Boston Globe: Kerry Takes Another Look at Presidency

Boston Globe: Kerry Takes Another Look at Presidency
Posted by Ron Chusid
March 11th, 2006 @ 11:32 am
Kerry takes another look at presidency
Says loss in 2004 made him tougher

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 11, 2006

WASHINGTON — As Senator John F. Kerry prepared to make a return to presidential-style politics with a classic day of New Hampshire campaigning, he said that the 2004 run left him tougher and more eager to fight.

‘’When you get knocked on your ass and lose a race, you’ve got to stop and reflect on what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, what matters, and what’s important. And I did,” Kerry said in an interview in his Senate office on Thursday. ‘’There’s a very different John Kerry now who is absolutely crystal clear about how I communicate what I need to communicate. . . . People are going to be looking for leadership.”

Kerry’s efforts to launch another presidential bid have prompted grumbling from some Democrats, who question whether a second Kerry candidacy would be good for the party — or even realistic. Some party insiders expect that leading fund-raisers and strategists will push Kerry out before the race starts, in favor of a fresh face for a party desperate to retake power.

But in most respects, the Massachusetts Democrat has never stopped running for president. He has maintained an aggressive financial operation that, since the end of the last campaign, has raised nearly $4 million for Democrats in races across the country, and has sent $3 million of his own campaign funds to help other candidates.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2220

but has pushed grass roots campaigns to get stronger democrats running for office.
I will be proud to campaign for him again.

for one of our candidates in a tight Congressional race that both parties have targeted. I didn't get to go because I was only in town for a week and I was really busy, he got some press coverage and drew attention to our guy. That's the important part, eh?

:toast:

I don't see what he's learned.

about running... So he can fold again..

I will alway support Gore, he did try to fight but Wet Noodle Kerry welllllllll

Because you already had your shot.

through many election cycles until the party formally votes them out.
I don't think it is so great that we abandon our chosen leader as soon as he looses
a race.

enthusiastically back Gore. He fought and has spoken out with righteous indignation and insight and deserves our backing. But I left little children with their dad for 5 days, rode in a crowded van to get out the vote in cold, drizzly Cleveland. The night before the election Kerry got up on a stage at the Springstein concert/Dem rally and told us he "had our backs", but he couldn't scrutinize and fight the BS voter suppression in Ohio long enough for me to get back to NYC before he conceded! I felt like that was the biggest sucker punch I experienced and will never forget it. He doesn't have the fighting spirit that I thought he had and I'll not put out for him again!

Gore should have been the candidate in 2004, but the party pushed him aside. Why should Kerry have another shot at it before Gore, who actually won the popular vote?

"In most democracies the oppostion party has the same candidate through many election cycles until the party formally votes them out."

I'm not going to wait that long.

electing Bush. Even when they elect a right winger, he is qualified for the job and known to the public, not a total stranger.

So may be we have something to learn from them, not necessarily for Kerry, but generally speaking.

I say its time to move on.

Lets get some new blood in our presidential ticket, namely someone along the lines of Mark Warner.

we need a fresh voice an someone who campaign like Bill Clinton. And no not Hillary! Kerry needs to stay in the senate where he has done a wonderful job. Well, except for that IWR vote.

every right to run and try to straighten out this country.

He has ZERO chance against any Republican.

:rofl:

ANY? even say, Jeb Bush?

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha

Seriously we could run Nancy Pelosi and stomp Jeb Bush

oh and,
welcome to DU :D

so much stronger this time and what about Edwards? Will he run as vice again? Maybe Edwards would be better at the top of the ticket?

:wtf:

McCain. John Kerry would beat any Republican offered up in 2008. McCain can even be taken care of. Kerry has been through battle and has earned his right to try and do what is right for this county.

the time you're Kerry's age. You can't be 'stronger this time than you were last time'.

I supported Kerry because he was the only choice at the time. I was seriously disappointed in his stand on the war, on Venezuela, on the Patriot Act and so many other things. My support was only because the alternative was so bad.

I was certain he had won by 6 o'clock on election day. Then the cheating began ~ I thought he would fight ~ I cried, other people I know cried, that they were going to do it again, but I was also sure things would be different this time. So many more people were ready to fight them ~ and then Kerry conceded!! It was like being punched in the stomach! My rightwing adversaries jumped for joy and said 'told you so' ~

He disappeared, Moveon disappeared, everyone disappeared who had been so involved, and no one, certainly not the press, dared even whisper the words 'election fraud' and we began to get messages like 'let's move on' AGAIN?? All his supporters were abandoned ~ the ten thousand lawyers, whatever happened to them?

I stopped talking to my Bush supporting family members, going to my church which supported Bush ~ and I decided then that next time I would be way more careful about who I supported.

I want to hear a candidate I support speak clearly about the issues I care about. I have yet to hear Kerry CONDEMN this illegal war, only to criticize how it was fought. Sorry, but that won't do. Too many unfortunate people are dead and maimed for life. Someone needs to speak for them now. What is it about this war that he supported in the first place??

Kerry's a good man and all that, but DAMN.

Well, at least we have Howard Dean where we need him.

Hekate

The man got more votes than any other Democrats.

Clark, Hillary, Edwards, Feingold, and Warner will all be ahead of him in the pack.

I would love a person like him to be our president (and there aren't many like him). He's not as well known as some but I think as people heard him speak he would make a great impression. He can describe complex issues simply, he talks straight, he doesn't spin. So refreshing.

I like Kerry a lot. He does not express himself well.
Hillary spins. Even Edwards has been sounding more political then straight talking and neither of them has experience likely to impress voters.

I like/d Clark a lot. In 04 I thought he might be our best chance because we needed someone with strong military background to override bush as pseudo commander in chief.

I don't know Warner well enough to opine. I know he had a high approval rating in his state. That's it.

I will support whoever wins the nomination, I'd be so proud if that could be Feingold.

Sure hope our votes count though. still worried about those machines. 2006 should be a clue. We know they don't want the Dems to get a majority with all the crimes we should be having hearings on but never will with republicans as majority.

Certainly he would be a better choice than Kerry for a number of reasons. I can't imagine Kerry getting more votes in a primary than Hillary or Russ. Among the pack of senators likely to run, I think it likely that Kerry will be at or near the bottom.

Of course, there is also likely to be more than one governor running, as well as Wes Clark, who is in a class by himself.

Clark, in my opinion (which I will elaborate more on after November), would not only be the most effective president, but is also the Democrat most likely to win in the general election. It's rare that both those qualities are found in the same individual.

Certainly he would be a better choice than Kerry for a number of reasons. I can't imagine Kerry getting more votes in a primary than Hillary or Russ.

Clark, in my opinion (which I will elaborate more on after November), would not only be the most effective president, but is also the Democrat most likely to win in the general election. It's rare that both those qualities are found in the same individual.

Talk about a wimpy guy!

But I do like Clark alot, and in 2004, I was hoping the JK picked him for a running mate.

Kerry should have taken Clark as VP. I listened to Edwards on MTP and he succeeded at making Kemp look qualified.

He was too lackadaisical and conceded too damn fast, knowing that there were irregularities in Ohio.
I love John Kerry but he ran his course along the lines of presidency.

Just curious.

I like him but he doesn't come across well....rambles and people lose interest in what he says. He sounds "preacher-like". John Edwards spoke much better and forcefully.

about Bill Clinton who bored them at the democratic Convention he spoke at. Check it out before you make up your mind.

Had your chance and blew it. Wouldn't even count the votes in Ohio.
Wouldn't give it enough time to see if the Busheviks had stolen Ohio--or anywhere else.

Give it up.

country. He would want the best for your even though you criticize him.

from the sidelines.

but part of me is glad that we are allowed to see the disintegration of the gwb regime as it is now occuring. The down side of course is all the lost lives. But Kerry? No. If he gets the nom, of course I'll vote for him, but he won't.

I thought he'd make a great president, and still do. I wouldn't count him out just yet. Tougher and eager to fight, and being himself, instead of what they tell him to be would be interesting.

It's still a long ways away, though, I'm just keeping an open mind.

and kerry has a nice starting sum of whatever is left from his war chest that was set aside to challenge any voter irregularities. he can use that to build up while i pay attention to far more important things.

:rofl: :rofl: :popcorn:

it means anything. :popcorn: :popcorn:

the OP linked the article to Ron's site where Ron had linked to the original article which is from the Boston Globe.

:popcorn:

He was a moderator, like some other DUers were. And like many DUers were/are for Clark and Edwards, and Dean's primary site, etc.

We're doomed as a nation...

I thought for a second that Kerry was stupid enough to think that a majority of Americans actually like him. Power and money must be a delusionary force, in which case Lurch has a full-blown psychotic disorder.

~~~~~~GORE 2008~~~~~~

JB

won almost a majority and he has won support since he ran. To bad you can't get past your ignorance to see what a good President he would actually be. I glad you are in the minority.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :applause:

I love ya but we can't survive yet another four years of Republicans in the White House starting in 2009.

People who show conviction and stand for something are more electable than people who watch polls and always take the safe position. I hope party leaders will finally wake up to that fact, but I doubt it.

but of course, it would eliminate a whole bunch of people (one term senators, one term governors, ...).

Kerry turned his back on us after promising to make sure all the votes were counted.

Kerry, you can go fsck yourself, you liar.

He was a poor candidate who only did as well as he did because Bush is incompetent. If he had voted against the Iraq war and made the loss of jobs due to bad trade agreements a major issue in the campaign then he would have won. I don't see him changing enough to do any better next time.

Too bad you chose not to see the truth.

You mean like the truth that Kerry bored people to tears, failed to have a consistent message beyond a campaign based on his personal biography, had no clue how to connect with working class voters in the south and midwest, and failed to question the basic immorality of the war in Iraq? Yeah, great candidate. :eyes: And way to back up your argument there too.

even Al Gore.

Not the guy who had no response when Bush said over and over again in the debates, "he voted for the war before he voted against it."

He had no response because it was basically true.

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

find out what a great candiate and President Kerry would actually be.

than in 2012. More and more, I think he is who we need for President!

I know that many here would prefer repeating Rove's talking points than letting a primary election happen, but this is what democracy is for and he is a lot more qualified than most of those who will run and definitively more liberal than many.

A lot of people just don't like him! I would be very disappointed if he was our top runner again. He doesn't inspire that much passion either way.

party if he's the nominee.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

wouldn't they do the same?

would actually have a chance again? A lot of people like Kerry and respect his opinions and judgments. Kerry has been right about a lot of things. What besides his non-vote on the Iraqi war has Dean been correct about?

LOL.

It seems to me that many here think he is dangerous for their favorite, that is all. If not, why would they worry that he run?

and they just don't want to see their choice as second best.

for Dean, etc.? It's been almost 2 years since the primaries. A great candidate is someone who can convince people that he/she is truly the best candidate. A great candidate *wins* people over, and hence, wins elections.

he builts solidly and for the future.

He takes the time to go and visit people without the media running around so that he can present the image he wants, not the image the media wants. He takes the time to help his party win the mid-term elections rather than going around the country campaigning for himself.

Who tells you that Kerry has not won quite a few people that supported other candidates who are not going to run. DU is a microcosm that is hardly representative and at this point the polls dont mean anything (or Hillary has won all the Democratic hearts, which I doubt greatly).

Just tell me. If he is not a good and solid candidate, why do you care if he runs? It is not that logical.

Did they know Dean supported Reagan's Contra policies and his illegal actions in Central America while Kerry was investigating and exposing IranContra and the illegal wars in Central America?

Did they all know that Dean supported a version of the IWR that was very much simliar to the IWR that passed?

No - because the corporate media had the whole primary race dumbed down to storylines that are still being used today by those who CHOOSE to ignore actual records of governance - guess it's too difficult to actually perform research.

I'm not Kerry's no. 1 fan, but he's better than alot of the jerks that could run as "sensible centrists" (unspecified) who make Kerry look like a raging leftist in comparison.

A Hillary or a Warner run in 2008 would eviscerate whatever sense of moral responsibility anti-Bush Americans have in the wake of, say, Katrina by proving that even Democrats are willing to turn their backs on the poor and victims of war, terrorism, etc. and embrace Reaganism while the Repubs move even further right.

Imagine if Edwards were VP during Sepember 2005. Brood on it!

Our party and this country proud. To hell with the naysayers. Who cares. They can't see a good man and a potentially excellent President for their mis-informed pea- brains.

Eating our own until we are full. Go Figure. :-(