WP: Close Kerry-McCain Kinship Has Dissolved Since 2004

[beachmom]

Not a bad read. Here are the parts that interested me:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802687.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008070803469&pos=

In 2004, many Democratic insiders thought a Kerry-McCain ticket would be a slam-dunk winner. And yet even as Kerry, a decorated Navy combat veteran, and McCain, a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war, seemed on the verge of making that happen, a rupture occurred and set the stage for everything that followed. But exactly what happened remains a matter of debate.

From the Kerry perspective, McCain had expressed genuine interest in the vice presidential nomination and then pulled away without warning, and while doing so leaked the story to the media to "put McCain in the best possible light," a Kerry friend recounted.

From the McCain perspective, Kerry was overly optimistic about the possibility of McCain joining him on the Democratic ticket. "Kerry convinced himself that he could convince McCain to be on the ticket," said one GOP strategist familiar with the discussions. "When that didn't happen, he took it really personally."

Kerry insists that the miscommunication about his conversations with McCain was the fault of staff members and not the two senators.

"I thought it was unfortunate that some people in his staff saw fit to leak someone's point of view which did not accurately reflect our personal conversations," Kerry said. "We never got to a serious point. We moved on."

I'll be honest, I am still confused and not 100% sure what happened. If you add up all the leaks, it makes no sense.

If the vice presidential offer/non-offer strained Kerry and McCain's relationship, the ad that the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran during the 2004 campaign attacking Kerry's military record threatened to end it entirely.

McCain quickly spoke out against the ad, calling it "dishonest" and "dishonorable" and comparing it to the criticism of his military service during the 2000 presidential primaries. But he did not allow Kerry to use his image in rebuttal ads -- a decision that many Kerry supporters viewed as insufficient payback for Kerry's support of McCain in 2000.

"John McCain pretty thoroughly revealed his character when he refused to defend his Vietnam 'brother' from the slimy Swift boaters," said Jim Jordan, who managed Kerry's presidential bid for much of 2003. "McCain's second campaign for the Republican nomination and his support for more U.S. troops in Iraq added to the strain. As the senator from Arizona grew more and more strident about increasing troop levels and about the danger of setting timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, Kerry emerged as a leading voice in favor of beginning a drawdown.

Although I don't care for Jim Jordan, I think he has nailed what I view as the ultimate rift between them. McCain's "triangulation" of the Swiftboater attacks. He officially condemned it, but did nothing to stop it.

Thoughts on the article?

[beachmom]

1. Also here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6473989

[karynnj]

2. Interesting article

I agree with your comment on Jordan's view. I think that Kerry was hurt that this was leaked and leaked inaccuartely - he had been very strong on not letting anything leak on the VP process and this was embarrassing. To correct it would have been just as bad. What is clear is that both Kerry and McCain were on record that there was no offer - except when McCain is on the record saying the opposite. This was something Kerry and McCain could have gotten past - especially if it really was aides only behind the leak.

THe fact that McCain didn't come near to standing up against the SBVT on his service record was a huge betrayal.

The WP is really wrong calling Sunday a new low in their relationship. McCain said in 2004 that Bush ewas a better C o C than Kerry would be. What Kerry did Sunday is equivalent to that. In both cases they were speaking - not of temperament, personality or anything personal, but the direction they would take the country in Iraq. (I am not surprised that the WP does not see this - as they had no problem with anyone questioning Kerry - but seem to thing questioning McCain (or even Bush in 2004) is somehow wrong.

[beachmom]

3. I think the "new low" came in 2006 during the botched joke.

What McCain said that day was so obviously craven. The next new low was when he took Swift Boat money. Finally, another new low was bringing Bud Day into the campaign. If you look at what Kerry talks about, it is policy, and his view that McCain either doesn't get it, or has completely changed as a person.

[karynnj]

4. Very well said - amazing that McCain's actual negative actions

are given less weight than Kerry's very valid - though tough - attacks on policy.

[ray of light]

5. my thoughts...for what they're worth...

Politics is like a girl clique.

Above board aggression use to be frowned upon, especially in the Senate where dignity and 'compromise' is suppose to be the norm. Yet, that means outright attacks are usually done beneath the surface...just like a mean girl clique.

If you look at the dynamics of those 'queen bees' most of them get away with it because they purposely project an air of innocence and "who me?!" that the 'adults' usually believe. In the meantime, behind the adults back, the queen bee is stinging people right and left leaving people in fear of coming forward and questioning her actions and her title. And the queen bee usually has a bunch of busy bees keeping a circle of protection around the queen bee by stinging anyone who comes close to their group or who is rising above the ranks of the queen bee in other's eyes.

John McCain is the queen bee. He's left a wake of people stung by his actions. The media is the queen bee's clique. (In other words, the media protects John McCain and his queen bee status.)

[karynnj]

6. I love this analysis

It puts McCain in a truly different light.