Last modified: Mon Sep 20 15:53:02 EDT 2004

John Kerry for President, 2004?!?

March 26, 2004

As I wrote last fall, Bush must go. This means I'll vote for Kerry, though I'll have to go home and take a shower afterwards.

John Edwards at home

John Edwards for President, 2004

February 18, 2004

Unfortunately, my reaction is irrelevant. The media treated this speech as evidence of some sort of pathology, not the (IMO) entirely justified exuberance that the moment called for. By repetition and endless analysis, this single instant of joy was transformed into proof that Howard Dean is unfit to be the President of the United States.

(CBS News' Dick Meyer wrote what I consider to be a compelling defense of Dean's speech in his Against the Grain online opinion column.)

So - Dean is now, for all intents and purposes, out of the race; he's called a press conference for later today, and I have to assume that this means he's going to withdraw from the campaign. This leaves a two way contest between Kerry and Edwards. What now?

I stand by my earlier comments about Kerry. If he's the candidate, I'll vote for him (Bush must go!), but we can do better. Over the past month I've had a chance to read more about John Edwards, listen to him speak, watch how he handles the campaign. He now has my support.

Howard Dean for President, 2004

George Bush must go.

This is the one issue on which nearly all of my friends agree. I'm frequently at odds with my friends on issues like rent control, school vouchers, gun control and tax policy. But on this issue, there is unanimity. George Bush must go.

The question then becomes: who can defeat Bush in 2004?

I believe the only candidate with any chance at all is Howard Dean. He's got experience as a governor and businessman, he's been consistently opposed to the war on Iraq, he's wants to undo the Bush tax cuts, he has a coherent, if somewhat unambitious, health care plan, and he is, IMO, "presidential timber." I think he'd do a great job.

I have more information about Dean further down on this page.

I plan to add more substance to this page in the coming months. For now, here are my assessments of the other nine Democratic candidates: Don't expect supporting material; this is all "in my opinion."

Copyright © 2003, The New York Times Company

• Carol Moseley Braun - I actually like a lot of her positions, and I think she has come across very favorably in the televised debates, but it's the wrong time. I don't see any chance at all that the electorate of 2004 is ready to chose a woman as President.

• Wesley Clark - still an enigma. I'm waiting for position papers to show up on his web site. It really bugs me that he still hasn't been especially clear on anything except his criticism of the Bush administration.

• John Edwards - actually not bad on the issues, but I'm concerned about his lack of political experience (especially governance), and for completely indefinable reasons he just doesn't grab me. Vague but true.

• Dick Gephardt - it's too easy to tar him with the "insider" label; he's been in Congress too long.

• Bob Graham - gone.

• John Kerry - Feh. I've had ample time to observe Kerry as one of my senators; he's been on the wrong side of too many issues, switched positions too many times for political expedience, and just been an all-around jerk. Harsh words, but I call 'em as I see 'em. I think Rove would use Kerry's record brutally and successfully.

  Update - April 8, 2004

  I've had people take me to task about that admittedly harsh assessment. Let me offer a little story that illustrates my point.

  On February 26, 2002, Kerry made a little speech in the Senate, praising fellow Massachusetts Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, saying:

  The Boston Globe put it best, writing not long ago that:

  In actual, measurable impact on the lives of tens of millions of working families, the elderly, and the needy, Ted Kennedy belongs in the same sentence with Franklin Roosevelt.

  That sentence is not constructed lightly; it is the measure of a public servant who doesn't know the meaning of the words, "you can't pass it," "it can't happen," or "impossible."

  It is the measure of a United States Senator who -- on every issue of importance: health care, children, education, civil rights, choice -- can always be counted on to be in the lead, challenging on the issues, and fighting for the principles which guide our party and lift up our country.

  Given this glowing tribute, one might reasonably expect Kerry and Kennedy to have similar voting records in the Senate.

  Talk is cheap. Votes are not.

  • On October 11th, 2002, the Senate passed H.J.RES.114, the bill that authorized President Bush to go to war against Iraq. Kerry voted in favor of the bill. Kennedy voted against it.

  • On November 19th, 2002, Kerry voted in favor of H.R. 5005, which established the so-called "Department of Homeland Security." This law is bad for public employees, strikes at our civil liberties and provided the executive branch with an enormous cookie jar of patronage jobs. Kennedy voted against it.

  • On March 14th, 2002, in a speech entitled "Energy Security is American Security", Kerry argued that the U.S. must reduce its dependence on foreign oil and switch to clean, renewable energy sources. Then, on April 25th, he voted in favor of H.R. 4 (the Energy Policy Act of 2002), which does almost nothing to promote renewable energy or curb oil consumption. Again, Kennedy voted against it.

  All of these votes can be readily verified in Thomas, the Congressional journal maintained by the Library of Congress.

  Is Kerry an improvement on Bush? That's easy - of course he is. Bush is an unmitigated disaster. But the Democrats could have and should have done better than Kerry.

• Dennis Kucinich - too liberal, even for me. I think his economic analyses are way too simplistic.

• Joseph Lieberman - too much of a hawk to get support from a lot of Democratic voters, and I think most voters would not see enough of a difference between him and Bush.

• Al Sharpton - gadfly. No experience, no chance.

Articles and information about Howard Dean

• November 19, 2003
  Today an article appeared on the front page of the New York Times reporting that the remains of Howard Dean's younger brother, Charlie, have been found in Laos. Charles Dean was on a year-long post-graduation trip around the world when, in October 1974, he was evidently captured by Communist rebels in Laos. His family received an unsigned letter in 1975 telling them that he had been killed.

  Howard Dean has worn a black leather belt that belonged to his missing brother nearly every day for the past 20 years. Dean credits his brother's death as a watershed event that caused him to become more serious about his own future.

  Reading these articles has made me feel that I have a much better sense of who Howard Dean is and what's motivating his run for the presidency. And I like him all the more for it.

Narsil-->Politics-->Howard Dean