The Trouble With Kerry's Campaign and the Potential Pitfall for Dean

[Addison Miles]

I posted something similar earlier but being a DU newbie I guess I haven't mastered the art of a catchy thread title.


JOHN KERRY

1. Jim Jordan is working hard to earn the 'worst campaign manager ever' award. Some think he convinced Kerry to vote in favor of the IWR.

2. Another rumour is that Jordan threatened to take everyone with him if Kerry sacked him.

3. Kerry is a great candidate surrounded by a lost and confused staff. However, despite the contention that Kerry might do better against Bush in a general election, one has to wonder about Kerry's management skills if he can't tighten his campaign and fire a loser like Jordan.


HOWARD DEAN

1. Unlike many here, I LIKED his response to Sharpton and Edwards in the most recent debate. His comments about the confederate flag were clumsy, but a hard-hitting nationally-televised debate is NOT the place to back down. I like Democrats who stand up and fight.

2. Rove's BIG anti-Dean weapon might well be the accusation that the Doctor performed abortions. The Republicans will try to taint him as a 'baby-killer'.

[MoonAndSun]

1. I have not read enough about Jordan to make an informed opinion

on your Kerry posts, but on Howard Dean, your #2 item will only be one of the many dirty tricks done to Dean, or to whomever the candidate will be. Dean, or whoever is our candidate, will be trashed daily by the GOP and a lot of the media. They will have to fight back hard and fast.

[GainesT1958]

2. If I were Sen. Kerry, I'd tell Jim Jordan to do just that...

Leave, (and the door-knob thing, too!:eyes: ) and take them all with him. After all, who's going to hire Jordan, and his minnions? As "successful" as they've been with Kerry thusfar, I don't see other campaigns exactly bashing the door down to get Jim Jordan if Kerry dumps him.

B-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Dean's foreign policy postions are what will kill him

suggesting that America will not always be the strongest military power is a huge no-no. And if Dean really did vote 'NO' on IWR then he wouldn't be able to say that he got the Iraqi leadership to let insepctors back into the country, or to offer the brokered Peace deal being talked about on here today. Dean is an example of what scares Americans- a "weak on defense liberal".

RE: Kerry- he's run enough campaigns to know what he's doing. You can't blame consultants. John Kerry knows where the buck stops.

[dfong63]

4. i disagree

suggesting that America will not always be the strongest military power is a huge no-no

why? it sounds right to me. one of the lessons of history is that no empire lasts forever. Dean's hawkish remarks about defense spending worry me more than this reasonable observation.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. It's a Political No-No, Not An Intellectual One

Sadly, there is a big difference and ignored at one's own political peril.

[JNelson6563]

8. oh come on!! Don't you remember??

That one Senator from Rome....what's name again...? No matter, he said that the Roman Empire might one day over-extend and his career was ruined. That idiot obviously didn't know what he was talking about. ;-)

Julie

[Zynx]

6. I'll tell exactly why Kerry voted "Yes" on the IWR.

He felt that it would be a popular war and it would be politically expedient(forgive my piss poor spelling) to do so. At the same time he offered some minor crticisms to hedge his bets. I recognized it at the time when I thought he would be an excellent candidate. Now I just find it disgusting.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. The "Politically Expedient" Thing Is Bullsh*t

Kerry had been articulately calling for the same course of action since 1997. Clinton agreed:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War." - Clinton, 1998.

Kerry was clearly pissed at Gephardt for undermining Biden-Lugar (which Dean also supported), and was stuck with the choice between two options that did not reflect his thinking. He went for the one he felt was most responsible. I didn't agree with him, but I don't think it was "expediency." He is on the record as arguing that the vote should not be rushed before the election, that they should take their time and get it right. Unfortunately, it was not his call.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Part Jordan's Fault, Part The Cancer

Kerry got off to a slow start and really didn't address the war issue when he should have. Honestly, beyond that, I don't think anyone believes that there is a stronger candidate out there. Had he voted differently, the nomination would be his, Dean would be a footnote, and Clark would have never happened. Gore left believing there was little chance he could beat the ascending Kerry. However, the war vote changed everything. Dean is absolutely no match for Kerry, but the IWR gave him a foothold from which to endlessly needle Kerry. Whether or not opposing a vote you didn't have to make overrides an obviously better qualified candidate in the end is something we'll just have to see about.

In any case, Kerry is clearly back in form, and has been winning the debates as much as anyone can "win" a 9 person debate. If they split up the debates, he will look even stronger - especially if he gets a chance to go head to head with Dean.