Terry Kerry wants 2008 White House Run

IF this story is accurate, (and I stress IF) then she is certifiable!
Neither party recycles old loosers from the previous run.
The dems are talking about having competant people run -
Hillary, Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman. While I disagree with
most of what these people want to do 'for' America ... they are
at least capable. John Kerry wasn't capable.

If Terry Kerry thinks America would rather have her hubby
- who didn't bother to show up for work in the senate 70% +
of the time - she's nuts. There is no way Terry or John Kerry
can even come close to Hillary or Joe Biden. It'll be a blood bath!

********************************************************
www.newsmax.com...

Dec. 11, 2004
Newsmax.com
Teresa Gins Up Crowd for 2008 Kerry Run

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry and his ketchup heiress wife Teresa paid an emotional visit to Iowa on Friday, where comments by the might-a-been first lady provoked supporters to urge her husband to run again in 2008.

At a private reception at a Des Moines hotel, Kerry insisted the only reason for his return to Iowa was to thank supporters.

But according to the Associated Press, the focus soon turned to the future when Teresa announced, "Whoever's up in '08 will not be running against the president, which is a blessing."

That's when the crowd erupted with chants of Kerry's name

[edit on 12/12/2004 by FlyersFan]

Kerry himself is keeping options open. I'm not saying he will or should run, but it's not unprecedented at all for a losing candidate to run again and even win. Off the top of my head, Harrison was beat by the man he beat. And Kerry wouldn't even run against Bush in 2008. There'll be no sitting war President.

I'd actually call Kerry the Democratic frontrunner at this early stage. Despite most conservatives rabid obsession to keep making it Hillary. Aren't you guys tired of propping her up yet? :shk:

Consider the following:

~At least 12 million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election.

~The record turnout was attributed partly to the intensity of the division between the candidates and partly to intensive voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts by both major parties and their allies.

~The large turnout enabled each major-party candidate to set a record.

~Bush received the largest number of votes of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history. Kerry, however, also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election, though not as many as Bush in this election.

~Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.7% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3.3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948.

~Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254.

So after an unprecedented half billion in mostly negative campaigning set out to destroy "the number one Liberal Senator in America" that happened to also be "a war criminal and traitor" he got more votes than Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton or Bush 2000 and almost did what's NEVER been done before... which is upset a sitting WARTIME President!

So if there really was a "bloodbath" in 2008 against a second Kerry run, it would be the first.

Don't believe the media narrative of some Bush mandate. For a "winning incumbent" it was slim pickings. To Kerry's pluses for running again, the main one is he's been vetted completely. What could they possibly throw at him now? He was right about flu shots and humvee armour?

And consider how Bush won and who the RNC might replace him with? If they really run a pro-gay, pro-gun control moderate like they keep threatening (California's Arnold or NY's Gouliani), do you really think that plays well given the wedge victory by red state value voters? That'll motivate them alright. To stay home or vote third party. What about the other alternative? Let's say they do run a hard line conservative against abortion rights? Can't think of a single one right now in the Republicans, but I'm sure there's an inexperienced Governor of some state out there being groomed. I'd like to see that run actually after another four years of Bush Supreme Court appointments.

I think Kerry or any Democrat would do just fine against the phantom candidate the RNC doesn't even have yet. I wouldn't be suprised at all if they don't have a clue which way to go after the 2004 election.

Originally posted by RANT
Off the top of my head, Harrison was beat by the man he beat.

"the number one Liberal Senator in America" that happened to also be "a war criminal and traitor"

almost did

So if there really was a "bloodbath" in 2008 against a second Kerry run, it would be the first.

He was right about flu shots and humvee armour?

I think Kerry or any Democrat would do just fine

Isn't William Henry Harrison the president who talked himself to death?
I think so. At his inauguration he talked for 3 hours, on the capital steps,
in a blizzard, without a hat on. Within hours he was sick. He died of
pneumonia within days. He was so enamoured with himself that he
talked and talked and talked ... himself to death. I'm going to go look
that up again ... pretty sure he's the one who did that.

Kerry IS the number one Liberal Senator in America" and
"a war criminal and traitor". Your key word in that sentence was
'ALMOST'. Almost is not accomplishing anything. It's just ... almost.

As far as you saying 'it would be a first' for Kerry loosing in a bloodbath -
there is a first time for everything. However, what I ment was it would
be a bloodbath in the dem primaries. No way could Kerry hold up against
COMPETANT people like Hillary or Joe Biden. I hope the dems learned from
running an incompetant traitor ... If they put Hillary, Biden, Gephardt or
Lieberman up in 2008, it will definately be a bloodbath for Kerry. He
won't even get out of the gate.

Ref the flu shots. That's Hillary's fault. The Clintons had 8 years in
the White House and it was Hillary's 'fix' that caused American companies
to stop production of flu shots. Hillary caused the flu shot mess.
Ref Humvee armour. Yeah, that's bad. Poor George Bush didn't have
enough time or money to make up for all the military budget cuts
Bill Clinton pushed through on his 8 years as Commander in Chief.
That humvee armour has to get fixed. I blame Clinton. (naturally )

I don't think Kerry would do fine. He's a looser. (he's incompetant).
Hillary, Biden, Gephardt, and Lieberman are all the best bets the
dems have. As much as I don't like some of what they want to do
'for' (to) America ... they are COMPETANT and are presidential
material. Kerry isn't and never was.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Kerry IS the number one Liberal Senator in America" and
"a war criminal and traitor".

I think you have confused Kerry with Bush. Wasnt Bush a deserter? YES!

So lets see. Deserter= Traitor. Deserter is also tantimount to a military criminal. You shouldnt throw bowling balls in a glass house

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Isn't William Henry Harrison the president who talked himself to death?

Yes, William "Tippecanoe" was an unsuccessful one termer that died in office. And it can be said he talked himself to death.

But he's more akin to Bush 41 than 43 in my mind. "Read my lips..." don't talk so much.

His son Benjamin Harrison was the comparison I was making. The son of a one term President, that lost the popular vote to Democrat Cleveland (despite winning electorally), but was later beaten by the same man.

The comparisons are quite extensive except for the fact Gore didn't run again, and Shrub got himself in a quagmire to ensure re-election (like all wartime Presidents).

Boiling down your argument though... So Kerry is incompetent basically? He got more votes than Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 2000. But he sucks? The only candidate to ever run against a sitting wartime incumbent to not get trounced, but he couldn't possibly beat whatever inexperienced goon you run in '08? He's also in fact NOT the despicable character Bush spent a half billion dollars saying he was (to your point Kidfinger) as evident by his collective vote, but somehow a troll like Lieberman that got practically no votes is competant? Or Hillary is? Based on what? Your overwhelming desire to not get trounced by Kerry? Your desire to finally try to beat a Clinton? You just liked saying "Loserman" so much in 2000, you'd like another crack? RNC psy-ops make me laugh.

Don't you worry about the Democratic nomination, okay? Based on your RNC selections we'll decide who's competant. My God woman, you think BUSH is competant. :shk:

You just figure out what shaved baboon to replace Cheney with before 2008 so you get free air travel campaiging in Air Force Two as an "incumbent" apointment.

Originally posted by RANT
Based on what? Your overwhelming desire to not get trounced by Kerry? Your desire to finally try to beat a Clinton? You just liked saying "Loserman" so much in 2000, you'd like another crack? RNC psy-ops make me laugh.

Don't you worry about the Democratic nomination, okay? Based on your RNC selections we'll decide who's competant. My God woman, you think BUSH is competant. :shk:

Rant, I am wiping the tears from my eyes just to type this. In this case, the truth is hillarious! I would like to see what would happen to Bush if an election were held right now. After passing the latest "We are taking your rights and there is nothing you can do about it" bill, and the well known fact that many neocons choose to ignore: Bush stated it would be better for him if he had a dictatorial role in the US Governmnet as leader, I dont think he is faring to well in the minds of most Americans. Not only that, but that schmuck has dropped off radar since making all those promises during his election campaign.


Edit: No one will eve be able to beat WJC except HRC, maybe with Obama as a running mate My hopes anyway. If Kerry does run agian, I will vote for him though.

[edit on 12/13/04 by Kidfinger]

Here's a good example of why alot of liberals are sick of Republicans' advice to be more like them, learn how they win, imitate to survive...

You're Not Right Because You Beat Me

Parts from of a letter going around about the election from a woman named Mel Giles, an advocate for domestic abuse victims. It's perfect.

*snip*

Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, "Why did they beat me?"

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you: Every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can't seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won't; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See the Democrats cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple...

It goes on. I love this analogy! And this part especially...

Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 57 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 57 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 57 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don't know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: Stop responding to the abuser.

It's so perfect. Notice how everything is always the fault of the oppressed in the mind of the abuser. The vaaaast "liberal" conspiracies. The media. Or Clinton did it. Not us. Never us. We wouldn't even have to be such moral authoritarians if you guys hadn't ruined America.

Abusers. Totally in charge. Run everything. Have for years. But it's still the liberals fault.

I love it.

You stand tall, with 57 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell.

Now there's some good advice! If we lose, we lose. We're still right. And won't lose forever. Never compromise your principles to try and make tyrants like you.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I think you have confused Kerry with Bush.
Wasnt Bush a deserter? YES!

No. Neither Kerry nor Bush were deserters.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. Neither Kerry nor Bush were deserters.

Well, your right on one account
www.glcq.com...

Rant, that was a moving letter, thanx for sharing it

Originally posted by RANT
So Kerry is incompetent basically? He got more votes than Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 2000. But he sucks?

Lieberman that got practically no votes is competant? Or Hillary is?
Based on what?

You just liked saying "Loserman" so much in 2000, you'd like another crack?

My God woman, you think BUSH is competant.

Kerry got more votes than Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton .... so what?
People vote for incompetants all the time. The number of votes for
someone doesn't mean they are competant. You can't throw in
that Kerry got a lot of votes so he can't be incompetant. G.W. got
4 million more votes than Kerry, and YOU call HIM incompetant.

Lieberman and Hillary (and Biden, don't forget him) ARE very
competant. Based on what you ask? Their voting records.
And in Hillary's case, not just her senate voting record, but her
other achievments, none of which were easy. Also, the committees
that they are on, and the fact that they actually showed up for
work at the senate (something Kerry couldn't figure out how to do).

While I don't agree with Lieberman, Hillary, and Biden on many
issues... THEY ARE COMPETANT. They are QUALIFIED.

Ref Loserman - I never said that. Joe Lieberman is a good man
and I respect his service to this country. He definately wasn't a
'sore looser'.

Actually I'm not fond of Bush. There are many things that he's doing
that I'd like to change. However, Kerry would have been worse.

I'm back to my original post. Kerry hasn't got a chance in Hell in
2008. He and his wife are hanging on to a 'never was' dream.
The dems will definately put someone out that is much better.
There is a lot of talent and Kerry doesn't rate when matched up
against them.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
No one will eve be able to beat WJC except HRC,
maybe with Obama as a running mate

There ya' go. Two competant and qualified people.
They'd make a dynamic team.

MUCH different from Kerry/Edwards. Edwards wasn't
qualified to be VP. Give him 8 more years in the senate
and he would have been. But not now.

There is no way that a Kerry/anyone ticket could compete
with a Clinton/Obama ticket. None.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Well, your right on one account

www.glcq.com...

No. G.W. did not desert his unit.
This has been debunked long ago and
talked out to death everywhere, including here.

(Besides ... if what you are saying is true (not)
then Kerry was so incompetant that he couldn't
be a deserter! )

Originally posted by FlyersFan

There is no way that a Kerry/anyone ticket could compete
with a Clinton/Obama ticket. None.

Now if we can just get you to vote for them

Originally posted by FlyersFan


(Besides ... if what you are saying is true (not)
then Kerry was so incompetant that he couldn't
be a deserter!

)

At least Kerry didnt hide from service out of fear of battle Bush is brave, as long as he has the entire us military in front of him

Originally posted by RANT
Or Clinton did it.

But he really DID do it!

Originally posted by Kidfinger
At least Kerry didnt hide from service out of fear of battle

Kerry requested deferment and was denyed. I'm sure Bush
had some pull somewhere that got him into the National Guard.
Kerry wanted out, but couldn't get it, so he got his 3 scratches
and got out that way.

Neither person has a great military record. Kerry's '3 scratches
in 4 months and out' and his fiasco with the Winter Soldier garbage
isn't anything to show off about. G.W. going into the National
Guard and probably getting there due to some pull isn't anything
to show off about either. Now ... John McCain and his sacrifice
during Vietnam definately IS something to write home about.

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by FlyersFan

There is no way that a Kerry/anyone ticket could compete
with a Clinton/Obama ticket. None.

Now if we can just get you to vote for them

I could see myself voting for Obama, Lieberman, or Biden.
Gephardt was on my 'maybe' list, but then he chatted up
how wonderful Barbara Striesand is .... If he can't see
through the hollywood tinsel garbage then I don't know
if I'd want him in the White House. So I have Gephardt
on my 'watch and see' list. I like Guiliani and I like McCain.
McCain is the ONLY politician that I have donated $$$ to
for a campaign.