Kerry-free Security Posture could be a step back for Party image

[Sensitivity]

Democratic gains in public support for the party’s leadership on national security issues can be traced to two factors: (1) The strong national security image of Kerry and his team in the 2004 campaign, even as they challenged a wartime “commander in chief;” (2) the unraveling of the Bush’s Iraq war policy.

Today’s unveiling of the Party’s nationals security platform by Harry Reid surrounded by a hodge-podge of political personalities, rather than Kerry flanked by truly credentialed leaders, could add nothing to, and may rather detract from, the Democratic security policy public image.

On the issue of national security, it is much more important to project an image of tough-minded capability than of agreeable unity.

The failure of the party to maintain some semblance of unity behind its nominated leader is now endangering the party’s 2006 chances. The logic for a mature political party would be for the last nominee of the Party to lead on key policy issues with the support of past democratic Presidents. By turning away from Gore after 2000 and then Kerry after 2004 Democrats keep destroying their ability to build a really strong opposition with an defined image of consistency and credibility to present to the nation.

The danger to the party is even more pronounced with its apparent distancing from Kerry because Kerry is the first party leader with national security credentials since John Kennedy. Before “terrorism” was a popularly discussed threat, John Kerry had addressed the urgent need for a realignment of U.S. military and intelligence posture in his book, “The New War (1997).” Kerry brought to the center of the leadership insights from his 3 terms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a decade as Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations.

For most of the Clinton era, Kerry was the leading Senator on military issues. He was the go-to guy regarding U.S. policy in Bosnia and intervention in Kosova. Security. Did winning the presidential nomination make him now irrelevant?

The failure of the Party to put Kerry (and key members of his national security team such as Gary Hart) front and center in presenting its “Real Security” platform is not just a shame, but it is also a danger to some very difficult to achieve gains in the Party’s military and security image.

[Clarkie1]

1. You seem more interested in John Kerry than the Democratic Party.

Get over it....Kerry is not the leader of this party.

[Sensitivity]

2. What major political party in a modern democracy succeeds by

operating the way our Party currently functions with respect to its leadership.
It is not a recipe for success. I am happy to support another leader during the next
primary season, but what is happening right now is unnecessary confusion especially as
it relates to foreign and security policy.

[Clarkie1]

3. All of our most prominent leaders on national security were present.

It was a fantastic presentation.

Edit: You seem to be confused about who our leaders are...and that's your problem, not the Democratic Party's problem.

[Sensitivity]

5. Saw it. Consider the image projected in the major news broadcasts

Would have been much more effective to have a small group of the credible leaders -
e.g. Clark, Kerry, Murtha, Hart etc -- than the whole ensemble of folks that appeared
in the brief exposure in the major media outlets.

[wisteria]

11. You seem to be the only one suggesting the Clark is a leading

Democrat. He doesn't even hold office or make policy decisions. Actually, it was nice to see him there, but you over estimate the value of his appearance.

[Clarkie1]

16. When I did I suggest that? n/t

[TayTay]

6. Yeah, but they could have at least mentioned that it was his plan

that they were rallying around. It was what he ran on in 2004. It is also a continuity thing. Democrats didn't make this up on the spot. This is what Democrats stand for and what they have always stood for in terms of National Security. It would strenghthen their argument to point out that this is the same platform Dems ran on in '04 and that their last Standard Bearer used it.

[madfloridian]

9. I agree with you on this issue, definitely.

They were inserting some "leaders" today who were never really leaders of the Democrats anyway.

Fair is fair. Kerry should have been front and center if they used what he ran on.

I would like to see the whole presentation, but I do agree on that.

[wisteria]

12. Thank you for your honesty. n/t

[TayTay]

19. Thank you. Everyone needs to run on this

and emphasize that this is not new. We do have strong, continuous positions in the Democratic Party. The last nominee ran on this stuff and had expertise in the field. (From all that time spent in the Senate on such-and-such and so-and-so.)

The Dem Party is so frustrating at times. We seem to want to re-invent the wheel when it is so unnecessary. We have a consistent position on National Security that includes:

Port security and making sure that we utilize the Homeland Security funding in a way that actually makes us safer. (I can recite the damn speech from '04 by heart on this.) Many Dems emphasized this. It's sane public policy and effective use of the funding and it speaks directly to the safety issue.

We should not have abandoned the search of Usama bin Laden. (Again, we have all heard this before.)

Oil and security. We do have to recognize that oil currently dictates too much of US foreign policy. We have to develop alternatives, for our own good and for the good of those in nations where oil revenue goes to repressing people and preventing the growth of democratic institutions.

This is what we ran on last time. I'm sorry the message got drowned, but it was the message. We should state that clearly and say we are not saying anything new. We are merely stating the obvious and what the Admin refuses to do. Dems are very consistent on this.

[formernaderite]

28. Beyond that, regardless if Kerry lost he is the only big name

and face the public recognizes as representing our party. of course he should have been front and center....of course he wasn't,because the egos would have whined that he was getting a leg up for the next election cycle.

[Sensitivity]

63. We need focused teams and credible leadership of key issues: even w/out JK

[Mass]

7. Nobody is the leader of the party, it seems.

According to Reid, at least.

[MH1]

10. You nailed it. n/t

[wisteria]

8. I happen to agree with her and supporting Senator Kerry is actually

irrelevant. As the poster explains, Senator Kerry has the knowledge and credentials. And it is a shame to not utilize talented people. The fact that he was our parties nominee and came very close to winning the Presidency should be even more reason to respect him and his leadership qualities. Senator Kerry is a leader.

Oh, by the way, get over it, one appearance at a Dem press conference does not a Presidential candidate make. Clark didn't make it out of the primaries last time. Gen. Clark appears to be a nice guy. He has military expertise, but that is all. Nothing else qualifies him to be President. As far as qualifications, sorry but Kerry has him beat.

[Jai4WKC08]

86. "One appearance at a Dem press conference"?

You've GOT to be kidding. Do you really have no idea what's going on with the party's 2006 strategy?

Clark practically put together the panel that came up with that plan. Those are mostly HIS ideas, not Kerry's (not that they're all that different). But Clark's involvement in this from the ground up, not to mention working with Reid and Pelosi to get all the Congressional Dems unified behind it, is one of several reasons why Clark was chosen to deliver the plan in the Democratic radio address today.

And if you think "all" Clark has is military experience, you don't know anything about Clark either. Either that, or maybe you don't think much of negotiating peace treaties and allied policy, providing education (K thru college), healthcare, housing, environmental protection... well, the list goes on and on. All of it executive experience--doing, not talking.

I can't even fathom what you mean by "Clark didn't make it out of the primaries." Makes no sense at all.

Look, if you prefer Kerry to Clark, that's fine. But you don't make Kerry look any better by denigrating Clark's accomplishments and qualifications. I doubt Kerry would. He was present at the roll-out, and no doubt stands behind what the congressional leadership put forward.

It's time for us to be unified for 2006, not beginning the fight for 2008.

[CarolNYC]

89. Clark's role

Yep...There was quite short but nice (for Wes) piece in the Boston Globe today about how long and hard the General worked to get the Dems to actual unite behind a single message...He is a great diplomat, isn't he?

[Sensitivity]

92. Within H. Clinton camp Clark is viewed as part of her team - 08 V.P. or

Secretary of State.

[CarolNYC]

93. So, you have an in with the Hillary camp?

Knowing what they think and all. You say that with such conviction. How do you know that? Do you work with Hillary's team?....Hmmm...interesting.....

[blm]

18. Funny, how those leaders all FOLLOWED Kerry's security proposals, though.

Just like he led on IranContra and BCCI and no Dems would follow until it was almost too late.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Kerry was our Presidential nominee

Maybe YOU need to get over whining about it.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Well just like Pelosi holding the sign upside down today....

This is what they did to Kerry.....
I think the media is the problem...not the fact that kerry wasn't leading this charge!

[Sensitivity]

27. Conveying gravitas and credibility on an issue is not just a "Media" thing

I has to do with personal qualities usually developed from life experience and a depth of
knowledge. On issues of national security persons like Kerry, Clark, Levin, Murtha, Hart,
Nunn do convey those intangibles to an audience. Pelosi, Reid, H. Clinton do not.

[karynnj]

29. The interesting thing here may be that it could test Hillary

If she really is being put int the position of point person on National security, it is as much a risk as an opportunity for her. Right now, she is being touted by the media and party as the obvious front runner. While it's a given that she is very intelligent, she has rarely been placed under the scrutiny that her husband was or that all the 2004 primary candidates (who had a real chance) were.

I agree with you, that she doesn't convey the gravitas and credibility on national security that any of those men you mentioned. She didn't exactly shine on the port security issue. She has been relatively silent on Iraq - All of the five you mention have communicated their view on what needs to be done (I don't think Hart has a plan, but he pretty much endorsed Kerry's in an email and has commented on the problems.) Bill Clinton declaring her strong on defense doesn't make it so. It's interesting that the official plan pulls so much from Kerry's positions - which makes Clinton's comments that Kerry was too weak on security rather curious. (I think Kerry could win a debate with Clinton on national security - but it would be closer than with Hillary.)

If Hillary does this really well, it will re-enforce what is considered inevitable. If she is not good, she will be replaced by someone else to make these points - Almost all of this is Kerry's 2004 plan - so he's had losts of practice. Clark was a good surrogate on the national security issues in 2004, so he could do this as well. If Hillary can't do at least a credible job on this, there may be some second guessing on whether she is the best candidate.

[radio4progressives]

13. Though I have my disappointments with Kerry, I agree with the OP

I only caught a quick glimps of the press conference, as it was highlighted on Keith Oberman - have no idea how it all played out - but i was stunned to see the players they did emphasise and those that were missing from the picture. maybe it isn't fair of me to judge the press conference without first seeing it's entirety from start to finish.. i'll be sure to check it out when i get a chance..

[MH1]

14. Thank you. Excellent points.

I have felt this way since 2004, and also after 2000 (although my angst then was mostly at the 5 felons of the SC):

The failure of the party to maintain some semblance of unity behind its nominated leader is now endangering the party’s 2006 chances. The logic for a mature political party would be for the last nominee of the Party to lead on key policy issues with the support of past democratic Presidents. By turning away from Gore after 2000 and then Kerry after 2004 Democrats keep destroying their ability to build a really strong opposition with an defined image of consistency and credibility to present to the nation.

You know, we don't nominate these guys (and someday hopefully a gal) because they're chopped liver. They have solid credentials way beyond what * brings. Yet the repubs stand by their man. (even if he is really a pissy little boy.) And they win.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I get the feeling that Harry and Kerry don't play well together

I'm not sure it was necessary for him to be there, but I agree with you about the 2004 campaign and Kerry's national security chops. It wasn't until he won the first debate, the one that was supposed to be his weakest, that people started to look at him and see a winner. Kerry HQ fucking exploded with people looking for signs, stickers, to volunteer and whatnot.

So I'd like to see Kerry out there, and Harry needs to stop wishing Kerry would just go away, which I suspect is the case, if some reports are to be believed. There seems to be something of a power issue. For instance, there was apparently much anger when Kerry "bulldogged" his way into giving the Dem's response to a Bush speech along with Senator Reed. Thing is, Kerry got media attention by being there, and bless his soul, Reed wouldn't have.

So while I think you're overstating the importance of having Kerry there, I do appreciate that you see that this is indeed Kerry's area of expertise (or one of them, anyway.)

Sadly, I'm not sure he's recovered from the election among your average Joe shmoe. Just as Gore should be front and center on environmental issues, but people still react to him from the media distortions of 2000.

[Mass]

17. By ignoring the fact that the arguments were mostly the same ones than the

2004 platform, they are weakening their position.

In addition, it is a Congressional campaign. It makes no sense not showing those in the House and the Senate that have strong credentials (not only Kerry, but many others).

[wisteria]

21. Exactly! I agree with you on all of this.

Reid has succeeded in making this press conference so benign that it loses all of it effectiveness. The press then gets childish, and their eyes wonder upon Palosi's upside down sign. Now that is an interesting story. It will be good for a few laughs on the news and talk shows.

[LittleClarkie]

23. What sense do you get that people remember what Kerry said

in 2004, and thinking back, wish they'd listened to him and taken him seriously. Do you think your average person sees him as the cartoon created by the media, or as the credible voice?

Reid indeed does not know how to play up the stars in his party. In fact, he and his staff seem to resent stars in his party, looking for a unified, if bland, front, I suppose.

I've been disappointed in the staffs of both Reid and Clinton at various times, as they seem more content to laugh at what they see as Kerry's "illusions of grandeur" instead of listening to him. I don't get a sense that Kerry was ever very popular in his own party. But then I guess that's the lonely life of a whistleblower. How effective a campaign force them must have been. "Yeah, go Kerry... whatever..."

Eh, I'm just rambling here. Gads I'm tired. I'd take a nap, except that I'm at work.

[wisteria]

26. The only people I encounter who joke about Kerry are extremely

small minded Republicans. I have a Kerry 2008 button that I where on my pocket book, and I am always getting unsolicited positive comments. Just the other day, a State store clerk told me he really liked Kerry a lot. A whole lot he added.
Presenting Senator Kerry as a serious politician, will dispel many of those lingering doubts some people have of him.

[wisteria]

20. I think it was important for Kerry to have been there and commented.

Senator Kerry and our party will never gain acceptance among the Joe Shmoe crowd until we show real support for our current and former candidates. It shows loyalty, trust and honor. Kerry was right on these issues in 2004 and our party is right now. By proudly showing our support for Kerry it weakens the Republican's response that Kerry was soft on security and defense issues. It chips away at the repub talking points. Kerry being there in support of the plans and the parties support of Kerry, actually strengthens our position. I guarantee you, the press wouldn't be covering Pelosi's upside down sign.

Reid is a disappointment. If he has issues with Kerry, he should put them aside and do what is best for our party.

[Sensitivity]

85. Wonder what is really going on in the backroom

[kerrygoddess]

22. Kerry will be on Ed Schultz tomorrow on this. N/T

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Absolutely right

It is IDIOTIC for "party leaders" to shut out the party's Presidential candidate like this, especially, as you point out so well, on an issue he has led on for THIRTY FIVE YEARS.

I grow more and more disgusted with both the inept party leadership in Washington and the hysterical fringe elements every day.

[CarolNYC]

30. So, you guys are saying....

...that Kerry wanted to be a part of this and they wouldn't let him??? I hadn't heard that...That's messed up. I wonder what he will have to say about it on Big Eddie today.

(Also, madf, I see you floating around in this thread....I attended the DFNYC Spring Gala last night....Nice event your DFNYC mates put on...Also a nice chance to reconnect with a number of people I worked with on the Clark campaign here in NYC. The Dean and Clark "constituencies" work very well together here in NYC. Nice to see it.)

[Sensitivity]

31. NO. Don't know that. Just that they don't seem to be openly and frankly

leting the truly credentialed and credible security leaders take point.
The impression that was created yesterday did not help to advance the image of
strength.

[CarolNYC]

32. Oh, thanks...

One could get the impression from a number of posts on this thread that Kerry offered to take part and was told "thanks but no thanks". Still will be interesting to see what he has to say on Ed Schultz today....

So you don't think that Clark and Albright are truly credentialed and credible security leaders?

[karynnj]

33. Just speaking for myself, that conclusion was from

the announcement which didn't mention (much less highlight) that these were consistent Democratic positions. During the port security blow up, the Republicans made snarky comments that the Democrats never worried about port security before - even though Kerry had it as an element mentioned in multple speeches every single day and it was a Kerry position in the first debate. So, this was a weakness of the announcement. I admit jumping to conclusions on the likely reason.

It's possible that they are not pushing Kerry out - his speech on dealing with non-state terrorism earlier this year was listed by Reid when he highlighted that over a break, key Democrats were speaking on various issues. But, from this announcement it looked like it was a team of Clintonistas who were putting Hillary as the key spokesman.

Obviously the party leadership can't force Kerry not to speak. They have no lever to do this with - they won't support him for President (no matter what he does on this) and he doesn't need them to keep his Senate seat. For Hillary, it is better that she be put in this position than for her to be allowed to stay silent on everything and then be coronated in 2008. If she ends up the point person on this, it will test how good she really is. It really is important to know that.

Also, Kerry has spoken on these issues for at least the last 3 years on a regular basis - this is really unlikely to change. These are issues he has been a leader on in his years in the Senate - he would not be doing his job if he suddenly became quiet on all of this.

[CarolNYC]

34. "a team of Clintonistas"

Ouch! As a Clark supporter who does see the General as a credentialed and credible voice on national security and also his own man and NOT some extension of the Clintons, that's a tough conclusion you draw there....Was Hillary even there? I saw no coverage of the event myself.

[Sensitivity]

35. Don't know the backroom Politics, but Democrats looked weak

when they have the leaders and expertize to project a very strong image. It is just a shame.

[CarolNYC]

38. So, to you,

Clark and Albright look weak...interesting....

[Sensitivity]

43. Love Clark ... and Albright. Not the point. Overall image was HODGE-PODGE

Have you tracked the coverage? No channel reflect that Dems gave a strong impression at the
rollout of their program.

[CarolNYC]

46. So you think that if only Kerry had been front and center on this...

the media would have been all over it with tons of positive coverage? Somehow I don't think so....

Perhaps you want to learn a little bit more about what we're up against with the media as it is...A good place to start is Brock's "Republican Noise Machine". As far as I can see, it's an almost impossible obstacle....

[LittleClarkie]

47. All I know is that I've heard Kerry in the news more than most Dems

Not that we'd have gotten tons o' luv. But I might have heard a quote on the radio if he'd been involved.

Wouldn't even have to be Kerry, really, but I think Reid needs to learn who his star power Dems are, and use them to GET coverage.

[Sensitivity]

52. Missing My Point: Image projected actually was detraction from what Kerry

had already accomplished. Looks like the party is failing to project strong, coherent leadership on National Security. I may be wrong.

On issues of the challenge of MSM is our modern society, this is not a new problem. The following writings would be helpful to you:

Propaganda (Vintage), 1973, by Jacques Ellul

Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Paperback), 1988, by Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky

Also helpful by same authors would be Ellul’s “The Political Illusion” and Chomsky’s “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies”

Within this context, the Dems are not learning from their conterparts in other countries on how
to build popular mass support and a dominant image. Key to this is consistent leadership around
which the party rallies.

[wisteria]

69. I do, the media is interested in Kerry and in this setting and with his

outspokenness on these issues- yes I think he would have drawn more attention. We will never know and I can only express this as my opinion. I can state as fact that this press conference was a snooze that went over like a limp noodle. Clark is a nice guy and Albright would be my choice for the first woman president some day, but it was obviously so boring the media focused on Pelosi's upside down sign. I can assure you that wouldn't of happened with Kerry up front, he is a commanding presence.

[CarolNYC]

84. haha

I'm sorry but this is a funny post....So, in your mind, the media is out there giving positive coverage to near everything Kerry says? You think that the media would have broken away from W's rescheduled-to-conflict-with-this-press-conference-meandering-to-make-sure-he-spoke-long-enough-so-that-the conference-was-over address to cover the Dems and would have been trumpeting it on all of those cable "news" shows throughout the day if only Kerry, the commanding presence, was upfront ? Ohhhh.....kay.

Trust me, if the media were all over John Kerry (and, unlike you, I don't see it) it would be because they thought it made the Republicans look good.

Oh, and Clark is "a nice guy"...yeah, that's the only qualification he has for being included in something like this...Oi!

Have a nice day, OK?

[wisteria]

94. Very few people really are aware of Clark outside the blogs,

And Fox News. Those on Fox will never vote for a democrat so if you want to get nasty with me and ridicule Senator Kerry, how about this, whenever I mention Clark's name as a possible Presidential contender- in the real world out side the Clark blogs, people either say who? or just laugh. Face it, Clark has a military background and that is all. That alone does not qualify him to be president.
Senator Kerry on the other hand has the fuller resume.
Oh, and the Republicans attack whomever is out in front in our party and speaking out against the Republicans. At least those they consider a threat any way. Makes you wonder why they are just ignoring Clark doesn't it.

Oh, I wouldn't let a few un listened to and unwatched engagements with Clark go to your head.

[CarolNYC]

96. Geez, jump right over the edge, why don't you....

Ridicule Kerry? In spite of your continual attempts to diminish General Clark, his experience and his accomplishments, I've had nothing but complimentary words for Senator Kerry in this thread.

I'm talking about the media...If you don't think the media is stacked heavily in favor of "the other side", and it's something they've been working on for oh about 40 years, then maybe you better get yourself educated about it. If you won't trust anything a Clarkie says, ask blm. He seems aware of the threat the media poses...and it's a big one.

All you seem concerned about is the perceived threat to Senator Kerry's Presidential ambitions that you see Clark as. Step back from 2008 for, oh at least a minute or so. We are in dire straits right now. If we don't do something about it now, there might not be a country left for your esteemed Senator Kerry to take over in 2009....

[Jai4WKC08]

97. Wrong about Fox (and just about everything else)

Something like 28% of Fox viewers are self-defined Democrats. I'd guess about half of the rest are independents or moderate Republicans. They can be convinced to vote for Democrats. Or at least, we'd better hope so.

It's true that Clark doesn't have a lot of name recognition. Certainly nothing like Kerry. But a lot of people know him as "that general on Fox (or CNN, from 2001 to 03)." Name recognition counts, but it's not everything. Believe it or not, not many Americans had heard of Kerry before he won Iowa in '04. 'Course, if you think the '08 primaries will be determined by current name recognition, it'll be Hillary Clinton and we might as well all give up.

I've already discussed Clark's other-than-military qualifications up thread. I will not sink to the level of belittling Kerry's resume or record. I respect him too much. And besides, Democrats should not attack other Democrats.

I wish I couldn't say it, but the right wing has been attacking Clark since he first entered politics. It has accellerated since about January, because of all he's doing to promote '06 candidates. He is not being ignored.

As for Clark going "un listened to and unwatched," all I can say is that his Saturday radio address got greater media coverage than I've seen any Democrat get in a damn long time, for anything (except probably Fiengold's censure motion). His "path to nowhere" soundbyte is getting a lot of play. Even ran as a scroll on CNN most of yesterday. Most voters will never remember, if they even noticed, who said it. But the words will stick, because they're true. And that will help Democrats win in November. And at this point, that's all that really matters.

[karynnj]

42. I was referring to the early announcement

and referring to Albright and Hillary - in the op that first talked of the event, it seemed that most of those involved were from the Clinton administration. I was answering why people might have the impression that Kerry was slighted.

I dodn't see Clark as a Clintonista. He was a general at the time Clinton was President - He reported to the CIC, but he wasn't there as part of the Clinton team. I apologize for the implication - it was neither intended or fair.

I saw no coverage, because I wasn't home when it was on.

[CarolNYC]

48. Thanks for the clarification...

Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to comments like that becuase of all of the crazy Hillary Clinton stalking horse accusations that fly around here sometimes.

Yeah, I would have been a bit pissed too if Hillary was front and center on this and guys like Kerry nowhere to be seen. But, as far as I can tell, she wasn't a big part of the actual press conference...at least I don't think so...

And it goes without saying that I think that this country and this world would be countless times better off had we succeeded in getting Kerry elected in 2004.

I agree with blm that Kerry and Clark agree on a lot when it comes to foreign policy and national security....Perhaps that was why they got along so well and worked so closely suring the campaign, because they share a similar world view.

[karynnj]

59. I agree that Clark and Kerry likely have very similar views on

national security - and that is part of the reason he was a great surrogate in 2004.

The actual conference appears to have been a fiasco - that actually benefited by not being covered. From reading the things afterwards - it seems the initial announcement was misleading. If anything, from the comments on the actual event - the real issue might have been that Reid and Pelosi should have reduced their prominance.

The key will be if the Democrats on various shows can compelling go through these points. Clark obviously will and will do a great job. The question is can they get Biden or Liberman (both on way too many shows) on message. In case you didn't hear it, Kerry was asked about "Real Security" on Ed Schultz. (In a very non-compatitive way, he made the point that many of these points were the 2004 position as part of saying he was on board.)

Here's the link if you want to hear - he answers the immigration question first - but in a way that's related.
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/33006Kerry.mp3

[CarolNYC]

64. Yep, a great surrogate....

...and advisor and debate coach.....

I think Kerry trusted him so much because they did agree on so many things.

Thanks for the link...

[CarolNYC]

49. self delete...double post nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Hi Carol!. It was fun actually getting to see you at the DFA event. n/t

[CarolNYC]

39. Hey, Tom, it was one of those events that some here....

would have you believe never happen....And yet, they happen with regularity in NYC. Maybe things are different in other cities...or maybe these people just hang in very limited circles. ;)

In any event, it was awfully fun meeting you face to face finally. A good time was had by all....

[zann725]

36. The summary I heard of Dem's policy,contains nearly ALL-borrowed JK ideas

JK doesn't have to be the in photo-op to be forming the policy. Nearly all these are issues he forumulated and outlined and repeated not only during campaign, but since.

[wisteria]

57. He at least deserved some recognition for this though. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

40. I hate to break this to you

"The strong national security image of Kerry and his team in the 2004 campaign" is NOT what came across to the public.

he was successfully portrayed as a hypocritical confused stentorian poseur, because the Kerry "team" was clueless about what was being done to them and ineptly ran any "rebuttal" in such as way as to appear a non-rebuttal.

Cripes, it was so painful to see then, and part of the reason was the insulated denial exhibited by the OP here.

Seriously, dude. It was pathetic, not strong.

[LittleClarkie]

41. I have to disagree

He surprised everyone at the end with the first debate. What was supposed to be his weakest debate turned out to be his strongest. It was the first time the public got a look at him without the media filter. If only it had happened earlier in the campaign, the momentum might have carried us. Even my Republican friends were freaking out and whining "no fair" toward the end, followed by gloating when they won.

His performance toward the end was far from pathetic. It almost got the job done. Almost.

Dukakis' performance was pathetic. Dole's performance was pathetic. Kerry's... not so much.

[sandnsea]

44. 48% of the vote is not pathetic

Al Gore got 48%. Clinton got 43% and 49%. Hell, Michael Dukakis got 45%, better than Clinton. Kerry did as well as he did because he convinced alot of people on national security. If he hadn't, we'd have been looking at a 1972 37% McGovern slaughter.

People really need to learn their history.

[Sensitivity]

45. Kerry weathered lying smears, an incompetent campaign, rigged debates

yet they still had to steel the elections. Nothing to be ashamed of.

[wisteria]

50. Seriously dude, I can find many people who would disagree

with your point of view on Kerry's strengths and his campaign rebuttals. One conversation with Kerry would validate the OP POV.
Hey dude, Kerry lost by only a small margin of votes, He came closer than any candidate in our history to unseating a war time President. Enough people almost half of all Americans-yourself excluded, felt Senator Kerry has the strength and the background to be a commanding President.
Hey dude, I guess it goes without saying you were not much help during the election because he wasn't "your guy", so you did very little to dispute the lies the Republicans were spreading and supported the RW propaganda machine in doing so.

[CarolNYC]

51. Probably not my place but I have to step in here....

I have a problem with this statement:

Hey dude, I guess it goes without saying you were not much help during the election because he wasn't "your guy", so you did very little to dispute the lies the Republicans were spreading and supported the RW propaganda machine in doing so.

I actually don't know how much Capn did during the election but, as a Dean supporter, I would guess he was involved. I believe I've seen you state elsewhere on these boards that had Kerry not won the nomination you wouldn't have been involved with the election at all...or something along those lines. I remember because it stunned me. As a Clarkie, I was crushed when the General dropped out and I did take some time out to gather myself back together before jumping back into the fray but I would never have considered sitting it out becuase "my guy" didn't win. I worked extremely hard to try to get Kerry elected...as hard as I worked for Clark...because I knew how damn important it was that we win...Just about every Clarkie I knew did the same...and we worked alongside a lot of Deaniacs. Sometimes I wonder if the Kerry people have any idea how many Clark and Dean supporters really busted butt for their guy or if they have any appreciation for the fact that we did.

Just because you have the attitude that you would work for noone but "your guy", it's really not fair to throw that attitude onto others who don't.

OK, now after I actually come out and defend (is defend the right word?? Not sure if I'm actually "defending") Capn Sunshine (who claims to never have met a Clark supporter in real life) watch him come out and say he didn't lift a finger for Kerry and couldn't ever imagine doing so. :P

[wisteria]

53. You mis interpreted my remarks about involvment.

Or perhaps I wasn't clear in my posting. I became involved again in the political process because of Kerry. This is meant to imply that without my interest in him way back in 2003, I would not of been very interested in the whole campaign and election process. I would have stayed on the sidelines and let the chips fall where they may. My enthusiasm for the other candiates was not on the same level as it was for Kerry. Now, once I was invloved and if Kerry had lost, would I have helped the winning candidate? Yes, sure I would. I know one thing,my involvement would have been a major committment and I would not of projected my personal disapointment in my candidate's loss onto the winning one. This happened to often during the campaign and is still happening here today.
I do not take my opinion back about the poster I replied to. It is obvious to me that his disapointment in his candidates loss is being inflicted upon Senator Kerry and no matter what the Senator does it will never be enough for this poster because Senator Kerry won the primary and his candidate didn't.
You are to be admired for your support of Kerry during the election. You and all the other wonderful people who shouldered your loss and moved on to support Kerry. However, you must admit that some people still carry a gruge against Kerry for winning the primaries and that attitude had to of been as bad back then. I question how effective these people really were when they still spout RW talking points to discredit him even now.

[CarolNYC]

55. Still not fair...

I don't know how you can know that somebody's disappointment in their candidate losing is why they are critical of Kerry or how his campaign was run and it's really not fair for you to make that accusation. Perhaps people have sincere differences of opinions or problems, let's say, with Kerry. Perhaps that's why they chose a different candidate in the first place....Also perhaps they could be a little more graceful about stating those differences...or even refrain from doing so when it serves no real purpose but I still contend it's not right to assume that any criticism is made simply becuase someone's still holding a grudge because "their guy" didn't win...just flat out not fair.

As for your former comment, I believe you had said that had Kerry lost and Dean won, you couldn't have worked for Dean....so that's a little different than what you're saying up there....I can understand the position you state in this thread...I was inspired to get involved by Wes Clark and don't know if anyone else could have inspired me to get as involved as I did....But I cannot for the life of me understand the position as you originally stated it before...not when this was so importnat.

[wisteria]

56. It is in the way the comments are posted. There is constructive

criticism and then there is hurtful negative RW talking points criticisms. It is apparent to me this poster I replied to goes beyond disliking Kerry and his positions, he has a deeply rooted hatred for him, almost on the same level as those who dislike or hate Bush.

Look, I fail to see why you feel a need to defend the poster. His dislike of Senator Kerry is not productive and was probably not helpful during the campaign, while you problems with Kerry are likely more well thought out and personal and didn't interfer with you support.

I really don't know what you are leading to here. More recognition for your support during the election? You have already gotten that from me. I am no expert, but I call things as I see and read them. This poster was a Kerry basher plain and simple. I doubt he even really lifted a finger to help out during the campaign at all. Am I being unfair, I don't think so, but if I am, well life if unfair. If things were fair during the last election, Senator Kerry would be our President right now.

[CarolNYC]

58. I'm not leading to anything....

I just have a problem with this idea that the only reason one would be critical of some political figure is because they like another...I see that accusation thrown around all of the time, mostly at Clark and Dean supporters I think. Can't somebody be critical of someone on their own merits, because they really don't agree with them or really don't like what they stand for or what they say?

I see it time and time again. If some Clark supporter says anything even remotely critical about someone who might end up running in 2008, it's only because they like Clark and are jealous or some such nonsense. It just drives me nuts. Isn't possible that this person would choose Clark over the other partly because they have a problem with or a lesser regard for the other...and not the other way around? It just doesn't make any sense....

And I acutally don't think I said I had problems with Kerry, although I preferred another. I think he would have made a very good President and I appreciate all he's been doing since the election.

As for the right wing talking points, that drives me nuts too....like Clark being painted as a "Clintonista", an extension somehow of the Clintons, a stalking horse for Hillary....or being called a Republican....I've seen those thrown around oh, just in the last couple of days, I believe. ;)

In any event, we are in dire times here and we better all pull together or we're sunk....

Oh, and I don't need any recognition...I just needed for Kerry to win...and that didn't happen.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. Not to butt in here, but (pardon the bad pun)

I see where both you and wisteria are coming from, so I just wanted to pop in.

I think what wisteria's trying to say is that the poster whom she replied to was claiming something that wasn't true (ie, Kerry's campaign was pathetic) and was unnecessarily hostile. Because it was untrue and hostile, she assumed the poster had an ulterior motive, which I admit makes me suspicious as well. (Just think about the people who contine to spread the "Clark supported war crimes" bullshit - same MO, same attempt to stir sentiment up against someone.)

Whether she's correct in her assessment or not I do not know, because I haven't seen Capn Sunshine around DU enough to know if he makes snarky or hostile comments about Kerry a lot, or not. But I do fully understand her reaction and think that, given the language used in the post, that she's probably right. I remember seeing too many people after the primaries who were bitter and spiteful about their favorite losing and who carped about Kerry for the rest of 2004. Those people, IMO, forfeit all right to bitch about the campaign, since they didn't lift a finger to help. I don't know whether the poster wisteria responded to is one of those people, but it's possible.

FYI, I've never met a Clarkie who didn't work their ass off for Kerry. Perhaps it's the similarity between the two in terms of attitudes and issues, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for Clark and his supporters. If, God forbid, Kerry doesn't run in 2008, but Clark does, he'll be at or near the top of my list. They are really the only two Dems out there now whom I could really, actually envision being the President and Commander in Chief.

Unfortunately both Clarkies and Kerrycrats have to deal with a lot of untrue negative shit being said about our respective guys, so you'll have to forgive us if we seem on edge in GD. The hostile, unpleasant atmosphere here for Kerry supporters makes us grumpy a lot of times. :P

[Sensitivity]

66. MSM deliberately discounts Kerry in party leadership IMHO, and party hacks

follow.

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. I agree. Reid, Pelosi, the party leadership all try to marginalize him

It's like his name has been blacklisted, because you NEVER hear any of the party leadership talk about him. There are a wealth of opportunities, too - nearly every week presents us with another situation in which Kerry was right in his 2004 campaign. Why don't Dem leaders stand up proudly and say, "John Kerry, our party's nominee for President, was RIGHT about ports security"? There are tons of issues where he has been proven right but no one is even willing to talk him up. It's shameful, IMO, and shows that they put pettiness and ambition above truth.

[wisteria]

70. Thank you, I appreciate your help. n/t

[Clarkie1]

72. Bingo: The IMAGE was extremely weak.

Unfortunately, Kerry's image can't be undone.

[wisteria]

101. Many people , thankfully don't thing of Kerry that way. Only those

who seem to want to discredit him to promote their candidates dismiss him in this way. Your opinion is your opinion only. Senator Kerry has been actively and forcefully taking on the President and has been very outspoken on the Iraq war. The SBV have been denounced and most people now believe he was right about the Iraq War.Contrary to your opinion, I think he has taken the necessary steps to begin erasing some of the negatives of the last campaign and will succeed in doing so.
Now, IMO, Gen. Clark doesn't comes across any tougher than Kerry if this is what you are trying to imply. Both share a military background. Of course,Gen. Clark certainly knows military strategy to a greater degree than Kerry since this is his expertise,but that doesn't necessarily come across as representing strength.

[Lostnote06]

54. If I were Kerry I would have Challenged the Swiftie Attorney

....to a day in the ring at a military installations gym of his choice

[karynnj]

60. I doubt the challange would have been accepted and would have been

ridiculed. I assume by ring, you mean boxing - this was not a Kerry sport. (though I assume he could be taught and he was in far better shape.) Why not suggest fencing - Kerry was on the Yale team.

More seriously, Kerry wiped the floor with him in 1971 on the Cavett show and would likely have been able to do so in 2004 even more easily. The problem is that even appearing on the same stage would elevate O'Neil which would be counter- productive. (Kerry boxing (or fencing - which was a joke) would have likely lowered his score on "Is Presidential")

[Sensitivity]

61. O'Neil needed to be given woodshed whipping by some school marm

In most western democracies, his lying ads would have not been permitted on the air.

[Lostnote06]

62. Of course you are right.....

.......in boxing the phrase "toe the line" used to mean the beginning of th e match.......Kerrys handlers did not appear to understand the depth of appeal to which the swifties were targeting.......in any case, for the record I was supporting JK while he was then 3rd in the primarys....best wishes

[sampsonblk]

67. "The strong national security image of Kerry"

Doesn't exist. It was chipped away at for nearly a year by the GOP, and Sen Kerry did precious little to defend himself or the values of our party. Once you lose your rep, its almost impossible to get it back.

Kerry's national security effort was awful, to say the least. And this was AFTER it was known that there were no WMDs. Wow...

[wisteria]

71. Kerry has much support as a national security policy maker.

It is what he knows well and has written on. You do nothing but buy into the RW image that actually, many people don't believe. Senator Kerry is a commanding, knowledgeable, and intelligent voice that should continue to be heard on this subject.

[Clarkie1]

74. That RW image is what the majority of the American people believe.

The American people do not see Kerry as a commanding voice, and that's why * is still in the people's house. When they listen to Kerry they hear an oratorical, senatorial, deliberative, equivocating voice.

[politicasista]

75. Then how did he win the primaries and the debates?

Somebody must have found him commanding.

[Clarkie1]

76. Not commanding...

In my opinion, people thought he was the safest choice. A war veteran (people put more stock into that than it was worth, because being a Vietnam Vet did not help his National Security or "tough on terrorism" image at all), and an experienced politician with a record of winning senate races (albeit in a very blue state).

I think some Primary voters may have seen him as kind of the elder Democratic statesman in the primaries, and perhaps that is a kind of way of being "commanding." But it's a kind of commanding based on experience and recognition, not force of character.

Edit: As for the debates, Kerry excelled in them and won them, but it was not enough to overcome an image of someone who was more a debater and an orator than a commanding leader, imo.

[politicasista]

77. Funny, those that have met him or saw the rallies saw a different take n/t

[Clarkie1]

78. That is true.

Unfortunately, that's not what the vast majority of Americans saw, and that's all that matters.

When I saw a Kerry rally on T.V. it was hard to keep from cringing. He had a habit of always running his finger across his face right below his nose, and he often looked tired and worn...understandable of course because he was in the political fight of his life.

His T.V. image was not good.

[politicasista]

79. So Bush was commanding?

It was the media's job to make him look good. That sounds like RW spin and people fell for it and still do.

[Clarkie1]

80. * came across as commanding, yes.

:banghead:

Edit: Part of it is right-wing spin, but not all. * is a great deceiver. He deceives people into misinterpreting stubbornness and narrow-mindedness as a strength, when really it's a weakness. Kerry came a across as someone who "thinks too much and is too hesitant to make a decision and act in a time of war" (not my opinion of him), while * came across as someone who acts on his convictions without thinking too much. And then of course there is the innate national security bias against the Democratic Party as a whole...the "mother" party vs. the "father" party.

Image counts: Kerry was not perceived as "commander in chief" material in a time of terrorism and war by a sufficient number of Americans. That may sound overly simplistic, but in my opinion that's what happened.

[politicasista]

81. That was the media's depiction rather than reality

And the Democratic Party and leadership didn't back him up when it counted.


Anyway, I feel it does no good to rehash 2004. Everyone, yes, everyone made mistakes. Hindsight is 20-20. You can live in the past, but I prefer to look to the future, meaning 2006. Bashing our own is not productive.

[Clarkie1]

82. I'm not bashing anyone, but I do think we need to be reality-based. n/t

[wisteria]

103. Oh and it is more realist to believe that one candidate has a better

chance than another at this point? Sorry, I don't buy into that.

[sampsonblk]

87. Sista, thats bad logic IMO

Fact is, the polls showed many many primary voters for Kerry only because they thought he'd have the best chance to beat Bush, not because they agreed with his policy stands - which were weak, in my view.

[karynnj]

91. Not true

Many polls were poorly designed where you had to choose between "best chance to beat Bush" and "you agree with views". Choosing is ridiculous.

[wisteria]

104. Well in my view his policy stands are still in play and have stood

up to this day.

[wisteria]

102. Nonsense, Bush is in office because people have never changed

Presidents during war time. Oh, and also because of disenfranchisement, lies and tricks. Senator Kerry came closer than any other challenger in our history to unseating a war president- thats a fact.

[Clarkie1]

73. Absolutely Correct. eom

[Sensitivity]

83. Kerry faced off a SITTING CIC in a time of WAR: A Phenomenal Act

and against all conventional wisdom in American politics.
Regardless of Bush's flaws, the country was in a hot war abroad and terror alerts sounding
off at home. The wartime environment alone (it was not yet a debacle and passions for
"victory" were high) should have given Bush a 10 point lead.

Yet, the Pukes had to engage in the worst possible slander -- against his personal life,
against his military record, against his core character -- in order to keep in the race.

Despite the slander, Kerry walked into and came out of the National Security debates the clearly commanding leader, and for the first time in a long time made the Democrats look strong and capable facing military and security challenges.

Despite the clear disadvantages of facing a sitting President engaged in war, holding all the
perogatives of power, Kerry fougth a good and honest fight, and, quite arguably, the Pukes had to cheat to win.

IMHO the Democratic party owes John Kerry an enormous debt.

[sampsonblk]

88. They definitely had to cheat, no question.

But the way they did it was to attack Kerry on national security issues, where he showed himself to be - again - very weak during the campaign. He had a lot of great opportunities. War or not, Bush's approval rating was in the tank even back then. And there were questions being raised about Bush's honesty already.

I just don't feel Kerry's effort was praiseworthy at all. He even used Bush's (ridiculous) term "War on Terror" in his speeches. From where I am standing, Kerry set us back a long way.

[karynnj]

90. Bush's ratings weren't sufficiently in the tank

Pundits made very stupid comments about the importance of being above 50% in the approval ratings. Bush's rating for the fall were all very close to 50% - occasionally measuring slightly over 50%. They then mentioned that Bush1, Carter and Ford were below 50% - in reality they were below 40% (Bush and Carter were below 30%). There was no data for the range Bush 2 was in. There is no justification for the truism that being below 50 % will lead to a loss. Consider that some who disapprove may be on the far right - not likely to be won by Democrats.

It is always dangerous to speculate about the result in a region where there is no data. (Approval ratings are typically collected only on the President, but consider the opposite. How many here would have said they didn't approve of Kerry - but they intended to vote for him. I know (from some Republican neighbors) there were people who didn't approve of Bush who voted for him.

If Kerry was weak on National Security, why did his polls go up enormously after the first debate - the first time many non-Democrats saw him unfiltered by the press. Also, remember that he won the primary debates as well. As to the phrase, "War on terror", the questions were asked in that form and it was common terminology. Kerry did redefine what he meant.

[wisteria]

95. As the days go by it appears you are absolutely correct. The

Plan is mostly being ignored by moderate and liberal papers and the Repubs are giving it there usual trashing of anything Democrat. Could it be that Reid and Pelossi did in fact choose the wrong people to speak out on this? No really is getting this information who needs to.

[karynnj]

98. As to Reid and Pelosi picking the wrong people - we just have bad media

There is asolutely nothing wrong with Clark or ALbright on national security, just as there was nothing wrong with Kerry in 2004. The problem is not the message, the messenger, but the media through which the message must be propigated.

Was there so much news last week that there couldn't have been, say a five minute summary of the key points on each news channel? The real question is how do we get the word out when most of the broadcast and cable media is theirs. Thinks have changed even from 6 years ago (and drasticly since 10 years ago).

[CarolNYC]

99. This media thing is a major, major hurdle....

And to be honest, I just don't see how we clear it.

The Republican right wing has three major advantages that I see and I just don't know how we get past them....1) They have a lot of money and are willing to spend it to further their ideological agenda, 2) The have no scruples, no ethics, no qualms about lying or fabricating stories and even no qualms about admitting that they do this and 3) They have like a 35 year head start on whatever we might try to do now...No foolin' they've been working this media thing since the early 70's. It didn't happen overnight....How do we combat that? I don't know...

[Sensitivity]

100. Power of modern propaganda in hands of regime is formidable, BUT

the forces at work are geared principally to buttress the corporatist ideology, not the
Republican party.

Democrats do have some room for manuever, within the constraint of the modern propaganda system (ala Ellul, Chomsky, etc.), yet often fail to act strategially.

[Imagevision]

105. Kerry got beat last time because of election fraud and has made no changes

why won't there be voter disenfranchisement - voter machine shortages, this is so lame, just trust Diebold

[Sensitivity]

106. I agree: Fixing bias in voting system from the ground up should be #1

priority, with unity behind major planks in Party platform following.

[Sensitivity]

107. Kerry has now put forward his position: Q. Will Party follow into 2006

Kerry's position announced in the NY Times: Deadlines, then Exit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html

[politicasista]

108. Good question n/t