Reply #15: Because he seemed to barely have the energy to briefly enter the race in 2008. [View All]

[karynnj]

If he was reluctant, thinking that 2008 was a Democratic year, he should not have entered in 2008. Once he did enter, he should have done wholeheartedly. I thing the image of being a very lack luster candidate will hurt.

To me, it seems as though the Republicans first need to do the work to decide who they are before looking to candidates. What is clear is that they have rejected the "Bush" model - the question is what pieces of the Republican base and independents or even disaffected Democrats can they pull together for 2012.

They are in far worse shape than Democrats were after 2004. In spite of not winning, Kerry did create a platform and a message that all the 2008 candidates were able to build on. In particular, he put the Democrats in the position of having the better position on dealing with non-state terrorism and (from K/F in 2006)a better position on what to do in Iraq. Obama's plan on Iraq was essentially K/F with a slightly longer deadline. Kerry's strong environmental/alternative energy platform was copied and even his words were used, especially by HRC (and even John McCain). Kerry also made universal access to healthcare insurance an issue. Obama used Kerry's idea of re-insurance for catastrophic costs and many people picked up his call to let people buy into medicare at 55 and to be able to buy the types of insurance that Congressmen had. The fact is that the Democratic party did not have to reinvent itself to win in 2008. The only decision was who was the best candidate to run - and Obama did a fantastic job.