Obama To Pick Kerry As Running Mate?
8 comments August 15th, 2008
Posts with the tag 'John Kerry'
John Kerry: Out of Step with History and Facts
So, apparently my former senator thinks that on 9/11 we were “basically at peace.”
4 comments May 30th, 2008
Howard Dean: Partisan or Stupid?
Howard Dean can’t seem to open his mouth without saying something nonsensical… Earlier this week he said that John McCain isn’t a strong candidate … yet both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are “extraordinary.”
Howard Dean is as partisan as they come, but for him to make both those claims is just plain stupidity. John McCain has more experience than Hillary and Obama combined. Four years ago, Democrats claimed that John Kerry’s four months in Vietnam made him more qualified to be commander-in-chief, but today they say that John McCain, who served far longer and endured far more than John Kerry did, is a weaker candidate than both Hillary and Obama, neither of whom served in the military. Hillary and Obama support disastrous policies…. They both want to cut and run from Iraq. They both want to raise taxes. They both want socialized health care. Yet, Howard Dean calls them extraordinary…
80 comments April 9th, 2008
Mr. Ogonowski Goes to Washington
A brilliant video by John Kerry’s opponent for the United States Senate.
I didn’t know that their was such a thing as Senate hair care…
13 comments March 12th, 2008
Ogonowski To Challenge John Kerry
Last year, Republican Jim Ogonowski was narrowly defeated by Niki Tsongas in the race for the 5th Congressional District. It is now being reported that Ogonowski is planning to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat. Does he have a chance of victory? I look at various factors that will come into play in the race here.
6 comments January 13th, 2008
Kerry Endorses Obama…
I honestly didn’t see this coming.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the White House Thursday in a timely slap at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate.
Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry declared, “Martin Luther King Jr. said the time is always right to do what is right. And I’m here in South Carolina because this is the right time to share with you, to make sure that we know that I have the confidence … and that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States.”
Kerry delivered his endorsement in South Carolina at a time, two weeks before that state’s primary, when Clinton is riding a wave of enthusiasm following her victory over Obama in the New Hampshire primary.
The obvious question to ask is “Why?” Why would Kerry endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton, whose husband helped him significantly in 2004; and John Edwards, who was his running mate in 2004.
After Al Gore’s embarrassing pre-implosion endorsement of Howard Dean, it’s obvious that politicians now are going to look before they leap when it comes to making an endorsement. So, one has to ask why Kerry endorsed Obama now, instead of after Iowa. Endorsing Obama immediately following Iowa could have helped him secure victory in New Hampshire — a state Kerry won in 2004. But he didn’t.
Here’s how I see it. Barack Obama, despite the enthusiasm for his campaign, is unelectable in the general election. John Kerry, who didn’t seek the presidency this time despite wanting to, is sure to want one more go at it. Endorsing Barack Obama helps him on a couple fronts… First, he can conceivably give Obama enough of a boost in the primaries to help him win and secure the nomination, and second, he gets to align himself with Obama’s anti-Iraq war position, which he might see as vital for a potential run in 2012. Would Kerry have endorsed Obama if he won New Hampshire? Probably not, it wouldn’t have been necessary. Had Obama won New Hampshire, he’d most certainly have been a shoo-in for the nomination. But now, Kerry sees he needs to do what he can to ensure Obama gets the nomination … if deep in his heart, he really wants to run for president again in 2012.
52 comments January 10th, 2008
Wide Open Iowa
Mark and I have spoken privately about our predictions for Iowa, and a couple weeks ago, I said I think it could end up going Edwards, Clinton, then Obama. Mark and I have generally been at odds over how Iowa will turn out for the Democrats, but a new poll now shows Edwards on top, with Clinton and Obama not far behind makes me think that my prediction wasn’t too far out there.
Let me explain why I believe, at this point, that not only will Edwards come out on top, but that Obama will do surprisingly poor, in the same way that Howard Dean did back in 2004.
I watched some of the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, and the one thing that seemed to stick out in my mind was the common question everyone was asking: “Who can beat George W. Bush?” With no incumbent this cycle, the question I expect caucus-goers to be asking is “Who can win in the general election?” And I expect that most will not give “Barack Obama” as the answer. In 2004 Iowa Democrats made the strategic decision to bank their hopes on capturing the presidency on John Kerry. John Kerry had run a terrible campaign up to that point — and even had to loan himself a huge chunk of money to keep himself afloat at one point — but with the war on terror as the primary issue, it seemed logical to pick someone who served in Vietnam (albeit very briefly) and had a bit more experience than a governor of a small state who sealed his own records and appeals to the far light liberal bloggers.
If electability is as important to Iowa Democrats in 2008 as it was in 2004, then I wouldn’t count on Obama coming out on top. Obama’s inexperience is a huge problem for him. And, let’s face it, if liberals really believe that this country is racist, then how could they believe that Obama has a chance to win the General Election?
And how about Hillary? Aside from her past support for the war in Iraq, there is no one more polarizing and controversial than her. Still, I believe Democrats would consider her more electable than Barack Obama.
Democrats can claim all they want that there will be a blowout in 2008, but many factors will drive turnout on both sides, and I’m still thinking that this election will be close like the previous two.
The real thing we get out of this new poll is that Iowa is wide open. In the past few weeks and months, all of the top three Democrat contenders have come out on top of an Iowa poll. In the end, it can go either way. This latest poll strengthens my belief that Edwards can win Iowa.
So anyway, not too long ago I asked our readers for predictions about Iowa. Any revisions to past predictions? Any new predictions?
UPDATE: Strengthening the foundation for my prediction again… QandO points us to a story that says Democrats are worried about the electability of their nominee.
16 comments December 18th, 2007
Democrats Flip-Flopping on Iraq
So, now Bill Clinton is jumping on the “I always opposed the war in Iraq” train.
Does Bill Clinton forget signing the Iraq Liberation Act? Or the fact that his administration was advocating the use of military force against Iraq for years — as were many leaders in the Democratic Party. The problem for Democrats today is that Iraq, for them, is not a national security issue, but a political issue. As Democrats become increasingly more beholden to the interests of the extremist anti-war base of their party, they all have to rewrite their own history and present themselves as longtime opponents of the war. John Kerry did the same thing in 2004 during his presidential campaign… as did John Edwards. Bill Clinton clearly has to follow suit for the sake of his political partner Hillary’s campaign.
In the beginning there was plenty of support for the war in Iraq. Bush’s approval ratings even went up after we first went in. But, Democrats will take any position depending on how the political winds are blowing. They have no backbones and no conviction.
47 comments November 28th, 2007
Wheels Coming Off the Hillary Express?
Polls are weak reeds, especially this far out - but any hint of vulnerability on the part of Hillary Clinton will put her entire campaign plan at risk:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.
Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
The narrative for Hillary Clinton is that she is unstoppable in the Democratic primaries and this is mostly because she is the one Democrat who supposedly can win the White House for the Democrats - I’ve never bought either part of this narrative, and with her flubs in debates, her flip flops on immigration/border security, the left’s distaste for her continued quasi-support for the campaign in Iraq, Obama’s possible lead in Iowa and now this poll showing her being beaten by all five of the top GOP contenders, I think that a lot of Democrats will question the narrative as well.
Time will tell, of course - but I think that both Obama and Edwards have obvious openings here…but, additionally, some good moves by the second tier (Richardson, eg) can have an impact. And, finally, a hint of Hillary collapse could bring both Kerry and Gore into the race as late entrants who are more credible than any of the other non-Hillary Democratic candidates.
5 comments November 27th, 2007
Hillary and the Democrats Properly Rated for 2008
Scrappleface gets down to brass tacks:
“In the White House, First Lady Clinton worked side-by-side with Vice President Al Gore, who I defeated in 2000,” said Mr. Bush, “In the Senate, she served alongside John Kerry and John Edwards, who I defeated in 2004. No one else in the race has such broad-ranging experience with what it means to be a Democrat presidential candidate in the 21st century.”
The president noted that “the very fact that Sen. Clinton is now debating with rookie Sen. Barack Obama over who has more experience serving in an executive position, which neither senator has ever done, further demonstrates that among Democrats she’s seasoned, prime beef. As my friends in the ranching business say, ‘It’s what’s for dinner’.”
Looking forward to 2008.
11 comments November 22nd, 2007
Obama Leading in Iowa?
Within the margin of error, but this still has to be worrisome for Hillary, Inc:
The top three Democratic presidential contenders remain locked in a close battle in Iowa, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seeing her advantages diminish on key issues, including the questions of experience and which candidate is best prepared to handle the war in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) draws support from 30 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, compared with 26 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.). New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson received 11 percent. The results are only marginally different from a Post-ABC poll in late July, but in a state likely to set the tone for the rest of the nominating process, there are significant signs of progress for Obama — and harbingers of concern for Clinton.
I’d like to congratulate my wife - it was she, after all, who first tipped me off to Obama’s real strength in Iowa; all that appearing on daytime TV (Oprah, Ellen, etc). Never, ever underestimate the power of likability in politics…Obama has got out there on the hustings in soft venues and presented himself as a nice guy, agent of change. It seems that women voters like a nice guy, and like to change things.
Will Obama win the Iowa caucuses? I don’t know - but he is showing that Hillary is not unstoppable. What really makes this interesting is the effect a Hillary slump might have on the un-announced potential Democratic candidates - Gore and Kerry. Like this: If Obama seems to be surging in Iowa, then the political calculus for Gore or Kerry goes, “I can announce late (say, late December), eschew Iowa on the reasonable grounds of lack of time to campaign, allow Obama to win there, and then help knock Hillary out in New Hampshire and South Carolina, thus leading the way to my nomination.”
Lord only knows what will really happen, but I’m betting on 2008 being the longest, nastiest and most interesting political campaign since 1860.
4 comments November 21st, 2007
John Kerry’s Gonna Get Those Swifties…
…just you wait and see!
Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens’ offer of $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In a letter to Pickens, who provided $3 million to bankroll the group during Kerry’s race against President Bush, the Massachusetts Democrat wrote: “While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Kerry, a Navy veteran and former prosecutor, said he was willing to present his case directly to Pickens and would donate any proceeds to the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Pickens issued his challenge Nov. 6 in Washington, while serving as chairman of a 40th anniversary gala for American Spectator magazine, according to two Internet accounts of the gathering and Kerry, who said he spoke to people who were there.
The news story goes on to claim that many of the Swifties allegations were already proven lies…which doesn’t square with Kerry’s insistence that he’s now going to prove them lies; either they’ve already been proven lies, or they haven’t…so, either Kerry is lying, or the Associated Press is (leaving open the possibility that both are lying - this is a Democrat and the MSM, after all). It will be interesting to see how this plays out - my bet is that it will be like Kerry’s oft-repeated pledge to release his military records: he’ll say he’s gonna do it, not do it, and then after a while say he did what he didn’t do…and the lefties will just buy it.
21 comments November 17th, 2007
