What are the odds that Americans might swarm to Sen. Kerry because

[babylonsister]

of 2004, and what was lost, perhaps illegally? He sure looks a lot more knowledgeable than Obama, Edwards, or even Clinton. I am biased, of course, but he's been in the Senate for a long time, has been a mouthpiece in the past few years, has walked the walk and talked the talk.

[JI7]

1. they wont vote based on whether 2004 was stolen

they will vote more on the issues and the future. just as JK might be hurt at first because of the 2004 loss. if people get a chance to see him and they like the solutions he offers to our problems they will go for him (or whoever else offers it the best).

JK is very knowledgeable which is why certain people don't want him to run at all. if we look back to 2004 it wont be on whether it was stolen or not. but on what things JK was saying back then and how right he was and how it ties into the current situation and the future.

[Mass]

2. I do not think this will be a factor - I did not see people rush and protest in 2004,

and that includes most those who tell us that Kerry should not have conceded. This is not an important reason outside of the blogs.

What matters, on the vote issue as well as the Iraq War issue and others, are positive actions that go to the future. This is true for the vote issue, for Iraq, as well as for domestic policies. People want to elect people who present a positive vision for the future as well as solve their problems, not linger on the past.

This is what bothers me with Obama and Edwards. At this point, they certainly present a positive vision, but they are fairly short on how they would implement it at this point. I am not sure what Hillary's vision is. Gore is fine by my standards, but I am not sure he will run. While I sometimes disagree with the particulars of some of his policies, he has the vision and he has the policies.

But for that, you have to be able to recognize what the issues are and to propose solutions. The second part is the hardest, because, when you propose, people are going to take your solutions apart, for good or bad reasons. This is why the right, which does not want to propose something else than getting rid of what exists, has an inherent advantage.

[karynnj]

3. I agree with your analysis

I think that 2004 is both a plus and a minus. A minus because partisans against him, both Republican and Democaratic, have dwelled on the negative - that he lost - and have blamed the loss on errors he made. This is typical, people want stories to make sense.

I know that if I compared the 1992 Clinton campaign to the Kerry campaign, Kerry ran at least as good a campaign with fewer road bumps. Kerry had the least forgiving space to run in I have ever seen while the media itself corrected Bush's misstatements or ignored them. Kerry's campaign would have imploded if he had a Gennifer Flowers, who he framed as nutty or slutty and lied about, if he had written Clinton's "I loath the military" letter, or if he had the environmental record Clinton had in Arkansas.

But, as Clinton won, the war room as a book and movie smoothed the rough edges and made mythology out of a rapid response team made necessary by a candidate with a huge amount of baggage. As Kerry lost, the need was to find things he did that contributed to a loss - and, as in every campaign some mistakes were made. Each of these "mistakes" have been amphlified and the nearly flawless race to the nomination ignored.

For most candidates, there would be almost no plus from the earlier campaign. In Kerry's case, the plus is that he was right on so many things, was brilliant in the debates and because he demonstrated so much dignity and integrity through the election. In addition, the efforts he took over the last 2 years have led the party in the right direction and they were done in defiance of the so-called party leadership. The real question might be whether enough people were paying attention.

If Kerry runs, the primary debates will be key. If he can tower over Edwards and Obama (as he did with Edwards in 2004) just because he has real solutions to issues and they have only position papers, he could be the experienced choice. (Also these idiotic comments that the most eloquent man out there (including Obama) is inarticulate and unable to make a joke is setting a VERY low bar for Kerry to beat.)

[wisteria]

4. I agree with all the things you say. I will add this time what needs

to be done more effectively is to get the good information out about Sen. Kerry and have it reach more of the public. You are right, that many people don't pay attention or haven't paid attention to all he has been doing and all he has done in the past. Personally, I think the public might just be ready to be forgiving and would look favorably toward a candidate that has the experience,knowledge and sensibility to take care of America correctly.A sort of caring leader who you can trust to do the right thing and take care of the important issues, so that they don't have to worry about them and can go on with their regular lives. The trust me,have faith,I won't let you down candidate.Anyway, that is MHO.

[MBS]

6. as an example of how we need to get message out. . .

I went to the one of the MoveOn Inconvenient Truth parties on Saturday; I was very pleased to hear both Gore and Move On cite johnkerry.com's co-sponsorship FIRST. Wow. Only individual-run pac to stand with Al and MoveOn on this issue: made me very proud. . . so, when the time came to write our cards to our senators and representatives, I said to everyone, "I think that John Kerry should be thanked for his co-sponsorship". Everyone agreed, but someone did say, "Yeah, I was surprised." SURPRISED? In MASSACHUSETTS? Sen. Kerry's home state, for Pete's sake? in a crowd of environmentalists? Good grief. Granted that about 1/2 the crowd were Deaniacs, but still. . EVERYone should know that Kerry has been a strong supporter of the environment from Day 1, that he won the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters, in both the primaries and the general election, for excellent, well-deserved reasons. . .SO frustrating.

I'm glad their environmental book will be coming out in the spring.

The environment is yet another issue, like Iraq, where Kerry was right all along, and nobody was listening.

We've got to make them listen.

[blm]

5. They'll rush to him for 2 things - open government and public financing of campaigns

to take the corporate money OUT of elections.

But opening the books to the CITIZENS is the biggest draw - BushInc's many decades of illegal actions that led to events like 9-11 need full exposure. And Clinton's role in covering it all up is just too bad for those Dems still loyal to his name.