A tale of two Kerries

[flaminbats]

I always had a mixed opinion of John Kerry and Bob Kerrey, two very different individuals whom are still frequently confused by those not closely following politics.

When Bob Kerrey ran for President he made single-payer healthcare, deficit reduction, and energy independence central themes of his campaign. He impressed me with his intelligence and willingness to face controversy. I have also been impressed with his willingness to think out of the box on the 9/11 commission.

But these same attributes have also frustrated me with Bob Kerrey. I was impressed when he endorsed Bill Bradley in 2000, along with Moynihan and Wellstone, both of whom have passed away. But I was both frustrated and confused when he decided, in the most recent primaries, to endorse Joe Lieberman! After Clinton became President, Kerrey became the last-minute threat to the five year budget plan, which would ultimately produce this nation's largest surpluses in history. Kerrey finally voted for the plan after "being persuaded" by billionaire Warren Buffet of Omaha. Kerrey also gave Clinton hell for the effects his universal healthcare plan have had on business, even though a working single-payer plan would require a mandatory payroll tax for both individuals and employers.

Unlike Bob, John Kerry has shown more consistency over the years on public policy. Even though he supported Paul Tsongas in the 1992 primaries, Kerry was a persistent booster for Clinton when other Democrats were jumping ship. Rather than run against Gore in 2000, Kerry endorsed him early in the primaries. But John Kerry has also shown less of a willingness to think out of the box, choosing instead to follow the path often set by other policy makers. Kerry has also been reluctant to take the same sort of political risks when setting his campaign agenda..that Bob Kerrey did in 1992.

So like any individual, neither man is perfect. But both men have very different qualities which are needed on a campaign. They both served our country in Vietnam, and were wounded during their tour of duty. Being different individuals with very different qualities and flaws, do you think would it be a bonus to have both of them on the same ticket?

[senseandsensibility]

1. I don't think he'd

make a good running mate, and not just because the names would be too confusing together. As you point out, Bob proved through his run-ins with the Clinton administration that he's just not a team player. If the VP isn't a team player, what good is he?

[mobuto]

2. Interesting anaylsis

I'm a fan of both Kerries, although I have to say that Bob Kerrey is, by all accounts, one of the smartest, hardest-working, most substantive people anywhere. As a policy wonk, he's really in a league of his own.

But substantiveness is not necessarily what's required in a veep candidate. What's needed is someone who mouths soundbites well, doesn't embarass the candidate, helps raise money, and maybe (if you're lucky) helps win votes in a state or two.

Kerrey's not the best for simple soundbites. He's in his very nature a maverick, so I think he has a very good chance of saying something that embarasses Kerry. Even if he doesn't say anything at odds with his boss, his past record - of fighting Clinton and also the allegations of war crimes in Vietnam - will distract attention from the candidate.

He's also considerably more conservative on a few key issues, and his strong support for the invasion of Iraq might make it harder for Kerry to criticize Bush.

As for raising money, that's largely an unknown - but Kerrey clearly doesn't have the vast donor pool that other prospective candidates have.

And his vote-earning powers are questionable. There's no way in hell that Nebraska's going for Kerry, even with Kerrey on the ticket, and his name recognition outside of Nebraska is still pretty low. The fact that he's a war hero will help, but we already have a war hero (albeit a lesser one) on the ticket and again, the war crimes allegations will receive a lot of press coverage.

If he's interested, which he may or may not be, he'd be great as a senior figure in the Administration. But not, I believe, as veep.