Before I say anything else, let me acknowledge that John Kerry definitely CAN and very well MAY win the election this November. I’ve been saying for over a year that the next election will be about as close as the last one, that almost ANY reasonable Democratic nominee (i.e. anybody but Kucinich, Sharpton or Mosley-Braun) would stand a very good chance of winning.
However, I’m intrigued by the fact that the Democrats have chosen a mighty lackluster candidate. And I’m more intrigued by the fact that this lackluster candidate was chosen as a direct result of a powerful desire to pick someone “electable.”
There’s no doubt about it: the Democrats want to win this time. They Really want to win. No, I mean they really, REALLY want to win. They’ve wanted to beat Bush so badly that they’ve been more than willing to compromise their principles, so long as the candidate they compromised their principles for was someone who was “electable.” Among the signs:
Even the Far Left wing of the Democratic party has shown zero interest in Ralph Nader’s candidacy. Ralph is being vilified (deservedly) by Democrats for running again this year, and even the leftists who try to defend him just don’t have their hearts in it. It’s pretty clear that the folks who voted for Nader last time KNOW they were idiots to have done so. None will come out and say that, and a few will continue to insist that voting for Ralph was the right thing to do, but it’s written all over their faces that they don’t mean it. They screwed up, they know it, and there’s no way they’ll make that mistake again.
Even folks on the Far Left were intrigued (if only briefly) by Wesley Clark. When a guy like Michael Moore endorses Wesley Clark, it obviously is NOT because Moore thinks Clark will be his ally on any important issues. It’s just that, for a change, even people like Moore are ready to say “Screw my ideals- I’ll settle for ANYONE who looks like he migt be able to beat Bush. And if it takes a career Army officer who’s been a lifelong Republican to do it, well, fine!” But while Clark is obviously a very intelligent and capable man, he proved rather inarticulate and lacking in charisma. That made Democrats leery of choosing him- no matter how impressive his resume, without charisma, he just wasn’t “electable.”
Howard Dean’s campaign and rhetoric struck a very responsive chord with Democrats. Unfortunately, he embarrassed himself in Iowa. Now, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that Dean was treated unfairly by the media. He was made to look far more foolish than his behavior warranted, and the ridicule he received went on far longer than it should have. And yet… the immediate reaction of True Believers in the Democratic party was NOT to rally around Dean and defend him, but to drop him like a hot potato. Why? Because even Dean’s most devoted followers want to WIN! And by embarrassing himself in Iowa, Dean made people wonder if he was electable. That left an opening for somebody else, anybody else.
So, who was to be the beneficiary? Not Dick Gephardt. He’s run before and never caught fire. That made him appear… “unelectable.” So, by default, John Kerry emerged as the new frontrunner. And now, he’s the virtual nominee.
To repeat, Kerry can win. He’s in a decent position. And yet… I don’t sense ANY excitement or enthusiasm among the Democrats for their chosen candidate. I mean, this is SUPPOSED to be the honeymoon stage for a candidate, but I don’t sense a lot of love for Kerry. My sense is, he didn’t win the nomination because of his own virtues- he won because he had fewer obvious negatives than the other guys. Because he was a LITTLE more charismatic than Clark, and a LOT less likely to put his foot in his mouth than Dean. The mood I sense among Democrats isn’t “This is the best man possible for the job,” it’s “This is the candidate who’s least likely to screw up royally.”
The Democrats certainly have a right to feel reasonably confident. But isn’t it odd that the quest for “electability” resulted in the selection of a man nobody seems terribly enthralled with?
“They’ve wanted to beat Bush so badly that they’ve been more than willing to compromise their principles …”
Democrats have principles?
I agree that Dean got screwed over. Oh sure, he’s crazy, but to completely dump on him over that one little speech was over the top. First they use the argument that “the President is a regular person just like you and shouldn’t be held to a higher standard” when Clinton got caught cheating on his wife, and then the second Dean did something “normal” like freak out a bit (which everyone does on occasion), all of a sudden he’s “not Presidential material.” Do they want the Prez to be an average guy or do they want him worthy of a pedestal, which is it?
I also agree that there’s just not much excitement over Kerry. Clinton campaigned near my hometown the night before the 1992 election (why west Kentucky the night before? I dunno), and boy were the Democrats rocking! Woo, our candidate rules, yada yada yada, people dancing all over the place to Fleetwood Mac. I can’t see anyone doing a line dance over Kerry, tho. Maybe it’s the charisma factor: I’m no Clinton fan but the man is charming and could connect with the average Joe. Clinton seemed down-to-earth enough to knock back some brew and shoot some pool with the people. Kerry comes across more as a rich snob to me. You just know he only drinks imported fine wine
I’m going to risk jinxing the campaign, but my feelings for Kerry are along the lines on my feelings for Gore…
I don’t care if I don’t get a warm-n-fuzzy feeling for the guy – I’m voting for a leader, someone who can think and analyze and decide, not a beer buddy. If he proves himself to be smart enough to make the right decisions(*), he could be a picked brain in a jar speaking through a Ronco 8-track tape player and still get my vote.
(* = Of course, compared to Bush, a picked brain in a jar is the smarter alternative, but that’s a different matter.)
If there’s one thing George W. Bush has, it’s “folksy charm” – which makes him perfect for being a greeter at Wal-Mart, but woefully inadequate for being the PotUS.
How many threads are we going to see about this already?
The thing you forgot about Dean is that he lost Iowa before that speech. Yes, it made things much worse for him, but the honeymoon was already over. He was in decline and Kerry and Edwards were on the rise. It would have been tough for him to recover.
I think Dean’s problem was that the Democrats liked his positions, especially on the war, but didn’t like him. He went out and attacked President Bush when the rest of the candidates were skating around the whole Iraq issue for fear of provoking a backlash.
Once the other candidates saw that it was safe to take Dean’s positions and rhetoric, they jumped on it. Suddenly, the Democrats were left with candidates who all opposed the war,except for Joe Lieberman, and why would you vote for Bush Lite when you could vote for the real thing?
So the primary came down to picking the candidate who most clearly articulated Dean’s position to the voters. In a perfect world, that should have been Dean, but just as some of the bands that ripped off rock 'n roll were more successful than those that invented it, sometimes things don’t work out the way they should.
Well, sit back, close your eyes and imagine Teresa Heinz-Kerry visiting a D.C. inner-city elementary school and entertaining the pupils by reading a story from a children’s book.
But where’s the evidence that Kerry is a leader (aside from 40 year old Vietnam references)? His history in the senate is a history of very little legislation being created (much less than average for a Senator of his tenure). He let Howard Dean steal his obvious leadership position in the primaries. He lost just about every debate he was in, against a very weak field of candidates, when he should have been dominating not just the debates, but the entire dialog of the Democratic party in the primaries. He went into the primaries with huge advantages - more money than anyone else, a household name, 20 years in the Senate, and what should have been a much stronger grasp of the issues than his rivals who lack his experience. But the guy blew it. The only reason he wound up winning was because Howard Dean and Wesley Clark self-destructed. He was basically the last man standing (along with Edwards). His win is a result of luck and a weak field, and not anything he did to stand up and be counted.
Look at his vote record. Almost everyone now agrees that the first Gulf War was justified. But Kerry voted against it. Most of you think the second Gulf war was a bad idea, but Kerry voted for it. However, after the war was over, most of you agreed that at least the funding had to be coughed up for reconstruction. But Kerry voted against it. This is not a record that inspires confidence in his ability to make good decisions on foreign policy.
And in the last year he has been completely absent, missing all 22 roll call votes this year, and missing 64% of the votes last year. That doesn’t say much for his ability to keep commitments. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, managed to make most of his votes, in some cases skipping campaign stops to rush back to Washington to make a vote. That’s dedication. Kerry abandoned his post. But he kept collecting his paychecks.
It was a pretty weak field, and the Dems probably chose the best of the bunch. Dean would’ve been OK, but it’s hard to argue with Kerry’s experience. He’s very unlikely to do something really stupid.
And it doesn’t really matter anyway. Even if Kerry wins, he won’t get any of his proposals thru the Republican controlled Congress…
Interestingly enough, before the primaries started, there was a site called the Presidential Selector, in which you (the visitor) answered a series of questions about your opinions on the issues and the site would then recommend one of the 9 Dems or W. for you to vote for. My friend and I had a running joke that if you put “no opinion” for every question, it would recommend Kerry. Sadly, we (the Democrats, anyways) have chosen safety and blandness over leadership and ideas. Kerry excites no one I know, and Bush at least takes a stand on many issues, although I disagree with him pretty much 99% of the time. Hopefully, Kerry can take a hint that the majority of the country wants someone to lead them, not mutter vague non-stances on issues. Now that Nader is running, hopefully the Dems won’t rest on their haunches like they’ve been doing for the last few decades and will actively court the progressive vote. It’d be nice to vote Democrat and not feel like I need a shower afterwards.
The problem is not that Kerry has no specific stances. He does. The problem is not that he is a boring speaker. I think he is pretty good, and as a moderate Republican I can just the kind of person he has to appeal to.
The problem is that he is weak on foreign policy. I am unlikely to vote for someone I think Osama is rooting for to win.
I don’t think it’s a huge surprise that Kerry is the nominee. There is good reason he was the front-runner a year back. He has a long voting record in the Senate which puts him in the mainstream of the Democratic party so primary voters know what they are getting. He has a lot of knowledge about both domestic and foreign policy. His war-record will give him extra credibility when talking about national security. And he has shown himself to be a tough campaigner both when running for the Senate and during the primary. When his campaign was floundering he changed his manager, bet everything on Iowa , assembled a top-notch ground operation and managed to find a way to connect with Iowa voters. It was a pretty impressive performance.
As for his record in the Senate, legislation is not the sole index of a Senator’s achievement. Kerry was a leader in investigating both Iran-Contra and the BCCI scandal and showed a lot of political courage in both instances. He also played a leading role in establishing normal relations with Vietnam. Given his background as a prosecutor it’s not surprising he focussed in investigations.
Here is a good account of the role he played: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml
Overall I think Kerry has an excellent chance of beating Bush in November. He is already leading in several polls. His speaking skills have improved a great deal over the campaign and he performed well in the last couple of debates against Edwards. He is already leading in several polls.
Do you think bin Laden really has a dog in this fight? You know what, nevermind. I guess you mind is made up already or you wouldn’t have made such a silly comment.
John F. Kennedy was elected President with a similarly short list of passed legislation, though granted he didn’t serve as long as Kerry has.
Yeah, Kerry is kinda dull. Frankly, I’m ready for dull. I should like nothing more than about eight years of pure dull, a decade that future historians will find largely uninteresting.
Eventually, as the years pass, no doubt a certain nostalgia will creep in, as I sit in my rocker by the fireplace, tow-headed and geneticly superior great-grandchildren frolicking about, one of them might ask “Grampa e., who was the most chucklewitted nimrod to ever fester in the Oval Office?” My eyes will crinkle with smile lines as I cuff the little tyke smartly to the side of the head. “Fetch me some soylent, Che, and I’ll tell you the story of George, the Global Village Idiot.”
