happens at this point of the cycle. Given that we nominated one of the 2008 choices in 2016, the list you reject were people who were considered in 2008 or 2004. They will all be over 70 in the years leading up to 2020. I don't think any of them will run. Kerry when he considered running again for 2008 said that he would not have done so if THK wasn't willing to support that decision whole heartedly. At this point, her heath would not be up to being part of a campaign.
John Kerry actually did better than any model of a generic candidate showed likely in 2004. I agree that there are those on the right who will forever hate John Kerry for speaking out on Vietnam. However, I suspect that there are few who would vote for ANY Democrat included in that. On the left, his work as SoS, would be a HUGE plus. He was the essential person to getting both the Iran deal (which prevented a likely, imminent war) and the Paris Climate Accord. His actions in using the threat of force to get 600 plus tons of chemical weapons out of Syria matches with his stated reason on the IWR - this and the Iran deal make him less vulnerable to the IWR than HRC. Now, if JK and THK were their ages in 2004 and she were as healthy, I think he would be an outstanding possibility. However, they will both be 16 years older than that in 2020.
As to flaws in 2004, he ran an excellent race. Many here still bring up windsurfing, which he did once during the Republican convention - which was down time for a Democrat. However, there were already below the surface attacks that Kerry, who had been treated for cancer the year before, was unhealthy. In fact, a DEMOCRATIC opponent had used a lie that he was still dealing with cancer in Iowa push polls. I think seeing an obviously athletic and fit Kerry could have prevented that attack. Consider how similar sewer level attacks on HRC were used this year -- and how damaging that made her fainting.
I think if you compare HRC 2008 to HRC 2016, you can see that she really is unlikely to have the stamina to run in 2020. I suspect that one reason that she really did do fewer appearances in the last month than Trump, or Obama or Kerry when they were nominees, is that after she fainted, she could not risk looking exhausted or getting ill again. Running for president is grueling -- and it is sad that this is used as a "test" when the Presidency itself does not require that.
I also think that both Biden and Kerry have found incredible positions to continue the work that they are most interested in. Biden will head a foundation that will do work on cancer and he will head the Penn Biden center for diplomacy - http://www.upenn.edu/spotlights/vice-president-joe-biden-lead-penn-biden-center-diplomacy-and-global-engagement Kerry is both writing his memoirs (which he has never done) for his incredible life of service and he is heading a multi faceted Yale effort where he will teach, mentor Kerry fellows in interdepartmental efforts - including conflict resolution, climate change etc. http://news.yale.edu/2017/02/16/secretary-john-kerry-66-joins-yale-distinguished-fellow-global-affairs Both of these men will be mentoring the future leaders on the issues that they have worked on throughout their long years of service to the country. As one who admires both of them, especially Kerry, I think this will let both of them extend their legacy into the future via the students they influence who become the leaders of tomorrow.
Hillary Clinton will likely work with the Clinton Foundation doing similar things.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Maybe a candidate who's not as far left as Bernie, but closer to the left than Hillary, would be a nice pick.
