Tag Archives: John Kerry

Posted on by

The Times’ write-up of tonight’s debate suggests that Kerry and Edwards, both of whom oppose both gay marriage and a constitutional ammendment to ban it, chose to stake out less than bold stances on the issue:

“What’s happening here is this president is talking about, first, amending the United States Constitution for a problem that does not exist,” Mr. Edwards said. “The law today does not require one state to recognize the marriage of another state.”

Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, attacked Mr. Bush for raising the issue in the first place.

“He’s trying to polarize the nation,” Mr. Kerry said. “He’s trying to divide America. You know, this is a president who always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator of American politics, because he can’t come to America and talk about jobs.”

Needless to say, being told that your rights needn’t be excised from the constitution because they don’t yet pose much of a threat of being realized anyway is, one suspects, less than comforting to millions of gay couples in this country. And while there is of course truth in the oft-repeated argument that the Republicans exploit social issues to distract people from their economic interests, you don’t win people over to your side by telling them that your stance on the issue isn’t something they should be concerned about. Kerry deserves credit for voting against the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was good to see Edwards try to position himself to Kerry’s left on the issue by offering greater certainty that he would vote against it today, but there remains a serious lack of moral leadership on this issue.

Kerry was right on target, on the other hand, on the death penalty, saying pretty much exactly (with the exception of his support for executing convicted terrorists) what every Democratic candidate should when asked why he wouldn’t want to see perpetrators of heinous murderers killed:

“My instinct is to want to strangle that person with my own hands,” he said. “I understand the instincts, I really do.” He added: “I prosecuted people. I know what the feeling of the families is and everybody else.

“But we have 111 people who have been now released from death row ? death row, let alone the rest of the prison system ? because of DNA evidence that showed they didn’t commit the crime of which they were convicted.”

Edwards, unfortunately, took this one as a chance to move to Kerry’s right.

Then there’s this troubling continuation of Kerry’s muddled record on trade:

On trade, Mr. Kerry was asked to square his support for inexpensive clothes and goods from overseas for consumers with his support for labor unions seeking better wages and job protections.

“Some jobs we can’t compete with,” he said. “I understand that. But most jobs we can.” Mr. Edwards seized the issue, as he sought to draw a sharp a contrast by noting different votes the two men have cast on trade pacts over the years.

Kerry did get something else right though:

Mr. Kerry was then asked to name a quality of Mr. Edwards’s that he wished he had himself, but appeared not to entirely grasp the question. “I think he’s a great communicator,” Mr. Kerry said. “He’s a charming guy.”

Looking at the transcipt, Sharpton effectively called Edwards on his support for the PATRIOT ACT:

I don’t see how anyone that supports civil rights could support the Patriot Act. You talk about a difference of direction, Senator Edwards, the Patriot Act…The Patriot Act that you supported is J. Edgar Hoover’s dream. It’s John Ashcroft’s dream. We have police misconduct problems in California, Ohio, Georgia, New York, right now…And your legislation helps police get more power. So I think that we’ve got to really be honest if we’re talking about change. Change how, and for who? That’s why I am in this race.

And he provided the needed historical perspective on gay marriage:

I think is not an issue any more of just marriage. This is an issue of human rights. And I think it is dangerous to give states the right to deal with human rights questions.

And Kucinich (who, incidentally, captured 30% of the vote for second place in Hawaii) tried, with limited success, to focus the debate on the policy differences between the four candidates rather than the personal differences between two of them:

I think the American people tonight will be well- served if we can describe, for example, why we all aren’t for a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system. I think the American people will be well-served if we can describe why, for example, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are not for canceling NAFTA and the WTO, as I would do, because that is how you save the manufacturing jobs. And I think they’d be well-served if they would be able to see the connection, as I will just explain, between the cost of the war in Iraq and cuts in health care, education, job creation, veterans’ benefits, housing programs. See, this debate ought to be about substantive differences which we do have.

And I have the greatest respect for Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry, but we have substantive differences along these lines that I think it would help to explicate here tonight.

He hit this one just right:

Well, I’m glad to point out something that all those people who don’t have health insurance and all those people who have seen their premiums go up 50 percent in the last three years already understand. And that is that Washington right now is controlled by the insurance interests and by the pharmaceutical companies. And our party, our Democratic Party four years ago, John and John, I went to our Democratic platform committee with a proposal for universal single-payer health care. And it was quickly shot down because it offended some of the contributors to our party.

I just want to state something: We must be ready to take up this challenge of bringing health care to all the American people. And that’s what I’m asking everyone here to make a commitment to. Single payer…

Posted on by

Clintonista Sidney Blumenthal wants John Kerry to sue Rupert Murdoch’s British Sun for libel for printing Matt Drudge’s Kerry intern flap. The journalistic merits of Drudge and Murdoch aside, this is yet another example of the tremendous potential for abuse under Britain’s perverse libel laws, which render those who print objectionable speech guilty until proven innocent. If Blumenthal were a true progressive, and not simply a partisan Clintonista, he would recognize that censorship – even when directed at the powerful and those who carry water for them – always comes back to hurt the most vulnerable.

Posted on by

Dean’s speech tonight – while more faltering than usual for him – resoundingly articulated the lasting legacy of his campaign: a stronger, more combative, more visionary Democratic party. He also talked a lot in the past tense about the campaign, and quite vaguely in the future tense. “We are not done yet.”

Edwards found the perfect soundbyte to celebrate his surge while spinning Kerry’s narrow win: “Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.” And he does a tremendous job of looking like he doesn’t expect the applause but is happy to go along with it.

Kerry’s right to focus, in his speech now, forward on his vision for the country and to direct his anger at the sitting President. “Some of us know something about aircraft carriers for real.” And here come the three words again… There they are. He’s still a less than inspiring speaker though.

Posted on by

CNN has Edwards narrowly ahead of Kerry, 40 to 37%, in Wisconsin, having gained substantially from support among independents. Dean is hovering in the teens. Edwards just gave a good performance on CNN. As before, he’s emphasizing his record on his trade and his personal background as his major differences with Kerry. He struck a charismatic balance between looking forward to “a two man race” and expressing praise for the voices Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton have brought to the table, and respect for their right to stay in as far as July.

As I’ve mentioned before, I think the conventional wisdom, expressed on CNN by both Bob Dole and George Mitchell, that the Democrats are stronger with a short primary is off the mark, as I think Dubya’s falling approval ratings over this contested primary have shown. A longer primary is certainly better for the left, as it helps keep the candidates honest and accountable.

Posted on by

I thought Howard Dean’s Meet the Press interview this morning was in large part quite good. He was forthright in assessing what went wrong in Iowa and New Hampshire –

We spent a lot of money in Iowa and New Hampshire trying to win. We’re were trying to do essentially what John Kerry is now doing. We were planning on trying to get a huge momentum out of Iowa and it didn’t work…We really wanted to try to capitalize on the momentum that we had. And when things started going south after the campaign got really rough in Iowa, because when you’re the front-runner of course, everybody’s whacking you every day, we got in a fight with Dick Gephardt and we both ended up third and fourth instead of first and second…It was my fault. We knew what we were doing, we took a gamble, and it didn’t pay off.

– and how the campaign lost stream:

There are a lot of analyses of what went wrong in our campaign…The best one, though, was an article in The New York Times which said that the campaign was so much about message that I forgot that it has to be about me, too, that people have to like you if they want to make you president of the United States. And I think there’s some truth to that.

I think Dean’s right that there’s some truth in that – people want a trustee as well as a delegate in Washington. I also think, though, that voters want someone who’ll fight for them, and that just as few organizing conversations are successful if you’re not convinced the organizer is willing to argue with you and change your mind, few candidates win voters’ faith for the general election if they aren’t seen fighting to win the primary.

He also used that moment as a chance to defend the increasing visibility of his wife:

That’s why I asked Judy to come out on the campaign trail, who incidentally had such a good time the other day, yesterday, which was our anniversary, she had volunteered to come again, much to my astonishment. But that’s why I asked Judy to come out, at Senator Harkin’s wife’s suggestion, so that people would get to know me…She’s not a prop. I always said when we first ran, I promised I would never–I mean, I didn’t promise, but I knew I would never use her as a prop, but I do think that people have to know something about Judy to know something about me. It’s the person I married; it’s my life partner…They have to get to know Judy, and I actually think, which is a funny thing to say after two years on the road, that people don’t feel like they know me that well and I’ve got to figure out a way to let them do that more.

I think in large part my feeling on this comes down to agency – is she there because she wants to be? And that, of course, is impossible to assess.

Looks like this will be Dean’s stance on Roy Neel’s corporate background:

First of all–Roy Neel hasn’t been a Washington lobbyist for four years, first of all. Secondly, he was Al Gore’s chief of staff; he was Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and he’s a great organizer and he’s a good guy…[Neel] has not been in the lobbying business for four years. He’s been a college professor. And I think he’s been good for the campaign and he’ll continue to be good for the campaign…He did exactly what he was supposed to do and didn’t break any–not only didn’t break any laws, he didn’t break any ethics guidelines…What I want is a–and what we have–we have not changed what we’re doing in this campaign a bit. We’re getting enormous support still from the grassroots. It does help to have somebody who knows something about how to run campaigns organizing your campaign. It had been my hope that Joe would stay on, because he’s such a brilliant strategist and he built the campaign, and I think that would have been a tremendous team to have Roy running the inside stuff in the campaign, making sure that the trains ran on time, and having Joe’s brilliant strategy from the outside…

Not terribly convincing, but that’s because he’s defending a move that’s quite difficult to come up with a coherent and credible defense for. Someone should definitely tell the Governor to forswear the expression “making sure that the trains run on time” unless he really wants to make us think about the major benefit of fascism. He does make a good case against the current frontrunner:

…that is a very different thing than taking $650,000 of special-interest money after you claim that you don’t and you’re railing against special interests, as Senator Kerry has and as George Bush–what George Bush has done is much, much worse than what Senator Kerry did. The only thing that bothered me about John Kerry is that his whole campaign, which borrowed from me, was “Well, we’re going to get the special interests out of Washington.” Come to find out, he’s taken more special-interest money in the last 15 years than any other senator…We have 11 percent of our contributions of $2,000 checks; 89 percent is less than that, and that’s not true of any other candidate running for the presidency.

Dean also defended his critique of the DLC:

As you know, Tim, I don’t take it lightly when people go after me and eventually I’m going to respond. Look, eventually we’re going to need the Democratic Leadership Council in order to beat George Bush. We’re going to need every single Democrat that we can possibly get. But, you know, I don’t lie down in front of people who want to run me over with a steamroller.

And he slammed Bush on pre-war intelligence:

The president was not truthful with the American people about why we went into Iraq. Now, we don’t know why he wasn’t truthful. We don’t know if he was given bad information which he passed along to the country or if he and the administration at the highest levels decided to manipulate the intelligence reports. We don’t know. But we do know that most of the things the president said about why we were going into Iraq were not true…It is true that Saddam Hussein committed genocide. That was under President Bush the first’s watch…

And he tried to distinguish himself from other candidates as an economic realist:

There was no middle-class tax cut in this country. There was a huge middle-class tax increase because of the fiscal policies of George Bush. So for John Kerry to get upset that I want to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts is ridiculous…You know what I’m going to say? I’m going to say, “Mr. President, most people in this country would gladly pay the same taxes they paid under Bill Clinton if they could only have the same economy they had under Bill Clinton.”

Me, I’d rather have a tax structure, entitlement system, and economy like we had under FDR – or even, say, Nixon.

Dean also argued that voters would accept higher prices at Wal-Mart from fair trade policy:

Well, you know what they get in return? American jobs stop going overseas, illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle because people are going to make money in their own countries instead of having to come here to feed their families. And you get much better world security because you develop middle classes in developing countries. I think that’s a pretty good tradeoff.

And he slammed the jobless recovery:

No jobs. Where are the jobs? The 1,000 jobs created in December? This president is the first president since Herbert Hoover who has a net loss of jobs. You know, you can talk about all the numbers you want on the front page of the newspaper, but until your neighbor has a job, and you’re not worried about losing your health insurance, the economy has not turned up.

He also reminded progressives like myself why we should be anxious about him:

You can have health insurance for every American, which costs exactly the same amount as we’re putting into Iraq every year now. But you cannot have family leave and all this other list of things.

Dean called the leadership of the NRA “nuts” but argued that being endorsed by the NRA for Governor will help him more than it’ll hurt him:

Now, look, I’m not going to get the NRA endorsement [for President] because I do support the assault weapons ban and I do support background checks and extending it to instant background checks to gun shows laws, but nobody is going to be able to push me around and say that I’m for registration or all that stuff which they’re going to do for all the other Democrats because I was endorsed eight times by the National Rifle Association when I was governor of Vermont. That stuff matters. That’s an electability issue.

What I wish he – or any of the Democratic candidates – would say is that guns should be regulated because they’re dangerous, but the way to stop urban crime is through massive investment in jobs, education, and income support. But then again, I’m no fiscal conservative.

Dean handled the “scream” pretty much just right:

I was having a great time. Are you kidding? Look at the expression on my face. I’ve never had so much fun…You know, I never lost my temper once in 12 years at any staff member when I was in the Legislature, although I did blow up at a few legislators from time to time. This is ridiculous.

And he promised to stay in the race as long he’s viable:

I’m not going to do anything that’s going to harm the Democratic Party if we get blown out again and again and again. You know, if somebody else gets more delegates and they clinch it, of course, I’m not going to go all the way to the convention just to prove a point. But I’m going to be in this race as long as I think I can win.

Posted on by

David Corn slams Howard Dean over Roy Neel:

There has always been a disconnect in the Dean campaign between the man and the movement. If two years ago someone cooked up the idea to create a progressive, reform-minded grassroots crusade that would focus on harnessing “people power” to confront Washington’s money-and-power culture and a leader for such an effort was needed, Dean’s name would not have jumped to mind. Senator Paul Wellstone maybe, not Dean. Yet thousands of Americans were yearning for such an endeavor, and Dean found a way to tap into their desires. It was not the most natural or conventional of couplings, but it happened. And he was propelled to the front of the presidential pack.

Is Dean filing for divorce?

Maybe what we’re seeing here is the Kerry, Edwards, and Clark campaigns becoming more like Dean’s just at the point at which his is becoming more like theirs…

Posted on by

I’ve got to say – the more I read like this, the more sympathetic the guy becomes:

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman’s money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn’t they nominate someone who hasn’t been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?

Read: Manly men don’t need help from women. And rich women should know better than to marry beneath their class. At least Ann never claimed to be a “compassionate conservative.”

Posted on by

A few last thoughts on the South Carolina Democratic Debate:

Sharpton is absolutely right to question why for the poor to die for their country abroad is an “honor,” but for the rich to pay taxes is a “burden,” and to call for a less regressive payroll tax.

I’m not sure what Dean was trying to pull off with his critique of Kerry’s failed healthcare bills – it felt overly self-conscious and affected, even grasping. Kerry wasn’t particularly smooth in responding, but came off better over all in that exchange.

I wish I could say that Lieberman’s touting welfare reform as the sort of “bipartisan accomplishment” he’d continue lost him my vote, but clearly he never had it in the first place. I do find it sad that the welfare system has been completely off the radar of these debates.

I was glad to see Kerry get called on what Brooks called the “inner Moynihan” of some of his ’90s rhetoric. He came off quite defensive responding to a statement of his on affirmative action, and preached fealty to the “mend it, don’t end it” stance multiple times without allaying any fears about what kind of mending he plans to do.

Posted on by

Watching the Democratic Debate now. A couple thoughts so far:

Somewhat should ask Joe Lieberman what it means to be “strong on values.” Also, what it would mean to be weak on values, which of his competitors are weak on values, and whether the Bush administration could be characterized as “strong on values.”

Glad to see David Kay’s charges getting some play here, given the way they’ve been underplayed by the media – or arguably overshadowed by the primaries. Dean is right to point the finger at Cheney, and Kerry did a deft job of avoiding either disputing or echoing his charge. I’m not sure what Edwards has in mind when he calls for a comission organized not by Congress but by “us, the people,” although I’m all for it. Also, Edwards is in Congress too…

Sharpton has joined Kucinich in calling for everyone to stay in for a long race to mobilize all their constituencies. I think there’s a strong case for that. Also, he’s right to point out that unlike John Edwards’ dad, his couldn’t have gotten a job as a mill worker.

Posted on by

It’s difficult to picture this being a good move for Howard Dean. Joe Trippi, by most accounts, deserves a great deal of the credit for infusing the Dean campaign with an organizing approach that the Democrats have largely forgotten over the past couple decades, and by all accounts was central to Dean’s tremendous rise over the past year. Replacing him with a Gore operative, further, risks the appearance or worse the reality of trying to reassure voters by embracing the establishment that’s disenfranchised so many of them from the process. When Gore endorsed Dean I argued that it demonstrated more about Gore and his recognition of the failures of his “lockbox” campaign than about Dean; it would be a shame if Dean plans to regain his lead by becoming Al Gore circa 2000. Or, for that matter, John Kerry circa 2003.

Posted on by

This is good news for Kerry, of course, who goes into February 2 two for two. Also for Clark, who seized that third metaphorical ticket out of New Hampshire that pundits at least seem to think is important, and more importantly avoided that fifth-place standing that looked like a real possibility given reports about his machine on the ground. Good news also, I’d argue, for Dean, the only candidate to run in both Iowa and New Hampshire and rank higher this time, and faces two candidates sharing the top three with him in New Hampshire – Kerry and Clark – who are struggling for the same electable-veteran niche.

Posted on by

My predictions for tomorrow:

Kerry comes in first, simply because Dean hasn’t had enough time to catch up after recovering from whatever combination of his combative stance in Iowa/ his overly-apologetic response to his combative stance in Iowa/ his insufficiently apologetic response to his combative stance in Iowa/ media harping on an imagined combative stance in Iowa/ some combination of the above one may choose to blame for the beating he took in the polls in the past week. Dean comes in second and he and Kerry both pitch themselves as comeback kids; Kerry as usual finds the media more credulous than Dean. Dean comes in closer to Kerry than to the Edwards, who comes in third behind him, lacking the committed and organized constituencies Kerry and Dean have mobilized. Clark does not much, if any, better than he’s been expected to the past few days, and likely even worse – in any case drastically worse than he was expected to a few weeks ago before Kerry stole his part as the anointed “Anti-Dean” and his campaign fumbled and failed to advance a coherent vision or take advantage of what could have been a real head start to build a machine in New Hampshire. If Clark does particularly badly, he strikes me as more likely than any of the other candidates to drop out shortly after, thus ending further embarassment and leaving his Presidential run as a whimsical coda on what many see as an accomplished career as a military public servant. Lieberman does worse than Clark, claims that he exceeded expectations, and argues that Kerry and Dean are both soft on defense and that only he represents a real choice between extremists. Kucinich does much better than Sharpton.