I never predict anything when it comes to American politics, as my previous prognostications were invariably wrong (for example...when the Gennifer Flowers story was first broke in the news, I said about Clinton, "That's it...this guy will never get elected now."). But, speaking as someone who tends to vote Democratic, I wouldn't vote for Kerry again. That's not to say that I don't like him, or that I don't agree with most of his political positions, but if he, as an actual combat veteran, couldn't successfully defend himself against the pernicious lies and distortions aimed at him by the well-financed adherents of that pampered, draft-dodging and semiliterate scion of the Bush Crime Family who was "running" against him, then what can we expect when Kerry attempts to handle the multitude of very daunting, complex issues that he would have to as President?

That Swift Boat has sailed.

Unlikely to the point of ridiculous. Despite speculation and his own coyness on the subject, its doubtful that he's seriously interested in another run, and the chances of him securing the nomination are highly remote.

The war hero who got a raw deal from the oh-so "liberal media" but portrayed a male cheerleader as "tough" on terror. . .but one cannot excuse or alibi for the fact that Kerry (perhaps the worst joke-teller in Western Civilization) was a mediocre or poor campaigner at best. . .

I am deeply relieved he's not running again. And I'm from Massachusetts!

He has dropped out of the race officially. His remarks in Davos, Switzerland typify his idiotic liberal views, it's a bit chilling to imagine how close this arrogant snob, who cares nothing about America or Americans, came to being elected. If you voted for this empty suit, you'd probably vote for Barbara Boxer.

simply put keep this idiot out of office,im a true dem.but this is one candidate that needs to just stay home on election day

Easily one of the biggest douchebags of all time. Has 100% accountability for this pointless war; afterall, he voted for it. That's enough of a reason for me. He couldn't even beat Bush in 04, who had horrible approval ratings. The only people more pathetic than Kerry are the people who still subscribe to www.johnkerry.com See ya in hell Lurch.

Didn't he run once? Didn't he run a bad campain in 2004?

surprised kerry is scoring this low. the guy did get like 59 million votes, 2nd most in history. Seems to have lost popularity within his own party. But his ideas are still sound.

Wasn't the worst candidate we ever had. Looked like he was going to get blown out of the water, then turned it around with the debates. Now if he could only remember basic English the rest of the time.

For Misty: PlayMisty (2) , on 12/19/2005 11:07:00 AM, said: Excuse me, Mathew, but we didn't invade North Korea because we were able to build a coalition and negotiate a peaceful settlement, unlike what your Kerry proposed, to go it alone. Kerry: Wrong again. KERRY ON NORTH KOREA http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6146353/ Go to the link, copy the entire document. Dump it into word, then do a search for text string "with respect to North Korea," and then you can accurately view Kerry's comments... Also, here is a headline that just about sums it up: ***North Korea insisted Monday it won't return to international nuclear disarmament talks as long as the United States sticks to its "hostile policy" aimed at overthrowing its government.*** Bush tells World Saddam has weapons. Saddam refuses inspections, no proof of weapons. We invade. There are no weapons. Bush is right? Kerry tells us to be harder on NOrth Korea, they have weapons (it's proof has been the testing of them on national television news video, not only government intelligence). Bush previously tells Kerry his policy with North Korea is wrong. Bush tells Kerry we can "negotiate" with North Korea North Korea builds more weapons North Korea is now breaking down peace talks with US NOrth Korea is building water sector reactors now. Bush is right? So we invaded the nation where there were no weapons so we could ignore the nation that alrady had them and was building more. While both situations of kickign out inspectors are similar, Bush somehow believes addressing it with force is "wrong" in N Korea but "okay" in Iraq? Highly illogical...Your thoughts Misty? Wise: That type of Liberal logic does not compute to me. Mathew: You are too stuck on stereotypes--and not able to address issues. Wise: I will state this for the last time; Saddam had WMDS and failed to prove he had none. Mathew: And I will state (ask) again. Where are they? You seem to be unable to answer that question. It's up to the US to prove he HAD them, not up to him to prove he didn't. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. I won't take this into a direction of true democracy with you, rather--just tell us where those weapons are. Focus your next post on answering that question, I challenge you to do so. Wise: The Commander and Chief made the decision to go in. Mathew: So I have heard. Wise: I gave you all the proof you requested which you never bothered to look at. Mathew: Simplify it wise. Tell us where the weapons are. None of the documentation answered that question--so again--you are dodging. Just answer it yourself since you seem to know. WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS? Wise: An opposing point of view doesnt register with you. Mathew: It does when it addresses points and contains logic. I can understand logic, even if I don't agree with the person's personal view. What I cannot understand is how you profess your contentions, but fail to prove them by not answering a simple question in your own words, such as "Where are the weapons?" Wise: Ive gotten messages from at least six members commenting about you, ranging from; hey he has some points to, the guys mind numbingly incoherent. Mathew: Then post their names publically or allow them to post themselves and speak up. Don't talk for others, I am quite sure they can speak for themselves--so let them. I have also rec'd several emails re: your posts, but it's not my place to speak for others, even if they agree with me. Wise: I went to your home page, in your description you talk down to people, is that because youre a leader. If thats leadership Im not impressed. Mathew: You mean the profile. You'll have to quote exactly what you are refering to specifically, and state your problem with it--in the appropriate format, not here. If someone else wishes to read my profile and respond to it, they can do that at their own leisure and discretion, and comment in the appropriate format. If you are that concerned about my profile, then go open up some attack post about me and my profile if it bothers you so much. In the meantime, I prefer to stick to the issues at hand--not the posters making them. Good luck. Sincerely, Mathew

I think I'll stay on topic (admin told me to make sure I do this) and actually rate the item at hand. John Kerry has very little chance of being elected in 2008, so the Democratic Party would be out of their minds to nominate him in the 2008 election. He is way too polarizing and would be soundly whupped if John McCain got the Republican nod.

Not a 2nd time, he may run again, but I highly doubt he'd get the nomination. I think that Bush was actually pretty vulnerable last time around, had the Democrats ran a candidate that was even 10% better, they may indeed have won.

Excuse me, Mathew, but we didn't invade North Korea because we were able to build a coalition and negotiate a peaceful settlement, unlike what your Kerry proposed, to go it alone. Kerry: Wrong again.

His most recent accusatory remarks about our soldiers show that he is a man who is void of ideas, seeking only to jump on the hate Bush bandwagon.

Stick to Ketchup it is the only thing you do right. Oh wait, that is your wife.

Usually its one attempt and you are out of the running. The Democratics need to come up with a candidate that has a broad appeal and does not talk in circles. It would help if the candidate had a personality.

I can't see Kerry being nominated again. I think the Democratic leadership were mortified by his defeat. I actually liked the man, and I voted for him, but unfortunately he was a lousy campaigner. He could have easily put Bush on the defensive, but instead he allowed himself to be sidelined by such Rovian inventions like the Swifties and the "waffling" issue. No, I would be very surprised if the Democrats nominated him again. UPDATE TO GRINCHES: So why is this post unhelpful? because a)I admit liking Kerry b) I dare to say Rove is a mud-flinging sack of crap or c) because I say I doubt Kerry will be nominated again? Jeez, there's no winning with you sourpusses!

I agree that we definitely need a new Democratic candidate in '08. I mean, this guy lost to someone who thinks there's such a word as misunderestimated for crying out loud!

OK, but we obviously need somebody better. HE LOST AGAINST GW BUSH!!!!! Come on now!

Damaged goods.

Nobody really liked this guy, and the only reason he floated to the top is that received wisdom declared that he could beat Bush. The Democrats are harsh on their losers.

He'll run but this is going to be Hillary's show.

Democrats have a history of ignoring their losers: Dukakis, Mondale, Gore; but then again they have a history of loving their losers: Carter, Clinton (he won, but destroyed the party for a decade) Who can understand that party?

In a Washington restaurant the Saturday after the election, Kerry told a group of staffers that he basically wants to give it another go in 4 years. He had his shot and blew it for the Democrats. Bush was a tough opponent, but he also had many negatives that Kerry failed to take advantage of. Although certainly qualified for the Presidency, Kerry simply wasn't a very compelling candidate. The candidate didn't rely enough on his political instincts, thus he failed to rise to the political moment. In the game, that's a killer. He does seem to be seriously considering another run and he even fancies himself as a leader within the Democratic party. The party needs a more energetic and creative spokesperson if they expect to win the nod.

Stick a fork in him. The Democrats would be morons to nominate him again. The Dems really needs some fresh blood now- not to mention a candidate who will bring some life to the party.

if everybody would just realize that john kerry is the best candidate for our nation.

i don't wanna try this again.

Had his chance and blew it. Ran on his war record and it did not work. Too indecisive. Reminds me of Jimmy Carter. The only reason he got the nomination was because in early Janurary 2004, just before the first primary, he became the compromise choice after the voters came to the realization that if they nominated Howard Dean they would be destroyed in the general election.

About as interesting as the coffee they serve at fellowship.Hint: Luke warm brown water.

good man, but horrible campaigner. not again, please.

Swift boat liers for lies won't have any legs in four years. There will have to be hard times for the poor where middle class feels empathy. Mo and Mississippi have no more Medicaid thanks to the Feds. When poor kids start dying from curable desease, and our country is no better than the poorest African counties, I think people will realize what being a Christian really means. WWJD? Kerry can unite 75% of us to do the right thing. Four years may not be long enough for corperations to get richer as the working class gets worse and worse off. Dems will need a couple southern states. Aloof windsurfer image won't work if all hell hasn't broke loose by then.

Sure if you want to secure a defeat.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I am commenting here first about the fact that NO candidate since Thomas Jefferson has lost an election in a two-way race and won the one immediately following. Jackson lost the first time, but there were four candidates running (also, he did have more electoral votes than anyone else, so he kind of won the first time); William Henry Harrison also lost the first time and won the second, but the first time he was one of FIVE Whig candidates, and the only Whig the second time. Second off, since Kerry was the most recent Democrat, i will put this here. I dont remember who it was, although i think it was in someone's personal description, showed a list of states with the highest IQ's, and most of them went to Kerry. This does not by any means indicate Democrats are smarter and more correct, it simply means they have more knowledge of how to manipulate the minds of voters.

Um...no, how about we go with a winner this time.

Yes he can be a candidate. And he sure can be our leader if those stupid Floridans, Iowans, New Mexicans, and Ohioans get their heads screwed on right.

Even if he does have the fortitude to go through all the motions again, I'd expect low support from strategists in the Democratic party. In 2008, people will want a fresh message and a fresh face, and not something that reminds them of an unsuccessful election campaign. I can see Kerry receiving support as a VP sidekick (if he plays his cards well), but someone of more charisma who represents new ideas will connect better with voters in 2008.

If you can't beat Bush in 2004 with the mess he created, you need not ever run for pres again. Would lose to Millard Fillmore. And I'm not talking about a time machine being involved, I mean Fillmore DEAD.

I strongly doubt that he'd put himself through all the anxiety of trying to defeat a superior candidate two times in a row.

No back-to-back losers.

This man let down all who voted for him by conceding to Bush when there was so much suspicious tomfoolery going on with Diebold machines,missing ballots,etc. If he had any guts or integrity,he would have fought.The exit polls are never THAT wrong!

One and done. I don't expect him back in 4 years.

Kerry Family Values? Just what we need...Lurch returns in a sequel.

I think John Kerry is a good man in person. He didn't wage a victorious campaign in 2004 and probably wouldn't go far in 2008. The last time the DEMS nominated the same candidate twice in a row (1952 and 1956 with Adlai Stevenson) he did worse the second time around. John Kerry wouldn't fair as well, probably wouldn't get out of the primary contests with more than a handful of delegates.