August 18, 2008
Is John Kerry the New Comeback Kid? (Bill Press)
It’s the biggest guessing game in town: Who will Barack Obama choose as his running mate? He has to end the suspense this week.
My pick is Hillary Clinton. She’d be the strongest vice presidential candidate, hands down. Much stronger than Tim Kaine, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or any of the others most often mentioned as possible candidates.
But now, at the last minute, another name has surfaced. Somebody that nobody’s even talked about before. Reportedly already vetted and on Obama’s shortest of lists: Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
With all due respect to John Kerry, I hope that’s just a wild rumor.
Look, John Kerry’s a great senator. Like John McCain, he’s also a decorated war hero. He has years of experience in the Senate on foreign policy and national security issues. And, as the Democratic nominee for president in 2004, he polled more votes than any other Democrat in history.
That’s Kerry’s greatest strength, but it’s also his greatest weakness. Kerry didn’t win that race in 2004, a race he should have won. Fairly or not, because of that, he will always be clouded by the shadow of defeat.
The last thing Barack Obama needs to win in 2008 is to be partnered with the man who lost in 2004.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 16 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
That would be just great: the terrorist-enabling, Marxist community organizer picks Hanoi John. A triumph of anti-Americanism if I ever saw one!
Comment by Igor R. — August 18, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Did you write this just to plug the hag again…Wish it was Bloomberg myself!
Comment by Docb — August 18, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Suspense? What suspense? Who cares who Osama picks as VP? Americans won't choose someone like him during these troubled times. Thus, Obama's choice is as relevant as a choice of a toilet paper brand when one really needs to go…
Comment by Misha — August 18, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Igor, although I often disagree with you, I use to respect your rebuttals because they were well structured, on topic, and presented an argument with substance. Lately, you've replaced dialog with diatribe with your Jerome Corsi's Marxist/terorist/anti-American/anti-Christ slandering. The slime you're spewing doesn't hold water and you're clinging to a smear machine tactic. Seriously, you're sounding like some of the extreme right, kool-aid swigging, moonbat bloggers.
Oh, Kerry. Right. If he runs for VP, he can't run for Senate. McCain and Obama are running neck and neck so Kerry would be going for broke if he excepted.
Comment by andy42302 — August 18, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
I pick — Gore!
Comment by angellight — August 19, 2008 @ 7:05 am
Picking John Kerry would appeal to those anti-American forces that comprise the Democratic Party and it's supporters. John Kerry is a career critic of America who would be paired with a new critic of America. They are a perfect pairing of the negativity towards America that resides in the Democratic Party. Think of it, we could have John Kerry pretending to throw his medals over the White House fence, while Barack could stand back and accuse whole swaths of American citizens who he knows nothing about, of being bitter bigots. What a lovely sight that would be.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 19, 2008 @ 8:19 am
RR;
John Keery served in Viet Nam as a swift boat commander whose men stood beside him during his nomination. Where were the people that served with your president GW Bush? Nobody stood with him because he went AWOL. When the time cam for the men to show up and do their job, your boy Bush ran and hid like the little girl you folks are proud of. Next time you slander a man who honorably served his country, you can look at the chicken hawks on your side that didn't. Notice that most vets from teh recent conflicts are voting andf running as democrats, not republican. Goes to show you who loves their country - eh!
Comment by Mike Coeman — August 19, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
andy, I just say what I believe in: if it's my perception that Obama is an existential threat to the United States, why should I hold back? As you may know, Obama's campaign did confirm that his mentor that he carefully refused to fully name is his autobiography is indeed Frank Marshall Davis, a communist who had been investigated by the FBI and what I would consider a hard-core hater of the United States. You can argue with my characterization, but WHY did Obama hide his full name?
This is just one of many examples of Obama's path that's inconsistent with electibility if fully discussed in the mainstream media. Have you ever seen any discussions of Frank Marshall Davis in the mainstream media? Why do you think that is? Is it a coincidence? And would Obama's campaign say anything more about this man without Corsi's book?
Is it a coincidence that the mainstream press in discussing, over and over again "suspicions" of McCain violating the "cone of silence" at the Saddleback "debate". Since there is no evidence about these violations other than the whisper campaign from Obama, why are they doing it? Would it strain anyones credulity to believe that as a whole the mainstream press is fully behind Obama?
It takes strong language and clear facts to get through the media's own "cone of silence" as it relates to Obama's past. I only tell what I consider to be the truth andy, I would consider it below my dignity to make up stuff, even about the man I despise so much. When I say he is friends with terrorists, that's no lie. When I say that he gets illegal contributions from palestinians in Gaza, giving him princely sums for that poor place, that's no lie. And when I say he is an existential threat to the United States, that's my honest, carefully considered opinion.
Comment by Igor R. — August 19, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Mike Coleman,
Back to BDS huh? From the man who claims a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 I really cannot take you too seriously can I?
John Kerry would be a horrible pick for VP so here is hoping he is. He ran a terrible campaign in 04 and was soundly defeated.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 19, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Mike Coleman: John Kerry used the White House as a prop to spew anti-American venom, and then lied about actually throwing his medals over the fence. Do you have any facts that dispute that? If not, shut up and go away. You're a certifiable moron.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 19, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
How about Barack Obama/Mike Coleman ticket for the Democrats in 2008? Sounds far fetched? So did Obama just a few short months ago…
Comment by Misha — August 20, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Misha;
Thank you for your kind comments on me being VP but I respectfully decline.
Jon;
Prove to me that plane hit the Pentagon and is on tape and I'll shut up but you can't prove it can you. You and your kind refuse to acknowledge that with the many cameras in use around the Pentagon, the only video we get is of a blurred plane that can't be ID, what color is the sky in teh world you live. Also there is an old saying, follow the money.
RR;
A veteran that has served in combat and seen the loss of life to his friends and comrades has every right in the world to speak out. Are you saying that Keery had no free speech right after serving. Only a chickenhawk unamerican person would say such a thing. Is that who you are Jon? Unamerican, a man who doesn't believe in free speech. Sounds like your boy Bush.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 20, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Mike Coleman: Veterans can speak out, but are you endorsing the fact that Kerry outright lied? I wouldn't be surprised. It's the liberal way.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 20, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
RR;
Prove to me and the rest of the folks where Kerry lied. I want facts not stuff you made up in your head.
Comment by Mike Coleman — August 20, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Mike Coleman: Like all liberals you have to be spoon fed. Here is one link. There are thousands on the subject, and they all came to the same conclusion. John Kerry is a liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Kerry/July_2004_archive
This 'tossing' of medals is controversial because it ultimately turned out that Senator Kerry keeps a display of medals at his home, which, if they are his original medals, proves that what he 'threw' that day were not his own personal medals. When questioned about this in 2004, Kerry said that he threw medals which belonged to other veterans who asked him to throw them over the fence.
Even so, for a considerable period of time, most people who knew of the medal incident believed it was his own personal medals which he threw. However, Kerry now (denies) this and states that he only threw his "ribbons". Kerry has recently again faced criticism for a WRC-TV "Viewpoints" (interview) he gave in 1971 stating he did indeed throw away his medals.
Kerry's political opponents suggest that by changing his story about the medals, John Kerry is revising history to make himself more appealing. On the other hand, Kerry's campaign staff makes it known that he is proud of his military service and dismisses complaints about his 1970's anti-war activity as being not germane to the current political debate.
For those persons unfamiliar with (US Military Ribbons and Awards), the distinction is subtle and not obvious. This is because civilians are not generally aware that "ribbons" are the small colored bars one wears on the uniform on a daily basis, and "medals" are larger with matching ribbons which are only worn on special occasions.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 21, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Mike,
look up wikipedia and flight 77. The site is rejecting my post with the link. Read the article. Look at the pictures of plane parts. Look at the still of the video. Learn how many bodies were identified.
Get a clue.. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 21, 2008 @ 11:14 am