After all is said and done, it looks like the Democrats will be nominating John Kerry? Hmmmm. And can anyone remember any policies put forward by him other than getting rid of Dubya and the tax cuts for "the rich" (You know the definition of rich, don't you? It's anyone who has more money than I do).
About the only thing we really know about Kerry is that he served in Vietnam (you did know that, didn't you?), his face is "craggy" and he's from Massachusetts. You woulda thought the Dems could come up with someone better to run against Dubya. Of course, we have yet to see if a Bush can run a presidential re-election campaign and win.
If only Kerry had Howard Dean's fire, Joe Lieberman's morality, John Edwards' personality, Wesley Clark's (hmmm, get back to you on that), Al Sharpton's one-liners and Dennis Kucinich's charts. Then he'd be a candidate to contend with.
Of course their best candidate is the junior senator from New York, but she's not running this time, perhaps making the same mistake Mario Cuomo, et al, made in 1992, when Bush, Sr. looked unbeatable, but was upended by Clinton, whose presidency was undone by his, ah, indiscretions. Of course if Hillary is the best they can come up with, you have to wonder about the state of Democratic politics. But then again I wonder about the state of Republican politics.
John Kerry is not a presidential candidate. He makes Bush, Sr. look animated. The Democrats are in a tough fight, as they well know.
UPDATE: Ok, perhaps I overstated. John Kerry is not the best candidate the Dems could offer; Howard Dean was better, John Edwards was better, Dennis Kucinich was better. The question is: how did he become the candidate, if he's not the best one?
Posted by Dean
at 11:02 PM CST
Updated: Tuesday, 9 March 2004 1:33 AM CST