For Beachmom: The other side: BGlobe 2/7/06 Kerry Article

[TayTay]

Having another go? Kerry doffs the gloves
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Columnist | February 7, 2006

WASHINGTON -- John F. Kerry's decision to lead last week's unsuccessful filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination met with predictable ridicule from Republicans and some Democrats, but it could end up being his smartest political move in a long time.

The gratitude of liberal activists who hate Alito will be helpful if Kerry runs for president again. His willingness to pick up the flag and fight when no one except Edward M. Kennedy was willing to join him may impress those who think Kerry is a flip-flopper who has never exerted leadership in the Senate. And even the ridicule may be useful, in the sense that voters need to purge their frustration with Kerry before reconsidering him.

''I think it was a historic day yesterday," chortled the normally staid White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, after Kerry announced that he would lead the filibuster. ''It was the first-ever call for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland."

Indeed, Kerry's sense of imagery hasn't improved since 2004: He was attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland when he announced that he would lead the filibuster. McClellan seized on the scene to revive the Bush campaign's 2004 depiction of Kerry as an aristocrat at play, goofing on the ski slopes. But it would have been just as much of a political hit to tell the truth: Kerry was hobnobbing with a bunch of international leaders.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/07/having_another_go_kerry_doffs_the_gloves?mode=PF

[karynnj]

1. Really nice editorial

It's interesting that the Globe (owned by the NYT) is coming close to saying that they were pushing New York's (read Hillary) Senators to lead a filibuster. It is the only explanation of their scizophrenic coverage - strong editorial for a filibuster on Wednesday and a hit piece ridiculing Kerry on Friday followed by an article (by the same reporter) that the Democrats should have and could have won on the following Wednesday. You get the feeling they went ballistic because not only did their clear favorite fail to step up but the Senator that they hate to even mention did.

Hillary grudging supported the filibuster because she didn't have a choice, but I would assume if she (and Bill) had championed it and tried to sell it, they would have had the ability to do it. Not because they're better than Kerry, but because they could get the media. (Imagine Hillary or Bill, making Kerry's Monday arguements on the constitution.) I can't imagine she got credit for her vote from those who considered it important, while some on the other side may fault her for her filibuster vote

The listing of "quirks" that they list for Kerry are the type that you put down on self evaluation forms at work, which are really virtues. (He talks to international leaders (horrors!) and he's above it all (they now say determined, but wouldn't high minded and principled be more accurate). Compared to Reagan (bellicose rhetoric), GHWB (preppy expressions), Dole (grumpiness), or McCain (too tightly wound ), Kerry's "quirks" are easy to accept.

This is one of the nicest things they ever wrote about him.

[_dynamicdems]

5. It was a logical article. Canellos stated what is obvious to us, but

what everyone else has been afraid to say: Kerry is a major player in the 2008 race, which is why he is still such a target. It is also the reason why there is such an strong effort to marginalize him and to neutralize his political power whenever he opens his mouth. Even if JK doesn't choose to run, he's already a huge influence on the race. Either way: he probably has more political capital now than anyone out there at the moment. And that power is growing. That is why he's attacked continually by the right, the left and the middle.

The statement about HC having one eye on JK speaks volumes. The only thing the article neglected to say is that eyes other than Hillary's are on him. The Repugs are weak now. Very weak. And JK poses a serious threat. Even without a run, because of the influence of his political power and money (that he's been raising through his PAC and other fundraising activities), Senator Kerry will have a major influence in determining the outcome of 2008, especially if he nails 2006 by helping Dems take back Congress.

[ginnyinWI]

10. and he's done a lot for the party already.

I think he's responsible for considerably strengthening the Democratic Party as a whole. Unlike Bill Clinton, who didn't really do much but "do" for himself politically, JK did a lot to unify the party with his positive message and his vision for America. How many of us (myself included) caught that vision and started paying attention to politics, and also started sending in contributions? He's been a really good friend to the party--which is another reason they should give him a fair chance in 2008.

[jenndar]

12. You're right, and that's probably why he raised more $$

than Hillary in 2005. I think everybody knows who JK is working for :)

[karynnj]

13. The question is whether people will hold Clinton responsible

for helping so little after he left office. I still find it hard to believe how selfish he was in terms of when he released his book. People though consistently forgive him and are seduced by him again - I just hope it doesn't happen again.

With Kerry, I think it wasn't just the positive message, but the call to action he issued to his email list within weeks of losing. That he acknowledged his dissapointment, said he would still be fighting and appealed to others to stay involved, shows huge strength and character. His emphasis on grassroots (both traditional and more recently netroots) is really unusual.

[ginnyinWI]

14. I think he has a great ability to look down the road

(good political instincts) and sees that a lot of what's going to happen in the party is going to be local. And yeah, on the internet too.
He is unusual--for a politician with long years in Washington-- he still has his ideals! And those do make a difference, and are why his followers become true believers. To sum it all up in one word: Leadership. :)

[TayTay]

15. It is unusual

but it is in deep character for JK. That's where he got his start on the national stage, involvement with the grassroots over an cause. It's part of who he is.

[_dynamicdems]

16. Oh I agree on that and I hope the party sees it that way, but there are so

many Dems intent on playing political chess and jockeying for power. JK has never, ever done that. He's a smart politician, but he won't play the kind of games the others do. He's as straight as an arrow. And he's about as loyal as they come. Too bad integrity isn't valued higher in our party. Or loyalty.

The sad but beautiful thing is that: no matter how crappy the party is to him, Senator Kerry will never turn his back on the Democrats. You are right, he's already done much for the Democratic Party. He puts the party before his own ambitions or best interests every, single time.

One example, in point, is how supportive he's been of Sen. Nelson of Fla. who is facing a tough re-election campaign. Kerry has helped him and will probably continue to do so even though is "friend" didn't support him in the filibuster effort.

[TayTay]

17. That's because you don't necessarily cut ties

with people who might be able to help later on. Sen. Kerry is also helping Maria Cantwell with her re-election bid as well. (And one of the people from KAP recently moved to Sen. Cantwell's re-election effort to act as a spokesperson. Hmmmm.)

[_dynamicdems]

18. Hmmm....is right. I'm not liking that much. n/t

[TayTay]

19. Why?

These people seem to move around a lot and get loaned out to whatever campaign needs them. It seems like an okay thing to do to me. What's the problem? (I am dense sometimes, humor me.)

[_dynamicdems]

20. She's one of the nineteen.

How I feel personally: she should be replaced by a real Democrat. Well all know JK isn't going to withdraw support from individuals who didn't back him in the filibuster effort and there are good reasons for him doing so. However, it is really annoying when Senators who didn't support JK are so quick to have that hand out when he offers to help them.

And then there is the issue of loyalty. I'd like to feel that everyone that works for JK or for KAP is as loyal as we are to the Senator. This passing around of staff, while it may well be common practice, makes me wonder about loyalty. There are some people who are only loyal to their current paycheck. We have all heard about some of the staff from Senator Kerry's Presidential campaign. Many of them were among the first to criticize him as soon as they were getting their paycheck elsewhere. This is simply not acceptable, IMHO, so I raise an eyebrow when there is a staffer on loan to one of "the nineteen."

[karynnj]

22. At this point, it may be that we can't be fussy

She has many times been on the right side so she's not a complete waste. Also, the staffer in addion to helping her win, gets experience. If Kerry runs for President, he will need lots of experienced people - which was a problem last time. That so many people weren't his probably meant they didn't have the same sense of knowing he was good as his own staff had. (Remember Stephanie Cutter panicing when Kerry spoke in Italian - the expression on his face was priceless as he explained "he didn't say anything bad" Wasn't she from Kennedy's staff?)

[_dynamicdems]

24. Sadly, that is true: we can't be that fussy because the worst Democrat is

far above the best Republican when it comes to doing the right thing for our country.

Most of the 19 are either in red states or in tough re-election battles. However, it all comes back to the "I" word: integrity. They chose to do what it takes to win (capitulate) as opposed to doing what is right. I think they wimped on the filibuster issue and I think they should be held to account.

They are Democrats, however, and the redemption of Congress is the imperative of 2006. We need to keep the Dem seats we have and gain new ones.

As for the staff members gaining experience: this is a double-edge sword. Who knows how closely each staff member works with Senator Kerry, what their loyalties are or even what their "mission" is when they are sent to help other campaigns. They may actually function as informational conduits, which would be good. I'm just not too happy that is is necessary to give to those who provide nothing in return.

[Mass]

25. She is one of the 19, I agree, but she is in a difficult reelection

campaign where she has a candidate on his left because she voted for the IWR and a candidate on the right that is attacking her on abortion. Given the fact that Reid did not push for this vote, I am ready to cut a little bit of slack to people like Cantwell who generally vote correctly (she voted against Roberts, while Murray voted for him). She is also very active on energy issues. I would not make this vote a sign of loyalty to Kerry. She disagreed on a vote, that's all, and she is far from the worse and she did not go around saying that this was a dumb idea, contrarely to some dems who voted for the filibuster (Jeez, should we consider Biden or Obama loyal to Kerry because they voted for the filibuster after they went around saying they opposed it, or Schumer and Reid).

[beachmom]

26. Question on Cantwell and ANWR

What was her role in the most recent fight (with the ANWR amendment in the Defense bill) in relation to Kerry? Did she lead it, and he went along? Or was it more a partnership. I read something recently that gave her full credit for defeating ANWR, without mentioning Kerry, and I just would like to know who did what.

[Mass]

27. She is the pointman on energy issues and she has been active on these

issues, but it is clear that Kerry and others have helped a lot on that.

They were both active, and have been for a while on these issues.

[_dynamicdems]

28. Some of the Senators who are getting Kudos over the filibuster certainly

do not deserve them. They caved in to pressure from the left, but they whined so much it was almost as bad as if they voted against the filibuster.

Cantwell's vote was obviously one of fear, not conviction. That's why I'm watching her with a wary eye. Yes, she is on the correct side of most issues. That only makes it more obvious why she voted the way she did.

The filibuster should have happened. It didn't happen because some Democrats were afraid. And now we have Alito. There was a chance that we could have pulled this off. If the Democrats had been united, the filibuster would have happened. And the Republicans would have had to use the Nuclear Option...if they dared, which I'm not all that certain they would have. In any case, it would have brought the issue to the public despite the MSM.

As for Senator Kerry: many Democrats he's helped in the past sniped at him through the entire thing and others just turned their backs. He did a courageous thing in standing up against Alito. The Senators who stood with him from the beginning are heroes. The others are weak. They aren't Republicans and they still get have my loyalty when push comes to shove. However, IMHO, they will always carry a stain from this: a big yellow one.

[karynnj]

21. But remember the little Esquire article

when speaking of the loss the two things Kerry mentioned as important were family and that he came out of the campaign with his integrity. It's clear that part of why he is so strong is that he knows who he is at his core - and that's a loyal, honest, trustworthy person with integrity. That King Arthur and Robin Hood were childhood heros is understandable.

I too which that our country had enough values to look for integrity and pick leaders with it. One of the hardest thing to listen too was Carville extolling Clinton (for having no principle he wouldn't compromise if it would help him win -not his words, my interpretation), why criticising Kerry for having integrity that he wouldn't trade away.

[_dynamicdems]

23. I think the integrity he showed is the reason people are so fiercely loyal

to him all this time after the election. There has to be a line, a defining point, that holds our side to a higher standard than those whom we do battle with.

Carville is wrong. Anything to win is not what we need in our leaders. What good is winning the battle if you lose the ideals you fight for in the process? Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war on ideals.

[Mass]

2. I could not believe my eyes when I read that. The BG writing something

objective about Kerry!

Good article, which makes a lot of good points on what Kerry can bring to a 2008 race.

[TayTay]

3. To be fair, Canellos has brought this up before

And he did make the perfectly obvious comment that the Dems should not throw away their past 'warriors' because they may actually be the ones who learned something from the fight. I did like this analysis article (and the placement, page 3, not on the OpEd page.) I thought it contained writing that was not 'in the pack' like most of the stuff written in the last week.

[whometense]

9. I loved his comments

about "fresh faces." It's telling that a column that is written in a perfectly straightforward manner, stating what are obvious truths to anyone who's been paying any objective attention at all should sound like a revelation. Thanks for posting, and thanks to Canellos for having written it.

It will get approximately zero attention in the media. Matthews did what may have been his 7,000th breathless segment last night on Hillary's presidential candidacy. At this point these stories are a total bore, but this one made me chuckle. Given the choice, I'd much rather be in JK's position right now than in HRC's.

[wisteria]

4. OMG, this has just made my day. No matter what happens

today, I will smile when I think of this article. Doesn't this just confirm what most of us here have been discussing and thinking all along.

[ProSense]

6. Thanks for posting this.

It certainly puts a smile on my face. :-)

[beachmom]

7. Excellent article, Tay Tay

Before I went to bed last night, I jotted down some notes, which I put together for an LTE to The Economist which you can find on the other thread. This BG guy does a much better job than I would do assessing the politics of this, so I decided to do a media critique and how they are threatened by blogs instead. God, that would be a feather in my cap to be published there, but I'm not holding my breath (there are some highly intelligent letters on the Letters page every week by smart people from all over the world).

I think Kerry's move was perhaps a short term loser, but a long term winner. It puts him squarely on the right side of this argument. When Alito no doubt makes some horrid decision, nobody is going to remember that Kerry was in Switzerland at the time. They ARE going to remember that he stood up while most of the others sat on the sidelines.

[rox63]

8. Good article

Yes, they did highlight some of Kerry's shortcomings, along with his strengths. But they did it in an even-handed, fair, non-snarky way.

[jenndar]

11. That was great!

I loved the last line, especially :)

[whometense]

29. One other thing on this:

It's very likely that no one will worry about John McCain being too tightly wound in 2008, because voters will have had eight years to assess him.

Given the exchange of letters between McCain and Obama this week, I'm not so sure that will be true. Tightly wound is the mildest way I'd describe McCain's nuclear reaction to Obama's very mild challenge.