Items From the Kerry Spot on National Review Online

There has been so much good stuff on the Kerry Spot in the last 24 hours that it deserved its own posting today.

REFUTING RUSSERT

Tim Russert said this morning on Today, "We've heard all week long how being with crewmates, being with Teresa, and being with his children, softens him and just makes him feel comfortable — tonight, he's all alone. And he has to say to the American people more than just George W. Bush should be replaced, he has to tell them why. He has to give them a rationale to vote for John Kerry — to vote for John Kerry the man who wants to be president and commander in chief."

Actually, we haven't heard about Kerry being comfortable with his crewmates, his children, and Teresa all week long. In fact, we've barely heard any John Kerry anecdotes or stories this week. Dean barely mentioned Kerry. Teresa talked about Teresa. Edwards talked about Edwards. Al Sharpton talked about riding the donkey. Clinton talked about how he didn't need his tax cut, and Obama talked about his life's journey.

As Ramesh sitting next to me just put it, "They talk about Kerry as if he is the embodiment of the platform."

As we were wondering over lunch, maybe there aren't any good John Kerry stories.

MURMURS OF GRUMBLING FROM THE GLOBE

The editorial page of the Boston Globe is reliably liberal — nothing wrong with that, just observing that they're not a usual voice of criticism of Kerry. But their editorial today suggests they're not really impressed with the rhetoric of this convention so far:

On a range of significant issues Democrats are not unified, and to pretend that they are, as the party platform does, risks sending the ticket out to the fall campaign with weapons of mush.
John Edwards did little to address that problem last night...

No one expects any party to highlight its divisions, but voters deserve a clear understanding of the candidate's policy initiatives. The party platform, prepared in close consultation with the Kerry campaign, does take some firm positions: supporting the creation of an intelligence czar, calling for the possibility of bilateral negotiations with North Korea, and proposing college tuition tax credits, for instance. But the platform is silent on many issues, saying nothing about the barrier being built by Israel, nothing about Chechnya or Burma, nothing about the economic embargo of Cuba that even President Clinton's trade representative called "lunacy" four years ago. As for Iraq: "People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq," the platform says.

The platform refers to "global climate change" but not global warming, and there is no mention of the Kyoto Protocol. After all, some voters in coal-producing swing states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia do not support Kyoto. In the 37-page platform, poverty is dealt with in a modest paragraph entitled: "Expanding the middle class."

It is possible to win a presidential election by avoiding specificity and harping on the opponent's weaknesses. George H. W. Bush did it in 1988. But this strategy is bad for the nation and also bad politics, because it gives the winner no mandate.

If the Boston Globe is criticizing Kerry it is a bad sign for his candidacy.

EDWARDS WRAPUP

Well, for my two cents, Edwards was good, but not great. When he was on his familiar and favorite topics, he was Clinton-level or Obama-level good, full of emotional detail, painting verbal pictures of the mother at the kitchen table. Hitting just the right emotional tones. Making you want to find the address of that poor suffering mother, knock on her door, and ask what you can do to help her out.

But on Edwards' less-favorite issues, Iraq, terrorism, foreign policy... he just wasn't at home with the material. Wasn't quite bad, but just wasn't as in command on those issues as he is on his rhetorical "home turf", so to speak. And he clearly was trying — "You cannot hide, and we will destroy you..." But Edwards doesn't project toughness. He projects tenacity, but not white-knuckle relentlessness.

The speech tells us much about how the Democratic party defines the war on terror: Spend more on homeland security. Sign more treaties. Boost veterans' benefits. Remember the handicapped veterans. Focus on improving health care for veterans. Vague promises to "get Syria and Iran to not stand in the way of a Democratic Iraq."

And one line on "we will get you."

I'm not sure this speech told us anything about John Edwards we didn't already know. On domestic stuff & empathy, he's one of the best. Outside of his comfort zone, he's not bad, but not all that effective, either.

STEPFORD CONVENTION

General consensus from a lot of media folk: There have been five things worth talking about so far.

1) Boy, wasn't Clinton good?
2) Boy, wasn't Obama good? (Will he be as widely popular after a few years of amassing a really liberal record in the Senate?)
3) This race would be more exciting if Teresa said "shove it" every day.
4) Ya see the RNC video?
5) Is this the Stepford Convention, or what?

There's a sense of boredom over most of the media. No one has uncovered the first draft of Gore's speech, and that's a shame from the perspective of the press, because if it were too "hot", people would have been buzzing about it. Dean? He seemed medicated. Teresa? Little that was memorable - the gist of the speech seemed to be that African dictatorships are bad.

If three of the loosest cannons in the Democratic Party couldn't get something surprising, interesting, or buzz-generating through the Kerry speech-vetting process, then no one will.

Ooh, Smeagol's on.

THIS SAYS IT ALL

A Kerry advisor, to Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker in the July 26 issue, on why the Democratic senator voted against the $87 billion package to rebuild Iraq and fund the troops.

"Off the record he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record he has an elaborate explanation."

KERRY RESPONSE ON VIDEO

"This video is nothing but a stale old attack from the Bush-Cheney campaign, who can't for the life of them find anything positive to say," says spokesman Chad Clanton in a released statement.

From AP:

"There's no question that comments here or there, taken out of context and thrown together, are intended by Republicans to try to simplify or dumb down a crucial issue of war and peace into a simple yes-no question," said James Rubin, a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign.
Rubin said Kerry always believed the way the United States went to war was the critical question giving inspections in Iraq a chance and building alliances first. "John Kerry showed he understood the complexities about going to war the right way," said Rubin.

Wow. Clanton's response is nothing but a stale old boilerplate statement from the Kerry campaign, who can't for the life of them made a coherent case as to why Kerry's rhetoric on how to deal with Saddam Hussein changed so suddenly and dramatically during the last several years. It's going to take more than a one-line dismissal to counter this argument from the RNC.

More good stuff here -->The Kerry Spot on National Review Online