along with Warner, Strickland, Webb, and Reed.  I wouldn't ask a guy or gal who had to change his mind about whether he would have accepted your veep offer.

Because he doesn't appeal to any of the groups Obama needs. Because he is extraordinarily unpopular. Because voters rejected him once, and if Edwards did poorly, Lord only knows how Kerry would have done.

He did? I didn't realize that.  Damn.

On Huffington Post there's a headline about Obama's camp saying the pick could come from "left field."  Haven't read the article.

But Kerry would be pretty surprising.

She definitely would be.  That would be a nice surprise.  I would love to watch her in full on ass-kicking mode.  

Obama's already at grave risk of being successfully swiftboated, especially now that McCain's turned negative.  Kerry may know his shit, and I personally think he's not a bad guy, but he's considered boring as hell and has already proven himself not a great candidate.  What worse way is there to reinforce the 'change' message than a former presidential candidate?

Sit tight folks it will all be over in 24 hrs. The we'll all know who the real pick is and the criticism can begin on who he picked.

Are you ok? John Kerry is the definition of the word loser. There is a reason that most people still cant remember that he ran against Bush. He is just as lame as Chris Dodd, someone from the NE who has no charisma and cant connect with voters.

Great idea, seriously.

If he's going out to Left Field, I'd want him to pick Gary Hart, except for one thing.  Hart is both experienced and an outsider, a reformer, someone with a religious background, a PhD from Oxford, would help in CO and other western states, has great chemistry with Obama (they are both authors who write their own books), a foreign policy heavy-weight...unfortunately he's 72, which might be a decade too old and I don't know how he'd hold up on the trail.  It would seem to lend legitimacy to McCain who is trying to become CinC at 71.  Otherwise, he'd be perfect.

 Kerry sticker still bright and shiny on the bumper of my jalopy, but I don't think he fits with Obama. Too stiff.

I was going to go into a little detail, but the thought is too boring, so I'll just say it won't be Kerry.

is now a phrase exclusively associated with John Kerry. John Kerry should have beaten Bush either easily or soundly. Instead, he lost. And no, nothing Ohio wasn't "stolen", as 100k votes is very hard to steal. But even if Ohio was stolen, he still lost the popular vote to Bush. Now, if us who were angry about Gore in 2000 got our wish on the electoral college, and it went into effect in 2004, Bush would be an undisputed winner. Kerry had a war going bad, a President hated all aroud the world, a mediocre economy, corporate scandals in which Bush was in cohoots with people like Kenny Boy Lay, and he managed to lose. Even after Bush's horrendous performance in the debates, Kerry still couldn't win. Kerry never gave a clear and consistent messsage. Yes, the Swift Boats hurt, but Kerry didn't attack back. He thought it would "go away."

I'd be open to even giving him a second chance, except the same reason he lost 2004 is why he'd suck in 2008 as P or VP: he is a horrendous speaker. He doesn't think enough when he does it, just like his joke gone awry about Bush, which people thought he meant the troops. "Because he's a black man" is an example of how John Kerry continues not to think when he speaks. The "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" sunk Kerry and was a similar example. If John Kerry hadn't made that troop remark, I'd have been open to a 2008 run. But he then proved he doesn't think when he speaks. He "reports for duty" instead, which is possibly the worst one-liner I've heard in recent history.

He has been fairly good lately but he is not an effective campaigner over the long haul, primarily because he doesn't really know who he is, IMO.  I've been a constituent for over twenty years and he has been a weak senator given his safe seat in Massachusetts.

He is also not as intelligent as several other possibilities, including Clinton, Clark and Schweitzer (I'm not sufficiently familiar with Kaine).

1. If Ohio hadn't been stolen in 2004, we'd be discussing the Kerry/Edwards re-election campaign right now. So, please, anyone who refers to Kerry as a "loser" needs to rethink that premise.

2. He's a great debater, he passes the "ready from day one argument," and he gives the appearance of being a bold choice while also being a very familiar one.

3. Obama/Kerry would no doubt be the tallest ticket in U.S. history, forcing McCain to tap Manute Bol as his running mate to even things up a bit.

4. Someone mentioned Gary Hart. He'd be a great pick, but yeah, his age might be a liability. Hart would have been an awesome president.

If Hillary is washington insider, how is Kerry washington outsider? Is it because he has spent only 23years in washington? IMHO It would completely kill Obama's message of change!