Vice President John Kerry

could it be?

As I've said before, I'll wait for the announcement. I like surprises.

.

beat. He can't deal with Kerry's issues too.

that also means that the vast majhority of people accept that Kerry was a war hero and the Navy gave him those medals. In fact, John Warner, now a Republican Senator, then a Secretary of the Navy - said on the Senate floor that he reviewed Kerry's silver star and he earned it.

There were no other scandals - in 2008, a couple of years after even people like Joe Scarborouh spoke of how in thinking of Iraq, he came back to Kerry's 1971 question - Kerry's very respectable protesting will be far less an issue - and possibly an asset.

from being able to run this time around. I know what Kerry meant but the @ssholes will twist everything. Also,they will paint Barack and Kerry as a ticket of flip floppers. They will paint them both as elitest (sp?). The most liberal ticket ever. I can see it now. I just think that Kerry's negatives hurt more than his positives help.

He also has support among many Vets because he's been a consistent ally of theirs.

It is also NOT true that Kerry was a flip flopper. If you read the part of this Yale 1966 (no typo - 1966, the year of Rubber Soul) on foreign policy you will find themes that matured and are in his most recent foreign policy speech.

You are listing only negatives - ignoring that he would kill whoever McCain picks as VP and that he has a wealth of experience.

Kerry will not be the VP candidate because he is running for the Senaet in MA - and he can't do both. He also is in a position where he is very likely to be a power in the Senate - where he can help Obama with his agenda. (If Kennedy were haelthier, I would say the best position for Kerry is SoS for Obama. As the Secretary of state also has a role in treaties like the global warming one - it would combine two areas that Kerry has credentials from the 1970s on. Who would be better as Obama's represntative actually working on teh Regional summit he advocated for since 2003.)

touted here on DU?

For awhile it was intriguing. Then, anguishing. Now, I simply trust Obama to make a well-informed decision -oh, and to end the madness. :-)

won't give that ratfuck the web hit.

let alone who Obama chooses as his VP.

http://wbztv.com/politics/jonkeller/john.kerry.vice.2.796143.html



No. Nein. Nyet.

We need someone that can run on 2016 and 2020.

...minute. :7

After all he just completed a 111 mile bike race for charity coming in among the fastest riders. (I think they started at 6:oo and he finished shortly after 11:00 - though some likely know the time better.)

1. He'd actually be one year older than McCain is now. It's pretty well established that John McCain is too damned old to be President.

2. 73 in 2016...77 years old in 2020. The life expectancy of a male in the US is 75.29 years. Give Kerry another couple of years for staying in shape...and we're still looking at a guy who could die in office!

speculating. I would not blame them, even if Keller is indeed an idiot. I've heard it several times this week-end in my family.

if their intention was to keep people off balance as to who the VP was.

I was just making a statement of something I heard, not stating that I thought Kerry was the VP nominee. And frankly, Markos is just stating something that is pretty obvious. This will not stop people to wonder.

Before that, all speculation is idle.

there with NO public recognition of what he's doing.

these questions. Even if there is nothing behind, it is there.

then I will guess it will be Daschle because Kerry and Durbin will be his top allies in the senate.

That Kerry is qualified is near unquestionable. Kerry running as VP would give him the "attack dog" freedom to deal with the lies of the "swift boaters" in a way that the presidential nominee cannot. Kerry would be a nightmare for McCain in that it would be "payback" time--a chance to set the record straight in a way he either was unable to, or advised not to do four years ago.

Kerry has been Obama's strongest surrogate--and would be an awesome, experinced strength to the ticket.

He's a figter now and he will destroy McCains VP in a debate just like like he did Bush. So I think it's a good pick.

And this is coming from someone who wasn't that enthusiastic about him in 2004. But, he has really gone to bat for Obama during this race. He's really good on the talk shows defending Obama and calling out McCain.

He'd be a fantastic VP. He'd be even better as SOS, but he's running for re-election to the Senate.
I hope Biden gets VP so Kerry can chair the Foreign Relations Committee (and because I like Biden).

I'd bet money it's not Sen. Kerry.

This reeks of Republicans trying to link him to a presidential loser... similar to the Dukakis/Mondale comparisons...

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

give up his Senate seat on the chance of becoming the VP? It makes little sense. ALso if he chooses Bayh (ugh) we lose a Senate seat for sure.

Kerry has been an extremely strong surrogate for Obama and from 2004 through the present he has worked hard for the country and the Democratic party.

He is running for Senator. He can not run for VP at the same time.

So, maybe you still prefer Edwards?

Not much any one posts here will influence Obama's pick for Vice President.
I am fed up with all the posts pushing Hillary or Kerry or anyone else that has shown that they don't have what it takes to stand up to the criminals and if they can't stand up to the criminals this country is doomed to third world status.
I was rooting for Hillary till she started campaigning against Obama like she was some rightwingnut in a general election. Not my idea of good presidential material.
Kerry conceded and disappeared the DAY AFTER the election while the votes were still being counted! I don't want someone like that to be next in line for the top job. How can you restore our place in the world if you can't even stand up to a bunch of petty criminals churning out easily debunked lies?
Edwards dropped out so long ago people were forgetting he even was ever in the running. His cheating was not only healed over history, it was a private matter and not really any of our business, regardless of what a sub-group of herd minded, gossipy holier than thou exhorting DUer's thinks.
When you pick the wrong horse and it loses, look ahead and see what the options left to you are. The above named horses are too lame to run anymore, why root for them?

it is just a personal matter that he is liar and possibly spent campaign money as hush money. He also lied on wanting to fight back in 2004 from many sources (not Kerry himself) who were in a position to know. If there was anyone who was too lame a horse - it is Edwards, your choice.

It is completely normal to concede before all the votes are counted. It is normal to concede on election night. In fact, Gore did in 2000 until later numbers showed it closer than expected. Now, Kerry waited longer and waited until there were too few outstanding votes to make a difference. Even then, in his concession speech he said they would be counted - and they were. It sounds like 2004 was the first election you ever watched. In 2000, it was at least 2 weeks before all the military, overseas and absentee ballots were counted in all the states - you saw this as the popular vote kept changing. Now, other than FL, none of the changes in the other states came close to changing the electoral college. In 2004, Kerry was short almost 118,000 votes - that's reality.

As to not standing up to people, Kerry stood against extremely powerful people in 1971 against Nixon, against Reagan/Bush on the Contras, and alkl the corrupt powers that be and their friends on BCCI. Each of those were real life commitments of several years each. Edwards simply demagogued against corporations and the government in his 2008 re-incarnation.

As I, and all the JK group people posted, Kerry will not be the VP. He and his spokespeople have made it clear that he is running for Senator. He has though been BY FAR the best Obama surrogate. He is a good, Strong Democrat, who will be a very strong Senator. Your attacks are childish and stupid.

"It is completely normal to concede before all the votes are counted."
Maybe in a land slide, but the election was still in doubt and don't forget all the election irregularities that he ignored till it was too late? Then Kerry totally disappeared for a few months. No nothing from him.

My attacks are childish and stupid? Why don't you start with the people that keep posting the Kerry (or Clinton) would make a good Vice President and Obama should choose Kerry (or Clinton). These people have good hindsight, huh?
People post serous information here that will or does affect us all personally and it drops out of sight, unread, like a rock off a high cliff. But posting non-starters for Obama's VP choice and the choir sings Hallelujah for days and miles. Who are the children again?

People are dying around the world because of the greedy criminals running this country and too many of us on DU are playing games on the level of marbles or Tiddledy Winks and getting upset when called on it.

It does matter who we vote for and if someone came up with a good viable worthwhile choice for Obama, fine. But rehashing also rans that aren't even running and have stated they have other ideas of how to serve, is a waste of time, energy, bandwidth.

that said you were for Kuchinich, then Edwards. There were other posts that said so. The other thing is that you could state that the thread was useless, counterproductive or whatever word you want to use. (I think they are silly as it really is not our choice and we have far less information than Obama now has on the real candidates. I suspect that Kerry was vetted for one reason only - as a "safe" choice, if others fizzle.) What you did instead is to attack the Senator's character and usefulness. That was uncalled for. Also, there are others that have reasons they don't want Bayh, Biden, Richardson, Clark, Webb, Sebelius, Daschle etc Who made you the arbiter of who was a good choice? You could also see it was the Kerry group people tamping this thread down - pointing out that he has said he is running for Senate and MA says he can't run for both. (As to what they bring - he brings FAR more than many with multiple threads here.)

Kerry did NOT disappear for a few months. He went back to the Senate about 2 or 3 weeks later. He spoke on the irregularities and voter suppression in November 2004. His brother, Cam, wrote a detailed op-ed in the Boston Globe detailing the problems found - but they were not sufficient to prove Kerry won Ohio. Kerry also spoke about the voter suppression on MLK day in January 2005. He spoke of it again at least 10 times in 2005, most notably when he marched with John Lewis in Boston. The one there was nothing from that year on this though he spoke on other things was --- John Edwards, who later claimed he wanted to fight -but never said this in the MSM, just in the blogs, never said on what basis. Now, as both Kerrys were speaking of this - you can't argue it was that he was either following their lead or not speaking out of courtesy to them.

Now, even two years later, RFKjr's report had to count votes not cast and votes that were cast with errors - neither are countable. He estimates - using as reasonable an estimater as possible the votes lost when people abandoned their effort to vote because there were waits IN THE RAIN of over 4 hours. If you remember, Gore did not ask that the FL Jewish retirement communities votes be counted as his even when they were mistakenly punched as Buchanan - the fact is that though a statistician would clean data like this if it were a corporate study, there is no law that allows that - it was true for the 2000 butterfly ballot and the 2004 caterpillar ballot.

The fact is that both Kerry and HRC are very prominent Democrats and will continue to be because they both have a lot to contribute. There are very few people in the party that has the level of expertise, statesmanship and brilliance that Kerry has. The fact is, by your own admission, he nearly won a near impossible race against a sitting President in a time of war, at 50% approval, with the media totally in Bush's pocket. Generic Democrat at the start of 2004 was losing by double digits to Bush. Kerry was a powerful candidate to bring it as close as he did.

open government issues and has done more than any other single lawmaker the last 35 years to uncover government corruption. Those who target Kerry side with the fascists or have been snowed by the fascists wearing donkey masks.

positively the last 35 years. Name one lawmaker in DC who has uncovered and exposed more government corruption than Kerry has. Name one lawmaker who has been a more effective advoacte for open government than Kerry has.

Worthless? This nation would be in its second decade of FULL-ON FASCISM by now if you took Kerry's efforts out of the last 35 years. Try saying that TRUTHFULLY about ANY OTHER LAWMAKER.

and for his fundraising for Dems. I'm not sure how much he's raised in 2008, but he had alot to do with the victories in 2006.

He has worth, make no mistake.

...too. :)

I would be thrilled if it were Clinton, but I want him to choose who he thinks will help him win.

Winning in November is all I care about (I don't want Nunn or Hagel though).

he has the loser tag. Hard to shake that.

That more than anything would restore the hope Obama once inspired in me at least. Not to knock any Clinton fans, but the more distance he can put between himself and the Arkansas whiz kids the better for us all. Ever since he locked up the nom he's done nothing but waffle and triangulate like he's trying to be the next Bill. How about being the next Kerry?

Frankly, I don't care who he picks. I am voting for Obama because I trust him to run the country. If I can trust him to run the most powerful country in the world, I can certainly trust him to choose a competent vice president.

That said . . . the suspense is killing me. :bounce:

Edited: That includes Hillary. I do not believe he will pick her, but if he did, I'd throw up in my mouth a little bit and then get in line and support the ticket.

They have everyone jumping through hoops, especially the media, while not letting a hint out about who is being vetted never mind who is in consideration.


The Obama campaign is the best I have ever seen! Kudos to them!

Oh, and btw, I am not on the speakers list either so am staying close to the phone....just in case!

I was lukewarm on Kerry when he was running; since then, I had a change of heart. Not the worst thing out there.

If Obama picked him, I'd be okay with that.