Anyone but Kerry, Please

Hat-tip to Pam: Kerry’s making noises about running in 2008. His exact line is, “I’m prepared to kick [the Swift Boat Vets’] ass from one end of America to the other.”

[Link] Kerry says the only reason he didn’t compete in more states in 2004 was that he ran out of money. He says this was also the reason he did not adequately respond to a series of devastating TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, a group that questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam and criticized his later opposition to the war.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

In case you consider taking Kerry’s apology seriously, note that Bush barely outspent Kerry, spending $345 million to Kerry’s $310. If Kerry didn’t have the money, it’s his fault for spending it the wrong way. In fact, given that he never really articulated a foreign policy or came off as honest enough to promise sane domestic policies, his entire defeat was his fault for running a bad campaign. And since nobody can suddenly gain credibility in 4 years, it’s safe to say he’ll still be in no position to campaign on immigration or the minimum wage or health care, let alone Iraq or terrorism.

Worse, Kerry’s inner circle is convinced that he’s going to try running again in 2008. Kerry himself says he’s undecided, which is bad enough, but he also says, “The Washington thing was the same the last time. The conventional wisdom consistently proves itself wrong. If I decide to run, it will be because I believe I can win.”

Pam asks which will be worse – a Kerry candidacy, or a Hillary candidacy. While Hillary Clinton is as electable as a brick, she doesn’t have the unique experience of having lost all credibility. She showed no spine on Iraq and should really be a moderate Republican, but she’s managed to dodge accusations of flip-flopping better, and is overall a smarter politician. After the election they’d be equally lousy in case Hell froze over and they won, but before, HRC’s chance of winning is slightly less negligible than Kerry’s.

In all seriousness, it’s a travesty either is even mentioned as a real candidate. Given even a fraction of Hillary’s war chest, Feingold is a lot more electable, and unlike most Democrats, he’s a real liberal. Even Gore, who unlike most liberal bloggers I think will make a pretty bad nominee, will be light-years ahead of Kerry.


6 Responses to Anyone but Kerry, Please

  1. SLC says:

    Feingold is another George McGovern and a sure loser. The best bet is a Southerner, either Edwards or Warner (history shows that the lats two Democratic winners were Southern governors) and the last three winners were Southerners.

  2. Alon Levy says:

    Well, Feingold had an uncanny ability to win his state by a larger margin than Kerry, which is always helpful. Warner’s electable, but one of the reasons he won so handily in Virginia was that his predecessor screwed up completely. This is the situation now, too, but there’s a higher chance of the Republican nominee distancing himself from Bush.

  3. droog says:

    After four long years soured with war and death and corruption Kerry is ready for a rematch…against the Swift Boat guys. Sweet Kaili, this guy needs a muzzle. Not only is he hung up on a midsized and short-lived electoral tactic, but he admits that he didn’t set money aside for, you know, countering negative ads from his opponents. Glad to know he’s fact-checked his own record in the past years. The stupidity of the statement gets me more riled up than his intentions of running again.

    Usually I don’t mind these polls much because they seem to focus on the Democratic celebrities on a national scale. When the primaries kick into gear many of these predictions crumble. McCain and Giuliani are always rumbling on the GOP side but it doesn’t amount to much. Even with Kerry having the intention to run things have a way of righting themselves once the party and the voters have more say than the recognition polls. I rule Kerry right out, although the US’s fixation on Hillary worries me.

  4. […] Gordo: You say that you’re ready to take on the Swift Boat Vets who lied about your military service. However, some have pointed out that the time to do that was during the last campaign. Why have you waited until now to defend your record? Lurch: Honestly, I can’t think of a better time than now. During the campaign, I raised only $310 million, and I had to give half of that to Bob Shrum. Gordo: Holy creeping sweaty Jesus! Half??!! Are you nuts? Lurch: Listen, Theresa only agreed to give me $200 million, so I needed someone like Bob to raise the other $110 million. Gordo: So you would have been better off without Shrum. Lurch: Whatever. The point is, I had to save money. As it was, I ended up with only $50 million in the bank. […]

  5. gordo says:


    History is pretty meaningless when your sample is so small, and when it’s spread out over such a long period. Until Reagan, there had never been a movie actor elected to the presidency. There had never before been a 70-year-old president. Did that mean he couldn’t win?

    People forget that Wisconsin isn’t a particularly liberal state. Feingold has proven that he can appeal to centrist voters. And in the upcoming election, Democrats will probably be able to win with just about anyone.

  6. SLC says:

    Re Mr. Packard

    1. George McGovern proved he could win in South Dakota, also not a particularly liberal state. Unfoirtunately, South Dakota was the only state he carried in 1972.

    2. The fact of the matter is that the USA is more conservative then Canada or the Western European countries and a liberal candidate is a loser (e.g. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis). Feingold would be another McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis type candidate.

    3. The claim that any Democrat can win in 2008 is wildly optimistic. Any Democratic candidate , except possibly Warner or Edwards would start out as an underdog against Gulilani or McCain. Fortunately, the Republicans are unlikely to nominate either of these gentleman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: