How Bold Should Kerry Go?

[Dover]

How Bold Should Kerry Go?

By David Corn, The Nation


...But Kerry and the campaign have yet to convey fully and widely that he is a candidate of strength, purpose, ideas and passion. Late-night host Craig Kilborn cracked, "I just saw John Kerry's new television commercial, and he said, ‘I'm John Kerry, and I approve of this message--if I have one.'" MoveOn.org has drafted a petition calling on Kerry to "go big" and be "bold." And reporters, Republicans, and others have asked, where's Kerry's plan for Iraq?

All this illustrates the problem with--or confronting--the Kerry campaign, for Kerry does have message, he has gone big on some fronts, and he has presented as much of a plan for Iraq as Bush. But none of this has been much noticed or covered. In the same interview in which he bungled the abortion question, Kerry said, "I've heard some people say, well, what's the message?…The message is clear, folks: We're going to make America stronger at home by being fiscally responsible, investing in health care and education, becoming energy independent, and we're going to make ourselves stronger in the world by restoring America's respect and influence with a better foreign policy. It's that simple."

It's not poetry, but it qualifies as a message. Kerry has pushed an energy independence initiative and a health care proposal both more extensive than anything produced by the Democrats in Congress. Yet there is the matter of his tone. He whacks Bush for pursuing "the most arrogant, reckless, and ideological foreign policy." But Kerry has backed away from the hard-edged populist rhetoric he deployed late in the primaries. Railing against revolving-door special interests is no longer a climax of his campaign speeches (though a Kerry ad recently blasted Bush for having "taken millions from big oil and gas companies.") Is he heeding the call of the Democratic Leadership Council and stepping toward the right in an act of ideological repositioning (that may or may not register with the small slice of undecided voters in a few key states)? Or is it more an issue of style?

When Clinton in 1992 wanted to prove he was a "New Democrat," he promoted welfare reform and showcased his devotion to the death penalty. Kerry has done nothing so dramatic. (He is an opponent of capital punishment.) He has talked about deficit reduction and supported certain tax cuts (while opposing breaks for the wealthy). He has straddled the line between the DLC and the traditional Dems without causing much fuss. To triumph in the battleground states, is it better for Kerry to be a populist firebrand who excites the Democratic base or a center-chaser who nabs swing voters? This is more a question of theology than a correct-or-incorrect choice. Neither path guarantees success. Ask Howard Dean and Joseph Lieberman. A longtime Kerry aide says, "Being perceived as a Kennedy liberal won't help, but he's been consistent, talking about equality and justice for working families. Some days it's heath care, some it's education. This is no fundamental shift."

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1465

_________


Interesting that in Gore's speech (sponsored by MoveOn) he made the argument that Kerry should, more or less, ride the anti-Bush wave and not articulate his plans now, because things are changing rapidly:

****

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe.

Kerry should not tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals concerning a situation that is rapidly changing and unfortunately, rapidly deteriorating, but should rather preserve his, and our country's, options, to retrieve our national honor as soon as this long national nightmare is over.

Eisenhower did not propose a five-point plan for changing America's approach to the Korean War when he was running for president in 1952.

****

Yet the MoveOn group is sending around a petition encouraging Kerry to be bold and articulate his "vision" for America.

[Malva Zebrina]

1. Maybe the message to Bush was more threatening to Bush than Kerry supporte

in other words, go ahead bozo boy-mess up some more. It looks like Gore is saying about Bush "bring em on". Bush, or those around him who keep track of those things, knows he messed up and was forced to run negative ads against Kerry because he has nothing at all else to run on--there is nothing he has not screwed up except for his fund raising efforts and abilities and I am not even sure that is so successful as of late.

Now Gore says, tacitly to Bush--hey -keep it up--you're doing a great job!

(aside:--Bush looks at Gore with a blank expression, wondering what to do now)

Move on has to keep our spirits up. I am glad they are there. It is very frustrating to sit back and hear nothing many of us need to hear from our candidate. I am somewhere in the middle--I agree Kerry is not coming off strong enough and I think it is his natural reticence and caution that has resulted from spending too many years in beltway politics. I think, in all my amateur wishdom that he should enlist someone who does have that quality of being able to capture the love and energy of the people due to his presence and appeal--and to me that person is Wes Clarke. He has been consistent in showing up Bush as the ultimate clown--he is extremely articulate and strong in doing so . A Rhodes scholar who knows how to hone in and make the point in strong words and a military man besides and also one who knows the ins and outs of broadcasting so he can make the most of it.

[Mumzee]

2. Kerry is on track....so far

Kerry is doing what Kerry must do at this stage.  He is being
presidential, strong, confident, conciliatory, promoting his
own qualifications and experience.  The job of attack dog is
delegated to the vice-presidential candidate and it is here
that Kerry must use his judgment.  This was the area of Gore's
big mistake.  It is no job for a "nice guy" but
requires a real ass-kicker who can bad-mouth Bush and tell it
like it is.  Edwards would be great and there are many others
who delight on exposing the Bush mob for the gangsters they
are.  I'm afraid that Clark would be too much like Lieberman
and be tooting his own horn when he should be throwing caution
to the winds and giving the kind of campaign speeches that Al
Gore has only belatedly discovered.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi Mumzee!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PATRICK]

3. Hard to connect

with an opponent falling to the mat. That is the action happening now and the article and Kerry's campaign seems not only right but about the only thing to do unless SOMEHOW you could wake up the majority in this country without being written off as partisan.

The dam is breaking though- with Bush's help. His helplessness is making Kerry's opposition redundant.

[struggle4progress]

5. Keep the villains in your sights! Aim carefully!

I think they're getting nervous.