I suggest Kerry was maneuvered (unwittingly) into position in the primary [View All]

I'm not comfortable taking the stance that Kerry intentionally threw the election (although I'm not thrilled with the post-election walkaway), and certainly not because of any Skull and Bones thing.

And although I think there was some vote rigging - perhaps enough to tip it in a close race in Florida and Ohio - there wasn't enough to tip it in a nationwide landslide.

The Bush reelection team - albeit often unethical and at least definitely fans of dirty play - is, you have to concede, shrewd and effective. Unethical, yes, plays dirty, yes, but also shrewd and effective.

One of the ways to win is to define the playing field to begin with. In this case, one of the most critical things to define is your opponent. Rove & co certainly know this. They might be slimy, but they're smart and they think ahead.

The major likely candidates, if I recall, were Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. Daschle was marginal, the rest (Kucinich, Sharpton et al) not likely.

Out of all of those, which would the GOP most likely want to run against?

Dean was quite dangerous - he had a groundswell of support, and seemed like the heir apparent. He was a doctor, supported gay civil unions (this could be good or bad, depending on the audience), and had a McCain-like air to him.

Edwards was not as dangerous - he had boyish good looks, was very sharp, but because he was a one-term Senator, he was unlikely, but he could have pulled a Clinton-esque end run. He was a possibility, not the most likely possibility, but enough to be dangerous.

Clark, I think, was extremely threatening. Former NATO Supreme Commander (did I get that right?), West Point graduate, valedictorian, I think a Rhodes scholar, author of several books, spoke several languages, and he would never be perceived as weak on defense.

Kerry also was potentially dangerous, but he had a lot of weak points and contradictions. He was a war hero, but he was also a war protestor. He grew up a Boston Brahmin and later married into major money. He was a Senator from massachusetts, which just was going through the whole gay marriage thing. He didn't speak plainly, although he was clearly smart.

I argue that of all they people there, Kerry was the weakest candidate, and that's Rove/Bushco wanted to run against. Kerry was also in the senate for 20 years - they knew this guy and what he was like. Edwards, not so much.

Dean, one of the most dangerous because of his incredible Internet following and grass-roots support, had as a liability his "let's charge!" demeanor. When they finally got the clip they wanted "the scream", the GOP bounced it all around the echo chamber until they raised their own "Can Dean possibly survive this?" "Hard to say, Trish - looks bad", and basically he was done.

Clark was dangerous as a potential candidate, but his main liability was that he declared his candidacy way too late (he had never campaigned before, I belive) and so missed out on a lot of fundraising. The GOP shut him down in the opposite way from Dean - they gave Clark basically no media attention at all. He suffocated.

This left Edwards and Kerry, and Edwards had limited experience, so then the GOP media machine started pushing Kerry as the frontrunner, and before you know it, there he is, expected to win the nomination.

Just so you know, I liked Kerry at the end - he got his message out in a language people could relate to, and he kicked a** in the debates.

Unfortunately it was too little, too late. The GOP oppo research team (which digs up stuff on opposition candidates) knew Kerry very well - he was in the senate for 20 years, and over time, with enough statistics and votes, you can make anything appear negative. He had Mary Beth Cahill as campaign manager, a person not known for the kind of campaign he'd be needing, he originally spoke in "lofty aspiration" Senate paragraphs, not Bush's one-liners. Kerry was too intellectual, too lofty. Clark was intellectual too, but I'm pretty sure you didn't hear him equivocating like Kerry was. Kerry was from a state with a gay marriage clause. Liberal, liberal, liberal.

Kerry had a mixed vietnam era record - excellent in the war, but a "commie, anti-american" protester after it. That would give them something to assail, unlike Clark, who was Supreme NATO commander or whatever.

I think that Kerry's problems in the election, at least until the last 2 months, were better known to Rove and Bushco, than they were to Kerry himself. I think Rove and Team Bush knew exactly what kind of candidate they'd have in Kerry and they moved to shut down Dean and Clark to leave room for Kerry.

Edwards, being new, was less of a problem; they probably could have dealt with either, but Edwards was a dangerous opponent in a charismatic Clinton sort of way, and so the best way to shut Edwards down was simply make it a two-horse race (Kerry vs. Edwards) and then push Kerry through the front by virtue of the fact of simply declaring it so.

Now, without realizing it, or how he got there so fast, Kerry is in the race, not really geared up for that kind of front-runner status, and the campaign really floundered over the summer while the GOP attack machine, having exactly the target they wanted, went after him knowing he'd react (or not react) exactly as he did, and by the time Kerry could see what was happening, it was too late.

Kerry still got better in the last two months, particular after the debate, and held his own (and I say he won), but the GOP was able to get the candidate they wanted and force, at best, a close race; close enought that vote rigging and whatever other shenanigans could take over.

Had Clark or Dean pushed us to a 70/30 poll split, I don't think the GOP could arrange (or explain) a Bush victory, but by getting the candidate they wanted, they were just able to pull it off.

Comments?