Scot Lehigh in the Globe: John Kerry's encore

[whometense]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/23/john_kerrys_encore/

Some of the locals are starting to take notice.

JOHN KERRY may just be charting his path back to the future.

The man who cast a vote he now acknowledges was a mistake on the Iraq war resolution, and then spent two years awkwardly confronting the fallout as he ran for president, has finally come to a position where he seems comfortable.

Kerry's call for a near-withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by year's end has made headlines. Less noticed is that his new stand puts Kerry back where he first made his name during the Vietnam War: as a voice of the anti-war left...

...Kerry wouldn't begin a 2008 campaign as the front-runner, certainly, but neither would he be a laughingstock.

If Al Gore doesn't run, Kerry would start in a position analogous to that which Richard Nixon occupied on the Republican side in the run-up to the 1968 campaign. That is, hardly the favorite, but nevertheless an experienced, acceptable alternative should the early preference (George Romney for the GOP then, Hillary Clinton for Democrats in 2008) falter.

Further, Kerry's new position on Iraq would likely add some energy to an encore effort, perhaps letting him play a 2008 version of Howard Dean to Hillary Clinton's John Kerry. Indeed, Kerry is busy visiting college campuses, where the youthful campaign energy is often found.

If nothing else, at a time when many major Democrats have adopted a cautious wait-and-see posture on Iraq, a posture that has proved frustrating to the party's liberal activists, John Kerry has finally found his voice.

[ginnyinWI]

1. nice that he's noticed at home

That speaks pretty well, I think.

That's right about him being positioned to Hillary's left and that group having more enthusiasm. Hillary--I caught a bit of her reading a speech to some press club this morning, and I must say that JK has 10 times the speaking ability. She read her speech rather flatly, I thought--and this isn't the first time I've been really underwhelmed. I really don't think she's ready to run for president. And if she takes on this challenge before she's ready, she risks a possibly better shot in the future.

Meanwhile JK has expanded and honed his already impressive and eloquent speaking style and has been defining and refining his stances on the issues. And while I could be wrong, I think running toward the left and further away from the current administration will be the better strategy. It was good in 2003-4 too, it just could have been laid out more simply--pre-digested for our lazy media. Hopefully that media will be less willing to cozy up to the GOP next time, too.

[ProSense]

2. I didn't notice this was already posted.

I'm glad they're taking notice. The article is again touting the "new" voice.


This is the voice I've heard all along: no war!

October 2004:
http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#search=

[globalvillage]

3. On the whole, this was positive

But I'd remind Mr Lehigh that when 62% of the population thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, the "anti-war left" has moved well past left into deep center.

Also, this isn't Kerry's "new position on Iraq".

Oh well, at least he's finally getting credit.

[TayTay]

4. Yeah, he is. And Lehigh has come a long way

A year ago, he thought Kerry was being pushed out of power in MA. (The triumvirate of Kennedy, Kerry, Romney was one too many for Massachusetts, someone had to go. Guess who Lehigh thought would lose power?) This is big step up.

[karynnj]

5. This is a hugh shift

The beginning of this editorial is great - I'm glad he restated Kerry's actual plan and did it so concisely and well. The comparisons to 1968 and 2004, as all similar attempts to do this are silly. The issues, the mood of the country, the personal qualities of the prospective candidates are all so important and so different from those of the earlier year, that the noting of vague similarities makes no sense.

The comparison to 2004 is strange - Dean's campaign did not implode because he was "anti-war". Kerry and Dean were in the same place; both hadn't wanted to go to war and neither supported "Out Now". The difference was more two very very different personalities and the distotion of the IWR vote. The more important issue was what would you do - at this point Hillary and Kerry have genuinely different positions that likely stem from conflicting world views. In terms of personality, Kerry as anti-war doesn't inherit Dean's personality, which led to his campaign imploding.