>>They wanted a win in 2004 and picked Kerry because, for some reason I have still not quite fathomed, they thought he would beat Bush.
Well he almost did. He got closer than anyone else in the Dem field, so they were making their best choice. If not for the swift vets, and that bin Laden pre-election anti-Bush message, Kerry would have won in spite of his shortcomings.
And he was long on shortcomings.
I don't think we'll be so lucky next time. Incumbent fatigue, for one thing. And my pet theory about the 16-year flare-up:
In 1960 after 8 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and young children slips into office. Sixteen years later, after 8 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and a young child slides into office. Sixteen years later, after 12 years of Republican president, a young and seemingly vigorous Dem with great hair and a young child slithers into office. Sixteen years later, it is 2008 and...
So I worry about John Edwards, whose candidacy would be no more ridiculous than Clinton's was, when he first came to our attention.
For you nitpickers, I know darn well Kennedy only had one child before the 1960 election!