obviously speaking what she saw as truth that needed to be said. More telling, I can not tell you her husband's reaction, because I was looking only at Teresa. I can tell you the crowd's reaction, thunderous applause - the loudest of the evening. The people at this event included some people who were Kerry fans, but many that came to all of the Charlie Rose series. You could not doubt her sincerity, passion or honesty.

and he looks good too. You think that is bad?

as for Mrs. Kerry, she is a very warm,caring and open person. She speaks her mind. The media did their best in 2004 to misrepresent her.

She prefers to be known as Teresa Heinz (except when JK was running for President).

She also refers to her first husband as "my husband" - when talking to journalists.

Here's a few dates for you:

May 1995 - Teresa Heinz marries John Kerry.

January 2003 - Teresa Heinz changes her registration from Republican to Democrat.

September 2003 - John Kerry formally announces his candidacy for the Presidential election of 2004.

Even if these dates don't say anything to you, they say something to me.

John Heinz, who was a good man and a Republican from a different era, was Teresa's first love and the father of her three children. He was a champion for the environment, and from all accounts I have heard, a decent person who cared deeply about his constituents. I think it ridiculous to expect Teresa to erase him completely from her life because he died, and John Kerry did not want that. This is a second marriage, but a strong one nevertheless. The fact that she referred to John Heinz as "my husband" on one occasion is due to the fact that she was married to him for most of her life. If Kerry didn't have a problem with it, why do you?

I don't see the problem with Teresa having been a liberal Republican. I know plenty of that breed, and most have now switched to voting Dem, because they have no choice. Teresa's politics are in line with the Democrats. Not only has she been a pioneer for the environment (that includes the green building she led in Pittsburgh which is now a model for the whole world) but also one for people retiring. She recently wrote an op-ed in favor of giving stay at home Moms like myself a better deal from social security. She has been working to help retiring women for a long, long time. You really need to google Heinz Philanthropies and see all the great work she has done.

I also want to end by saying that I have seen the two in person together. As I think you can agree THK doesn't fake it for anyone. And she said some really kind words about John Kerry and he was truly moved by them. In short, they seem very in love, but also comprise a marriage of equals.

after he died (h/t Karynnj). This speech was given May 7, 1991. I don't think Kerry will ever have a problem with THK taking time to cherish the memories she had with John Heinz.

he can't speak to that subject at all as a presidential candidate because every proposal he makes would be attacked as political instead of sincere, even by other Democrats who have proven as willing to block Kerry from the oval office as BushInc.

Senator Kerry knew the battle would be long, and that every critic he had ever gained would come out of the wood work to stop him from winning the nomination twice. With that said, he could have pulled it off. In 2003, the media said he was dead in the water and national polls showed him losing badly. But he pulled through, and won the nomination. I have a lot of faith in Senator Kerry and his abilities, but I'm kind of glad he didn't run to escape all the slime machine politics and focus on global warming and Iraq in the Senate.

a little bit.

I would have said that if he ran a more flawless campaign this time, he'd be our top choice now, but maybe I'd be wrong about that. I'm watching some candidates survive so many more self-inflicted wounds in 07 than he ever made, that I'm beginning to wonder if it really was less Kerry's fault, and more of a MSM's attempt to destroy him that damaged him in the general. No matter what he did this time around, I'm afraid they'd try to take him out, and I really don't know why.

It's a shame to see Clark, Kerry and Gore sitting on the sidelines though, because it's not going to be easy putting this country back together, and I'd love to have a person of their caliber and experience as POTUS.

Because they absolutely do not want a person of his honesty and integrity anywhere near the White House. That's why the long knives came out for him after the "joke" incident (also ask yourself why other DEMS including Hillary sided with the lying MSM and GOP rather than Kerry), while as you point other other candidates' gaffes receive a fraction as much coverage.

I don't care what anyone else says - John Kerry is absolutely the best potential president out there and it's a shame he decided not to run again. That said I really do wish Clark or Gore would get in the race - either of them is exponentially better than the current field of candidates.

getting defensive and going negative on Senator Kerry because they feel their candidate can win in 08, therefore making the results of this poll inaccurate and unfair. DU these days is filled with mostly primary politics so of course many of those voting against Senator Kerry do so to promote "their" candidate as more electable.

Senator Kerry would definite be a force if he were running this time around. He would also make the best president,IMO.

However, he made a decision not to run this time around to be free to speak out against this war and do all he can to end it without his motives being questioned. This decision also allows him to accomplish much more in the Senate now that Democrats have the majority.

Save this poll question for after the 2008 election.

he will be idealized the way Gore is now, a noble, heroic man who was raked over the coals by the thieving, fraudulent GOP - the way people see Gore now. (And rightly so, Gore, deserves Kudos, always has.)

Right now, JK's still being vilified for not "fighting hard enough" - same as Gore was for a few years after the 2000 debacle.

After a while, people will calm down, the smoke will clear, the rage will fade, and reason will be restored.

(If, however you're still seething with rage in 2012, I recommend Xanax or similar.) :-)

People will then be able to see that the Democratic candidates who were cheated are the victims, not the villains, and despite having victory stolen from them, they still continued to fight on behalf of Democratic causes. It will sink in that there was very little that one man - Gore OR Kerry - could do alone to prove massive election fraud. It takes the whole Dem party to stand up and fight together. I am most disappointed not in the candidates themselves, but the party as a whole for not DEMANDING fair and open elections, and better handling of the elections process in general. One man standing alone saying "They stole it from me" will be marginalized as a "sore loser." The whole Democratic party saying the same thing, in unison, has a better chance of being taken seriously. But I digress...

Give Kerry another four years of fighting tooth and nail on behalf of the environment, our veterans, women's issues, health care reform and the like, and people will recall what he's really made of, and their appreciation for him and what he contributes to the better good will be restored, just like it was for Gore.

Sad it has to be that way, but people often take a long time to forgive.

Edited to remove an extraneous comma.

So Kerry truly would've been going it alone - he'd already been stabbed in the back by people who were planning Hillary 08 before the 2004 election even happened.

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

He had his chance and blew it for many reasons stated these many months...

Gore, maybe.

Kerry - I'm tired of him and will never vote for the triangulation again ever...

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

actually means if you apply it to Kerry.

hypothetical questions.

They are ridiculous.

(I voted no - because as I first posted on this I doubt at this point he would be the frontrunner given the media)

But if you consider that 30% of the people are saying he would be the front runner, it is likely all of them would be for him. So, this could mean that he would be the candidate with the most support here on DU. The other candidates would split the 70%. There is likely no one candidate that has 40% on polls of all the candidates who are running. That would translate to only (.4)(.7) = 28%. So, maybe your right - but there were many reasons to not run.

You very astutely got to the "why" behind my poll. If I'd put my finger in the wind, I felt that Kerry would probably poll very well now here at the DU even with most everyone committed to a candidate (I'm not yet). His 30% shows that there's still a lot of respect for him here.

30%, as you point out, in a crowded field this late...well, it's a lot.

I truly appreciated your post.

--DZ

Think about it, the question is: would he be the front runner? This is primary season and Kerry has 30% with the remaining (current) candidates splitting 67%.

For a hypothetical question, asking people who are committed to supporting one of the current candidates and who have every reason not to admit Kerry would be leading, this poll actually shows him doing great!

Suppose you split 60% evenly between the top three, 20% to Clinton, 20% to Obama, and 20% to Edwards, the rest of the field would share the other 7%.

Even if you gave 30% to Clinton, 20% to Obama, and 10% to Edwards, the rest of the field splits 7%.

However you slice it, the seven current candidates have 67% to share.

Kerry polled very strongly here at the DU in this poll, especially when so many here are loyal to their candidates (which is a good thing). He gets this many votes placing him as "the frontrunner", at the top.

So, as you post, "Kerry is actually doing great in this poll!" He actually is.

I would LOVE to see a President Kerry.
I would support him 100%
I Know that he won last time. And I think he knows it too.
There is just too much baggage from his "failed" campaign...
I hold out hope that we will see a President Kerry, just as I do Gore...
But sometimes what is stolen from us is never returned.

He made some major mis-steps in his campaign, but he's hardly a fool. To have run now would have invited too much derision for the last go-around, and if he didn't take the nomination, he'd probably never have another chance. Bowing out when he did was gracious, respectful of us all and just plain sensible.

Depending on how things go, he may well have another couple of chances. I don't think they're GOOD chances, but they're there. More than anything else, by doing it early as he did this time, it shows respect for other candidates and his supporters, and people sense this.

Had Gore ran in 2004 he would have been destroyed in the primaries. He has had time to rehabilitate his image, and would have likely been able to have run a competative campaign. If Kerry waits four or eight years, he could be in the same position.

Among some Democrats I talk to, there seems to be a sense that he had his shot, made his best sales pitch, but just couldn't close the deal. It's no reflection on Kerry's substance as a potential president that he just wouldn't have been our strongest potential presidential candidate.

He might be able to turn the "top 3" candidate race into a "top 4" race, but I doubt he'd give Mrs Clinton much more to worry about than Edwards is right now. It's probable that if he were in solid from long before the 06 midterms, as Clinton and Edwards were, there probably wouldn't be a Chris Dodd in the competition.