« Protecting Predators | Main | Site Stuff »
May 06, 2005
Kerry 08 Can Wait
James Joyner gets Kerry's problem right:
Clinton has shrewdly focused on her Senate duties first, not only building chits within her party but demonstrating that she was more than a show pony. Kerry would be wise to do the same if he wants another shot at the brass ring.
Kerry's problems, unfortunately, are innate. His every action comes across as that of a striver, a comer, an opportunist. It's not just that he lacks the effortless ascendence of yesteryear's wasp's and aristocrats, but he's also missing the self-evident social consciousness that distinguishes do-gooders. So when our inboxes fill up with his proposals to extend health care to the young or increase military pay, they seem less the ideas of a committed reformer and more a pre-plotted path Kerry's hoping will lead him to the White House. That's not his fault, at least in a conscious sense. I've no doubt Kerry does care for children, veterans, and society's least and needy, but his pre-2004 lack of distinguishing domestic initiatives makes the sudden swarm of Ted Kennedy-esque programs seem more than inauthentic, it makes them appear calculated.
I like John Kerry. I think he would've been a great president. But he was never a very good campaigner. Triumphing in Massachusetts doesn't quite transfer to other areas of the country, and his efforts during the presidential campaign, aside from the debates, were more competent than inspiring. But his new strategy, campaign straight from one election to the next, is actually making him look worse, not better. If he wants to stand out, he's going to have to pass some legislation, take some brave but unpopular stands, or dominate a pressing issue. The constant e-mails and ADD-fueled policy shop, however, are actually hurting his chances.
Update: Hiya Slate/Note folks. Beer's in the fridge, chips are on the table.
May 6, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/2409296
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry 08 Can Wait:
Comments
More Kerry DLC-ish posturing instead of leading:
Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says
By Rick Klein, [Boston] Globe Staff | May 6, 2005
BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.
Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.
"I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," ..."I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."
He says this in Baton Rouge, but not in Boston or NYC.
Yeah, he was for gay civil equality before he was against gay civil equality. Sounds sort of like his position on Iraq.
Kerry is dead meat, IMO.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 6, 2005 3:16:34 PM
I basically agree. But let's encourage Kerry, since that way Hillary will focus on him as her biggest obstacle, allowing one of the other D candidates (one that has a better chance of winning) to outflank them both.
Posted by: Duck Bill Platypus | May 6, 2005 3:26:14 PM
Kerry should follow Ted Kennedy's lead and distinguish himself as an elder statesman.
Posted by: fasteddie | May 6, 2005 4:16:32 PM
Duck Bill, good idea. Edwards could use having both of them in the race, since he's the real deal, and they're not.
Posted by: Drfranklives | May 6, 2005 4:21:04 PM
Maybe instead of encouraging either Kerry or Sen. Clinton we should consider a D candidate who might actually have a chance with a large portion of the electorate? Sure, that's pretty much an imaginary figure right now, but that doesn't mean he or she isn't out there.
Kerry will flounder horribly next time around, especially since he's still running an anti-bush campaign. Unless Jeb steps up, '08 will not be won on an anti-Bush push.
I love Sen. Clinton, would love to see her as president, and would do almost anything to see that happen. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country not only don't love her - they hate her. They hate her with the kind of vitriol usually reserved for the Yankees and deposed despots with a lot of shoes. While she could win the nomination, I'm not sure she can win the election.
The best thing either of them can do to win a Democratic presidency is help us find someone else.
Posted by: Brew | May 6, 2005 4:40:06 PM
Dean wasn't even an asterisk at this point four years ago, and there's still no reason to even discuss who the Democratic candidate is as long as Diebold's counting the votes. This is a fun parlor game, but seriously, folks.
Posted by: Kimmitt | May 6, 2005 5:55:27 PM
I don't know that Hillary unelectable to a sizable majority of the country. I could certainly be persuaded to support Hillary (unless the Republicans ran Guiliani, then he's my guy.) I can't see myself ever voting for Kerry or Edwards (Bresden is another possibility though)
I am pretty conservative on most issues, but number one for me is the war on terror. Hillary strikes me as being tough enough to lead the country in that effort, and although I disprove of many of her other positions I wouldn't worry about them too much. I like the idea of a split between control of the White House hand Congress anyway.
What I won't compromise one is a leader of the executive who is able and willing to act forcefully when needed. Hillary strikes me as that type of person. I expect that a lot of people share my view in that, people who voted for Bush last time around.
Posted by: Dave Justus | May 6, 2005 5:57:27 PM
I am pretty conservative on most issues, but number one for me is the war on terror. Hillary strikes me as being tough enough to lead the country in that effort, and although I disprove of many of her other positions I wouldn't worry about them too much.
Dave, I've had this conversation with people (including Ezra) before, and I think you're on target. If you were Bin Laden, is there a single person on earth you'd rather have as a blood enemy less than Hillary Clinton?
"Clinton '08: Just Look What She Did To Vince Foster!"
Posted by: Daniel A. Munz | May 6, 2005 7:12:22 PM
"Maybe instead of encouraging either Kerry or Sen. Clinton we should consider a D candidate who might actually have a chance with a large portion of the electorate? Sure, that's pretty much an imaginary figure right now, but that doesn't mean he or she isn't out there."
Brew, I think that person is out there - Wesley Clark. While everybody was fawning over Edwards' primary win in his birth state of SC, there seemed to be a collective effort to ignore Clark's second place finish in NH and win in OK.
The national security credentials are there, the cut-and-paste and ellipsis orgy his opposition had with his writings and Congressional testimony notwithstanding. And he's similar in position on most issues to both HRC and Kerry.
Posted by: Lewis Carroll | May 6, 2005 9:22:36 PM
Kerry was an awkward patrician because he was a middle class kid who got a good education and married money. W is a patrician who does a much better job of faking bubbahood. However, W isn't running the next time around. At best we can hope to hang W around the GOP candidates neck -- sorry it won't be Sen. Frist.
I would hate to see HRC run because I can't bear to listen to them beat her up any more. On the other hand she does continue to lead "most admired woman" polls, has a strong following within the party, and is a known commodity. There are no skeletons in her closet, because everything in her closet was emptied out on the lawn for the whole world to see. She's as clean as she can be and even truly religious unlike the pseudo-religion of Fearless Leader. Besides, people who know them say that Bill's telling the truth when he says she's the smarter one.
Jeb won't run. He's a Catholic with a rumored zipper problem. The fundies don't trust the RC and the RC shouldn't trust the fundies.
Posted by: J Bean | May 6, 2005 9:38:43 PM
The rhetoric sucks. "War on Terror". "War on Drugs". Repug propaganda so effective it's taken over. Wake up. Options and original thinking might even give J.Q.Public the idea there are people out there with worthwhile ideas...not just slogans and rehash.
Posted by: opit | May 7, 2005 12:33:54 AM
Kerry - Could someone resurrect Andy Warhol and get him to tell Kerry that his 15 minutes are over. If he does try to run against Hillary expect all sorts of embarassing things to be revealed (including why he still hasn't signed his 180).
Hillary at war - I can't stand the woman but I think she would be an effective war leader, I certainly wouldn't want to be uner her control.
Hillary's electability - limited, very limited. Nothing will energise conservatives more than having Hillary to vote against. I also think she'll struggle in the Great Lake states among traditional Dem voters.
Dems best candidate - I've come to think of this being some sort of Red state combination - one of Bayh, Salazar, Lincoln and Landrieu together with one of Brederson, Richardson, Schweitzer and Sebelius. Weird troll disinformation you might think but remember Clinton/Gore - a Red state Gov together with a Red state Senator.
Posted by: Boethius | May 7, 2005 6:00:57 PM
Clark - Forget all about him (like I just did). Ike went from being Commander of NATO in Europe to President. What in comparison has Clark done these last few years? If he wants to go into politics let him get elected Gov of Arkansas or something similar. After all I don't think anyone is claiming he's the equal of Ike or that the political system is the same as 1952.
Posted by: Boethius | May 7, 2005 6:05:59 PM
I don't quite follow the logic that since Clark was SACEUR just like Ike, but didn't go immediately to the presidency, he therefore can't become president.
And yes, people who know about such things have claimed he's the equal of Ike, or at least similar:
http://www.sftt.us/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=35&rnd=748.926852583512
Excerpts:
"For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim’s November issue, I’m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor."
"But if he wins the election, don’t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark’s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike’s – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president."
I admit that he doesn't think like the typical politician, but perhaps that could be as much advantage as disadvantage.
Posted by: Lewis Carroll | May 7, 2005 11:32:09 PM
Bah. Kerry was a hired gun; he was nominated to take out W, not because anyone thought he would be a great president.
He didn't get it done. I see no reason to give him another shot. More to the point, I know of exactly zero Democrats who disagree with me.
Posted by: Tony the Pony | May 8, 2005 5:57:59 PM
Tony,
One.
Posted by: TJ | May 9, 2005 12:54:17 AM
Boy the pundits sure love to hear themselves talk.
Kerry's either trying too hard, or not trying enough.
I'd rather he try too hard for the sake of our country.
Keep fighting Johnny.
Posted by: IFK Editor | May 10, 2005 4:09:07 PM
Let's see, where to start? Hillary cannot be nominated, and if nominated cannot win. Only fools continue to chase this mote in the dust. Wesley Clark? Are you nuts? Some people, most people, will remember he said abortion is OK right up to the moment the baby (or fetus, if you think along those lines) appears to the outside world. The only hope Democrats have is that someone, largely unknown up to now, will magically appear with charisma and cred. But don't bet the milk money on it.
Posted by: Jerry | May 10, 2005 8:12:55 PM
Oh, I forgot Kerry. It's been 100 days now since he said he would release his military records, which a growing number of people suspect includes a dishonorable discharge. Kerry is a cinder. Not even his mad wife can possibly believe he's got a shot.
Posted by: Jerry | May 10, 2005 8:15:04 PM
What precisely makes you think Kerry would have been a great president?
Granted, anybody can surprise you, like the ballsy guy who's in there now and gave little enough sign he had a pair his whole life up till then. But Kerry has spent a life not being out in front on anything, not standing for anything, making the safe moves (like marrying fabulous wealth)-- what can you point to in his life that makes you think he'd have done anything but dither and talk big in office?
I may sound like a rabid rightwinger that way, but it was the very fact of my inability to answer that question for myself that got the first vote for a Republican presidential candidate I ever cast.
Posted by: Mike G | May 10, 2005 11:45:00 PM
I have a soft spot for Phil Bredesen...
Posted by: Auros | May 11, 2005 1:46:50 AM
Enough already with ClintonWife and the Sons of the Son of Prescott Bush. And good riddance to that heiress-marrying serial goldigger from MA.
Giuliani or Bredesen would be much better than any of the above.
Posted by: thibaud | May 11, 2005 4:03:41 AM
I'm with ya, Mike G. Millions of us are in the same boat.
Posted by: thibaud | May 11, 2005 4:04:52 AM
Kerry would have made a great president? What are you smoking? He is, and would be, a disaster. There is not a shred of sincerity in his body or mind. In fact, only in Massachusetts could someone like him be elected to anything.
Posted by: David T | May 11, 2005 8:45:04 AM
I guess this is a polite way of admitting that Kerry is a huge phony and a diehard panderer with a monstrous ego. Watch lefties tiptoe up to the truth...carefully, carefully...
Posted by: Udolpho | May 11, 2005 10:45:41 AM
Hillary is tough, yes, but is she smart enough to let the military fight the WOT without meddling? Three words come to mind: Kennedy, MacNamara, Vietnam. Not interested in doing that again.
Posted by: Daver | May 11, 2005 11:00:53 AM
JFK II's leadership style was nonexistant. Only a few presidents will get away with the triangulation style of leadership. People will alway prefer a candidate that takes a stand and challenges people to follow his vision. The populace wants a father figure that will admonish us to become better, more responsible individules. Kerry never took a stand and held his ground. In light of his political behavior, I could never reconcile his present personna with the supposed "vietnam war hero". That conflict inspired no confidence. I couln't follow him into any battle.
Hillary on the other hand certianly seems strong enough, but carries too much baggage. We all know (or at least hope) the military will follow orders, but moral is a greater issue. I don't see the mutual respect between her and the grunt on the ground. Does she have their "back"? People will look at her and only see four more years of Bill. Without Ross Perot to split the republican vote, Bill would have never made it, neither will Hillary. That Marie Antionett-esque quote from her health care program days of "I can't be responsible for every under-funded small business" will sink her like the anchor she is.
Another democrat must emerge in the next four years, or any republican that runs will be the next pres.
djhermes
Posted by: david hermes | May 11, 2005 12:18:34 PM
One thing to keep in mind:
Andrew Sullivan endorsed John Kerry.
Sullivan is a small-government conservative, far to the right of Bush, fiscally speaking. He loved the Bush tax cut. He is generically against big-spending government programs. He dismissed Kerry's DNC speech as "a very liberal speech."
Yet Sullivan endorsed John Kerry, because (among other things) he wanted to punish Bush for being a big spender.
If there are a lot of people like Andrew Sullivan (I know quite a few), then there are a lot less supporters of traditional, big-government liberalism than Kerry's 48% tally would suggest.
The Dems need to take a crash course in the American political philosophy.
Posted by: Lancelot Finn | May 11, 2005 1:54:35 PM
Frankly, and partly this was from having lived in Mass. as a conservative Republican during my college/law school days (1989-96), nothing that went wrong with the Kerry campaign was at all a surprise to me. It still amazes me that so many Democrats failed to recognize his inherent flaws at the time, and by that I mean his flaws as a campaigner. (I still maintain that this was due to the confluence of Kerry's war record and the "chickenhawk"/"Bush AWOL" meme, which together convinced so many otherwise sensible people on the Left that anyone with a war record was Kryptonite to Bush).
I suspect Hillary is unstoppable, but even if she's not, the Dems really badly need to get Kerry out of the way. The problem maybe that, with the Clintons obviously self-interested and Kerry's despised rival as the party chair, there's nobody in the party (other than maybe Ted Kennedy) with the stature and respect (on Kerry's part) to sit the man down and tell him to move on for the good of his party.
Posted by: Crank | May 11, 2005 1:57:05 PM
"People will look at her and only see four more years of Bill."
That just might get her elected.
Have you seen the polls. If we had Bill Clinton vs George W Bush in 08 Clinton would beat him 53 - 43.
This whole idea about Hillary being polarizing is nonsense. She is nowhere near as polarizing as Bush. Have you seen Bush's negatives? More people disapprove of him than approve.
Bush does have an advantage over Hillary though. People who own him also own much of the media, especially TV and radio.
Posted by: Miri | May 11, 2005 10:40:10 PM
Eek! You guys scare me. I'm a recovering yellow-dog democrat who voted for Mondale -- Kerry makes AL GORE look sexy. Let's support a fearless candidate this time, somebody that isn't poll-tested and angling somewhere to the left of the repub candidates. Who is that? I'll wait for he/she to step forward. The real deal, indeed...
Posted by: Mike | May 12, 2005 12:25:05 PM
"I am pretty conservative on most issues, but number one for me is the war on terror. Hillary strikes me as being tough enough to lead the country in that effort, and although I disprove of many of her other positions I wouldn't worry about them too much."
"Dave, I've had this conversation with people (including Ezra) before, and I think you're on target. If you were Bin Laden, is there a single person on earth you'd rather have as a blood enemy less than Hillary Clinton?"
Yeah, Condoleeza Rice. Seriously. Clinton is doing the talk. Dr. Rice is doing the walk. When it comes down to troop morale, who do you think the military would rather have at their back? Who do you think the voters would trust to carry out a no-holds-barred war against terrorism? I honestly hope they convince her to run next election. She is not only smart and tough, but a person of character.
And that really was Kerry's fatal flaw. It was transparent to anyone who cared to see that he is not a person of character. His ambition, his manuvering, his half-hearted attempts to please everyone fooled no-one. I will not say all, but I would venture to guess that most of the votes he got were borne of Bush hatred and little else.
Oh, by the way, whoever the Democrats decide to run in '08 is going to have to get off the gun-grabbing trip. Gun-control has demonstrated fully now what a complete and utter failure it is in having any positive impact on crime. The best that can be said about it is that it was ineffectual. But evidence has demonstrated that in most cases, it only makes innocent people more vulnerable to violent crime. It won't be good enough for the candidate to have a "so-so" record on gun rights next time, they will need to be a firm supporter of the second amendment. Guiliani will probably not get the GOP nod for that reason alone.
Posted by: lunaslide | May 12, 2005 9:47:33 PM
Eisenhower spent a couple of years as president of Columbia University between his time a SACEUR and running for president. I'm sure he played as much golf at Columbia as he did for eight years in the White House.
As they said at the time: "Ike didn't do anything as President, but he did it better than anyone else"
As for Kerry, probably the single worst presidential campaign of the last 100 years. Completely, totally incompetent. From hiring Shrum (0-7) at the time in presidential elections, to his own pompous bleatings. The man never missed a chance to use twelve words, where two or three would suffice! He blew the debates by not challenging anything shrub did, from the annoying way he always referred to Kerry as "My opponent" to shrub's concealed receiving device under the coat. He failed to challenge the Swift Boat Liars!
Where was Carville when we needed him? That's the real reason Matalin married him, she's a whore whose job is to keep him from running Democrats campaigns.
As for Hillary, she's just too polarizing to win! There are too many from the Sociopath Party that hate her guts and will do anything to crush her.
Posted by: jeff | May 13, 2005 7:29:34 PM
Kerry will not flounder.
He will carp.
Posted by: M. Simon | May 13, 2005 9:04:53 PM
Kerry has one big problem it is about 1,000 days from now. Well into the campaign.
Kerry still hasn't released all his military records.
How does he explain that? Not enough time? He didn't bring his pen with him?
Posted by: M. Simon | May 13, 2005 9:33:46 PM
There are a lot of Repulican leaning independants out there that are pretty dissapointed with the performance of the party since they took both houses and the presidency. I'm one of them. We're very open to voting Democratic. I voted for Kerry last time around. We are the people you need to win if you want to get in the White House. And for a lot of us, there is no way in hell we'd vote for Hillary. Don't be stupid.
I never was very impressed with Clark myself. He never came off as understanding much. Edwards has the Bill Clinton type appeal, but the boy needs to be tutored. Every time I saw him asked a nitty gritty policy question, his answer suggested that he had no idea what was being asked.
Bring in a Southern Governer.
Posted by: Tom | May 14, 2005 12:26:50 PM
