I decided to drop all my ideas about the Democratic party in America and instead come to a conclusion based on their conference. I read transcripts and thanks to iTunes listened to a lot of speeches.
It was all going so well. The Democratic National Conference was playing out brilliantly, they’d managed to steal a lot of the Republican’s wind by adopting the hawkish line that they need to win the centre. Edwards proved for me that he had what it took to not only be a decent VP but to be a powerful and capable president.
Then Kerry stepped up to speak and confirmed my previous assumptions. That he is not the man to lead America for the next 4 years. That the Democratic ticket that would have got my support would have been Edwards/Gephardt or Hillary/Anybody. That ultimately, Kerry is not an electoral asset.
The easy way to work out someone’s electability is simply to imagine what would happen if they ran as an independent. If Clinton ran as an independent, there would be without question a great deal of support for him - he’d win a good few seats in the House of Reps (constitutional restrictions notwithstanding).
However if Kerry ran on his own, I couldn’t see him winning anything more than a few token seats. That’s the thing - the Democratic party brings more to Kerry than Kerry brings to it. They set up a sensationally effective convention and then handed it to someone who actually made things worse with his acceptance speech.
I’m not certain that George W Bush is the best man for the job of Commander in Chief but I do know that he’s preferable to John Forbes Kerry. He’s not preferable compared to almost any other Democratic candidate (with the obvious exception of Al Sharpton) but somehow liberals managed to pick the most ridiculously arrogant, smug, politician available and then let him loose with a completely incoherent foreign policy at a time when he needs to be a strong stable platform for a country at war.
Then there’s the Vietnam issue.
Kerry spent the time after he’d excused himself from the fighting in Vietnam, vilifying his fellow soldiers for activities such as rape, murder and butchery which he said he oversaw and witnessed. Now either this man was a flat out self-aggrandizing lier in the 70’s or worse he’s telling the truth and he took part in said war-crimes. I want neither qualities for the man who’s supposed to be the leader of the free world!
Why why why? The “Firehouses” incident, the dodgy salute, the total absence of any reference to Iraqi or Afghani democratization - a process that is currently in motion and very much ‘in the news’ - this was a speech that actually did damage to the party’s bid for power.
He’s on the ticket now, and after the smallest post convention bounce in history, things aren’t looking good for the Democrats. 4 more years? Guess Hillary’s played her cards perfectly.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at August 2, 2004 01:17 AM | TrackBack