General Discussion

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)

75. Out of all of the potential and viable Democratic Party presidential candidates for 2016.....

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:18 PM

Jan 2013

....who was not fooled by the Neocon false intelligence and voted "No" against going to war against Iraq?

Here is a list of all 21 Democratic Party Senators who voted against the Iraq War resolution:

Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

How many are now deceased or are completely out of politics? How many actual viable candidates for 2016 do you see?

Additionally, I don't see anyone in the House of Reps who voted for or against the Iraq War resolution as a viable 2016 candidate for president.

So, who do you want besides the three heavyweights....Biden, Clinton, and Kerry....who seem to be dominating the early discussion as a 2016 candidate?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is this the Kerry 2016 thread? [View all] jberryhill Jan 2013 OP

If we really want a Do-over, I'll take Al Gore. Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #1

Without Mr Lieberman Ian Iam Jan 2013 #2

Yeah Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #4

Sadly, Al Gore is damaged goods. Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #14

Sigh jberryhill Jan 2013 #23

Well there's a reason Newt came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination. Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #25

He was betrayed by disloyal staff jberryhill Jan 2013 #28

If a Muslin can be President, why not Newt Gingham? pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #31

because he was a jerk johnstamosjr1966rr Jan 2013 #50

Gahhh. Would it be possible to run someone who didn't lose TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #3

Reagan ran in '68 and '76 jberryhill Jan 2013 #6

Is that REALLY the example you want to use? TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #10

Persistence is a virtue jberryhill Jan 2013 #12

LOL. I'm a quitter, myself. That's why persistent people irk me. TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #13

If we have to reach back to 2004 for a candidate, Gore1FL Jan 2013 #5

Kerry would not be "reaching back" jberryhill Jan 2013 #8

And really theKed Jan 2013 #57

Sec of State can't campaign. Iggo Jan 2013 #7

Very simple jberryhill Jan 2013 #11

. ProSense Jan 2013 #16

Laugh all you want... jberryhill Jan 2013 #18

Well, that's a head-exploding premise. ProSense Jan 2013 #20

Shhh... jberryhill Jan 2013 #22

. Iggo Jan 2013 #71

Only one... YvonneCa Jan 2013 #17

If he came close to that, the WORLD would lobby for the US keeping him SOS karynnj Jan 2013 #58

if Hillary becomes President he could stay on as SOS JI7 Jan 2013 #9

I was sort of hoping ProSense Jan 2013 #15

Look, if we can plan a balance budget by 2038... jberryhill Jan 2013 #19

Here is why Hillary and Kerry candidacies are not what we should be talking about. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #39

No. This is another Hillary thread Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2013 #21

Really In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #56

yes musicwarehouse Jan 2013 #24

Well your post makes no sense to me... Agschmid Jan 2013 #26

At least six of them are jberryhill Jan 2013 #30

mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them uppityperson Jan 2013 #36

No, no way BainsBane Jan 2013 #27

Note the ages of the presidents. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #38

Hillary Clinton is far from ordinary BainsBane Jan 2013 #40

You might want to review 2008 karynnj Jan 2013 #60

You keep looking backward. This is 2016 we are talking about and Clinton should have been allowed graham4anything Jan 2013 #64

True. Hillary is not ordinary, but I genuinely hope we can find someone younger JDPriestly Jan 2013 #72

Clinton was a loser too - she got less far than Kerry, who had Ohio not been rigged would have karynnj Jan 2013 #59

No BainsBane Jan 2013 #62

YOU compared Clinton to Kerry --- that is why I did karynnj Jan 2013 #65

how did I bash Kerry? BainsBane Jan 2013 #67

I perceived Kerry's answers to be more thoughtful and more visionary karynnj Jan 2013 #70

Kerry speaks effectively to the choir loyalsister Jan 2013 #29

Four years is a long donco Jan 2013 #32

She is the same age as Hillary45,without the resume. Has the senate even been in session yet? graham4anything Jan 2013 #42

Kerry did vote on both votes yesterday karynnj Jan 2013 #61

To do one specific thing her fans want her to do. She is not going to be like say graham4anything Jan 2013 #63

We need new blood for 2016 and preferably a woman ManOz Jan 2013 #33

Vietnam, Iran/Contra. 20+ years in the Senate. Kerry is more than qualified. think Jan 2013 #34

I saw the bit with him and the protestor earlier today blogslut Jan 2013 #35

John Kerry is 69. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #37

Senator Feinstein is 79. ucrdem Jan 2013 #78

I'm up there too and relatively healthy. Not 72 yet, but getting there. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #79

Let's see, who does that leave, lol. ucrdem Jan 2013 #80

Where is the sarcasm smilie? This is the silliest idea I have ever heard of.I would NOT vote for him graham4anything Jan 2013 #41

Hillary and Obama are Kerry fans JI7 Jan 2013 #43

yeah, and John will be sitting in a corner on 1/17/17 applauding President Hillary Clinton 45. graham4anything Jan 2013 #44

considering Hillary is a Kerry fan i wouldn't worry about much JI7 Jan 2013 #46

Be nice to Hillary45, you need her to keep JKerry on as SOS to beat McNamara's SOS longevity record. graham4anything Jan 2013 #48

i'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't make decisions based on is being said on DU JI7 Jan 2013 #52

you bring up a sore topic with me here graham4anything Jan 2013 #54

He'll need 11 years ISUGRADIA Jan 2013 #81

About the Edwards-Cheney VP Debate: ucrdem Jan 2013 #45

Are you John Edwards' last fan? LOL graham4anything Jan 2013 #47

Well, if we're going make VP debates the metric ucrdem Jan 2013 #49

for vp. Hillary45/Biden. History set. Then in 2020, Hillary45/Michelle46 graham4anything Jan 2013 #53

Oh great, we're going to have DYNASTIES? Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #69

Did you say that about FDR? Gore? JFK? Bobby? John Quincy Adams? Jerry Brown? graham4anything Jan 2013 #77

it's pretty clear that Edwards sucked in the debates JI7 Jan 2013 #51

I wasn't originally a big Edwards partisan ucrdem Jan 2013 #55

maybe bigtree Jan 2013 #66

Please no Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2013 #68

Obama was not an establishment dem and he worked out pretty darn good Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #73

He voted FOR the Iraq "war" RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #74

Out of all of the potential and viable Democratic Party presidential candidates for 2016..... OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #75

Kerry is a great man, but he is not running in 2016. End of story. nt madinmaryland Jan 2013 #76