Quayling Kerry?

[losdiablosgato]

Quayling Kerry? Many Democratic friends have assured me that John Kerry--whether he knows it or not--won't be a candidate for president in 2008. Lack of fundraising support will force him to drop out before then, according to this theory, just as it forced Dan Quayle to drop out the year before the 2000 primaries. But something's changed since 1999--namely the ability of candidates to raise money in small chunks over the Internet. If Kerry can raise enough Web cash early enough, he won't care if the big donors don't want him. Perhaps that explains why I seem to get a Kerry Internet fundraising appeal every other day. (It's actually about every other week.) Kerry's permanent campaign is a way to keep on raising money while he still has Web celebrity value, before his rivals declare. Then nobody will be able to Quayle him. ... 1:18 A.M.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2120319/&#quaylekerry

[NYPagan]

1. I hope not.

John Kerry was one of the few voices of reason and truth.

He could turn the tide that the Butchers of washington have unleashed!

[losdiablosgato]

2. Sad to tell you but he can't win

Against the party or against a Repug. He had his chance and lost. Best to just stand aside and let a fresh face, hopefully with fresh ideas move forward.

[Lexingtonian]

5. How do you know this?

I can't find actual evidence for it.

[losdiablosgato]

6. It is what I think

It's my opinion. But to be frank I will not support him.

[Lexingtonian]

9. "he can't win"?

It's not the opinion that bothers me, it's the easy assumptions involved.

[losdiablosgato]

12. I just think we can do better and that he will not get far in 2008

[LittleClarkie]

30. If you can show me someone who is more qualified

I'd like to see him/her.

I don't give a flying fuck who I can have a beer with.

[losdiablosgato]

31. Gov Bill Richardson

[LittleClarkie]

32. What are his qualifications

How much domestic/foreign policy experience does he have. What has he been involved in?

[losdiablosgato]

34. Secertary of energy under Clinton

Governor of a state to start.

[LittleClarkie]

I'll look into him based on the Clinton qualifications

Governor doesn't do it for me. Bush was a governor.

Kerry is an all-arounder. I like that. If there is someone else like that, I'll give him a look.

[Eloriel]

63. He's just wonderful if you like DLC types and those who cuddle up

to the energy companies.

Shame, too, 'cause he coulda been a playa. IMO.

[karynnj]

36. This seems a pretty slim resume for President

As Secretary of Energy, what did he do - I do not remember any imaginative, creative or comprehensive solution to the energy crisis that was predictable. There was no big budget effort to start a Manhattan project like effort to find alternative technologies or ways to conserve energy. As Secretary of Energy, he would certainly have had an ally in AL Gore for these efforts. (I apologize in advance if Richardson had major accomplishments in this area.)

How well liked is he in New Mexico? If he is very popular, it would seem he could have done more for Kerry - at least not completely over priced a recount.

[ChiciB1]

100. For A Long Time Now My Ticket Of Choice Was

Edwards/Richardson. I think Richardson would be helpful in a lot of ways, but he did have some real trouble as Energy secretary. R. Byrd ripped him a new one back then.

But Byrd puzzled me when he voted on the anti-lynching bill. I know rumors are that he is actually a racist, but I thought that was a long time ago. Now I wonder.

But Richardson does have appeal, and his pluses could be a help with the Hispanic vote. He does schmooze a bit though. But then who doesn't???

As a liberal I'm surprised just how much I support Edwards. Every time I look around I always come back to him. He has a GOOD message and I have the greatest admiration for Elizabeth. She won me over during the last election when I saw her interacting at a town hall meeting that C-Span covered. She was so natural and intelligent. Of course Edwards is no slouch even if he gets tagged as being a little "green". I like the way he connects with a crowd too! Boy does he connect! Just go t one of his rallies and see for yourself! I had so much fun and was so hyped after seeing him in person. I crawled all over people just to shake his hand. Everyone there was "pumped"!

[MH1]

91. What was the deal in New Mexico,

with "blocking" the recount?

Seriously, I'd like to hear the story from a Richardson supporter. I saw reports that Richardson wouldn't let them do a recount, but I didn't see much detail or understand why.

[whometense]

99. Second that question.

I've been asking it for going on eight months now, and still no explanation at all.

[CTLawGuy]

57. I might consider him

only if he apologizes for voting for IWR.

[blm]

33. Do better than a candidate winning all 3 debates decisively? Better than

someone who pulls in 10 million votes more than the last winning candidate?

Richardson controls enough media and voting machines to make that happen?

Richardson is still perceived to have been the go-between for Clinton and Monica. You think he is undefinable to the Republican noise machine?

[Lexingtonian]

35. you're stuck in the past

or at least in right wing talking points if you think a Southern governor really amounts to a better shot. National elections are presently (2000, 2004) about Democrats being the Modernist side, Republicans the Traditionalists. A Southerner who is a moderate will simply be called a fake, suspect, or ineffectual. Look at the Oklahoma Senate race- the candidates were indistinguishable on the issues but the churches declared the Republican the authentic, the Democrat the fake traditionalist.

If you look at the exit polling, swing voters liked Kerry and had no objection to liberalism. But they thought, correctly IMHO, that Kerry was fatally compromised in his ability to accomplish anything if elected to power by the Party's factionalism, its militant conservatives and moderates. Its latent conservatism and desire to live in the past.

[sendero]

59. Well at the very least...

... it is hard to argue that someone who has never lost doesn't have a better chance than someone who does.

Kerry blew it. It's over. And the very idea he can pull off a Dean fundraiser is downright humourous to me. We'll see.

[losdiablosgato]

67. The sad truth is we can not afford to lose in 2008

If we do this country is wrecked. In the past 25 years we have only had the whitehouse for 8 of them. That was a southern moderate, the two democratic presidents before him were also southern moderates.

If we lose in 2008 the rethugs will get to pick at least 7 if not all 9 supreme court justices between now and then. Kiss, choice, kiss gay rights, kiss affirmative all goodbye.

We need to win and I think that a centerist is the way to go. We can not afford to lose again.

[MoonRiver]

81. The evidence is he LOST.

What else does one have to say???? :crazy:

[blm]

7. If Kerry was so bad, why did Bush need Swiftliars, 24/7 media protection,

and rigged voting machines to eke out a 2% margin?

Kerry pulled in over 10 million more voters than Clinton or Gore. And he did it with 90% of broadcast media pimping for Bush while failing to inform the public of Bush's failures, incompetence and crimes of office.

[losdiablosgato]

8. We need at least a few southern states

I do not think he will get any traction in the south. We need fresh blood. I am currently looking at anf liking what I see from Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico.

[blm]

16. Does Richardson have more control of broadcast media and voting machines

than any other Democrat?

[FreedomAngel82]

26. That's because

they ignored a lot of states including down here in the south. I think if people campaigned more here we could gain some more seats and everything. Same for if it was Kerry or any other nominee in 2008. That's why I really like Dean as the DNC chairman. He's doing a full out campaign all over the state and not just during campaign season for president. :)

[second edition]

38. Bill Richardson?

No, he wouldn't even let the votes be recounted in New Mexico. And just because he is "fresh blood" as you say does not make him appealing or presidential. Oh, I wouldn't worry about Kerry gaining traction in the South, he would get adequate support there with a visiting campaign. Instead of concentrating entirely on the deep South though, we should focus on the Mid-West.

[losdiablosgato]

41. History says you are wrong

Of the last three Democratic President elected, starting in 1964 all have been southerners, all were at least somewhat a centerist, and all played the popularist card. To abandon the south is giving to many vote to the rethugs. If you give them the 11 statesof the confederacy, WV, KY, MO, and NM they have only to get about another 70 electorial votes to win.

[blm]

49. If you think this is the same media from 1992, you've lost already.

Your so-called "history" never had a corporate media or GOP controlled voting machines factored into the equation.

[losdiablosgato]

50. I think you are wrong.

I do not see anothe Northeasterner winning the whitehouse in my life time. And if you are right about the voting machines (for the record we do need a paper backup) which I do not agree with. This discussion is mute.

[blm]

53. Tell ya what. We'll all just sit back and leave media and machines as is.

No calling out the media, no worry about safe and secure electronic voting machines.

It was all Kerry's fault.

DU must be a waste of time for you, then. See, we all work our asses off here to expose corruption in the media and the voting machine fraud, as well as other aspects of BushInc corruption.

You, otoh, think it's just a matter of whether or not someone is a southern or western governor or not.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Explain to me why Kerry hired Bob Shrum, then...

I'm not going to lie, the media and PERHAPS the voting machines were huge factors in the final outcome of the election. On the other hand, the economy sucked and support for the war dropped dramatically when our troops started coming home in body bags. So how do I think that Kerry could have easily gotten back that 2% and won this election? Perhaps if he hadn't hired an incompetent 7 time preidential election loser to be his political director, he might be in the white house right now. That's why I think that to a certain extent, Kerry's loss was his own damn fault.

[blm]

88. And WHO can win when YOUR votes are tallying for the other guy?

We KNOW it happened. The spin that it's Kerry and his campaign just helps the coverup.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. Do you have proof that it happened?

[blm]

104. Dean will be presenting the results of the DNC investigation soon.

There were many anecdotal stories of Kerry votes switching to Bush, and we have no idea how many folks it happened to who weren't paying attention and it went unreported.

Rove had a campaign strategy to increase Bush's vote by targeting 4 million evangelicals who failed to vote in 2000. Somehow, we are expected to believe that he found almost 14 million new votes and lost NONE of his 2000 voters.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. And I will be watching Dean's report with an open mind

But if I am to believe anything to be completely true, I want evidence. My personal suspicion is that there was absolutely something fishy going on in Ohio and even if the voting machines weren't rigged, there was certainly voter disenfranchisement going on.

At the same time, with the exception of the exit polls (most of which were still within the margin of error), all of the polls showed the race as being a dead heat. My guess is that if Kerry didn't contest the election, his internals were similar to the polls released on the news channels. Simply put, the race was too close to call in Ohio.

But here's my point, if Kerry hadn't hired a 7 time loser as his political director, he might have been able to take the electoral college without Ohio. If Kerry hadn't hired a 7 time loser as his political director maybe he would have won New Mexico and Iowa (Both states that have Dem Governors and Dem Secretaries of State). And what about Arkansas and Missouri? Kerry barely competed in these states. Perhaps if he had a competent political advisor he would have competed and even won in these states which would've put him over the top in the electoral college. Arkansas has a Dem Secretary of State and Missouri HAD Matt Blunt as SOS, but in 2004 they elected Carnahan. So if they rig the votes in Missouri, then they forgot to rig the one race that makes it all possible.

[sunnystarr]

55. He sure didn't impress me on his C-Span coverage ...

He sure didn't seem like presidential material to me. I really don't think he stands a chance.

[LittleClarkie]

15. And massive suppression

don't forget the massive suppression.

Some will tell you that part of that 10 million was ABB. But the couldn't all have been ABB.

Kerry scared the hell out of the Republicans when he came out so strongly in the debates. I could here it in their voices on talk radio. They were pleading with Bush to be more presidential, to be their cowboy and come out strong, whining that the debates hadn't been fair and were rigged. It was glorious, as was the response at HQ. Kerry had the big mo' going into the election. If only it would have started sooner.

But if you are right about the fraud then no margin would have been enough. I keep going back to Karen Hughes telling Bush he was losing by an electoral landslide. If that was the true result, then one would think that an electoral landslide should have been enough for those who say that if only Kerry would have had a fraud-proof lead, he couldn't have been cheated out of a win.

But is there such a thing as a fraud-proof lead when the votes can just be flipped and machines rigged?

[FreedomAngel82]

29. It was rigged

You should go to http://www.bradblog.com and listen to his last Saturday show with Bob Fitarkis (sp?). It's really good and he tells a lot of really good information. Also go to cspan.org and type in Cliff Arnebeck and watch his interview on the Washington Journal. Also check out http://www.commoncause.org/november2ndvideo

[MISSDem]

47. And they got the "gay marriange" think added to the ballot

in some states. That brought out more of the sanctimonious fanatics.

[losdiablosgato]

52. DING, DING, DING

We have a winner. That and his reocrd on gun control cost us states.

[Skwmom]

75. Because Bush was SO bad. e/o/m

[LittleClarkie]

13. People said he couldn't win the primaries either

I'm hoping he will prove y'all wrong this next time as well.

But I still say it's too damn early to even be getting all worked up about this. We don't need to be working against the guy now. That would be horribly counterproductive.

[losdiablosgato]

14. If he win the primary in 2008

I am afraid that in my mind almost guarantees a rethug win. It is time to move on with a new person.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Do what you like

I'm sticking with the person I know would make a wonderful president. I will not chase after a Southern Governor with a rockstar quality or somesuch because I think that person can win if I don't believe in them.

Even now, some realize that Kerry was right about alot of things. I believe in Kerry. I'm staying put. Move on if you want. We shall see who wins. Both sides are up for grabs this next time so it should be interesting. But still, it's too damn early to be beating our chests about this stuff. Too much can change between then and now.

[blm]

27. So you have concluded media was not protecting Bush and electronic voting

was secure and reliable.

The voters were well informed and knew all about Bush's failures but Kerry was too bad of a candidate and his decisive losses in the debates proved it.

[second edition]

37. You underestimate the appeal of John Kerry!

He is a come from behind candidate.Many believe he actually won the last election. Insiders- so to speak always never supported him-so what your telling us is not really new. If Kerry decides to run in 2008, he is in a better positron to win then he was last time, with no incumbent running and the Repub lot they are pulling out now. He is staying in the news, he is fighting smart for us,and he stills has very favorable ratings throughout the country.
Oh, and by the way, the e-mails you are receiving are not for a presidential run, they are requests for support of his initiatives and Acts, such as Kids First. He also has been active in assisting other Democrats in there respective runs for office. Why don't you take a moment and actually read one, you might actually learn something.
Interesting that as soon as Kerry does something of significance, people like you have to start or contribute to a negative thread.

[losdiablosgato]

43. He lost

Yes he may have some good ideas, and he can work for them in the senate. But 2008 is a must win, to much is at stake. And I think it would be stupid to try to run a retread who lost against the Chimp! Even if there was voter fraud on a wide scale manner, which I disagree with, how could any halfway decent candidate lose to that bozo? It is time to move on.

And I will tell you this we have to win at least a few southern state to have a shot, and Kerry will not win in the south.

[kerrygoddess]

44. Really? So many claim the election was stolen!

So the question is did he really lose? Doubtful isn't it.

[losdiablosgato]

45. I have looked at all the evidence I could and I am 100% sure he lost.

I do not like it, but he did.

[blm]

48. And you've concluded the corporate media and voting machines were true and

fair and Kerry lost the debates and he was just a poor candidate even though he received more than 10 million votes than Clinton or Gore.

And you've concluded that Democrats need not examine the bias of the media or the security of the voting machines because you are 100% certain the only problem was Kerry.

Good luck with that. Because without exposing the GOP control of the media and the voting machines, you can run FourStarGeneralGovernorJesusChrist and still have a Bush in office.

[losdiablosgato]

51. I think he won the debates, but he lost the election

He was to indecisive, and did not get his message out. Hell I went to his own website and had trouble telling where he stood on issues.

Pop quiz to Kerry, when telling people what you want to do, keep it simple. Tell them in short concise sentences and stay on message. He did not and he lost. I voted for it before I voted against it. I cringed when I heard this. He let us all down.

[Mass]

54. He did better than any Democrats

including Clinton.

And thanks for repeating the GOP talking points. (actually, you did not hear the 87b before you heard the media comment it and of course, you are drinking what the media say, if you believe a word Kaus is saying.

Anyway, no chance I will support Richarson anytime soon. Even if I would be going for a "move the party to the right" candidate, there are a lot before him I would select.

After Kerry, my choice goes to Feingold, no move to the right.

[blm]

56. What a crock. Only stupid people who don't know how congress works

thought there was anything wrong with that statement. The same stupid people who thought Iraq did 9-11.

Bush and the media COUNTED on most people not KNOWING that ALL Congressional votes are FOR one version of a bill preferred over another bill. ALL votes are AGAINST a bill before they vote FOR the one they prefer.

The media chose not to enlighten the stupid people. They also decided not to tell them about Bush's refusal to read the HartRudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan 30, 2001.

The media failed to give airtime to those CIA analysts who blew the whistle on Bush's WH cooking the intel books before the Iraq war, And they tried to cover up the Downing Street Minutes.

That's the media. The media that covers up for BushInc at every turn.

The fact that you have no problems with the state of the media or the voting machines, but then cringe at obvious rightwing spin for their dumbass voters speaks volumes.

[ieoeja]

61. He still framed it poorly.

He should have just said, "anyone who says I did not vote for the $87 billion is just plain lying. I voted for it on {insert date}. Look it up."


Leave it to the Republicans to explain that, "well, yes, he did vote for it, but then he voted against it."

[politicasista]

58. Yawn

:boring:

[Hippo_Tron]

73. You have evidence that the voting machines were NOT rigged?

Because I sure as hell don't. Then again, I don't have evidence that they WERE rigged. Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

[Imagevision]

108. How many times have you heard Kerry say your vote WILL be counted?

and because he didn;t impress me in the way that Conyers called for attention in possible Ohio election fraud. Kerry folded and faded on that one. The election was rigged and no-one can tell me different!

Today the corporate media refuses to report on anything negative about the Bush administration which tells me that this country was sold down the tubes and is in for some serious future problems.

How many of you have kids 16-17 boys-girls who are alive now and could very well be dead under the Bush Dictatorship before his term has expired?

[LittleClarkie]

109. The votes WILL be counted

I think Kerry uses those exact words in his Nov. 19th "man in exile" video.

I will continue to point out that there is a lawsuit still pending in Ohio. Kerry's lawyer's name is Don McTigue. But somehow I don't think Blackwell will ever let the evidence the suit asks for see the light of day. It may already be gone. But every time K/E moved closer to helping the Glibs in Ohio with their lawsuit, the justification was not to win the election, but in the interest of making sure EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.

I wonder how we can help the cause, or if there is anything we can do to put pressure on the Ohio judiciary to move forward with the suit.

[earth mom]

89. Kerry already WON but * & Co stole his presidency from him...

so I'd say there is an excellent chance he could win again. Especially if he goes after the BFEE and exposes them.

I am keeping my fingers crossed!

[TankLV]

95. 2 words - however horrible: Richard Nixon

[LittleClarkie]

97. Isn't that terrible?

I said the same:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1856849&mesg_id=1859172

Just what Kerry would want to be... Nixon. The thought must keep him up at night.

[karynnj]

39. I think it's way too early to tell who looks good yet

Kerry did a great job on the debates and is now well known. The name recognition has both pluses and minuses - there are many people who might be reluctant to give him a second look. IF many of these are swing voters that could be bad; if they are people who think Democrats have horns and that Rush needs to be listened to at least 10 hours a week, it doesn't matter.

Kerry's activities since the election have been remarkable given the heartbreak of a very close election - that might have been won if suppression and "irregularities" in Ohio didn't happen. He has made many remarkable speeches that speak to real American values and he has worked tirelessly and in very creative ways to create support and visibility for some of his goals. Whether he remains a Senator or runs for President, these actions should let him grow in stature. It should also be remembered that the Republicans needed to lie about him because he has lived a pretty commendable life.

He was able to get the Senate to back his amendments to help veterans by publicizing the real need vets have and embarrassed the Republicans into voting for them.His (w/ Olympia Snowe) small business amendments also make intuitive sense and are smart things the government should be doing. In both cases the amendments passed the Senate only to be stripped out - but their existence and the sneaky way the Republicans handled it help create an agenda that Democrats can run on in 2006. (Note: He is of course not the only one doing this - Kennedy's many amendments to the bankruptcy bill, all beautifully, intelligently and emotionally argued should also be used to differentiate the parties.

[Lexingtonian]

3. no, do not post Mickey Kaus crap here

A well-informed, smart, idiot is still an idiot.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Oh, you could answer my question

Who IS this shmuck? Is he in someone else's camp? What's his background? Why do you call him an idiot.

More details, if you don't mind. Thanks.

[Mass]

18. a serial kerry-abuser...

He hates Kerry and anybody who is not a Zell Miller democrat.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Why are we quoting a Zell Democrat

Why would his opinion be valuable. His anonymous Dems are likely Conservative Dems as well. And Zell like Dems carry NO water here usually.

Unless they are carrying a flavor of koolade that some progressives happen to like, the "Kerry has no chance in 2008" koolade.

[Mass]

23. Well, in another thread, somebody is quoting Ed Klein.

Seems some people will never learn.

Kaus is the one who said in Nov 03 that Kerry should quit the race.

I hope he is as well informed here as he was at the time.

[LittleClarkie]

24. From your mouth to God's ear

I think some folks would be quoting Rove if they found that he was saying something they liked.

[whometense]

101. Kaus has a foaming-at-the-mouth

completely irrational hatred of/obsession with John Kerry. His opinion and a token will get you a ride on the subway.

Personally, I think he has a serious case of hair envy.

[Lexingtonian]

25. Oh, he's basically Slate's resident smartass political pundit

He's smart, and an ass, which is OK with me.

But he's stuck in 1998 cynicism forever. Democrats can do no right in his book because voters will never accept anything from them, how ever good and right, since they are Pathetic and Craven by definition. Republicans can do any wrong they like because voters will never see them in a critical light for long, they are The True Americans and will always win in the end.

He's sort of the Dr. Jekyll to David Brooks's Mr. Hyde.

[LittleClarkie]

28. Ah, Heckle and Jeckle

gotcha.

Twin shmucks. How nice. Now we each have one.

[Last Lemming]

4. Dear John Kerry

You knew you won the last election--you walked.
Why should I reexperience the heart break? I'm writing in Galloway--the man who at least once said what needed to be said to our congress.

[Mass]

20. Too bad he is not an US citizen!

[LittleClarkie]

22. Knowing and proving are two different things

We can't spend a month contesting every presidential election, esp. without hard proof that would hold up in a court of law. That would be insanity.

[eridani]

96. We can't? Proof before investigation is NOT necessary--

--otherwise wotthehell would be the point of an investigation? What we do have in spades is PROBABLE CAUSE.

The point is not to overturn the election but to insure that the perps are put out of action for the future.

[LittleClarkie]

98. Don McTigue

Some folks here expected Kerry to do just that: overturn the election. That's what I was talking about. He didn't have proof enough to overturn the election.

But there is that lawsuit in Ohio that is ongoing. It's purpose is to get at the evidence involved in the Ohio election. But with Repubs controlling the system, one has to wonder when it will even get a date. It's been stuck since January.

There is that lawsuit. And there is the election reform bill that he has co-sponsored with Hillary and others. So he is working on those future elections.

He still can't nail the perps without proof. But the above are a couple of reasons I believe he hasn't given up on that. He has no earthly reason to still be involved in a lawsuit in Ohio if he's not trying to get at the truth. It's so invisible that folks forget it's there. It certainly isn't getting him votes.

[second edition]

40. Galloway was really over the top!

This is an unfair comparison. No presidential contender or any senator should ever behave as Galloway behaved. It worked for Galloway and he said what was on his mind and spoke his truth, but to expect any elected official to exhibit that type of behavior is just unreasonable on your part

[LittleClarkie]

46. People like a dog and pony show

it makes them feel like something is happening. Even when it isn't.

[LittleClarkie]

10. That person is talking out his butt

Who is Mickey Kaus? And who are his anonymous Democrats. And why is he trying to discourage fundraising for children's health care by convincing folks that Kerry is gathering money for 2008 instead of using the money for its intended purpose.

This person doesn't seem to understand, or maybe doesn't want to understand, that the phone calls are earmarked for the issues that Kerry is fighting for now. Whatever campaign money he had left could NOT got to the PAC. The PAC must be fresh; I know that for sure. I don't know, but would assume, that it works the other way as well. PAC money probably can't go into campaign coffers. One might argue that he's using the PAC money to garner support from his fellow Democrats, as it has been stated that part of the PAC's purpose is to help Democrats get elected, and as such has donated to Kennedy and Clinton and some local Dem campaigns whose names I didn't recognize.

I wonder if the FEC would have the rules and regulations somewhere on their site. I think it was their site where I found the information about who had set up the PAC, who had donated, and who has gotten money so far.

Kerry has also coughed up money out of his leftover campaign money for Howard Dean's welcome into the DNC and to the DCCC. While some are glad, some see pandering there as well.

I hear from other sources that Kerry still has many of his contributors in place. So we shall see who's right.

But right now, I don't need Democrats being thwarted by politicking and backbiting because someone is a supporter of a different Dem. It's too early for all this anguish over 2008. There might be SOME maneuvering happening. But I refuse to see everything that possible candidates are doing as just a preparation for 2008. A person could convince themselves that ANY action a politician takes is just for that, no matter what it is.

I will wholeheartedly support Kerry when the time comes. We shall see then if Mickey was right. He, and his anonymous Dems, may be speaking as supporters of someone else, someone who hopes Kerry won't be around.

I and others around here would like to surprise the living hell out of Mickey. But we will see if Kerry is even running. He's focused right now on 2006. So am I. We need to work on making the party big and strong now. We don't have time for backbiting.

[TayTay]

17. Mickey Kaus?

He hates Kerry. He had the Dec 2003 poll that predicted when Kerry would drop out. Wrong then and possibly wrong now.

Nobody knows what will happen at crunch time in 2007. Nobody. Anybody who tells you different is either a paid talk show host, a consultant or a bloviator.

[kerrygoddess]

42. WTF?

Well it seems some people are un-imformed.

Kerry's internet fundraising is for his PAC not the 2008 election. His PAC is promoting Kids First and also raising money for and donating to 2006 candidates for the Senate and House, including Hillary.

Kerry's key fundraisers during the 2004 election cycle are still behind him and raisng money for the "If" he runs.

[iconoclastNYC]

60. Kerry has always been the "big money" candidate.

Look over your history. Dean's campaign was the Peoples Campaign.

Kerry is politics as usual. He's outmoded. He's not likeable. He's damaged goods. MOVE ON.

[Mass]

62. Can we disagree?

[iconoclastNYC]

64. We can if you refute a specific point I made.

If you dont want to do that why bother to reply?

Honestly. I respect that you support him. But I think you should internalize some of the big misteps he made in his campaign. It isn't all about the big bad GOP boogeyman. He and the people he hired to run his campaign messed up. He let the press walk all over him. He didn't go on the offensive. In a word he's milquetoast. I appluad him for his years of fighting the good fight in the Senate. I think that's where he belongs.

[Mass]

65. He still got more votes than any Democratic nominees

and I dont think anybody would have done better, generally speaking (certainly all campaigns have faults, but Trippi was not exactly full of praises for Dean's campaigning abilities either).

I think a lot of things you are repeating are GOP talking points propagated by the media (particularly the he is not likable), but we will see what happens in a couple of years.

Right now, we should be busy getting Democrats in local offices (getting Democrat Governors in both NY state and Massachusetts would be nice). As for 2008, we will see later. In politics, even one year is an eternity.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Sorry, the "he got more votes than any Democrat" is a dumb statistic

Of course Kerry got more votes than FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. The US population is higher than it was when all of them ran for president.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

93. Did the U.S. grow by 16% in just 4 years?

Because that is how many more votes Kerry got than Gore (59,208,111/50,994,086)
and if you want, I'll throw out the 2.4 million Nader voters Kerry picked up, (Nader got 2,882,728 in 2000 vs 463,653 in '04) and we're still 11 percent ahead of Gore. But let's look at the numbers:

The US pop. in 2000 = 281,421,906. If we project a 19% increase for the decade ending in 2010 (which is a reasonable number if you look at the charts on page 18 of 22 in this pdf) , and prorate it to a net add of 21 million more Americans in the 4 years between the Gore and Kerry elections, then we have only increased 7.6% in those 4 years. So assuming a 7.6% increase in population, Kerry STILL got 3.4% more NON-NADER voters than Gore.

So quit downplaying Kerry's excellent performance with unsupportable arguements. In fact, quit saying bad things about Democrats.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

107. Correcting this- Kerry improved by more than 3.4%

I conclude above that Kerry netted 3.4% more NON-NADER voters than Gore. He in fact did better than that.

This link says the US pop in July 2004 was 293,655,404. The net add works out to 4.4% more Americans on election day, not 7.6% as I projected above. So the 11 percent increase of non-Nader Kerry voters over Gore, becomes a 6.6% better performance than Gore after population growth is accounted for.

[blm]

90. You are wrong. Kerry NEVER took corporate pac money his entire Senate

career. Kerry was also the TOP environmentalist candidate.

Dean governed as a pro-big business, conservative Democrat and he'd be the first to admit that today. It was the primaries and the devotion of his supporters that pulled Dean further to the left, while Kerry was firmly on the left throughout his career with a lifetime record that was the furthest left of all the primary candidates, including Kucinich and Braun.

I'd say that many should look at the real history of our lawmakers.

In fact, I'd like to see you name one lawmaker who has effected this nation and its government more positively than John Kerry has over the last 35 years. Unless you think investigating and exposing the most government corruption of any lawmaker in modern history is no great accomplishment.

[MH1]

92. Wrong.

From OpenSecrets.org:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00000245

John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam War veteran who returned from the conflict to become one of the most outspoken opponents of the war. He entered politics in 1982, when he was elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. Two years later he ran for U.S. Senate on a campaign that refused contributions from political action committees. He was reelected in 1990, 1996 (in a tough race against Republican Gov. William Weld) and 2002.

Well, that refutes "always". Now let's look at the 2004 pres. race:

Source of Funds:
Individual contributions $225,283,370 69%
PAC contributions $141,918 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $74,620,000 23%
Other $26,191,000 8%

PAC contributions were not even 1% of his total fund-raising. So where is this "big money" coming from? Individual contributions were capped at, what, $2000? Am I missing something? (I might be. I'm not a campaign finance expert.)

As for "not likeable", why is the "John Kerry" Group at DU so huge? (Look at the number of posts there compared to other groups). Have you ever read one of the pic threads over there? (If you hate Kerry, you won't be able to stand it. Trust me.)

[Scout1071]

66. I'm sorry, I like John Kerry, but I would rather see Al Gore run.

[Corey_Baker08]

68. Why are you Kerry bashers so obsessed with getting him to drop out?

Are you all afraid that he is gonna sweep the primaries so your to damn afraid to give him a shot. Listen if he runs agains the primaries are designed for us to choose the most successful candidate, if he wins the primaries that must mean he is still popular enough to represent the Democratic party.

Instead of bashing him on a daily basis why dont you look forward to the primaries and follow through with who your going to support, not who your going to bash.

[NYCGirl]

69. Two words: Adlai Stevenson. Look it up.

And, BTW, I personally don't care whether Kerry runs or not. His choice.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. In Adlai Stevenson's defense, Eisenhower was extremely popular

But I agree, the Democrats could have run somebody the different the second time and done better.

[NYCGirl]

74. Stevenson was wonderful, but he lost by an even larger margin

the second time around. (BTW, one of my earliest political memories — when I was a little, little kid — was the "Madly for Adlai" sticker on the front door of our house.)

[Corey_Baker08]

76. There is a major difference between Adlai Stevenson and John Kerry

The difference between Kerry and Stevenson has a major issue. Adlai Stevenson was the Democratic candidate for president in 1952 and 1956, losing badly both times to Dwight Eisenhower. When in fact John Kerry did not lose badly this time at all. In fact Kerry made a historic finish being just half of the OSU football stadium away from being the 44th President of the United States.

The fact is more people voted for Kerry than have ever voted for any other Democratic presidential candidate in this nation's history -- more than 56 million.

More people voted for Kerry and the Democratic message than voted for Republican saint and master politician Ronald Reagan in either of his presidential elections, including his 1984 landslide against Mondale

Kerry got this tremendous support while trying to oust an incumbent president in the middle of a war -- something that has never been done. The advantages of incumbency are tremendous: Two-thirds of all presidents who have sought re-election have won

Younger people (under 30) DID turn out (contrary to media reports), and they supported Kerry by a landslide: 54% to 44%. In fact, if the election were up to people under 30, Kerry would have won with 375 electoral votes, to Bush's 163. If that's not a hopeful sign for the future, we don't know what is!

Even more encouraging: In battleground states, where the most organizing and voter registration was done, youth turnout was 64%, and broke for Kerry by an average of almost 20 points! This includes the red states of Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, and even Arkansas

The Democrats surprised themselves (and certainly the media) at their ability to raise tens of millions of dollars, inspire hundreds of thousands of activists, spawn extensive new organizations, and present themselves as unified

More than 56 million people voted for a presidential candidate who openly supports civil unions for gays and lesbians -- unthinkable (unexpressable!) even just 20 years ago, when we were in the middle of the Reagan Revolution

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. You're right. Stevenson had integrity. Kerry only has ambition.

[second edition]

80. Your comment on integrity is ridiculous!

Please provide some proof to back up you accusation that Kerry has no integrity. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word?

[NYCGirl]

85. See post #71 above for the "got more votes than anyone" statement. NT

[Corey_Baker08]

87. That is a Stupid Excuse

The population may be bigger now but people didnt stop dyeing. The population will always change and to make a point of saying that it is bigger now than it was however many years ago.

The reason Kerry got more votes than anyone else was because of the importance of this election not because the population dramatically increased in the four years Al Gore was supposably beat. The fact is everyone knew how important this election was and John Kerry gave those people a reason to get out and let their voice be heard.

Whether a good percentage of votes Kerry recieved we ABB is a different story, the point is people voted with John kerry on Nov 2 and if he decides to run again all you Kerry bashers can shift focus from trying to beat the Republicans to focusing on getting Kerry to drop out

[karynnj]

105. Excellent post

This is a very optimistic look at the results - that show that the Democrats can win be standing for Democratic values. By 2008, there will also be another 4 year cohort of young voters entering the voting population. If they (and I think they include you) are more similar to the 2004 under 30s, they could make the difference.

Whether or not Kerry runs again, your brilliantly written analysis is reason for hope.

[second edition]

79. Kerry isn't Stevenson!

Times, politics and people have changed since Stevenson's time. Just because something isn't successful the first go round isn't cause to give up and discredit it. "There is a first time for everything". If you consider Bush's "suspect" ability to win reelection in November, you see that in some respects he rewrote history. Unpopular incumbent, questionable war, extremely slow job growth, high deficits, and a borderline approval rating. All of these things have lead to a loss for incumbents in the past.
I like Kerry, I didn't come into the last election with a favorite, Kerry won me over. I suspect he has the ability to continue to do just that- win people over. Its obvious, your support for Kerry was luke warm at best-and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I am happy to see that you at least don't resent allowing him an opportunity to run again if he choses to do so.

[LittleClarkie]

83. Three more words: Richard M. Nixon

Some of Kerry's actions remind me of ol' Tricky somewhat. The "I will not contest for the good of the nation" followed by a quiet "let the investigations begin!" for instance.

Poor Kerry. He wants to be like Kennedy. He may end up more like Nixon, at least in the "he lost then he won" sweepstakes. Oh, the irony.

Just raising the possibility.

I, of course, do care if he runs. But it is indeed his choice. I just don't want everything he does filtered though the "he's running in 2008" lens. It's a distortion lens, and make everything look like pandering. He could sneeze at this point, and people would say he was pandering to the tissue lobby.

[NYCGirl]

84. Nixon didn't run consecutively. NT

[LittleClarkie]

86. Reader's Digest condensed version

True. But everything I see lately looks like a condensed version of what we've been though before. The war for example. It feels like we're about at 1967 or 1968 with the Iraq War already, with 1972 coming up fast, all in the span of only 3 years or so.

Everything feels like we went from cooking conventionally to microwaving. So, why not this as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. I hope he's right. We could use an anti-war candidate in '08.

Which Kerry hasn't been since '72.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Somehow I don't think a Zell Miller Dem

is cheering for an anti-war candidate. This person also thought Kerry was going to drop out during the primaries, so I'm thinkin' his instincts are a wee off.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

102. Great, if we want to lose again

he will be the perfect choice!

[LuPeRcALiO]

103. amusing, but anybody who thinks Drudge is "80 % true"

is living in a 9/11 daydream.

[LWolf]

106. I don't want him to run in '08.

I wasn't thrilled with his nomination in '04; I supported the campaign, and I voted for him with a sinking feeling in my gut. I gritted my teeth through the pro-war Democratic convention. I never thought he was the right choice, and his immediate capitulation seemed to confirm this. '08 doesn't need to be a rerun of '04. If the Democratic Party hasn't done some major reforming of attitude, agenda, and action by '08, I can't say I'll still be aboard. I sure won't be bleeding my personal budget dry to keep Kerry's white house hopes alive for the next 3.5 years. I hope he'll spend the intervening years standing up for democratic principles and working for social and economic justice in the senate, not fundraising for another white house bid.