Howell Raines (Guardian Utd): Kerry Must do better

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Wednesday June 2

Must do better
His poll ratings have slumped and each day brings more bad news from Iraq, but George Bush has one big advantage in the coming campaign: a ponderous, uncharismatic challenger with no clear message. In the first of a series of dispatches for G2 on the US election, the former New York Times editor warns that John Kerry must find his voice or fade away
By Howell Raines

that Bill Clinton exhibited on the campaign trail and for the clarity of his message: "It's the economy, stupid." With John Kerry, the message so far seems to be: It's the war, sort of, and it's the economy, maybe.
Even against a weakened George Bush, Kerry has to get better as a candidate. The president may be bruised, but anyone tempted to bet against him would be ignoring the Republican party's mastery of what the pundits call "hammer-and-chisel politics", in which an opponent's reputation is destroyed through relentless pounding on one or two simple ideas. Ever since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, presidential elections have been dominated by Republican expertise in finding a tiny crack - real or imaginary - in a candidate's public facade and expanding that fissure until the whole edifice crumbles. And Bush's formidable chiseller-in-chief, Karl Rove, has barely started tapping.
While Bush's poll figures look sickly to the unschooled eye, his 40% support level does contain some good news for him. It shows that his base of cultural and political conservatives is holding together - so far. White House strategists are betting that leaving Iraq in 30 days - no matter what chaos ensues in that country - will leave them time to revise history between now and election day and, more importantly, get on with the work of destroying Kerry's image.
In recent weeks Kerry has been trying hard to sharpen up his act, but so far the results have not been encouraging. As America's first war-hero candidate since John F Kennedy, he ought to be leading the national discussion on what went wrong in Iraq. But for his current series of speeches on national security issues, he rounded up a series of experienced hair-splitters from the Clinton years - Richard C Holbrooke, James Rubin, Sandy Berger - and they produced a script that would have played very well before the Council on Foreign Relations. The speeches were intended to fire up his campaign, toughen his image and to modify - without disowning - his Senate vote for the war. The problem is that speeches that sound right at the Council don't necessarily work for an electorate schooled to respond to simple messages.

Read more.

[non sociopath skin]

1. I hope that DUers who still think the Guardian is "left" will read this .

The editorial line of the Guardian remains almost uncritically Blairite and, by implication, Bushite. Unlike the NY Times, it has made not even a token apology for its, and its stable-mate The Observer's consistent pro-war stance.

The Guardian deserves to be read for its excellent Op-Ed features and for its continued capacity to cover International stories neglected by the right-wing press which dominates the UK. But if you want anti-Bush, anti-war The Mirror and the Independent are where you go.

And I stick to what I've always said about the BBC. When the chips are down, it will back Bush in November.

The Skin

[Michael_UK]

2. I have to disagree

The Guardian's editorial line has been anti-Bush (although not as much as the Independent). Every week it has a Blumenthal article and on Monday, it's editorial was saying how the election was Kerry's to win.

The Guardian does sometimes have a pro-Blair line, but that does not make it pro-Bush. On the domestic scene, the Labour Government is still centre-left (minimum wage introduced, lowest unemployment in years, etc).

As a Brit, I separate Blair's domestic policy, which on the whole, I support from his foreign policy, which I oppose.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Bear this in mind

Mr. Raines does not work for the Guardian and is writing as a guest. He is the former editor of The New York Times one whose watch Judith Miller disseminated junta disinformation about Iraq.

When I read a news site, I want information, not an echo of my own views. That's why I prefer the Guardian and the BBC to the Independent and I usually ignore the Mirror.

In this case, Bush's chickens are coming home to roost and Kerry only seems to get a slight bounce out of it. One might argue that he needs to do more than just say "He's Bush; I'm the other guy, so vote for me" (although that's good enough to get my vote). Perhaps we should listen to a few different points of view on the matter.

I don't agree with much of what Mr. Raines says in this piece. Nevertheless, it seems worth the discussion.

[Briar]

4. The Guardian unlike the Observer

was anti-law and has stayed consistently anti war.

Unfortunately it is also pro-Blair, which is making its reporting of coalition-ruled Iraq and the scramble to create an illusion of "sovereignty" somewhat less than trustworthy. (But read today's leader for quite a sharp analysis of what happened yesterday.)

The Observer's disgraceful decision to play safe and support the war still requires an apology, but saying sorry is obviously too difficult for so-called "liberal" hawks to do.