Yepsen mulls Kerry redux
So, should John Kerry run for president again?Hope spings eternal in the breast of those let down by Kerry last time around.
It appears Iowa Democrats may be asked to answer that question. The Massachusetts senator was back in the state on Sunday doing appearances and looking as if he were ready for another bid for the White House in 2008.
The conventional wisdom is that Kerry shouldn't do it. He's had his chance and muffed it. He's so scarred by the 2004 campaign, he'd still be damaged goods in 2008. A Kerry candidacy would be a rehash of the past, just as it would be if Al Gore ran again or if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton runs. Instead, goes this logic, Democrats should look for a fresher face.
As with all conventional wisdom, there's some truth to it. And as with all conventional wisdom, it may be wrong. Presidencies are won by risk-takers who beat conventional wisdoms.
Kerry's advice to Iowa Democrats this week could easily apply to himself: "You can't sit around and cry in your teacup and lament about it. You've got to take that frustration and, in some places anger, and channel it into doing what we know how to do."
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/12/2005
11 comments
11 Comments:
Came to see how you nuts are doing. Very boring over here without Senor and myself, HeadUsher spins you freaks up now and again. Other than that it's hardly worth a look anymore. I'll let you get back to shining each other's helmets.
The Democrats need a candidate who stands for something and can comunicate his/her vision to the voters. John Edwards and Barack OBama are two who come to mind.
You're getting Hillary whether you like it or not.
Shama, good points. There were certainly some illegal if not unethical tactics employed against Kerry, particularly in Ohio, but elsewhere as well, and it could have made the difference.
Your call to action is needed.
And I think the early thinking is in line with Dave. Edwards will certainly be a name which springs to many people's minds. Especially with the conventional wisdom that the candidate must be a southerner in order to win.
Dave, if we get Hillary, and she won, the country would be in MUCH better hands than it is now, without question. Even Republicans realize that now.
But there are those who argue that Hillary has been rendered an untenable choice due to the obsessive effort of the right to demonize her and create a purely mythological image for her.
If Hillary were nominated, the Republicans would then go to McCain, whom they feel is the only candidate on their side with even a chance to beat her.
Despite her solidly moderate positions on the issues, even being too pro-war for my tastes, the right would paint her as some frothing at the mouth extreme liberal, and the middle would likely fall for it, or at least it would create enough doubt in their minds that they'd go for McCain.
But despite her negatives, I have every confidence that there is no other Dem who would be a better candidate on the stump, run a shrewder, more agressive, smarter campaign.
The other aspect of the race for Dem nominee is that Dems are so demoralized by the past 10 years that they may be tempted to want a "sure thing", and end up with less than the best candidate.
There is no sure thing, of course, but the argument among Dems as to who stands the best chance of election will likely be particularly charged and shrill this time around. There will be an air of desperation hanging over the process.
But Kerry again? I can't help thinking that he would be much less inspiring this time around, and he wasn't setting the country on fire last go around. I for one would be pretty disappointed if he emerged as the nominee.
Dave, if this blog is "hardly worth a look", then what does that say about your blog, which gets less than a 10th of the traffic this site gets?
Even you must get bored by your site, as you do manage to pop in over here to tell us essentially that you think the views here are nuts.
That's really not very interesting; we know you're a wing nut. We know you don't share the views expressed here. But unless you write a persuesive reason why you're right and we're wrong, it's a waste.
But glad you still find the site interesting enough to read daily.
Your daily average is 130, mine 55.
1/10? Really? Must be moonbat math.
If Kerry were the nominee again, I'd probably vote for a third party candiate, or McCain if he was the nominee. Heck, I might even start practicing for 2012 and/or 2016 and just write in Barack's name.
I'm sorry, but I've met John Kerry as well, and I just don't understand how ANYONE gets excited listening to Treebeard.
The only reason I voted for him in '04 is because Rock Island County was using Diebold machines, and I thought we might be the victims of voter fraud. In that case, I wanted to be able to legitimately claim standing in an election lawsuit.
I literally held my nose as I voted for him.
I still had a disgusting taste in my mouth from his reprehensible primary campaign.
Dave, sorry about that. You must have picked up some visitors. Either that or you count your own visits perhaps.
I apologize though, for getting the fraction wrong. you get less than half the number of visitors this site gets, not 1/10th.
It wasn't "moonbat math", but getting less than half the interest that this site gets is most definitely wing nut numbers.
It must suck mightily to be a ditto-head these days, watching that big, bad, Republican ship slowly listing to the left and slipping beneath the waves.
But when your grandchildren have to pay the price for this reign of error, I don't suggest you admit you were a huge supporter of the government that stuck it to them.
You guys same thing was said in 2000, 2002 and 2004. We'll see lad. Thanks for the apology, very rare in moonbatland.
youngridemocrat,
Wow, dude, I think you need to calm down there, buddy. Democrats don't lose because of anything I wrote, they lose when they're not the clear better choice. Look, Gore was a better candidate than Bush, and by all means he should have won. Even he hedged his language a bit too much though. As Barack Obama says, we need Democrats that can work with others, and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, but they HAVE to be willing to go to Washington and act like Democrats. Furthermore, when it comes down to it, they have to be able to make the tough statements. THAT'S why Kerry lost. Not only was he incredibly boring, he was afraid to be clear in his convictions.
Bush didn't beat Kerry in 2004. Kerry beat Kerry. Kerry only won the nomination because people thought he was electable. I was there at the caucuses. I saw the backdoor deals he had worked out with Gephardt and Edwards. There were union members in most every room intimidating people that might have otherwise crossed to another candidate's group. As far as being a former supporter of Howard Dean goes, well, ya sort of got that right. I still am a supporter of him, considering he's the leader of our party. However, I'm not bitter about his loss, because he was sort of an idiot candidate as well. He had all the best stances (obviously, since every candidate took bits and pieces of them) but he was "unlikeable". Honestly, in person he's a great guy. He's very friendly and open to input from his volunteers. However, he didn't know how to break out of the image he had foisted upon him. Winners can do that. Dean couldn't. Kerry couldn't and still can't.
As far as backing people in 2008, first of all, you need to remember the reality that a Democratic Presidential candidate is going to win Illinois, as always [which is why my voting third party wouldn't even matter]. That isn't even an issue. As soon as it was clear that Kerry had tricked the Democrats into believing he was electable, I sent my resume to the Obama Campaign and was hired shortly thereafter. What's my point? I can be an activist Democrat and support my party, without supporting all of its candidates personally. I'm not going to go around and bad-mouth them or anything, but there is no need for me to devote any of my time or money to them, either.
As far as this statement of yours, "Put the Democratic Party ahead of your personal feelings." If either of us has displayed an attitude that shows why Democrats lose, it is you, with this statement. Swing voters don't want to hear that crap. Party before feelings? You might as well say party before conscience. There's really not a whole lot of difference.
I encourage you to put your conscience ahead of the party. Only if we all do that can we hope to have an unbeatable party.
[By the way, I know for a fact that building bridges works better than burning them. In the counties I was responsible for running the Obama campaign in, he received over 65% of the vote. They weren't liberal counties either. Bush won them all.]
All this discussion is for naught anyway. I have a feeling the Democrats have learned their lesson and will not nominate someone just because they are "electable".
Since we'll actually pick a candidate who stands for something other than being "not Bush", it won't even be an issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home