RE: That Kerry fella...

The latest occasion for Kerry commentary is the Quinnipiac "national thermometer" poll, which asserts to measure the "warmth" Americans feel for various political figures. Of those mentioned, Kerry comes in with the lowest marks. Steve Benen offers a more generous perspective than most with the discouraging news...

In the thermometer poll, 20 nationally-recognized political figures were included. Kerry finished dead last, and was the only pol to have a total score below 40 (respondents give a rating from 0 to 100). It suggests the often-ridiculous coverage of Kerry’s botched joke had an effect — his rating was 46.3 in March and is 39.6 now.

It's true - any affect on Kerry's numbers arising out of the infamous joke have everything to do with the coverage, and nothing, really, to do with his performance on that day, his fitness for high office or, for that matter, with his personal warmth. "Often-ridiculous coverage," in fact is a bit of an understatement. It was a calculated attack on the nominal leader of the Democratic Party. Part of that attack's effects is revealed in Benen's conclusion...

It’s not fair, and Kerry clearly deserves better, but the right and the media have sullied his name. My sense is that running again in 2008 would be a mistake — most Dems in the Quinnipiac poll were lukewarm on Kerry, and Republicans and independents were hostile. At this point, I hope he skips the race.

Now, I think Steve's hope in this regard is expressed with benign, even compassionate, motivation, but consider what he's really saying. Because the "often-ridiculous coverage" of a wholly invented 'controversy' resulting in an unfair and undeserved judgment, John Kerry should not run for President of the United States. Not for anything he actually did, or said (unless you choose to believe the Rovian spin that Kerry did, in fact, intentionally insult serving troops). Not on account of some deficiency of character or background, or of extreme or uninformed views on issues of import.

No, ultimately it's because another lie was concocted about John Kerry, one contrived deliberately to make it seem as though this highly decorated combat hero, this man who killed people who attacked American soldiers and saved American soldier's lives by putting his own at risk, is insufficiently supportive of American soldiers.

Classic swift-boating.

Personally, I'm not there yet. While I remain convinced that John Kerry is one of the two Americans I would most like to see in the White House (Jerry Brown is the other), I'm not sure if I hope he runs or doesn't. There are other Democratic stars I could imagine hitching my '08 wagon to, though they'd all fall under the general heading 'third choices.' I'm a Democrat, though, so I'm long since accustomed to getting something less than what I might want. It's part of the price of the big tent.

I wish it was simply a matter of Republican lies, though. One of the most distressing aspects of what's become known as the "botched joke" affair (though it's hard to judge how botched a joke that generated audible laughter really was) was the willingness, sometimes seemingly gleeful, of many ostensibly liberal commentators in the mainstream media and the blogosphere alike to throw John Kerry under the bus.

Part of it, certainly, was the timing. Everyone was eager to sweep away any potential controversy so near the mid-term elections. In this case, though, there was no actual controversy. The suggestion that John Kerry would publicly and deliberately insult troops in harm's way is preposterous. Every Democrat should know that, and every Democrat should have said so. If there had be a chorus of voices insisting that "They're lying about John Kerry again, and they should be ashamed of themselves," the whole matter would have been just as quickly, and far more productively, put to rest.

Sadly, that kind of unity is a rare commodity in Democratic politics. Those who couldn't quite bring themselves to the level of belligerent umbrage feigned by Rove's genuine acolytes were likely to belittle Kerry's comic abilities and/or insist that an apology must be made for something he didn't say. The first point is just another bit of silliness along the lines of Kerry being too haughty or too French or, well, just too just about anything but funny and personable. Of course, John Kerry has made thousands of public appearances in recent years, and nearly every one has featured John Kerry telling jokes and getting laughs. Again, in the appearance in question, he told jokes and got laughs. The notion that he shouldn't tell jokes because he can't tell jokes is just silly.

The second point, the demand for an apology, is even more distressing, because it was a signal that not only were many Democrats unwilling to stand and defend Kerry, but they denied Kerry the basic right of self-defense, as well. When Kerry called the attack what it was, a lie, the word went out that the truth didn't matter. In essence, it was a concession that once the Republicans tell a lie about a Democrat, there's really nothing left to do but roll over. The truth isn't worth a feint, let alone a fight.

There was something worth fighting for in this case, too. As Mark Barrett wrote in a post-election look back...

"...the attack on Senator Kerry was specifically designed to shatter the Democratic momentum he was instrumental in creating prior to the elections. Think of it as an attempt to decapitate the leader of the opposition while rallying the base."

In fact, John Kerry was the Party's top campaigner this year, stumping with 170 Democratic candidates from coast to coast, drawing crowds that wrote checks and filled out volunteer cards, while raising millions more for those and others through his internet operations. He was particularly vigilant regarding the various attempts by Republicans to turn Democratic veteran's service records against them. No one was silently swift-boated on John Kerry's watch.

Whether his continued efforts over the last week or so of the campaign might have turned another seat or two is impossible to measure, but my guess is that it would be more rather than less likely. If so, we may have thrown a Democratic Congressman, Senator or legislator or two under the bus with Kerry. Clearly, the Republican slander machine thought he was a worthwhile target.

Of course, Kerry was simultaneously building up a supply of chits with a small legion of new Democratic elected officials and their appreciative supporters. Getting him off the trail wasn't just a benefit to Republicans. Ignoring the probable impact of '08 politics on the reaction of some is simply another case of denying the truth. Whether or not John Kerry runs again, each candidate's response to the attack on their fellow partisan should be a consideration when evaluating potential nominees.

At any rate, I'm not ready to join the call for Kerry to stand down, though his decision has doubtless been complicated that the cowardly refusal of many who knew the truth to aggressively defend him during the '04 swift-boating assault wasn't an aberration, but seems, rather, to be the predictable response from many of a leftish tilt when Republican prevarications are loosed.

War planners always look for lessons learned in an engagement. In this arena of combat, buddies are few and far between when the bullets fly. John Kerry knows that first hand. What should he do? That will, in part, depend on what he thinks can be done given that hard learned lesson.

I'm still listening, though.