In '08, familiar faces could aid Democrats (Boston Globe)

[liberalpragmatist]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/11/16/in_08_familiar_faces_could_aid_democrats?pg=2

By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004

...Those who supposed Kerry would disappear on vacation, put on a few pounds, grow a beard, make an American Express commercial, or teach at a small college raised their eyebrows: Kerry might actually be serious about playing an important role over the next few years. He might even be planning another presidential run.

This scenario would not be surprising if Kerry were a Republican. GOP contenders are groomed over a long period, and losing is often a part of the credentialing process.

<snip>

As a result, Republicans almost always nominate a familiar, tested brand -- a Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, or Bush -- who knows every whistle-stop and pothole on the national campaign trail the way an expert skier knows the bumps on a favorite mountain. (George W. Bush got the lay of the land from his father's two decades in the national spotlight.)

The Democrats, meanwhile, begin every cycle afresh, as though looking for a caped crusader to lead them to the White House. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could not have been picked out of a police lineup outside their home states before launching their national campaigns. And past nominees George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, and Kerry were all unknowns on the national stage, stepping out of the chorus to sing the lead.

<snip>

Voters knew Bush; they did not know Kerry. So despite the Democrat's best effort to appear strong, a broad-brush characterization of Kerry as weak was enough to send some voters scurrying back to Bush. If voters had seen more of Kerry over the past few years and had their own observations to guide them, they would not have been so easily swayed.

<snip>

Over time Kerry might decide that after running the costliest Democratic campaign ever, only to win the exit polls but lose the presidency, he cannot bear to return to square one.

But there is every reason to believe that he -- as well as Edwards and Dean -- would be better candidates for having run before. And the country would get less talk of swift boats, screams, or hair products, and more of a chance for serious debate.

[benfranklin1776]

1. An interesting thesis.

Although it is quite clear that whomever we nominate the Rethugs will attempt to negatively define that candidate, and the media will abet them in this effort. Nevertheless I agree with the author that carrying on a principled fight against the radical extremist Rethug agenda for four years would leave an impression in the voter's minds that would certainly help counter the barrage of scurrilous filth the Rethugs are certain to trot out. Kerry would have four years in the national spotlight as the de facto opposition leader and he would be able to define himself instead of being defined as the author points out happens to unknown candidates. The only problem I have with it is that he seems to be bucking history. Aside from Nixon for the Rethugs and Grover Cleveland for our party, in American political history there usually is no second act for losing major party Presidential nominees. Adlai Stevenson and Thomas Dewey tried and failed as did William Jennings Bryan. Who knows,though, maybe Kerry could be the exception.

On edit: Certainly the idea that Clark or Dean or Edwards would fare better a second time around is much more plausible. After all, FDR was the losing VP candidate in 1920.

[LittleClarkie]

2. I do like the idea of not reinventing the wheel each time

I fear we leave the impression we don't even believe in our own candidates. It's like we throw them at the wall to see if they stick, and if they don't -- well, that's it for them.

This is one characteristic I would like to copy from the Repubs. I think a candidate who has been through a national campaign for the first time will learn from the mistakes he made and be in a better position to try again than someone who's coming out of nowhere.

My first choice is Kerry, but I wouldn't mind seeing some of the Class of 2004 coming out again. I'm still proud of most of them for lining up behind the candidate and campaigning for him. Quite the little candidate coalition we had there.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Yeah

I'm a big Kerry fan. Still, I'm not sure he'd be a good candidate for a second run. I think Edwards may be much stronger.

Still, I like the idea of having our candidates remain in the public eye. I see no reason why Kerry cannot stay on as a prominent Democratic statesman. There are plenty of ways in which you can affect policy. Personally, I think Kerry would make a great Secretary of State in an Edwards Administration.

But if Kerry does run again in 2008 and wins the nomination, he'll have my full support.

[flpeach]

4. Yes I agree . . .

I happened to be tuned in today to C-Span 2 and watched Kerry on the Senate floor. I was elated. He is still fighting very hard for us.

He will do much good for America, whether acting as Senator or President.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Aw man! I missed him.

I need to keep better tabs on CSPAN.

When was he on? What did he say? Enquiring minds want to know.

If you would have told me at this time last year that I'd be enraptured with CSPAN like some teeny bopper waiting for NSync, I'd have called you a liar. But at this point, I wanna keep an eye on the guy. Plus, like some here, I miss seeing and hearing the dude.