Kerry to run again in 2008?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm glad he's not dropping off the radar a la Al Gore, but the guess here is that the Democrats will choose another candidate. People are talking up Hillary Clinton, but quite frankly that's got to be a joke. I think the Republicans might like this because it'd end up being an electoral disaster for the Democrats. Hillary is too controversial to even win the Democratic nomination. Plenty of Democrats want to go with somebody with more substance and less pizzazz like Wesley Clark or John Edwards. If either one of them runs watch out. If they don't run, hell, we'll draft them! It's really cool to know that they're out there for us now. We'll use them for sure!
 
Well, he's "assessing the feasibility" of running again. That doesn't mean a whole lot. I think it's safe to say that Gore "assessed the feasibility" of running again, too, but he didn't.

If he wants to run, let him. I think he'll find out pretty quickly in that case that he should have "assessed the feasibility" for a bit longer.
 
2008 and 2012 - Blagojevich (governor of Illinois)
2016 and 2020 - Obama

16 years of Illinois rule should fix this country right up!
 
edwards would be a horrific candidate for president... he looked like dan quayle durring the democratic events... a dreamy dan quayle :flirt: but dan quayle none the less.

if wesley clark is gonna run for president again, i sure hope he runs for some smaller office in the meantime in order to gain some political experience, which was his major problem this time around.

obama is exciting but he hasn't done shit yet... give him a year in the senate to actually prove he can get the job done before we start crowning him the next king.

the dems need somebody who comes out of no where, the way clinton did in '92. they can't go with the same old faces again.
 
Could anyone please explain to me (with a bit of class please not just dumb oneliners) what's wrong with Hillary Clinton?
 
No, Clinton did not come out of nowhere. He first attracted national attention in 1978 when he was elected Governor of Arkansas at the age of 32. As we all know, he screwed up and got thrown out of office, but came back to get back in in 1982. That attracted more attention, and he became prominent as a governor. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Edwards' candidacy, headache. The guy came out of complete obscurity to place second in the Iowa caucuses, ahead of favorite Howard Dean. It's true he only won one primary, but he probably learned a hell of alot during 2004 and will use it as a stepping stone. James Carville, no less, said he has the best stump speech he's ever heard, and this bloke was Bill Clinton's campaign manager. If it hadn't been for the "front-end loaded" primary schedule he might have won the nomination. This strategy was drafted by Terry McAuliffe, and his term as National Chairman of the DNC is about to end. It's rumored that Howard Dean may make a run at the position. Good point about Wesley Clark and lesser political office. Maybe he should run for Congress from Arkansas.
 
DrTeeth said:
Could anyone please explain to me (with a bit of class please not just dumb oneliners) what's wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Perception...

IMO she has been demonized and caricatured enough that the mere mention of her name brings revulsion in the right wing of the Repub party and may encourage a sort of "Anyone but Hillary" type of thing. People may find it hard to believe but I don't. Hell, I think the Clintons by in large may have contributed to Gore's downfall in 2000, b/c of the controversies surrounding them.

Bill Clinton, may have had the most scandalous controversy with Monica-gate but Hillary tended to be associated with the most of the "other" controversies of that administration. Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Foster's suicide, etc... The fact that she is just a first lady but became associated with "policy" in that adminstration rubbed people the wrong way (healthcare?!?), moreso than the rumors of Nancy Regan and her influence of Reagan (conjecture). First Lady is not a cabinet position.

Also there is a perception of Hillary as overly ambitious and a super-political animal. Rumors of Hillary orchestrating a run in 2008 have been around forever and rumors of her influencing Wesley Clark and the Kerry Campaign in order to make a run in 2008 are always floating around. True or not, they contribute to that "politically ambitious" perception. Hell the media generally supports this idea with a wink. That perception does not sit well with people as well. Just ask John Kerry.

Now that is perception. From what I understand, Hillary has been doing fine as a NY senator and even though it was lame that she pulled Alan Keyes, people have been very positive about her work. She served on the Armed Services Committee and has gotten pretty positive reviews. By 2008, (unless she loses her seat cuz I think she has to run for re-election by 2006), she may be qualified enough to run for President or have the "capital" too.

However, there never has been a woman president since forever. IMO part of its cultural and the lack of strong candidates. Hillary can be a strong candidate but IMO the polarizing aspect of who she is and her past just makes her an ineffective candidate and is too much of an obstacle to overcome. Those two things just make it unlikely that she has a chance IMO.
 
Last edited:
Kerry running again, sure he can... However, I don't think he will make headway to be honest... interesting observation/ opinion from that article...


Several Democrats expressed skepticism about Kerry's plans, saying they believe the party needs a fresh face and must turn a corner. One well-known Democratic operative who worked with the Kerry campaign said opposition to Bush, not excitement about Kerry, was behind the senator's fundraising success. "If he thinks he's going to capitalize on that going forward, he's in for a surprise," said the operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
 
DrTeeth said:
Could anyone please explain to me (with a bit of class please not just dumb oneliners) what's wrong with Hillary Clinton?

I, for one, don't think there's anything "wrong" with her. She seems intelligent and I agree with her politically for the most part. I'm not familiar enough with her Senate record to know if she's been effective in that role or not, but I assume she's been OK because the GOP would sure let us know it if he hadn't.

But I think she'd make a lousy Presidential candidate. She's well known enough that people wouldn't be likely to change their opinions of her, and too many people just don't like her. It's hard to build a majority when you start the race with 35-40% (maybe more) of the country just not liking you.
 
strannix said:


I, for one, don't think there's anything "wrong" with her. She seems intelligent and I agree with her politically for the most part. I'm not familiar enough with her Senate record to know if she's been effective in that role or not, but I assume she's been OK because the GOP would sure let us know it if he hadn't.

But I think she'd make a lousy Presidential candidate. She's well known enough that people wouldn't be likely to change their opinions of her, and too many people just don't like her. It's hard to build a majority when you start the race with 35-40% (maybe more) of the country just not liking you.

That is good point...
 
verte76 said:
No, Clinton did not come out of nowhere. He first attracted national attention in 1978 when he was elected Governor of Arkansas at the age of 32. As we all know, he screwed up and got thrown out of office, but came back to get back in in 1982. That attracted more attention, and he became prominent as a governor. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Edwards' candidacy, headache. The guy came out of complete obscurity to place second in the Iowa caucuses, ahead of favorite Howard Dean. It's true he only won one primary, but he probably learned a hell of alot during 2004 and will use it as a stepping stone. James Carville, no less, said he has the best stump speech he's ever heard, and this bloke was Bill Clinton's campaign manager. If it hadn't been for the "front-end loaded" primary schedule he might have won the nomination. This strategy was drafted by Terry McAuliffe, and his term as National Chairman of the DNC is about to end. It's rumored that Howard Dean may make a run at the position. Good point about Wesley Clark and lesser political office. Maybe he should run for Congress from Arkansas.

my out of no where comment on clinton was based on the fact that he was by no means the favorite to win the democratic nomination in 92, let alone the white house. he captivated the american audience with his charisma and just exploded. that's what i meant.

i think edwards also needs more polishing before running for the white house, and it's not gonna help that he's completely out of washington now. is north carolina's governor's job up soon? perhaps he should consider a run there first.

clark deffinetly needs some sort of political office just so he can get used to the ins and outs of it before he runs for president... he was probably the best candidate of all the guys who ran for the democratic nomination, but he was so over-matched due to his lack of experience that he never even made a serious dent.



and on to hill hill...

why do people dislike her so? frankly, she's percieved by many to be an absolute phoney... even faker than Kerry was percieved to be. They think she's a carpetbagger who used New York State for her own personal political gain... They think she in a fake marrage that she only stays in for her own personal political gain... They think she's so power hungry that she'll do or say just about anything to get elected... that she's more of a flip flopper than kerry who makes her opinions based on where the polls are. Add in her involvement in the aformentioned scandles... whitewater, vince foster, ron brown, etc. etc. and now you have a candidate that many people despise.

A lot of what I mentioned is simply perception... but the problem is there's enough reality mixed in there to make the perception all the more believable, be it true or not. frankly, as a resident of new york state, i think she's been a horrific senator. i think she IS using us for her own political gain. she cares more about national issues than she does about issues here at "home." and you could say "oh you're just saying that because you're a republican" all you want... and I'm sure some people will say that. but before you say that, let me add that I voted for democrat chuck schumer for senator, and voted for democrat tim bishop for the house.

and in 2006 her re-election is by no means a lock... she may be facing off against either governor george pataki or rudy giuliani... both of whom are very popular throughout the state.
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:


Hell, I think the Clintons by in large may have contributed to Gore's downfall in 2000, b/c of the controversies surrounding them.


A very thoughtful post, FFM, but I have to quibble with this one little bit, because I think almost the opposite happened. For most of the campaign, Gore chose not to emphasize the Clinton/Gore record for the very reason you put here. I think it was a very costly mistake, because it took away his single most important qualification for the office. I think it left the question of why people should vote for the guy, which he never really provided an answer for.

Just an opinion, and it's worth noting you may be right. But remember that Clinton had very high approval ratings when he left office. I think it's unlikely that people would have supported Clinton despite the scandals yet turned against Gore because of them.
 
I agree. You can't make a viable run for President when you already have a high negativity rating that's not going anywhere. If Hillary does run in 2008, and I actually have my doubts about this, she won't win the nomination. There's too much of a psychological barrier against a female candidate, any female candidate on either side of the aisle. It's been suggested that an African American male will win first. People are looking at Barack Obama. He's great, but he's just started his Senatorial career and he'll need experience before he can run for anything higher. I'm sure he won't do anything as a first term Senator aside from campaigning for the nominee.
 
I'm just guessing on the thing with Gore losing b/c of the Clintons. At the most, IMO it contributed to his loss. IF you believe the whole moral values theory on this election, then its not much of stretch to say/ think the Clinton scandals (alah Monica-gate) contributed to the image of the Democratic party being "against" family values (guilt by association), thus mobilzing people to support Bush in 2000. I know it mobilized votes against Gore (it didn't help that Gore was pretty wishy washy about his connection with Clinton) where I was. Pollsters and campaign managers for the Gore campaign must have thought it very important considering the choice of Leiberman.

Gore, who was technically an incumbent with the good economic years during his VP-ship should have won pretty handily (in spite of the crappy image) b/c Bush to be honest wasn't that strong of candidate to me. But the repubs were able to mobilize and something had to mobilize them that was near and dear to them outside of their pocketbook and against relatively good times.

This election showed that its about mobilization and getting people out to vote, in spite of the environment, in order to win elections. Same case could be made of 2000 since Rove was the campaign strategist of that time.
 
Last edited:
Headache in a Suitcase said:

if wesley clark is gonna run for president again, i sure hope he runs for some smaller office in the meantime in order to gain some political experience, which was his major problem this time around.

I agree...Clark was actually who I would have voted for in the primary if he hadn't dropped out a few weeks before. I thought his ideas were good, but the experience part was the problem.
 
pianorocker said:


I agree...Clark was actually who I would have voted for in the primary if he hadn't dropped out a few weeks before. I thought his ideas were good, but the experience part was the problem.

Yeah.....I think he should run for Congress.
 
There's nothing wrong with Hillary except she's a woman. I have no problem with that, but guess what? A country that re-elects Bush, is NOT going to elect a woman. It's just not going to happen.

And Clark is the worst democrat ever. Or at least one of the most conservative democrats I've ever been familiar with. Anyway, I REALLY don't want a military lover in the white house again after Bush. I want a diplomat, NO MORE MILITARY LOVERS.
 
namkcuR said:
There's nothing wrong with Hillary except she's a woman. I have no problem with that, but guess what? A country that re-elects Bush, is NOT going to elect a woman. It's just not going to happen.

You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.
 
nbcrusader said:


You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.

And that's exactly why i think she can't win. She might win the northeast and the west coast, but absolutely nothing else.
 
nbcrusader said:


You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.

I realize that, but I can't fathom that a man with the EXACT same politics as Hillary wouldn't get more electoral votes. Like I said, I myself have no problem with gender. But all the red states from Tuesday, these are the people who probably think gay people have cooties. My guess is they wouldn't take kindly to a female presidential candidate either.
 
Uhhhmmmmm did I not mention the other things in her past as First Lady and before. Its not JUST b/c she is a woman... it may contribute to the total package, but her being a female isn't the only reason. Hell, Elizabeth Dole was elected Senator of North Carolina= home state of Helms and a red state. A woman President is possible, even in red states.... however, Hillary just won't cut it...
 
namkcuR said:
And Clark is the worst democrat ever. Or at least one of the most conservative democrats I've ever been familiar with. Anyway, I REALLY don't want a military lover in the white house again after Bush. I want a diplomat, NO MORE MILITARY LOVERS.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants to adopt a stronger anti-war platform. The thing is, 9/11 permanently changed the attitude of Americans towards national security, and, quite frankly, I'm not sure if pre-9/11 sentiments are what's going to win elections for the Democrats in the future. It's been suggested that that's why Kerry won the nomination with his Vietnam credentials. I'm sure when I start going to Democracy for America meetings next month, we'll get a mouthful of talk for a stronger anti-war platform. If Iraq crashes and burns, as I think it will, the party may take a turn away from the present attitudes about war and peace. We'll see.
 
Back
Top Bottom