Is this the Kerry 2016 thread?

[jberryhill]

Or did someone start one already?

[Warren DeMontague]

1. If we really want a Do-over, I'll take Al Gore.

[Ian Iam]

2. Without Mr Lieberman

Please!

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Yeah

a do-over implies you're determined to avoid the worst mistakes you made the first time.

It's probably a foregone conclusion that Kerry wouldn't run with Edwards again, too.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Sadly, Al Gore is damaged goods.

[jberryhill]

23. Sigh

It's too bad he doesn't have the sterling reputation of, say, Newt Gingrich.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Well there's a reason Newt came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination.

[jberryhill]

28. He was betrayed by disloyal staff

They hobbled him at every turn.

But someday out of the chaos again will emerge - Gingrich!

That Lithgow reading of his tripe was the highlight of the year.

[pinboy3niner]

31. If a Muslin can be President, why not Newt Gingham?

[johnstamosjr1966rr]

50. because he was a jerk

A loud mouthed jerk at that.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Gahhh. Would it be possible to run someone who didn't lose

a primary or general election before?

[jberryhill]

6. Reagan ran in '68 and '76

[TwilightGardener]

10. Is that REALLY the example you want to use?

[jberryhill]

12. Persistence is a virtue

...when it succeeds. Otherwise it's just damned annoying really.

[TwilightGardener]

13. LOL. I'm a quitter, myself. That's why persistent people irk me.

WE DON'T WANT YOU, IF WE DID YOU WOULD HAVE WON...GO AWAY!

[Gore1FL]

5. If we have to reach back to 2004 for a candidate,

then I would prefer Dr. Dean.

[jberryhill]

8. Kerry would not be "reaching back"

He will by then have been a cabinet officer for several years. That's more of a reach around, than a reach back.

[theKed]

57. And really

who doesn't enjoy a reach around?

[Iggo]

7. Sec of State can't campaign.

[jberryhill]

11. Very simple

He just has to solve all the worlds problems by mid 2015.

[ProSense]

16. .

[jberryhill]

18. Laugh all you want...

But it's not that much harder than smuggling a baby from Kenya in 1961, forging all the paperwork, making sure he grows up to be a gay atheist Muslim, and getting him elected president.

Now, from that perspective, this oughtta be a piece of cake.

[ProSense]

20. Well, that's a head-exploding premise.

Are you trying to attract the lurking freepers?

[jberryhill]

22. Shhh...

They still think Kim Kardashian is pregnant, so we have the next switcheroo all mapped out.

And his middle name will be Ahmedinejad, just to make it sporting.

[Iggo]

71. .

That's gold, Jerry. Gold.

[YvonneCa]

17. Only one...

...Israel/Palestine. That would do it.

[karynnj]

58. If he came close to that, the WORLD would lobby for the US keeping him SOS

and I would bet that if the position and his skills made him solve even one retractable problem, that would be what he has really wanted to do all his life. I am not saying he didn't want to be President, but that he wanted that for what he could do. (Kennedy notes this in his autobiography when he spoke of being with Kerry late election night 2004.

I seriously doubt that he would consider running - even if the timing did not make it impossible. It would be incredibly hard on his wife as well as the rest of the family.

[JI7]

9. if Hillary becomes President he could stay on as SOS

if he wants to.

[ProSense]

15. I was sort of hoping

that 2016 could wait until someone actually indicated that s/he is running, likely after the 2014 elections, which is two years out.

Eager? Can it wait until after the President's first 100 days of his current term?

[jberryhill]

19. Look, if we can plan a balance budget by 2038...

Then I think we out to at least find out at this point whether Kim Kardashian's fetus is thinking of running after that happens.

[JDPriestly]

39. Here is why Hillary and Kerry candidacies are not what we should be talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

We should look for a candidate in his or her 40s-early 60s.

Wonderful as they are, Hillary and Kerry are not people we should consider too seriously.

It's great to show them the honor of talking about them, but Kerry was born 1943. Hillary was born 1947, and John McCain was born in 1936.

That's the wrong generation for 2016.

(I'm in the 1940s generation, so I know what I am talking about.)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. No. This is another Hillary thread

Bill wants another crack at the oval office action.

[In_The_Wind]

56. Really

I think Hillary can handel it.


[img][/img]

[musicwarehouse]

24. yes

i think it will

[Agschmid]

26. Well your post makes no sense to me...

Welcome to DU.

Make sure to visit the TOS page!

[jberryhill]

30. At least six of them are

[uppityperson]

36. mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them

[BainsBane]

27. No, no way

Democrats don't forgive losers. It's not going to happen.

I don't know how anyone could watch both Clinton and Kerry before the Senate and think that Kerry is the better choice. Clinton is smarter, quicker, more savy. Regardless of whether or not Clinton runs, Kerry will not be the nominee. I doubt he'd even try to win the nomination.

[JDPriestly]

38. Note the ages of the presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

Note the ages of Kerry and Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry -- born December 1943.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton -- born October 1947.

John McCain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain -- born 1936, just 7 years before Kerry.

And McCain seemed well, you know . . . . in 2008. That's four years ago.

Neither Hillary nor Kerry has the limitations that MeCain had, but still, age makes it tough.

We need a candidate in his or her 40s-60s. Let's don't spend our time wishing for things that will not happen and that should not happen.

[BainsBane]

40. Hillary Clinton is far from ordinary

If she thinks she can handle the job at age 69, then I'll support her.

[karynnj]

60. You might want to review 2008

when someone named BILL CLINTON excused her Bosnia claim by saying it was a mistake because she was tired and old. (He was not that good in the role of supportive spouse!)

[graham4anything]

64. You keep looking backward. This is 2016 we are talking about and Clinton should have been allowed

to campaign for Gore.

Gore would have won Arkansas/KT/Tenn and who knows what else

Without Nader, Gore would have won NH and without Nader 10 million more voters might have bothered

Had Gore been seated, Kerry never would have run for President,ever.

He won't run this time, and besides a woman will be the next President and it has to be in 2016.

[JDPriestly]

72. True. Hillary is not ordinary, but I genuinely hope we can find someone younger

for the job.

[karynnj]

59. Clinton was a loser too - she got less far than Kerry, who had Ohio not been rigged would have

President.

I think both did incredibly well, but they had different goals. Kerry was in no way less intelligent or slower than Clinton, in fact, he was able to set up times where the Republicans skewered themselves. Hillary actually had the easier job in the interactions. Her goal was to defend herself and the administration. Kerry's goal in the Benghazi questions was more complex. He defended Hillary Clinton, but had to do it without angering the Republicans who will vote on the nomination.

Ron Johnson was out of control with BOTH. While Hillary, won the emotional point and Johnson was seen going over the line, Kerry quietly answered the question - Congress WAS shown what happened - and Johnson (and many other Republicans) skipped the several hours hearing with tapes and explanations.

Comparing the two just by these appearances is unfair to both of them because the hearings were so different. Hillary went in knowing the Republicans would attack. Kerry went in knowing that McCain, in addition to Clinton and Warren would endorse him with praise. The new members of the committee include some tea party people.


One of the FEW substantial differences was that they seem to have somewhat different views on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Hillary was a Senator, but I suspect her view was more based on the Clinton years than her years in the minority as a very Junior Senator. Kerry reached out to several who he had major disagreements with on policy arguing that he wanted to work with them on issues. For those of us who watched SFRC hearings, since 2009, there were complaints on the committee - often expressed by Lugar - that they were not getting as much from the state department as they thought needed. Kerry, with his 28 year history with the committee, repeated often that he wanted their input and wanted to meet with them.

[BainsBane]

62. No

Clinton was not the nominee. A look at Democratic party history will tell you the difference. I'm not going to review basic history for you. The Democratic party will never nominate John Kerry again.

The notion that Kerry's job was easier is absurd. His buddy McCain, Benghazi conspiracy theorist in chief, introduced him. Kerry's confirmation was assured before he was nominated.

So you might as well talk about the differences between Hillary Clinton and Michael Dukakis, because the latter is no less likely to be the nominee than Kerry.

[karynnj]

65. YOU compared Clinton to Kerry --- that is why I did

I do not think that Kerry will run in 2016 - if for no other reason that he CAN'T while SOS. Not to mention, as SOS, he will be able to work on things he has fought for his entire life. As O'Donnell said yesterday, Kerry would have been an important historical figure even if he did nothing after testifying to the SFRC.

You said Clinton was quicker and smarter - I completely disagree and said why. I agree that Kerry will have an easy nomination - and it is NOT because of the MA seat. He has earned the respect of many Republicans - as did Clinton and there were many Republicans who spoke as positively, even if not as personally about Clinton.

What I was speaking of was that the sharper answers (sharp in that they were angry) were someone defending herself. Kerry's answers on the same topics were best done - as he did them - pointing out facts.

What I resent is that you think you need to bash Kerry, who defended Hillary well, just to praise Hillary. I don't think you need to do that.

[BainsBane]

67. how did I bash Kerry?

Stating the reality of Dem Party politics is not bashing. The Democratic party stands in stark contrast to the GOP, who has nominated past general election losers.

I don't dispute Kerry has made many important contributions to the nation, and he will make many more. But he speaks differently from Clinton. He is longer winded and slower in his delivery. You focused on the fact the Secretary became angry. That isn't what I'm talking about. I perceive her to be smarter and more competent, not because Kerry is not intelligent and competent, but because Clinton is extraordinarily skilled. And I say this as someone who opposed her nomination in 2008. I initially favored Biden but ended up caucusing for Obama. I believe Clinton has earned her due, and I think that swipe about her looking old and tired was nasty and sexist, even if you drew from Bill Clinton to make it.

[karynnj]

70. I perceived Kerry's answers to be more thoughtful and more visionary

I also think that no one has topped Kerry's first debate with Bush. I think Clinton's skills are her organisational ability, her work ethic and her attention to detail. Those skills were well used as SOS.

As to ability to speak in a way that moves people, Kerry's words from 1971 are still remembered and the meaning is completely clear. Hillary is not Bill Clinton - I don't think there has been any Hillary speech where anything is easily remembered.

The fact is the "long winded" , boring charge was a RW meme used since 1971 against one of the more fascinating, charismatic people. Yes, I KNOW this is not the way most people see it - but it is pretty clear that the media gave Kerry extremely limited coverage in 2004 - instead had talking heads speaking about what they said he said.

[loyalsister]

29. Kerry speaks effectively to the choir

...but he does not play well nationally. Aside from that, we need someone whose risk of health problems is lower. Age matters. It is smarter to go with someone who has many years of public service ahead of them rather than the fattest resume.

[donco]

32. Four years is a long

lifetime in politics but today, Elizabeth Ann Warrens looking pretty good to this ole man.

[graham4anything]

42. She is the same age as Hillary45,without the resume. Has the senate even been in session yet?

and if it had, it reminds me, and they needed a deciding vote yesterday, who would have voted in for John Kerry?
Answer, he would have been unavailable to vote. We could have lost a major issue had a vote been scheduled and he couldn't vote. Why hasn't he quit his seat and let Deval put an interim senator in (like Barney Frank?What is John Kerry waiting for? Talk about having your cake and eating it).

I would vote for Elizabeth if Hillary45 weren't the next President.

But she and Hillary are the same age. Just a new name the majority of America never heard of before as most people don't focus on Profs from Mass.

But Warren was elected to do something no other senator can do. I would not want her leaving that post to campaign, and this campaign already is on, covertly, and time is needed to actually do work.

I would personally like Warren to be senior senator of Mass. for at least 18 years, if not 24 or 30. We haven't had a fiery liberal democratic senator since Teddy died, and we need another LBJ, and I equate Warren with LBJ(whom I think was the single best senator of all time, closely followed by Teddy).
We need someone like Warren to ram things through from the senate.

if she left, there is no replacement for her. Sure, someone else will become Senator, but as we have seen, none would do what she can do. And she could not replicate that as President, as it has to be done from the Senate. After all, the person who might replace her might be quite inferior to her. Actually, good chance that person would be on her singular issue.

[karynnj]

61. Kerry did vote on both votes yesterday

Warren was not elected to do "one thing", she was elected to be Senator from MA.

I don't think she will run for President.

[graham4anything]

63. To do one specific thing her fans want her to do. She is not going to be like say

on the other side "Al D'amato, the pothole senator".
(Who did bad things, but the people loved him in alot of areas of NY State because he did the small stuff that helped regular people like fix a pot hole on their street).
(Not a fan, but for some reason, still unknown, he was at the front and center of Kirsten G's
inauguaration.)

No other woman will run for President, making it a great Hillary vs. same old same old like those two pictures, one her first day back with 13 white males all focused on her, and two days ago at the hearing.

It is quite an advantage, one which Hillary would have won in 2008, had President Obama not won using quite the similiar strategy, as both are very much alike except for a few issues.

[ManOz]

33. We need new blood for 2016 and preferably a woman

I wish Kerry would have won in 2004 but we cannot replay whats done. I wish him the best as our Secretary of State.
For 2016 maybe a woman could win. President Obama has opened the door for non-traditional candidates for the WH.

[think]

34. Vietnam, Iran/Contra. 20+ years in the Senate. Kerry is more than qualified.

And if today was any indication about his ability to connect, he's light years beyond where he was in 2003.

I've shown my support here for Warren in 2016 and would still love to see her in the oval office. But Kerry is certainly someone I'd be honored to have serve as my president as well.

[blogslut]

35. I saw the bit with him and the protestor earlier today

Then Rachel showed it again tonight and I just bawed. It all came back to me how much I believed in him and how the 2004 loss hurt so very much.

sigh

[JDPriestly]

37. John Kerry is 69.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

He will be 73 in 2017 when he would take office if he ran in 2016. He would be 77 when he would run for the second term.

Remember Ronald Reagan?

He was 69 when he started his first term. That's younger than Kerry would be if he ran in 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

Here is a list of presidents by age.

Kerry is a great guy. He would have made a wonderful president. I worked on his campaign. But I am just a few months older than he is. I'm sure he would be very happy at the appreciation and love everyone is showing for him. But let's look at people in their 40s and 50s for a strong candidate for 2016.

I feel pretty certain that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry will be the first to encourage young people to run. Young meaning in their 40s through early 60s.

Public service is exhausting. The presidency is the most exhausting post of them all. Give these wonderful people the break they deserve. Call on someone younger.

[ucrdem]

78. Senator Feinstein is 79.

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are both 72, as is perennial whiz kid Jerry Brown, at least according to Google-wikipedia. John Kerry is 69 and Hillary Clinton is 65. Neither of my parents, who are also getting up there, are in half as good shape, and neither could hold down a serious job let alone run for President. But maybe we're not all created equal in that respect? I wouldn't have thought it possible either but with a little face work and hair dye plus the exercise and health care they're already getting who knows. If one of these durable oldsters makes it through the primaries I'll be mildly surprised, but I won't be disappointed, as long as they make a good veep pick.

[JDPriestly]

79. I'm up there too and relatively healthy. Not 72 yet, but getting there.

Nobody over 68 should run for president. It's suicidal. I watch our presidents as they age in office. Obama has stood up better than past presidents, but even he shows the effects of all that stress. I cannot think of a more stressful job. You literally have the weight of the world on your shoulders. A president should choose older, mature people to advise him, but those older people should allow a physically younger person to hold the office and do most of the work.

Being president is not an empty honor. As George W. Bush used to complain, "It's hard work." Physically and mentally hard work.

[ucrdem]

80. Let's see, who does that leave, lol.

"Nobody over 68 should run for president," hmm, I'm guessing you're rooting for HRC? :~D

Well, no objections here, and if she gets the nom more power to her. She's in the best position of the three to run a full-time campaign right now and if she's ready and willing I wish her all the luck in the world. She'll be a formidable candidate.

[graham4anything]

41. Where is the sarcasm smilie? This is the silliest idea I have ever heard of.I would NOT vote for him

He had his chance and picked the single worse than Sarah VP choice ever.
He was a dismal failure as a candidate,snatched defeat from victory and recently he abandoned his post in the senate after finally becoming senior senator.

Plus, his fan club has stated he was bored of the senate and wanted to retire in the one job he actually wanted. So I trust them to know he would not want that.

He would get LESS votes than Joe Lieberman got when Joey Baby thought he could run.

And did I mention that JOhn Kerry gave the world John Edwards, the single worst VP choice in the history of VP choices? Dick Cheney blew John Edwards away, worse than Lloyd Bentsen blew Dan Quayle away.

Good God, please remember the saracasm tag last time.

Winners don't cede six weeks while being swiftboated and laugh and all that.



Hillary45. IT won't be John Kerry. Believe me, it won't be John Kerry. The single silliest idea
I have ever heard.
(BTW, I bet his big egotist started this rumor himself. ) Or one made in sarcasm.

BTW-I love how Kerry made a grand gesture about that protester.Noble and all that, however...
Did John think we forgot what happened when a protester was tasered in front of him in 2007 or 2008? Not that there was anything wrong with security doing that (as we don't know the facts), but the fact that he made a spectacle yesterday of himself completely forgetting what happened in front of his eyes back then?

BTW, John Kerry did not have his election stolen. He lost it. 100%.
the day he picked John Edwards was the day people knew he lost it.
Even he knew he lost it. Look at his eyes that day. It showed he lost it.

and if there is a vote in the senate yesterday while the show was going on, that requires a 50th, who would have voted? Kerry was occupied, and who is in his seat?
Leave it to Kerry not to care about that.
What if it was something important?

And his confirm yesterday reminded me of a student who says, ah, the person before me stole my answer. He seemed to mime every word Hillary45 said.
Especially when Johnson asked questions.
Ah, what Hillary45 said, ah, what Hillary45 said. what Hillary45 said.

[JI7]

43. Hillary and Obama are Kerry fans

[graham4anything]

44. yeah, and John will be sitting in a corner on 1/17/17 applauding President Hillary Clinton 45.

besides everything else, it will be Madame President in 2017.

Might be Madame President Elizabeth Warren if not Madame President Hillary45
It might be someone else.
But it will be Madame President 2017.

and it will be a Democratic Madame President 2017

btw, will John Kerry win a noble peace prize like President Carter, President Obama, President not Seated Gore and soon to be given one, Madame President Hillary Clinton45 have/will?

I doubt it.

But I do recall the Kerry groupies in 100s of other posts, said SOS was the dream job John Kerry always wanted(not senator, not president). Therefore if even they believe that, it is obvious that he would not want to be President. Even his fans said it many times before.

btw, checked five times before posting if this thread were in the Kerry group section or the general.


Again, how was that John Edwards pick doing? Single worst VP choice ever.
Sarah was just unqualified.
Edwards was a fraud.

And btw, don't be too hard on Madame President Hillary Clinton45.
I expect lobbying from the Kerry group for Presidential nominee to pick Kerry as VP in 2016.
like the Edwards groupies lobbied to pick Edwards and Kerry listened.

How foolish it was. Kerry should have picked Bob Graham (but then so should have Gore, and Gore should have allowed Bill Clinton to campaign for him, would have won 5 other states and rendered Florida and NH obsolete).

In retrospect 2008 and 2012 proved all that was wrong with 2000 and 2004, and how bad both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns were run.
In retrospect, 2008 showed both democratic candidates would have destroyed McCain, both running the same type campaign.
But in 2000 and 2004, both times the candidates ran a simply horrible campaign.

Retrospect showed it.
And the funny thing is, Mitt did the Kerry and the Dukakis himself in 2012.
Not that it would have made a difference in the outcome, but Mitt himself was Dukakissed and Kerried.

Matters little if Gore and Kerry are great guys and nice people and good people.

What matters is winning and being seated.
Only thing that matters.

and it don't matter how one is seated, but getting seated.

Because 1960 showed what happens in regards to theft/dirty politics, etc.
When played on even levels, the democratic candidate won.
It was shit to be Richard Nixon and sweat on TV, before candidates knew that sweating was a bad thing,especially when some are prone to sweat.
Also showed that Chicago wins elections and does again and again.

Even in 1968, Bobby's last words were "Now it's onto Chicago, and let's win there".
Damn shame that Bobby never got to Chicago. And that he didn't wait to 1972 and 1976,when it would have been all his.Damn shame the voters tossed LBJ into the river, as LBJ would have beaten Nixon in a down and dirty fight, but LBJ was a winner, and he would have won the down and dirty fight,but leave it to the protesters to screw that up.

Chicago wins.
JFK in 1960
LBJ in 1964
Obama in 2008 and 2012
Hillary in 2016 and 2020
Michelle in 2024 and 2028
Chicago wins.

btw, Chicago is a great word, and my kinda town.
The windy city that knows which way the wind blows.
You gotta be seated and winning it, to be in it.
I don't let the word Chicago get hijacked as a bad word, because Chicago is a great word.

imho

just remember, John Kerry is going to need Madame President Hillary Clinton to either keep him in his job in 2017 as SOS, or as VP. So he and his fans should not be very harsh on her.
(IMHO of course).

[JI7]

46. considering Hillary is a Kerry fan i wouldn't worry about much

[graham4anything]

48. Be nice to Hillary45, you need her to keep JKerry on as SOS to beat McNamara's SOS longevity record.

as said, John Kerry will now get 100% of the blame if we go to war with Iran

He will become the new Robert McNamara.

If we don't go to war, President Obama and President Hillary Clinton will get 100% credit.

and John Kerry needs 7.11 years as SOS to set the longevity record for being SOS.
So he needs President Clinton45 to keep him on when Hillary becomes Madame President in 2017 for almost a full second term.

[JI7]

52. i'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't make decisions based on is being said on DU

[graham4anything]

54. you bring up a sore topic with me here

through NO fault of the head amin (it was NOT his fault), who directly ran the official Kerry website in 2003, and the Kerry-Edwards official web site forum after the VP was picked(again it was NOT the admin of that sites fault, it was someone in the Kerry camp).

the entire public forum board was 100% hidden from the public view.

All the people back then, in the early stages of the net, before twitter and other social media,
who thought their words were being seen nationally(fools we were I admit) were NOT being seen as it was hidden from public view and back then taken out of google search and other search engines too.

therefore, it was a colassal waste of time and energy.

It was also NOT JKerry's fault either.Again,it was the early days of the net, and things done more old school then as opposed to now.

the website itself was seen, but the forum part for a good chunk of time, was hidden to anyone not signed in or knowing the backdoor into the place or having it favored.
There were no links apparent to any fan of Kerry/Edwards who didn't know about it.

It was someone in the campaign who took it upon himself to do just that.

A smart person nowadays does indeed know what is being said, or has staff who does it,
as it is a gage of popularity of different topics.
Might not alter a mindframe, but people do google themselves(or other search engine search)
and see what is being said(and this site is searchable worldwide.)

Same with some of the other larger sites.

again, NO blame here either for Mr. Kerry or for the head admin of that other place years ago(the JK website, then the official JK/JE for President site.)
Just stating a fact the posters were only told about months later when that site morphed into a later site that had people from all sides on it.

[ISUGRADIA]

81. He'll need 11 years

See Cordell Hull under FDR, 1933-1944

[ucrdem]

45. About the Edwards-Cheney VP Debate:

You might be thinking of the Cheney-Lieberman debate which did have a negative impact on Gore's polling. Edwards however did just fine and the consensus seems to have been that if anything Kerry-Edwards got a slight boost:

Edwards, Cheney Split Debate Polls - Posted by staff on October 6, 2004

Senator John Edwards beat Vice President Dick Cheney 41-28 percent of "uncommitted voters" who viewed the debate, with 31 percent saying it was a tie, in a CBS News Poll conducted by Knowledge Networks immediately following the debate. The poll concluded that "Edwards also greatly improved his standing among the uncommitted voters. Cheney made more limited gains."

Cheney beat Edwards 43-35 among RV viewers, with 19 percent saying it was a tie in an ABC News Poll conducted by TNS after the debate. One cautionary note in the ABC News report on the poll: "One factor is that more Republicans tuned in 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents." Nonetheless, the poll showed a 1 point gain for Kerry-Edwards in the WH horse race among the poll's respondents following the debate.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/10/edwards_cheney_split_debate_po.html

That accords with my own perceptions. Cheney had a good line about never seeing Edwards in the Senate, but Edwards held his own and worked in a mention of Cheney's gay daughter which may have been a low blow but nevertheless scored a hit.

[graham4anything]

47. Are you John Edwards' last fan? LOL

Cheney destroyed Edwards.
And Edwards fans destroyed Kerry.
they were quite vocal that they wanted Edwards at the top of the ticket.
BTW, not to defend VP Cheney, but VP Cheney was a seated VP for 8 years. Edwards was a fraud. And VP Cheney did NOT argue about Gay issues, to his credit, did not go negative on it.
Edwards lost the debate.

Edwards is/was a complete fraud.

Populist?
Only person he cared about was him and his $$$.
Edwards was the 1% and helped lose that election.

Single worst VP ever.
Sarah was just out of her league.
I believe 41 picked Dan Quayle for a specific purpose-to help neutralize the National Guard Vietnam issue W had, and it worked. No one seemed to care deeply about W's service except for Dan Rather, and he was sold down the river by CBS and the Democratic voters anyhow.
Where was John Kerry/John Edwards in defending Dan Rather(the memo was NEVER found fake, and the info was 100% true, as Bush himself never denied the info in the memo).

Edwards was a complete and utter fraud.

time proved me right.
I said this back in 2003. I thought back then, Edwards reminded me of Stephen King's Dead Zone. (also I noted the resemblence between Edwards and a certain Chuckie of movie fame).

Kerry should have picked Bob Graham.
(oh wait, Edwards fans said Graham was too old, he was too ugly, he was obsessive, he was boring, blah blah blah).
Kerry should have picked Bob Graham.(and so should Al Gore, or better yet, if Al Gore so needed a candidate like Lieberman, he should have picked Paul Wellstone(who was the model for the Bartlett character Martin Sheen played on West Wing.

wooo, a karma moment of symetry.
Martin Sheen played the President on West Wing and was in the Dead Zone.

(trivia note- I bet if Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez ran for President, he never would have stood a chance. I would have proudly voted for him.)

How about a ticket of Hillary45/ Ramon Antonio Gerardo Estevez in 2016?
Create double history at the same time.

[ucrdem]

49. Well, if we're going make VP debates the metric

I guess that makes Joe Biden our candidate for 2016 doesn't it?

[graham4anything]

53. for vp. Hillary45/Biden. History set. Then in 2020, Hillary45/Michelle46

your logic makes no sense

cheney wasn't president, nor did he run
leiberman did not do well running for President

Mondale stunk running for President
HHH stunk running for President
(again 2 great people that ran terrible campaigns and were weak Presidential candidates, same as the others not seated).
Why the Dems sold LBJ down the river in 1968 I still don't know.
(in the history books, there is Lincoln at #1, FDR at #2, LBJ at #3, President Obama at #4, President Carter #5).
Where will Hillary45 fit in? History will need to see how far up she will be ranked.

and to be a great president, a good president, or even a bad president, one has to not only win it, they have to be seated.
right now just 44 numbers, 43 men(one is counted twice=44).

After 2016, we shall have 45 numbers, 43 men(one counted twice=44) and one woman.

in fact, can't recall the last VP to become President except for the defacto President from 1980 to 1988, and that was Bush41.

And it took a Clinton to defeat a Bush in 1992.
And it will take another Clinton to defeat Jeb Bush in 2016.

imho. but one that will happen this way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Oh great, we're going to have DYNASTIES?

When will Chelsea be old enough?

[graham4anything]

77. Did you say that about FDR? Gore? JFK? Bobby? John Quincy Adams? Jerry Brown?

[JI7]

51. it's pretty clear that Edwards sucked in the debates

[ucrdem]

55. I wasn't originally a big Edwards partisan

and was I delighted when Kerry got the nom, and I was kind of underwhelmed by Edwards' convention speech, which I expected to be more impressive, based on his reputation as a dynamite speaker. I think by that time he'd given the ol' two Americas war horse a million times and didn't sound particularly excited but then I heard it on a car radio.

The debate I watched (looks like there was just one) as I was worried he'd get slaughtered like Lieberman had. But apart from the line about not seeing Edwards in the Senate I didn't think Cheney scored any real hits, and Edwards was well prepared and easily made his points against the Iraq war while Cheney glowered & squirmed. Here's a video of the whole shootin' match:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/183584-2

[bigtree]

66. maybe

Warren-Kerry

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Please no

He was an uninspiring candidate. I saw him in person twice, and he was just going through the motions.

In particular, I saw him speak to veterans with some of his Vietnam buddies. Both Max Cleland and John Edwards got more enthusiastic applause than he did.

[Puzzledtraveller]

73. Obama was not an establishment dem and he worked out pretty darn good

So why when thinking about 2016 is that all we can freaking think about?! I am looking for fresh faces for 2016.

[RandiFan1290]

74. He voted FOR the Iraq "war"

[OldDem2012]

75. Out of all of the potential and viable Democratic Party presidential candidates for 2016.....

....who was not fooled by the Neocon false intelligence and voted "No" against going to war against Iraq?

Here is a list of all 21 Democratic Party Senators who voted against the Iraq War resolution:

Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

How many are now deceased or are completely out of politics? How many actual viable candidates for 2016 do you see?

Additionally, I don't see anyone in the House of Reps who voted for or against the Iraq War resolution as a viable 2016 candidate for president.

So, who do you want besides the three heavyweights....Biden, Clinton, and Kerry....who seem to be dominating the early discussion as a 2016 candidate?

[madinmaryland]

76. Kerry is a great man, but he is not running in 2016. End of story. nt