I don't really see Edwards winning but I could be wrong on that one. As for Kerry I had not heard that he had decided for sure not to run. Doesn't really surprise all that much that he is not running though.
Again I see a few parallels to Australian politics here, but the super-simple version as I see it is that Kerry recognised that he ought not to run in 2008 as the first impression he made as a presidential candidate was particularly uninspiring.
This is exactly the same thing that happened to Kim Beazely. He might be a compassionate and honest intellectual but he also has this gift for being marvellously unsubstantial.
With so many folks forming exploratory committees, I wonder who will pony up today. While I might be tempted to listen to John Edwards and what he has to say, I do not think he has a chance of garnering the nomination.
I personally think that Kerry's time has passed, and applaud his decision to not run in the 2008 presidential race. Right now, I can only think of 3 or 4 people for the Democratic ticket, but I'm not sure.
My question is, for the Senators that are "running" for President, don't they do their constituents a disservice by being out on the stump instead of being in Congress doing the job they were elected to do?
That's a touchy subject...I'm a New York state resident. Pretty much everyone has been calling Hillary's move to run for president since she won the Senate seat. I think the general hope is that they will do good for the country as a whole, not just your individual state. Just how often that actually happens though...who knows.
I just think that if they're elected to an office, they have the responsibility to do the job they're being paid to do - vote on items that come up for vote. How many votes do those Senators miss while they're out on the road? I think the number is pretty high, since you must be present to vote. What votes would have had a different outcome if ALL the Senators were there to vote?