It’s still early days, and the Inevitable Kerry Nomination is about as much of a sure thing as the Inevitable Dean Nomination was.
They’re all opportunistic platitude-shouters. Edwards is well up there in the phony standings, based on his comments post-Iowa about his success being due to his Positive Message of Hope and Positivity and being a Fresh-Faced Force for Positive Thinking.
I wish Kerry well. He would have my vote in a heartbeat in a contest vs. Bush, even if he does look alarmingly like Herman Munster.
Everybody knows that Fred Gwynne went to Harvard and was one of the editors of the Harvard Lampoon, right? Bright guy.
Anyway, this Joe Klein article from the New Yorker is ESSENTIAL reading for anybody interested in learning more about Kerry; it’s from before the war but it’s fascinating (sorry, board isn’t letting me link right now):
The notion of Bush as a “regular Joe” is one of the most artificial things about him. He is, and always has been, nothing but a rich kid and an elitist snob. He’s never had a job. All his friends, associates and relatives have always been millionaires. He’s not even a real Texan. He’s a New England preppie with a fake Texas accent.
I’m somewhere between spoke- and Diogenes on this one. The most encouraging thing in my view is that for the first time in my memory, Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are focusing on one thing: who has the best chance at beating George W. Bush? I’ve never seen such unanimity among Democrats before, generally traits that enable one to win the Democratic nomination are those that put one at a disadvantage in November. (Dukakis. Enough said.)
Kerry brings credibility on defense and national security issues. Veterans take justified pride in their service to their country, and all other things being equal will vote for the fellow vet. Kerry did what so many Vietnam vets did- he didn’t like the war but fulfilled his duty.
Kerry also is going to do well among those that worry about the national debt. He’ll also do well among the elderly who are really suspicious of Bush’s desires to begin to privatize social security. Of course, he will do well among those that oppose the war.
Kerry is looking a lot less patrician these days. He actually didn’t look bad playing hockey, and that really wasn’t a bad goal he scored going top shelf from a pretty poor angle.
The biggest danger I see is that in his long Senate career, Kerry has cast a lot of votes. Some of those votes are going to be at variance with his current publicly stated views, and Bush can and will score some points with this. Bush is also going to run clips of Kerry and Kennedy embracing, in an attempt to pin the scarlet “L” on Kerry’s suitcoat. But I think that will only score points with the neocons, who are already in his corner.
Best thing Kerry can do is take the high road, don’t blast his party rivals, and pick an advantageous running mate. Edwards might make a fine choice, but I wouldn’t mind having Gephardt either.
I think it’s possible. A lot of stars are going to have to align though. First is that Howard Dean, folds and folds soon. If he hangs around there will be mud slung in Kerry’s general direction and some is likely to stick. Second and probably more important is to forget about the South. He can’t win down here I don’t care who is his running mate. People don’t vote for VP. He should run hard in Florida. Politically speaking Florida is not a southern state and could easily go Democratic in 04. Take a page from Bush and look at what it’s going to take to get to 271 and focus on your strengths. He’s looking better lately, but for a while there he really had that Gore vibe. Not the real Gore, but the Gore who had people telling him what to wear, etc… That whole John “F” Kerry thing was pretty silly and he was right to drop it. His senate voting record will also haunt him. I have already seen stories/ads in NC that show his voting record lined up nicely with Ted. I expect to see something like super imposed over a big ole hug with Ted and you can forget the deep south. And Bush hasn’t even really started to campaign yet.
Going by his voting record (not his words, which of course are meaningless like all politicians words), I personally like Kerry more than any other Dem choices.
Cite (free trade on this page, scroll down for voting record on other issues):
He’s a free trader, unlike either Bush or Dean (protectionism being the place where hardcore left and right meet), so he cant be too dumb. He’s far more of an individualist Dem, rather than a collectivist Dem.
The Dems have a choice to make; continue in Clintons path of pragmatic problem solving over adherence to ideology, or dwindle to being the party of upper middle class guilt ridden college kids, much like the Greens.
To reduce a complex situation down further than it maybe should be, Id say going with Kerry is a vote to continue the Dems as a viable party; to go with Dean is to go with a wanna-be Nader, and to seriously misread the priorities of the voters.
Cite that the accent is fake? Only half-kidding here. Bush sure has New England roots and spent a lot of time there. But I see no evidence that he’s more New Englander than Texan. Quite the contrary.
I believe that they represented a not-insignificant portion of the populace; just because they may not have represented more than 50% of the population doesn’t mean they can be ignored. Then again, I’m one of those kooks hwo believe that the cornerstone of American government is majority rule that doesn’t trample on the rights of the minority.
That’d be nice, if the principles were more noble than merely “whatever the hell we want to do,” as the current Administration holds.
Down that path lies political irrelevancy. At least on the national stage.
The population of the US continues to shift southward. If Democrats choose to simply write off the South, that day may come when the South returns the favor. Do the Democrats want to be a national party, or only a regional one?
Yes and no. South Florida is not very “Southern” in outlook, but when you get north of Orlando, you’ll still find an essentially Southern state. Are the culturally Southern folks of North Florida and the panhandle enough to make a difference in a close contest? You betcha.
Clark has the military credibility which will help against Bush. And he doesn’t have a long voting record like Kerry’s (or any voting record, actually) which could be turned against him.
On the other hand, Clark is a bit stiff. He has almost as much trouble as Kerry coming across as a regular guy.
Bottom line, though, Clark could take Arkansas and Florida, and put other states in the South in play.
Edwards lacks the military background, but I think that could be overcome with a strong VP choice. I agree with every policy statement I’ve heard from Edwards, and I like the fact that he goes into specific detail, when asked, about how Republican policies are harming the middle class. The middle class is the key to victory, and the Democratic candidate must be an effective advocate to explain why the middle class is cutting its own throat by voting Republican.
Edwards is of course a strong speaker, much better than Clark or Kerry. That is the trial lawyer in him. But that is also his weakness, as the Republican machine and insurance companies have been working for years to demonize the “Trial Lawyer.” (They have done so in the interest of promoting so-called “Tort Reform.”)
Can Edwards overcome the demonization and his lack of military experience? I think so. At the very least, I think Edwards can win North Carolina, and present a strong challenge in Florida, and that may be enough to tip the scales.
When you come down to it, I guess my head belongs to Clark (being in my view the most electable of the candidates) but my heart belongs to Edwards (being closest politically to my own views). I may not decide between the two until I step into the voting booth.
Incidentally, I’m not trying to bash Kerry with this thread. I like Kerry, and would vote for him were he the Democratic nominee. I just fear that too few of my fellow centrists (particularly in the South) would join me.
He doesn’t seem to want my vote. Claims he doesn’t need it. Why should I give it to him?
I (and many other Southerners, including many in North Florida) will want to make it clear what a “Screw the South” strategy means. So it will be a message of sorts.
He proved himself an inept diplomat by making this remark. Even if I were otherwise inclined to support him, I would have serious doubts about how he would handle himself in a national campaign, and beyond that in diplomatic situations. Hell, we all know that Kerry (along with a lot of other New England Democrats) doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about the South, but what kind of idiot would admit it on the campaign trail?
I’ve been doing all sorts of volunteer campaign work for John Kerry for the last 9 months (including chauffering him around for a day); in the process, I’ve gotten to hear him speak and do Q&A sessions about a dozen times now. Out of those, I’ve seen him asked this question at least three times. I imagine that can probably be extrapolated to a few thousand times overall, so he’s gotta be DAMN sick of hearing it by now. In the responses I’ve seen, he has never said anything approaching “screw the South”; instead, he gives a very pragmatic (note - the same word used to praise Clinton in another post) response, something a little like (I’m paraphrasing here) “look, I would obviously love to win some of the Southern states, and I intend to campaign hard in the South, but the fact is, it is not an absolute necessity. I would never pursue this strategy, but it is mathematically possible to win without carrying any Southern state”. As I read the comments in the ABC News story, this is perfectly consistent with what he said this time. I defy anyone to explain to me how this qualifies as “Screw the South”.
Spoke-, you seem to feel this demonstrates a lack of diplomacy. Let me ask you this: Assuming you woke up one morning and suddenly found yourself to be a “New England liberal”, how would you respond to being constantly bombarded with the message (outright and/or implied) that an entire region of the country would never vote for you? Would your response be this diplomatic? Mine sure as Hell wouldn’t; I, as a fairly liberal Northerner WOULD tell the South where to go (note to self: don’t plan on running for president anytime soon).
Some other notes:
1 - The fact that John has run no ads in SC is used in the cited ABC News piece as evidence of his lack of commitment to the South. The fact is that Kerry’s campaign has spent essentially no money yet (on ads or otherwise) in ANY of the February 3 states, choosing instead to pursue dual wins in IA and NH, and ride the wave of free press as much as possible into the next round of states. I don’t hear anybody in Delaware bitching that this sends an “anti-Delaware message” - it’s just a pragmatic (there’s that word again) use of resources, and it seems to be working.
2 - Zell Miller’s remarks that the modern Democratic party tells the South to “go to Hell” are laughable. John Kerry’s whole platform is built on issues that SHOULD be important to all Americans, regardless of their region: Health care for all (under a system that still embraces free-market principles), better education, an independence from Mid-East oil, stopping the flood of jobs and capital out of this country, a cleaner environment, a strong defense, and a foreign policy that isn’t based on bullying the rest of the world. If Southerners only respond to this message when it comes from a good-old-boy, then this is a shortcoming of theirs, not the party’s.
No, of course not. But not doing what your opponents want hardly qualifies as having “no regard for the public will” when those opponents are most definitely in the minority.
Ah, then I expect you’ll be right along explaining how Bush trampled on the protesters rights by not doing what they told him to.
What Bush did is commonly known as giving people the brushoff. He went further than not doing what they wanted or acknowledgind their questions about his decisions, he said paying attention to hundreds of thousands or millions of protestors would be like governing based on focus groups.
Dean is angry. So am I. I think a lot of Americans are angry and would happily vote for a man who articulates their anger. I think Dean is more electable than Clark, Kerry or Edwards, in every state.
That said, I’d vote for anyone, even that sad clown Lieberman, against Bush. Fact is, from my point of view, ALL the candidates are electable – because they’re running against Bush.
As for ‘Southern Strategy’ I suppose when the Dems are ready to embrace racism and animal stupidity they’ll be able to compete with the Pubbies in the South. The people who call for attention to the South dress up Southern issues very prettily, but at heart they boil down to appeals to racism and religious fundamentalism. Fuck 'em. And I say this as a born and bred Southernenr.
Just like last time, it’s gonna come down to Florida, and Florida comes down to the I-4 corridor. And once again, I can still be bought. The Dems didn’t take me up on it last time …
In re: Kerry, his military record is not going to help as much as some think. Yes he won medals in 'Nam, but his post-war persona --publicly throwing medals (which turned out to be someone else’s) – is going to hurt him with the very people that would otherwise be impressed.