Compare Clinton '16 to Kerry '04. Besides her gender, what does Clinton bring to the table that
Kerry didn't offer?
As a candidate, Kerry had a lot of advantages that Clinton does not enjoy (for example, Kerry's war hero status versus Clinton's fib about Bosnian sniper fire that has been humiliatingly disproved by video footage and which would be re-run ad nauseum if she were to make it to the general election).
Clinton does share some of Kerry's strengths (for example, foreign policy experience), but Kerry had some anti-war history and credibility as part of this foreign policy package and Clinton is pretty much a straight up neocon hawk with respect to her foreign policy (I'm not saying that Clinton is Dick Cheney because her domestic policy would be worlds better, but her foreign policy is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty hawkish).
Comparing Clinton to Kerry, I see no area where Clinton is stronger except the appeal of electing the first woman president (which should have been a definite plus and should have been an electoral advantage that Clinton could have capitalized upon but her un-likability and un-trustworthiness perception among young voters, independent voters, and potential ticket-splitting Republican voters kills off this potential advantage; Clinton, if nominated, would be poised to get a historically low independent/crossover vote and turnout among young Democrats would be anemic).
What -- if anything -- does Clinton bring to the table that Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 campaign didn't offer?
= new reply since forum marked as read
accused of talking about Hillary's gender. 
