Kerry as Candidate

Americablog has an overly simplistic look at the election: Kerry sucked. The problem with such theories, beyond being incorrect, is that if we blame the candidate rather than looking at the problems which resulted in losses by both Gore and Kerry, we are doomed to repeat such losses.

Following is taken from a couple of my comments disputing the argument that Kerry sucked, as well as follow up discussion:

This post buys into much of the distorted coverage of Kerry from the conservative media. We could complain that first Gore, and then Kerry were bad candidates, but it goes far beyond this.

Of course Kerry wasn't perfect, but many of the problems came from trying to cope with a bad situation which all Democratic candidates would face. Perhaps he didn't handle everything the best, but it would serve our cause better to find better ways to handle such problems.

(The post accuses Kerry of flip flopping over issues such as gay marriage and Iraq). Kerry's problem was that he had to balance a strong support for gay rights against voters who planned to go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. Civil unions seemed like a sensible compromise. On Iraq, he had to balance his opposition to Bush's policies against being labeled a leftist who would not defend America.

Blaming Kerry for the difficult political situation he was in will only doom us to repeat the same pattern. Rather than blaming the candidates, we must take on the system where supporting gay rights and opposing unjust military actions are losing positions.

(A follow comment argued that the key was how many of these issues were presented.)

I agree that many of the issues which are now losers might not be so if we presented them differently. Unfortunately, much of this involves long term arguments, and is beyond what can be done in a single political campaign. The Republicans have been developing their mythology for many years.

There were many things which I might have done differently from Kerry and other Democrats. However, I also admit that if things were done my way, they might still have lost, and perhaps would have lost worse. Even in cases where I disagreed with the campaign's approach, I would not go along with a simplistic argument such as that Kerry sucked.

(In response to further discussion of the IWR vote, and claims that Kerry failed to speak out against the war:)

Kerry did speak out against the war, such as calling for regime change in Washington at the onset of the war. Rove pulled a great trick to divide the left, and unfortunately Kerry did not handle this perfectly.

The Iraq War Resolution was set up to be a no win vote for Democrats--giving choices such as this is Rove's specialty. Bush clearly stated at the time of the vote that a yes vote was not a vote to go to war, but a vote saying that America stood together.

Running against Kerry, the Republicans characterized the vote as a vote to go to war, to portray Kerry as a flip flopper. If a candidate who voted no had run, we would have heard a different story. They would have said that it was not necessary for someone who opposed this war to vote no, and that a no vote meant lack of support for our country, etc.

Rather than a circular firing squad, we need to find better ways to handle such Rove traps. Sometimes I think that it might be best for Democrats to abstain as a group onsuch votes and speak out against the nature of the vote.