SCOT LEHIGH - Kerry for president -- or Senate?

[Mass]

The question is already posed. It is clear that, if Kerry runs, he will have to answer to this question long before the deadline.

Altogether, this article is fairly positive, which is good news. The BG is respecting the idea that Kerry could run again, even if they see the difficulties.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/10/17/kerry_for_president____or_senate/

SCOT LEHIGH
Kerry for president -- or Senate?

By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist | October 17, 2006

MANCHESTER, N.H.
JOHN KERRY is out to show Granite State Democrats that you actually can teach an old dog new tricks.

And judging from the response he got to a Friday night speech here, the voters who helped launch him into orbit in 2004 are at least willing to give him another look as the 2008 campaign cycle approaches.

Still, as he plots a second presidential bid, Kerry finds himself in uneasy limbo. After a 2004 effort whose strengths were marred by equally glaring shortcomings, he is neither a particularly compelling aspirant for the Democratic nomination nor a completely implausible one.

Further complicating things is Massachusetts political reality: If Kerry does begin even an undeclared presidential campaign, as the months roll by he will come under increasing pressure to announce that he won't seek re election to his Senate seat, which is also up in 2008.

Should he commence another national campaign, something considered all but a foregone conclusion, Kerry will be running against party history. Adlai Stevenson, who lost two races to Dwight Eisenhower (in 1952 and 1956), was the last Democratic nominee to secure his party's nod a second time.
...

Should Al Gore also jump in, that question would be definitively answered. And yet, absent a Gore candidacy, Kerry would start as well-positioned as any of the other hopefuls to emerge as Clinton's primary challenger.

...

His speech brought the crowd to its feet at least a dozen times, and left the Democrats I talked to impressed.

Still, in pre-speech conversations with dinner attendees, doubts about Kerry lurked just beneath professions of respect.
...

[beachmom]

1. I agree -- he needs to either give up on his presidential aspirations

or give up his Senate seat by fall 2007. That is fair, and it's the right thing to do. I think by then, he'll know if he has a chance.

[TayTay]

2. I agree. But this decision needs to be reached by 09/07

so there is some breathing room. This was a much more positive article than past mentions of another go-round for the good Senator have merited in the BGlob. Things are better, but this is a tough slog up the hill.

[ProSense]

3. Sorry,

you Mass. folks have to give him up! :) JK must run for president!

[Mass]

4. As hard as it will be, I agree - There are a number of good and able

people ready to run for this seat. I still cannot find somebody that will do better than Kerry as president, and, assuming Gore does not run, I do not see anybody who will be close.

[karynnj]

5. Same here

I wonder though if announcing that he is giving up the Senate seat couldn't be seen as visible proof of his commitment and faith in his candidacy. (Not that every step he's taken since 2004 hasn't made him stronger.)

[TayTay]

6. This article could use some love

http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=8024&webtag=bc-news

Sigh! The naysayers must have been pointed here today. Anyway, there could be some love here and some setting straight of twisted posters.

[ProSense]

10. There are some

awesome comments there as well! Many of the detractors seem to be HRC camp.

Run Kerry Run!

[whometense]

11. Commented.

This one really got to me:

There are many more qualified and effective candidates out there, and I'll be supporting one of them.

I challenged him to name them.

[globalvillage]

7. Not bad, overall, but this bugs me.

"Still, in pre-speech conversations with dinner attendees, doubts about Kerry lurked just beneath professions of respect."

Did he interview these people? And if so, all of them?

"Some wondered...", "Most said..." Hmmm...

I wish I was better at the mind reading thing. So many people seem to know how to do that, and I just can't seem to get the hang.

[whometense]

13. which is why you

(and I) will never make the Big Time Pundit circuit. Seems to be an entry requirement.

[globalvillage]

14. Well, at least I know I'm in good company.

:-)

[karynnj]

18. Given the standing ovasions

if there were pre-speech doubts, the speech may well have dispelled them. No doubts or doubts dispelled, either is a win.

[wisteria]

8. There is always Kennedy's seat, when he retires if the unlikely

should happen and JK relinquishes his current seat to run for pres. and he were to lose. I don't for see that happening though.

Another thing, why is it always mentioned that Gore is a looming threat to Kerry. He has been polling badly and personally, he still sighs much to much.
And, this Adeli Stevenson comparison, is very superficial actually. The similarities end almost where they begun- with both (if Kerry does run) taking two shots at the Presidency. Stevenson had nothing to run against Ike on the second time around. "Ike" was well liked and appeared to be doing a good job. The only question about competency referred to Eisenhower's health. He had a heart attack while serving his first term.Imagine running a campaign centered around possibility of your opponent having another heart attack. Stevenson was divorced also. A no-no back in the fifty's for candidates running for office. I alway felt the Democrats agreed to have him run again because their chances were slim in defeating Eisenhower. Stevenson had some good attributes and was respected, he was also known for his great speeches, but when you are running against another's questionable health, it isn't much to run on.
We will not be running against "Ike" and his health issues (McCain's health may be a concern, but we have more on him that that, age and policies for a starter. We will more than likely be running against the Iraq War,minimum wage issues, health care,the overseas job market, our deficit and the general total mess left to us by George Bush.

[karynnj]

16. Gore is a threat , because there are things they share.

This is also why, I think most of us would prefer Gore to say Edwards or Hillary. He is polling in the same range as Kerry, sometimes a little higher. Also, if you consider a multidimeinsional space defined by important characteristics, their space overlaps. They are unique in the gravitas they have (yes I am excluding Hilary), they both have foreign policy/military credentials, they have environmental credentials. On these 3 major factors, they are not identical - but they both are above a threshold that against most people give them these issues.

So if Gore runs, he divides those votes with Kerry. If he drops out, if Kerry has succeeded in getting people to give him those issues, he would stand to pick up many of these people. (Obviously there would be an overlap between Gore and others - and some people are illogical (ie all the I am for Warner or Feingold people) I hope Gore doesn't make things clearer until Kerry and Snowe are able to introduce their global warming legislation. (though I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary introduces one.)

[Firespirit]

17. Knowing Hillary, she'd probably try to introduce one a day before.

Just like she did with her Count Every Vote act, when Kerry and someone else (Lautenberg, I think) had made it clear that they were planning to.

Shameless. She doesn't care about these issues like Kerry does, but she sure wants the press and goodwill from them. I hate to speak ill of a Democrat, but she epitomizes the false criticism of Kerry that he would say or do anything to get elected. She actually would, I am starting to think.

[wisteria]

25. Oh, go ahead, speak ill of a particular Dem. I for one think this Dem

is deserving.

[wisteria]

23. I speak on general terms with Gore. If two candidates are nearly

equal, then it comes down to personality. I don't think Gore has much personality. But, it really doesn't matter until one or the other decides to run. At this point, I don't see why Gore would want to run. His issue is Global Warming. He has Democratic influence on the inside if he wants to push this issue with legislation, no need to run for president to get it done. Bush will be gone and the only thing left will be the clean up. I don't know, I wonder what is in it for him now.

[ProSense]

27. Gore will give Kerry a run, but

I still believe that when the issues begin to be debated, Kerry's will outshine Gore. It goes back to what I said, and what a lot of people have been saying, principled stances matter. I really believe people are tired of the watered-down policies associated with centrism!

[karynnj]

29. I agree

My point was that Kerry is better off if Gore doesn't run. The best possible situation, if Gore really doesn't want to run AND if he thinks Kerry's global warming ideas are close enough to his, he could endorse that PLAN (not Kerry, which could irritate people.) The 2 of them but Snow trying to sell it would be good for Global warming.

[whometense]

9. This one caught my eye

Last time around, Kerry gradually became the favorite of the Democratic establishment.

Really??? I must have been asleep when that happened.

The responses on the Globe political forum are, for the most part, venomous.

If anyone has a login and feels like adding a comment it would be very welcome.
http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=8024&webtag=bc-news

[Mass]

12. He probably means somewhere between February and March

when they jumped on the bandwagon.

[whometense]

15. and then

did absolutely nothing to help him win?

Not barking at you - at Lehigh. ;-)

[karynnj]

20. Their weight and baggage slowed down the bandwagon.

[karynnj]

19. They give you a login immediately if you don't

[Firespirit]

21. Here's how it appears...

First of all, I don't give much credence to polls. At this stage in the game for the 2004 cycle, Gore hadn't even announced he wouldn't run. Lieberman was the leading contender. (Hard to swallow, that.) However, there are some things that can be taken from polls.

Hillary is almost universally acknowledged to be running. Whether she does or not, most people think she will.

Approximately 35% of the party seems to want her as the nominee.

40-45% definitely wants someone else and will answer that way in the poll.

The rest don't know.

That's 65% of the party that is not sold on her, despite the media meme of "Hillary vs. McCain." And you know that some of her support comes from people who could be persuaded otherwise. The true believers are not 35% of the party.

I think in IA, NH, NV, and SC, it will come down to three or perhaps four: Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and maybe a fourth "spoiler." Gore is not going to run, and I will be seriously surprised if Obama does. I don't see Bayh lasting, nor Feingold, nor Clark. Bill Richardson might be a semi-serious candidate, but I think the bulk of his appeal is "governor of a non-blue coast state" and "Hispanic." Nothing specifically about him as a person. I don't see him being a serious contender either.

If it's Kerry vs. Hillary vs. Edwards, then Kerry and Edwards will be jockeying for the 65% of the party that's not sold on Hillary. And Kerry will clean Edwards' clock in that regard. I take great enjoyment in the idea that the Democrats need an "anti-Hillary" and even that the term exists.

[TayTay]

24. I agree.

Bayh has no 'aura' of seriousness. I can't point to a single thing he has done to say, Yeah, that's the guy, he should be President. Sorry, but same thing for Richardson. (And Biden.)

I think it will be a 3 person race, maybe 4. There are only a tiny, tiny number of people who can pass that test to be a commander-in-chief. And I also think Kerry would clean Edwards' clock. The issues are deadly serious this time around. That matters a lot.

Nice, nice analysis.

[Firespirit]

26. Biden is just laughable.

He'd be honored to run on a ticket with McCain... yeah, that'll go over well in an election with McCain as a candidate. If he ever had a chance, that remark finished him off.

Richardson is just... well, a random governor with nothing to distinguish him except his ethnicity and the fact that he's not from a blue coast state. Warner was a far stronger governor candidate.

This sort of contest is exactly why I like the spaced primaries. If we did it all on the same day, there would be the possibility of some serious errors of judgment on the part of the voters, errors that couldn't be rectified. Choosing Hillary Clinton would be one of them (at least if people voted today). Once Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire are officially open for business, I'm expecting Kerry to kick ass and take names there.

[sandnsea]

28. Tester-Schweitzer - The Wild Card

Not them running, but who they get behind. I strongly recommend the Senator get Jon Tester on his side in a hurry. That's the guy who is going to shake things up in the long run. There's a long line of great Montanans in Congress from Jeanette Rankin to Mike Mansfield, he's going to want to restore that kind of respectably to Montana too.

[ginnyinWI]

22. He should run even if he has to give up the seat.

If he runs and wins the nomination, he wins the Presidency--I think America is more than ready to change parties in the WH, and he will be an even better contender this time around. If he doesn't win the nomination--there is still the vice-presidency, or a top cabinet position. Secretary of State would be right up his alley--or Ambassador to the U.N. He'll stay in politics somehow or other, we can be sure. He'll let no moss grow under his feet!

[TayTay]

30. I'll bury this deep in this thread

This article is 'not nothing.' Sen. Kerry is generally viewed very favorably by the Massachusetts electorate. Ah, he did get 63% of the vote in the last statewide election in which he ran and was unopposed in his last Senate race. But.....

People are uneasy about another run. Some of the reasons for that are not really Sen. Kerry's to solve. People in Mass are touchy and feel a bit tender about the abuse the state is subject to in national races. (In an odd way, Mitt Romney and the way in which he bashes the State he is Governor of, confirms this anxiety. If this is what our alleged 'friends' are saying about us, well, can we really go through another national run at the same time by another Mass pol?) This is, like it or not, a proud state that has, generally, been very, very good to Sen. Kerry since the '04 loss. (Seriously. I was around for the aftermath of the Dukakis run. That poor man was villified at home and his name was used as a synonym for failure. He was trashed from one end of the State to the other and was used as the excuse for electing Republican Govs for 16 years. It was a nightmare. Thank God in Heaven, that didn't happen with Kerry. I think it's because he came so close and ran a good race so the deep respect is still there.)

But this is a very ticklish and delicate subject. Some people here wonder why the Senator doesn't get more 'love' at home. Partly because we don't express ourselves that way around here and partly because people are deeply apprehensive that we may be down a Senator for the next two years and can the State, which is hurting for jobs, federal money and so forth really afford that. (Don't yell at me. I am not trying to be spoiled here, just relating the feeling here.) It's not negative, but it is deeply apprehensive. There are mitigating factors. Ahm, the other Senator from Massachusetts is Ted Kennedy and he is not exactly a light-weight in the Senate and that helps Sen. Kerry out a lot.

I just want to place this in context. The subject of the Senator running for Pres again is a delicate one at home. It doesn't mean people dislike him or anything of that nature. But it does bring up questions about MAssachusetts that are very particular to this place. We have had 2 Govs walk away from the job in the last 10 years to puruse federal office. (Weld to be Ambassador to Mexico, which didn't work out, and Cellucci who left to become Amb. to Canada.) Romney is walking away to run for President and is trash-talking the state on the way out the door. Even the current favorite to become the new Gov, Deval Patrick, is being talked about as a 'national figure' because of who he is and the real change he represents for Massachusetts. So people wonder, when we elect these good and capable people, why do they always go away? Are they using us as a springboard for other offices? Put yourselves in the shoes of the voters of Mass for a second, this question surely comes up, in both a good and a bad way. (It is no bad thing to nurture pols who can stand nationally. But doesn't anyone love Massachusetts and want to stay with us? It cuts both ways.)

Does this make it a little clearer? This discussion of MAss stuff is very, very delicate and ticklish. There are problems specific to this State that must sound odd to others, but they are real problems.

[ProSense]

31. I can understand that! Thanks! Still,

isn't Romney under investigation?

[TayTay]

32. It was in the paper on Sat

but I haven't heard much about it since. It will probably come up at the Gov. debate on Thursday when Kerry Healey, current Lt. Gov serving with Romney is forced to defend this. (Those allegations are very, very serious. If true, someone died from this negligence. That would take Romney out of Presidential contention real quick. It's fraud.)

Thanks! It's always difficult to explain the particularities of your state. Each state is different and has it's own history, culture and hierarchy. Mass people are very, very proud of sending good and capable people to national office. But they worry that those same people don't pay enough attention to home. I know this sort of pisses off some people who think we are spoiled here, but, Massachusetts, like all states, deserves to have two working Senators in DC. This cuts both ways and is very delicate.

[rox63]

33. You nailed it exactly!

What Tay said. :)

[TayTay]

34. Thanks Rox!

I appreciate it. It's not that people don't want Kerry to run again, they just worry about it. We are the butt of national jokes and that is hard for a proud old state like Mass to take. People here are actually very proud of our voting record and history. Marriage Equality will likely pass if it goes to a ballot and people feel that Massachusetts is leading on this issue and don't take kindly to people calling the state a nutcase over stuff like that.

People respect John Kerry here deeply because he is a serious man who deals with issues in a serious and thoughtful way. He has provided excellent representation in the US Senate for us. There is a lot of respect for the Senator at home. But this business of running again has people worried. What is Massachusetts in for in this next round, if two locals run for the biggest and most powerful office in the world? Will we be the butt of jokes again around the nation. That is a blow to the pride of the locals. (It is a plus to the pride of the locals that we produce people good enough to run. See, it cuts both ways.)

I never call the Senator by his initials. I am afraid of doing that someday in Mass. That would not be a good thing. That is Senator John Kerry, he is an excellent US Senator and I intend to show respect for him at home in all ways. I need to do that. It is what is required at this time. That is the current sitting Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I always intend to show respect both for the office holder and the people who elected him to that office. It can come across as a bit formal, but it is necessary.