PDA

View Full Version : Kerry in 2008?



PJ's Mom
11-03-2004, 11:42 AM
Do you think Kerry will run in 2008? I think he will and I think his decision to concede has a little something to do with it. He'll be made to look like the good guy for now putting us through what happened in 2000. :)

RICHARD
11-03-2004, 11:48 AM
Nope, it's gonna be Hillary!!!

dukedogsmom
11-03-2004, 11:50 AM
I voted the "I don't care" because it's going to be so bad by the time these next 4 years are up, that I'll be glad to see anything running against Bush.

Maresche
11-03-2004, 11:58 AM
But it won't be Bush running. My bet it'll be Gulianni so the dems will really have to come up with someone good 'cause if you thought Bush had a following.....

tatsxxx11
11-03-2004, 12:07 PM
Gulianni is a Republican I could definitely vote for but those in the "know" have recently discussed the possbility of him running in 2008 but believe that despite his post 9/11 popularity, that won't go far in getting him the vote of the conservatives in the south and the midwest. A moderate catholic, mayor from the much despised NYC? I don't think so. By 2008, the 9/11 aura will have long faded from the memory of those outside the tri state area, IMHO.

aly
11-03-2004, 12:11 PM
I really hope Hillary will run in '08.

I voted for Kerry yesterday, but I'm not sure I'd vote for him in '08 even if he did run. It just so happened that he was running against someone who I cannot morally support in any way, so Kerry got my vote.

Samantha Puppy
11-03-2004, 12:12 PM
9/11 didn't just happen to NYC... :(

Kerry may be in the running but after the primaries, I think it'll be ol' Senator Hillary.

Logan
11-03-2004, 12:27 PM
Giuliani (sp?) has quite an interesting personal life, if I remember correctly. Can't help but think that the "Bible Belt" people would jump all over that, although I could definitely support him for his leadership skills.

I think Kerry is like Gore, Dole and so many others (Republican and Democrat) and would not be able to mount a serious campaign the second time around. Several comments were made by people on TV and radio today that this is Hillary's best day ever! Now she can run against a Republican candidate in 2008 and not have to worry about defeating an incumbent Democrat (Kerry). I hope it won't happen, but if the commentators are right, it will happen.

I voted "No" on the Kerry question. I would doubt that he would try this again, but who knows for sure!

Logan

tatsxxx11
11-03-2004, 12:36 PM
9/11 didn't just happen to NYC...

No, of course not!!! But we were discussing Gulianni and his viability as a presidential candidate in 2008 in light of his role as mayor of NYC during the 9/11 tragedy and the national prominance he received as a result of that:)

ramanth
11-03-2004, 12:53 PM
I hoping for Hilary myself, but if Kerry won the primary, he'd get my vote again.

CathyBogart
11-03-2004, 01:04 PM
I voted yes...in a desperate hope...I hope things haven't gone so downhill by then that there is nothing left to salvage. :(

Logan
11-03-2004, 01:36 PM
I thought this was an interesting part of the commentary from Tim Russert on MSNBC:

MSNBC: If we get a John Kerry concession speech and George Bush victory speech, where do we go from here?

Russert: What you’d have then, with George Bush re-elected, is two open primaries. You have the Republican primary and the Democratic primary. You have Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Howard Dean. You have Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Bill Frist. Think about it. It starts now.

Whew! Thinking 2008, already!!!! :eek:

popcornbird
11-03-2004, 02:02 PM
I don't know...I don't really care right now. I never cared for Kerry...just wanted him to win over Bush. We shall see after these 4 years are over. ;)

dukedogsmom
11-03-2004, 02:15 PM
Let's not even think about 2008!! And no, I won't be voting for Hillary, that's for sure.

Cincy'sMom
11-04-2004, 06:29 AM
I don't think Hillary is the best choice for Pres in 2008 if the Democrats want to win the White house. I'm not saying this as a comment to her qualifications, to her views, etc. I just think that with Bush winning this year in popular vote and the electoral college, and many Congress seats being taken over by Republicans, and a ban on gay marriage passing in many states, the US as a whole is saying that maybe they aren't quite so liberal. I guess maybe to me that says that the US isn't liberal enough yet to accept a woman canidate...esp. since the majority of the voters are older, I think they are less likely to accept a woman.

But, who knows what will happen in 4 years though?

dukedogsmom
11-04-2004, 06:35 AM
I just don't care for Hillary is all. I voted for Geraldine Ferraro way back when she ran for president.

Cincy'sMom
11-04-2004, 10:50 AM
I don't personally care for Hillary myself and would not for for her based on her, not because she is female. But I think there are a lot of people set in their ways that wouldn't vote for her as President because she is a woman. I think if the Democratic party is going to get into the White House, they need a candidate who will be judged on issues, not on their sex, and I don't think the US is ready to do that yet. Maybe we need a female VP before we go for President. Just my opinion.

lizzielou742
11-04-2004, 01:28 PM
I don't know about Hillary....I think a lot of Democrats are banking on her right now, but who knows what will happen four years down the line. I don't think Guiliani would get far in the primaries, at least if they were held today. He's pro-choice, which would upset a lot of conservatives, and he made that comment the other day on the Today show about the 380 tons of explosives and how the troops should have just looked for them harder, which upset a lot of conservatives, moderates and liberals (and personally offended quite a few people). Therefore, I don't think he's have enough popular support to win the all-important primaries. However, I do think four years in an appointed position in the Bush cabinet could change a lot of people's opinions about him, one way or the other.

Personally I'd like to see an Edwards/Obama team for the Democrats. At least that's how I feel right now. :)

heinz57_79
11-04-2004, 01:30 PM
Personally, I don't really care if he does one way or the other. I wasn't really Pro Kerry... just Anti Bush. :) I think hilary has plans to run tho... WOOOO HOOOOO!!!! GO HILARY!!

Maybe John McCain will run... I wouldnt' mind him in office. He's a great politician. :)

Lady's Human
11-04-2004, 01:35 PM
Rudy won't run, he could never get around his personal issues on a national stage. Personally, I'd like to see JC Watts run for VP for the republicans, but every time he ran for congress in OK he was attacked by the NAACP as an "uncle tom". That being the case, Biden would do a good job for the dems (Think Leiberman with charisma) and Maybe Romney/Watts for the GOP.

tatsxxx11
11-04-2004, 02:00 PM
Joe Lieberman, D senator from CT
John McCain, R senator from Arizonia
Joe Biden, D senator from Delaware
Colin Powell...
Barak Obama, soon to be D senator from Illinois (shows promise for sure!)
Rudy Gulianni...
Evan Bayh, D senator from Indiana
John Edwards
Jennifer Granholm, Gov. of Michigan
Christie Todd Whitman, former R Gov. of NJ and Bush cabinet appointee


Those are some I might consider voting for in 2008.


Re: Guiliani's personal life. He was recently divorced and remarried, but that's about the only "skeleton" in his closet, so to speak. Newt Gingrich and other Republican and Dem. notables have also been divorced/remarried so I'm not sure that would factor in.

Before becoming mayor of NYC, he was a nationally heralded federal prosecutor in NYC and did an amazing job, helping to bring down organized crime in NYC. And though many thought his tactics too tough, it was he who almost single handedly put the polish back on the "Big Apple" cleaning up the streets and Times Square. Crime went WAY down under his tenure; among the "big cities," NYC is considered one of the safest. He also attended seminary as a young man and is a devout Catholic (yes, pro choice) loves opera and is a life long Yankee fan, which alone may preclude him from getting the nomination:D When there was a political awards dinner/ceremony in the city, he refused to allow one invited guest to attend, Yassar Arafat, whom he considers a terrorist.

As for needing to "break in" the American public to the idea of a female Pres., I disagree. I think women have held positions of political power for long enough now and have proven their merit and capacity to lead. And if you're qualified to be VP, you're qualified to assume the top job. Condolezza Rice is perhaps the most important advisor to this current Pres., ever at his side, second only to Cheney in influence. There are a host of women I could envision in the office, my own prefs aside...


Elizabeth Dole, R senator from NC
Condelezza Rice
Hillary Clinton, D senator from NY
Diane Feinstein, D senator from Calif.
Mary Landrieu, D senator from Louisana
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R Sen. from Texas
Jennifer Granholm, the D Gov. of Michigan a VERY impressive woman who has caught the attention of political hacks on both sides the past couple of years.


http://www.michigan.gov/images/gov_hs_58538_7.jpg

Lady's Human
11-04-2004, 02:13 PM
The problem with Giuliani as a candidate is not the fact that he is divorced, it is the mess srurrounding the divorce which unfortunately was extremely ugly and public. The media would never let it slide.

RICHARD
11-04-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Lady's Human
The problem with Giuliani as a candidate is not the fact that he is divorced, it is the mess srurrounding the divorce which unfortunately was extremely ugly and public. The media would never let it slide.

But what about the public???

Marion Berry!!!:rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :mad:

Samantha Puppy
11-04-2004, 02:31 PM
Marion Berry, sure.

But what about ol' Slick Willie? You know, the President that committed PERJURY? If he wasn't roasted by the media, I fail to see why anyone else should be.

tatsxxx11
11-04-2004, 02:32 PM
Messy...well, not really. It was public; he's a public figure! Donna Hanover was a well known TV celebrity/news anchor in NY so that added to the notoriety. They were, for all intents and purposes, separated for ages before the divorce announcement. This was the "mess" part; supposedly he announced the separation before formally telling her he wanted a divorce or letting her know he was making it public news.

Still, wasn't Newt Gingrich re-elected, despite the fact that he was having an affair while his wife was dying? I think he's on wife # 3 now. I don't think there was any real scandal here and the news is old news; there's no press tougher than the NY press and he weathered it just fine. And I think the country is able to handle having a Pres. who is divorced. I sure hope that the fact that a candidate may or may not be divorced, will not be held up as a barometer of accetable morality that one must measure up to in order to be elected.

aly
11-04-2004, 02:33 PM
I don't understand why personal life has so much to do with politics. I personally HATE what Bill Clinton did, but I think it is HIS business and everyone should go on with their own lives. I do not think it spoke volumes for his character when he lied about it at first, but again, I feel that is a completely different issue than leading the country.

tatsxxx11
11-04-2004, 02:37 PM
I agree with you Aly, 100%. God forbid each and every politician's personal life and past were fully investigated and divulged! Remember during the Clinton impeachment hearings? TWO Republican Speakers of the House had to step down during the mess because Larry Flint figured it fair game to poke into their personal lives and revealed that both were having affairs!!! Hypocrits:mad: :mad:

Appearances can be deceiving...Jimmy Sawaggart, Jim Baker, come to mind. My point is we are all faliable and that does not necessarily preclude us from doing good.

cookieluver7
11-06-2004, 08:22 PM
I don't know, but if I had to pick, I would probably say yeah, he would run for president again next year.

buckner
11-06-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by aly
I don't understand why personal life has so much to do with politics. I personally HATE what Bill Clinton did, but I think it is HIS business and everyone should go on with their own lives. I do not think it spoke volumes for his character when he lied about it at first, but again, I feel that is a completely different issue than leading the country.

I'll tell you, I never did like Clinton. I respected him because he was president, but I sure didn't like him. The fact that he was having an affair isn't what got everyone so involved. Clinton's human, and humans do that. Yes, it did bother me, but that's just because of my morals and values. What bothered me, among MANY others, was the fact that he committed purgery and thought nothing should happen to him because he was president. BS, do you know what purgery is? Do you know what would've happened to me if *I* committed purgery, since I'm just a regular ol' citizen?

And an answer to the original question, no I don't think he'll run again. I don't see it happening, for some reason. And if Hillary runs, I'm going to laugh. I know it's in the talk that she's going to try to run, and try to make it through the primaries, but I just don't see that happening, either!

catland
11-08-2004, 03:00 PM
I sure hope that Kerry isn't the 2008 Democratic candidate or we can just vote Republican now and get it over with.

The Democratic party is in shambles. With an unpopular war, a shaky economy, and a less than articulate incumbent, there is no reason that the Democrats shouldn't have waltzed in and trounced W on election day. But with so many primaries so early in the game now, Kerry was picked before most of us even knew who he was. He was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

I know that in another thread there was the discussion of GW being arrogant. I think its the Democratic party that suffers this even more. They still believe that they are the voice of the people when the election showed that they clearly are not.

aly
11-08-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by catland
I sure hope that Kerry isn't the 2008 Democratic candidate or we can just vote Republican now and get it over with.

The Democratic party is in shambles. With an unpopular war, a shaky economy, and a less than articulate incumbent, there is no reason that the Democrats shouldn't have waltzed in and trounced W on election day. But with so many primaries so early in the game now, Kerry was picked before most of us even knew who he was. He was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

I know that in another thread there was the discussion of GW being arrogant. I think its the Democratic party that suffers this even more. They still believe that they are the voice of the people when the election showed that they clearly are not.

I thought it was a pretty darn close election myself.

Can you give examples of why you think Democrats are arrogant?

The election showed a VERY divided country. The Democrats had incredibly good turnouts in certain areas. Overall, it certainly was a great night for Republicans, but that is just how it happened to work this time.

I don't think the Republicans are "arrogant" or "think they are the voice of the people". Why do you think that of the Dems?

Cincy'sMom
11-08-2004, 05:13 PM
One case of arrogance, I heard about in the democratic party was Ted Kennedy. I heard this second hand, but supposedly, he was congratulating Kerry and the Democrats for the Presidental election win, about 5:30 pm on election day. I believe it was him, but it could have been someone else said, "Mass., had the Super Bowl Champion, Patriots, the World Series Champ, Red Sox, and now the President" A little too arrogant, a little too soon.

I certainly don't think that makes the democratic party arrogant, but I do think it was coming from both sides on election day.

Lady's Human
11-08-2004, 05:33 PM
As an example of Democratic Arrogance, I would cite the overabundance of columnists both on line or in print wondering how the American electorate could be "stupid enough to put the idiot back in office" . If that isn't arrogance I don't know what is.

lizzielou742
11-08-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by catland
They still believe that they are the voice of the people when the election showed that they clearly are not.

55 million people would beg to differ.

aly
11-08-2004, 06:09 PM
Well you guys have definately not proved the whole Democratic party to be arrogant with so few examples. To judge a whole party by a couple people isn't right. Just think of the multitude of things that could be said of the Republicans if they are judged by a few people :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: I can think of some pretty bad things myself!! :o

lizzielou742
11-08-2004, 06:24 PM
Aly -

I think the past few years + this election have divided the country SO much. For example, I have online friends (Democrats) who are now "mad" at me for living in a "red state," a state that could vote for Bush and ban gay marriage like I have some kind of control over it. They are all going nuts, talking about boycotting "red states," and worse. I think this is only going to progress over the next four years. Maybe I'm a pessimist...but I'll tell you one thing, being a liberal (and proud of it!) there is no way I will "unite" with Bush on anything. He made this speech the other day about how he's going to "reach out" to the people who didn't vote for him, and we should all "unite"....heh. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's going to happen, especially if I have to sacrifice even one position, or give up even one thing I believe in.

Arrogant? Maybe. But that's just me. ;)

catland
11-08-2004, 06:39 PM
Aly - perhaps arrogance wasn't the best word to convey my impressions.

Its more like the Democratic party is suffering some kind of dissociative disorder and are genuinely befuddled by the fact that they lost. Sure, they won in many major cities (including where I live), but that isn't enough to win the presidency. Never has been, never will be.

Also its not just the presidency but the losses in the House and Senate that are so sad.

Lizzie - that's too bad. Unfortunately, its how some people react.

GreyhoundDaddy
11-09-2004, 02:18 PM
I like it!

edited to add that the infamous... MomoftheFuzzy sent this to me ;)

MomoftheFuzzy
11-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Infamous? Me? Yeah, right... bite your tongue, bub. :p

MomoftheFuzzy
11-09-2004, 03:48 PM
As far as how I voted, I voted no, Kerry wouldn't run again because, as much as I liked him and voted for him now, I just don't see him going through it all again. I think he's had too many irrational, baseless claims made against him (as opposed to Bush's proven/documented "skeletons in the closet" which mysteriously did not surface this past election, i.e. his drunk driving charge... hmmm, a better spin doctor perhaps?) to actually pull off a win and I'm afraid he knows that. :( They need to start grooming a different kind of democrat to compete in 2008 -- I think the competition might be very, VERY stiff then. *gulp*

lidlelou
11-10-2004, 12:54 PM
I think it will be Hilary too, and she's got my vote.

PJ's Mom
11-10-2004, 01:19 PM
I hope its not Hilary. I don't think this country's ready for a woman president yet. :(

Denyce
11-10-2004, 03:05 PM
What about an Edwards/Clinton ticket? Hilary as VP??? *shrug*