May 1, 2004
MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY...:
Kerry getting Gored? (RON FOURNIER, 5/01/04, AP)
It's a recurring nightmare for Democratic strategist Tony Coelho -- the party's presidential candidate portrayed as a flip-flopping opportunist, ill-served by a strife-torn staff. It happened in 2000, when Coelho ran Al Gore's campaign. Now, it's happening to John Kerry.Democratic leaders fear he's getting "Gored."
"What the Kerry people don't understand is, it's succeeding," Coelho said.
Scores of Kerry supporters like the former California congressman say their initial response is to remain hopeful, based on polls showing the presumptive nominee tied with President Bush while the Democratic Party is better funded and more united than in 2000. But they are worried about history repeating itself.
"No question, it's a rerun of 2000," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the former vice president's 2000 race.
"Every Sunday, Team Bush goes in overdrive by outlining the upcoming week's attacks on Kerry. It's followed by paid advertisements and assigning top-notch surrogates," Brazile said. "This is the exact moment in 2000 when Gore was seriously damaged as the Bush team painted the former vice president as a "serial exaggerator."'
So you've got a candidate with major personal weaknesses vs. an extremely well-funded and run GOP campaign--but what's different this time around?
* Mr. Kerry is a sitting Senator
* Mr. Kerry is from the Northeast rather than the South
* Mr. Bush has the advantage of incumbency this time, including a booming economy
* Mr. Bush's public persona has been transformed from moronic beneficiary of nepotism to determined man of faith
* 9-11--though it's easy enough to read whatever you want into it--would seem to have made Americans more protective of their cultural inheritance, which obviously works to the favor of the conservative party
* Once in office Mr. Bush has not actually dragged any black men behind his pickup truck, contrary to the predictions of the NAACP, which used fear to drive blacks to the polls in 2000.
* Four years after Bill Clinton the Democratic Party has no strong identity. To the extent you could say it is has a guiding principle it would be reaction to Republican ideas. Democrats have achieved the seemingly impossible: they are the world's first reactionary progressive party.
Every single factor in the equation is negative for Senator Kerry.
Posted by Orrin Judd at May 1, 2004 9:32 AMAnd of course, we're in the middle of a war.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 1, 2004 9:49 AMOrrin:
You neglected to mention Kerry's one great advantage: the overwhelming support of the main stream media, the only group, besides the parties, who are immune to the campaign restrictions in the month before the election.
Posted by: jd watson at May 1, 2004 2:22 PMjd:
Once the media scents blood it forgets that it's partisan. The Kerry campaign trail will be well chummed.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2004 5:08 PMProgressive? Progressive? If I could make this in red, I would. The Democratic Party is as regressive as the Know-Nothings. And each month, it gets worse (re: Hillary trashing US policy to an Arab newspaper in London). I can't wait to see what Al Gore says when he (timidly, I am sure) endorses Kerry.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 1, 2004 6:08 PMOrrin:
Judging from the last couple of weeks, I think the media is getting that first whiff of blood (the WaPo is running at least one lead editorial every week now slapping Kerry upside the head for something or other, for example). It's really just a matter of time before the feeding frenzy starts.
Posted by: Joe at May 1, 2004 7:02 PMTwo more points: Democrats have been attacking Bush as just a "rich white boy from a privileged background," and then they offer up . . . Kerry.
Plus, after 8 years of defending Clinton's draft dodging, they are trying to make an issue of Bush's service and Cheney's lack of it, and treating Kerry's service as if it's the critical factor for a president. Such cognitive dissonance is rarely helpful to a candidate.
Posted by: PapayaSF at May 1, 2004 7:19 PMIt's mystifying that nobody seems to have thought of bringing up Clinton's example in the whole foofooraw about GWB's National Guard service - at least, I don't remember hearing anyone talk about it. I should think that would have made a few people who were squawking about Bush at least squirm in embarrassment.
Posted by: Joe at May 1, 2004 7:46 PMJoe:
The word embarrassment has no meaning in a sentence involving Bill Clinton.
Posted by: ratbert at May 1, 2004 8:23 PM