CBS article on Kerry's speech

[ProSense]

The Real John Kerry Finally Stands Up

BOSTON, April 24, 2006

CBS) Dotty Lynch is CBSNews.com's Political Points columnist.

John Kerry came to national attention not because he was a war hero but because he was a dissenter. In 1971, he appeared on "The Dick Cavett Show," testified before Congress, and electrified anti-war rallies with his message that the war was wrong. His phrase, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" was used for years to define his commitment and eloquence.

On Saturday in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall, Kerry stood tall and proud and came to terms with what seemed so right in the 1970s and so wrong in 2004. He gave a speech about the American tradition of dissent and his own and others' disagreement with Bush administration policies on both Vietnam and Iraq.

Thirty-five years to the day that he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was introduced by the widow of a Swift Boat buddy, Don Droz, who emotionally recounted how her late husband told her how he and Kerry were planning to come home after Vietnam and "tell the truth about what was going on." Judith Droz Keyes, who spoke out in her husband's name in the seventies, described Kerry as a man who "has once again become the voice of moral opposition."

One of the Kerry supporters who packed the hall asked afterward "Where was she at the convention?" a reference to the fact that Kerry's military experience and not his anti-war activities were showcased in 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/24/opinion/lynch/main1534836.shtml

She was a delegate at the convention, speaking out and getting some coverage:

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The View From the Boat
By JUDITH DROZ KEYES

Published: August 27, 2004


an Francisco — On Feb. 28, 1969, my husband was the commander of one of three Swift boats traveling the Dong Cung in Vietnam to carry troops and supplies upriver. The events of that day, and what happened almost two weeks later on another Swift boat patrol, have become a source of controversy in the presidential campaign, with a group of veterans saying that John Kerry did not deserve the medals he won for what he did then. I know my husband thought otherwise.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/opinion/27droz.html?ex=1251345600&en=520c355121237467&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Kerry's medals were deserved, says widow of slain comrade
Husband was swift boat skipper
By Jessica Vascellaro, Globe Correspondent | August 27, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Lieutenant Donald Droz knew more about John F. Kerry's service in Vietnam than most men. By Kerry's side when he earned both the Silver and Bronze Stars, Kerry's fellow swift boat captain and friend spoke often of his admiration for the Yalie he called "a real fine guy."

But Droz, a key witness in the ongoing debate over Kerry's service record, is missing from it, killed in a rocket attack in Vietnam in April 1969 days after Kerry returned home. While Droz cannot defend Kerry, his widow, Judith Droz Keyes, said she feels she must. She said she is confident that her husband would defend both Kerry's record in Vietnam and his antiwar activism.

more...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/08/27/kerrys_medals_were_deserved_says_widow_of_slain_comrade?mode=PF

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Judith_Droz_Keyes


even freeper repub noticed her at the convention:
Getting The Swifties: Democrat Operatives Play "The Grieving Widow" Card

[beachmom]

1. Great article and very fair.

I hope it's okay to talk about mistakes made in the 2004 campaign, because this was the big one:

The Kerry campaign took pains to downplay his anti-war activities, a tactic which angered a number of veterans — especially those who launched the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Once when another producer at CBS and I spoke to the campaign about a profile we were thinking about which would juxta-play both facets of his biography, they greeted us with dismay. "Would you have to go into the protests?" they asked. They decided against letting Kerry be interviewed for that profile.

This is why Republicans got away with calling Kerry a flip flopper and a phony. It really felt like he was running away from the anti-war stuff, even though I KNEW he hadn't changed his feelings about it. It was more that he was holding back.

I'm willing to say now, that I wish that he had talked about Vietnam in 2004 as his rebuttal against the SBVT, even though a withdrawal from Iraq would not have been a credible position in 2004, he could have still talked about his past and linked it with the deception of the * administration. Had he given a speech about his dissent against Vietnam of the kind of power of his speech on Saturday, the Swifties would have dissipated. It's like the spiritual equivalent of saying to the devil "I'm not afraid of you", and it disappearing instantaneously.

Anybody have the NYT column called "Where was the rest of him", which said that Kerry had not told his whole story -- only part 1, not the more important anti-war part 2. This story was told in Going Upriver, but that wasn't enough. He really needed to talk about it.

In '08, he needs to be himself and hold nothing back. I think he knows this.

Just to add, too, I watched the speech again last night -- I'm calling it The Gettsyburg Address of 2006. It's that great.

[ProSense]

2. This is more of the same spin

The Kerry campaign took pains to downplay his anti-war activities, a tactic which angered a number of veterans — especially those who launched the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

These people are not legitimate and this makes them appear that way.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1003344&mesg_id=1003344

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. I think

one of the biggest lessons Kerry learned is to not listen to the Dem establishment, and if he does run again which I hope he will, I think he will definitely take full control of what he wants to say.

To all the Dem know-it-alls, you should have let Kerry be Kerry.

[Inuca]

4. "you should have let Kerry be Kerry."

Yes, yes, YES!!! Damn'!!

[karynnj]

8. He also might have a campaign team who is closer to him

His brother is heading the MA governor effort per some posts here. Cam Kerry and the other close Kerry advisers were involved in things in 2004. Then they had no experience running a national campaign, now they may have as much as almost anyone. Does it seem likey that Cam might run a 2008 campaign?

I think experience in 2004 may be more relevent than experience in 2000 (where Brazille really did run a bad campaign that hurt Gore). 1992 is ancient history - I am sick to death of people saying Carville can get anyone elected.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Cam was always there

Cahill did do a fantastic job when Kerry was down in the fall of '03. Things started going away on Kerry as the campaign grew and many more Dem establishment were added.(Clinton people)

I think Kerry did know how to win and in fact really did win. But I think the next time he will go totally with his gut feelings and push out the old Dem mentality.

The only reason Clinton got elected in 1992 was because of Perot, IMO. I watched the documentary on their campaign, and really I don't know how Clinton won from that.

[karynnj]

20. So, Hillary getting all the Clinton people

could be for the good. :)

I think Clinton won in spite of himself - he had a totally positive media who thought he was fun, Bush was at 39%, and Perot really hit Bush, then appeared to be crazy when he pulled out and came back in. As to how good there campaign was, I think Clinton was 3 out of 3 until Perot pulled out. Clinton got many of the people who were with Perot and then thought he was crazy.

That's why all these war room comparisons are unfair. The press played down real Clinton stories and gave credit (by covering at all) lies about Kerry.

[TayTay]

5. Beachmom, I really wish you could have been there

It was an amazing event. They were shakin' the rafters in Boston for that one, let me tell ya.

[sandnsea]

29. It was his authority on Iraq

Truly learning the lessons from Vietnam is what could have given him the credibility to criticize Iraq, and prove he knew how to get it right and was serious about getting our troops home. Not only did he understand about last resort, he also understands that if a mission isn't worth 1,000 lives, it's not worth one life. He should have connected all of that, misleading administration, politics, corporate cronyism; and that it happened in Vietnam too. He really should have hit that head on, because maybe some of those vets who didn't understand would have and would have shut the swift boat shit down themselves. None of them that I talked to personally liked that it was being done. I agree with you, that was the biggest mistake of the campaign and I've thought so for a while.

[karynnj]

6. This really is a great article

The applause and the standing ovations were very very real and were not just routine. There was a sense after almost each "paragraph" that he had said the absolutely perfct thing. This speech really was so real and managed to say things both eloquently and simply. If this were anyone but Kerry, this would be the speech of their life.

I wish some of the people on the left would take this speech and push for it to get more play. Even if they don't like Kerry this speech says so much so well about the right to dissent and our historical values in an eloquent, approachable way. A speech on Iraq and the suppression of dissent could so easily just be angry, but this speech is uplifting and calls for us to fight for the essential values of our country. It appeals to the better part of us, a call to fix things, not bash Bush. In that way, it is like his 1971 speech, that ended on an idealist note.

I think that's why when he finished, people stood and clapped for several minutes as Kerry waved to people in the various areas of the room and then moved into the aisle to leave (mobbed by people). After he left, people slowly left the room. There really was a sense that he had said so much that needed to be said and there was no reason to say more (even to other Kerrycrats) other than "he was awesome".

[ProSense]

7. Too much snark for me

I hate to harp, but even the title "The Real John Kerry Finally Stands Up" is snarky.

The Faneuil Hall crowd was his crowd but the standing ovations were more than perfunctory. Kerry disappointed many Democrats in 2002 by voting to give the President the authority to go to war and kept frustrating them during his campaign with tortured answers on what the policy should be. But Saturday, he knocked it out of the ballpark as he brought his life and the two wars which define him into sync.

Kerry has the opportunity to lead a movement once again - not by using this as a campaign jumpoff, but by rallying a very angry public to force a change in policy. Richard Nixon worried about Kerry's potential as a leader back in the 70s; maybe the new Kerry will finally prove him right.

Seriously this is BS.

I just reread the Boyce piece from Huff. There are a lot of praise in both these article, but way too much spin.

JMO

[karynnj]

10. I take that more as their unwillingness to

take full responsibility for their own complicity in not doing a decent job covering the campaign. Imagine how a media person feels, not seeing clearly that Bush really is a disaster for the country and that Kerry really is the hero and leader he has always been.

What Kerry needed to do was to be seen as a "new" Kerry, just as there was supposedly a "new" Nixon. In that case as well it was a new take by the press - Nixon was the same surly, paranoid man he always was. In Kerry's case, it's easier than admitting the truth - they pushed a very flawed man while acting as an uncritical conduit for lies and smears against one of the most principled, decent men who ever ran for President.

I agree that the snark is uncalled for - I missed most of it probably because it is so common.

By the way, thanks for the Globe Judy Droz article. The comment that only Kerry kept in touch with the family was another of the many examples which show how deeply connected and committed to people Kerry was and is.

[ProSense]

11. Call it saving face

Believe me, I welcome these articles, but I can't overlook the snark. The context in which the SBVT is mentioned (see spin post above) wasn't needed. End the sentence with "veterans."

The "new" Kerry is worse because it implies that he did not exist during the campaign.

I know Kerry (like most people) will learn from whatever mistakes he believes he has made, but it's spin to imply that he is finding himself after all these years (the implication being since 1971).

A lot of journalist and pundits were complicit and trying to save face now doesn't absolve them of that. I'm not saying they shouldn't be forgiven, but why should they be excluded from having to admit to their mistakes? They're calling on everyone else to admit theirs.

[karynnj]

12. I totally agree

Also, Kerry himself has done a good job proving that he did do and say things that they claim he didn't. (Oddly the RNC is helping him!)

Your point on the SBVT is totally on target - as it implicitly sets them up as representative of veterans instead of political hack liars. I also agree that at some point, journalists need to admit their mistakes (and some things that went beyond mistakes.) They've gone step 1, admitting how bad Bush is. They still seem reluctant on step 2, really telling the truth about Kerry. After that, step 3, admitting they wittingly participated in protecting Bush may happen, but likely only from the most honest.

I really wonder what Kerry will say at Kenyon College, where some students stayed in line for 10 hours to vote. He is their commencement speaker. Given where and to whom the speech is given to this could also be a pretty inspiring speech. (It will also show that the 60,000 votes may have been lost to suppression - which is fundamentally wrong.)

[TayTay]

13. Nice observation Karyn

That speech on May 20th does bear watching. I wonder if there will be a video feed of that anywhere.

[beachmom]

14. Here is that NYT op-ed (Errol Morris) miraculously not behind the firewall

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18morris.html?ei=5090&en=48fc3e0fa6dfb6c5&ex=1263790800&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=

Where's the Rest of Him?
By ERROL MORRIS

Published: January 18, 2005

SO why is George W. Bush taking the oath of office this week and not John Kerry? For me, the answer is clear: Mr. Kerry failed because of his inability to tell his own story. John Kerry could have presented to the American people his full biography, but instead he chose to edit who he was. Why?

My guess is that Mr. Kerry and his campaign believed that certain things could not be mentioned. Foremost among these was Mr. Kerry's opposition to the war in Vietnam, which was largely erased from the candidate's life. That was a mistake. People think in narratives - in beginnings, middles and ends. The danger when you edit something too severely is that it no longer makes sense; worse still, it leaves people with the disquieting impression that something is being hidden.

snip

To me, John Kerry's heroism encompassed both his actions in combat and his willingness to change his mind and stand up for what he thought was right. He realized that soldiers and civilians were dying in a war that wasn't accomplishing its objectives. Yet he never tied this crucial piece of his biography into his campaign for the presidency. And in failing to do so, he left a blank space in his personal story - a blank space that made it possible for the criticisms of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be alarmingly effective.

By implying that his real heroism was fighting in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry also left himself open to the charge that he was somehow inauthentic. Americans have a complicated relationship with their military heroes: we expect them not to talk about their heroism. War heroes, in real life and in the movies, rarely speak about their courage in battle. Eisenhower didn't. Nor did Kennedy, Bob Dole, or the president's father.

Now I may take a few hits from some of you here for reposting this, but when I read this the first time, not every word of this op-ed, but the fundamental principle, that Dem operatives had deleted half of Kerry's Vietnam service, felt like the truth. John Kerry has been non-stop talking about "telling the truth", and I think he wasn't just talking about the WH or the Pentagon but of himself, too. That speech on Saturday was his response to that gnawing feeling of something amiss described in this op-ed. This op-ed was the best criticism I have read of the campaign; everything else is secondary as far as mistakes (he talked about the strategic mistake of the general election public money, but I'm talking about the soul of the campaign, not strategy/tactics). How he felt about Iraq was said very truthfully during the campaign, but it failed to make sense if you didn't know his whole story. That's why we easily see that he's not a "flip flopper" while most people out there and ignorant lefties in here failed to see that.

That's why he gave such an unbelievable delivery on Saturday, why the crowd went wild, why the words just jumped off the page, and penetrated through those old walls of Boston history. Not to get religious here, but didn't Jesus say "The Truth will set you free". John Kerry has cast away any tethers placed on him about his dissent of the Vietnam War. He will not just free himself but the Democratic Party, too -- if they will let him.

[Dr Ron]

15. There is some truth to the criticism

Those who claim Kerry supported the war are way off, but those who note the difference in style are correct.

It did hurt Kerry to have to tone down his opposition to Iraq and ignore his history of protesting Vietnam. This may have been justified post 9/11, but it still hurt him and having to campaign as he did could have contributed to the feeling that Kerry lacked a message. (Of course the Republicans would have claimed this regardless, and the media would still not have let the true Kerry through).

I do think it will be helpful for Kerry now that he can outright campaign against the war and bring up his Vietnam protests in a positive manner. Hopefully some of the critics on the left will judge Kerry by his overall career and not by the compromises which may have been needed to run in 2004.

[ProSense]

16. I don't agree

It did hurt Kerry to have to tone down his opposition to Iraq and ignore his history of protesting Vietnam.

How much more critical can one be than "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?"

Despite the media's cynicism, even the MSM has often framed Kerry, in its snark, as one of Bush's strongest critics on the Iraq war, and they still do. A few such articles were just posted here. Even the RNC response to his speech support his relentless criticisms of Bush on Iraq.

The toning down of his anti war remarks was all part of the media spin aiding the prevailing smear. The NYT even printed a piece claiming Kerry said he committed atrocities. The fact is the SBVT smear was about Kerry's anti-war activities using lies about his service to denounce his testimony.

The issue was everywhere during the campaign, and the responses were not all about his service, they also included his comments and his rebuttal of the the documentary about his anti war activities. The responses were also by people who stood up for his service and remarks.

So to say that he ignored this during the campaign is false, he couldn't. This was a nasty campaign and the climate was mostly created by the legitimization of the attackers by the media. When he did speak, it was mostly reported couched in SBVT crap.

Dem operatives impact on the campaign cannot be determined by MSM reporting.


Edited for spelling and grammar.

[Dr Ron]

18. Still toned down

I agree that Kerry criticized the war far more than he is given credit for, but I still think he was attacking the war wtih one hand tied behind his back.

His anti-war activities were brought up by others and were not a part of his history the campaign wanted to discuss. This was not necessarily wrong in the post 9/11 climate, but having to do this affected how Kerry portrayed himself. I think this is a factor which hurt and no longer having to tone down his opposition to Iraq/Vietnam will help him in the future.

[ProSense]

19. I understand the sentiment, but

if the prevailing climate in post 9/11 America was fueling American's support for the war, how did the "toning" down opposition to the war hurt?

What 9/11 did was bring patriotism in a time of war to the forefront, which is exactly the sentiment that the SBVT played on: patriotism (questioning Kerry's).

[Dr Ron]

21. Hurt in campaign style

I'm not questioning the decision to tone this down. I'm saying that having to do this affected Kerry's style and contributed to some of the feelings about him. If Kerry could have said what he really thought, he likely would have lost votes in 2004, but would have been perceived as a stronger campaigner. It would also have been more difficult to stick him with the flip flop charges--bugt they would have still done it. Not having to tone down what he says will help him campaign in the future.

[beachmom]

22. I'm kind of with Dr. Ron here

My Dad is an Independent voter, probably more libertarian. He's voted for Dems and Republicans. He voted for * in '00 (a VERY sore subject for him). He was EXTREMELY against the Iraq War. After the election, he said that Kerry had the unenviable position to have to win the votes of two groups of voters looking for different things:

Group 1: TOTALLY against the war from the start
Group 2: For the war, but unhappy with how * prosecuted it

There certainly wasn't a huge "Out now" constituency at that time. I was in Group 1 but I did not favor pulling troops out in '04, because I thought we should fix what we broke, and felt Kerry was the man to do it. So Kerry was handicapped by that voting reality, and it did make his position look muddy. But he came pretty damned close to winning which cannot be ignored.

My criticism was that he should have defended, early in the campaign, his war protest of Vietnam -- that withdrawal from Vietnam in fact strengthened America, since the Berlin Wall came down 14 years later. The backlash people have been allowed to rewrite history -- that somehow losing the Vietnam War was a great shame and weakened the national security of America, when in fact it stopped the shaming of America and laid the groundwork for winning the Cold War. This blisters away in one full swoop the "Democrats are weak on national security because they were against the Vietnam War". This needs to be repeated over and over again, until the people learn their damned history.

[ProSense]

24. Why was his

his position muddy since he never said out now? Every position Kerry took during the campaign laid out steps to draw down the troops leading to full withdrawal. The current ultimatum is the first time he has said out now.

The reason there was a group two was because they were still buying into Bush's justification of the war. For them it wasn't about withdrawal or "wrong war," it was about fighting a better war. Many have now come to see that this was the wrong position.

Ron says, "he likely would have lost votes in 2004, but would have been perceived as a stronger campaigner." I really don't see how this would have helped in 2004 or 2008.

[Dr Ron]

25. Look at the reception to Saturday's speech

There are two separate things here--what he says and how he says it. I'd dealing purely with how he says it but I think you are analyzing this based upon what he said. (As for what he should of said--it is difficult to know for sure how a more open attack on the war would have been received.)

When not restrained, as he was in the campaign, Kerry comes off as much more forceful and less nuanced. I think that the impression that he was nuanced came partially due to his need to tone down his opposition ot the war and his Vietnam history. Not having to do this will help him make more speeches which will be received like Satuday's was.

[beachmom]

26. Interesting points, guys

I think in a way (now that I'm thinking about it), you're both right. Kerry did say everything Prosense said, so that intellectually, we could defend him and his consistent position on Iraq -- that it was wrong to go in when and how * did even though Kerry thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, that the * administration had made collossal errors at every step of the way, and then Kerry had that 4 point plan:

1. Have elections
2. Get the international community involved
3. Train Iraqis
4. Rebuild the country

I have to admit, Prosense, that I don't recall him talking about withdrawing troops during the campaign -- oh wait, did he say something like if we did those 4 steps, we could start withdrawing within 6 months?

But going back to Ron's point about style, there is something to that. Although I loved Kerry's acceptance speech, I liked this speech even BETTER. I've watched it twice and when he talks about how we need credibility in the world now (something he said about a million times during the campaign), there was emotion and urgency in his voice that I most completely connected with. Before it was more cerebral. But the way he framed the whole thing and then the way he said it told you more than anything how much he meant it.

Oh, heck, Prosense -- watch the speech again, that part was so amazing, and I didn't hear that sound in his voice before. But it is because he finally put the two stories together -- Vietnam and Iraq -- that made it all so incredible. We need people to see that speech!!

[ProSense]

27. I agree.

This is a different time. Nothing can take away from the fact that this was a great and historic speech, and Kerry delivered it with great passion.

[karynnj]

28. Interesting discussion from the 3 of you

I agree that Kerry was more compelling, both intellectually and emotionally in Saturday's speech than I have ever heard him - which takes a lot. The way the ideas in that speech weave together in so many ways combining the two wars, American history, personal values is utterly amazing.

I agree with Beachmom's father's analysis - and would further say that Kerry in fact had to work harder to get some group 2 people. There is no way an anti-war person really thought the 2 were equivilent. Kerry needed to say he wouldn't go to war needlessly (for group 1), but he had to say thet if it came down to it - he would and could lead the nation in war. The latter was needed even for some in group 1. (Oddly Ron is right that he seemed more forceful in Saturday's speech. Even as he spoke of saying we need to get out, you could picture a President Kerry solumly addressing the nation, honestly explaining the need to go to war even as he worked to avoid it.)

In the first debate, in an obviously coached attack, Bush demanded that Kerry answer how he could lead a war that he disagreed with and asked whether he thought it was a "mistake". The fact that there is no rational logic to Bush's argument (I cleaned up food my kids knocked to the floor when they were in high chairs, though I personally didn't agree that throwing it there in the first place was a good idea and I was more capable in terms of being able to clean it up.), but there was an emotional argument there. (and the "mistake" part was added for obvious reasons)

I'm not sure being seen as a more powerful campaigner would have helped - or even happened. I saw the October CSPAN rallies, Kerry was intensely charismatic and there was excitement - but the media filtered it out. I really don't see how those events could have been that much more intense. If he was perceived as a fantasic campaigner and lost, the charge would be he was too far outside the mainstream.

[fedupinBushcountry]

17. There was a clip

somewhere I think at a bicycle event in Mass. for cancer survivors, after the election, Kerry said he was free to say whatever.

I think many held him back, and it could of been because of the post 9/11 feeling, but also at the time the war was not opposed as much as it is today. Much of what is out now was suppressed by the Bush campaign during the campaign. It is hard to tell what would have made a difference, or if he did speak would the results still be the same.

He wanted to speakout to the SBliars, but he was held back, but he did speak out against them when they first attacked him in the spring and at that time, the primaries were still going on, and the Dem establishment had not been a part of his campaign.

All and all, I think he knows who, why and what made a difference and the next time will be totally different. He really doesn't need to change much, but what he does do will probably show his lessons learned.

[ginnyinWI]

23. the country is in a very different place now than 2003-4

We have to remember this when going back to analyze. I saw some old video on Cspan3 not long ago, dating back to 2003 about a month after the invasion, and the difference is striking. Everybody was so optimistic about it, treating it as another Desert Storm-type operation--short and sweet. How little they really knew! Those of us on the left need to remember that although we may have been against it all along, most people, maybe 80% of the country were okay with it and believed it was justified by all of the WH's lies and distortions. And it has been a long, slow process for the public sentiment to flip--three years later we finally have a clear majority, with even the MSM acknowledging it. So I can understand how the Kerry campaign had to walk on eggshells about the war--and how the issue got muddied up.

It was still possible to know Kerry's full story, if you wanted to look. In September 2003 I didn't even know John Kerry existed. By January 2004 I knew all of the main events in his life story--probably through the Kerry blog, plus little bits I saw on TV. Later, Frontline had a pretty thorough bio, as did CNN and MSNBC. So if people wanted to know, they could. It just wasn't front and center in the media all of the time. His protest of the Vietnam war was the one thing in his bio, more than any other, that made me trust that the negative stereotypes about him could not be true (a phoney, a liberal elitist, S&B, out-of-touch) and moved me decidedly into his camp!

[ray of light]

30. thanks for the links.

You always can find such wonderful gems. I hope you're posting your favorites on the empowerment thread.