Dan Kennedy thinks that John Kerry has gotten a raw deal from the media coverage, and that his Iraq vote was possibly, likely even, a principled vote rather than a pandering.
Vennochi’s view of Kerry’s pro-Bush vote last fall is entirely cynical, which I guess makes sense if you believe that (1) Kerry thought he already had the Democratic nomination sewed up and therefore (2) he was positioning himself to peel moderate independents away from Bush in the general-election campaign. That’s a lot of presupposing.
I’d say the assessment, which I share, relies on a different set of assumptions, namely that (1) Kerry, like many back at the time of the Iraq vote, didn’t count on the anti-war sentiment being as strong among party activists as it is. Sure, Massachusetts Democrats would be against Kerry’s vote, but Iowa? New Hampshire? Meaning that (2) shedding the stigma of Taxachusetts liberal to prove electability in a general election made complete sense - that seemed his biggest problem, not an attack from the left. As Joe Klein notes, “Last year DLC chairman Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana told Fox News that polling showed the public trusted Republicans more on matters of national security, ‘and I think we need to work to improve our image on that score by taking a more aggressive posture with regard to Iraq.’” Kerry by all means seemed to share that view.
These assumptions might be floating adrift they didn’t mesh with the transparent hedging and wishy-washiness from the candidate. From the Note, we get this anecdote:
Cruising a wind-swept field in a Bi-Fuel truck, Senator John F. Kerry arrived in Concord, New Hampshire, ready to talk environmental policy. And, for the first time in three days, people were once again listening.
Kerry briefly outlined the highlights of his 2020 energy plan, centered on producing 20% of U.S. energy needs by the year 2020, and pledged the creation of 500,000 new environmental energy jobs by the year 2014.
But, in a brief moment reminiscent of the “old dynamic”, the Senator quibbled with the wording of one question which asked if he considered former Vermont Governor Howard Dean “unelectable”.
The questioner referenced Kerry’s Wednesday appearance on Manchester’s WGIR, but Kerry insisted he had not said those words:
Questioner: “Senator, yesterday you said, ah, that you think your rival, Howard Dean, is unelectable; how come?” Kerry: “I don’t think I said that “. A moment later, the second questioner took a shot: Questioner: “Senator, you said that you didn’t say that Howard Dean was unelectable -on a radio show what I have you saying was, ‘Howard Dean will not be able to beat George Bush. I believe that very strongly. Sounds like a synonym (for unelectable) to me.”
Kerry: “Well, it’s a synonym. I’ll accept that. But I didn’t say he was unelectable. I said I don’t think he’ll be able to beat George Bush.”
And, finally, the Senator voluntarily returned to the subject for clarification -sort of:
Kerry: “Can I just say in answer to the question earlier on the terminology, I wasn’t trying to be cute, I just didn’t use the word ‘unelectable’. So, when you said that to me, I didn’t realize, you know, that I do remember saying that, you know, I think it’s hard to beat George Bush. That’s all.”
You can use the word courage all you like, but everything you do connotes “craven,” no one’s going to buy it.
No comments have been added to this post yet.