In an interesting interview with Newsweek, John Kerry finally speaks to the press. It was also referenced on Tim Russert's Meet the Press this morning as well, as Evan Thomas was a guest. While there is no earth shattering news here, we could not help but remain astounded at Kerry's misunderstanding of himself and his campaign. He still doesn't seem to get it. He is NOT the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, or hope to offer in 2008. But to read the comments in the transcript published on MSNBC.COM, he still has it in his head that he would be his party's number one choice in the next election. Go figure. Here is an excerpt from the MSNBC summary of the article by Evan Thomas of Newsweek.
...Despite, or because of, a somewhat stoical and severe New England upbringing, Kerry has a tendency to natter at his subordinates, to blame everyone but himself. ("Did he whine?" was the first question one senior Kerry aide asked of the NEWSWEEK reporter who had recently been to see Kerry.) On this damp November evening, he appeared alone in the house; he answered the door and showed his visitor into a cozy, book-lined drawing room. His face was deeply lined, his eyes drooped, he looked like he hadn't slept in about two years. But his manner was resolute, his mood seemed calm, even chipper.
Why did he lose? Kerry points to history and, in a somewhat inferential, roundabout way, to his own failure to connect to voters. A failure that kept him from erasing the Bush campaign's portrait of him as a flip-flopper. Kerry said that he was proud of his campaign, that he had nearly defeated a popular incumbent who had enjoyed a three-year head start on organizing and fund-raising. Sitting presidents are never defeated in wartime, he insisted (true, though two, LBJ and Harry Truman, chose not to run for another term during Vietnam and Korea). Kerry did not wish to be directly quoted touting himself, however; he did not wish to appear defensive or boastful.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - JR
He still doesn't seem to get it. He is NOT the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, or hope to offer in 2008. But to read the comments in the transcript published on MSNBC.COM, he still has it in his head that he would be his party's number one choice in the next election.
Well he was his party's number one choice last year. Clearly the major parties aren't interesting in running the best they have to offer.
2 - Marc
"Well he was his party's number one choice last year"
No he was at best second choice behind Howard the Duck, at least til Howard had a voice box malfunction.
3 - JR
I only saw Kerry's name on the ballot in November.
4 - DrPat
I suppose that, just as generals tend to prepare to fight the last war, the DNC is now preparing to refight the Presidential campaign of 2004 again in 2008.
If they do, they will likely have a Maginot success. Google it, please.
5 - Eric Berlin
ZZ - You assert that Kerry would clearly not be the best choice for '08, but you don't explain why. In that Newsweek article, Kerry admits that no one can predict the future. On that, he's absolutely right: I think it's wrong to (smugly) write the man off. This is a man who got shot at and lost friends in Vietnam, who has served his country honorably for decades, and who just went through two sleepless years of campaigning. Yet he's still optimistic and is still looking forward. The guy's tough, and deserves respect for that.
That being said, I believe Clinton and Edwards remain the (very) early frontrunners for '08, with Warner of Virginia as a likely darkhorse. Obama makes a very intriguing early pick as VP.
Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com
6 - Temple Stark
Maginot?
This is what I got - and I'm not too sure that's what you meant.
7 - Eric Berlin
DrPat - Such is often the case in politics. However, there's an eternity between now and the next presidential election cycle, with plenty of time for new vision and strategies to take shape.
In the meantime, Dubya Dubya II has plenty of time to leave a (further) legacy for the '08 Dem candidate to run against.
~ Eric B.
8 - Z.Z.Bachman
Eric -- If he was such a strong candidate he should have defeated GWB, he had him on the run in the homestretch. The tactics were wrong... certainly not all Kerry's fault. The Democratic Party is torn within itself. How many candidates where there in the primary? Your right he may run again, and yes he should be commended for his service to his country and his party. I quite frankly thought Dick Gephardt would have had a better shot at the presidency. The primary was the undoing in my humble opinion. Al Gore took more of the popular vote, should he run in 2008? Why did the DNC not push Mr. Gore to run? (Damaged goods and perceptions of loss and loser.) It an incredibly media intensive world, subtle connections with the "common folk" also make a big difference in main stream rural America. Just my suspicion. One can speculate for the next several years. Lots will happen by then. The acid test may be what occurs in the mid term election and how John Kerry makes himself visable, (or invisible). Interesting discussion.
9 - Eric Berlin
I never said he was a strong candidate: in fact, I think Kerry ran a flawed and limp-footed campaign (way too much emphasis on Vietnam, way too little attack of a vulnerable incumbent, and... all-together: Swift Boats!). In the harsh light of defeat, Kerry gets the blame (as Gore did).
However, all I'm saying is don't confuse the man with the campaign. IF Kerry is willing to do the hard work of re-positioning himself, emerging as a Senate leader and main opposition voice to the GOP majority, I think he has done enough to deserve another shot. That's my point, I suppose, if I have one at all this rainy evening.
~ Eric B.
10 - Z.Z.Bachman
I definitly agree with you on that. Re-positioning would be hard work, once he decided what position to be on that is. Expect to see Hillary begin to go center stage on domestic issues like Social Security and Tax reform not to mention locking horns over judicial appointments. Bill Clinton will emerge as the more vocal party guru is my bet. Mr. Dean is still a belt-way outsider, and my guestimate is that the Clintons will out. Cheers... - zzb
11 - tom
If democrats are not blaming Kerry for the loss, that is their first mistake. The election was winnable for demoracts was but it was Kerry, not Bush, who butchered the campaign language. When Bush called him weak, Kerry countered with the punchless "stubborn" (a compliment to many red-state males and an implied admission that the other guy is tougher). When the Iraq war effort practically sank beneath our eyes in October, Kerry criticized the President for "misjudgments." NO ONE fires an executive, much less a president, for "misjudgments." A misjudgement is a minor error. (And was there anything in the campaign so stupid as Kerry's 3rd debate comment about Cheney's lesbian daughter, a remark which kept his campaign off message for five critical days and converted Cheney into the impossible -- a sympathetic, aggrieved parent.)
Kerry essentially argued that Bush was a stronger man and hadn't done that bad of a job. This man needs a visit with Donald Trump in the board room, fast.