Wednesday, January 24, 2007
# Posted 9:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
I know that everyone, myself included, has sort of treated Kerry's 2008 aspirations as a bit absurd and under the circumstances it's probably better that he spare himself the humiliation. That said, it seems to me that there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Mark Warner would actually do a better job of being president and at least a some reason to think Kerry (who, after all, has dramatically more experience in governing) would be better than any of them.True, although Kerry didn't seem confident in his decades of Senate experience to actually talk about it on the campaign trail.
On a related note, Josh Marshall adds:
I think he ran a much better campaign than the conventional wisdom now allows. But for all that, I'm very glad to hear he's not going to mount another campaign in 2008...Obviously, I won't be crying any crocodile tears in response to Kerry's departure. But I agree with Josh that Kerry ran a much better campaign than he was given credit for. The fact is, the loser gets blamed even if the party as a whole is responsible. (11) opinions -- Add your opinion
In 2004 from the outset Kerry campaigned only in those 12-15 states which were close. His strategy was to try to win in the electoral college, and he probably felt sure he would lose the popular vote. He did, by 3.5 million. But he came within a few tens of thousands in Ohio of winning the presidency. In this strategy he was very clever indeed, and far ahead of many other Democrats who were critical of him about it. I think he recognized from the getgo that a majority of American presidential voters are no longer Democrats.
Once again history softens the hard edges, just like how Ford was apparently the greatest president ever, but nobody knew. Kerry ran a horrible campaign, and I'm convinced he would have been a terrible president. Does anyone believe that Kerry picked Edwards because the truly though he was up to the job? One only needs to read the newseek special report written by the embedded reports in both Bush and Kerry camps. Bottom line, is that Kerry could NOT make a decision to save his life! I felt sorry for him reading that article. It makes you want to slap him. I'm not sure if the Senate made him that way, or if he was always that way. I suspect the former.
What I always admired about Kerry was the fact that he insisted on running a more fair and respectable campaign than Bush and Rove. Yes, he went duck hunting, but he didn't resort to the sort of slanderous attacks that have become the norm in modern politics. He may not have won, but he lost with dignity.
Jerry Ford was one of our worst presidents, not least for standing in the way of Ronald Reagan in 1976, which prolonged the cold war by four years and also ushered in all the Carter judges. Ford failed to decontrol wellhead prices of natural gas when he had the chance, and signed foot-in-the-door federal aid to urban mass transit, and loved federal-aid-to-education, etc. I'm sure he was an excellent scoutmaster and would have made a fine trustee for your children, but as president he was a failure. After he died the liberals made a big fuss over him because he supposedly was opposed to the Iraq war--that was later denied, but denials never catch up with charges in the liberal media.
Kerry might've won if he hadn't been sabotaged repeatedly by his Clintonista advisors and staff. Everytime he tried to distance himself from past mistakes, the Clintonistas would bring them right back up on the talkshows.
While this is obviously my opinion, I felt that the fact that Kerry refused to respond to the more...base criticism offered by Rove & his allies("flip flopper" questioning his patriotism and war record, etc) and his stated refusal to use similar tactics was admirable. Conversely, The main criticism of how Kerry's campaign was run usually implies that this was a weakness (how many times has Biden said that Kerry should have snapped back, for example). So that's my reasoning for saying that Kerry ran a less slanderous campaign. Not saying it was the best way to win, but it seemed better than what the other guys resorted to.
The last time the Democrats renominated a failed previous nominee was Steveson in 1956 - 51 years ago. The Republicans make their Presidential nominees go through the hazing process several times before being selected the nominee. Not the Democrats. Once you fail, you never get a second chance.Post a Comment
Danny L. McDaniel