John Kerry, you're a great Dem and a hero, but PLEASE don't run again!

[Ken Burch]

It will diminish you if you have to struggle for the nomination.
If you improve your stances from last time, the GOP will claim you've "flip-flopped" again.
If you don't progressives won't be able to accept you, and they will have more influence this time.
The Swift Boat slime will crawl back out from under the rocks.

You would have been a great president, but the time for that has passed in your career.
Stay in the Senate and speak truth to power there. That is where you'll be most useful.

You'll be stripped of your dignity if you seek the nomination again.

For your own sake and for Teresa's sake, don't subject yourself to that.

I say this as one who admired your courage in the antiwar days and dream of the time you'll show it again.
The place to show it is in the Senate.

[derby378]

1. I concur

The time has come for a new kind of courage in our Democratic candidates, one that Kerry didn't display enough of in his 2004 campaign.

[Paladin]

21. Helpful Definition

"New Kind Of Courage In Our Democratic Candidates": Willingness of Democratic candidates to adopt a right-wing, assault rifle-friendly, identical-to-Republican, put-a-smile-on-Ted Nugent's-face gun policy......

[blm]

30. Kerry had plenty of courage to run when BushInc was at PEAK POWER. How quiet were

the Clinton crowd from 2001-2005? Too busy VOCALLY and PUBLICALLY supporting BushInc, Poppy and son, on every major policy decision while Kerry was opposing them at nearly every turn.

Where were the saviors then? Keeping their powder dry because they were TOO SCARED to oppose Bush at his most powerful, and think it's safe to try now?

[derby378]

58. I'll give you that...

He stood up when many Democrats wouldn't. But I still have problems with the way he conducted his campaign when push came to shove.

[blm]

66. Ya think the campaign would've looked different with big name Dems on the tube every night

supporting Kerry and attacking Bush, the way Bush had bigname GOPs on for him?

That campaign you all like to attack was essentially Kerry, Cleland and Clark working triple overtime when they shouldn't have had to - the bigname Dems only popped up on the very rare occasion.

[JNelson6563]

2. Many good points

I don't think he should run again.

Julie

[BeFree]

3. But he's the strongest candidate

He won the last election; receiving more votes than any other before and he's already been trashed by the media so any more would be ignored.

He would have made the best president we ever had.... if only we, the people, had not had his presidency stolen from us. He can win again.

[Ken Burch]

4. It doesn't work for Democrats to nominate the same candidate twice.

If you don't believe me, ask President Stevenson.

I just don't want to see the man diminished. And I don't want to see the party torn by his being diminished.

It's time for someone else.

[BeFree]

8. Stevenson lost...Kerry won

So there really is no comparison.

Kerry would not be diminished by running again, saying so is superficial.

[INdemo]

12. I agree

If Jesus Christ would have ran on the Democratic ticket in 2004,the republicans would have found a way to steal the election..Keep in mind the Swift boaters didn't spend a hell of a lot of money on their ads because they had so damn much free air time from the corporate media..The Repukes realized their success in stealing the 2000 election so they knew that stealing the 2004 election would be backed by the media..The ground work for stealing the 2004 election was laid immediately after the 2000 election.(electronic voting,Diebold)
John Kerry is the best campaigner and he has the advantage (if he decides to run) in fund raising...The Repukes will not steal another election from him and they fear him.They want Hillary because they have a library of Hillary history ready to go...

[BeFree]

13. Exactly, INdemo

You'd think that by now most everybody on DU, at the least, could see the history of bushco and the m$m.

Not only that, but the fact that all those fence sitting dems would readily accept Kerry again, and this time in 2008 Kerry would landslide. 'Course the stolen votes would keep it from looking that way, like what just happened in November.

[INdemo]

15. I'm ready to go to work for him as soon as I get his email..

[MH1]

36. Me, too. nt

[cali]

67. True or not

the perception on the part of the vast majority of Americans, is that Kerry lost. Same as Stevenson. That is the undeniable reality.

[blm]

32. What I don't believe is that anyone thinks we have the same media influence in our

elections and still uses past elections and history to try and INFORM their opinions on elections TODAY.

By all the 'historic' measures, Gore would have won by a landslide. By all the'historic' measures, the opposition who CLOBBERED in all 3 presidential debates would have won in a landslide.

Except today we have a GOPcontrolled media who assured a president was impeached for having a girlfriend, and that one of DC's more honest lawmakers was turned into a liar, and DC's most courageous lawmakers was portrayed as much less through the magic of news networks' editting rooms.

[KoKo]

55. The "Media" already forced an apology for a "joke" that we here all "got."

His apology caused the Punditocracy to say he's out of the race. We know the Media Whores for what they are....but it seems to this day...even after being Swiftboated and having all the irregularities in Ohio..Kerry just doesn't seem to get what's happend out there to us. He doesn't see the Media Whores for what they are. He's a gentleman and too good to run for President because he still believes in the "American Way" and doesn't see the corruption.

He's a good/honest/sincere man...but often appears "clueless." :shrug: In the end, if he runs thinking America is what he believes he will lose again. I and others who worked for him last time, wouldn't want to go through that, again....:-(

[StoryTeller]

57. That's a very cynical view.

I'm not trying to bash that view--I'm sure you have a lot of reasons for the way you feel, and I'm sorry for that being the case.

I guess I'm still "idealistic" enough to think that what we need in a president IS a real gentleman, or a real lady.

And I think you sell Senator Kerry WAY short by assuming he doesn't see the corruption or that he appears clueless. From everything I've read about him, much of his life has been dedicated to exposing and confronting corruptness. He LOVES truth. He's...as my Boston friends would put it..."wicked smaht." :) I think implying that he is "clueless" could perhaps come across as arrogance because the truth is that Kerry knows a LOT more than any of us about government, politics, culture, and a great many other things. His knowledge and experience deserves respect, regardless of whether we support him politically or not.

Kerry definitely "gets it." The difference between him and a lot of other potential candidates is that in "getting it" he refuses to sell out his convictions and integrity. Would you really want a lesser person as president of the United States? We've been there, done that. I want someone who is truly worthy of the office. I think that's John Kerry.

[KoKo]

60. It's the Media that Kerry doesn't see....the corruption there. He keeps

falling into a trap with them. He should NOT have apologized for the Bush statement. It allowed the Media to say that Dems had cancelled Kerry's appearances for Dem Candidates. He should have known better after seeing what the media did to Gore, Dean and himself.

I think he does see the corruption in our Government...but doesn't get that the Media is paid to Propagandize for Repugs and RW Think Tanks. He still thinks the media is "fair and balanced," or he wouldn't have apologized.

[StoryTeller]

64. I disagree

I can't imagine someone with Kerry's experience and savvy actually buying into the fair and balanced myth. I think he knows exactly what they're up to.

And I disagree about whether or not he should have apologized for the Bush statement. The thing is, whether or not it should have happened, there WERE military people who DID buy the media spin and were upset at him. And by apologizing to THEM for the unintended misunderstanding, he showed that he really is the more classy guy. He didn't have to apologize--he knew that, and we knew that. He apologized because he cares about not hurting the troops, and that was more important to him than his own pride. He showed a heck of a lot of humility and grace, and that's a lot more courageous than insisting on a full-out fight.

I think it's a big mistake to jump to conclusions about what Kerry does or does not understand, based on what we THINK he should have done. That goes for any leader, really. Each one makes their decisions based on a lot of factors that we don't know about. I'm not saying that we can't critique those decisions, but we come across as rather arrogant when we say stuff like "I don't think he/she understands such-and-such because I think they were wrong to do what they did." That's making the assumption that we know what they should have done and if it had been us, we wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake. To me, it's better to phrase our questions or objections in a more humble way. It's more intellectually honest, as well, because it acknowledges that we really don't have the full story and aren't in a position to judge motives, intent, or their understanding of what happened.

[blm]

77. They said he was out BECAUSE of the joke not the apolgy which he DIDn'T make

to their satisfaction. He said he was sorry that his joke ws misinterpreted and that the misinterpretation offended some. That was all.

The point is that the media did this to Kerry because they WANT his voice muted because HE will be handling the media consolidation issue come January and net neutrality. BushInc needed a target before the election and they needed Kerry to be attacked in hopes he WOULDN'T become the head of Committee overseeing their media fortunes.

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[zulchzulu]

48. Excuse me, but what page is that on in the manual?

Reagan ran twice. Nixon ran twice. Others did too, but that's the most recent.

Back whoever you want. I'll back who I feel is the most qualified...

[Ken Burch]

50. none of those guys were Democrats. Reagan wasn't renominated after losing.

I wasn't saying don't back the candidate of YOUR choice. I was hoping Senator Kerry would allow the 2008 contest(as I also hope Senator Clinton and Mr. Gore allows it)to be a contest between new faces and of new ideas.

I think A Kerry in 2008 campaign might have the same negative effects that the Humphrey in '72 campaign did. To reacquaint yourself with those effects, reread THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1972, by Theodore White. Or ask any McGovern staffer.

[zulchzulu]

65. I think you protest a wee bit too much

You mentioned that no candidate ever runs again if they already ran. The fact that Nixon and Reagan were Republicans is merely window dressing. They ran again...and won. Can Kerry win again, I mean, win a second time around. Certainly, in my view and many others. Is he the most qualified, well-rounded one in the pack of possible candidates? I certainly think so.

Your line about McGovern/Humphrey/1972 is irrelevant. Why don't we talk about the 1924 brokered convention while we're at it...

As for thinking that Kerry is not one who has "new ideas", you prove you know nothing about his policies.

[bigdarryl]

5. I rather see him run AGAIN than Hillary running

[mtnsnake]

10. Please, anyone BUT Kerry

I never want to go through such a frustrating campaign like his again.

Obama is the right medicine for me.

[blm]

29. Certainly don't want HONEST MEN and great debaters like Kerry winning again

now that the electronic voting machines and an alert DNC are in action.

[treestar]

6. Anybody who runs is going to subject themselves to the crap

I tend to be of the school that he who has already been subjected to it all knows more about how to handle it this time and also the republics have been through it all and will have to start digging to find more.

Having a candidate like this gives us time to dig up the crap on the republic candidate - why the dems always let the republics put them on the defensive I'll never understand.

The big advantage to Kerry, Gore, and Hillary - the republics have already used up all the crap they could find.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I hope he does run.

Would love to vote for him again.....he's got my vote in the primary if he does. Can't think of anyone in the Democratic Party I'd rather see as President.

[mtnsnake]

9. "You would have been a great president"

Maybe, maybe not. Going by his Senatorial record alone, I would've thought he might make a good president, but after watching his poor decision making...as well as his LACK of decision making...during his campaign, I'd have to wonder.

Also, the fact that the people he picked to work with him on his campaign all bombed, coupled with the fact that he stuck with them AFTER they bombed, makes one wonder how his choices of cabinet people would've been, had he been elected. Bottom line, I sure wasn't impressed with his ability to make important decisions. Having said that, he still would've been a heck of a lot better than the moron he lost to. Whether or not Kerry would've been a great president, though, is far from being a certainty, IMO.

[BeFree]

11. Kerry's campaign problems

came from allowing old time democrats to run his effort. Then, when the chips were down, and the votes weren't being counted, the old time dems deserted him. If he had a failure it was relying on the old timers and not the undergrounders like us. I think he's coming our way. Don't you think?

[karynnj]

14. Not true

Kerry ran an excellent PRIMARY campaign, winning very convincingly without being a media or party favorite. His win was the most conclusive of any nomination win for a non-incumbent President or VP in my life. That was run by Cahill and Kerry's Boston supporters.

The general election campaign was more contentious after he added Clinton people. Not adding the only Democrats who have won a Presidential race in the last 2 decades would have been seen as pretty shortsided. They were a large part of the discord - as they seemed to advise re-running 1992. It was their advice to speak more on the economy - rather than on Iraq and terrorism as Cam Kerry and David Thorne advised. Kerry's numbers went up when he did the latter not the former.

When they were not given the key roles and when their advise was not taken, they whined to the press and critizised the candidate for not being Clinton. It seemed to me that although they jumped on the bandwagon, they did it dragging their feet on the ground as young kids sometimes do - making it harder for the wagon to move ahead.

I assume that especially after these people showed no loyalty at all, that Senator Kerry will have learned who was not really in his corner. I see no one with a better, more developed, better articulated platform for 2008 than Senator Kerry. Last spring, when Lutze(sp?) did focus groups on the sound bites of Democrats, Kerry had the top rated one - contrary to the MSM meme that he is bad on this. Kerry's Faneuil Hall speeches are amazing.

As long as Kerry in the race - hopefully until he wins the Presidency, I am certain I will support him. He has led on every important issue since losing in November 2004. It was also Kerry who forced the Democrats to speak about Iraq in 2006. It would be immoral not to try to push Bush to follow a more reasonable path - and it was wrong for other Democrats to give more weight to the political calendar than the fact that the policy was wrong and soldiers were dying. (and as it turned out politically, Iraq was one of the main voting issues and it benefit the Democrats that they had a clearly diffrenciated position.)

[bluehighways911]

16. Don't Listen To Him, John

If you think you are the best man for the job, then run.

I know a lot of people are afraid of primaries.

Why exactly do we have to have our candidate two years before the election.

Kerry will do a lot of great things, if you let him.

But why will Dems just focus on the negatives.

IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW WHO JOHN KERRY IS.

SO RUN JOHN.

[babylonsister]

20. Welcome to DU, bluehighways911, and I share your sentiments.

:hi:

[newyawker99]

26. Hi bluehighways911!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[karynnj]

42. Welcome to DU

check out the John Kerry group under Democrats - where we all agree with you.

[MH1]

43. What karynnj said - here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=273

Welcome to DU, and I hope we'll see you at the John Kerry forum!

:hi:

[beachmom]

17. Sen. Kerry will do what he decides is best. Nobody understands Iraq

and the greater Middle East out of all the candidates than him. He stands alone as having the resume and the vision to be a great president. That's all.

[smoogatz]

18. Nobody understands Iraq better than Kerry?

Kerry voted for the authorization, for God's sake. His track record on Iraq is fatally compromised. Both Clark and Gore appear to be fully up-to-speed on the Iraq debacle, and both would have more credibility with the voting public on the issue, IMO.

[beachmom]

49. Gore voted for the first Persian Gulf War, and he and Clark did not

have to log a vote for the IWR. And, I don't see the problem with having U.N. weapons inspectors going back into Iraq since they were kicked out in '98, and using a big stick to get them to oblige their entrance. That in a nutshell was what Kerry's vote was about. Bush broke the IWR, lied about the intelligence, failed to get enough allies on board, and had absolutely no plan for the peace. Given all of this, Kerry has said his vote was a mistake. Also, keep in mind that the vote was a Karl Rove election eve political vote for which you were damned either way you voted. I don't see the point of continuing to give the WH any more credence to a vote that would not have affected Bush's action in Iraq anyways.

Kerry has been the most eloquent, honest, and realistic in describing what's been happening in Iraq and what to do about it. His plan is by far the best plan I have seen on what to do:

1. Regional conference including the Arab League, Iran, Syria, the EU, NATO, the U.N., the U.S. that involves massive shuttle diplomacy.

2. Timetable for withdrawal of American troops. Kerry/Feingold amendment set a date for 7/1/07. The James Baker plan said first quarter '08. The point is to set a date.

3. Troops remaining would do training, American assets protection, and counterterrorism against al Qaeda and any training camps that sprout up. A lot of those activities can be done from Kuwait or another base, however.

I don't care for what Gore or Clark have said in comparison to Kerry on what to do in Iraq now. Kerry is very clear that we need to leave Iraq, and he's clear that you have to set a date. Neither Gore or Clark will set a date. (Obama won't either)

There are many reasons to think Kerry is the best candidate especially the fact that he was fighting terrorism from the '80s on. His integrity is a plus, too. But, for me, I know if he were president he would get us out of Iraq while doing everything possible to stabalize the region. You need only look at his history with Vietnam -- he never forgot about the Vietnamese even years after Americans left. His leadership role in dealing with POW/MIAs and getting U.S. - Vietnamese relations normalized has led to prosperity in that country, even if the country is not a democracy. Kerry will do the same for Iraq.

[smoogatz]

19. Kerry should run if he wants to run.

My guess is that he'll pass, this time around--especially if Gore jumps in. With or without Gore, Kerry is among the least-liked of the potential Dem candidates at the moment--he stands to finish at or near the back of the pack.

[Trajan]

22. WIth ALL due respect ... It's a free country ....

(well mostly ... kinda ...)

If Senator Kerry wishes to toss his hat into the fray, why would you wish to stop him ? .... What if it turned out MORE people actually want him in ? ..... You would deny them, us, that opportunity ? ...

I dont get this : why attempt to restrict him ? ... If any of what you said is true, won't nature takes it course and push him out through losses in the primaries ? ....

Let him run, if he wants ....

Please ? ...

[Ken Burch]

53. I suppose as much as anything because it would diminish the man

To be pushed out in the primaries. How much respect and influence would he have if it ended like that?

He's better off in the Senate. That's where he works the best.

And yes, it IS a free country, which means I have the right to start this thread.

[rockymountaindem]

23. I hope he does run again

I'd like the chance to vote for him since I was too young in 2004. He's one of my favorite Dems.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. "If you improve your stances from last time, the GOP will claim you've

"flip-flopped" again."

Ooooo....errr.... You must be terrified of that John! Imagine having Can'ts say that about you!!!! Their words carry so much weight these days with the people. Come to think of it, they turned out in fair numbers at your pre-election rallies, wherever you went.

[karynnj]

44. Check out his Faneuil Hall speechs

on JohnKerry.com under multimedia. His current positions are very consistent with his 2004 positions - although they have been taken further. His healthcare plan was labelled as the best by several groups and his environment/alternative fuels has been copied by many even Bush.

On Iraq, his plans have had the exact same elements since 2004 - all include strong regional diplomacy, rapidly training Iraqis, making it clear to Iraqis that we have no long term interest in staying - all concepts now endorsed by the ISG. Kerry's call for a deadline was because Iraq is in civil war and a deadline is needed to jolt them into acting. The change was not a flip flop but an adaptation to changing time. (Even if they were to use it he just needs a few real good examples from ordinary life that show it makes sense - ie stopping at a red light is a good idea, refusing to then move when it turns green would not be.)

[Diane R]

25. Speak for yourself. I hope he runs. n/t

[paulk]

27. Kerry would make a good President

I don't agree that the time for him has passed.

He may not get the nomination, and certainly the constant whining sounds coming from the likes of you doesn't help him or any other legitimate Democratic candidate, but he's got the right and the portfolio to try.

[blm]

28. Bull. Kerry was stripped of NOTHING. Serious men don't give in to FRAUDS, so why

would you even EXPECT it from him?

And further - his actions have been FAR MORE HEROIC In the senate than anything he did in Vietnam or in protesting.

You think they work overtime attacking him if he was only a danger to their fascist agenda back THEN?

Get a REAL HISTORY BOOK.

And I find it especially odd coming from you. You think REAL HEROIC LAWMAKERS should sit down and shut up and let FRAUDS who wouldn't lift a FINGER against corruption get all the VOICE for the next two years?

SCREW THAT! This country needs the anti-corruption, open government voices too get LOUDER.

SCREW THE APPEASING VOICES and anyone who tries to discourage HONEST LAWMAKERS from speaking out.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I will support him regardless

Just waiting for his decision.

[Ken Burch]

34. Thought you were a Clark guy.

n/t.

[MH1]

38. Some people convert. n/t

[Ken Burch]

41. Apparently so.

n/t.

[LittleClarkie]

68. Gal, and I started my political awareness training as a very nominal

Clarkie. He said something my little sheeple brain liked, and so I attached myself to him like you would a football team. When he crapped out, and Kerry got the nom, I wasn't enthused, but Bush sort of threw me into his arms, so to speak. The more repulsed I became over things like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the more I checked out "Mr. Styrofoam Personality" so that I could campaign for him properly (I didn't believe in ABB) In that process I became quite the Kerrycrat. On another board, I referred to myself as "Just a little Clarkie for Kerry" and for some reason they liked the "little Clarkie" part so that became my nickname.

Hence, I am a Kerrycrat named Little Clarkie.

(more than you wanted to know, I bet.)

[FrenchieCat]

71. I'm starting to think that you should consider changing your name,

cause it seems everytime you are asked, your little story more than less disparages Wes Clark by associating him to your "sheeple Brain" football analogy. Why not call yourself littleKerry and then you won't have to dis Clark everytime you're asked?

How would you like a "little Kerry" on the boards saying "I only Supported Kerry in a sheeple stupor". :eyes:

Your response when asked, in other words, is starting to grate on my nerves....no matter how honest you may be and I don't doubt that this is how you came to be....but then, I might consider my sig saying, "Jumped on the John Kerry bandwagon and then woke up"!

In other words, your cute story has ceased to be sooo cute. Not only that, but you joined here in September of 2004, long after Clark had been out of the race...which makes your name even more "on my nerves" at this point.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Not my intention.

It should be a compliment that Clark was the first person who got through to my little sheeple brain. But I really didn't know anything about him except for one quote, and was mostly too lasy to do much research at that point. And I certainly would support him if he won the nom. After 2 years, I know enough about him now to say that.

You don't see any Kerry people annoyed at me for thinking Kerry had the personality of a Styrofoam cup at that same point, do you? I was sure wrong about him.

The story is more about how not informed I was. I didn't choose Clark for any good reason, even if several existed. He caught my attention by saying what was in my head.

But that is how I came to be. And if I'm asked I'll tell it again, in much the same way. I'm pretty sure I don't really care how "cute" you do or don't think my little story is.

Clark got the ball rolling. I've been involved ever since. Rejoice. Or be annoyed. Choice is yours.

But if I ever thought of changing my name, you've changed that. They'll have to pry it out of my stubborn German hands now.

[MOB]

33. I dont disagree

I know what I like, I know what I don't like, and I don't don't like this. In fact, I don't disagree. In fact, you could even say that I do agree.

[AtomicKitten]

35. Please don't tell anyone not to run.

He is perfectly entitled to run if he wishes. I just hope he doesn't give up his seat to do so.

[MH1]

37. I strongly disagree; if John Kerry runs, it will be a great benefit.

First of all, I think he is the best candidate, and will make by far the best president of any of the choices that I am aware of.

Secondly, even if he doesn't win the nomination, he will be a welcome voice of sane liberalism in the debate.

If he wins the nomination, he will win the Presidency. People have digested the lies and distortions they were fed last time, and see them for what they are - excepting of course the most blinded kool aid drinkers.

Either way, it is his right to choose.

Fwiw, I think Hillary made it more likely that he will run when she jumped in the swiftboat with Rove at the end of October, because now if he doesn't run, people will claim that is the reason; when in fact it never was a given that he would run. In any case, Hillary certainly made it obvious to people like me that ANY Democrat will be preferable to her; she is not an acceptable alternative, but if she gets the nomination will really only be the lesser of two evils (and not by much, I am afraid).

So, please John - if it seems right, go for it! Give us another alternative to Hillary!

[DesertRat]

39. I sadly agree. n/t

[seabeyond]

40. burch didnt think i would here a anti kerry running post so respectful

thank you. you really do not know how much i admire your stance and respect your approach. does my heart good.

and i want him to run

but still, thumbs up to your post

[wisteria]

45. What about the fact that Senator Kerry has been right about so many issues.

What about the fact that he has, more than any other Senator and any other person running or considering a run for President, had our backs?
What about the fact that most people NOW discredit the Swift Boat lier's. They no long believe this dribble- only the kool aid drinkers.
What about all the knowledge, experience and leadership he has demonstrated in his years of service.
What about the the times he has defended his positions and ours and suffered the consequence for what many inside Washington consider unpopular positions because these positions he takes on would really make a difference?
What about the fact that as our president he could redefine the bad opinion many through out Europe and the world have begun to think of as America's arrogant?
What about the fact that he would be a real and much needed change in the White House? He has a vision and a clear direction for America. His goals are to take us forward, to change the course of America to make America great again for us all.
What about putting America into the hands of someone who can handle the job and is willing to work 24/7 to get the job done right?

Obviously, I disagree with your suggestion for Senator Kerry. I think he has what it takes to win in 08 along with the fact that he is now a seasoned presidential runner. One of his greatest strengths is reaching out and listening and caring about all Americans. He has this ability to make one feel safe and secure and as an independent leader and moral figure, he is a man who people can look up to.
I won't presume to tell Senator Kerry what he should do, I would support him no matter what he decided, but I don't think he needs to worry about any of those small issues you bring up as a reason not to run.
I say, Kerry 08, if he decides to go for it again.

[Ken Burch]

52. If that's how you feel, support the guy.

I will carry on the struggle for a progressive, electable Democratic ticket that fights for the excluded majority.

[IndianaGreen]

46. If Kerry wants to run, he should run!

The Republicans are going to do their best to smear and destroy whoever they see as their biggest threat to losing the White House. Perhaps this is why they made such a big deal about the "botched" joke. Perhaps this is also why Hillary's henchmen, Carville and Begala, did their share of back stabbing of Kerry.

If you want to run, Kerry, run!

[zulchzulu]

47. I completely, absolutely, utterly and most definitely...

DISAGREE!!!

Support whoever you want. We'll see you in the streets.

First and most of all, the Swift Boat Slime have been discredited, debunked and are shunned.

Two, Kerry can handle the press. Tell me ANY candidate who is not going to get hammered by the press.

And three, if you believe Rove and Fox News talking points that ARE LIES, go for it. They will devise the same treatment on your perferred candidate.

[Ken Burch]

51. OK, you've used large font to rebut me. Very impressive.

I don't BELIEVE the Rove/Fox talking points. I do believe they can be devastatingly effective against Senator Kerry(and Senator Clinton)and that those candidates in particular should spare the party and themselves the results of their entering the race.

Of course you can back your choice of candidate. I'd never say otherwise.

[zulchzulu]

61. So what candidates are not "swiftboatable"?

As for your thread title, maybe you should just change it to "John Kerry, you can run. I just think that I'll support someone else."

Saying that Kerry should not run smacks of something I don't care to think Democrats should say to each other. I think any candidate who wants to run...should. It's up to the voters to scrutinize the pap from the real.

[TayTay]

54. I profoundly disagree

I think that Kerry should try again. If he loses his Senate seat, well, there is life outside of the Senate. (And Massachusetts has deep, deep bench strength.)

If Kerry believes that he should run again, then I hope he does. I am a big, big fan of letting everyone run and letting the voters sort it all out.

There is no loss of dignity in trying for the Presidency again. This is still a democracy and people are free to do what they think it best. If Sen. Kerry wants this, then run. Life will go on for him, not matter what happens as a consequence of this.

[StoryTeller]

56. I totally disagree.

What do we need in our next president?

* Moral integrity
* Incorruptibility
* HONESTY!!!
* Global respect
* Diplomatic experience
* Willingness to tell the truth even if it's unpopular
* Tremendous experience in government (the more the better at this point)
* Concern for the poor and marginalized
* Great ideas
* High intelligence
* Dignity
* Compassion
* Humility
* Knowledge tempered with hunger to learn
* Insight and discernment
* Broad and deep political political and cultural understanding (not just domestic, but also foreign)

Who fits that description the best? I believe it is John Kerry. In fact, John Kerry is the only potential candidate I can think of who has all those qualities.

I don't think it's for any of us to ask anyone not to run. I can understand not *wanting* someone to run. But to post something that comes across as rather personal and a bit snide, telling someone they shouldn't run seems rather unproductive to the democratic process. The great thing about America is that any qualified person has the right to run. And we each have the right to support or not support a candidate. I think that anyone (and I mean even ones I won't support) who chooses to undergo the rigors of a presidential candidacy is to be admired for having the nerve to do so, even if there's nothing else I find admirable about them.

In Senator Kerry's case, it's especially heroic because if he runs, it will be because he feels it's the right thing to do. He's not in it for personal ambition, like some candidates will be. He's not in it for power, like other candidates will be. He has already proven in word and deed that he is in government because he has the nerve to believe that politicians don't have to be corrupt. That they CAN serve the good of the people, that they CAN make a positive difference in the country. Every interview, every speech I've seen from him points to a person who cares deeply for this country, and for the world, really. A person who is profoundly concerned and grieved about what has transpired the past several years and who longs to see things put to right. A person driven by a love of truth and a love of people, of seeing justice done for those who are usually ignored and unloved by society.

How could you NOT want someone like that for president is beyond me. But that's your right. I hope he runs. I hope to God he runs...and wins, because we really need him.

[welshTerrier2]

59. i think the OP logic is flawed

let me start by saying that i have ZERO enthusiasm for Kerry because I do not agree with his position on Iraq ... i won't belabor those arguments here ...

the problem i have with the OP, however, is that it counsels a strategy based on fear and reaction rather than confidence and proaction ...

yes, there will be lions and tigers and bears and Swiftboaters ... there will be hostile media ... there will be lying and cheating rebublicans ... and there will be divisiveness within our own party ...

that's the case for Kerry not running? all that stuff will be true no matter whom the Democrats choose ...

i'm fairly skeptical that Kerry could succeed the next time around in the Democratic primaries ... i think many will see nominating him again as taking a big risk ... but i don't see that as providing even a single reason that he shouldn't participate in the process and voice his ideas to the public as a candidate ...

my take on candidates is: the more the merrier ... we all deserve to hear from as many points of view as possible ...

[geek tragedy]

62. Great Senator, would have made a fine president, and an

absolutely lousy presidential candidate for the general election.

How could someone say in the summer of 2004 that they felt that giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the right call?

I'm glad he realized his mistake AFTER the election, but I'd prefer someone who wouldn't wait 3+ years to recognize a disaster.

[wisteria]

63. I think Senator Kerry deserves the chace to run again and prove himself.

He has the passion to want to run again for all the right reasons. He wants to make America great and respected again in the world. And he wants to make all American's proud of their government,a without corruption and wasteful spending and one that represents all the people-not just some.

[WildEyedLiberal]

69. I disagree

1) NO Democrat should make a decision on anything based on what the GOP will claim. They will have nothing but hateful lies for any Democrat who will run. They will attack Obama's race and his name and Hillary's gender and marriage. They are lower than filth, and their character assassinations are sadly to be expected against any Dem. This will not be unique to Kerry.

2) Perhaps 25% of Americans believe the Swift Boat slime. They are the 25% who comprise the Republican party's base and Free Republic's membership. They will not vote for Kerry, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Jesus (D-Heaven). Any member of the Democratic party is a traitor in their eyes. Democrats will win the votes of the crazy mountain militia men before we win the votes of people inclined to believe the Swift Lies.

3) Anyone who has ideas to contribute to the race should run. As it stands, of the frontrunners, only John Kerry has spoken consistently and forcefully about the need to withdraw from Iraq. Would you take that voice out of the race? John Kerry is a damned intelligent man and the only candidate I know of who has presented comprehensive plans for health care, alternative energy, and foreign policy. He is a candidate of substance. I for one want my president to be a statesman with a statesman's ideas, not the political version of an American Idol contestant.

4) If John Kerry could be pressured not to run based on such superficial "detriments," it is our country, not he, that has lost all its dignity. John Kerry convinced me in 2004 that he would bring honor and respectability back to the country and that he would be a terrific president. Inside-the-beltway gossip does not change that fact. We are electing a president, not a celebrity.

5) John Kerry has been speaking out with courage and truth - check out his latest series of speeches about Iraq, for starters. I think most of them are on his website, www.johnkerry.com. None of the other current Senator 2008 wannabes had the courage to vote for Kerry's Iraq withdrawal plan in June.

[benny05]

72. I agree with you, WEL

This is a free country--completely! If Senator Kerry wants to run again, why not? Sounds like to me he would like to offer something more to the discussions on our issues, just as General Clark may and Rep Kucinich, Gov Vilsack, Senator Dodd, and Sen Biden do. They are worth debating.

Kerry has voted "nay" on the issues that needed to voted "no" on, and hopefully with the 110th Congress, he'll be able to vote "yea" on issues that legislation related to appropriations for many things that we need. Whether he runs or not, he will continue to do right by us Dems.

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Thanks

I bet you were thrilled when JE officially threw his hat in the ring. He has an important message to spread so I will be glad to hear his voice among our potential candidates.

[benny05]

79. JRE is about to throw his hat back into the ring

But JK should too if he feels strongly in his heart to run again.

[jgraz]

70. Ugh -- I just wish he'd hurry up and drop out so we can end all this nonsense

Of course, then all the Kerry 2012 threads will start...

[against all enemies]

75. Agreed. It's some one else's time.

[wisteria]

76. The presidency is not a sports event , the best person should win.

Rotation shouldn't matter. And, I can think of no one with more qualifications and leadership abilities than Senator Kerry.

[Clarkie1]

78. "You'll be stripped of your dignity if you seek the nomination again."

I concur. He will be diminished if he runs again because there is no way he could beat several of the other candidates. And that will look very, very bad for a previous nominee...very undignified.