John Kerry: President of Nothing

[Skinner]

I know some may consider that title inflammatory. But I do have a point.

Some people on this message board and elsewhere get extremely alarmed whenever John Kerry articulates a position that they do not approve of. Or when he articulates a position that is not as liberal as they would like. Or when he articulates a position that is, essentially, no different than the position taken by previous Democratic nominees for president and no different than the Democratic platform in previous years.

Nevermind that certain opinions that are common on Democratic Underground would lead to sure-fire electoral defeat for Kerry. That's not really my point. My point is this:

In the grand scheme of things it matters very little what John Kerry says. Because right now he is the President of Nothing.

If Kerry were to adopt the DU-approved perfect platform it would matter very little. Because right now, John Kerry is the President of Nothing.

John Kerry's job right now is to become the President of Something.

A campaign is a means to an end. A campaign is not an end in itself. And what is that end? What is the purpose of campaigning? To gain control of government. Only when a candidate wins an election, only when that person grabs hold of the levers of power, can real change take place. A campaign is about going from being President of Nothing to being President of Something.

And to become President of Something, John Kerry has to focus on a very small group of people in a small number of states. And I am not in that group. If John Kerry were wasting scarce resources trying to impress me, he would be making a huge mistake. Because I am a liberal Democrat who lives in Washington, DC. No amount of effort by John Kerry or George W. Bush is going to change the outcome of the presidential vote in Washington, DC. Our three electoral votes are a foregone conclusion.

So, who does John Kerry need to focus on? Who is this very small group of people in a small number of states? In the broadest sense: They are the small number of undecided voters in closely contested states: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Missouri, Arizona to name a few. At most, this group is about 10 million people out of 100 million voters. John Kerry has to figure out where he can get the most bang for his buck to appeal to those people. His job right now is to get 270 electoral votes.

Does that mean that John Kerry should just say any outrageous thing, as long as it appeals to those undecided voters in a very small number of states? Of course it does not. He needs to strike a balance in his rhetoric so he can attract undecided voters without turning off his base. And he would ruin his own chances of election if he appeared to betray everything that he previously stood for.

Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on what campaign strategy will be most successful. Here on DU, people have made very compelling arguments on all sides of the issue. Would Kerry be more successful if he strikes a more populist pose or a more centrist pose, or something else altogether? Honestly, I don't really know. I'm just a webmaster, not a political strategist.

But I do know that this campaign is not about making me happy. This campaign is about appealing to a bunch of other people who I've never met and about whom I know very little. I am hopeful that the Kerry campaign knows a little bit more about those people than I do.

But remember: If in January 2005, John Kerry is still the President of Nothing, then it doesn't matter what he said back in 2004.

(EDIT: Fixed my electoral college math.)

[Celeborn Skywalker]

1. Well said

I've been thinking these exacts thoughts for a while now.

[blondeatlast]

6. Welcome to DU.

Since you are probably not aware, Skinner is one of the founders and Administrators of DU. Tends to lay low most of the time.

For you and Mr. Skinner: :toast: :toast:

[MAlibdem]

2. I agree...

So what are we to do here? hmmm...

[bkcc]

3. thank you, skinner.

I for one have grown tired of the endless griping on these boards about Kerry.

I'm glad you posted this. Excellent points.

[Skinner]

7. Well, I think there will always be griping about Kerry.

And I think we all need to understand that there are many people -- good Democrats -- who are not thrilled with him. And DU needs to be open to a wide range of opinion. We do have our limits (the rules do give an idea where we draw the line), but in general I want to err on the side of openness rather than restriction.

After all, John Kerry needs all the votes he can get. Even votes from people who don't like him very much, but will grudgingly pull the lever for him in November.

In the end, I think most people on DU understand that he is the only hope we've got. Even if they don't really like him that much.

[drfemoe]

71. I understand he is the *best hope*

we've got right now. Sometimes I do wonder if he understands that.

Do you think he knows how much so many of us are counting on him? I hope to see some indications soon that he does.

[blondeatlast]

4. CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP!

But I do know that this campaign is not about making me happy. This campaign is about appealing to a bunch of other people who I've never met and about whom I know very little.

I'm a Dk supporter, but I have no qualms WHATSOEVER about John Kerry, and those on the DK side of the left are just shooting themselves in the foot if they don't see that THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT STOPPING THE DESTRUCTION OF EVERYTHING OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT.

With your operative experience, it's nice to see you contribute. People don't realize the craft involved in winning an election, especially on a grand scale.

[JohnKleeb]

50. Personally BAL he was my number 2 pick

[Mikimouse]

5. Your point is well taken...

I have been very glad that he has simply jumped into every opening offered by the * adminstration. I believe that he is bding his time and formulating some truly devastating arguments against *. Perhaps some think that he is being too quiet; I don't agree; he is taking notes from Clinton and eventually will 'strike', but the time is not right at this point in the campaign. Right now, he would probably elicit a simple sympathy vote for *, as he would be perceived as 'picking on a good Gawd fearing, patriotic president'.

[Skinner]

9. I hope that you are right.

I hope that Kerry's campaign is a vigorous one like Clinton used to run. I hope that Kerry has that killer instinct. Currently it is unclear.

[blondeatlast]

11. TOMBSTONE! You candidate-basher, you!

"Currently it is unclear."


Alert the Mods!

[Skinner]

12. Make sure you hit alert so the mods can see it.

And perhaps start a thread in the Ask the Admins forum as well so the Admins can be made aware of it. ;-)

[blondeatlast]

18. Awwwwwwwww, Skinner, you know me better than that!

[Adelante]

19. And then PM the mods four times ;)

Good job, Skinner :toast:

Thanks.

[Mikimouse]

13. I have often been accused of being stupidly patient...

but I remember Kerry from his early days in politics (lived in Boston for a long time), and his approach is careful and considered. I think that we are all in for a very pleasant surprise, and * is in for a rough ride, not only in the debates, but in the election as well.

[sallyseven]

17. Trust me Kerry

has the instinct. He ran the red head into the ground. Beat the living heck out of him. Mr. Smooth guy. I love Kerry. Picked up 5 million Plus in 1 day last week. In his own state and RI right next store. These people know him best. We all hate bush.

[MoonRiver]

8. I really appreciate your comments Skinner!

:yourock:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Man that was funny. When I saw the title I thought someone hijacked

your ID.

I think that's overall correct. I don't like it but those 268 electoral votes are ambivalent to my likes and dislikes. I do agree with others that the working poor need something to vote for and a reason to vote, but I also feel that state legislatures have a lot to do with that.

I do feel Kerry is noticably campaigning to the center but I also know that winning MORE votes in the states he is going to win anyway isn't going to help get those votes.

Again for those that feel he is not "left enough," the USSC appointments should be enough for them to even begrudgingly vote for him.

[Skinner]

14. No, it's me.

I like to come out of my hidey-hole every once in a while.

But now I have to go buy some mulch for the garden. I'll be back later.

[NMDemDist2]

15. as I posted before---- we forget that democracies are

DESIGNED to work slowly at best. Democracy means compromise every time on many issues.

For example-- you have two groups who passionately believe opposite sides of an issue. What democracy gives you is the forum to discuss what are non-negotiable and what can be compromised on. After much haggling, consensus taking and struggle the two groups end up with something that neither one can passionately agree on, but that both sides can live with ("until the next time" they both snigger evilly to their diehards)

This is the foundation on which the strength of a democracy is built, and we need to understand that we HAVE to give a bit and be willing to let the other side win a bit to get along

Just a thought

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=502708&mesg_id=502734

[Hippo_Tron]

85. Nah, just ours

In Spain they overthrew their government overnight. In a way it's a good thing in a way it's bad.

[Ardee]

16. If I may wade through the throng of admiring groupies

Words mean nothing, say anything to get elected. Lie, cheat ,steal what does it matter as long as you achieve your goal....

Sorry but we live on different planets apparently. On mine ones word is ones bond, integrity and honesty are important and what a candidate says leads to an expectation of what he will do as president.

I so totally disagree with your comments ,am so totally appalled at the emptiness it displays-but lets focus on one particular "factoid",; that Kerry must appeal to a very small percentage of the electorate. I believe the key to the overthrow of the right wing cabal that now rules this nation lies in energising the 60% of the population who fail to vote because they are so completely disgusted with politicians who do exactly what Skinner says is fine and necesary.

[blondeatlast]

22. I disagree, but am pleased that you are free to state your opinion...

whether you want to admit it or not. So there!

:nopity:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

29. If ya can't take the heat, my friend...

[blondeatlast]

31. Yes, I am posturing for the other "groupies."

Thank you for noticing.

[Ardee]

58. Content please

The lack of content in your posts is appalling

[blondeatlast]

65. Sorry!

[blondeatlast]

28. I agree with you, Ardee!

And when God is the Democratic nominee, I pledge my unwavering support for Him.

[Kukesa]

78. HIM?

Uh, blondatlast, I'd prefer if you'd stated "I pledge my unwavering support for HER". And this on a Sunday morning; tsk, tsk.

Kukesa

[Kahuna]

40. This is where you're wrong. It's not a "small" part of the electorate..

It's 20% to 30% of the electorate. That is a very important segment of the electorate. It is the segment who decides the winner.

[Skinner]

47. I know, the emptiness is appalling.

I guess I'm firmly in the pragmatist camp. Or in the "half a loaf is better than no loaf at all" camp.

If someone can figure out a way to get the apathetic 60% to show up and vote -- let alone vote for the same person -- I agree that it would be a wonderful thing for this country, and might even lead to a more progressive politics. But until that happens, I am going to continue to vote for the more progressive candidate out of the two imperfect options offered to me.

[Ardee]

57. But Mr. Skinner (yeah I know)

your very strategy forces the "more progressive" candidate to become less and less progressive as he chases the very same voters as does his opponent to the right.As the lines blur between the two more and more choose to support the original right winger instead of the centrist come lately. I thought the results of the mid term elections showed that very plainly.

[Skinner]

59. Not necessarily.

I have not argued that the more progressive candidate need become less and less progressive. I am merely stating that the progressive candidate needs to go after those voters that are open to persuasion. They may be persuaded by a centrist appeal, or they may be persuaded by a populist appeal. Or they may be persuaded by something else entirely. I am not so concerned about the method, provided that it works (and in fact I believe that undecided voters could be persuaded by either a populist or centrist appeal, or some combination of the two). I believe that John Kerry, with his large and experienced campaign organization, is better qualified than I am to figure out what approach would be most likely to succeed for him.

The lesson I draw from the 2000 election and the 2002 midterms is probably quite similar to the one which you draw: candidates who stand for nothing lose elections. In both elections, many of the Democratic candidates were afraid to take a firm stance on anything. In 2000 I think this lack of conviction came from Al Gore himself, either because he was clueless or because he got some very bad advice. In 2002 I think we were gunshy because of 9/11. At this point, I believe that John Kerry has not effectively outlined his positions, nor has he forcefully attacked the Bush record, nor has he done much of anything to articulate a message. To continue in this way though the entire campaign would be mistake, but I am confident that Kerry will get it together before it is too late. At least I hope so. During the primaries, he seemed to time his surge at precisely the right moment, so that's good.

[Ardee]

79. Thank you David

At long last a considerate and well considered response. I would hope that the neocons here would take this example of proper debate procedure to heart and respond likewise...Thank you.

I do agree with much of what you post above, unfortunately it is mostly the negative portions of your response that strike that chord.I see,within the democratic leadership, an increasing tendency towards muddled messages, movement right in an attempt to appeal to the very same voters that trend towards Bush and note that Kerry's messages are appearing increasingly to follow this mold.

I have a great faith in the American people, I believe as does Mike Moore that ,on the issues, Americans are liberal and would respond most favorably to the truth and to the progressive message. Focussing on issues such as unemployment, getting us extricated from Iraq and Afghanistan through real coalition building and UN control,fair trade rather than what we see under NAFTA and the WTO, restoration of safety nets for seniors, rebuilding the public school system, sanity and wisdom in the war on drugs, etc. are issues that every American can relate to and are just not being discussed with clarity and detail.

Im late for my traditional Sunday pancake breakfast so must perforce cut this off now. I believe that you and I could debate civilly and rationally on almost anything, even Ralph Nader.....:D

[OKNancy]

53. You can bang your head against the wall then

because the 60% who don't vote are NEVER going to be motivated in large percentages. Also, who is to say they would vote for the Democrat ( or "progressive") anyway? Most of the people I know who don't vote are working poor who spout the Bush line.

Some people are dreamers, and some people are practical, realistic and pragmatic. The second group wins elections.

[Ardee]

56. sorry you live in such a pessimistic world

I seek to understand why so very many refuse to participate in our electoral process while you appear content with the status quo that alienates them.

Oh and ,in my world, the disenfranchised tend to be the very poor, the very disgruntled and not ,as you opine republican poor folks (are there really such as that?)....

[OKNancy]

60. Your post shows how you live in some sort of dream world

You write... the very disgruntled and not, as you opine republican poor folks (are there really such as that?)....

Are there really such a thing as poor Republicans? Where in the world do you live? My husband works construction and he is the only liberal on a crew of fifteen. To a man they are all Limbaugh lovers. He comes home depressed and angry on many days. But he says, "Oh well, those SOB's don't even vote" These guys make about $25,000 per year. That's poor in my book.

People refuse to participate because they don't care, or they are un-educated. They figure it doesn't matter one way or the other. And some New England doctor turned politican wasn't some shining beacon of hope to them either.

[Ardee]

80. Construction workers are not poor

Here they make upwards of 100K per year counting OT (the trades see journeyman average hourly wages of $25-$35 per hour). But the issue we discuss is the reason people do not vote, or why an increasing number of working people are voting GOP.

I am old enough to remember when American labor was almost universal in its support for the Democratic Party, and when the sentiment was that voting was a duty and a responsibility that further and strengthened the democratic structure. Why have so many among the working class abandoned your party? When will you loyal democrats begin to do the hard work of self examination and repair?

It is way to easy to blame and insult those who are disenfranchised from the process, yet that is futile and counter productive. Better one might explore the reasons that people give up any hope that their politicians actually represent their best interests, and figure out how to bring them back into the democratic fold. Our future depends upon an active electorate ,democracy depends for its very life upon a concerned, educated and contributing citizenry.

When I attended college ( wending my way between the mastodons and alosaurs to get to class) the campus was a hotbed of political activity, I joined SDS as a freshman and later spent some (brief) time with a certain group that grew out of the demise of that organisation.Now I see ,among our college population, the same lack of trust in our politicians that one sees growing among the working class, and worse, an ennui concerning any hope to make things better!

[blondeatlast]

66. That's precisely why I work strongly for GOTV campaigns--and not

at shopping malls. I work at barrio community centers, unemployment offices, etc.

[orwell]

20. Compromise

You speak of pragmatism vs idealism. We need both in the party. If idealism provides the energy of change, pragmatism supplies the flesh and bones. To have one without the other is to have an inanimate object, or a sound and fury signifying nothing.

At some point the two must join as one. Our calling here is to unite, even as we disagree, over the larger goal of turning back one of the greatest assaults to our democracy in this nation's history.

You are even beginning to see libertarians and conservatives, at least those worth their ideological salt, starting to join this effort. This is how winning coalitions are born.

This is the essence of politics, the grand art of compromise.

O

[JohnLocke]

21. Yes.

Thank you for writing that. :)

[xultar]

23. AMEN BRUVA!!! I've started to post,

"Do you want Kerry or Bush to win" when I see a negative thread about JFK and some position he's taken. I'm not a Kerry fan. But there is so much more at stake here than what I like.

Things to consider
1. Do you want the Plame thing to be investigated or not? - With Kerry in office he can start a new investigation.

2. Do you want to know the truth about 9/11? - I've already heard on the news that the 9/11 families will ask for a new investigation into 9/11 when Kerry gets into office. An investigation like nothing has been investigated. Then they can haul Chimpy, Rummy, all of them back in again.

3. Do you want to know the truth about WMD/Iraq?

4. Do you want someone to go to jail about the medicare vote?

Now, you can add to the list. But John Kerry is the man now. There are things that need to be righted and we won't get them if * is in office. With another 4 years they have plenty of time to let people forget.

So don't be selfish. DNC, DLC my ASS. Do you want JFK or GWB to win or not? That is the only question you need to ask yourself.

[Kahuna]

41. Right on, my Sistah!

Oops! I forgot myself for a minute.. :7


:hi:

[jmcgowanjm]

24. Records of the JFK national security meetings

"I mean, it's different from a coup in the Iraq or
South American country; we are so intimately involved
in this…."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/

JFK walks into the bullets.

And Cuba realizes Independece-1960
The Diem Coup-August-November 1963

Based on the yearlong precedents of what JFK
said and implied in 1960.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/years/1960.html

[rockymountaindem]

25. Thanks for setting the record straight.

I think some people around here needed a reality check.

[Kadie]

26. You make a very good point

"A campaign is a means to an end." Haven't we seen time and time again a politician say one thing during his/her campaign, then change tunes once elected?

We know how bushie handles things, we know where he is headed. We have no idea what John Kerry will do once President. We have to decide which path to take. Personally, I rather take my chances with Kerry. Do I agree with everything he says know? No. Will I agree with everything he does as President? Probably not. Would I rather take a chance on him instead of bushie for another 4 years. You bet!

You will never find the perfect candidate. It ain't' going to happen. They have to please too many different people with differing opinions in order to get elected.

[Kahuna]

42. The point is, the Democratic platform is the Democratic platform...

It matters less who is the standard bearer and what he or she says, than the actual platform that all Democratic candidates embrace for the most part. Dems know their platforms. Repukes know their platform. It's the Indies in the middle who are oblivious to the actual differences who are pandered to in EVERY election. Because, they decide the winner. It's as simple as that.

Some of us have seen more election cycles than others. I can understand our younger participates having difficulty understanding and accepting the process. But for the older participants -- people like Ralph Nader to pretend to not know and understand the process is what burns me up. We older voters should not lead the younger voters astray. We are old enough and savvy enough to know that politics is a game that has rules. We would serve our younger members better by being honest with them about the process. Change is nice. Change is needed. But we can't change anything if we are always on the outside looking in.

[Nazgul35]

30. No offense...but if he gets only 268 electoral votes

he will lose....

You need 271 to win.....

Hey, here's an idea, why don't we have politicians who lead instead of engage in focus groups and polling for the most popular position to take?

People still haven't figured it out....the reason that moderates and the Dem base are engaged and energized is the same old nonsense we saw prior to May 2003....

The candidacies of Dean and Clark reinvigorated this Party and people who have given up on politics...pure and simple.

The reason Bush gets a free pass from the American public is because he gives every appearance of leading based upon principles......notice I said appearance, he only postures and is hollow as a result....

If our candidate would lead, and lead for real, than this will be the biggest upset in electoral history since WWII....

But somehow I think this won't be addressed until it is focused grouped and polled......sad really!

[Dookus]

34. well

let's see...


Dean and Clark both did very poorly in the primaries - and that's among just Democrats! Is Kucinich the kind of "leader" you like? He's done even worse.

If a "leader" can't even win a primary or two, then how the hell does he win the presidency? Your definition of a leader would preclude actually ever getting a leadership position. You can't lead from the sidelines.

[drfemoe]

72. When will

Kerry go after *B* with the exuberance he showed in going after Dean? Waiting patiently.

[sangha]

44. Umm, I think 3 electoral votes were deducted from the 271

because Skinner's in DC, which has electoral votes, and Skinner feels certain they will go to Kerry. The point being that Kerry doesn't have to appeal to all 271 Electoral votes; He just needs to appeal to undecided voters in the battleground states

[Skinner]

45. Whoops. My math was off.

I forgot about DC's three electoral votes. I divided 535 by two, instead of 538.

(Technically, wouldn't that make 270 the magic number?)

[Nazgul35]

69. 50% +1

maybe it is 270.....hahaha...

[G_j]

32. Fixing The Election

I think this article is relevant to your post.


http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10261

Fixing The Election


Steven Hill is senior analyst for the Center for Voting and Democracy and author of Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics, which is now available in paperback. Rob Richie is executive director of the Center.

----
Many pundits and activists have finally figured out what political insiders always knew: our presidential election is not a national election at all.

The battle for chief executive will be fought in 15 battleground states, none either solidly Republican red or Democratic blue, each fought as individual contests that will be too close to call. This political geography presents important lessons for partisans and reformers alike.

In a likely replay of the 2000 election, the battleground states are Florida (of course), Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. Some add Louisiana, Tennessee and Nevada, making 18 states.

These states' concerns will drive much of the campaign debate. Those in the Midwest's rust belt have been hit hard by job losses, particularly in well-paying manufacturing jobs, making states like Ohio competitive. More Latino voters in New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada create dilemmas for Republicans on issues like immigration. With the prominence of Florida and its senior citizens, we'll hear a lot about Medicare and Social Security. And don't expect John Kerry to highlight gun control or other pet liberal issues when the almighty swing voters in battleground states mostly oppose them.


..more..

[DeepModem Mom]

33. I was going to ask if I could come to D.C. and KISS you, S. --

but someone posted something about groupies, so I'll restrain myself...and just say thanks. How I hope that, in January, John Kerry IS President of Something!

[Bread and Circus]

35. Well said Skinner, and I want to add the best way Kerry can

appeal to those swing voters is to get Clark on the ticket.

:evilgrin:

[TreasonousBastard]

36. Absolutely!

I've been saying all along that a politician's first job is to win, or he can't accomplish anything at all.

In a democracy, the votes of people who agree with you are never enough-- the fight is over the votes of people who would tend to disagree with you. You must win them over to your side.

[corporatewhore]

37. you see John Kerry is already senator of something

and i have a pretty good idea where his policies are headed.
He has a solid voting record of voting for "free" trade agreements.He was trying to get an ammendment passed for the FTAA fast track it didnt work out and voted for it any way.

he voted yes for authorization for bush to use force in iraq he voted for IWR which has affected me becaues my father will go back to iraq next year. I know i know he voted that way cause he wanted to run for prez or because bush fooled him. either way he is too spineless or too stupid which i think is not a sign of a good leader.

He voted for the PATRIOT ACT and has shown he has no respect for the Bill of Rights

He did vote for plan colombia this tells how much he cares for human rights

[Dookus]

43. You forgot Skull and Bones

:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

51. I'll give CW that its not the washed skull and bones rhetoric

but I think there is a significant difference between Kerry and Bush that most should recongize. I am a rare kind, I admit, I am just as far to the left if not further than many of Kerry's critics but I am also a yellow dog dem at the same time.

[Skinner]

49. I guess the question you need to ask yourself is:

For you, does it matter who wins? Is there any difference between the two candidates that is significant enough to make a Kerry vote worth it? We both know that there are differences between Kerry and Bush. But do those differences matter?

For me the answer is: Absolutely.

Only you can know for sure if those differences matter for you.

[mzmolly]

68. This is THE question.

If you won't wake up with a knot in your stomach at the thought of another 4 years of Bush ... so be it. I on the other hand have got work to do. I can't tolerate the thought of another 4 of *.

[blondeatlast]

81. If for no other reason--SCOTUS.

I think this is an issue that should be brought to the swing voters.

If nothing else matters *(and of course, everything els does too), this is the big issue; even if it means compromising your idealism on Election Day.

[no name no slogan]

89. It's a valid question, BUT

I would GLADLY trade the eight years of Clinton's presidency if we could have kept control of the House and Senate for that time instead. Maybe we would have been able to block such legislation as NAFTA, "welfare reform", and DOMA if we'd had Democratic majorities who were NOT afraid to fight a Republican president.

Even the Democrats controls of state legislatures is at the lowest it's been since 1962. Since most Americans still side with the Dems on the issues (even if they don't self-identify as one), I'd say we have a definate leadership problem with this party.

Even though self-identifying Dems numbers are so low, most Americans still support our long-held and most "liberal" positions: fair trade, fair wages, good schools and infrastructure, healthcare for all, and a sane non-aggressive foreign policy. Unfortunately our recent nominees have been to afraid to articulate these issues for fear of being called mean names by Republicans-- whom they still feel the need to appeal to each November.

WHY the heck is this party so concerned with getting REPUBLICAN votes? Most Americans SUPPORT the Dems position on the issues. Unfortunately this party has valued the votes of indecisive "moderates" and Republicans than those of its base.

Yes, the presidential candidate may only be the face of our efforts, but at the same time the platform of the party is usually set by the presidential candidate. For example, the Democratic party dropped its universal healthcare plank in the 1990s, after it had been a fixture since the early 1970s. Why? Probably because Clinton's half-baked corpo-friendly plan went down in flames in 1994.

We don't need just a good candidate, we need LEADERSHIP. We need someone who's not afraid to be a liberal, and fight for the things we believe in. We have no reason to cave into Republican fearmongering, especially since WE'RE the ones who are in the majority on the issues.

Kerry's a fine nominee, but dammit, John, why can't you say you're a "liberal"? So bleeping what if Bill O'Reilly and Rush jump on you-- just point to the things liberals have done for this country! STAND UP to those jackaninnies, and show them that liberals have COURAGE and backbones!

[sangh0]

93. One big problem

You can't trade Clinton's presidency for a majority in Congress. It' doesn't work that way, and basing your vote on a fantasy is not advisable, given the stakes. Besides, not voting for Kerry isn't going to bring about a Dem majority in Congress.

[no name no slogan]

94. I'm NOT basing my vote(s) on a fantasy, nor have I before

Not voting for Kerry won't bring about a Dem majority in congress, but busting my ass for every other Democratic candidate running for congress in my state WILL.

Nor have I ever said I wouldn't vote for Kerry. I've pledged over and over here and as a delegate to numerous conventions that I'd support the eventual nominee.

I've already helped out these candidates, and have done so long before Clinton ever resided at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

And as alarmist as most Democrats seem to be in this day and age, this election is NOT the end of the world for most people. Using this "fear" of another four years of Dubya will NOT encourage people to vote Democratic; however, giving them real reasons to vote for Democrats WILL.

This country has suffered through two world wars, one civil war, and numerous other national emergencies of scopes much larger than the current "emergency". GeeDubya and his clown patrol are not much different than 12 years of ReaganBush, where we had to worry about nuclear annhiliation on daily basis. Hell, even the cast of characters is identical!

Even if Kerry wins, we won't have universal health care. NAFTA and the WTO will still be around. One in every five child in the country will still not get enough to eat every day. Many people working 40+ hours a week will STILL not make a living wage. And we'll still be at war with much of the world, too.

A Kerry victory may make it easier to achieve these things, but I don't expect Kerry to do these things automatically, or without pressure from the party.

[rumguy]

61. He's for amending Chapter 11 in NAFTA and making sure

it doesn't go the same way into the FTAA and other trade agreements...

When Nafta passed no one was aware of how Chapter 11 in NAFTA was going to be used or what it really meant, the language was deceptive and vague...

You have to give him credit for that, no? Bush on the other hand likes NAFTA and Chapter 11 just the way it is...

This is an example of a small policy difference between Kerry and Bush that will end up having a BIG impact in the future...

[Kahuna]

38. Here here! I hope you post this often. This has been explained..

hundreds of times on DU. Yet, some don't want to understand political gamesmanship. Unfortunately, one cannot be 100% honest with the American people and win an election. Even the most honest president of my lifetime Jimmy Carter wasn't 100% honest. It won't happen. It's a game just like the video games many here play or chess. I hope that more people begin to grasp the reality of politics and get on board to help us remove the evil chimperor.

[Avalux]

39. Thank You Skinner -

I couldn't agree more. :hi:

[TruthIsAll]

46. Skinner: 18 hard fought states = 40 million votes, not 10.

TIA

[Skinner]

48. But not all of the votes in those 18 states are up for grabs.

You can easily remove two thirds of those voters from the calculation because they are not open to persuasion. That gets us down to 13 million. My guess is that 75% or 80% may be more like it.

[TruthIsAll]

55. You are right. I didn't look at it that way. About 1/3 are up for grabs.

TIA

[salonghorn70]

52. Well Said

Very good points. Nevertheless, I believe that Kerry means what he says. Not only will he run in the middle but he will also govern in the middle. Clinton proved that if you stray from the middle political ground in this country, then you are in trouble. If you govern in the middle and run for re-election in the middle, then the result is four more years. Of course all of that is just fine with me, since I'm a DLC Demo. :)

[Classical_Liberal]

54. His prosettlements position is bad for our countries future

way to the right of other democrats in the past, and not a vote getter. My criticism is completely constructive, and he could easily make me happy without offending moderates. I have never, nor will I ever promote a third party candidate, but I will speak up when he is doing wrong.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. I think he's worried about the Jewish vote

Jews tend to go democratic but if Kerry changes his position on this then they will go to Bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

91. How come they voted for Clinton?

?

[ibegurpard]

62. I find myself agreeing with your post title

Although not for the same reasons you lay out.

[ulysses]

63. and honestly, that's fine.

To an extent.

Kerry running to the center is no surprise, but he's inheriting Bill Clinton's legacy of governing to the center as well. I don't expect him to fix the damage that Clinton did in the middle of a campaign, but I don't intend to be quiet about it if he completely ignores the left either. And if Kerry wins and proceeds to govern to the center in the manner of Clinton, it will only exacerbate the problems facing the party and the nation.

[XanaDUer]

64. Thank you, Skinner.

N/T.

[welshTerrier2]

67. "A campaign is a means to an end."

In a normal election year, your post would sicken me ...

As a left leaning Democrat, or Demo-Green, or Green-o-crat, I have to tell you that I've pretty much had it with the democratic party ... while i am not one of those who sees no differences between the two major parties, in some ways i see the democrats as worse than the republicans ...

how can i say this? i say this because the democrats should know that they have sold out to the wealthy and powerful ... yes, they fight for us on a wide array of issues but they do nothing to restore equal power to those without "top 2%" bank accounts ... lobbying and corporate control has a stranglehold on america and democrats have done nothing to change the situation ... both parties dance to the wealthy fiddlers' tunes ...

and "campaigns are NOT just a means to an end" ... they, at their apex, are more or less the only time the public tunes in to the national dialog ... if democrats are only about winning then we do nothing to steer that dialog to the left ... worse than that, we steer it to the right, as Kerry is now doing, because that is "good election" strategy ... and our message is sold down the river of despair in the process ...

so, were this a normal election year, your message of victory at any cost is total bullshit ... you cannot put the ends before the means ... the means of educating voters plays a critical role in how voters perceive the correct direction of the country ... and, if minds are changed, some of those perceptions last a lifetime ... don't be so quick to signup for the "only November matters" club ...

but, sadly, this is not a normal election year ... the stakes are far too high to "teach the democrats a lesson" ... 4 more years of bush will lead not only this country but the entire world to the brink of a global catastrophy ... it may take the form of an environmental disaster, it may be unending, widespread religious and cultural war, or it may be the rapid increase in the gap between rich and poor leading to economic devastation of the american middle class ... but it will surely happen at the hands of such an inept and corrupt administration ...

and because of this, in this year where left and center must join together to ward off 4 more years of evil, i am in full agreement with your pragmatic wisdom ... but don't be peddling that bullshit around here after Kerry wins in November ...

[blondeatlast]

82. Well said. Ideological purity carries an exorbitant price this year.

[MsSnood]

70. Well said, right now he has to appeal to undecided voters

in a few states that will make the difference between winning and losing in November. Voters who are most likely moderates/centrists, who could swing either way unless persuaded to vote for Kerry. That's the reality of it.

My vote is secure, although I am in a swing state, and would like more, I realize there has to be something on the plate to draw in those closer to the middle than I am.

[dsc]

73. campaigns matter

You seem to be saying that Kerry is saying what it takes to get elected but then will just do all kinds of liberal things. That won't work. It might get him elected but if he tries the second part of the bargain then he will be a one termer. To see that look at the recent past. Reagan, aside from the huge deficits, did what he said he would. Bush 1 famously broke a huge promise. Clinton, after his first two years, did what he said he would. Bush 2 broke many of his promises and if it weren't for 9/11 he would be finished.

The simple fact is one Kerry becomes President of something, what he said while earning the right to be President of something will greatly inform what he does, his ability to continue being President of something, or both.

[Skinner]

77. For the most part, I agree with this.

Going back a day later and reading my post, it does seem extremely cynical and does not say precisely what I was thinking.

Yes, campaigns matter. And yes, candidates should not say one thing and then govern in a completely different manner. I agree that a candiate's campaign will inform what he does.

But my point is that Kerry has a choice regarding which parts of his record and which parts of his agenda (if he has one) he wishes to emphasize during the General Election campaign. Now that the primary is over, he is not going to package himself and his message in the same manner which he did during the primary campaign. He would make huge mistake if in the General Election, he tailored his message toward members of Democratic Underground, because for us the choice should be obvious already. Instead, he has to communicate to the people in swing states who are likely to vote and who are open to persuasion. He needs to fine-tune his message to apeal to them.

In 2000, did George W. Bush go back to Bob Jones University after the primaries were over? Of course he didn't, because it would do very little to help him, and might even hurt him. But when he became president, did he remember the "Bob Jones" voters? In a big way.

John Kerry has a liberal record -- one of the most liberal in the Senate -- up until (surprise) about three years ago when he decided to run for president. As president, will he be the prototypical "Massachusetts liberal"? Unlikely. But will he be more liberal than Bill Clinton? Based on his record, I think he probably will be. But I'm not going to make him convince me right now, when he's got a campaign to run.

[flaminbats]

74. Kerry has impressed me more than Gore did at this point in 2000..

I realize that the Democratic Party will never have a platform that is agreeable to us all. But I also know that enabling Kerry to establish himself as the best possible President for Democrats is to incorporate our ideas into the platform.

Instant Runoff Voting and National Healthcare were pushed to the center of the debate with the campaigns of Dean and Kucinich. Shouldn't these both be supported within the Democratic Platform? In 2000 Gore won nationally by over 500,000 votes, but lost Florida because of only 527 out of nearly 6 million votes. Even though this is widely supported by independents, Republican voters, and most Democrats..why doesn't our party embrace abolishing the Electoral College within its platform? Aren't the people smart enough to elect their President, or do we still require a middleman to do this for us?

As I state earlier Kerry has a great agenda. His policy agenda, his voting record, and his personal background make me far more pumped up than I was in April of 2000. Kerry's greatest challenge, much like Gore's, is connecting with people. When he speaks to them in a town-hall, we must explain how a vote for him helps them directly. And he must always move toward the person he is addressing, and never move away to the stage. But Kerry has vastly improved since the campaign began, and he'll be unbeatable with this current rate of improvement.

[shivaji]

75. Kerry's main problem is he has been on...

both sides of many issues. First he was pro-Iraq war resolution, now he is against. First he was for increasing taxes, now he is not. He has no firm position on a lot of issues.

I think we picked the wrong guy..Dr. Dean was my choice all the way. But I may hold my nose, close my eyes and vote for Kerry.

[hedgetrimmer]

76. HA! HA! HA! I am a swing state voter! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

New Mexico ... the Land of dis-enchantment... All the upper middle class folk poke tiny little Kerry signs on the lawns of their houses up on the hill, while all us poor folk on the southside duke it out with our neighbors,
"Go Army but fuck you you God-damned Jesus freak!"...
" I can smell marijuana coming out of your house and I'll tell you god has a way of dealing with the devil!"...
"¿Oye, gira la música hacia abajo... lo hace como comprar algún tamalas?"
Welcome to the southside... swing voter central.

[hyphenate]

83. Yes, John Kerry may currently be

president of nothing, but that doesn't help that we've got a Nothing for president right now, either. ;)

[xchrom]

84. i just wonder if between the dlc and the dnc

the american political landscape is giving too few reasons for the left to show up and vote?
republicans have no problem embracing it extreme elements. and in fact expends some effort to portray them as not being extreme.
i'm not sure that i can say the same can be said about the democratic party. hence the long and vitriolic arguments about voting for that ''other party''{and i don't mean republicans}.
if the democratic party is trying to mine a brand new base -- then so be it.
things are shifting around out there regarding apatheitc voters{remember 02} and leftist activists. we shall see.
we live in interesting times, no?

[deutsey]

87. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with Kerry's campaign so far but

as he's the only one who can depose Bush now, I'll vote for him. However, I must say that I'm not seeing him igniting much interest in people I know who aren't as involved in politics as I am (i.e., the "bunch of other people" he apparently is trying to appeal to). These people aren't Bush supporters but they certainly aren't enthusiastic about Kerry.

I hope this changes, but right now I only see in my limited perspective Bush's base still defending and supporting him and people who want Bush out still as lukewarm to Kerry as I am.

[Guaranteed]

88. It's all about leadership, Skinner.

It doesn't matter if Kerry wins or not if he doesn't lead the country in a different direction than it's going. This is a cultural issue even more than it is political- Rush and Savage and these neo-con thugs have been framing the debate for years and years now, and it's finally sunk in really deep. Even if we get a Democrat in the White House, he's going to be totally ineffective unless he's willing to play guts ball. He has to go out there and take a fucking STAND on something: the Iraq war is WRONG...the fact that not every American has health care is WRONG....Media consolidation is WRONG. Etc., etc. It's his job to LEAD the country and its culture in the right direction.

Look at what the Bush administration has done. They're on the wrong side, but they're fucking brilliant in this regard. They have a totally untenable position, but they manage to keep it together simply out of pure will and stubbornness! Imagine having some actual REASON behind that kind of resolve! Imagine leading our country away from reactionary doctrine and back to a position of moral authority in the world, and the hope that would bring. Imagine not bowing down to stupidity for once!

The leadership role for Kerry has already begun. He has the controls of the Democratic Party. Americans are already looking for him to show courage and principle in taking our country in another direction. He can either take this opportunity, step up, and do the right thing (which is NOT socialism or some other far-left philosophy- I'm no leftist) by standing up to the neo-con garbage that the corporate media spews, or he can play some bullshit game and throw it away like our other presidents have done in the recent past.

Either way, this is much, much bigger than the White House. We have a LOT of hard work ahead of us. I just hope that Kerry has the guts to take on the job, because it's more than meetings and public appearances. People want a leader with a real vision, and they want to see that he believes it and is willing to work toward it.

[KoKo]

92. Well said, BullGoose. Does he have the guts or does he have to follow

the "Strategy," though. The "Strategy" being that he will be brought down by the media if he doesn't to some extent "parrot" Bush to avoid the "L" word.

Unfortunately, what he's doing is painting him as the "waffler," so I don't know how what I think is the "Strategy" will play out in the end, since so many of us here want a candidate to stand for "something," and speak out about it to differentiate himself from the Bush/PNAC'ers.

So, Skinner's "President of Nothing" maybe be true in a way he didn't intend in his post.

A "President of Nothing" can define himself in office, but can you ever "make something out of nothing?" (an old expression says you can't)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post.

[tinanator]

90. a pig in a poke is not democracy

these rationalizations can only deform the process that should instead be completely overhauled. Russert put up the bogus FL selection numbers and Kerry did not say a word about the actual voting results versus the phony ones presented. Not reassuring at all. How many Bushcorp lies will he support? And how does that gain anything for anyone other than Bush?