As a registered democrat I say, me either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_el_pr/kerry
2007-01-24 05:18:35 · 22 answers · asked by Murazor 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not me. He has his shot in 2004 at a time when an ex-convict should have been able to beat Bush. The Democrats screwed up big time. Bush should have never been able to be re-elected if they had run a good campaign.
2007-01-24 05:25:53 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every Republican is disappointed John Kerry isn't running for president.
2007-01-24 05:35:24 · answer #2 · answered by FatElvis 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
John Kerry singlehandedly RUINED the Dems' chance of beating Bush in '04. By using his Boston connections and big money to shadily undermine Howard Dean, he sealed the fate of the '04 elections: Bush used his big money and his national connections to shadily undermine John Kerry himself!
2007-01-24 05:37:56 · answer #3 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think he should, so my Republicans would still run the house...Dems who are running want John Kerry as far away as possible.
2007-01-24 05:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, when I first heard this story, I thought, "Good... we don't want you in office." But the more I think about it, it would have been great to see him debate Hillary and Obama and Richardson and Biden and Dodd and Edwards and Kucinich and Vilsack and Gore.
He was always so unpredictable, you never knew what he was going to say to mess up his candidacy next.
Oh well... no big loss.
2007-01-24 05:25:42 · answer #5 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm really hoping that there are some other (qualified) democrats who will step up and take his place. The democratic side of the '08 ticket is looking weak. There's really only one candidate with adequate experience (Bill Richardson), and I think it would be nice to have more to choose from.
2007-01-24 05:24:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
john kerry was a terrible candidate and got ROCKED in the debates.... he actually said he was an "average american" and has 7 houses that cost over a million each....
2007-01-24 05:22:36 · answer #7 · answered by amorudence 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
properly he must be advantageous that he gained't have the backing of the military if his modern visit to Iraq is any indication. i'm purely surprised he went there, American infantrymen at the prompt are not as stupid as he apparently is. i'm wondering Saddam would have be more suitable warmly gained.
2016-10-16 01:18:52 · answer #8 · answered by basinger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good, because if he did then it would suck if he actually won the primaries and then HE was the dem's candidate...LOL, talk about can't win for losing.
2007-01-24 05:22:01 · answer #9 · answered by fade_this_rally 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good for you. He is a sorry excuse for a democrat.
2007-01-24 05:23:04 · answer #10 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋