Personally, I think Kerry pussed out way too much. Mention more recent cases of misleading by the Bush Administration when asked directly by Lehrer--don't simply restate the same old shit about pre-war stuff. BUT, the important (alas) developments occur AFTER the debate, and watching MSNBC, PBS, FOX News, etc., I must say I'm happy. Brokaw and Russert score it for Kerry, as do Joe Scarborough(!) and Ron Reagan. Andrea Mitchell is not as vociferous but thinks Kerry did well. Fox: Kondrake and Bill Kristol and Brit Hume seem really worried and are saying Kerry did what he had to do, while the always gung-ho Fred Barnes is raising questions about Kerry's performance. On PBS Mark Shields says Kerry won barely, and David Brooks (who's usually more sensible) thinks it was a 'draw.' Tommy Franks thinks Kerry did well, and Wes Clark says he kicked ass. Joe Biden really racked up some good points on MSNBC, but I missed John Edwards on ABC.
All in all, a good night. Many of the pundits are talking about Bush sighing, looking pissed, acting spoiled, and appearing less than presidential--including the Fox panel. This is really, really important--it's what cost Gore heavily in 2000. We'll see what happens after the spin kicks in this weekend.
5 comments:
On the radio, it was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Kerry won this. And if he had "lost" it or it "was a tie", that may have been the end for him. He delivered!
I personally think that if Kerry had been any more pushy, he would risk turning voters off. I think he did a good job of walking that line between seeming knowledgable and determined without coming across as a nerdy ass. Meaning he didn't become another Gore or Dukakis.
Plus he looked relaxed. That's incredibly important.
Jesse and I tried to do the drinking game. But we got too full after the first two questions.
Maybe he would turn people off; Bush, however, seems to win points for his pushiness. I'm one of those whacko liberals whose suspicions about our mission in Iraq can only be removed by a firm commitment to do what we actually did in Germany and Japan--turn this into a societal mission, ask for people to buy bonds, generalize the sacrifice by rationing oil, raising the taxes on corporations and the wealthy to 90%, and Marshall Planning the region. If we're not going to approach this idea with that level of enthusiasm, we may as well withdraw immediately or face our own Algeria. I think if Kerry wants to differntiate himself from Bush, he needs to evoke FDR/Truman and say: "I don't doubt the President is sincere now in wanting to nation-build in Iraq, but liberals are better at this stuff, and we've got history behind that assertion." To make his point about misleading stick, he should explain to the citizenry exactly how much we had to pay to achieve the modern day democracies in Europe and Japan--in blood and treasure--and say frankly "we still occupy these places 60 years later," and that cutting taxes and using an all-volunteer force may not be sufficient. If he said this firmly, and pledged he would do everything possible to avoid using the draft or raising taxes on the poor and middle class, he'd get notice, and the neo-cons would have to turn schizoid to argue with him, because many are pressing Bush to FDR this conflict.
"Maybe he would turn people off; Bush, however, seems to win points for his pushiness."
Because it's coupled with his "a guy you'd drink a beer with if he still drank"ness.
I'm not saying Kerry needs to tiptoe around issues. I just think he has a lot more at risk when it comes to personality issues and to be pushy would get him automatically deemed arrogant. (Which he is.)
I think you're correct, and finding that balance is extremely difficult for an "intellectual." But is Bush thought of as a guy people want at their backyard BBQs because they think he's straightforward and says what he believes even when it's unpopular? (not that I think that's true, but that's the perception) He's forceful and a bit arrogant and doesn't back down; for some reason such an attitude is popular. Democrats need to learn it.
Perhaps if more nuanced thinkers like Kerry (and Gore) said what they thought with conviction instead of trying to hedge everything because of PC considerations or other potential ramifications, they'd gain traction. The right wing has risen to dominance by doing just that, while the left has a bunch of droopy noodle politicians like Tom Daschle who worry about looking too tough or too acerbic or too cross. Compare Gingrich or Delay or Hastert or Santorum (or Bush) to any of the milquetoasts opposing them--where are the lefty firebrands? John McCain is the only passionate, pissed-off voice for progressives in the two major parties (Kennedy is pretty good at it, Biden is raising hell at last, Byrd made great speeches on the war). I think Jon Stewart and Al Franken are right--we need candidates on the left who aren't so concerned with creating a persona. The disdain and contempt and fire the right has for anyone who disagrees with them--distasteful as it is--is effective, and the public responds to it. Dean played the right-wingers' game well--but I think his example is precisely what you're warning against. Dean trod too far over some mysterious line and crashed and burned (largely because his party wanted him out). Without caution Kerry could do the same.
At least he won last night. Did he win in a way that's going to make this a less-close election? No. But little baby steps might work.
Post a Comment