Comments on: There Is a God: John Kerry Quits Race

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:26:59 +0000

Ack, Kim. I’m against smearing the man, but he had his chance. And the VP seat would be put to better use by giving a young Dem talent like Obama the chance to distinguish himself in an executive position.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:01 +0000

Gray- I agree that Kerry was better than Dukakis. He was leading in the polls early on, but did not come back after Karl Rove’s swiftboating campaign. As there is currently little or no enthusiasm for him in the Democratic Party (other than as a voice against Bush’s conduct of the war), I sincerely hope that his excess millions are not used to purchase a berth for the Vice Presidency. The one thing that this administration has taught us is never to underestimate the power of that usually powerless office.

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:29:28 +0000

“The big question is what heâ€™s going to do with the extra millions from his 2004 campaign.”

Maybe the primary winner will pick him up as VP because of this war chest…

By: Gray

Gray — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:24:41 +0000

"Letâ€™s get this straight: In 2004, Kerry ran the worst presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis in 1988 and handed the election to Bush, who by most rights should have lost. Kerry was utterly unable to craft a message, let alone stay on it." Let's get this really straight, Shaun: People are pissed off that Kerry underperformed in his campaign and left them with horrible George Bush, but everybody should fact check the presidential elections of 1988 and 2004 before writting such utter nonsense. Kerry needed 18 electoral votes to beat Bush II., Dukakis 158 against Bush I.. So, Kerry's campaign was much better than Dukaki's and people who complaign should explain if they themselves did everything possible to help beating Bush. After all, Kerry sure wasn't a perfect choice for president, but still much better than Bush. Don't misunderstand me: I'm glad he doesn't run again, too, but only because the candidate roster is already overcrowded, showing many interesting personaliites, and the choice will be hard enough.

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:50:42 +0000

The fact is Kerry did better than any other Democrat would have done at the time. Having received 48% of the vote against an incumbant war time president is very good, despite what revisionists are now saying. I believe also at the time, the majority of Americans supported the Iraq war, and Bush’s approval rating was above 50%. I fail to see what Democrat would have fared better in ‘04.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:07:34 +0000

Good news.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:22:01 +0000

Kerry is staying where he belongs, in the Senate. There’s no Democratic clarion call for his candidacy. He’s smart and passionate, but often bores listeners to death, going on and on. The big question is what he’s going to do with the extra millions from his 2004 campaign.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:24:03 +0000

Now, if only Hillary, McCain, and Giuliani quit there’s a chance we may get someoe who’s not a bad Prez.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:23:37 +0000

I am also glad this poser and Bush type phony is not running again. The Swiftboat campaign and his weak response is not CinC material. Andrew Sullivan has a post from TPM about Obama fighting back against Fox and Insight. OBAMA TAKES ON FOX NEWS