Reply #16: I think mostly selfish - I agree with you and wish it were so [View All]

[karynnj]

I think that the fact that it isn't like that is very interesting. I may just be fooled by Kerry, but I really think he might be the only politician I would think would do something that could disadvantage himself if he felt there was a compelling reason to think it would help the country. What's interesting is how the party has treated the last 2 nominees.

Gore got the nomination largely because he was the vp and ran after 8 years of good economic times, but a very nerve wracking emotional time thanks to the RW and Clinton's behavior. After his defeat, Gore, although understandably depressed, disappeared for at least a year and a half then came back substantially heavier and with a beard. STILL, at the beginning of 2002, most pundits and many Democrats felt that he should have the nomination again.

Kerry came very close to winning a race that should have been tougher than Gore's race. After his defeat, Kerry, was out of sight for about 2 weeks, returned to the Senate and talked to at least some of the press, took a month for a very well deserved vacation and has been working like crazy since then. He pioneered using his email list for issues, which many have since copied, and he has reached out to his supporters. More than anyone else he has developed positions on issues that represent true Democratic values. Although he's been leading, the party and the media are most definitely not helping. (Although at some point, they may notice he does the right things even when noone is watching.)

I think the real difference in how they've been treated may reflect the fact that Kerry was never the choice of the professional Democratic, contrary to the claims of the Deniacs or the Clark fans. (He certainly wasn't a favorite of the Clintons - who clearly preferred Clark.) It seems he won Iowa just on his own merits. (Does anyone know why Harkin, who seemed a Kerry friend, endorsed Dean?)

During the general election, the politicians stayed closely behind Kerry, but many operatives, Brazille, Carville and Begala seemed annoyed that Kerry wasn't doing what they wanted. So it doesn't surprise me that the media and the professional Democrats are not giving Kerry the same respect. (Also the Clinton people know who they want.)

One reason I can think of for not getting behind the position is that it is not Hillary's position and many Democrats are betting on her. I wish she would make her position clearer because I think that if there were a position, however vague, that she, Kerry, Edwards, etc could agree to which is substantially different then Bush's, it could serve as an interim Democratic position. (Also, if Hillary is closer to Bush than to Kerry, the party needs to know this, as I think most Democrats are closer to Kerry on this (with many to the get out now side.))