John Kerry’s Blooper
Forty years ago, in an Air Force basic training barracks in Texas after lights out, we were telling increasingly less funny jokes until a droll southern voice terminated the process by saying the previous lame effort was “about as funny as a compressed fart in an aqua lung”.
John Kerry may look a little like Jay Leno, and they are both from Massachusetts, but Kerry is no comedian. His attempted joke about Bush’s stupidity getting us into Iraq was of the aqua lung variety, and he compounded its failure by omitting a key word, making it sound like he was insulting the troops rather than the ignoramus who sent them. John Kerry is imprinted with his Vietnam War experience, and to those of us who remember those times, what Kerry mis-spoke sounded like a truth about that War - the draft took lots of undereducated and some not particularly bright men and sent them to Vietnam to die. The volunteer troops we are sending to die in Iraq are better educated and maybe smarter than the draftees we sent to Vietnam. One factor troops in both wars may have in common is the lack of economic opportunity. Many people enlist in the service because of financial need and underemployment or unemployment. In the case of the Iraq War, many recruits and re-enlistees have been further enticed with extra financial bonuses and fast track citizenship enticements.
Kerry’s flub played into the Republican myth of the intellectual cultural war, eastern intellectual liberals looking down their noses at young middle class troops from the heartland. The Republican spinsters grabbed it and started sprinting, because they have nothing else to run with. They successfully goaded Kerry into prolonging the story by stubbornly refusing to apologize for his mistake. They have succeeded in deflecting the news cycle slightly - even Sense is here covering the story, though my take on it is understandably different from theirs.
To the American people, this election is overwhelmingly about Iraq, Bush and Republican sycophants. While the Kerry story was somewhat about Kerry, it was still about Iraq. Undecided voters know Kerry is a war vet and was not intending to insult our troops. They know he botched the joke and he messed up by not promptly and clearly apologizing for any hurt caused by his error. But they also know what he was tying to say is correct - that Bush stupidly got us into this war without a plan for getting us out.
Kerry is now wisely staying offstage. During his hiatus he needs to reflect on the fact that 2004 was his swan song. Iraq has now replaced Vietnam in the minds of voters, so Kerry’s Vietnam imprint is no longer of relevant interest. In 2004, his Vietnam service was used against Kerry in the Swift boat attack ads and he failed to defend and counter effectively. His indignant refusal to apologize for his current gaffe was a pathetic attempt to do what he should have done in 2004.
Americans in general and Democrats in particular are looking to the future for something new and more hopeful, starting next Tuesday and then in 2008. Barach Obama, young and African American, is one example of the type of candidate that encourages hopes for meaningful change. Hilary Clinton, in spite of her longevity as first mate, has impressed many with her Senatorial work ethic and has shown that she can adapt and grow in office. For those who are open to the idea of a woman President, Hilary is the first truly viable woman candidate in the history of the country. John Edwards is starting to re-emerge, seeking to build on his 2004 showing as the number two Democratic candidate on the ticket. These people represent something new and hopeful. John Kerry does not.
posted by Tom Blake | 8:40 AM
5 Comments:
I am glad about Kerry's blooper. He is a good American, but he doesn't need my best wishes. I'm glad he has sealed his fate for 2008 so early. That gives other candidates an open field to make their moves. Now, let's hope Hillary soon emulates Kerry.
John from Phoenix
To what extent is your desire that Hilary not run based on your personal dislike of her and to what extent is it based on a belief that she cannot get elected, or if elected, that she would not make a good President? What do you dislike about her and what do you think voters dislike?
I admire Hillary very much as I do her husband. I think she might make a very good president. She and Bill complement each other very well. It would be so interesting from a historical and psychological perspective to see President Hillary with Bill in the background after seeing President Bill with Hillary in the background. What a great act to follow son George and dad George, cousins Roosevelt, son John and dad John. I would love it.
But it ain't gonna happen. Probably only a small majority of Americans would vote against a woman president, but a large majority get ill at the thought of Hillary running for president. Men don't like her because she is not endearing. Women outside of the very ambitious career types don't like her because she doesn't represent them, and, worse, intimidates them. The politics of the country is conservative and religious (outside of the west coast of Washington and the east coast from Massachusets to Maryland). Hillary would have a big battle and she is not devious enough to win.
Of the possible presidents I can see now for 2009, Hillary is my favorite. Of the possible candidates I can see for 2008, Hillary is the worst. The Democrats have wasted a decade on unelectable candidates. I have been saying the party is dead because of it. W has single handedly revived it a little bit. The party must take advantage of this glimmer of life to put a broadly popular, centrist, religious candidate before the public in 2008.
John from Phoenix
You raise some interesting points for ongoing consideration. In her victory speech last night, Bill was literally in the background, attracting more attention than Hilary. She is going to have to figure out how to use his popularity without being upstaged.
You say a small majority are not ready for a woman President but a large majority do not want Hilary. Now that 2008 is the next election on the horizon, polling on these attitudes will become more meaningful. How the public perceives Nancy Pelosi’s performance as Speaker might also affect attitudes toward a woman as President.
You believe Hilary is not endearing to men (though you like her) and that she is intimidating to women. In spite of her years as first lady and NY Senator, I don’t think the American public has a clearly informed view of Hilary. As first lady she came on too strong on health care and was slapped back, and then had to play the role of the wronged woman who stood by her man (though everyone knew she was not a poster child for the “weaker sex”). She has been a low key Senator cleverly working on evolving her image.
As for conservative and religious credentials, I think Hilary is capable of squeezing into those parameters. She used to be a Republican, her roots are in the mid west, her legal background was representing Wal-Mart types, she did stand by her man though she obviously chastised his immorality and her top selling book was about heartland type values.
Voters in NY obviously like her and it will be interesting to examine why, and see how she does in the lead up to 2008. Personally, I do not find her endearing, though that is not a factor I consider in casting my vote, except that an elected official should not be so abrasive as to not be able to work with opponents on compromises. My problem with Hilary relates to your last point. You said she is not devious enough. I think she might be too devious in the sense of not clearly letting voters know how many of her principles are sacred and how many she is willing to sell or bargain away - kind of like her husband.
I'm with John here.
I'd vote for Hilary myself -- although she isn't my first choice -- and I think she would make a fine preident.
However, gifting the Republicans as dvisive a candidate as Hilary seems absurd to me. Especially when the Dems should be looking at ways to keep the momentum of 06 going through 08 and beyond.
Hilary clearly isn't the right candidate to keep the Dems moving forward.
It isn't about whether she would make a great presidient or not. It isn't about her being a woman. It's about the fact that she is Hilary Clinton, one of the most polarizing figures in the last three decades of American politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home