Patrick calls Kerry an "uncommonly decent man" in his book.

Here are the relevant quotes concerning Kerry from the book. I have to say I tend to agree with the general criticism, if not necessarily the details (there were a bunch of DLC people around Kerry who were afraid of making noises, same ones for many that are around President Obama - I wonder what he thinks about the Obama administration, for example). But it is much more a criticism of the Democratic Party in general and not of Kerry as a man.

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/state_news/x1700912251/Little-kiss-and-tell-in-Governor-Patricks-memoir

misconception that the media pushed that Kerry agreed with Bush. I have posted several times a wonderful Daily Howler post written at the time that really explained how - what really was not true propagated through the media. The initial lie was Candy Crowley's, but I suspect that subsequent stories may not have been lies, but lazy reporting -- and the campaign not countering it. I think the campaign thought it had quickly blown over, but even if just for Kerry's reputation, they really needed to counter it directly rather than switching to just saying the war was wrong.

Obviously Patrick, a very well informed political man, missed all of Kerry's statements that he would not have gone to war after that. (It was only this year that I saw the Daily Howler article, which brought back just how bad the media was in 2004.) Patrick's comment is fair in that it was what he heard and shows that the campaign erred badly is not having David Wade put out one of his excellent statements that would have called out that claim as false.

I completely agree that the people never got a chance to really know who Kerry was. Part of this was the campaign, but another part was that the mass media went out of their way not to give him a platform - any more than they had to. It is the only race, where the 3 networks did not produce puff piece biographies. In his case, his real life would have made that easy.

I do worry that Patrick - as any politician with any political ambitions - would want to see this more as a failure of a particular campaign or man. It is less troubling than to admit that there are times where the establishment creates a very unlevel playing field. It is false reassurance. 2004 was a bizarrely uneven playing field. I suspect because the real prize was that a Democrat might have had 3 Supreme Court nominations. This could have motivated both corporate powers and the Catholic Church and other pro-life forces. (by 2008, the justices being replaced were the liberal ones.)

The fact is that Obama, in 2008, ran on exactly what most of America wanted. (On Iraq, Patrick's example, Obama essentially ran on a version of Kerry/Feingold, which by 2007 had become the majority view. Kerry had a tougher position. In 2004, the majority, even if they were against starting the war, were in favor of "fixing" Iraq. Kerry laid out a plan that the media said was the same as Bush - though it included a regional summit, getting international help on the training, no permanent bases, withdrawing from the front lines and starting withdrawal in 2005. Most of those were elements of K/F. The difference is that by 2008, it was obvious that there was a difference between the republican plan and the Democratic one.

His comment that Kerry is uncommonly decent is a very nice compliment - and one that is almost never said of politicians and is said often by people who really know Kerry. The odd thing is that it is what Americans really are looking for, but they are are looking in all the wrong places.

And Karynnj, I agree with you that the 2004 MSM were appalling in their coverage of the Kerry campaign (and note Mass' other post from today -- the Boston Globe didn't even bother to cover a town hall meeting, near Boston, with their state's senior senator. Wonder what essential story was keeping their reporters away?) But, as we know, the Democratic campaign organization was also a SHAMBLES, thanks to Terry McAwful and there was less than full support from his VP candidate. My view of 2004 has always been that JK put together an awesome platform and from the beginning of the primaries to Election Night, he ran an all out marathon. His family and friends and true supporters gave it their all, but JK personally gave even more. Anyone watching those appearances on CSPAN and, after the convention, I watched them all, saw that he ran himself absolutely ragged. He gave his heart, soul and the strength of every cell in his body to that campaign. Trouble was, while he did his part and more, the party and the media did less than their part and that math just doesn't add up to victory. It's SO amazing that he came so close, and I really see that as an act of personal will.

All that said, JK must and absolutely does acknowledge that his position as the nominee in that campaign means that (fairly or unfairly) he has to own it and take responsibility for any mistakes made whether they were his own or not.

Patrick's quotes here are not damning of JK, which is good, but I agree that I wish he and others would acknowledge the larger responsibility of party, political system, media and electorate.

Edited to add: and, let's face it, there's a little self-glorification in Patrick's account! Perfectly natural in a memoir, but hindsight is a generous friend.

"Hindsight is a generous friend. ." Oh, indeed. : )

Years ago when I played bridge, there was always a caution not to think that someone who won big on a hand necessarily did anything right - they may just have had the better cards. In some bridge clubs, this is somewhat compensated for with duplicate bridge where all couples play each deal - and the scoring compares how you did versus all the couples playing the same direction (east/west or north/south).

Elections are not like duplicate bridge, the cards Bill Clinton held (a President at 33% approval on election day) or Obama held (the sitting Republican President in the 20s), were nothing like the cards Kerry was dealt. The President had an approval that was at 60% in December 2003 and fluctuated around 50 in fall 2004. Consider that some of the not approve people were the Pat Buchanan people, Kerry had to win some people who actually approved of the President to win. This meant that, though they approved of what Bush had done, they thought Kerry could be that much better that they were willing to risk changing President in the midst of two active wars. (It also meant, DU and Michael Moore aside, he had to be very careful in how he criticized the President. He needed people who not only did not already hate him, but approved of him to some degree.

One other factor might be that the country has never been less homogeneous. Patrick, a Democrat in Massachusetts, likely speaks and interacts mostly with others who are in the left half of the country. This makes it harder for him to see just how hard the task Kerry had in 2004 really was. (Think of all the DU posts that anyone would have beaten Bush.) There are likely many people on the right thinking the same thing concerning Obama.

Had there been more voting machines in Ohio (and the local Democratic party leaders who got the info on the number of machines earlier in the week should have seen they were allocated fewer than in the primary.) or had the Bin Laden tape not come out, we would never again have heard of the Grand Canyon or the $87 billion. Kerry would have won and everything would have been seen through that lens. He would have pulled off on an upset.

I remember the comments on all the cable shows that last week. Even people like Tucker Carlson were predicting that Kerry had the edge to win. I remember a strange conversation between Tweety and Fineman, where Fineman spoke of how Kerry was the least "politically skilled" person to likely win the Presidency (not sure of the exact word, but the meaning was that he was not packaged and pandering.) There was admiration for the high road campaign, Kerry's brilliance in the debates and even his calm, grown up demeanor.

When he lost, the narrative had to explain why that happened. The idea, likely true, that maybe too many people were still too terrorized (partially by their own government by phony terror alerts) to trust in the better world that Kerry held out to them, would never be the accepted reason, because it says the fault is in the US voters and American exceptionalism means that US can never be wrong. That the media itself played a role - which it always has - is also never the story. (I just finisher the Publisher, a book on Luce, the publisher and founder of Time, Life etc and there was not a year when he was alive where his magazines did not have their thumb on the scale, except 1960, where he was a Republican, but liked JFK too.)

So, they had to find errors - and all campaigns make them. In Kerry's case, when he made any, the media was unforgiving. Bush had a gaffe nearly every time he spoke unscripted - which led to him doing it rarely. Given the hours Kerry was speaking, it is amazing how few he really made.

The $87 billion was a quick summation of a very good detailed answer given to the question about 5 minutes earlier, when a second person heckled him with the same question - a less polite candidate would have simply said I just answered it and stopped there. The sound bite was devastating - and the media played its part pretending Kerry's explanation was too complicated.

They completely did not counter the Grand Canyon comment. It may have been that the Kerry family was too busy speaking to have heard the story, but someone who did really should have called someone like Cam Kerry to try to get them to respond. I think this was engineered by unfriendly elements in the media, but Kerry had the platform then to deny that was what happened.

The other attack was that he did not fight back against the SBVT - this is an absolutely false charge that absolves the media that condoned a character assassination of a good man.

Another attack was that he did not get his message out, but it would have been a whole lot easier if the media - other than CSPAN - covered even 4 or 5 of the speeches he designated as major - on Iraq, the War on Terror, healthcare, and environment/alternative energy. They did cover bits and pieces - mainly the attacks on Bush, but none of the substance.

The only other one that I can think of was the Mary Cheney comment, where Kerry's answer other than the Cheney part was beautiful - he really should not have mentioned her, and he looked uncomfortable doing so.

another thread following a comment by Jon Keller (Yuck!). Patrick is among my two favorite MA pols (guess who the other one is), and I think that his comment of Kerry as an uncommonly decent man is one of the best description I heard, and probably the source of the lack of attention the media shows (it is much more enjoyable to report about back stabbers).

I too would have liked Patrick to acknowledge explicitly it is a flaw of the party, but, for what I got, this part is about half a page and the book is not so much about politics but about am "Against all odds" life (to steal the title of somebody else!!!).

a powerful politician. It is hard to think of many other politicians described that way - especially few to have risen as high as Kerry has. It is up there with Hunter Thompson's praise "Of course I will vote for John Kerry. I have known him for thirty years as a good man with a brave heart -- which is more than even the president's friends will tell you about George W. Bush, who is also an old acquaintance from the white-knuckle days of yesteryear."

It was particularly relevant because of Keller's comment.

Apologies for the last one. Will stay out of things now.


On edit, because it is a GOP slanted article, will ask a mod to lock it. It doesn't belong here.

I found other contrasts between Bush and Kerry that kept me engaged and fighting for his election even after it was officially over. But, it was so long ago, and I think Senator Kerry has proven in so many different ways that he was and remains the better choice in 2004. Bush my have won the Presidency, but he never won much admiration or respect.

Thank you for clearing up what was actually said.

But the point is that Kerry had some lousy advisers (the name of Tad Devine comes to mind, for example) and that opportunities were wasted between April and September, for various reasons. They should have corrected the Grand Canyon comment immediately, and it is true that the campaign seemed to be testing slogans every week rather than staying on one idea. I remember being excited by the man and despaired by the campaign (and ultimately, it is partly his fault, as the candidate).

But I guess that the name of his tour "Believe In America" must have pleased somebody as Mitt Romney is using him for his campaign.