And now, the great balancing act begins!

[jpgray]

Kerry has an enormous task ahead of him--to avoid falling off the balance beam. In this election, the beam may turn out to be the width of one electron. :)

He has to campaign towards the center. All his political strategists will tell him this, because no one buys that the left can win elections on their own. Bush will do this as well, and Kerry will follow suit. The main difference from Gore's campaign (thus far) is Kerry's willingness to respond to Bush's criticisms and statements. Even the 'innocent' and 'positive' ads Bush ran (doubtless expecting zero flak) have come under attack, and it's a damn good thing they have. When Karen Hughes is already being trotted out from her supposed 'soccer mom' existence, it's a positive sign.

Secondly, Kerry will try like crazy not to alienate the left. He already has three big strikes against him, not least the IWR and Patriot Act votes. I don't believe Nader caused Gore to lose (and please don't debate that here), but since he is running, he will inevitably draw some Democrats to him that would have voted for Kerry. It is Kerry's responsibility to make sure these people don't abandon ship--so he may need to shift left for this reason. But people here should look at the campaign and think of strategy as well as what's right. Use your own judgement, but remember that any politician who runs for president while being perfectly honest about what he's going to do and how will lose the election. History bears that out perfectly.

If, however, he does shift left, he has to avoid galvanizing the more conservative centrists who are tired of Bush. He also has to capitalize on the relative unease of Bush's hardcore base. They don't like the deficits, the immigration policy, the big government, or the invasions of privacy. If Bush moves center and Kerry stays center, the crazies may well stay home in some numbers. If Kerry moves left, they may be galvanized and turn out to vote for the moderate 'campaign' version of Bush in record numbers.

So what does this mean? First, like every presidential candidate in US history, he will make campaign promises that he won't deliver, and will take positions that go against his personal beliefs. The guy voted against DOMA, as one of only fourteen senators who did so. He called it 'legislating bigotry'. Guess what? He was exactly right. Unquestionably, gay marriage is part of equal rights and therefore protected by the Constitution. It is the right thing to do to allow gays to marry.

Kerry will NEVER say this, whatever he believes on the subject, because of the balancing he has to do. DuctapeFatwa and others have brought up how when Kerry softened his stance by promising to give all federal marriage benefits to legal same-sex marriages, he flies in the face of DOMA, which passed and is law. This is how he is balancing on the issue--he has the real potential to get screwed over on both sides and be revealed as the pandering campaigner he is (though all presidential candidates are this way).

Remember, JFK ran on being vehemently anti-Commie in the sixties. Was he really Joe McCarthy's biggest fan? I don't think so, but he recognized the issues he had to defuse in order to capture the voting population's support. He didn't run on equal rights either, though he was a proponent of civil rights in his presidency. Why? Without the voting population's support, he wouldn't have been able to do anything with civil rights since he would have been a failed candidate.

So it's really hard to say what campaign promises are meant and which are not. But if it's an incredibly divisive issue, and little is to be gained from picking the just position, I fully expect any presidential candidate to weasel out of it. Unless the nature of democratic politics changes, you have to pander and crush your values to get elected.

If he really abandons the cause of gays in office, then I will be pissed off, because it is the most basic issue of equal rights. But in a campaign, I can recognize the strategy, and the dodging of the wedge. But of course he runs the risk now of alienating the left, not to mention the miniscule chance that he actually is saying exactly what he believes on gay marriage--in which case I will be going after him once in office as will many other DUers.

[lastknowngood]

1. Any further to the center and he will be a repug

n/t

[jpgray]

2. Thank you for proving my point. :-)

He is already being labeled as the most liberal Senator from the right, and now from the left people say he is just as far right as the Republicans.

[JohnKleeb]

10. seriously people need to read his platform

Christ I realized he wasnt a collebartor when I was for DK and DK only.

[xray s]

3. I don't think he should try to balance anything.

What he needs to do is be firm and consistent in his vision for the future and present it in a positive enthusiatic way.

I also think they have to start making some fun of Bush and his miserable record.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. He doesn't need the left. It's too small, & too opposed to the status quo

to be worth the effort and expenditure of resources.

When you consider everything that has happened in the last 4 years alone, and compare the numbers of protestors in the street to the voting class, much less the non-voting majority - the left are the few people who were out there. the left is opposed to the crusade, no matter who runs it, no matter how many "allies" Kerry can bribe with America's Iraq oil to send their sons over there and empower the Iraqi people to be slaughtered by Frenchmen as well as Americans, the left will not be appeased by yet another Democrat with yet another speech about foot on the right road pie in the sky vaporhealthcare someday someday, they want it 20 years ago, those who are not socialists tend to be old-style captitalists, competition, value of a day's pay at least cost of a day's survival, they are almost all rigidly anti-imperialist, anti-feudalist ideologues who have spent too much time with their noses in too many books to be fooled by Corn Chex are now called Progressive Grain Polygons, and on and on.

There aren't many of them, neither Kerry nor the Democratic Party needs them, and there will be plenty of time after the election to let the Patriot Act take care of them.

[jpgray]

5. That's a pretty goofy thing to say

Your definition of the left is very limited and excludes most leftists on this board. Many leftists vote Democratic, particularly when their progressive views are represented by a candidate. In my opinion, the 10+% of Democrats who voted for DK in the primaries of some states are very necessary to win the election, and they ought to be included in any definition of 'the left'.

As for the rest, either you're for working in the system to make it better, or you want to wreck the system entirely. The latter have only to feel self-righteous and do nothing, because they reject working within the system, and the system won't change by virtue of not liking it. The respectable people of this group dedicate years of their lives working for causes that give no recognition and show no tangible progress towards a leftist goal. The less respectable people are like you and me, who spend hours pontificating on an internet message board. ;-)

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Kucinich supporters are an excellent example

Let me begin by stressing that I do not intend this as a smear against ALL Kucinich supporters, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that quite a few of them tend to have principles.

While there are always exceptions, the majority appear to me, anyway, to suffer from an intellectual condition that makes them almost immune to putting a new label on yesterday's mystery meat and calling it an innovative new Atkins-friendly gourmet protein entree.

Whether they vote for Kerry, vote for a third party or write in Paris Hilton is between them, the ballot screen and the Diebold company.

What I am saying is that if you look at Kucinich's numbers so far, both in funds raised (politics IS a business) and votes tallied, the numbers are not near the range that should give Kerry's people concern, which I am sure is a relief to them, as they have quite enough on their plate already.

[rucky]

7. Yep. Kerry ain't sweatin' it.

[Mick Knox]

9. Please.. no cold hard facts! thanks.... nt

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Super Tuesday numbers aren't cold and hard enough for you?

OK. compare funds raised.

[Jacobin]

8. Since when is being against an illegal invasion of a country

to steal its resources a "leftist" agenda.

I am a stranger in my own country.

[jpgray]

12. Well, you must have felt that way from 1910 to the present

Standard Oil and Brown Brothers were in the business of stealing resources and using the US army to defend the theft back then, and we've done the same crap over the years until the present day. When was the magical period where we DIDN'T do this crap as an industrialized nation? That people only have only caught on to it now that Bush is botching the system of imperialism through his gross incompetence is evidence of how uninformed this country is about its own history. :(

Anyway, for the least suffering abroad and at home, Kerry's the best bet in the GE. Bush is not. That's as far as I take two party presidential politics. If I asked who was the perfect guy who didn't believe in US imperialism, I would have stayed home or voted third party in every election since the 1850s.