"Kerry in a Straitjacket:" a good article by Joe Klein in TIME

[liberalpragmatist]

I generally think Kerry's doing fine and there's sometimes too much criticism. He's hit Bush quite hard quite often, but others are right - while I don't think Kerry's Iraq position is incoherent, it hasn't been well-phrased and the criticism have been relatively timid on Iraq.

I think Klein fingers it right here:
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,685961,00.html

Why isn't he hammering Bush on his conduct of the Iraq war and the larger war against Islamist radicalism, which is the most important issue in this election?

The answer is politics. His political consultants don't want him to do it. Their focus groups tell them that the public wants an "optimistic" candidate who offers a "positive plan" rather than a "negative" candidate who criticizes the President. Of course, "every focus group in the history of the world has wanted a candidate with a 'positive plan for the future,'" says James Carville. Unfortunately, focus-group members are also human beings. In a roomful of strangers, they present their most noble selves. They hate political attacks—but not really. They have obviously responded to the scurrilous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry's war record, which is why he was forced, finally, to counterattack last week. The Swifties' ability to dominate the news with incendiary nonsense is, I believe, a direct result of Kerry's unwillingness to dominate the news with tart, controversial substance by challenging the President on Iraq.

Kerry's obvious frustration with his self-imposed straitjacket not only leads him into lame forays like the troop-deployment gaffe but also to some tortured circumlocutions about the war. Most spectacular was spokesman James Rubin's recent statement that a President Kerry "in all probability" would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein by now. Oh really? I thought Kerry's position was that he would have waited for U.N. inspectors to complete their process—which, we now know, would not have produced evidence of illegal arms—and that he would have gone to war only with a supple international coalition, which wouldn't have existed without strong indications of weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, Kerry's best moments in this saga have come when he challenged the President's foreign and defense policies. Kerry distinguished himself two years ago by criticizing Bush for not using U.S. troops to attack the trapped al-Qaeda leadership at Tora Bora.

<snip>

Kerry does not have to be specific about what he would do in Iraq—the situation on the ground changes daily, so how can he know?—but I suspect the public needs to hear, in plain and forceful language, Kerry's opinion of what Bush has done and whether it has been good for America. Instead, Kerry has offered only vague criticisms and an increasingly implausible promise to lure our allies into the chaos. In a year of real crises—the "most important election of our lifetime," he says—Kerry's nostrums sound distressingly like market-tested pap.

[featherman]

1. I really don't get what the Kerry camp is up to with this

I had a previous thread about this when Maureen Dowd brought it up as "Kerry falling into a trap" on this. It seems to make no sense to say that we should have gone in or could have gone in with a "broad coalition" if there was no imminent threat and no WMD. It defies logic and common sense not to mention those old bugaboos (now ignored) international law and the United Nations covenant. How does one justify attacking a sovereign nation that has done nothing to you and poses no actual threat? I was on vacation when this all came down and I am very, very disappointed. I was and have been firmly against this monstrous and illegitimate invasion from the beginning and am now faced with two candidates who both think that this type of criminal misadventure is just peachy keen. Our guy just says it could have been done "better". Believe me I will vote for Kerry against Bush and do anything to get these people out of there but I am seriously disturbed by this ridiculous position.

[girl gone mad]

2. I couldn't agree more.

They need to just shut up when asked about the vote, and they definitely shouldn't be saying Kerry would have started a war by now, too. Kerry should distance himself from that comment quickly.

He needs to keep goiomgm after Bush's screw-ups in Iraq, and he doesn't even need to go negative to do so. All he has to do is point out how he can do better. Not just with a broad coalition, but specifically - protecting the museum from looters instead of just protecting the oil fields. Stop the fraud at Haliburton and get the infrastructure working again by hiring Iraqis to help our service men. Stop using Iraqis as political pawns in television advertisements and start addressing their complaints.

[LisaL]

3. I think Kerry

is between a rock and a hard place in this situation.

[depakid]

4. How many Democratic campaigns have to be killed

by consultants and focus groups before the candidates wise up? We're not marketing soft drinks here or worrying with what the best ending for a movie is- which is what these research methods are most useful for.

As Klien points out, this is the most important election at least in all of our lifetimes, perhaps even in the history of the Republic. And right now, just as has happened over and over in the past, the "strategists" are getting it so wrong that I sometimes wonder whose side that they are really on.

[incapsulated]

5. Klein is right

Not that it will help. The Kerry campaign seems set in it's ways, and there are but a few months to go, now. I know, I know, the polls look good. But given Diebold and the razor thin margin we are working with, I believe that we would all feel a lot better with more breathing room, here. Let's just hope we have enough, because faluire isn't an option.

[CaTeacher]

6. I really really wish

that Kerry had taken an anti-war stance. He has so much credibility as a peace activist. And so many people are sick of the war. I truly believe that is where his heart is. It makes me very sad to think that the Democratic party is officially supporting this terrible war.

[Julien Sorel]

7. I really wish I had won the lottery.

Then I could be on a beach in the Riviera, sipping exotic drinks and ogling all the topless babes. I wouldn't have to care who won this election, or any American election any longer.

Ah well, back to the real world.

[Spinzonner]

8. Kerry needs to hit at Bush's incompetence and arrogance

in the leadin and execution and followup to the war:

The failure to properly and cautiously evaluate intelligence instead of ignoring it and constructing rogue intelligence agencies to cook it to Neocon tastes.

The failure to properly equip troops going into battle and position them (remember the Turkey debacle?) and adequately prepare and support supply lines. Even if Bush tries to blame the military for these screw ups that'll piss them off and loose him some military votes and send it up to the DOD civilians like Rumsfeld and Feith where it belongs.

The failure to properly plan for the aftermath including disbanding the Iraq army, keeping an internal economy somewhat functional.

The failure to get force protection in place including body and Humvee armor.

The corruption of the CPA including no-bid contracts to Halliburton which can't seem to either properly supply the troops or keep decent accounts or avoid bribes and skimming.

There's plenty of political ammunition to hit them with.

The question should be: can this administration be trusted to choose, plan, and conduct its military activities.