Signs of an '08 Rerun

[themadchemist]

OK, so this is shameless self promotion...But I spent a good deal of time analyzing John Kerry's latest letter to supporters and I think it, coupled with a few other factors, suggest that Kerry is gearing up for a 2008 run. He might decide later not to run, but he's planning on it as we speak.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about the topic and about my (rather lengthy) analysis.

rinky dink John Kerry: Redux or Ad Nauseum? (http://musingsonamerica.blogspot.com)

[Thomas Veil]

If President Bush really does move further into the abyss of neoconservatism, as his recent cabinet shuffle seems to suggest he will, then it might not be possible for any Republican to run on his coattails in four years.
Boy, I wish I could believe that. But remember, this last election should've been a cakewalk for the Democrats. A Republican president who manages to f--- up everything he touches? Arguably the most corrupt president ever? Kerry should've been able to walk all over him.

Yet he didn't, and I'm convinced that the fault is at least as much the electorate's as well as Kerry's. Realistically, too many Americans find it easier to stay with the status quo than make a change; to believe every lie they hear, rather than think for themselves; to vote for the guy they'd like to share a beer with, rather than the guy they think has the best plan.

With that kind of electorate, Maj. Frank Burns could win over the Democrats.

(Hey, you know, I never thought of it, but the fictional character Bush reminds me of most is Frank Burns! :D )


The New Republic, with its liberal but anti-Kerry bent, has already made its decision. Its editors quip, "Kerry certainly does deserve to retain a role within the party. That role ought to be the same as it was before he ran for president: second-most influential senator from Massachusetts."
Like it or not, both Gore and Kerry still have their fans in the Democratic party. To say these former candidates should be consigned to the corners from whence they came is a little short-sighted. After all, outside of Bill Clinton and a few others like Howard Dean, who else do you have who can really energize the party base? If Kerry's deciding to take a more active role, albeit belatedly, well, more power to him.


John Kerry, in this election, represented everything that was wrong about the Democrats: The substance is on target, but the message really, really is not.
Well, again, that last sentence is absolutely right...but I still think it says more about us than it does about Kerry. People who were paying attention did get Kerry's message.


Should Kerry run again? I don't know; I doubt it. Historically, neither party tends to re-run a losing candidate, the rationale being: "The American people have already shown us that this is not what they want in a president." Best to go with new blood, I think. But that doesn't mean Kerry should step back into the shadows. If he wants to use his notoriety to spread the Democratic party's message, I say more power to him.

[pseudobrit]

I got Kerry's letter and thought the same thing: he's using the network he established during the last campaign to start running anew for 2008. Rather than abandon these resources, I think Kerry might try to cement them as a foundation for the 2008 primaries, which will likely be a significant hurdle (many will not want to rerun a loser).

Kerry would be wise to spend the next four years campaigning hard on the taxpayer's dime, just like Bush did during his first term.

Over the past four years, day in and day out Bush has regularly appeared on TV giving a meaningless speech at someplace or other.

The only difference I saw between a Bush "speech to local ______ [businesses, seniors, troops, veterans, etc., etc.]" and a Bush "campaign rally" was the campaign signs.

And for the first three years or so, he did it as official Presidential business.

Anyone wanna guess how often he'll make speeches now that he has "the will of the people behind" him?


Kerry should steal this one from the Bush playbook.

[skunk]

Surely you can find someone better than "ol' dead eyes" in four years.

[stubeeef]

Please nom kerry again, please!

[IJ Reilly]

I suspect Kerry is simply attempting to avoid the sort of political ignominy that is visited on most failed presidential candidates. He would like to remain relevant -- and who can blame him? He's still in the Senate, and over 50 million Americans voted for him. As for a second bid for the nomination, I'd call this a very outside chance. Remember, we heard some of the same noises from Gore about a year ago. That trial balloon was shot right down just as I think Kerry's would be in four years if he floated it -- which I doubt he will.

[Xtremehkr]

Surely you can find someone better than "ol' dead eyes" in four years.

You're a Tory aren't ya?

[skunk]

You're a Tory aren't ya?
YSM! No Fecking Way!

Let's just say I was underwhelmed by the Democratic offering.

[Xtremehkr]

YSM! No Fecking Way!

Let's just say I was underwhelmed by the Democratic offering.

how so? what is it they are lacking?

[skunk]

how so? what is it they are lacking?
1 A clear intention to abjure aggressive wars
2 A candidate who inspires confidence
3 Freedom from obligations to special interests
4 Clear principles
5 Any sort of solution for the Iraq mess

Just talking from a Transatlantic perspective...

[themadchemist]

Boy, I wish I could believe that. But remember, this last election should've been a cakewalk for the Democrats. A Republican president who manages to f--- up everything he touches? Arguably the most corrupt president ever? Kerry should've been able to walk all over him.


I'm just providing one line of reasoning...I noted that 2004 was supposed to be a cakewalk, too. I think the difference, though, is that while there have been problems at home, nothing has been really widespread or severe enough to cause a sea change. If the dollar really does collapse (and it's on the road to it) or inflates heavily, then I think things will be different. But who wants to be in that position in the first place?!


Yet he didn't, and I'm convinced that the fault is at least as much the electorate's as well as Kerry's. Realistically, too many Americans find it easier to stay with the status quo than make a change; to believe every lie they hear, rather than think for themselves; to vote for the guy they'd like to share a beer with, rather than the guy they think has the best plan.


I've got a HUGE problem with blaming the electorate...I don't think that it is useful, wise, or accurate. The burden lies on the candidate to get through to the voters. One can't blame the electorate for not doing the candidate's job. For more on this, check out some stuff I've written here (http://musingsonamerica.blogspot.com/2004/11/dont-call-everyone-war-mongering.html) and here (http://musingsonamerica.blogspot.com/2004/11/john-pushes-backand-so-do-i.html).


Like it or not, both Gore and Kerry still have their fans in the Democratic party. To say these former candidates should be consigned to the corners from whence they came is a little short-sighted. After all, outside of Bill Clinton and a few others like Howard Dean, who else do you have who can really energize the party base? If Kerry's deciding to take a more active role, albeit belatedly, well, more power to him.


For the most part, I agree. I have my problems with The New Republic's vision for the Democratic Party, something I'll write about in greater length at some point. They endorsed Lieberman, for goodness sakes! He's hardly even a Democrat.

[Xtremehkr]

1 A clear intention to abjure aggressive wars
2 A candidate who inspires confidence
3 Freedom from obligations to special interests
4 Clear principles
5 Any sort of solution for the Iraq mess

Just talking from a Transatlantic perspective...

The whole special interests thing really stands out. You will really have to expand on that one. The whole Halliburton Administration is nothing but a special interest in the Whitehouse. It's a term Ahnold likes to throw around a lot though, even though he has taken special interest money like no other.

[skunk]

I realize of course that GWB is beholden like no other to various industries, but with an election campaign costing hundreds of millions of dollars, so is Kerry. It's unfortunately the nature of your system. There has to be a better way.

[themadchemist]

I realize of course that GWB is beholden like no other to various industries, but with an election campaign costing hundreds of millions of dollars, so is Kerry. It's unfortunately the nature of your system. There has to be a better way.

It all comes down to campaign finance reform, then. Where are McCain and Feingold when you need them?

[Xtremehkr]

I realize of course that GWB is beholden like no other to various industries, but with an election campaign costing hundreds of millions of dollars, so is Kerry. It's unfortunately the nature of your system. There has to be a better way.

I can't disagree with that!

[blackfox]

Gore in 2008. Preferably a little fat and with a beard.

With Vilsack or Mitchell as VP. (perhaps Obama)

Seriously. Scoff at the chances, if you like...

[skunk]

< sound of heavy scoffing >

[Xtremehkr]

< sound of heavy scoffing >

what are you eating?

[tristan]

If the dems run another NE liberal - Kerry, Hilary, Dean, etc - they're sunk. Gotta find a dem from a red state like gephardt, edwards, or gen clark. They need a centrist and a big idea that touches everyone, like portable health care.

[skunk]

what are you eating?
Nothing. Refer to BF's post above.

[Xtremehkr]

Nothing. Refer to BF's post above.

I know, I was having some pun fun.

[IJ Reilly]

If the dems run another NE liberal - Kerry, Hilary, Dean, etc - they're sunk. Gotta find a dem from a red state like gephardt, edwards, or gen clark. They need a centrist and a big idea that touches everyone, like portable health care.

I remember what a huge deal was made about Hillary Clinton never having lived in New York before she ran for the senate from the state. Now she's a "Northeast Liberal." Funny how that works.

[skunk]

I know, I was having some pun fun.
Wasn't sure. No smileys attached. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[tristan]

I remember what a huge deal was made about Hillary Clinton never having lived in New York before she ran for the senate from the state. Now she's a "Northeast Liberal." Funny how that works.

That is how it works - she's liberal, and she's lived in the northeast for a while, so now she's a northeast liberal. That's how she will be perceived by the country if she runs for president.

Not that I have anything against northeast liberals, I just don't think that they're electable. The last one to get elected was JFK in 1960 - forty five years ago. The broad popular appeal simply isn't there.