Alterman: The Kerry Conundrum

[Nancy Waterman]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp#031205



What in the world are we going to do about John Kerry? While his numbers were apparently collapsing in New Hampshire yesterday, Kerry sat down for two hours in Al Franken’s living room with about a dozen and a half journalists, writers and the odd historian, poet and cartoonist. It was all on the record and yet, it was remarkably open, honest and unscripted. Let’s be blunt. Kerry was terrific. Once again, he demonstrated a thoughtfulness, knowledge-base and value system that gives him everything, in my not-so-humble-opinion—he could need to be not just a good, but a great president. I feel certain that just about everyone in that highly self-regarding room left deeply impressed. But Kerry is not going to be anointed president by a group of Upper West Siders who agree on most things, even if we don’t on the war. If he is to have any chance at all, he is going to have to win back Dean voters, but quickly.

After Al and Rick Hertzberg introduced him, I put this to Kerry as the first question: “Senator,” I said (or something like this), “I think you may be the most qualified candidate in the race and perhaps also the one who best represents my own liberal values. But there was one overriding issue facing this nation during the past four years and Howard Dean was there when it counted and you weren’t. A lot of people feel that that moment entitles him to their vote even if you have a more progressive record and would be a stronger candidate in November. How are you going to win back those people who you lost with your vote for this awful war?”

Kerry and I had what candidates call a “spirited exchange” in which he defended his vote. He said he felt betrayed by George Bush, whom he had believed, had not yet made up his mind to go to war when the vote was taken. He never expected a unilateral war given the way Powell, Scowcroft, Eagleberger and others were speaking at the time. He defends his willingness to trust the president of the United States, but now realizes that this was a big mistake. At one point, after answering somebody else’s question, he turned back to me and pointedly—one might evens say “passionately”—insisted, “And Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been president, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

<snip>
It’s true, I think, that Kerry improves the closer you look—and I don’t mean the guy’s hair. (That’s Mickey’s beat.) He does as well as Clark and better than anyone else in a one-on-one match-up against Bush. And it’s just crazy to say that you want Dean to get the nomination if you don’t believe he can beat Bush. Voting, as I keep having to say over and over to you silly Nader voters, is not therapy; it’s choosing between available alternatives. Dean is not a sure loser in November, but he is a much, much harder sell than Kerry, Clark, Gephardt or Edwards. And fair or not, this ought to give one pause.

[Beetwasher]

1. Will Pitt was in on this pow wow

n/t

[Nancy Waterman]

2. I was just blown away by Kerry the other night (on CSPAN)

In that speech and Q&A to the Council on Foreign Relations. He is so knowledgeable on all of the issues, understands the nuances (unlike you know who), and has some real ideas. Watching him that night really decided me.

I imagine the speech, etc. is on his website if anyone wants to watch it.

[Beetwasher]

3. Thanks, I'll check it out

I think I've read excerpts from it already.

I feel identically to Alterman. Kerry needs to stand up and say the he would take the vote back if he could because he was betrayed by Bush. I really like Kerry, but he's just run an awful campaign so far...

[Myra]

11. "Will Pitt was in on this pow wow"

Apparently he was "the odd historian" Alterman
referred to.

:evilgrin:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. Kerry

oh yeah he's really consistent. The fact that he recants his vote for war says that he's easily fooled by a proven liar. The fact that he is considering appointing James Baker as secretary of state is appalling.

The fact that Kerry supported the war and now opposes it is a considerable contradiction.

Dean '04, because he's pissed like me.

[Nancy Waterman]

5. He NEVER said he would appoint Baker as Sec of State

He said he would send an envoy to the Middle East and it should be a prominent person like Jimmy carter, Bill Clinton, or even James Baker. He never mentioned Sec of State.

[Ready or Not]

8. There is a difference

Again, the same old posts about supporting the war. Hillary did not support the war, neither did Biden or Harkin. These are among the democrats who also voted on the IWR, not just Kerry.

There were four and a half long months between what the Democrats in the Senate wanted to happen, which was diplomacy and weapons inspections and the actual war. The resolution was used as a means to smoke the weapons out of Saddam's hands through inspections and it was working.

Also, "considering appointing James Baker as secretary of state is appalling"--another untruth.

In Kerry's remarks his SUGGESTED James Baker as Middle East ENVOY, NOT Secretary of State. Big difference.

Its totally speculative what he was proposing, as much as proposing Clinton and Carter was. The thought of bi-partisan involvement to resolve the Iraq issue in my mind is smart thinking. Even though I don't relish the thought of Baker, whose involvement in Florida 2000 leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I can't fault Kerry for wanting the best minds possible, despite party affiliations, to fix a situation where our people are getting killed. Perhaps he knows that Baker knows more about the ME that needs to be shared now so that this mess can be resolved quickly. For that he more than deserves credit. For our people overseas, he deserves thanks.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Ready or Not!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Martin Eden]

9. RECANTS his vote

Kerry's vote for the IWR is by far my biggest problem with the man. Considering his Vietnam experience and activity in the VVAW, you'd think he would remember the consequences of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. I'm not entirely willing to take his explanation at face value -- that the IWR was intended as leverage to re-admit inspectors, and that he felt betrayed when Bush launched the invasion without UN authorization.

I suspect Kerry may have been looking at the potential political consequences of a NO vote on IWR and how it would impact his candidacy, and in so doing failed to anticipate the larger consequences of ceding his Constitutional war authority to Dubya & Co.

This failure is inexcusable. Before the IWR vote, we at the DU were familiar with the PNAC neocons at the levers of Bu$h foreign policy, and what their goals were. And the lies and distortions spewing from this regime were becoming more and more apparent.

No one claiming presidenial qualifications can be excused for being "fooled" by the Bu$h/neocon intentions regarding Iraq.

But, having said all this, I would not be displeased if Kerry won the nomination. His IWR vote is a major strike against him (in my book), but on all other fronts I cannot find more fault with him than with any of the other contenders. He would go a long ways towards mending fences with those of us who are pasiionately anti-war if he would take the advice in the article:

After the meeting broke up, Art Spiegelman tried to tell Kerry that he should just stand up, and in a clear, unmistakable fashion say, “I was wrong to trust President Bush with this war. I thought he would do the things he promised before embarking on this war but I now see I gave him more credit than he deserved. I wish I could have that vote back but I can’t. Now the thing to ask ourselves is where do we go from here and who’s the best person for the job?” I second this emotion. Sure, a lot of self-important pundits—a least of couple of them English-born— would mock Kerry for admitting he made such a mistake. But most people would admire it.

Let us remember that Kerry is a man who may have a better chance to unseat Bu$h than Dean, and that he is a stalwart of the Democratic party and not a Repuke-lite like Lieberman.

Pundits from the right have displayed ludicrous surprise and indignation at the left's HATRED of Bu$h and at the viscousness of our attacks. It's just another example of their hypocrisy and spin, but there may be a lesson in it: let's direct our anger and our attacks at the enemy, and not at any Democratic candidate who might be our standard-bearer in November.

Kerry made a mistake -- a big one -- and I doubt I'll vote for him in the primary. But let's have enlightened and civil debates within our own ranks and not do the Repukes' job for them.

P.S. to soundgarden1: I'm not saying that you have been uncivil -- this just seemed like a good place to post something that has been on my mind.

[Khephra]

13. "he's easily fooled by a proven liar"

That's my biggest issue with his vote. Just look at what he says. This was two years into Bush's administration, and Kerry was still willing to "believe" Bush??? And that he didn't expect a unilateral war? Raise your hand if you weren't under either of those delusions at that point?

QUOTE:

"He said he felt betrayed by George Bush, whom he had believed, had not yet made up his mind to go to war when the vote was taken. He never expected a unilateral war given the way Powell, Scowcroft, Eagleberger and others were speaking at the time. He defends his willingness to trust the president of the United States, but now realizes that this was a big mistake."

That section is so wrong and points exactly to what was wrong about his vote. Kerry was fooled by Bush. That makes him totally unqualified to be President in these times, imo.

[Karmadillo]

15. Does it make Dean unqualified, too?

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm

<edit>

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

<edit>

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

DR. DEAN: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

MR. RUSSERT: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose? Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different. I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it. We essentially went to war, supported by Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and Senator Edwards, based on facts that turned out not to be accurate. I think that's pretty serious and I think the American people are entitled to know why that was.

more...

[annxburns]

6. It's nice that someone as bright as Eric Alterman ...

... confirms what I have been feeling. I just have this sinking feeling that, yes, Dean will win the nomination. Before I get flamed, I think that Dean has by a wide and growing margin, the BEST campaign I have seen in a very, very long time. But I think he will have a tough row to how in the GE. I hope I am wrong, I hope Bush continues on a downward slide as people realize what he is ....

Maybe my problem is I have to many republican and moderate friends - they all seem to still like Bush and that scares me ... I feel like I am talking to a wall with them. "But he is good man, just in a difficult situation". ARRGGHHHH.

[Nancy Waterman]

7. I think National Security will be a big issue

And a Kerry/Clark or Clark/Kerry ticket will sabotage that issue for Bush.

annxburns - You might want to print up some articles for your friends. They are obviously ill informed or they wouldn't support Bush. Agree with them that he is a nice guy (just bite your tongue) and then point out the FACTS about what he has done to the environment and all the servicemen's benefits he has cut. Show them some facts in print. You might show them David Ignatius article in the WP today (thread on Editorial Forum by me) to scare them about Bush's fiscal policies (such as they are). Good luck!

Here is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=24344

[Terwilliger]

10. This proves one thing

the Democratic party is highly factionalized

[KoKo]

12. Agree, it's shaping up that way. And, more "fractionalized" the longer we

go at it....I don't know if it's a good thing or bad...or necessary....:-(

[Karmadillo]

16. The Party tries to embrace

a centrist "the corporations are our friends" view while attempting to maintain its links to a kind of FDR progressivism. Thus, we end up with Paul Wellstone and Dennis Kucinich at one end and Zell Miller and John Breaux at the other. That's a lot of room and a lot of potential unhappiness on both sides and one can't help but wonder whether the Democratic Party as it currently exists can continue as a long term entity. If you believe the peak oil production concerns you sometimes see posted in the GD forum, economic conditions are likely to worsen in the not all too distant future and progressives and pro-corporate (I realize this is not a completely accurate description of the division, but it's the best I can do before breakfast) Democrats are not likely to want to stay together in the same party as the interests of their constituents become increasingly opposed.

[Martin Eden]

17. Factionalized Democrats & IRV

This is in response to:

Democrats are not likely to want to stay together in the same party as the interests of their constituents become increasingly opposed.

IMO, the splintering of the Democratic party is the worst possible poltical development. Without a doubt, the political spectrum to the left of center is more diverse and less unified than the spectrum to the right, but we are unified in one purpose -- our opposition to the RW radicals that have hijacked our government.

If we cannot unite behind one candidate -- if we split our votes among third and fourth parties -- we will ensure another term for that which is anathema to all of us.

The Democratic Party needs to be a big tent that encompasses the diversity of the left. The difficulty is that no single candidate would please everyone, and you cannot create a coherent platform that is cobbled together from competeing agendas.

My solution would be to have instant runoff voting (IRV) in the Democratic primaries.

No candidate would be chosen without at least 50% of the vote. Even though many of those votes would be 2nd or 3rd choices, a candidate thus chosen would have the most broad based support.

As a voter, I am sick of making choices based on lesser-of-evils and chance-of-winning the general election. IRV would give voice to progressive ideas that have been marginalized by the centrist imperative, and create a national dialogue that could venture outside the box of conventional and often wrong wisdom.

After a few years, IRV would have a much better chance of being applied nationally in general elections. When that happens, multiple parties would be a viable alternative to a factionalized big tent party.

But as it stands now, the only alternative to a unified left behind the Democratic candidate is four more years of .... I don't even want to think about it.

[sujan]

14. ok I admit

I support kerry.

I believe he has regrets for supporting the war.

His credentials are solid and he has proven to be fighter.