Monday, October 16, 2006

No More Kerry

I’m not trying to be rude, but I’d prefer that Kerry not get a second chance in 2008. I was perfectly fine with him getting the 2004 nomination and thought he was probably the best that we’d be likely to get. But I really don’t want to see him again in 2008. I’ll take Gore. I might even put up with a Hilary nomination, though I really wouldn’t be happy about it. But Kerry is a total no-go with me.

Is that wrong? He was my pick even before he got the nomination last time, but I’d prefer not to see him anymore, including with the emails he keeps sending me every once in awhile. I never got burned of Gore, but I really don’t like Kerry anymore. I don’t even blame him for losing, but I just don’t see him as the guy. We need somebody different. He was ok in 2004, but now we need more of a firebrand. Somebody to take us into the future. I really don’t know who I support right now, but I just don’t want Kerry anymore. Is that so wrong?


Anonymous said...

1. I would vastly prefer Kerry to Hillary. I think Kerry would be a fine president, but an AWFUL candidate. There's no way he could be elected at this point. None at all. Hillary has a shot, but I think she would be a poor-to-middlin' prez. Which would still seem glorious after the last eight years, but yeah.

2. On the other hand, Kerry seems to have learned the lessons from 2004, and should ABSOLUTELY be one of, if not THE top advisor to the actual candidate. The usual democratic consultants will still be flogging their mushy-centrist ideas, and Kerry I think would sit the candidate down and say "No, you need to be aggressive and bold and speak your convictions clearly, because (and I know this from personal experience) when you don't, you lose." Kerry and Dean and Gore have shown, finally, that they GET IT, albeit too late.

Former candidates simply have the most experience facing down the Republican Noise Machine (Hillary fits this mold too), and therefore should muscle the Frums of the world out of the picture. That is where they can best contribute to the next election, if they can quell their egos to the point where they can help THE TEAM win. Someone needs to tell the Democrats that you don't have to make the touchdown to win the game for your team.

-MH, Austin

whig said...

Is there a reason to expect the criminal regime to stand down voluntarily in two years? Just asking, you know?

Thelema said...

You needn't worry about Kerry getting the nomination in '08.

The Democrats never run their losers again. Go back and try to find the last time they did.

It is a good policy IMO.

Fade said...

I think Kerry has learned a LOT in the past couple of years and he's certainly appearing stronger and stronger each new time I see him speaking. The same thing goes for Gore, who would be my first choice for Democratic Nomination. Kerry would be a grand vp in that case.

Uh. Hillary is EVERYTHING Repubs are, which is lacking a compass on anything EXCEPT political scheming. She hasn't stood up against the Pro-War or torture substantially and has been absent many times during the past two years when a strong voice was needed. Hillary is everything that I despise about politicians and personally has NO qualities a true statesmen/woman should have. Gore or Kerry- fine- Even better since it has been shown how they both got the shaft from the reviled Bush administration. But Hillary is an anchor.