More about a potential Kerry run.

[Mass]

I will let you read the article and comment rather than posting parts of the article.

Personally, I think the article is remarkably honest for the Globe. I think this poses the real questions. A few good news, including the hiring of some new aides for the PAC. A comment that bothered me, the one of Kathy Sullivan, the NH Democratic chair, who is somebody who is close to Kerry. Read and tell me what you think.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/08/alls_quiet_on_the_kerry_front/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

[blm]

1. It doesn't bother me. Sullivan knows Kerry is top quality, and that won't change

when it comes time to figure who will endure the ENTIRE race and its series of debates.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. Chris LeHane

is a backstabbing jerk. He was fired from the campaign and I think he then joined on with Clark, and did not help Clark either.

[karynnj]

15. Wasn't he fired because he was involved in something Kerry

thought sleasy - I think he also was rumoured to have had something to do with the intern rumour.

[Mass]

16. No. He actually left after Jim Jordan was fired. They came together and left more or less together

[JI7]

29. i think Lehane left much earlier

but he was the one who started the Kerry intern rumour and in 2000 got Kerry knocked off the potential vp list because of his personal relationships with women.

[MBS]

3. as you said, remarkable

for the Globe; one could almost call it balanced. All I can say is Ed Reilly is one VERY sharp guy, so I feel very very confident that whatever strategic issues need to be considered, they're being considered and in ways helpful to Sen. Kerry, in ways that honor who he is, and will help people see who he is. . that is, of course, should Kerry choose to run, of course. . I don't know what Alan Wolfe's problem is. . he's made negative comments before, so I was far from surprised by his remarks. Needless to say, Lehane, who was fired from the 2004 campaign (at least as I remember), has his own agenda. David Wade , appropriately, had the last word.

The real last word of all, of course, is Sen. kerry himself. His grit, commitment, and courage are never to be underestimated. Personally, I'm awed by these aspects of his character.

I think it's been appropriate for Kerry to take a bit of a break. For one thing, he'd been campaigning all over the country, virtually non-stop, for at least an entire year. For another there was the stupidity about the joke, and then the election itself.Then there have been three big holidays, perhaps the most important time of the year of all to be with family, to rest, and to think. And then there's been the new Congress (in which he's had a very busy week) and he's recently apparently had a cold. Plus, JK and THK are finishing up what looks to be a very exciting, thoughtful and timely book.. "Quiet" does not mean absence of activity; it's those quiet days when the real work gets done.

[karynnj]

19. I agree with your assessment

The hiring people is a very good sign. Even retaining all the PAC people and the people he already had is a good sign - as they seem to be very good people. It is a sign of an almost unheard of loyalty to Kerry or a sign that they think he is running and that they think they can have a chance.

I agree with Mass that Kathleen Sullivan's comment was not all that positive - but it is clear that she sees him as we do. She may also have been affected by the viciousness of the attack on Kerry after he skipped one word. Kerry did so much in 2003-2007 that he absolutely did not deserve this treatment.

I wonder how much he would have done - other than one speech that was cncelled. After all, he likely did plan some break and the ME tour was in there too. But, other than Edwards, the others aren't doing all that much.

Biden's announcement Sunday was really no bigger than his last 3 or 4 announcements. He has NEVER outpolled Kerry even though the WP seems to push him. He just seems too swarmy and I hate when he slowly enunciates words to make what he thinks is a profound point. He is also not believable as the anti-war voice because he wobbles on it.

[cadmium]

4. This seems like a reasonable article ---Rick Klein

has been very quick to amplify negativity. He led off an article about Dems with money getting pressure by featuring complaints about Kerry and mentioned the Heyjohn website. Whenever Kerry has done something regarding policy he usually couches it in the context of a 2008 run. I was glad to see that he posted positive comments and doesnt' just echo the WiseGuys and wise gals who write him off.

[sandnsea]

5. I thik it's an honest assessment

And the comment from Sullivan was very sweet, I feel the same way. Knowing what he'll have to go through, I bet he'd just as soon stick needles in his eyes. He is too good a man to put up with that, I agree with her.

I also agree with Lehane, blech, Kerry does need to find a niche. Well, he HAS a niche. He's STILL the only one just about any Democrat would happily pluck into the White House if they could. Question should be - elections aside, considering ALL the issues, who would you rapel into the White House today? John Kerry, no doubt.

I also think he should wait until spring to decide. The ones getting in now are like the people fist-fighting to get in the door at the Midnight Madness sale. :crazy:

[DrFunkenstein]

7. He Absolutely Does Need to Find a Niche

He needs to construct a compelling rationale for his candidacy - why he has learned from his mistakes and shortcomings, and what his agenda will be as President.

My suggestion has always been that he limits himself to becoming THE energy independence candidate, making that his central policy goal. He needs to establish his ability to CHOOSE an issue, not just list off all of them. That is an important part of being a leader (a decider).

He must also show that he has learned to connect emotionally, not just inform, with his speeches. As perfectly correct as his positions have been, part of the job description is connecting those positions to ideas that regular non-wonks can understand. In that, he has to CHOOSE which parts of the policy to highlight, not list off all the facts.

He is known as someone who is a drag to listen to speak. That is not just the media, either. I love the man and I know that he is capable of better than warmed-over Shrum-isms and the seemingly endless listing off of everything and the kitchen sink.

He has to fill in the blank to "I am the ________ candidate" and he simply has to become a more dynamic speaker.

I have no doubt that he COULD do that. I truly hope that he does.

[Mass]

9. We agree. It was his major issue in 2004, when the clowns

were not trying to detract it. I always thought it was an interesting initiative (and it has become a successful talking point for the Democrats in 06). In addition, it can be used to reach many issues that people care about: jobs, environment, national security, ...

[beachmom]

10. I agree, but, it has to be that vision that you were talking about as well

as Tay Tay -- there were three speeches -- one on Iraq (Dissent), one on Energy Independece, and one on the greater war on terror (Real Security). These three things go together. The #1 reason for energy independence is so that we're not funding the terrorists and despotic regimes in the Middle East (his long environmental record will back this up). We must end our involvement in Iraq which is destabilizing the entire region and creating more terrorists, while doing massive diplomacy there (his eloquence and bravery protesting the Vietnam War will back this up). And we must refocus our energies on Afghanistan and the terrorists who attacked us (his record on BCCI will back this last one up).

So here's the big question: how do you take those 3 pieces and turn it into ONE THEME, ONE PHRASE that doesn't sound too generic or Shrumist?

Energy, Iraq, Terror -- how do you make that into one thing that will be a niche?

Or are you saying, no oil, then no Iraq, no terror?

It's just I think of Kerry as the guy who will get us out of Iraq. So I can't imagine a campaign theme WITHOUT that being a part of it. Obviously, you don't want to be just anti-war, but that's when he's been the most eloquent, the most passionate. Because it's personal. When I think of the candidates, I've looked at them like this:

Edwards -- anti-poverty
Clinton -- centrist pragmatist
Obama -- hope
Kerry -- end the occupation in Iraq
Gore -- stop global warming

There's much more to them than the above, but the area where they shine is what I think of (obviously, that's why Hillary has big, big problems -- who the heck wants a soulless "centrist pragmatist"?) as being their niche.

[Mass]

11. Energy independence is also vital for global warming, which is

our major risk for the future, for national security in a larger sense (avoid future conflicts with China and India concerning resources), and for creating new higher paying jobs.

[TayTay]

17. Kerry has always been about ending the lying

and the betrayal of the US government to it's own core ideals. Kerry is at his best when he is being what the Boston Globe dubbed him so long ago, The Avenger, the one who demands that the government live up to it's own ideals and core beliefs. This is what motivated him to oppose the Vietnam War. That war was a giant lie, from start to finish, and it was a lie told on many levels.

This current government also believes that lies, deception and double-dealing are a fine way to operate. They also believe that the Constitution of the United States is a quaint but optional document that no real leader has to obey. Opposing that at a gut level is what drives someone like Kerry. It is offensive on a near cellular level to have a government built on such cynicism and deceit. Opposing it on those grounds is what Kerry does best and better than nearly anyone else I can think of.

Iraq, oil the Middle East, etc are all connected in one big lie. We need to overpower our 'enemies' in the rest of the world so that we can dominate them and force them to our will. This is not so. There is a better, more rational, more civil and more moral way for the US to do business. It would involve actually helping other nations and other people and not just militarily forcing other nations to give us what we want at the point of a gun. We cannot impose our will on others, this is immoral. It is wrong, it violates who we are as a people. It is a core violation of what we as a nation believe. Someone has to stand up and say that and say it strongly.

Kerry: End the lying and deception. Honesty and truth matter. (Either one.)

[wisteria]

13. How about promising to straighten this country out here and overseas. n/t

[TayTay]

6. I think it's a big decision

and I will support the Senator in whatever he wants to do. There are many ways in which one serves one's country at a time of dire need.

[cadmium]

8. I think Kerry's niche has always been honesty.

Telling the truth is sometimes nuanced. Sometimes it involves a flip-flop. I think he should just keep telling the truth.

[beachmom]

12. But he can't campaign on "honesty" because then it will be

disingenuous. It just needs to keep coming out over and over again, with passion, and people will get it.

I know someone who is a Republican who is also in the armed forces. She HATED hearing that John Kerry was a "war hero" in 2004. At the time, I thought she was just mad because her guy wasn't one. But I realized later on, that she thought he was bragging about it, not being humble. She herself is a humble person, and thinks people who have achieved a lot in the military or otherwise shouldn't be out trumpeting it to everyone. Of course, he IS humble about it, and it was merely a campaign theme to win the primaries, some of which manifested in ways he was uncomfortable with (I remember reading him being annoyed with something painted on a bus that was too bravado). So I think it's important this time, if he decides to run, to put in his campaign what he would be comfortable with in normal life. And what he's most comfortable with is talking about idea(r)s and experience that would back up his claims that he would implement those ideas.

After the joke, I really have backed off this idea that he needs to somehow perform differently or develop a persona that would be more appealing like on Jon Stewart or Colbert. I think he should say -- hey, I'm not the most likeable, or the most entertaining, and sometimes I'm too serious, but you can count on me to wake up every day and work for you, the American people, and only you (worded better, maybe, but you get the point).

It is true that he can be very funny, but I think he is more PRIVATELY funny than publicly funny. That's what Bono used to say about U2. And they're loved everywhere around the world.

[karynnj]

22. Your second to last paragraph is brilliant

I really think that is a fantastic way to handle it. Also, it sounds down to earth, candid, and the opposite of snobbish or elitist. In an odd way, it fits with other things, notably the Pepperdine speech and the Livestrong speech where he was saying that though he was a private person, he knew he had to trust peopl enough to show them more of who he is as a persson. What you suggested does that as well - he would be saying - here's who I am.

The odd thing is that he is one of the few public figures who I have ever seen who becomes more likble when the facade slips. (Bill Clinton is the other extreme.) After Bush, if people want truth and an extemely good person, he is there.

[JI7]

30. completely agree, that has been my advice for some time

in the end people will vote for someone if they think they would make a good President regardless of whether they find them likable. Rudy Giuliani is a good example. there is nothing likable about him. but he is at the top because people view him as a leader and someone who will make a good President.

and especially after what has happened to this country with Bush who got by with media whore talk of how he is likable and people want to have a beer and other crap.

i always say about Kerry, get out the important stuff about his record, about his leadership on the issues. the likable stuff is not that important and with Kerry many do find him likable when they actaully see him. as people said after the first debate with Bush when more said they liked Kerry.

[cadmium]

37. Beachmom, I didnt mean to campaign on honesty as

an issue per se---just to keep telling the truth. That is his strength. I don't think he should be trumpeting himself much at all. He just has to keep addressing issues honestly. I think he does this better than anyone else.

[wisteria]

14. I would support him however I could, but I would rather support him as President.

I think he would get more done as President than remaining in the Senate.

[wisteria]

18. None of the obstacles they mention in the article made any difference

before the botched joke. The joke should not be a consideration. If he decides not to run, it will always be "the joke" that will be perceived as doing him in. None of these other candidates offer more than Kerry. Our country needs him- not a Hillary or an Obama. He was right about so much in 04, that alone give him credentials above the others running. So now that he isn't out there so they can attack him, they are questioning why.

[TayTay]

20. Well, part of that is just the guessing game

Politics abhors a vacuum and not moving is the same as not being. They just can't figure out what he is up to, if he is not doing anything. What does that mean? Is he going to be up to something soon or is not being up to something some kind of new strategy? What if not doing anything overtly is a good strategy? What if that works? We could have all kinds of people not overtly doing anything? That would be either very good or very bad for punditry in general and the pundits themselves wouldn't know it until it was over.

Very Zen way to run for President, or not, if you ask me. I like it. It confuses the hell out of all the right people.

[wisteria]

21. I will add that I think Kline was fairly balanced because he figures

he has been taken out because of the joke. He figures it is ok to be balanced.
As for the monent of Zen, I hope that is all he is doing is confusing the hell out of the right people.

[whometense]

23. Susan Milligan from the Boston Globe was on c-span this morning,

and she made a perceptive comment about the 2008 race - something we all know, but we rarely hear anyone in the media actually admit. She was talking about how every person in the race who is currently a frontrunner could blow up for one reason or another, and in the end the nominee(s) could be a dark horse, or someone who no one's thinking seriously about right now.

I really think there's a place for JK after a little reality sets in over the current romantic favorites.

She mostly talked about Romney. Pretty factual.

By the way, I am totally taken with the zen aspect. I think it is brilliant. In a way, it's like he's doing the thing Newt talks about doing, but can't shut up about long enough to actually do it.

[beachmom]

24. As far as "all being quiet", perhaps the simplest answer is the right one:

He's . . . working. You know, as a senator. He kind of submitted, like, a kazillion bills and he's got Iraq hearings to prepare for and other Senate stuff to do.

And he's working and mulling. Mulling and working. Seems to be the obvious answer, but these people want to know the future, and they want to know it NOW. Therefore, the article. Hey -- what are you doin'? What's going on?

It must be hard filling up political reporting.

[Democrafty]

27. It must be, given the current climate.

Congress? What's that? If you aren't a celebrity candidate, you don't exist!

[karynnj]

25. I love it!

But hasn't Hillary been doing nothing overtly for years. Has she dained to go to either NH or Iowa yet? You can only be Queen bee so long.

Also - there was the lame duck session of congress, his trip to the ME, they list meeting with fundraisers and he did meet with the bloggers (the Herald said so). It's only been 2 months - I hope he had some vacation time with his family before he got this awful cold.

[TayTay]

26. Yes, but he hasn't told the Globe yet.

Therefore, it hasn't happened and he isn't doing anything. If he was really doing something, then he owes it to us, as the hometown paper of record, to tell us first. Really John, it would be bad form to do otherwise. (LOL! Come on Mass-souls, you know what I mean.)

[YvonneCa]

28. The article was okay...

...not terribly negative or overly supportive...but it did describe 'the lay of the land.'

After reading your many wonderful comments here, I just had a couple of thoughts to add:

1. I think Kerry's 'niche' is that he sees the significance of this moment in history (I can't wait to read the new book). It's not just Iraq...it's not just oil and energy independence...it's not just the lie. It's ALL those things, and so much more that go against everything our Constitution sets out and that the country is supposed to stand for AT THIS CRITICAL POINT IN OUR HISTORY. Our country goes through major peaceful 'revolutions' where great change must be incorporated into our world. Agrarian to industrial age. Industrial age to information age technology. Individualism to globalization. Times like these are unsettling for the country. They demand from our leaders their attention, complete focus and relentless hard work. The fact that we could be in the midst of such difficult revolutionary change AND have our government lie us into a war, trash our economy and institutions, etc., etc., etc. is unconscionable. How DARE this administration boil everything down to politics! How DARE this administration hold off on dealing with Iraq until 'after the November election' ! How DARE this administration be so incompetant that they created the conditions for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Saddam's public hanging! How DARE this administration be in Crawford or elsewhere on vacation during Katrina and before 9/11 ! Especially now...when we need competent leadership. That's the 'niche'.

I think, if he chooses to run, John Kerry's niche has to be that he can simplify this (really challenging) and connect it on a human level to regular people's lives. That's "Tell the truth to the American people and tell it to them all the time." The trick will be to inform, build empathy and trust, connect to people's real lives and calm fears. I have no doubt that Senator Kerry has the ability to do this...he just has to be himself and throw away the canned stump speech.


2. Gary Hart wrote a book about what is needed called, " The Fourth Power." I would bet the Senator has read it. :)

[karynnj]

31. This actually explains why he HAS to run

Imagine the Democratic debates, who will articulate these realities if he is not there. you say, "How DARE this administration hold off on dealing with Iraq until 'after the November election' ". That was NOT just the administration - it is how all people who are more politician than statesman will handle things. Hillary, Edwards, and Biden can't do this. The question with Obama is whether he is simply a charming, brilliant orator.

Kerry can, at minimum, elevate the debates to address these issues. He really does have to be himself to do this.

By the way, according to the NYT, neither Obama or Hillary are committing soon. (soon is a relative term - with Obama they say not till after Bush's SOTU (Jan 23). So, why all the hurry for Kerry. (If Obama opts not to run and neither Clark or Gore get in, Kerry would have a great shot against Biden, Edwards, Vilsack etc. Biden is way more gaffe prone.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/us/politics/09pintro.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[Mass]

32. delete - pointless rant

[wisteria]

33. His entry into the race take it to a whole new level. He adds the

real dedication and experience that is needed. I just can't imagine the level and quality of the debates being the same with out him in it. Who else offers the real leadership and experience? Biden does, but I think people would choose Kerry over him.
I really believe that this election in 08 is going to be different than past ones. Experience and leadership are going to be very important and many people are going to look past the good old boys and the pie in the sky promises.
He has to do this. What are we left with? HRC, Obama, Edwards, Vilsack and Biden? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[MBS]

34. In 2008, environmental issues and Iraq will be front and center

Not a single one of the other candidates in either party have solid credentials on both issues. And John Kerry's credentials on BOTH are superb. Several might vote the right way, but no one else comes even close to him on depth of expertise, and wisdom. On the environment (including conservation, alternate energy, and climate change), Kerry has long been ahead of the curve. Only Gore is competitive, and, at that, only on a subset (energy and climate change) of those issues. And, again, both issues are so urgent that we can't afford any kind of learning curve on either issue. JK is the man for the times. Just no question in my mind.

[YvonneCa]

36. Or mine...

...now to convince the world ! :7

[YvonneCa]

35. I hope you are right about this race being different than past ones...

...we have to stop electing 'American Idol' style candidates on likability and with no substance. It's really hurting the country.