Dems on security

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2540482&mesg_id=2540482

[Mass]

1. At least, Kerry's program will have had a lasting effect on the Democrats

Energy independence, then security.

Too bad that the Democratic Leadership is not willing to recognize that.

[TayTay]

2. This does explain why there haven't been any formal speeches

lately from the good Sen from MA. Obviously, the Dem leadership wants to roll this out and enforce the notion that the Dems agree more than they disagree on security issues.

That explains a lot. It's not a bad idea going into an election year, but I would still like to hear about other options in Iraq.

[Mass]

3. You're more optimistic than I am.

We'll see if he is part of the news conference about that. I would not bet anything on it.

BTW, did I say how I am happy that Kerry was one of the 5 Democrats to vote against cloture on the ethics Bill.

[TayTay]

4. Me too!

That bill got whacked by everyone. Everyone talks about reform but until they address the problem of big money in politics, it's all futile. The problem isn't that lobbyists pick up the tab for lunch, it's that they contribute money to the elections in ways that skew the impact of real people and tilt decisions toward corporate ends and away from serving the people.

I'm not surprised that Sens. Kerry & Feingold voted against cloture. That is consistent. I am surprised that Teddy K voted for cloture. He should know better.

I think the security news conference will have a lot of Dems in attendance. Reid still has Jack Reed of RI as point man on this issue. I really like Jack Reed, he is an amazing Senator with an outstanding background. But he is not forceful enough as a speaker to carry such a volatile issue. Sigh! I saw that the next things the Dems plan on pushing as '06 issues include Health Care and education. I hope Sen. Reid attaches stronger voices in the Senate to these measures.

[wisteria]

5. I agree with you on Reed. I think we all know who should be

speaking out on this-JK. I think he did a wonderful job and he was able to draw attention to the Dem's position on these security issues. IMO, Reid and Reed do not come across as authoritarian enough to grab the attention needed to get our message out.

[Mass]

6. I agree too, and on both points.

Sadly, it is not going to happen, for whatever reason it is.

[wisteria]

9. I think Reid plays right into the hand of the Republicans.

He seems to feel that we need less controversial spokespeople representing our positions because every high profile Democratic goes through the Republican media spin machine and is lambasted for having the nerve to speak out. But, what Reid doesn't seem to understand, is we need recognizable faces and names out there-people pay attention to them. That is why they are targeted by the Republicans. Picking someone like Reed is safe, but ineffective in my opinion.
Like you though, I don't hold out much hope that things will change until after the elections. Reid is playing it very safe.I know this sounds snarky, but I bet he lets Senator Clinton get involved in this somehow.

[karynnj]

8. What bothers me more than his not being the pointperson is that

they never bring up as a major point that this was Kerry's position in 2004. This is just cutting off their noses to spite their faces - they give up emphasizing that they have consistently been for these ideas - which per some Republican response on the DU thread they claim as theirs, just to not give Kerry attention.

[wisteria]

10. Good points. They need to say it over and over again. We

were upfront on these issues in 2004, Senator Kerry ran on some of these very issues in 2004. Saying this could only bring positive results. We have it all down on record. It is all documented. Let the Republicans prove otherwise.
The only reason I can think of for not doing this is that they would have to give credit where credit is due- to Kerry and some others in the party don't want to do that.

[_dynamicdems]

12. I totally agree. Stealing John Kerry's plans and ideas has become the

political equivalent of a national pastime. It irks the Hell out of me and it is only going to get worse as we get closer to 2008.

[karynnj]

14. It may not be that bad

Kerry can still get on TV. He rations his appearances enough and is good enough that he likely has some control over that. If he is on TV, he will speak of these issues and he will say that he said this in 2004. I doubt he needs to do that often to essentially brand some things.

Clearly the leadership is not trying to help him - in a way their reluctance to give him an issue means they know he can make a lot of it. (There would be only a few reasons not to make someone a spokesman - if someone is ineffective or toxic (Kerry is neither) or they prefer not to give him a platform. Another may be that they want people who agree to stick to the agreed on view - Kerry likely wouldn't give up independence.

Also, Kerry's 2004 plans likely, once he was the nominee, drew on ideas of others. There were likely many who tried to sell him on ideas - and I assume he accepted some. As the nominee, he had to have plans on everything - so it's not surprising when good campaign issues are resurrected as legislation from others. As one Senator, Kerry can't have all the issues.

What I wonder is what Kerry will do on Iraq. His position is different than the party's. This would be better if it were post Nov 2006, but it's not. I doubt Kerry can speak only to small Massachusetts papers and freaks like Imus and it's the most important issue facing the country. But, if he does he may be labelled as hurting the party for 2006.

[ProSense]

19. As MH1 pointed out, even the Republicans are trying to steal it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2540482&mesg_id=2540507

[Mass]

20. No surprise - not crediting the 2004 platform make them look stupid.

Most of what is in the current platform has been Democratic credo for several years now, but, by not saying so, they look as if they have just found the ideas.

Difficult to believe they are so stupid.

[Mass]

11. An interesting editorial in the WaPo that seems related to the issue

(and reflects fairly well what I think).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801214.html?nav=hcmodule

A Party Waiting to Pounce

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Page A19

If you're a Democrat, life is good right now. The Republicans are mired in Iraq and domestic political difficulties. The White House is rearranging the deck chairs. For now, Democrats can sit back and watch the GOP self-destruct: "They're on fire," says one party strategist. "Don't say anything. Let them destroy themselves."

...

If the Democrats have a problem, it's what I would call the "Clinton blockage." As of today Sen. Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination. Clinton "hovers over the presidential field like the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor," writes political analyst Walter Shapiro this week in the online magazine Salon. The problem is that Clinton is casting such a big shadow that it blocks out the sunlight in which other candidates might grow.

Clinton is building her own version of the Democratic National Committee, outside the control of accident-prone DNC Chairman Howard Dean. She has the best financial machine in American politics, and her fundraisers are signaling some big donors that the Clintons will be unhappy if they give to Hillary's rivals. Meanwhile, former White House aide Harold Ickes is creating a powerful database for grass-roots fundraising though his Data Warehouse project, and Podesta is building a solid policy-planning operation at his Center for American Progress.

Clinton's timetable is also a problem. Running for reelection to the Senate from New York this year, she has a strategy of campaigning as if she cares more about Utica and Schenectady than Washington. That's understandable, but it leaves the Democrats in a pickle. Clinton doesn't want to speak for the party right now, but she doesn't want anyone else to take center stage -- especially not her husband.

...

The 2008 election is still a long way off -- too long, in terms of America's need for the clarity and change a new president could offer the country. Meanwhile, America is struggling with big problems, from Iraq to immigration. Will Democrats help the Bush administration find solutions? In the age of Karl Rove, are you kidding?

[Mass]

7. There are a lot of strong voices on healthcare and education.

If Reid cannot find somebody to carry the message, I dont know what we can expect of him.

[Mass]

13. From The Note

Joining Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi at today's event will be Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Gen. Wesley Clark, and many other House and Senate Democrats.

It seems to me that either Reid is pushing Hillary (or letting her push) and is making sure nobody shadows her.

[karynnj]

15. What a surprise

Albright and Clark were Clinton figures too. What it does though is test Hillary. Bill Clinton did say that Kerry was weak - and positively positioned Hillary. Now, she will be repeating Kerry points. But, assume Kerry runs in the primaries. When Hillary answers with a "Kerry" position, Kerry with a smile can thank her for validating his opinion from 2004 and re-state it better. That he was on this issue before 2001 and she wasn't will be obvious. That 2 years later, his ideas are still pre-eminent and are seen as right - is something I hope he can take credit for.

[wisteria]

17. You can put a positive spin on it, I am thinking they are snubbing

Senator Kerry. I am contacting Reid to complain. Senator Clinton has been out front on everything they have decided to fight or respond to recently. If you tell me Kerry, was given the same kind of treatment two years before he ran for President, I will change my opinion slightly of Reid and Clinton.

[Mass]

18. I doubt they did, but anyway, even if it was the case, not this way.

I have no issue with Hillary playing a proeminent role in the party. She has the name recognition that is needed.

My problem is what seems to be the snubbing of Kerry, particularly on issues where he has been a leader for years, like national security, energy independence, or small business.

The only thing that could me change my mind would be that it is Kerry's wish, but, in this case, I just dont understand why he is not speaking on his own (?)

Obviously, I am not totally objective because I like Kerry, but I find it irritating to see the party waste resources like that. What is the deal?

[karynnj]

21. There is a certain irony

Bill Clinton claimed Kerry was too soft on national security, but:

- the Democratic plan Hillary will be speaking for is basically Kerry's
- with Hillary as the spokesperson, the Republican counter can (and likely will) be:
"Why didn't Bill do any of these things pre 911", Hillary can say she's not Bill, but most of her claim to expertise was as a key player in her husband's administration. Which politician was urging these things (port safety and energy independence) pre 911? Kerry!

This could be interesting. Kerry taking the lead on these issues makes far more sense.

[wisteria]

22. I know, and I had to e-mail Reid and express my opinion on

Senator Clinton as spokesperson and the lack of Senator Kerry as a spokesperson also. I was nice, but I did drive home the point that he comes across better and more experienced on these issues.

[wisteria]

23. That is my question to. If Kerry wants it this way, fine, I just find it

hard to believe that this is the case. I am not asking for him to be involved in everything, but an out front position on something supporting the party position couldn't do any harm to him or the party. Most people don't know about 90% of what he has accomplished in the Senate and well..there is that old cliche, "out of sight, out of mind" that should be considered.
While I agree that Senator Clinton is a prominent figure in our party, I also think she is very polarizing and many people find her offensive- the general public that is. My husband for one, who fully supports the Democratic ideals like I do, says he shutters at the though of her as President. And he isn't the only person to feel this way. I have to wonder how affective she is as a spokesperson when many people don't take her seriously and find her offensive?

[jenndar]

24. If you look at JK's traxk record on trying to improve

national security, it's obvious that it's more important to him to see those ideas implemented than to get credit for his ideas.

Unfortunately, he has a personality and a concern fo the American people that makes it easy for other politicians to use his ideas to their advantage. It helps that we recognize it, and we can help spread the word.

[ProSense]

27. Exactly!

Spreading the word is important. It's not that the others are out tooting their own horns, but that there are enough people in the media doing it for them. (There supporters are doing a good job of it too and I'm going to tout Kerry's record as often as I can.) If you notice the number of articles that have been written about others (McCain, especially, but others too), they all have the feel of that NYT piece on Kerry, but with very little in terms of the challenges they'll face. That NYT piece did an excellent job spotlighting Kerry's achievements, but was very pointed in stating the challenges and perceived negatives. I've read article on Warner and McCain that read like cheerleading pieces. If all the candidates were held up to the same level of scrutiny as Kerry, half of them would have to quit right now.

A lot of the Kerry's policies (clean money, etc.) are not popular with those who support big corporate interests. They have very little interest in promoting him or his policies. That has to be expected, accepted and then countered (by any available means).

Another thing, people believe that issuing press releases automatically mean coverage. The media can sidestep whatever it wants to, to a large extent they determine which stories to highlight and where. We've seen that with one of the most important issues: Iraq.

[wisteria]

28. Senator Kerry can't just rely on us getting his message out and

the media is not his friend for the most part.I also question Reid stratgegy he has to toot his horm once in a while. McCain does it every time he does something. Kerry needs an excellant PR person, I understand he just hired someone formally of CNN. I hope she can help us and Kerry get his messages out.

[ProSense]

29. I realize that.

Word of mouth alone cannot compensate for media coverage. People have a short attention span. The grassroots would have to be in their faces every day in the same way the media is, and that's not possible. Media coverage augments grassroots efforts. Kerry being in front of people will also help tremendously, then media coverage has to be there. If the right amount of coverage isn't forthcoming, then the available coverage has to have more impact. Some of David Wade's responses have been excellent. You're right, I hope the new PR person is good at this.

[karynnj]

25. My spin wasn't positive

They are clearly spot lighting Hillary and pushing Kerry aside. My point was just that they are ignoring potential Hillary liabilities. (If they put Kerry in that position, he would shine and it would generate some of the Kerry was right stuff he needs)

[jenndar]

26. That is a good point.

The leadership screws up when they don't put the most knowledgable person out front on an issue.

[whometense]

33. FWIW,

I saw Podesta on one of the talking head shows the other day, and he was promoting the hell out of HRC, and badmouthing JK. Not bby name, , but almost.

[wisteria]

16. Surprise, Surprise. Senator Clinton front and center.

Was Kerry given these types of out front appearances to do two years before the 2004 election?

[Mass]

30. According to a lousy source (Human Events), HRC was not there

(Sorry for the source, but they are the only one who say who came).

Among the people they list: Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Barak Obama and Debbie Stabenow, Nancy Pelosi Steny Hoyer, Reps. John Murtha, Debbie Stabenow, General Wesley Clark and former Madeline Albright.

Anyway, it does not seem that Kerry spoke (not sure who did).

[wisteria]

31. I hope your source turns out to be correct.

I have been on a rant all day because of this.I would love to eat my words, if need be and stop ridiculing Reid.

[sandnsea]

32. And Clark

Don't overlook the presence of Clark. Or the possible political purposes of who he's appealing to on Fox news. It's not all far right nut bags that watch that channel.

[wisteria]

36. I consider Clark a good addition. His connection to Fox News

didn't go unnoticed. That said, at least one Clark supporter is reading way to much into this.

[sandnsea]

38. That was in reference to Hillary

Before I read the list Mass posted on who was there. It sounded like they had put together a Hillary contingent, but it looks like I was wrong about that. I like Clark, but I do think he's as political as anybody else and generally allied with the Clinton people.

[TayTay]

34. Interesting thread on this in DU - P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2542066&mesg_id=2542121

There is some sensitivity being shown to our idea that the Dem plan and Kerry's plan in '04 look an awful lot alike.

[Mass]

35. Too bad that the Clark supporters feel attacked by this idea.

I dont know the poster, but it is at least the second time in a few days he/she reacts to the idea that the Dems are dumping Kerry.

Anyway, unfortunately, this event seems to have been a total failure. Nobody is speaking about it and it seems that the only thing the networks remember is Pelosi holding the pamphlet upside down.

[wisteria]

37. What a shame, this was an important press conference too. n/t

[JI7]

39. the whore media never covers important events by Democrats

they always pick something out and make fun of it.

of course they let the Chimp who makes an ass of itself daily off the hook. and repeat his lies for him.