For those of you who hadn't yet heard the news, John Kerry officially announced yesterday that he is not going to run for president again in this election cycle.
Not surprisingly, this news was greeted with illiterate and mouth-foaming chortling in some quarters; there was much gnailing and washing of teeth in others; and there were exudations of philosophical sadness but hope for the future from others as well.
For the record -- not that this is much of a surprise to anyone here I'm sure -- yr hmbl otr crspndnt falls into the latter camp.
I like John Kerry. I like his intelligence, his experience, his integrity, his commitment... and besides that, I know from personal experience that he is a warm and witty guy to hang out with on a windy Boston evening.
Did I want Kerry to be president in '04? Hell yeah, of course I did. Shucks, if it came down to a choice between a rotting fence post and the current inhabitants of the White House, I'd've gone out beating on doors in the freezing rain browbeating citizens into signing petitions on behalf of the fence post at the time.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the voting booth. I did remember Kerry from my own "fulminating against the corporate-imperialistic war machine" period during the Vietnam years, of course. But I'd lost track of him in the ensuing decades, until he decided to run for president a couple or three years ago
The more I got to know about the guy back in early '04, the more I came to like him as a politician. And the more I got to know the man in later '06, the more I came to like him as a person.
So that being said, I don't think it's particularly disloyal of me to say that I'm really pretty glad that Kerry chose not to run for president again in this election cycle.
Why? Because we need someone like him at the upper end of the food chain in the Senate a lot more than we need someone like him in the hot seat of the White House right now.
I mean, think about it -- who was more significant in terms of American political history, Henry Clay or Martin Van Buren? Who was more effective in terms of American domestic policy, Tip O'Neill or Gerald Ford? I rest my case.
Kerry is in a powerful position in the Senate now, with a key committee chairmanship and a long-standing commitment to rooting out corruption. He's perfectly set up for his well-deserved role as a senior statesman in the years to come.
And that is, as convicted felon Martha Stewart would say, a Good Thing.
As a candidate, Kerry's time would be tied up for the next couple of years chasing the dragon on the campaign trail. As a senator, he's free to spend his considerable energies chasing warmongers and war profiteers instead.
As a candidate, Kerry's hands would be at least partly tied by the very nature of the role. As a senator, he doesn't have to pull his punches and he's free to smack down corrupt officials and dishonest politicians instead.
As a candidate, Kerry's voice would have to be tempered by the conflicting demands of pandering pundits and political hacks. As a senator, he is free to boldly speak truth to power in public from a position of strength.
As a candidate, Kerry would have to constantly be defending himself and his family from unfair attacks. As a senator, he will be free to take the battle to the bad guys on their own shaky ground instead.
As a candidate, Kerry would have my trust, my respect, and my admiration. As a senator, he has those things from me already... and he will continue to have them as long as he is in public office and standing up for the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
So John, er I mean, Mr. Kerry, sir -- that's why I'm glad you decided not to run for president again. You can really kick ass in the Senate now. And Goddess knows that we really do need people who can kick ass in the Senate now.
So go out there and give 'em hell, Johnny. We'll leave the light in the old North Church steeple on for ya.
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 27 January 2007 - 12:43pm.
The truth is, in my view, the left never embraced John Kerry, even though he is/was in fact a very good liberal. I remember February 2004, being at the very first general meeting of New Democratic Majority (NDM)over at cinema classics in the east village. This was weeks after the New Hampshire primary, and just after Howard Dean had formally dropped out. The room was full of Dean supporters, and some Kucinich supporters, enthusiastic to form a new group and keep the campaign energy going. We talked about a lot of things at that meeting, issues and such, but one thing barely even mentioned was the name "John Kerry" Someone (not me) stood up late in the meeting and said something like, "is anyone here going to mention John Kerry's name and working with the Kerry campaign?" It was obvious by then that Kerry was going to be the nominee and yet there was no enthusiasm, none, for him. Nobody wanted to talk about him. Part of the problem I think was even though Kerry was a good liberal, he was also DLC, he was establishment. Part of the problem was also there was lingering bitterness among many Dean followers for how his campaign got taken out in Iowa, and what role if any Kerry's camp had in it.
Many of the most active people I knew on the left, people in that room at the first NDM meeting, had a passion for defeating Bush, a passion for pushing the right issues, but no love at all for Kerry. Just as many on the left had no passion for Gore in 2000. It still amazes me that the guy (Gore) who would have been the most pro-environment president in our nation's history was shot down in part by those in the key states who voted for the GREEN party candidate! In the following months I went from being a very active Dean supporter to supporting Kerry. I went to Marjorie Gersten's Brooklyn for Kerry meetups wearing a Kerry button and expecting to find other Dean and Kucinich supporters lining up behind our nominee. At least certainly after Edwards dropped out and the primary season was effectively over. I saw very few. I went to the NDM meetings every month that first year and was often the only one to be seen in the room wearing a Kerry button. Even in the days before the election, when I went enthusiastically on the locally organized buses out to Ohio to canvass for days, and expected to see many fellow NDM and DFNYC members, I saw very few. Most seemed to prefer working on local campaigns and voter registration than to have to go door to door enthusiastically pushing the name "John Kerry"
The 2000 campaign result was clearly a disaster. Gore should have been president and would have been a great president. Kerry would have been a fine president. We'd have a better world today with either of them having been president. But we got eight years of Bush instead because neither Kerry nor Gore fully inspired the left the way Bush did the right. They were both too establishment for many on the left, liberal but not liberal enough. This brings up the question, "can you be TOO idealistic?" Can you be too picky, as if you not only have to have something thats the right color, but it better be the exact right shade of that color. I think you can. I think many of us on the left want a candidate we can fall in love with, and do not react the same way when the candidate is not that person. You get a fine and totally competent candidate, somebody like a Kerry or a Gore, who you can respect but for whom there simply isn't any love, and when that happens you can end up not having your heart in their campaign.
This has happened the last two presidential cycles for the Democrats, it helped the Republicans beat the fine people and good liberals we nominated, and it could do so again. This is one reason I'm conflicted over who to support in the 2008 cycle. My sense is that Hillary Clinton is the one who would be the best, most competent President out of all the presumed candidates. My sense is also that the left will never fall in love with her because, like Kerry and Gore, she is too establishment. I think John Edwards might also be a fine president, but if the love for him was there, it would have been there four years ago. His being on the ticket didn't ignite any extra passion for Kerry. This leaves Barack Obama, who is right now the one candidate many on the left are courting and actually want to fall in love with. Obama might not make a better president, more qualified or competent, than either Hillary or Edwards, and he does lack their level of experience on the federal level. But if it means more on the left will have their hearts in the race, he could well be the best candidate. Which is one who can win.
Now, as usual, I basically agree. But little of this is new and I think in some ways you sacrifice a touch of accuracy to make your point.
First off, Michael and I have discussed and criticized the more "purist" leftists for quite some time. And I have to say in 2006 we seemed to have a far better coalition of progressives and moderates than I have yet seen. So I would like to think progress has been made.
Second, I can't speak regarding the NDM meeting you refer to...I wasn't there. I do know that the leadership of NDM doesn't fit your characrerization at all. And regarding Marjorie's group (now, I should add, combined with NDM's Brooklyn group) I think you are wrong. When my wife and I joined (both of us Dean leaners) and since then I think MOST of the people I interact with there are former Dean supporters. I think you don't give Marjorie enough credit: she was able to bridge the gap, bringing many of us Dean supporters into Kerry's circle. Thinking of all the Marjorie-connected people who are still active, the majority of them preferred Dean to Kerry but worked hard for Kerry after the primary. Similarly, many DFNYC participants in Park Slope (can't speak for elsewhere) identified themselves as starting working for Dean then supporting Kerry. So I think you are being unfair to these groups...though again, I will say that you are correct regarding a wider phenomenon of "purists" who will be your mortal enemy if you differ from them by .5% on issues. I will say, though, that your criticizing people for not talking enough about Kerry is interesting the the context of your calling for silence on racism in other forums.
Finally, although I don't believe you are a Hillary bot, I definitely see where Michael gets that view. You do bring her up and emphasize that she is "most qualified" pretty much as often as you can. Reminds me of the somewhat smug Yassky supporters who were kind of patronizing about supporting anyone else and would say, "but you MUST agree that Yassky is the most qualified." You are doing something similar with Hillary...and you may even be right, but do we really want someone who is experienced as an apologist for Bush's war? Furthermore, the discussion was about Kerry, not Hillary. Now you are free to bring up Hillary, but the fact that you do so in almost every discussion does give the impression of a Hill-bot.
Anyway, there is something in what you say regarding leftists being unwilling to support perfectly good candidates (like Gore and Kerry) and hence sitting it out while Republicans win. But 2006 seems to have been a turning point in that.
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 27 January 2007 - 4:24pm.
You and Bouldin tend to see only what you want to see, and maybe I'm guilty of that too. Yes I do mention Hillary a lot and I happen to like her, but I have probably mentioned Obama just as much. I wrote effusively about him last year well before he decided to run. I was the one who put items on daily gotham about his book signings .etc But I'm not an Obama-bot am I? No I'm a Hillary-bot because Hillary is the one you don't like and therefore any positive talk about her irritates you (or certainly Bouldin) a lot more than similar talk about Obama. So you see what you want to see, which is hillary-bot.
This even when I have also repeatedly criticized her. Earlier I posted a response in Rock's item at room eight specifically saying that Hillary hasn't proved her leadership abilities, her executive skills, yet.
What I am seeing here is more zero-sum mentality. One side is all good and one is all bad. The kneejerk reaction to stereotype someone you don't agree with on one or more issues completely on all issues and all things. Bouldin in particular has gone out of his way to make it personal, calling me foul mouthed names, saying I'm a racist, saying I call other people racists, making character attacks. All because I disagree with his approach to certain political issues. He can't accept that we can have the same goals but different styles. In his view I'm not on the same page as him, I must be evil scum. So since Hillary epitomizes the things he doesn't like, I'm a hillary bot. Stereotyping. Labeling. Just the same sort of tactics the right uses and that we all despise. He won't give me half an ounce of credit that I'm not a hillary-bot, because in his zero-sum mentality where he's all good, I have to be all bad. I *have* to be a hillary-bot right>?
I'm not Bouldin. You always seem to lump us together. I certainly never said Hillary was all bad...in fact I have defended her against "purist" detractors. And I have said almost zeron about Obama, not knowing enough about him, other than observing that it is cool to see a black candidate taken seriously. So please stop seeing only what you want to see.
As for Bouldin, well he probably does more work for a wider variety of candidates than you and me put together. So, quite honestly, I think Michael has some pretty good credibility when it comes to supporting candidates and knowing what works.
I think what you miss is that your repitition of themes ad nauseum without much in the way of nuance is what bothers people...and not just Michael, I might add. Not to mention your tendency to lecture black people about what they should and should not talk about regarding racism. But I know it just doesn't sink in. But I have never suggested that makes you a bad person. You seem to think I have said that. I have implied it makes you a bit crass and tedious, but not a bad person. Even stood up for you once or twice. But you only see what you want to see with few nuances, so somehow Michael and I are the same to you and we are both dead wrong while you are always right even when everyone else in a discussion tells you you are wrong. But maybe they are all Michael too. In fact, Michael is everywhere...everyone. And he's out to get you...}:)
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 27 January 2007 - 5:30pm.
I don't lecture black people about what they should or should not talk about, that is absurd. I simply said that in my opinion, it doesn't help their/our cause if the race card is overplayed because some people are never going to respond the same exact way to those arguments. That is perfectly logical isn't it? How is stating what I think, for the sake of saying what I think, *lecturing*? I am not demanding others think the same way. Unlike Bouldin, and you to a lesser extent, who keep demanding I not say anything positive about Hillary or I am a bot.
Yes I get repetitious sometimes, and I need to work on not doing that, but thats only because one of the disadvantages of the internet is you are not always quite sure of the reaction your words are getting. So you wonder if you got your train of thought across well, and you get tempted to try again and again to get the words out right. It is also typical political style, how many stump speeches have you heard where the candidate makes the same points, for emphasis, again and again.
Also I have clearly noticed mole that you are far more likely to pick on me for issues of nuance or slight disagreement, than on bouldin or liza or others on these boards. I know you have strong disagreements with Bouldin on some issues, he is a libertarian after all essentially. You also think he is too abrasive at times. But you don't go after him about it like you just did in two responses to me. I think it is because he is a co-moderator here and on DG and you are more cautious, and you are much more reluctant to have heat with him, argue with him, than with me or other bloggers that you aren't dealing with every day. Thats part of being a clique, having a double standard for members of that clique. I'll get criticized by you for little things that you would never critize Bouldin or Liza for. Because I'm an easy target and there are fewer consequences. Likewise, he can trash me for being libelous and racist, when you know I'm not, and you won't say a thing to him. Too many consequences. You want to stay on his good side and stay on this board right? Have I ever heard you say, "Michael lay off him, you're getting carried away, you're wrong" No you won't do that, because its not worth it. But you'll lay into me when the occasion fits. You have a double standard.
Sitting silent while Bouldin chased me away from Daily Gotham because he has a grudge, when I was one of the few frequent substantive regular contributors, speaks volumes. If you want a site like that to grow, and be what it can be, you'd have said, "invite him back, give him a second chance" But you won't do that because you are more afraid of pissing Bouldin off than in doing the right thing. You put your own interests in maintaing harmony among the few moderators over any responsibility to make those who want to contribute feel welcome.
I've seen you lecture black people...essentially you tell them to "not open up old wounds." The fact that you think the wounds are old and closed up speaks volumes.
As to me being scared of standing up to Michael because of consequences...what consequences??? He has no power over me at all. Or visa versa. I am not going to give you insight into what Michael and I discuss off line. Suffice it to say that I, as managing editor here, have not kicked you off. But Michael and I have gone at it quite publically from time to time. And I tease him far more mercilessly than I ever have teased you. He just laughs at it while you freak out.
Look. I express my disagreements with you because I really think you make some very assinine statements, probably without quite realizing it. Like telling a woman in an interracial marriage she didn't understand racism. You managed to get her pissed in a way I'd never seen her get pissed. I really think you gotta question why people as far apart (within the left) as the dear departed Gatemouth persona, Michael and a Green can all find fault with what you are saying. I saw no reason to publically stick up for you because of just such statements. However, I have been quick to point out the common ground we have. And I didn't pile on you on room8 when so many others did. So consider why I do choose to sometimes disagree with you vociferously. It is because I really do think there is something majorly wrong in what you are saying.
Doesn't mean I am stopping you from saying. But it does mean I am not going to ignore it.
...you forgot the episode when Wallner said that your daughter, who had been teased by Yassky supporters for her support of Chris Owens in the CD-11 primary, needed to toughen up (instead of crying) in the face of playground taunts if such things were going to lead you to a discussion of racism. This because talking about racism 'turns people off', 'reopens old wounds' and just disgusts people.
I recall that did piss me off just a bit. Seemed not very charming at the time.
You were banned from Daily Gotham primarily because you insisted - the relevant thread is here - on repeatedly posting content which you were told was considered libelous. You did this a total of six times before you were banned. After the banning, you went on to attempt to re-post this libelous content (which was directed at a reader of our site) by creating a total of seven new accounts, each of which was blocked.
So yeah, in terms of making a total jackass nuisance out of yourself, Wallner, you took the prize. And before you start bitching about how what you posed wasn't libelous in your opinion, please note that I don't have to care about your opinion, only about my judgment of our liability. As the user of a privately owned site, however, you have to care about my opinion and my requests, and since you made it entirely clear that you were contemptuous of these, well, goodbye troll.
As to the impact on our site, traffic at The Daily Gotham has doubled over the last few weeks. I don't think there's a correlation or causation, but it does help if it's possible to have, say, a critical discussion of certain subjects without some feces-throwing monkey making every thread all about his own pathologies. Kinda like what happened to this one, ostensibly about John Kerry. I fail to see what this entire discussion adds to anyone's understanding of Kerry; instead, people are treated to another episode of the Wallner-O-Rama, which is kinda tedious.
First of all, if someone supports the junior Senator, hey, be my guest. I happen to think that's a potentially catastrophic position, for reasons laid out in extensis elsewhere, such as here and here. This view is pretty widely held among Democratic strategists, by the way, certainly at the netroots and grassroots.
The larger point is this, though: I expect to be able to have a frank, realistic, and critical discussion of all the contenders. That's impossible when a HillaryBot, like our dearly departed Wallner, spams up every related thread with a variant of 'Oooh Hillary I want Hillary oooh and Bill too oooh yeah'. Wallner's arguments were, to sum them up, that
a) Bill and Hillary could sell themselves together, and who in their right mind would say no to that?
b) Hillary is considered, at this early stage, and by some metrics, the front-runner
c) Hillary is a woman, and it's about time for one of those.
Thing is, that's it. The end of the argument. And yeah, that gets kinda tedious. Granted, he feels comparably about Obama, but that would change if he were ever aware of the latter making a statement that addresses race issues, at which point HillaryBot Wallner would run screaming for the hills huffing about the 'race war' he'd be causing.
In short, HillaryBot Wallner has two themes: Hillary, and the assertion that talking about race in any context he's ever come across is harmful to civil discourse and 'turns people off'. And again, that's it, the end of the story, except that it's modulated again and again and again. "Repetitious"? Yeah, that's one way of putting it. As to the ludicrous idea that the Wallner-O-Rama's concepts somehow aren't getting through, Wallner, get over yourself. As I've said elsewhere, you're not that smart, and everyone else isn't that stupid.
And lastly, Wallner, please, for my sake and everyone else's, go get a therapist to talk out your issues, and don't spend all day hanging out on the blogs writing encyclopedias about yourself. I have an election to win and can't spend all day dealing with your cretinous bitchy whining.
Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.
Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
Post to Twitter
The Left never embraced Kerry
The truth is, in my view, the left never embraced John Kerry, even though he is/was in fact a very good liberal. I remember February 2004, being at the very first general meeting of New Democratic Majority (NDM)over at cinema classics in the east village. This was weeks after the New Hampshire primary, and just after Howard Dean had formally dropped out. The room was full of Dean supporters, and some Kucinich supporters, enthusiastic to form a new group and keep the campaign energy going. We talked about a lot of things at that meeting, issues and such, but one thing barely even mentioned was the name "John Kerry" Someone (not me) stood up late in the meeting and said something like, "is anyone here going to mention John Kerry's name and working with the Kerry campaign?" It was obvious by then that Kerry was going to be the nominee and yet there was no enthusiasm, none, for him. Nobody wanted to talk about him. Part of the problem I think was even though Kerry was a good liberal, he was also DLC, he was establishment. Part of the problem was also there was lingering bitterness among many Dean followers for how his campaign got taken out in Iowa, and what role if any Kerry's camp had in it.
Many of the most active people I knew on the left, people in that room at the first NDM meeting, had a passion for defeating Bush, a passion for pushing the right issues, but no love at all for Kerry. Just as many on the left had no passion for Gore in 2000. It still amazes me that the guy (Gore) who would have been the most pro-environment president in our nation's history was shot down in part by those in the key states who voted for the GREEN party candidate! In the following months I went from being a very active Dean supporter to supporting Kerry. I went to Marjorie Gersten's Brooklyn for Kerry meetups wearing a Kerry button and expecting to find other Dean and Kucinich supporters lining up behind our nominee. At least certainly after Edwards dropped out and the primary season was effectively over. I saw very few. I went to the NDM meetings every month that first year and was often the only one to be seen in the room wearing a Kerry button. Even in the days before the election, when I went enthusiastically on the locally organized buses out to Ohio to canvass for days, and expected to see many fellow NDM and DFNYC members, I saw very few. Most seemed to prefer working on local campaigns and voter registration than to have to go door to door enthusiastically pushing the name "John Kerry"
The 2000 campaign result was clearly a disaster. Gore should have been president and would have been a great president. Kerry would have been a fine president. We'd have a better world today with either of them having been president. But we got eight years of Bush instead because neither Kerry nor Gore fully inspired the left the way Bush did the right. They were both too establishment for many on the left, liberal but not liberal enough. This brings up the question, "can you be TOO idealistic?" Can you be too picky, as if you not only have to have something thats the right color, but it better be the exact right shade of that color. I think you can. I think many of us on the left want a candidate we can fall in love with, and do not react the same way when the candidate is not that person. You get a fine and totally competent candidate, somebody like a Kerry or a Gore, who you can respect but for whom there simply isn't any love, and when that happens you can end up not having your heart in their campaign.
This has happened the last two presidential cycles for the Democrats, it helped the Republicans beat the fine people and good liberals we nominated, and it could do so again. This is one reason I'm conflicted over who to support in the 2008 cycle. My sense is that Hillary Clinton is the one who would be the best, most competent President out of all the presumed candidates. My sense is also that the left will never fall in love with her because, like Kerry and Gore, she is too establishment. I think John Edwards might also be a fine president, but if the love for him was there, it would have been there four years ago. His being on the ticket didn't ignite any extra passion for Kerry. This leaves Barack Obama, who is right now the one candidate many on the left are courting and actually want to fall in love with. Obama might not make a better president, more qualified or competent, than either Hillary or Edwards, and he does lack their level of experience on the federal level. But if it means more on the left will have their hearts in the race, he could well be the best candidate. Which is one who can win.