"Well you gotta call Kerry the front runner for '08..."

[SunDrop23]

Overheard at the water cooler yesterday.

What say you?

[rockymountaindem]

1. Did a Republican or Democrat say this?

It has a different connotation depending...

[SunDrop23]

4. Not sure...I was in another part of the building. I do not know...

the people who were chatting.

[rockymountaindem]

9. Thinking about it, I'd bet it's a Democrat

Republicans would probably push the Hillary meme. So, assuming a Democrat made that remark, I'm pleased. I like Kerry.

[SunDrop23]

10. Probably...the tone of his voice was serious, not condescending.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. I'm thinking Al Gore, there seems to be buzz for him in the progressive

movement.

[bowens43]

16. Gore lost to the idiot.

Enough said.

[Scout1071]

18. Wrong.

But I'm not going to get into that argument now.

Gore is my man in 2008.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Al Gore won and would have won by a dominating popular vote and

electoral margin if the MSM had not been waging a war against him ever since March of 99 slamming his credibility and integrity because he empowered you and me when he championed the internet. His reward for his vision and dedication to the people was to be slandered relentlessly by our so called fourth estate, while they enabled Bush to power by camouflaging his deficiencies. You can abandon the man that has empowered you with the ability to praise your favorite leader or condemn your most hated villain for the whole world to see, but I shall not.

[blm]

53. I agree with that - except I'd say the media was working against Gore and

ALL Dems by 1997, and in some cases even before that time.

That's how the silver-tongued Clinton was able to be impeached unfairly - and the media machine was used in full force against Gore and Kerry in degrees never seen before in any election.

[Uncle Joe]

56. I agree blm however,

I cannot think of anyone in my lifetime that has done so much for not only the American People but the world at large only to be trashed by what passes for American Journalism. A few months ago CNN held a poll as to the most important invention/creation of the 20th century and the internet won hands down. Logic would tell you, the leader most responsible for this achievement would garner praise at the very least. It is as if Charles Lindbergh after his solo flight across the Atlantic instead of being given a ticker tape parade through New York was trashed instead because after all it was the Wright Brothers that invented the airplane.

[blm]

57. I don't disagree with that - the media was highly irresponsible in

covering the facts surrounding Gore's internet statement.

It ended up being turned against him because the media made SURE OF IT.

[Uncle Joe]

59. I think of it as the Prometheus affect.

They wanted to remain the sole gate keepers to the truth and the internet threatened their monopoly and power. Of course many of these same people would go on to cheer lead us to a war based on lies.

[karynnj]

74. There are people far more responsible than Gore for the Internet

What he did do was to support funding the precursor to the web, the ARPA net that BBN set up that connected various technology companies and universities. I don't know when it started but I know it existed at least in 1975 - because I knew people who used it then. Gore didn't enter Congress until 1976.

As to expanding these links, the biggest jump was likely when the WWW was invented. There are many tech people in many companies and many countries who developed the technical solutions that let the web become the web. Al Gore never said he was the father of the internet. He did support the government funding parts of what became the internet, but it was not his conceptual idea and he did not suggest any of its long term uses.

[NYCGirl]

98. And here is a statement from Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn (who are

indeed the fathers of the Internet) on Al Gore's contributions. BTW, Cerf presented Gore with a Webby Award a couple of years ago, and the term "web surfing" does not come from water surfing, but actually from Vint Cerf's name.

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg27399.html

Excerpt:

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we
know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in
the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high
speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to
natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for
continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private
sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of
extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today,
approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore
provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the
Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven
operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth
since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support
for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced
networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually
engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the
Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the
councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value
of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and
consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American
citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

[karynnj]

101. Nice quote - I do think Gore's work on this was great

My comment was in response to a post saying he was "the most responsible". The problem, as we saw in 2000, was that Gore ended up NOT getting credit for some very good work that he did, because it was mocked as Gore saying he invented the internet - which Gore never ever said.

The history of the web is fascinating in that it was a case of people expanding the use of tools well beyond what they were designed for. The earliest goal. that I know of, was to allow people to exchange data and technical reports. Computers then were huge - and computer time scarse.

[Overseas]

79. Yes Yes So True !! Thanks !!

The negative spin on Gore compared to the boostering support of the Idiot among the press provided a classic example of media bias on parade. And that sorry state of affairs has carried over into the reaction to Steve Colbert-- the biting humor is all too much for the timid press corps...

[LittleClarkie]

69. Horsehockey

And the idiot hadn't shown his true colors yet. He ran as a moderate. The nation didn't know he was lying then.

But if, IF Gore lost, it was by the skin of his teeth. It was very competetive.

[LittleClarkie]

68. They better get a move on then or he'll be the Clark of 08

starting too late.

But he says he's not, and he doesn't have a leadership PAC, and he's not been to IA or NH near as I can tell. So frontrunner, no. A possibility anyway? Maybe.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. He probably is.

If Gore steps into the race, he'd probably take that, but I don't see anyone else at this point who would overtake him (and that include Hillary Clinton).

Still, WAY, WAY too early to say just about anything about 2008.

[SunDrop23]

7. My immediate thought was...let's kick ass in 06 THEN worry about 08.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Absolutely!

:toast:

[bdamomma]

88. that should be our main focus

November 2006, and damn anyone who stands in our way to vote or count our absentee ballots.

[TayTay]

5. I don't actually think there are any front-runners yet

It's too early. I think the situation in the world is too volatile and the distance between now and any actual voting is too great. (Weird things happen in the off season as well. People who think they are running, don't. The unlucky or odd event happens and people end up not running. And so forth.)

I think that front-runners will only be credible in Jan of '08.

[Skink]

6. Never good to be the early front runner...

Just ask Howard Dean.

[NYCGirl]

12. Before Dean, the front runner in 04 was Joe Lieberman. He lead the pack by

22 points!

[wtmusic]

8. Blah Blah.

Clinton wasn't a blip on the radar in 1990.

[karynnj]

33. I think he was a small blip

When was the NYT magazine article.

[marmar]

13. I don't think we'll know who the front-runner is....

until the first few primaries.

:think:

Or maybe it will be decided in ALabama. Or cALifornia. (Subliminal hints)

[AmericanDream]

14. Why? Because he lost last time?

Let's wait till the stump speeches roll out and then we'll see who gets the big crowd and does well in the polls and actually has ideas to offer.

No frontrunners. Going by fundraising, it's Hillary right now. We'll see who gets ahead in other departments...

[bowens43]

15. Kerry lost to the idiot.

Enough said.

[blm]

20. Kerry didn't lose to Bush - Kerry won every man to man matchup with Bush

and did so decisively.

Bush needed the corporate media working 24/7 protecting him and STILL had to resort to rigged voting machines to stay in office.

[deaniac21]

17. Hillary Clinton leads in every poll by a wide margin.

[NYCGirl]

21. This far out, in the 2004 election, Joe Lieberman was leading by 22 points

and you see where that went.

[deaniac21]

24. Hillary and Bill raise a little more money than Mopey Joe.

She will be a formidable candidate.

[NYCGirl]

28. That's not the point. NT

[deaniac21]

34. In politics money talks.

[NYCGirl]

38. Cool! The Clintons can BUY the presidency! I can't wait! NT

[Josh]

89. Are you sure?

Do you have a link with evidence of that? I know Liberman was up the top AFTER Gore dropped out (which was less than two years before the election, which was not as far out as we are now) and maybe he *had* 22% at one point, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe he ever led BY 22 points.

[JNelson6563]

30. Even worse news IMO

I am not feeling optimistic about any of the so-called "front-runners". Media selected nominees? Just say "No!"

Julie

[Zynx]

73. As of this instant, she is the front runner, but so was Lieberman in 2002.

Lieberman drew piss in the primaries.

[incapsulated]

78. Hillary Clinton is not Joe Lieberman

Look, I'm not trying to bring people down, but if you deny the opposition's strength, or even their existence, you've already lost.

Lieberman won polls because he made his intentions clear early on and his stupid face was on the tv all the time. Outside of Dems who watched political shows, most people didn't know or give a flip who he was.

Hillary has the kind of fame that is normally reserved for the top 10 percent celebrity class. World Famous. Known by her first name, like fuckin' Madonna. Or, like the former Co-President of the United States. Even people who don't care about or follow politics at all know who she is. And that is half the game right there. I'm not even counting the totally free media 24/7 she is going to get without spending a dime. Or, her primary sidekick, Bill Fucking Clinton.

If you think she is going to fade away like some flash in the pan, you are in for a rude awakening in two years.

She can be beat, but not if people deny her considerable power as a candidate. Yes, one third of Dems in the primaries will hate her and never vote for her, but another third will vote for her without thinking about it, and that is saying a lot, when the field can be split apart with so many running.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. If you overheard me at a water cooler

You would have heard something different. It's all just talk at this point and anyone can say whatever they want. The last time the Democrats ran someone next time around after failing to get the big prize it was Stevenson and that didn't work out so well. If for no other reason than that I don't think Kerry can be considered the front runner, but being the front runner now ain't all that it's made out to be anyways.

[SunDrop23]

23. In a way I find it refreshing that Dems are talking up 08, although 06...

should be the focus.

[blm]

22. Possibly, but the only one who CAN win is the one who works to secure the

voting machines BEFORE the election.

Most people are unaware of the machines - most of us here are well aware of the machines, so we must never lose sight of that priority.

[pansypoo53219]

25. 1 word

DUKAKIS

[zann725]

26. Anyone see JK on Donny Deutsch show last night? Dazzling.

Positively dazzling. Articulate, decisive, "warm," personable...AND most important, intelligent. About a 20-minute interview. Worth viewing...and mentioning 'over the water cooler' to that certain person who already is thinking JK may be the "front-runner"...and others who may have missed the interview....further reminding said person (and others) they can always still "stream it" if they need to become MORE impressed...convinced JK's IS (and in '04) WAS the "front-runner" (by at least 5 Million votes, if accurately counted).

[BlueManDude]

Dazzling doesn't get the moron-American vote

JK had his chance and didn't fight for it.

[politicasista]

58. You assume that it's his fault people are misinformed.

That's insulting and those "moron Americans" may not be as dumb as you think. They just aren't informed cause of the unfair and unbalanced media period.

[BlueManDude]

63. Assume they are mis-informed and go from there

make your campaign about emotions and attack your opponents weaknesses.

spare me the talk about your 4 point health care plan - people don't vote on that stuff.

[karynnj]

77. Agreed - also it might have been hard to see the quantum change

between 200o and 2004. Many people who didn't know what Kerry stod for - didn't stop to think that it was very hard to get a message through when the mass media wouldn't propigate it.

[lojasmo]

27. I never will.

Second most likely to lose in the generals....perhaps.

[JNelson6563]

29. Um, no I don't

"..gotta call Kerry the front runner for '08...

[BlueManDude]

31. It's Gore's if he wants it

otherwise we're stuck with Hillary.

[Clark2008]

32. Lord I hope not

Of course, I don't know any Dems who plan to vote for Hillary because they know she'll lose in the general election, so I don't see us as likely stuck with her unless she's Diebolded in.

[iconoclastNYC]

35. Can't wait to see Gore smack him down in the primary

[Fabio]

36. Gore is likely not running. That's the word

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Riiight.

And I have a bridge to sell you.

[LittleClarkie]

76. Why, what indications do you have otherwise

We have
1. his word
2. No PAC yet

and

3. When was the last time he set foot in either NH or Iowa?

[Fabio]

94. Well, that's what I hear

I am not saying I know the future, just what I have been told by people very close to him. and I am not a gore hater, so please lay off the sarcasm.

[blm]

41. Yeah - like dirty song lyric hearings stole the headlines from S&Ls, BCCI

BCCI was SO BORING. This country is so much better off since dirty lyric hearings bumped those boring issues off the front page.

[iconoclastNYC]

44. Huh?

Gore took his case to the Supreme Court. Kerry rolled over.

[blm]

47. You believe Gore would have challenged if he were told he was 3million

votes behind in the popular vote?

I don't. Gore went into the challenge with the perception that he won the popular vote and was within a thousand of Florida's electoral votes.

Kerry was operating from the perception that Bush won the popular vote by 3million and that Bush was ahead in Ohio by over 100,000 votes. (rigged machines all over the country)

To compare the two you would have to be dead certain that Gore would have contested under similar circumstances.

[iconoclastNYC]

70. Kerry had the advantage of knowing what went

Down in Flordia in 2000, and to anyone who's paid attention (Conyers, et al) they took the Flordia model and ran with it in Ohio, NM and other states.

Kerry had more facts to go on and still choose to conced and sweep this all under the rug.

Kerry is too establishment. Go along to get along. And I think he sold out the country in 2004 to keep his powder dry to run again in 2008. He's not getting my vote.

[blm]

71. That was one of the problems - he had Gore's team reassembled for Ohio

and they were looking out for those type of scenarios.

That has NOTHING to do with machine fraud - which NO Dem worked on.

If anything, you would think that Gore would've been all over the issue of securing elections considering what he went through. He had the time to look into it and the tech knowledge and the concern for democracy that went out the door in 2001. He must have had time to get into the issue of the rigged machines - but, did he believe it and choose to not sound an alarm or does he not believe it at all?


You also didn't say that you are certain that Gore would've contested had it appeared he lost popular vote by 3million and was over 100,000 down in Florida. THAT is the reason you CAN'T compare the two situations - NO ONE believes Gore would've contested under those circumstances.

And KERRY is too estabilshment??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No one who knows history would claim that - IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning, and illegal wars in Central America were ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT to the nth degree - you don't GET more anti-establishment than BCCI. He was ostracized by most of DC for years while the entire DC powerstructure, including Dems worked against his investigations.

Gore supported Reagan and Bush's Contra and Central America policies. Gore was in office as VP when the books were closed on that and BCCI and CIA drugrunning. He was NEVER an open government lawmaker. I hope he's changed that aspect of his beliefs to be more like Kerry, who has ALWAYS fought for open books.

The establishment wanted Reagan-Bush scandals off the frontpage - the dirty song lyrics hearings did a great job, don't you think?

[Vektor]

39. Electile Dysfunction: Premature Elect-ulation. (Election Speculation)

There are no front runners yet. It's too early to know this. Maybe people are just so eager to see Bush OUT OF OFFICE they're already trying to figure out who the next guy will be, just to give them something to think about. But still. Until late 2007, early 2008, that's all speculation, very premature speculation.

[wisteria]

40. Agree and I like your wording! n/t

[Placebo]

42. The polls speak a very different story.

Hillary is going to be the one to beat going into the primaries, assuming she runs.

I'm pretty sure all of the potential candidate gets that message.

[blm]

48. They'll all have their chance at the debates - Dems are funny like that -

they like to watch their candidates debate and then make their choices.

[wisteria]

95. I think to much exposure to Senator Clinton is going to be her doing in.

Front runners now mean nothing. IMO, there is a huge President Bill Clinton factor going on here. Once voters realize they get Senator Clinton and not Bill, support for her will drop. Right now, I have read that people are afraid to go against the Clinton's and that is why she has such an inside push. Personally, I will not support her or encourage others to do so, unless she does becomes our candidate in the general election and it comes down to her or a Republican. I think we can do better than Hillary as the first woman President.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Regardless of Whether You Like Him or Not

That statement simply does not reflect reality.

:crazy:

DTH

[Rex_Goodheart]

45. Nope. Sorry. I love the man, but...

it would be most unwise for Kerry to be the Dem candidate.

Been there, done that.

Edwards and Clark are sure winners.

[SunDrop23]

52. Hmmm...Edwards? Please elaborate.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Not winners, frontrunners

there's a difference. Winners or not, you have to be in position. Money, staff, some good appearances in NH and Iowa, stuff like that there.

[zulchzulu]

46. I support Kerry AND he is one of the frontrunners

I certainly don't think we should just make Kerry the Heir-Apparant in the Primaries.

Let's get all the candidates who want to run get out there and let democracy and grassroots politics do their magic.

[incapsulated]

49. No, that would be Hillary

Sad but true.

There is plenty of time, but she has name recognition that literally doesn't even have to go past her first name ("Hillary") and more money and pro consultants than everyone else put together. The polls reflect this over and over and over. This is reality.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. I don't there's any front runner

Right now, 08 is all about pure speculation and name recognition.

[blm]

55. That's the right answer, imo. Dem voters tend to wait for debates to help

them decide their support one way or another.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Adalai Stevenson doesn't stand a chance. Can you say "titular"?

He was a horrible candidate. He should have fought off every aspersion at the first whiff, which is what Clinton did in '92, but he didn't.

The point is winning. Hillary can't win. Clark might be able to, but that wouldn't be a good thing. Edwards CAN. Warner doesn't have the charisma. Schweitzer might be a hot possibility. Bayh can't get the nomination, nor should he. Biden has no chance, and Niel Kinnock can tell you why.

Besides all that, the issue of great import is the fight for the house this year.

He had his chance. Not only did he blow it, he blew it thoroughly. Why must we cling to sentimental favorites? Gore fucked up the '00 election to such a degree that even though he won it obviously and outright, he couldn't get the reins of power.

What the fuck is the matter with this party?

[karynnj]

62. Who were you for in 2004?

Edwards couldn't beat Kerry in 2004 and really did not look better after he was put on the ticket than before. Kerry came close to winning a race with almost every power source against him.

Kerry did respond to the lies but the media did not comminucate the facts that Kerry and others presented to refute them. This was a sea change - the media did carry things when Clinton fired back. Also, maybe it's easier to deal with responding to things that had some basis in truth - the Kerry charges were made up and at variance with the official record. (That wasn't enough. It would be like if your boss called you in and said some guy called and said he said next to you in calculus and the A in your transcript is a lie, he knows you got a "D". Though your boss didn't even check if this guy went to your school, you are asked to prove it. Of, course your response would be that the school gave you that grade n years ago. (which is like Kerry's first comment - the Navy gave him those medals 30 some years ago.) Do you even see this was not intended to be a fair game.)

Clinton answered about womanizing (enough said), pot, draft dodging and going to Russia. the only one that was totally unfair was the trip to Russsia - and the media called Bush on using his power to dig up Clinton's (and his mom's) passports. There is really no comparison.

[PurityOfEssence]

86. From 2001, I was an Edwards supporter

Kerry did not fight back against the bogus charges from the Swift Boat Liars. He should have barked them down the minute they attacked; Clinton would have.

He is dull. He lacks presence. If you don't understand that modern politics are cheap theatrics, then you are destined to back those with no chance. This isn't really anything new, it's just that the media culture has cheapened things to such a degree that immediacy is everything.

The only reason Edwards didn't beat Kerry in more than the three primaries he did is that the stodgy orthodoxy had set Kerry up as the staid front runner. This is the same idiocy that clings to Hillary as our new champion, or wills Gore back from the political grave.

Kerry didn't fight.

Gore didn't fight.

This is important.

[ginnyinWI]

87. Hm.

What stodgy orthodoxy would that be? I thought it was the Iowa caucuses that turned the tide for Kerry. I think they liked him.

[karynnj]

102. So, in 2001 you were for Edwards and still are

Kerry did respond to the SBVT by giving the truth to the media - Clinton's approach was to get stuff to the media quickly (within news cycle) for all charges. Kerry did this, the media treated official records and documentable infomation as equivilent to unfounded charges. The media gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt - look back at the Jennifer Flowers comments, Clinton later admitted under oath to the realationship he denied in 1992.

Kerry has an incredible life story. He is not in any way dull. All I know is no one at Faneuil Hall would have considered using that word after we saw one of the greatest speeches of our lifetime. This is an argument that neither of us can win - I find Edwards boring, you find Kerry boring. I know whose life story is far more interesting - and it's NOT Edwards.

There was no "stodgy orthodoxy". The media had many John Edwards puff pieces right before the 6 states had their contests - the media would have loved the change of front runner stories they would have written if Edwards won even half the states. (Look at coverage for almost any other open primaries season. Even then note that CNN and others reported the results as a victory for Kerry and Edwards.) Edwards was given press as the last remaining person who could stop Kerry well beyond what any results indicated. Edwards was and is a media favorite.

[wisteria]

96. You could also say Edwards had his chance and didn't win either.

I will not bash him, but you have to admit that he isn't as well qualified as Kerry would be to run this country. He also did not do exceptionally well against Cheney in the debates.

[wisteria]

97. John Kerry is no Stevenson. They are similar in style but that is it.

Stevenson ran against President Eisenhower twice. He lost by large margins both times.Some say Kerry actually won the 2004 election. Eisenhower was a popular war hero when he ran the first time and he was a popular President the second with a content public behind him. The only issue Stevenson could find to challenge him on the second time was Eisenhower's health- he had had a heart attack during his first four years in office and Stevenson claimed that made him unfit to serve further time as President. Stevenson was also a divorced man at the time and in the "50" that was taboo. It still seems to have some sigma attached to it even today.
So don't compare Senator Kerry to Stevenson, it is too shallow an attempt to dismiss John Kerry.

[Dr Fate]

60. I'm praying that he becomes more blunt and agressive.

If he can kick it just a tiny notch, he is in.

[Renew Deal]

61. I'd say Hillary

Just based on polling and hype. I don't think she'll be the one in the end. I don't think it will be Kerry either.

[SteppingRazor]

64. If you put even a tiny amount of stock in polls (and you should)...

Hillary is far and away the front runner. No one's even close in every poll I've seen.

That said, 2008 is a long, long ways away

[saltpoint]

65. Just for the hell of it, this morning I think I'll go with CBS' Ed Bradley

as the frontrunner.

He's got to be one of the most informed people in the country and he speaks eloquently.

And it's about time we elected a president with an earring, dammit.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Too fuckin' early

that's what I say

[AtomicKitten]

72. effin right on

[AtomicKitten]

67. there's a whole lotta speculation --- but no definitive field

much less a frontrunner. Just idle chatter and people testing the water. The field is WIDE OPEN.

[blm]

82. Nah - the ONLY one who CAN win is the one working to expose machine fraud

and that person will DESERVE to win.

[Eurobabe]

75. Not.

eom

[high density]

81. Well you gotta call Dean the front runner for '04....

[LWolf]

83. I say don't bet on

a horse race before the field is confirmed.

[Clarkie1]

84. LOL. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it! n/t

[mtnsnake]

85. A doorman in Montreal told me Kerry won't make the top 3 in the primaries

in '08, and this guy has never been wrong yet.

[Awsi Dooger]

92. Sounds accurate

Actually excellent. I'd say Kerry projects 4th or 5th, assuming we have the field we expect right now. You've got to figure Hillary, Edwards and Warner ahead of him, perhaps Clark.

If Kerry had foregone 2004 and trying to oust an incumbent, he might be the frontrunner now for 2008, or right there along with Hillary.

[LittleClarkie]

93. If the rest of the Dem Party hadn't decided to forgo 2004

Kerry might be president right now.

[karynnj]

103. Montreal? Did he say this in French?

At this point, it's so far out that may be at least a 50/50 bet for any candidate. Four years ago, Liberman was far ahead - and I think he never beat 5th place. (even though he declared himself in a 3 way tie for 3rd in NH - though he was significantly behind Clark and Edwards.)

[Vektor]

90. Nobody can predict that now...many think they can, but it's too early.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

:-)

[windbreeze]

91. uh uh..no I don't...n/t

[wisteria]

99. We will all have to wait and see. I like Kerry, but I wouldn't call him

the front running. Actually, I wouldn't call anyone the front runner yet. The media doesn't dictate to me. I make up my own mind.

[nickshepDEM]

100. I say LOLOLOL