John Kerry: What a Piece of Work

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLXXV

One may gather that Charlie Gibson has interviewed John Kerry for the last time.

Kerry has suffered a minor meltdown now that he's been caught — by mainstream media — in a lie about his (in)famous medal toss, April 23, 1971.

First, an LAT article last Friday, the 33rd anniversary of the highly-publicized agitprop:

.... Myths of the Medals

Kerry says he never claimed to have thrown the medals as his own. But as his reputation grew as a shrewd political operator after his 1984 senate election, Kerry was dogged by a troubling political myth.

He was accused of discarding his ribbons and the medals of others in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero, while keeping his own medals for use as political props years later — a charge echoing this election year.

"It's so damn hypocritical to get these awards, throw them in the dirt and then suddenly value them again," said B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author who critiques Kerry's antiwar stance.

"I never ever implied that I did it," Kerry says wearily, adding: "You know what? Medals and ribbons, there's almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They're symbols of the same thing. They are what they are."

The war honors abandoned by the "Winter Soldiers" sat for years in boxes shelved in the Capitol Police Department's property room. The honors lay ignored for two decades, long after Kerry's exit from the VVAW in late 1971 and his immersion into politics.

They remained hidden as the years passed, unclaimed by the protesters who bitterly flung them away, forgotten, too, by the war supporters who cherish them as symbols of valor.

Finally, police ran out of space. "Last thing I wanted to do was throw them away again," said former Deputy Chief James Trollinger. But when aides approached him "sometime in the early 1990s," asking for permission to remove the decorations, Trollinger reluctantly agreed.

Three boxes bulging with medals and ribbons were hauled away to a local forge, destined to be melted down as scrap.

ABC breaks the news today that Kerry did claim later in 1971 that he had tossed his own medals (brackets in original).

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

Calling it a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. "I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals. It is very simple."

He also said he — and the military — didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

"I'm proud of my medals. I always was proud of them," he told Jennings in December, adding that he had only thrown away his "ribbons" and the medals of two other veterans who could not attend the protest.

Flip Flop?

The disputed incident happened 33 years ago this past weekend, on April 23, 1971, when Kerry led the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War in a protest against the war they fought.

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

And in 1988, Kerry again clarified his statement by saying he threw out ribbons he had been awarded for three combat wounds, but not his medals. "I was proud of my personal service and remain so," he told the National Journal.

Eight years later in 1996, Kerry said while he did throw out his ribbons, he didn't throw out his own medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them," he told The Boston Globe.

Kerry's campaign Web site says he "is proud of the work he did to end the war. The Nixon Administration made John Kerry one of its targets and Republicans have been smearing him ever since. John Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event, and said, 'I am not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"

ABCNEWS' Madeleine Sauer contributed to this report.

NYT picks up the story, too, though they go out of their way to imply that wascally Wepublicans are behind it all.

Throughout much of his political career, Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has faced questions about a singular event that took place 33 years ago last week: he and fellow veterans discarded medals in Washington to protest the war in Vietnam.

The Kerry campaign Web site says it is "right-wing fiction" that he "threw away his medals during a Vietnam War protest."

Rather, the Web site says, "John Kerry threw away his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event."

But the issue is not so cut and dried. A television interview Mr. Kerry gave in November 1971 shows that Mr. Kerry himself fed the confusion from early on. The New York Times obtained a videotape of the interview late last week.

The interview was shown on the Washington television station WRC, archived by President Richard M. Nixon's communications office and held by the National Archives.

On the program, an interviewer asked Mr. Kerry to explain what was happening in a photograph of a man hurling a medal, apparently during a protest. Mr. Kerry responded that the veterans had decided that the best way to "wake the country up" about the war was to "renounce the symbols which this country gives, which supposedly reinforces all the things that they have done, and that was the medals themselves."

"And so they decided to give them back to their country," he added.

Mr. Kerry said they had decided to do so as "a last resort."

When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered, "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine."

When the interviewer pointed out that Mr. Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, Mr. Kerry added, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

The ceremonial discarding of the combat medals came at the end of nearly a weeklong demonstration that Mr. Kerry had helped organize as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Republicans, nervous about questions regarding President Bush's Air National Guard service, have raised the issue to revive accusations by some veterans that the discarding of medals dishonored those who served and died in the war. At the same time, the Republicans have said that Mr. Kerry's explanation of what happened at the ceremony is an example of his proclivity to fall on both sides of every issue.

The protest came up last week, the 33rd anniversary of the ceremony, in articles about Mr. Kerry's Vietnam protest days in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

In The Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Kerry was quoted as saying that he never meant to imply that the two medals he had discarded belonged to him. He said they belonged to two men who could not attend the ceremony.

"I never ever implied that I did it," Mr. Kerry is quoted as saying, adding, "You know what? Medals and ribbons, there's almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They're symbols of the same thing. They are what they are."

Campaign aides to Mr. Kerry said Sunday that comments he had made in the 1971 interview — using the words medals and ribbons interchangeably — were consistent with what he says today.

"John Kerry and thousands of veterans had the courage to lead an act of patriotic dissent by fighting to end a failed war and using their military decorations as symbols of their opposition," said David Wade, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry.

"John Kerry is proud that in those difficult days, this act to capture the attention of the country helped save lives," Mr. Wade added.

Mr. Kerry, who is from Massachusetts, spent much of Sunday in Iowa, where he fired back at what he called misleading and distorting television advertisements being run against him by Mr. Bush.

"This race is not about attack ads," Mr. Kerry told a friendly crowd of more than 1,000 people at Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines. "It's not about the destruction of personality."

Later, saying the Bush campaign has "a truth deficit," Mr. Kerry added, "If they want to argue about the merits, let's argue about the merits."

He also had harsh words for the administration's refusal to release photographs of the flag-draped coffins of American soldiers who had died in Iraq.

"We shouldn't hide that from America," Mr. Kerry said.

"I believe that keeping faith with those who serve also requires us to understand the sacrifice they're making," he added, noting that "12 sons" of Iowa were among those killed in action.

"If they're good enough to go and fight and die," he said, "they're good enough to come home with full honors in America."

Jodi Wilgoren contributed reporting for this article.

Next, CNS covers the unfolding story (ellipses and brackets in original).

Did John F. Kerry throw away his Vietnam War medals or didn't he? In a newly surfaced 1971 interview with a Washington, D.C., television station, the young Kerry said he threw away "six, seven, eight, nine" medals. He said nothing about ribbons — mentioning only "medals" in that 1971 interview.

But on Monday morning, Kerry vehemently denied throwing away his medals — contradicting what he said in the 1971 interview. He explained the contradiction by saying that back then, medals and ribbons were the same thing.

"There was no distinction," he said on Monday. Medal, ribbons, even dogtags and photographs — all were "symbols" of the Vietnam War he told ABC News.

During the Monday morning interview with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, Kerry repeatedly answered before Gibson even finished asking his questions. Kerry said he's been very clear about what he did in 1971, and he accused Republicans of manufacturing a controversy where none exists.

Background:

ABC News obtained a copy of the 1971 WRC-TV interview with Kerry and aired it on Monday morning, reigniting the controversy over Kerry's anti-war past.

In the 1971 interview, Kerry told Washington's WRC-TV he "gave back... six, seven, eight, nine" medals. He answered a questions specifically about "medals." He said nothing about giving back ribbons only. He made no distinction then, as he does now.

Flash forward to Monday

In a somewhat heated interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Kerry insisted, "I stood up in front of my nation and took the ribbons off my chest" — in front of TV cameras, he noted — and then threw those ribbons over a fence.

"I never asserted otherwise," Kerry said on Monday — moments after ABC played part of the 1971 intervew in which Kerry indicated he threw his medals over a fence.

"And back then, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable... We all referred to them as the symbols..." Kerry continued. "So the fact is that I have been accurate precisely about what took place. And I am the one who later made clear exactly what happened."

Kerry said the controversy is one that "the Republicans are pushing... This comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he (George W. Bush) showed up for duty in the National Guard."

"Good Morning America" anchor Charlie Gibson said he was there 33 years ago when Kerry threw medals over the fence. "I saw you throw medals over the fence, and we didn't find out until later (interrupted) that those were someone else's medals," Gibson said.

Kerry, not listening to the end of Gibson's statement, said, "Charlie, Charlie, you're wrong. That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. And all you have to do..." [Gibson tried to clarify that Kerry threw someone else's medals over the fence, but Kerry would not give him an opportunity.]

Kerry eventually clarified that he did throw two medals (not his) over the fence at the request of two veterans.

Kerry did not let anchor Gibson finish his questions and he continued talking over Gibson. "This is a phony controversy," Kerry said, as Gibson tried to ask another queston.

Gibson pressed Kerry on why he didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons in 1971, but did so in 1984 when he was running for Senate — and continues to do so today.

Kerry said in 1984 he was asked in greater detail about what he did, and that's when he distinguished between ribbons and medals.

"This is a phony controversy," Kerry said for the second time in the interview. "This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it."

Asked whether he was trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971 — and now is trying to appeal to people who supported the war —l Kerry said it was a "ridiculous" suggestion.

"Everybody understood what we were doing," Kerry said. "I even said in that interview that we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through."

Kerry said what he did in 1971 was unpopular and polarizing: "I threw my ribbons over; I threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over — after the ceremony, completely separate. And I'm the one — if I had something to hide — I'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. To me, it's one and the same [ribbons, medals] — and I'm proud of it."

At the end of the interview, Kerry said he didn't want to throw medals or ribbons over the fence to begin with. "I thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that wouldn't be as challenging to many Americans. Other veterans felt otherwise. They took a vote... they voted to throw. I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals."

Kerry then attacked Republicans for attacking him on something that happened 35 years ago. Kerry said he won't be attacked for something that is a matter of record.

"We threw away the symbols of the war. I'm proud I stood up and fought against it — proud I took on Richard Nixon. And I think to this day there's no distinction between the two [medal/ribbons]."

Last, Matt Drudge has posted a (rather poorly edited) transcript of the "somewhat heated interview" of Kerry by Charlie Gibson — who says that he himself personally watched the medal-tossing:

ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA'S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He's in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: i'm glad to be with you. i really am.

GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the "los angeles times," have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.

KERRY: no, i don't.

GIBSON: can you explain?

KERRY: absolutely. that's absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were — i don't know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the "boston globe," everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon — threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they threw back their 14's. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have — i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i'm not going to stand for it.

GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later -

KERRY: no, you didn't see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that's not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -

GIBSON: someone else's medals, correct in?

KERRY: after — excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never —

GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military —

KERRY: this is a phony — charlie, this is a phony controversy.

GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 —

KERRY: no. we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.

GIBSON: senator, i don't want — i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.

KERRY: no.

GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn't throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.

KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.

GIBSON: senator —

KERRY: i'm not going to stand for it. i'm in the going to stand for it.

GIBSON: i — understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not —

KERRY: i know politics is behind this.

GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn't throw the medals away 13 years later.

KERRY: that's the most — with all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the "boston globe" got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was — you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the war, took a position, and it wasn't popular, and it was polarizing. i didn't have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in front of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i'm the one — if hi something to hide, i'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i'm proud of it.

GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to "the washington post," it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the "boston globe," i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them. which one was it?

KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us — we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn't have my medals. it is very simple. what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can't go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or not to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i'm not going to get attack order something i did that's a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i'm proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there's no distinction between the two.

GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i'm glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

What a piece of work this man is. During one stage of his public life, he used his service in the war — and the medals he supposedly had been awarded — as bragging rights to protest the war at the very same time he threw away those medals to win bragging rights as an anti-war activist. But he only pretended to throw away his medals; he actually threw away part of his medals (the ribbons associated with the actual medals) and then the medals of two other soldiers — one of them from World War II! During another stage of his public life, he went back to bragging about his service in the war, trying to glide over his years of anti-American, pro-Communism agitprop... er... excuse me... his years of anti-war activism, proudly displaying the very medals he had formerly been proud to have supposedly thrown away.

What a freaking piece of work.

I'd be ashamed of myself if I voted him dog catcher.

And I gotta be honest: I am flabbergasted that this is a story at ABC and NYT. I'm telling you again, Faithful Reader: mainstream media does not like John Forbes Kerry, liberal Democrat or no. And I find it hard to believe that this particular episode cropped up now just so they could get it out of the way early in the general-election campaign. Kerry is clearly shook up that another branch (mainstream media) of the Democratic Establishment is springing this on him.

P.S. Just to make myself clear: since Kerry's medals have been the object of so much of his own grandstanding, his own politicking, and his own outright lying, I frankly doubt that he ever rightly earned them in the first place.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 04/26/04 06:05:47 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & John Kerry.

Divorce, the Alternative to Marriage

Re: Blogworthies XII.

A reader writes:

I think that not only welfare mothers "marry" the government, so do millions of single, divorced, and widowed women. They fear being unable to care for themselves, especially when sick and/or old. Those who chose not to have children are especially vulnerable, but those who raised selfish children are also at risk. They will vote for the socialist alternative, regardless of the candidates' repugnant moral positions. That's why teaching young women to wait for a suitable husband, to cherish their husbands, to raise good, responsible children is the cornerstone of a free state. Women in solid marriages vote conservative at higher percentages than women alone.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 04/26/04 07:54:25 AM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

"Is Kerry's Campaign Colorblind?"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLXXIV

Colbert I. King writes at WaPo, Apr. 24.

John Kerry, oh, John Kerry, say it isn't so. But, alas, apparently 'tis true.

The Massachusetts senator, putative 2004 Democratic standard-bearer and soon-to-be leader of the party that most voting African Americans and other people of color call home, has an innermost circle of advisers that is practically as white as the driven snow. That slam against the Kerry high command appeared last week in "The Inside Edge" column of Carlos Watson on CNN.com.

Not wanting to believe that Kerry would assemble a team of insiders with faces that exclusively resembled Europe — especially after proclaiming throughout the length and breadth of the land that he wants our workplaces to reflect the full face of America — I called the Kerry campaign in Washington and got press spokesperson Stephanie Cutter on the phone.

I asked her: Is Carlos Watson's assertion true?

Watson, for the record, had written that, unlike former vice president Al Gore, who had an African American campaign manager, political director and finance director, Kerry has no person of color in his inner circle, including the campaign manager, campaign chairperson, media adviser, policy director, foreign policy adviser, general election manager, convention planner, national finance chairman and head of the vice presidential search team.

Cutter's answer to my question was truly Clintonesque. It all depends, she said, on what you mean by inner circle.

Whoop, there it is.

Watson may be on to something after all. Could it be that at the start of another election cycle, the Democratic Party's most loyal constituencies are on the outside looking in?

But wait a minute, Cutter interjected. Kerry just so happened to have issued a press release on April 16, the same day Watson's column appeared, announcing a significant expansion of his campaign's senior staff. The release did not identify the appointees by color, but Cutter obtained a copy and ran down the list, carefully identifying which of the listed "all-stars" were of a darker hue.

Cutter said the Kerry campaign would have more to say on the subject this week. And sure enough, on Thursday it unveiled another list: the "community outreach senior leadership." These staffers are charged with energizing "core Democratic constituencies across the country."

While the "all-stars" and the "community outreach senior leadership" are different groupies with ostensibly different missions, their purposes are much the same: to go forth with marching orders from the Kerry leadership, to mobilize the party's base, to link up and make nice with various party and special interests, and to implement the strategy and carry the message formulated by the tight circle of white Kerry leadership.

No non-WASP group, by order of the Kerry high command, shall go untouched. Well, almost.

This week, according to the release, senior leaders have been assigned, pretty much according to their race, religion or ethnicity, to handle their respective groups. There's a separate outreach official for African Americans and one for Hispanics. The Jewish community outreach person also handles Middle East and Jewish affairs. One senior outreacher has a full plate, with responsibility for Arab Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Hungarian Americans, Polish Americans and Portuguese Americans.

Greek Americans are apparently out of luck. So are Turkish Americans. They don't seem to be assigned. But Asian Pacific Islanders have a senior outreach official of their own. So do the environmental crowd, women and LGBT, which the press release fails to spell out (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people).

Regardless of how much the Kerry press releases make it sound as if those "all-stars" and "senior advisers" are the Dream Team, they aren't the people calling the shots. They don't have a hand in positioning the candidate or in guiding his campaign. That is the special preserve of the inner circle.

Let's be fair, you might argue. Doesn't Kerry have a right to surround himself with close friends and top assistants who click with him? Of course. But is it too much to expect that the Democratic Party's top liberal, the candidate who cries that he has "fought for civil rights and equal opportunity for every American my whole life," who brags about his efforts to "enhance diversity," and whose message is inclusiveness, would in fact have a presidential campaign inner circle that is reflective of the diversity of his party and the country? And if elected, will Kerry govern that way?

As for grand strategists, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill made it plain in a story this week by The Post's Jim VandeHei that only six people qualify in Kerry's camp as real insiders: herself, Bob Shrum, Michael Donilon, Tad Devine, Tom Kiley and Mark Mellman.

And they don't look like America.

Maybe Carlos Watson got it right.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Here's the WaPo article to which King refers:

.... Cahill said six people equally dominate campaign strategizing sessions: Shrum, Donilon and their partner, Tad Devine, as well as pollsters Kiley and Mark Mellman and herself. Others privately said the true powerhouses are Cahill, Donilon and Shrum — and not necessarily in that order. It was Donilon who devised last year's "100 days" campaign, which outlined how Kerry would change the country during his first three months in office and who advocated this new, biographical ad campaign. Donilon is helping produce the ads and recently traveled to New York to determine whether a new Madison Avenue ad firm should be added to the campaign mix....

Shrum? That would be Bob Shrum, a much-vaunted strategist for a whole generation of Democratic losers:

.... Nevertheless, all the controversy has lately begun to catch up with Shrum — and not all of it is about his personality. At issue is whether he is as valuable as he is reputed to be or whether his populist message has become shopworn and ineffective. As far back as 1980 The Washington Post pointed out how often he failed: "Friends of Shrum's joke that he's had so many losers that he wouldn't know what to do with a winner." That year he was Ted Kennedy's chief speechwriter when the senator challenged Shrum's old ideological bête noire, Jimmy Carter. But Kennedy lost. By 1988 Shrum, now a full-service consultant, had graduated to Mario Cuomo, who never ran, and then signed on with Richard Gephardt in the primaries. Gephardt lost too. Shrum wound up working for Michael Dukakis's ill-fated general-election campaign. In 1992 his horse was Bob Kerrey. But Kerrey soon bowed out, and Shrum never managed to penetrate Bill Clinton's inner circle. In 2000 he was one of Al Gore's top advisers, with all-too-familiar results. At one point Shrum even attended a strategy meeting for the ultimate losing candidate, New Coke.

Throughout his professional rise, Shrum's political message has remained constant. Therein lies a source of criticism. In the death throes of his 1988 campaign Dukakis adopted Shrum's populist rhetoric. Four years later Bob Kerrey did too. An advocate of free trade, Kerrey even permitted himself to be portrayed in a corny commercial as a hockey goalie ("Fight back, America!") to illustrate how he would protect American markets from Japanese imports. A look back at Shrum's clients quickly becomes a pugilistic blur: Jon Corzine ("fighting for us"), Michael Coles ("a fighter for Georgia"), Geraldine Ferraro ("a fighter who's taken on the big insurance companies"), Ron Klink ("strong enough to fight for us"), Bob Casey ("a proven fighter" who "had the courage to take on the most powerful forces"), Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ("fighting for Maryland's families"), Mark Dayton ("fighting for what's right, fighting for you"). After Al Gore struck the same note in the 2000 Democratic primaries (promising to "stay and fight") and then lost the election, Shrum was criticized, both for imposing a populist message on a candidate ill suited to deliver it and for failing to champion the economic success that was the clear legacy of the Clinton-Gore years. Shrum remains undeterred. Though John Kerry is perhaps even unlikelier than Gore as a figure to deliver the message, his campaign is suffused by populist themes. "I'm a fighter," Kerry roared to the crowd on the night he effectively secured the nomination. The newly minted nominee promised to attack "the powerful forces that want America to continue on exactly the path that it's on today." This time Shrum stood with the candidate....

See "Kerry's Inner Circle Lacks Color".

(Thanks to Herb for calling King's column to my attention.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 04/26/04 07:41:28 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & John Kerry.