Kerry Basher alert ! I just went to our Nucleus Club Luncheon, fundraising

[saracat]

arm of the Maricopa County Dems, and the speaker was a Kerry policy adviser who did nothing but trash Kerry! He said he would NEVER support him again. He was an operative who worked directly with Kerry. I spoke to him after wards, he ran out of time to take my question, and said I thought it was extremely inappropriate to make such a comment at a Democratic luncheon. It was inappropriate to say it at all! I said I was a Democrat who would gladly support Kerry again. and I was offended. Also I asked him what he would do if Kerry were the nominee. He said he didn't mean to say what he did, but he said he spent long hours with Kerry and Kerry never knew what he believed about anything. He said he was a product of whomever he talked to last. I said I found that hard to believe as he had a very consistent voting record and I found it hard to conceive that anyone could get where Kerry is without having convictions. I did agree that there may have been differences in how to convey those convictions. We both agreed we didn't like Shrum.
The whole luncheon seemed filled with a lot of Kerry bashers. They seem to "again" be pushing Dean and saying he would have been the better candidate. Damn. I thought this was done in the real world and it was only on DU I had to deal with this ridiculousness! I am really steamed today. I don't need this. And to think it cost me money to listen to a Kerry Basher! Grrrr.
And Tay, Tay, he was from Boston too, to make matters worse!

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. What an asshole

I love how he backpedals like a coward when you called him on his shit. Typical (lefty) freeper.

EDIT: He's only trashing Kerry now because he thinks he can get points with the lefty freep crowd before 2008. Too bad he's too stupid to realize that Kerry's the most consistently liberal Dem we have in the running. Oh well, let him run to the radical lefty freepers' candidate of choice, and let him go down with them.

[whometense]

16. From what I've managed to google up,

it sounds more like he's a Clintonite. (Clintonian??) Sounds like there were some basic ideological incompatibilities.

[Mass]

2. It does not surprise me that somebody who wants to be influential

with Kerry could think that if he does not understand the thought process.

It is probably not that he does not know what to think, but that he is trying to get as much information and ideas as he can and synthetize them. I can understand how it is frustrating to somebody that is trying to sell his ideas (in fact I know, because my husband is like that), but it is a thought process that allows somebody to think thru rather than grabbing an idea and not changing (see Bush who does not change his mind even if everything is terrible or if an adviser tells him he is wrong). What would this guy prefer?

This said, it was plain wrong. Did this guy have no loyalty.

[beachmom]

4. I'm sorry you had to sit through that, Saracrat

This is the thing that is SO frustrating with many Democrats. They play right into the RW hands, when they infer that "oh, well, I never really liked him anyway". Ugh. I think that mistakes were made last year, but Kerry knows what they were, and would fix them if he ran again. Just based on his history, he never makes the same mistake twice.

Anyway, sorry again for your experience. And you can just come here and talk to us for some solace anytime . . .

[LittleClarkie]

6. To some, he is a frustratingly slow thinker

He needs to feel something is right in his gut.

Besides, it sounds like Kerry has entirely too many advisors, and I do think that he didn't have enough confidence to go with his gut as much as he should have. There was alot of negativity around him for a while there. I think it was Lockhart who helped with that, but telling everyone to be upbeat.

That does seem inconcievable that someone would show up to a luncheon, not to talk about policy, but to trash a fellow Dem. How does that help us? Seems rather petty.

Not to mention, damn it, but Dean is our chairman now. He didn't make it out of the primaries. I wish folks would stop whining about that, saying it was stolen and such. If, God forbid, Kerry doesn't make it next time, I hearby promise not to be a weenie whiner about it.

If someone isn't strong enough to make it out of the primaries, then that's their problem. The general election wasn't getting any easier.

Anyway, Dean is our chairman. He damn well BETTER not be thinking about a presidential run. I don't think he is. But his minions haven't figured that out yet.

I still wonder about Dean's bonifides. Does he have his followers hornswaggled?

[whometense]

3. Who was he? n/t

[saracat]

7. This is who he is! For those who care! Please scroll. Pix didn't copy!

Andrei Cherny has made his mark at the intersection of public policy, politics, and government. He has been called “smart, bold, and thoughtful” by the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne and one of the “more creative thinkers” on the politics of the future by U.S. News and World Report’s Michael Barone. Cherny has provided policy and message advice to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Joe Lieberman, Cabinet members, Governors, U. S. Senators, and members of the House of Representatives.

From February 2003 through the spring of 2004, Cherny served as a senior advisor for John Kerry’s Presidential campaign. He was a key member of the small team that crafted the message, policy, and communications strategies which led to Senator Kerry’s upset victory in the presidential primaries. When named Senior Speechwriter and advisor to Vice President Al Gore in 1997, Cherny was the youngest White House Speechwriter in American history.

As the 2000 Platform Director, Cherny was the lead negotiator and chief drafter of the national 2000 Democratic Party Platform. He was charged with conducting the delicate negotiations that led to a deal on a platform that was widely seen as building consensus in the Democratic Party on a range of bold new ideas.

Cherny is the author of The Next Deal: The Future of Public Life in the Information Age, one of the top-selling political books of 2001.Cherny has written frequently on politics, policy, and history for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New Republic.

[karynnj]

8. The clue might be February, 2003 through spring of 2004

[Mass]

9. OK, no surprise in this case - Cherny has been thrashing Kerry quite a

while, and it seems that it is largely because after the primary, he did not get promoted where he wanted to be.

I read his book and I found it really lacking of substance, unfortunately.

[saracat]

10. Yeah, that was the impression I got. No offense to anyone here but Cherny

is just the sort of "baby dem" that costs us elections.And we keep hiring these people. Ed Rendell said it was these kind of people that cost us 2000. They always think ,with no experience, they know more. I think when he has accomplished as much as Kerry , only THEN can he talk!

[whometense]

17. There's no label that strikes

more dread into my heart than the term "prodigy." Seriously.

[sandnsea]

22. That's my understanding too

I'm surprised because I don't think that's the best way to get to the top of the heap and Andrie definitely wants to be there. But not completely surprised, because I didn't think he'd gotten the position he wanted in the campaign either.

[Island Blue]

11. Sounds like Senator Kerry was pretty decisive

about the fact that he no longer wanted this dude as an advisor! Sorry you had to sit through this Saracat, but thanks for calling him on his bs.

[sandnsea]

21. Andrei????

That is very surprising, but I didn't think he was quite as inside the Kerry campaign as he was the Gore campaign. KerryGoddess knows a bit about this guy, she'll probably be along soon.

[kerrygoddess]

26. Where was this?

I don't know what happened in the spring of 04 but something went down with Shrum and Cherny not agreeing and Andrei went over to the DNC. I know Andrei, he's a really bright young guy. I'm shocked.

[saracat]

29. Andrei lives in Phoenix now. He spoke at a Maricopa County fund raising

luncheon at the Phoenix Country Club. His wife is from Arizona and they have moved here. He did say he was originally from California.

[kerrygoddess]

31. Last I heard he was at Harvard

Sad to hear him talking like that because I know during the primaries he was very much awed by JK. Atleast he certainly gave that impression.

[blm]

5. Name him. I think he's an ignoramus. People also said the same about

Clinton, that whoever he talked to last was the source for Clinton's decisions.

That's horseshit "conventional wisdom" stories that make guys like this sound more connected and on the inside than they really were.

If he was an operative than why didn't he work the IranContra and BCCI stories into the media?

[whometense]

12. From The Forward

http://www.forward.com/campaignconfidential/archives/001564.php

After serving more than a year as a leading Kerry aide, Mr Cherny was forced out in April 2004 by advisers from the more traditional, populist wing of the Democratic party, led by veteran political consultant Bob Shrum.

Many New Democrats see Mr Cherny's departure as a sign of what went wrong with the Kerry campaign; they argue Mr Kerry abandoned the centrist platform established by Mr Clinton and adopted a more populist approach, backed by Mr Shrum. It is a view apparently adopted by New Labour, which has embraced Mr Cherny's ideas.

[whometense]

13. More gossip from TNR

(consider carefully the source - they HATED Kerry. Not pro-war enough. Not Lieberman-like enough.)

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=lizza051704

Last week marked a milestone in the Kerry campaign. Andrei Cherny, the gifted 28-year-old who had been John Kerry's director of speechwriting since February 2003, left for a communications job at the Democratic National Committee (DNC). For gossipy Democrats who obsessively follow the internal staff intrigue of Team Kerry, Cherny's exit was fraught with meaning. He was one of the last Kerry aides from the era of campaign manager Jim Jordan. Jordan was fired in November, and, since his departure, his replacement, Mary Beth Cahill, and her allies have been slowly replacing his hires. Kerry's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, quit soon after Jordan left, and, a few weeks ago, ad-maker Jim Margolis was forced out after a spat over money. Last week, Cherny departed for his new gig at the DNC. The only senior adviser left from the old Jordan era is pollster Mark Mellman. Democrats grimly joke about how long he will last.

See the possibility there's some bitterness there?

[ray of light]

18. I know the perfect speech writer for kerry

and even better campaign managers too. I wonder how we get Kerry to hire them. (and us!)

[kerrygoddess]

28. Really who? N/T

[TayTay]

20. I was very sorry Margolis left. He was truly gifted.

The ads for Iowa were wonderful. Margolis was better than Shrum at that. Other than that, it's politics. People flit around all the time from one person to another during campaigns.

[Mass]

14. So, if I understand correctly, he did what I expected him to do.

Good for Kerry.

[whometense]

15. Absolutely. n/t

[TayTay]

19. Read this: Kerry's Management style

From Frontline: The Choice 2004
Interview with: A lawyer and former State Department official, Jonathan Winer was a counselor to Kerry from 1983 to 1997. In this interview, he talks about what Kerry is like as a manager and politician, and offers details on some of his high-profile Senate investigations, including his inquiries into the Contra movement in Nicaragua, drug smuggling and the corrupt international bank BCCI.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/winer.html

Can you talk about his management style, in terms of how he dealt with his team?

Light. John's a light manager. What I mean by that is: You meet with him at the front end of any assignment of whatever it is you're doing, and talking through what the issues are, talk through what the initiative might be, what the agenda might be. He says, "Yes, try it out, see what's there." Then you're basically free to do your own work on it, and then to come back to him when he needs to pay attention.

He is not a micro-manager. He won't do it. Not important to him. Whole point is, if he hired you, he has to trust you enough to believe you're going to be able to do it when he's not paying attention. Micro-managers are basically saying they don't trust their staff. He's not a micro-manager.

He gets engaged at the front end, when there has to be a particular strategic decision, and then at the very end, when he has to himself engage. He'll get involved in every detail so he knows the inside out, like a trial lawyer preparing for trial, which is what he did before he was lieutenant governor. That's the style. That's consistent over the entire 20 years that I've worked with him and known him.


Socratic method?

Well, Socratic method is part of what you have to do at the front end, and particularly if you want him to go into action himself, which is he'll hit you with every single argument that he could possibly hit you with, that the other side, whoever it might be, might hit him with. So he is thoroughly prepared in the position he's going to take.

Part of that is, he'll let you believe for a period of time that he's not sure where he's going to wind up. Maybe he is, and maybe he isn't. But part of the process is a suspension of the intention to go a particular direction, because you've already intended, the arguments are going to get corrupted. If he's already said, "Well, that's the place I want to go, just give me arguments, I need to go there," he's not going to get the benefit of the authentic, toughest back-and-forth you could get.

So he goes to the other side, the opposite position that you want. "Why should I do this?" He's got the following problems with it. "I might be justifiably attacked for this. Why shouldn't we do that instead? Those kinds of arguments -- it's environmental issue or energy issue or a foreign policy issue or a tax issue, and you have to battle him. He won't just do it with one staffer. You could sort of deal with that one on one. He does it with a whole group, and encourages everybody else to participate in whichever angle of the discussion they want to be.

Then when it's done -- which may be because he's ready to go get some physical exercise; he's a guy who needs physical exercise -- he won't necessarily say, "Now I know where I'm going. I'm going to do this." At that point, it's his. It's not yours; it's his. He owns it. You don't own it. He's the senator. He's lieutenant governor. He's the president. It's his action. He's going to decide and take it from there, and he'll tell you when he thinks it's the right time to tell you. Maybe, as when he's the senator, he'll tell you when he's on the floor, and just does it.

Sometimes it's an unnerving process. But he comes out the right place.


Does this process take too long? I mean, Americans need clear answers clearly.

Well, any process like that is defined by the amount of time you've got. I mean, very often that took place late at night or late in the afternoon. And he'd go exercise, and then he'd go into action.

How long was this 'issues guy' with Kerry and how comfortable was he with this process. It is somewhat closed and might take some getting used to. This interview suggests that once a staff person submits all their arguments, they might not know what Kerry is thinking until they see him in a debate, a speech or on the floor of the Seante. Perhaps he either didn't 'get' it or was just not right for this process.

As to being from Boston, yeah, I believe it. I have my guyz from MIT working on the 'REveal all assholes' potion, but it isn't quite there yet. So, we still have to put up with turncoat assholes around here. Sorry one of them escaped and infected Maricopa County Dems meeting. I will get the guys at MIT to work harder.

[karynnj]

24. That he was more comfortable in the Gore campaign makes sense

In the Gore campaign, he had an unusually high position given his age and background. This was 4 years later and he likely considered Kerry (Senator, not VP, candidate not yet nominee). All the talk of him as prodigy probably gave him expectations of either leading the candidate or at least being a peer. At least from somethings said about the Gore campaign - he did repeatedly refashion himself to be what the "experts" wanted him to be. Gore 2005 seems to have left that eager to please/ eager to win Gore of 2000.

It sounds like the reason Winer was with Kerry for 14 years was that he must have found working with him rewarding and comfortable. It sounds like he understood his role, felt valued, but accepted that Kerry would make the ultimate decision. The comment in the article:

"At that point, it's his. It's not yours; it's his. He owns it. You don't own it. He's the senator. He's lieutenant governor. He's the president. It's his action. He's going to decide and take it from there, and he'll tell you when he thinks it's the right time to tell you. Maybe, as when he's the senator, he'll tell you when he's on the floor, and just does it. "

It really sounds that this guy's problem was that Kerry didn't take his views 100% and run with them. Apparently Kerry wasn't snowed by the prodigy and he reserved the right to reject his suggestions and to get insight from many people. What's funny is the shift to populism was considered to be the right way to go for both Gore and Kerry - no one has said he should have gone more centrist. I also suspect Kerry had more input in his own speeches than Gore - so he may have been frustrated that the candidate himself WAS controlling the words and the message.

The OP also has him taking credit for the turn around, but Cahill (and Kerry himself) may have been the key. He was there for a long time when it wasn't working.

[TayTay]

25. He's not a person to work for if you need constant ego-stroking

First of all, you have a lot of freedom to develop an argument. But you have to defend that argument completely. And you have to recognize that you are a staffer. (If you want to be the ultimate decision maker, run for public office yourself. Otherwise, recognize that he's the office-holder and will be held accountable for the position by other people, not you.)

This style of decision making is not for everyone. (I know several people who would be driven up the wall by it. They would find it too loose and not hierarchical enough. Plus, it's hard to tell which other staffer is 'in favor' at the moment because the final decision may not be announced in staff meetings.)

[karynnj]

32. That's probably an understatement

but in some ways if he gets people who can work in this mode - they will likely be a very interesting group of people who will be less constrained by hierarchy than normal, which will lead to freeer discussions which will likely lead to investigating sides of the issues (or non obvious effects on other policies or constituencies.) I wonder if this method isn't part of what leads to Kerry's tendency to see big picture connections. (Like the relationship between technology, jobs, alternative fuels, and the environment.)

I like the difference between office holder and non-office holder. It was disturbing to me when I learned that some office holders were essentialy the facade to a person or people pulling the strings. (Bush being a malicious example of this.) I was glad to read stuff like this on Kerry - because it showed he wanted a large amount of input AND he independently synthesized the information. Both are very important things.

[wisteria]

23. You guys, (Philly speak) are great. Thanks for all the pertinent

information on this jerk. I was going to contact him and give him a piece of my mind. But,after all your research and input I understand that this is a case of sour grapes. Poor fellow, he didn't like being fired. His ego won't let him get over it and move on. What a small man. Unlike Kerry, who has held his head up high after the election and continued to watch our backs.
It seems that the negative comments are beginning to come with more frequency and I just feel an obligation to fight back. I'm thin skinned where Kerry is concerned. I am thinking some of this negativism is coming from the "Hillary camp" and the media who just are so eager to see her run they will trash Kerry further. I don't want to dislike Hillary, but I can't shake the feeling this is all being orchestrated to discourage Kerry and his supporters. Please let me know if you think I am on the wrong track here. I really don't want to not trust Hillary, but it seems logical that some of this is coming from her side. Oh, and Kos too. Although, I'm aware of his motivation-Dean didn't beat Kerry and if I remember this correctly, Kerry kicked him of the Kerry site.

[kerrygoddess]

27. Not from Boston by the by

Andrei is not from Boston. I believe he is a senior fellow at Harvard at this time, so lives in Boston now.

Andrei is from CA, the San Fernando Valley. Graduated from the same high school my daughter attends - North Hollywood High in 96 I think.

[jillan]

30. Saracat - what were they raising money for?

I am so sorry that you had to sit thru this.

And why would anyone chose Dean over Kerry?
I just don't see it. Dean doesn't deliver his message very well - sorry! C'mon-he said on Hardball that the repugs shouldn't play
hide the salami. He later said that he couldn't find the right words and that was all that came to his mind. yeah - it's hysterically funny, but presidential? No! I don't think Kerry would ever say that on national tv.

It's too bad that you couldn't have interrupted him when everyone could hear your conversation. grrrr.

[saracat]

33. It was just the monthly luncheon that raises money for the Maricopa County

Democratic Party.

[kerrygoddess]

34. Clearing this up

I had sent this over to someone who could contact Andrei about this and clear it up. Here is his response:

"I did not say that JK was without convictions but, that the Democratic Party needed to figure out where we stand on the big issues and not look to JK or Bill Clinton or Bob Shrum or anyone else to figure things out for us in the course of a campaign.

Those are two very different things. I said how much I respected JK's service over the years and the strength of many of his policy ideas and that the attacks on him from the crowd were wrong."

Makes sense to me. Andrei's a good guy and as I said before, respects JK.

[karynnj]

35. Thanks KG, It's so good to know that this wasn't what he thought

It's nice there are people like you here who have the connections to defuse a situation like this by getting the other side.

[saracat]

36. That isn't what he said and we have it on tape. But whatever.

[kerrygoddess]

37. I'm just passing along what he said.

I consider Andrei a friend through the campaign. I was concerned when I saw what was originally posted and passed it along. I don't know what's on the tape you have, so it's hard to say otherwise. I was simply trying to shed some light on the situation.

Adding to this...

Andrei was speech writer for the campaign from the start of the campaign. He moved over to the DNC in the spring. My understanding is he and Shrum didn't see things eye to eye. It's also my understanding that he is well respected by JK, which is why I passed this along originally.

[saracat]

38. I am aware of his bio. His bio is the reason he was asked to speak

We share a dislike of Shrum.We videotaped his speech for our Democratic Talk Show. We do this for all our speakers. Andrei may be a friend and a nice person but he did speak as reported.

[kerrygoddess]

39. Maybe it's best for all...

To leave it alone. People often say things they don't mean or things that get misconstrued.

[saracat]

40. Which is exactly why one must be careful of what one says in public and

particularly on camera where it can come back and bite you!