Any chance John Kerry will run for POTUS in 2016?

[MoonRiver]

He's currently 69, which I is one year younger than Biden.

[Swede Atlanta]

1. IMHO, No......

He went through the hell of a presidential campaign in 2004. I think he admirably returned to the Senate and has served the people of Massachusetts well since. He is now on his way to focus on our global diplomacy which needs the continued, steady hand of someone of Kerry's calibre following on a tremendous performance by Hillary Clinton.

I don't think he wants to do that all over again. I could be wrong but I would be surprised.

[blm]

4. Hillary left her deal for Keystone pipeline unsigned so she wouldn't be hurt by it.

She was ready to sign it 4 years ago till there was such a backlash it made it impossible for her to sign it and succeed in a primary campaign. She made the deal and left it out there for the next Sec of State to sign. Surely you don't believe she studied it for four years and left with a deal undecided?

[Beacool]

17. Again with this?

Reality check: President Obama decided to shelve the decision until this year. 2012 was an election year, remember? He is the one who will make the final decision.

[blm]

18. State Dept had largest role in influencing the decision. Bill is urging acceptance still.

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

That is not a mere coincidence.

If Obama goes through with the deal it will be because of Hillary's work on it, and with the deal Hillary made at the State Dept. long ago.

[Beacool]

19. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If Obama goes through with it, it's Hillary's fault even though she's not at State anymore. Even if she was, it's still Obama's decision to make. Why do you find it so hard to accept? Don't bother answering, you're in the "hate the Clintons no matter what" group.

[blm]

25. Nope - I just believe in accuracy and playing as a team. And sometimes it is

painfully apparent to honest Democrats when Clintons are playing for their own political futures before the Democrats and the good of the country. They don't do it always, but, they have done it too often.

[graham4anything]

29. Play as a team, but put Hillary45 down ???

This is a general discussion post, correct? (wouldn't want to intrude in the private Kerry forum group here). As long as this is in the GD part, i will generally discuss this issue.

In the past-(while he was covertly overtly lobbying for the SOS job-)
didn't the Kerry forum group all say that SOS is his dream job and that is why he gave up one of the top most influencial important senate positions ever and caused alot of angst and grief(now over since there is no republican challenger in 2014 (though there will be in 2016).

Just curious but-
didn't the Kerry forum say that they will lobby for Hillary45 to keep Kerry on as SOS when Hillary45 takes office 1/20/17?

so how in gosh darn name would Kerry while he is "acting super duper as SOS" have time to run for President.
Makes as much sense as those who thought Hillary45 would run in 2012 while SOS.

I don't think it is even legal to do such anyhow.

So are people in the Kerry forum now saying he is going to quit the SOS (like he quit the Senate)???There is NO way he can be SOS and run for office.

something makes no sense here, when attempting to logically apply a plus b and coming up with gosh darn I have no idea whatsoever that equals.

i am sure I am misreading something and that no, the Kerry forum is not saying that, right?

BTW, would the Kerry forum group (who seems not to enjoy the Clinton's from posts here on this very thread) turn down the idea (that won't happen, but let's say) of Kerry being Hillary45's VP and Joe gets SOS?

Again, won't happen but curious.

But from the day Hillary was no longer SOS,
EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING that happens is 100% John Kerry's. No shifting the blame.The buck stops with him.

imho. feel free to disagree.
Peace.

[blm]

31. Kerry is not running for prez, this exchange is about Hillary's Keystone deal.

You are the one not making any sense. Not one person from Kerry forum is claiming Kerry will be running in 2016.

YOU, are still building straw men in order to argue on that absurd level of ground where you feel most comfortable.

[graham4anything]

39. The thread says any chance JK will run. How is the thread not about the Presidency?

If there is a deal, Kerry is 100% having his name on it.(and how do you know he wouldn't want any credit anyhow?)

BTW, it was me that said the SOS in the second term is a thankless job.
100% of any blame is directly Kerry's.
100% of anything good the credit is to President Obama

Hillary45 took the blame on things, but the first SOS gets the glory too.

They are all on the same team anyhow.

My animosity over the thought that Brown would take the seat in 2014 is over.

and I was on the official Kerry board and its aftermaths DEFENDING HIM since 2003 til that site closed 12-13 months ago.(CGCS which wasn't officially it, but the aftermath of it).

while this is not the best source-
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/kerry-canada-keystone-xl-pipeline-87429.html

[blm]

51. I responded to Swede's post. Guess you skipped that part to get your anti-Kerry rants in.

Your rants are absurd and disingenuous.

[graham4anything]

59. His response was to the OP as was mine.

it's not a rant, its a response, same as yours.

If Hillary45 asked John to be VP, are you saying he would refuse the offer of immortality?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. I really enjoy the character you play in this forum. It's kinda creative in a way. nt

[Beacool]

44. You gratuitously threw in a Hillary attack on an OP about Kerry.

The ones who are not team players are people like you. The Clintons are the most popular Democrats in the country and some of you can't stand it. That's what's "accurate".

[blm]

45. I can stand that they are popular - I can't stand that they favor their power over

all else.

You can't stand that someone looks at what they do accurately and in the context of actual policy and the historic record.

[Beacool]

58. "Accurately" in this case is a matter of opinion.

[graham4anything]

26. PLUS A ZILLION MILLION

[Jackpine Radical]

76. Isn't there enough blame to go around if Keystone goes through?

Who do you blame for the touchdown, the QB or the receiver?

[Beacool]

85. In this case, praise or blame, will be with the person who signs the bill.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Apparently he has not ruled it out:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2013/01/stepping_stone_john_kerry

[MoonRiver]

5. Interesting!

[blm]

13. Battenfield is not credible, he's a longtime RW agitator doing what he always does in Mass...

setting up a false scenario to foster attacks on Kerry.

[KamaAina]

49. The Herald is not credible

it's the New England equivalent of the NY Post, Murdoch ownership and all.

[Auggie]

3. I think he'll be spent after serving as SOS

Besides, I prefer the "youth" movement.

[loyalsister]

28. Same here!

Our recent younger presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) have been serving as statesmen long after their presidency. They have unique perspectives and credibility. We are well served when younger presidents are elected- assuming they don't screw it up so much they have to go into hiding.

[EC]

6. I was wondering about that too.

After 28 years in office, I have a hard time believing he will leave.

[Mass]

7. I dont think so.

I am a big fan of him, but I find this unlikely.

[Demo_Chris]

8. Very unlikely

[JI7]

9. Very Likely if he can Solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue

[bigwillq]

10. I hope not.

Been there done that.

[aptal]

11. I would hope not

Because many Democrats would make themselves look like fools for ranting and raving about Romney's money and him not being in touch with us real Americans when Kerry is just as bad.

I would love to see Michelle or Joe run. Wouldn't that be something.

[blm]

14. That post is steeped in ignorance of who Kerry is and how he has lived his life.

'just as bad' is as ignorant of reality as it gets.

On edit.....I think you were just looking for a reason to make a statement that you have come to believe, so, I challenge you to prove your claim against Kerry and cite your sources.

[aptal]

15. Ignorant of reality?

How come when some one disagrees with you it is ignorant?

I don't like Kerry. Plan and simple.

He is 2,500 times richer than the average american. Fact.

So, how can we sit back and attack one candidate on the other side for being wealthy and out of touch because of his wealth. But never say a word about someone on our side that is just a rich, or in fact with his wifes wealth 4 times richer than the guy on the other side.

I see threads about Rubios $675,000 house for sale, and yes that obviously isn't average or middle-class.

But what about Kerry's 7 million dollar yacht? Do you think that is in touch? I can't even afford a $5,000 Bay Liner I have had my eyes set on for years.

So can we be consistent or do we have to kiss anyone's ass who has a (D) beside their name?

[blm]

16. Your post is absurd. No one ever attacked Romney for BEING rich, it was his policies

and the some of the deceitful practices he employed in business to get even richer. Kerry's policies were never crafted to favor the financial elite over working families, Romney's policies for governance and business did exactly that.

What IS consistent about your posts is that you show no sense of discernment and no sense of proportion, and there is ZERO accuracy in your remarks as they pertain to the politics behind our governance.

There is a CAVERNOUS difference between a wealthy man who crafts policies to aid and advance the opportunities for working families, and a wealthy man who crafts policies to take further advantage of the needs and desperation of working families to further increase the wealth of the financial elite.

[hughee99]

37. That's absurd. Plenty of people attacked Romney for being rich.

Complaints about his Olympic horse and car elevator had nothing to do with HOW he got his money OR what his policies were. They were using his wealth to show how he's not like "regular" people.

[blm]

46. You're wrong - they attacked a rich man who had no clue how others lived and pointed fingers at them

as if they were the problem. Gee - guess you missed discernment classes.

Plenty of people of Kerry's wealth also know what it is like to be a working man and have refused special favors offered to privileged elite. Romney cannot say the same.

That even some Dems will claim there is no difference shows ignorance of the lives each of them lived.

[hughee99]

52. long before anyone knew about his 47% comments, Rafalca and car elevators

were popular topics of conversation. I guess you missed the class where they went over "before" and "after".

If Romney was out of touch with people (which I agree he was) why would car elevators matter? The point was simple... "this guy is rich, here's an example of how rich he is, how can he possibly relate to regular people?"

You can certainly argue YOU didn't do this, but many people did. I thought it was a bad argument then, I think it's a bad argument now (even though I made it below in sarcasm), but it was certainly an argument that people made.

[blm]

54. That's silly - HOW Romney governed and his policies were the reason, not his wealth on its own.

No one here believes people of wealth should be attacked unless they also target the middle and working classes and the poor with their insensitive policies.

[hughee99]

57. Then what does a car elevator or show horse have to do with any of it?

While I agree that your line of thought is where the legitimate case can be made against Rmoney, suggesting that everyone's issues with Romney were based on well thought out logic simply isn't true. Some people made the argument that Romney is rich, gave an example of how rich, and used that to imply that Rmoney can't possibly understand the average person, or wouldn't be a good president. It's a lazy argument that's not based on logic, but it was commonly found.

[blm]

69. If you're doing your best to degrade conditions for working families, then

YOUR lifestyle IS fair game in the political arena. Kerry never formed policy intended to target and degrade working families, so there is no reason to discuss his wealth as an excuse to attack him - this is a POLITICAL FORUM.

Be rich and promote policies that target working class you will get called out for it deservedly. Be rich and promote policies that ask more from the rich to benefit conditions for working families, then you should be applauded not smeared.

[hughee99]

75. Fair enough...

Your previous argument was that people didn't attack Romney for being rich, now you're saying they did, but it's a legitimate criticism because of the policies he advocated.

This is really what I was talking about in a nutshell.

When the other sides candidate is wealthy, many people will just give some example of how wealthy they are as an argument as to why this person is out of touch, greedy and what that money could have paid for if spent by government (ie. Mitt Romney spent more on a car elevator than math teacher in OHIO makes in a year)

When our candidate is wealthy, it really doesn't matter, you have to take a closer look at their policies.

[blm]

79. Not a matter of sides - Romney GOVERNED like a rich asshole and was called out for it.

Kerry did NOT govern like a rich asshole and does not deserve to be attacked as outoftouch as the rich asshole.

Fini.

[Beacool]

20. You're not being fair to Kerry.

He earned his money the old fashioned way, he married into wealth. Not only once, but twice. He's a lucky man.

[blm]

23. The wealth has always been kept separate. You wouldn't learn that in the RW radio

talking points against Kerry that you both prefer to believe and repeat.

[aptal]

33. It isn't about RW talking points

It's about what I feel, believe, and see.

[blm]

47. HAHAH - yes, because you wouldn't dare post your research into your CLAIMS

that you make against Kerry. You 'feel' he's no different than Romney because you 'believe' who and you 'saw' what?

[emulatorloo]

63. You are entitled to your "feelings." However, Kerry is one of our best liberals.

As was filthy rich Ted Kennedy.

To compare that FuckHead leech Romney to one of our best public servants is disgusting.

[blm]

71. And therein lies the motive. Claiming Kerry to be equal to Romney is a RW ploy.

The attacks here by these anti-Kerry posters are really against DU posters who mocked Romney's displays of wealth. They want to get their smears in against Kerry to get in their attacks against those of us who targeted Romney.

[MH1]

22. Let me know when you can show that Kerry held some kid down and cut off his hair in high school

or some equally heinous act.

You won't, because that's not who he is.

It is NOT the money that makes Romney out of touch. It's his privileged attitude that blows off 47% of the country as 'takers', and thinks it's ok to bully people who don't fit his mold of what they should be.

Kerry is a completely different and better person. And keep in mind he wasn't born wealthy - a very rich lady took a shine to him and they got married, now he gets to have nice things. Do you expect me to believe that if you were in the same situation, you would turn down the suitor?

(Do you know where he met Teresa? At the first Rio climate change conference, aka the Earth Summit, in 1992. One might suspect that a common interest brought them together there. Too bad for our kids that the most of us have been uninterested in the topic.)

To your last question, no you don't have to kiss everyone's ass who has a (D) besides their name, but it would reflect a little better on your own political knowledge if you had a little respect for the more liberal and effective politicians that we have. Kerry is one of those. Most liberal, no. Among the more liberal? Hell yeah. And we have precious few of those.

[blm]

24. Kerry and Teresa keep their money separated legally. Kerry inherited some wealth after his

mother passed on in 2003. It's ridiculous that Kerry's wealth and the way he has used his life needs to be defended here on DU from RW talking points that were deliberately crafted to mislead the idiocracy.

[aptal]

34. It's ridiculous that you think a guy with a 7 Million dollar yacht

Can walk into my little 2 bedroom apartment and be in-touch with me.

[hughee99]

38. He doesn't have a 7 million dollar yacht.

He just has exclusive access to a yacht owned by Great Point LLC which is based in Pittsburgh. I believe the yacht happens to be named after his mother Rosemary Isabel (Forbes) Kerry.

See, he's just like us.

[blm]

50. And you can be in touch with a man carrying shrapnel in his body? You really want to play

like you've got game?

Clintons are very wealthy now. You think THEY are 'in touch' with you when their friends stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of Keystone pipeline? Bill is urging Dems to accept it as he and Hillary have supported the deal since the beginning, so, I guess he's 'in touch' with you more than Kerry who has been against it since the beginning.

When Romney's POLICIES match Romney's policies towards the poor and working families, then you would have a case to make. They don't. You don't.

You only post to get in your 'Dems are no different than Republicans' rant to see how many DUers you can get to agree with your RW rants.

[aptal]

60. You are right I'm wrong...

I have no RW rants. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it "ignorant" or "RW."

I guess nobody can actually think for themselves. Fuck it, if blm doesn't agree with you it's "ignorant" or "RW."

I only post because that is how I feel about Kerry, and it is what I have seen during the last few elections. I hate hypocrisy from either side. And I will fucking point it out.

[emulatorloo]

64. Romney is a FuckHead leech. Kerry is one of our most liberal Senators

The only liar and hypocrit is you. You take somebody who has spent his entire life fighting for the 99 percent and smear him with your unmitigated BS.

[aptal]

65. I haven't lied about anything.

Goodness.

I just don't like Kerry and I don't feel like he can be or is in touch with the middle class and lower.

[emulatorloo]

66. Equating Kerry with Romney as you do is a lie about everything.

[blm]

68. Exactly. DU is about policy and governance not social status, and any claim

that there is no difference between Romney and Kerry and their policy and governing records regarding working families is an outright LIE, not just an 'opinion'.

[TDale313]

30. JFK and FDR were wealthy.

One can have wealth and support policies that help the most vulnerable among us. That said, I don't particularly want Kerry to run again, but it's not about his wealth.

[pacalo]

83. The difference between Kerry & the wealthy Republicans is their priorities.

Their ideologies. Kerry is a Kennedy Democrat, which is to say he believes in looking out for those without a voice in Washington.

Wealthy Republicans have shown themselves clearly to be in office to look out for the top 1%, who, in turn, pay big money for Republicans' law-making services that benefit the 1%.

Did you miss the day-to-day reports of Robme's campaign -- because you come across as being out of touch.

[deutsey]

21. I hope not, as well

but not for your reason.

For me, his presidential campaign left me completely unimpressed.

[aptal]

35. And I agree with that as well.

He just isn't Presidential material, IMO.

[NYC Liberal]

43. Except the problem is not just "having money".

The issue is policy. There are rich folks who support workers, support the poor and middle class, support good policies that help the aforementioned groups. And then there are rich folks like Mitt Romney who care only about themselves and their money.

But you knew that.

[quinnox]

12. I love John Kerry but

I really doubt he would make another run. Age and other factors, like generally in modern times it seems you are only given one bite at the apple when you run for president are stacked against it.

[Bake]

40. He ran once and blew his chance

Rolled over when they stole Ohio. Let him finish out his career as SoS.

Bake

[blm]

72. Terry McAuliffe let GOP set up the steal of Ohio in the 4yrs BEFORE election day.

.

[MoonRiver]

27. For the record I want Hillary to be our next POTUS.

But I also love Kerry, and was simply wondering if he might give it another shot.

[blm]

53. I think both of their time is past. I replied because someone claimed

that Hillary did such a tremendous job thatKerry might not be able to fill her shoes. I find that absurd since Hillary did not accomplish all that much as Sec of State, just as she accomplished little in the Senate, yet the popular narrative that gets tossed around here is that somehow she was absolutely amazing in both jobs.

[Beacool]

62. Bullcrap!!!!

Keep spewing right wing talking points.

[blm]

70. Name one RW talking point, Beacool.

.

[Taverner]

32. Kerry/Gore!

[MoonRiver]

36. Or Gore/Kerry

[TeamPooka]

41. speaking as a middle aged white guy

I think as a party and a country we don't need to vote for more guys like me for a while.

[democrat2thecore]

82. What are you suggesting?

First - are you serious? Judge by skin color and age - not by the content of a man's character? John Kerry is a GOOD man.

[TeamPooka]

84. i would rather give a person of color or a woman a chance to run - rather than any guy who

already lost once in a general election.

[OceanEcosystem]

42. Not a good idea.

He'd turn 73 years old in December 2016.

[sakabatou]

48. No.

[brooklynite]

55. Why would you want him too?

He was an uninspiring candidate in 2004.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. No, I would think we would want to win in 2016

And as glad as I am that Kerry has discovered his spine, he had his chance. Sadly, it will probably be HRC, another right-wing Dem.

I am holding out hope for Elizabeth Warren.

[Blue_In_AK]

61. I have a huge amount of respect for SOS Kerry

and I think he would have been a wonderful president, but his time has passed, in my opinion. Honestly, I'm not thrilled with the Hillary option, either. I think we should be looking for a charismatic progressive candidate and not retreads.

[helveticas]

73. No

There will never be another Adlai Stevenson.

[lpbk2713]

74. The thought of it probably scares the bejeesus out of the rethugs.

For this reason they will be be slinging as much mud as they can during his tenure as SoS.
They will have as much success as they did at keeping Obama a one term president.

[OceanEcosystem]

78. I still don't think Kerry would be a very electable candidate in 2016.

He'd be nearly 73 years old, and he would be known as someone who had already lost a presidential election before.


I just don't think he'd be an ideal candidate for the campaign.

[OldDem2012]

77. I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic Party primaries for the 2016 presidential elections....

...if that's Kerry, that'll be fine as far as I'm concerned. If it's anyone else, including Clinton or Biden, that'll also be fine with me.

Just my opinion, but any comparison between Kerry and Romney is totally laughable in my opinion. Anyone who can't see the MAJOR differences between the two men needs to do some basic research.

[SheilaT]

80. Well of course!

Because there is absolutely no chance that in the next couple of years there could possibly be someone new out there. No chance at all.

(Please tell me I don't need the sarcasm thingy)