Former New York Times editor Howell Raines on why John Kerry will not win

[DaveSZ]

I was surprised to see this in the Guardian, but I tend to agree that Kerry doesn't seem to have a message.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1229376,00.html


Must do better

His poll ratings have slumped and each day brings more bad news from Iraq, but George Bush has one big advantage in the coming campaign: a ponderous, uncharismatic challenger with no clear message. In the first of a series of dispatches for G2 on the US election, former New York Times editor Howell Raines warns that John Kerry must find his voice or fade away

Wednesday June 2, 2004
The Guardian

A lot of Democrats are nostalgic these days for the exuberance that Bill Clinton exhibited on the campaign trail and for the clarity of his message: "It's the economy, stupid." With John Kerry, the message so far seems to be: It's the war, sort of, and it's the economy, maybe.

Even against a weakened George Bush, Kerry has to get better as a candidate. The president may be bruised, but anyone tempted to bet against him would be ignoring the Republican party's mastery of what the pundits call "hammer-and-chisel politics", in which an opponent's reputation is destroyed through relentless pounding on one or two simple ideas. Ever since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, presidential elections have been dominated by Republican expertise in finding a tiny crack - real or imaginary - in a candidate's public facade and expanding that fissure until the whole edifice crumbles. And Bush's formidable chiseller-in-chief, Karl Rove, has barely started tapping.

While Bush's poll figures look sickly to the unschooled eye, his 40% support level does contain some good news for him. It shows that his base of cultural and political conservatives is holding together - so far. White House strategists are betting that leaving Iraq in 30 days - no matter what chaos ensues in that country - will leave them time to revise history between now and election day and, more importantly, get on with the work of destroying Kerry's image.

-more

[JI7]

1. reminds me of the primaries

[flpoljunkie]

2. Not interested in anything the discredited editor of the NYT has to say

about John Kerry. While he was in charge, his newspaper let Judith Miller and others publish absolute crap that gave credence to Bush's totally discredited WMD claims that led us to this unnecessary and costly war in Iraq.

Shame on them and him.

[gristy]

12. Yup.

What he said. Raines has been discredited. He has absolutely no credibility remaining.

[fujiyama]

23. Exactly

Worthless shit newspaper. It's been goin on for years now. Wen Ho Lee, Whitewater scandal mongering, "Monicagate" mongering, and the worst of them all:

JUDITH FUCKIN MILLER.

Fuck Howard Raines and the NY Times. There's a special place in hell for them as well for helping the neocon cause. The blood of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers are partly on the Times' hands.

[RobinA]

27. Did You Read the Article?

It's not anti-Kerry, it merely points out some things Kerry could be doing differently that might be more effective. And let's face it, with everything that's been coming out lately, Kerry should be doing way better than he is. I particulerly agree with Raines' statements about how Kerry SHOULD HAVE handled the Vietnam atrocities brouhaha instead of blathering mealy-mouthed nonsense a la Gore.

Both these politicians (Gore and Kerry) have a lot to offer, but the Gore campaign and so far the Kerry campaign was/is so afraid of saying the wrong thing that they aren't saying anything. It kinda goes back to the Dukakis "What would you do if your wife were raped" question. Jeez guys, say SOMEthing that sounds like a normal, unsliced and diced response. It does nobody any good for Citizen Kerry to be giving a speech next June and have the reaction be "If only he had sounded like that BEFORE the election." And I fear that's exactly where we are headed.

Democratic Party - best damn unemployed politicians anywhere.

[sangh0]

29. Do you know Raines?

If you knew his record, you'd know he is not supporting Kerry. Raines gives Dems advice for the same reasons Rove gives advice to Nader.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Let me guess.

Your support for John Kerry is reluctant. I am growing tired of Democrats taking every opportunity to criticize John Kerry regarding anything and everything he says or does--seizing and spreading any and every criticism they read about John Kerry--no matter the source.

I personally think John Kerry is running a brilliant campaign. Remember how everyone doubted him before the Iowa primary. Why not give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt rather than seeking to sow doubt?

I agree with John Zogby that this race is John Kerry's to lose and I, for one think, John Kerry will win in November. He is a great closer and way ahead of similar Democratic nominees at this early juncture.

Yes, I did read the article, and I was unimpressed with Mr. Raines' suggestions.

[RobinA]

39. Wrong

My support for John Kerry is not reluctant. I favored Kerry when his poll numbers were in the basement. He was my preferred candidate among all available Demo candidates, and not only because I believe him to be the most electable.

This does not, however, mean I have to think he is running a wonderful campaign no matter what he does, and it does not mean I have to attack anyone who dares suggest a different course for him.

I wish he would do some things differently, they are pretty much the same things I wanted Gore to do differently, and Raines happens to discuss those very things in this article.

No, I don't "know" Howard Raines. I have read pieces by him before and sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. I think he has some valid points to make in the article, and if freakin' Karl Rove made the exact same points I would agree with him too. I listen to WHAT people say, I don't dismiss what they say because of what they've said in the past or who they are. It's called being open-minded.

[flpoljunkie]

52. I cannot take seriously the suggestions of a man who denigrates JK

as Harold Raines does...What kind of crap is Raines himself spewing here?

I personally find him easier to talk to than Al Gore, but there's no denying that he's ponderous. And he's pompous in a way that Gore is not. With Gore, you feel that if he could choose, he would have been born poor and cool. Kerry radiates the feeling that he is entitled to his sense of entitlement. Probably that comes from spending too much time with Teddy Kennedy, but it's a problem. The TV camera is an x-ray for picking up attitudinal truths, and Kerry's lantern jaw and Addams Family face somehow reinforce the message that this guy has passed from ponderous to pompous and is so accustomed to privilege that he doesn't have to worry about looking goofy. It's as if Lurch had gone to Choate.

________________

What utter drivel! I have zero respect for Harold Raines' opinion of John Kerry. This is a hit piece, disguised as helpful advice. We should be not deluded into thinking otherwise.

I find John Kerry, neither ponderous or pompous. He is human and real in a way that the hapless Al Gore, whom I supported, could never be. This kind of characterization of John Kerry is just what Karl Rove and his minions are promoting in the media--that and the ridiculous flip-flop meme, that the media has bought "hook, line and sinker." Shame on Harold Raines for doing their bidding. Let's not join Rove in doing the dirty work of the GOP.

[flpoljunkie]

53. Suggested reading on Raines' suggestions for JK from Digby via Atrios...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_30_digbysblog_archive.html#108628912373214187

Howell Raines says that a lot of us Democrats are pining for the exuberant days and clarity of Bill Clinton's campaign message. I know I greatly miss Howell's exuberant obsession with David Bossie's bait shop gossip and Clinton's manly member and I'm sure he does too.

Yes, it was an innocent time, a time before people like Raines aided and abetted partisan witch hunts that led to impeachment for blowjobs, a time before electoral legitimacy was conferred by cronies instead of votes, a time before a president was allowed to walk the streets naked as powerful media figures like Raines exuberantly described the three piece suit he wasn't wearing. It was a time before the country's credibility had been shattered, the magnificent might of our military and intelligence strength had been exposed as a paper tiger and our allies and enemies alike hated us with an unmatched fervor. In fact, the only thing that can be compared to that time is the huge job losses and enormous budget deficits of both Bush presidencies.

Yes, it is indeed a new day. But as far as Howell is concerned Kerry is blowing it big time. And the thing is that he sounds like he cares deeply that Kerry wins. Howell, you see, a southern liberal of the new school, is just offering his heartfelt good advice to the campaign. As the former editorial page editor and then editor of The NY Times, he surely knows what he's talking about. This was once the most powerful opinion leader in the liberal media.

First, he informs us that Bush and the Republicans are masters at "hammer-and-chisel" politics and shouldn't be underestimated. Who can argue? I don't recall ever reading anything like that during the 2000 election when Bush was receiving adoring front page profiles about how he fed his dogs and cats in the morning and travelled with his pillow, but I understand. Compared to the degenerate, corrupt treasonous incubus Bill Clinton and his sidekick, the mentally unstable Al Gore, Bush was a breath of fresh air.

more...worth savoring

[Old and In the Way]

3. Seems to be a well orchestrated talking point today.....

The RW has come out of Memorial Day weekend with a well coordinated attack on Kerry. This same meme was on O'Reilly and Hannity tonight.

Total BS. Iraq is a mess, the interim government won't hold, and Bush is clueless on what to do next. Bush's best days are behind him.

[freetobegay]

8. So have many supposedly DUer's!

[Dover]

14. MoveOn.org has been pressuring for Kerry to share his "vision" also.

This, even after Gore suggested in his MoveOn-sponsored speech, that Kerry keep a closed lip for now due to a rapidly changing situation.

I would like to know Kerry's plans as much as the next Dem, but in all honesty I don't think now is the time to share it. The Rovian sharks are circling and VERY hungry. GOPer's are forced to feed on one another for lack of better bait.

Let the cannibals feast on one another's toxic flesh.

[Scoopie]

40. Bush has always been clueless

EOM

[jsw_81]

4. I'm not worried

Our "ponderous, uncharismatic, aloof" candidate trounced Dean, Edwards, Clark and half a dozen other candidates in the primaries and is now leading or tied in virtually every key state.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. That was because the dem neocons launched a character

assiniation campaign on Dean. They'll get Kerry now. They were actively attempting to nominate the weaker dem. Either way they win because Kerry doesn't have a different foriegn policy from Bush.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

5. Nothing wrong with the viewpoint

which is pretty mainstream. What I find interesting is that he cites the 40% GOP core but ignores the 40% Dem core.

Like every election, this one is about how that other 20% will break.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Kerry doesn't make his base happy like Bush.

So I don't know why you care about the Dem core. Kerry sure as hell doesn't. Neither do the damned dlc.

[dkf]

24. Too many of the Dem core doesn't like Kerry.

My boss, who is a lifelong Dem, says she is thinking about not voting for anyone for President and leaving that section blank.

I'm thinking of doing the same because I refuse to be responsible for the Iraq quagmire that Kerry will keep us in and I am pretty sure keeping us in Iraq will necessitate a draft.

It would help me if Kerry makes a nice little statement that getting into Iraq was wrong. If he can't acknowledge this obvious truth, then I have no faith in his ability to see things with any semblance of reality. I also feel that if he thinks Iraq was an idea worth doing then his moral compass is not something I can live with.

[JI7]

38. the primaries say otherwise

that most like kerry. just yesterday in south dakota he got over 80 percent of the votes. they could have voted for any of the other candidates but didn't. the same for other states that voted.he won in most of the states and the states he lost are places where the winner had personal ties to the state. and even in those places kerry still came in second. and he has already said bush did the wrong thing in iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. That pesky 'voting' concept rears its head again.

If it weren't for those silly elections, we'd all know that the majority of Democrats don't want Kerry to be the nominee.

[mitchum]

49. Blah, blah, blah....

the Dem voters seem to disagree with your assertion.

On edit: comment about errand in vain removed by mitchum

[Dover]

6. Raines was, in large part, responsible for the decline in integrity of NYT

He seems now to be joining MANY republicans who would like nothing better than for Kerry to put forth SOME sort of meat that they can sink their teeth into. Why should Kerry do that now and give them ammunition? THEY are against the wall, not Kerry. But I do think Kerry should spill the beans sometime after Dem. Convention...maybe in the debates?
I thought perhaps Raines was a GOP plant because of the timing of his unlikely promotion to editor just prior to 9/11 and his dictator style.

Here's a little excerpt on Raines:


... Raines got to the Times relatively late—1978—and never worked inside the 43rd Street newsroom proper until he became executive editor in 2001. Wherever Raines actually ran the show—the editorial page or the Washington bureau—his managerial scale was small. Either by design or accident, he never established much in the way of political capital or a Times constituency—outside of Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.—before becoming editor.


As a politician—and temperamentally—Raines is a dictator. Dictators can be good editors. But when he took over from Lelyveld in 2001, he earned the staff's immediate enmity by centralizing the operation that Lelyveld had so carefully decentralized, consolidating power in his "troika" with Managing Editor Gerald Boyd and Assistant Managing Editor Andrew Rosenthal. The remaining assistant managing editors and section editors lost their autonomy, becoming short-order cooks who prepared whatever the troika requested. Raines stupidly undercut the "Business" and "Sports" sections by telling them how weak he thought they were.

Raines went on to eviscerate the paper's investigative unit, ditching stories that take time and patience to mature in favor of "flooding the zone" with coverage every time a 9/11 or Enron or shuttle or war story appeared. Flooding the zone, of course, leaves the paper drained during non-crisis periods.

In remaking the Times, Raines erected a divide in which he pampered his favorites, including Bragg, Patrick E. Tyler, R.W. Apple Jr., Steven Weisman, Elisabeth Bumiller, Alex Kuczynski, Alessandra Stanley, Douglas Jehl, Felicity Barringer, and David Barstow. Of course, every newspaper has a star system, but Times staffers began to complain that not everybody on Raines' list had gotten there by merit. The same management style drove away at least a dozen (and rising) talented people who preferred hitting the highway to doing it Howell's way: Stephen Engelberg, Melinda Henneberger, Sam Howe Verhovek, Kevin Sack, Michalene Busico, Dean Baquet, Ilene Rosenzweig, Doug Frantz, Buster Olney, Rick Flaste, Tim Golden, and Rick Marin.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083931/

[DaveSZ]

7. True

All Kerry has to do is present himself as a worthy alternative to *, and let * hang himself.

[aquart]

9. Except....

That George has been revealed as a liar.

The GOP spent millions persuading us that we prefer integrity to lies. Yes, indeedy they did. And now we do.

Well, Bush is a liar. And a blowhard. The stunt on the Lincoln, the fake turkey tray.......it's all image and no substance. He lies about everything and that genie does NOT go back in the bottle.

And I love all this altruism about the handover.

Aside from that, Howell Raines is a lying sack of pasture pastry who never let an honest judgement make it to print while he was in charge of the editorial page.

[Beetwasher]

10. So, Because Kerry's Not Running Around Parrotting Some Idiotic Slogan

for six grueling months he doesn't have a message?

Hello Dumbass! (NOT THE POSTER!) You're not talking about a message, you're talking about a slogan. Kerry's GOT a message, he just hasn't started repeating a slogan ad nauseum yet.

Marketing fundamentals here. You don't want to wear out your SLOGAN(S). Kerry will roll out his when the tim is right. It will still be fresh in the voters ears and minds and not sound like some stale repetitive worn talking point.

Think of how SICK they are going to be 6 months from now hearing Bush's lame repetitive schtick "steady leadership, flip flop, terror terror terrror, 9-11 9-11 911-- blah blah blah blah blah...."

[dae]

11. Raines just needs to take a deep breath and stick his head back up

Judith Miller's rear.

[LittleApple81]

13. Jerk. n/t

[mitchum]

15. Howell Raines is yesterday's news (no longer fit to print)

[OHdem10]

16. Perhas we should remind Howell Raines

At this time in the Clinton Race, believe it or not Clinton was in 3rd place behind BushI and Perot.

I am a Bill Clinton fan so this is in no way meant to disparage Clinton.

It makes me crazy when people people try to compare Clinton to our Present Candidate(s). God threw away the mold after making Clinton.

It is unfair. No John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. President Clinton himself has said he probably would not have been elected if all this Terrorism and War were going on when he entered the Race.

The times call for a different kind of candidate and John Kerry fills the bill as far as I am concerned.

When President Clinton was in office I supported him just as fiercely.

All the Pundits of consequence have been saying over and over--John Kerry at this time is doing the right thing. The people are evaluating Bush and saying to themselves--Do we let him go or do we keep him? Their focus is on Bush. Most average Americans are not as intense in their interest of Politics as we are. This give Kerry time to develop and hone any slogans--Snyder, CNN says Kerry should
go for "Unity" amd rea;;y mean it. George Bush promised to unify us and the chasm is so deep--you know what I mean.

Since Howell Raines and the NYT were not Clinton"s friend when he was President, he is in no position to advise Kerry. to be advising
Kerry.

[jsw_81]

18. Indeed

I'll never forget the cover of one of those right-wing magazines back in 1992: "Why Clinton Can't Win."

[zulchzulu]

17. I'd prefer to believe that we shouldn't assume anything about the election

So the guy doesn't do his homework and actually see that Kerry DOES have his message out. It's not getting coverage like it should, but actual voters are looking at his record and understanding his positions.

Granted, looking at issues like healthcare reform is not as exciting as some reality show with busty chicks in bikinis. Gee, did Hank get voted off the island? I dunno. Who's Hank? Wheres' the island?

Maybe Vanessa and Alexandria Kerry should model in skimpy outfits and do Valley-girl explanations of Kerry's platform. Chris Heinz could do some kind of male stripper act explaining Kerry's position on the Iraq War.

Anyway, the best thing to think at this point is that we should not take any lead in the polls for granted. We should act like we are 10 points behind. Kick some ass.

[Merlin]

19. Raines is absolutely right. Kerry needs to sharpen his act.

I concede that maybe--just maybe--the Kerry people are saving all the good stuff for the time when it really counts, i.e. Sept & Oct.

But I'm not impressed so far with John's ability to impress the electorate with his presidential qualities.

Let me add, however, that the title of this thread is very misleading. Don't let it prejudice your reading of the article. It's a damn good piece.

[RafterMan]

22. I feel no nostalgia for Clinton's campaigning

Kerry's style makes him look like a serious man for serious times.

To me, Clinton-style campaigning today looks like fiddling while Rome burns. If Americans have that deep a need to vote for someone who makes them feel good no matter what, they should elect a smack dealer.

Also, what's this about leaving Iraq in 30 days? I guess it's easier to quit being editor of the Times than it is to stop passing on the Tyrant's lies.

[union_maid]

25. It's the stupidity, stupid

Kerry'll be saying that. Using the term "incompetence". Right now lots of other people are saying it for him, and quite a few former Bush supporters had noticed it already. It's just way early to come on strong. I think Kerry's right about that. It would be early in any year, but this year, even more so.

[PATRICK]

26. Can anyone do a history tour

of how impressed Raines was with Clinton's "message" and chances at this stage in that long ago election? I love the finely tuned insight into media power of this miserable failure when it comes to giving the advantage to a losing candidate based on the media's supposed infallibility in propping up a lie which didn't even win a majority in the last election.

I hope that shrinking elite gaggle keep believing their own tripe. The fall will be all the greater.

As for that tiny crack, if Raines couldn't even, in his righteous NYT indignation, use the Flowers chasm to destroy a mere upstart primary candidate, you have to wonder if he has been reading his own newspaper the past twelve years.

Partisan whistling in the dark. That's all I hear in their emptying halls.

[TexasSissy]

28. None of the Dem. candidates was charismatic & had message

None of the Dem. candidates had the "it" that we were looking for, IMO. So we had to settle.

As Dean said (and I'm paraphrasing), it would be a mistake to count Kerry out at this stage; he's a closer. I Agree.

Kerry is the presumptive nominee because he's hard driving, experienced, doesn't say TOO many stupid things, presidential, and he hangs on like a pit bull. That's what I'm counting on. I'm NOT counting on a clear message that gets everyone enthused. He's not that kinda guy. But maybe his V.P. will help in that regard.

[robbedvoter]

30. Yup. The old Gray Whorse is shpwing her colors

Here's a little objectivity ftom their man Nagourney (before you tryth NYT):

Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
May 2, 2004
KERRY STRUGGLING TO FIND A THEME, DEMOCRATS FEAR
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
April 8, 2004,
Battles in Iraq Bring Problems for Bush And Kerry as Well
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE
April 1, 2004
Political Memo; Bad Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN
March 21, 2004
Political Memo; Some Democrats Say Kerry Must Get Back on the Trail
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ADAM NAGOURNEY
March 13, 2004
Political Memo; Testing, Testing. Shrewd Politics or Kerry Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
many more worries for the dems from NYT here:
http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P1268_0_1_0_C

[jacksonian]

32. whatever, notice Raines did lay out the Repug strategy

for Irag, appoint some stooges and call that a victory for democracy.

Raines may have a point. Bush only needs to sell *hope* of democracy to be labeled a success - problem is, we all know what happens to Bush's hopes of democracy, they fizzle in the fire.

We need to be ready for this, and not just tout 1992 polls.

[robbedvoter]

34. Ranes only told us he's kissing W's a*. The Pope is Catholic - I know

it without reading the NYT. In fact I get most of my reliable info outside of NYT - and I am surprised when some truth makes its way in that sewer. If I want to know the GOP strategy, all I need is to turn the TV on ANY news channel. Not really a guarded secret, you know?

[blm]

33. Oh look, Raines just told the truth about the CORPORATE GOP MEDIA....

Oops...no he didn't. My mistake.

The day Raines starts telling the truth about bending over backward to prop up Bush and the GOP agenda is the day I'll heed any advice from him for Dems.

[GOPBasher]

35. That's pretty much what I've been scared of, but we'll pull through.

We'll win in November, but the author does make good points about John Kerry.

[shivaji]

36. No kidding...what is Kerry's message ? Does any one know?

I know he voted for IWR before he voted against it.

I know he is one of the most liberal senators from
Massachusetts. I know he has never met a tax increase
he did not like.

I know all that. But will he speak out clearly what are
his top 5 priorities upon taking office?

I am a blue dog democrat and want to see some clear
definitions of issues so I can drag mu butt to the polling
booth in cold weather.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. A strong, energy independent, green America, with equal rights for all,

a sane foreign policy, and a government that works for all of us, not just for the 1% richest of us.


http://www.johnkerry.com
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days

[IndianaGreen]

43. Can't have equal rights for all if you don't allow same sex marriage

otherwise you are talking apartheid.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. So someone either agrees with you

(as I do) or they are 'talking apartheid'? Your efforts to build consensus might benefit from a more open-minded approach.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Equality under the law is a principle that we must abide by

You cannot treat some people differently just because of race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Like I said, I agree with you.

What I don't agree with is the proposition that anyone who doesn't is 'talking apartheid' and I don't think that is a good approach towards building a coalition for positive change.

[JI7]

47. yeah

the palestinians don't allow gay marriage, but it doesn't mean we should not support a state for them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Well put.

[Forkboy]

37. Coming from Raines

I wouldn't take this too seriously :crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

41. Coming from anything associated with the NY Times, past or present,

I wouldn't put any credence into anything I hear from the folks that sold us the WMDs bullshit.

[flaminbats]

51. How can Kerry win by being a two dimensional candidate?

Iraq and the economy are issues which cannot be separated.

<http://costofwar.com/embed-slow.html>

For John Kerry to attempt to do that would be mean handing victory over to Bush. People voted for Carter in 1976 because they wanted a moral President after 13 years of immoral power games. Gore lost many of the states Clinton won because voters in those states blamed Gore for Monica and the fund-raising scandals. Now the Republicans are swimming in a pond of their own sewage while trying to convince voters that the water is warm and comfortable.

Unlike Clinton, John Kerry has served his country in uniform. He has the credibility to speak out on the moral issues of this country. And he can link our moral responsibilities as a people to the economic needs of our nation. Only by doing this can any Democrat hope to defeat Bush in November!