With nine fellow Democrats looking to occupy the White House in 2008, Sen. John Kerry has opted not to be the 10th.
Few Democrats are likely to mourn his decision. He’s been widely criticized for a lackluster presidential campaign in 2004, and Republicans seized on his infamous botched joke about Iraq last fall to further marginalize the man.
A wise choice, senator. Against Democratic stars like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, your chances were probably pretty close to nil anyway.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
19 Comments
Nothing I can add to that Super Dave,except that must be why he has such a long face.
Buh – bye, John. If you had any balls you would have been president.
See ya! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
I’m still laughing…of ALL the candidates in 2004, John Effin Kerry was the Dims’ choice.
It’ll probably be just as comical in ‘08.
Amazing!
The absolute best choice for the democrats in 04 and he isn’t good enough to enter the race for 08!
If you’re a dem, you get only one bite at the apple.
Hank – I don’t think either party gives many second chances. If memory serves me Nixon 68 was the last one; before him Stevenson 56.
Point taken, Ben. But we don’t ‘hate’ our losers!
Neither do we.
Uh Ben,
Try and pick out the nitwit on this thread that is furthest to the left and then read his post.
The Democrats have rarely had a candidate from the same mold as John Kerry in 2004.
Despite the fact that Kerry was an Ivy League graduate and a war hero, he allowed George W Bush to paint him as a coward, while portraying himself as the hero.
Shortly after the 2004 Election, the Democrats broke the mold of John Kerry.
Soon after that, we caught up with the moldmaker and beat the living shit out of him.
And the genius candidate on the Republican side will be what shining star? From what I see, both parties are up in the air about now.
Hank – I think the frustration with both Kerry and Gore is that they both lost close races and both ran very ineffectual campaigns. I think both had good ideas and both would have made good presidents. But, in my opinion, they both bungled their campaigning.
Kerry wasn’t the best candidate for the nomination, but he wasn’t a bad candidate at all.
Cons play dirty, there is no doubt. Once they put some teeth into a lie, they’ll run with it like a rooster in a cockfight.
Best money I spent in 2004, my donation to the Swift Boat Veterans.
Giving us some more to use against Webb and Hagel?
Probably, depends on what sorta dirt you have on them. Viet vets play serious hardball, and payback is a bitch.
Sh*t yeah, Russell.
Just look what they did the Vietnamese.
You didn’t call ‘em “gooks” for nothing, did ya?
Still and all, Rambo was just a movie. In real life, they won.
“Sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it.”
He cried!
I’m sorry, but people are being sucked into a bogus paradigm. Instead of asking, “Who should be elected to control the tax payments–which is to say suck the teats –of 300 million people?” we should be considering DECENTRALIZATION. The Republicans have been lying for years about doing this: “smaller federal government” while massively increasing federal spending. George Bush “won” two terms, perhaps through fraud. Some people wanted him. Those who didn’t, who constituted not a fringe group, but more than half the electorate, shouldn’t have had to suffer Dick Cheney’s rulership. Cheney, not Bush, was the real, power-controlling “president”.
Some people might contend, “It wouldn’t be good for Kansas, Minnesota, New York, and California to do their own thing”. Really? These people don’t have any CONVINCING REASONS to cogently prove this thesis. Why shouldn’t humans “do their own thing”? If they don’t like the “climate” in one state, they can move elsewhere. People have been “voting with their feet” for thousands of years.