Speculation on Why Kerry is Not Running

[Dr Ron]

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=939

Post links to both sensible and not very likely explanations. The better article is on money drying up from big contributors:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2468.html

[wisteria]

1. Yep, the money was sucked up by someone else- I wonder who. n/t

[Dr Ron]

2. Post Updated with Two favorable comments on Kerry

Josh Marshall: “I think he ran a much better campaign than the conventional wisdom now allows.”

Plus a longer quote from a donor has been added to the post.

[dailykoff]

3. So you think his fundraising fell off that much?

Or was he waiting to see if Hill would really declare? Was there any doubt? I don't think it was the polls because he was in the same situation poll-wise in 2003. And it seems he had all the pieces in place for another run.

I just don't see how he was any worse off than the others -- better in fact since he's still got his 40-year record of sterling service and they've got very little apart from their allegedly fresh faces and polarizing last names.

I accept it but frankly I just don't get it.

[karynnj]

4. I think the most likely reason is the reason he gave

One trusim with Senator Kerry is that the real reason for anything is the one given. I can't watch his speech or his SRFC without seeing the intensity of his feelings on the war. He also is crsytal clear on Iran, unlike Hillay or Edwards.

Tay Tay and others have written about how it might be impossible to both run and to lead the effort to force the administration to get out. The media and the Democratic party have clearly tried to diminish his voice in anyway they could. It may not be just Presidential politics.

The truth may be that powers in both party really signed on to this aggression - for the current reason, that chaos can result in a better end result - a truely strange idea - or maybe it is oil - who knows. Clearly, Bush and Blair and possibly Clinton were for this PNAC plan. (this in retrospect could explain the lack of real critism of the goals (not the implemantation).)

I don't think it's the money - he's in better shape than anyone but Hillary and very likely Obama. Also, if it were that - given his fund raising success in 2006 - wouldn't he make at least one attempt at email fundraising? He still had most of the 2004 donors. Dean raised the money he needed in 2004 on the internet. With the $13 million, you would think he could at least go into the early debates. (which is where some other candidates would pale next to him.)

Edwards looks like he will fall apart as he really has no coherent pov on fp - his Iran aggressiveness completely raises questions on his now anti-war Iraq stance. (People who too easilly accepted the "I'm sorry" could well have second thoughts.) I suspect that Obamamania is less Obama and more mania. Pushing things to a conclusion this far from 2008 is really a way to disenfrancise voters before they can vote.

[ProSense]

5. Agree.

Money wasn't the deciding factor. In an article posted here yesterday, Kerry said the majority of his donors were on board. Ending the war is a greater mission, I took that from his announcement.

[MarjorieG]

6. I agree with you, as usual.

Kerry is always what he seems. The words can be tempered, like having to explain something to someone they really don't want to hear. There was a lot said in 2004 that people were not ready to hear.

I was told that Clinton helped Blair decide to go along with Bush in Iraq, and then there is Clinton's decision to close the books on the 80's secret government and, ultimately, elder Bush's complicity. If all those people who think they are seeing the big, interconnected clearly, and war is often the answer, they aren't seeing it, and are on the opposite side of a John Kerry.

We all know there is a need for military, but wouldn't it great if it were really a last resort, and I'm not a pollyanna here. Maybe Kerry's assignment will allow him some immediate, less filtered access to the media. That news is so infotainment, with its own marching orders, I think it will take all of Kerry's drive to insist they pay attention to other than horse race.

As such a newbie, Obama has carried the imagination, and interesting to hear Kerry's fundraisers are going to him. He was just trying to figure out how to tell his story, and present the most widely appealing. All the Steven Spielbergs, who said after 2004 they should have done more, are helping now with fundraisers. We shall see if they stick through the ugliness to the bitter end.

Obama really needs to understand policy consequences, and campaign reversals of opinion, something Kerry is very good at, despite the flip-flop label. Good at avoiding the mine fields in interviews and debates, although the media presented him as really the opposite. There is such elegance, classiness and toughness to our guy.

First I thought Obama was there as VP, or to suck up the oxygen until Bill3 could close the deal. Now, maybe, for a Obama win. He has the anti-Hillary appeal, even if wants to make nice. Kerry was about hope, when the Dems wanted bashing. Had the media been critical, or more Dems doing the bashing, Kerry's task would not have been all the more insurmountable, which is why many electeds didn't bother to help. Then, still, I do believe Kerry won, but contrary to the netroots baloney, it was never going to be a slam dunk.

The Democrats want to dream, not deal with current reality. Al Franken said in 2004 that Democrats hadn't seen what we accomplished, and the only way to get them going, and encourage more voters, is Obama. I hope our party can create a better reality for that win, because the symbol of an African American would be great, especially in this Bush driven return to the Confederacy.

I would only hope Obama knows what to do if he gets there. Bill1 had problems being able to say no, at all, to all the people, groups, and especially the Cong. Black Caucus, having been out in the cold so long. Then he had the hissy fit of their directive to stay home in 1994, getting the Gingrich takeover. The Democrats have been their own worst enemies for some time.

[ginnyinWI]

7. not too long ago, Obama said

that people are projecting their best hopes onto him, because he is a blank slate. Now he's jumping in--but we still have to see who he is and what he represents.