Mary Beth Cahill's op-ed in the BG on the Kerry campaign.

[wisteria]

This is about New Hampshire, but there is an awful lot in it about Iowa. The two following comments say a lot about Sen. Kerry and dispel some of the revisionist history now being reported and repeated by the uninformed.



For the month of December, Kerry traveled through Iowa on a bus, refused to leave events until every last question was answered, and worked to exhaustion.

Rather than attacking Dean directly, Kerry focused on a series of speeches and events laying out the first 100 days of a Kerry presidency

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/02/iowa_focus_paid_off_for_kerry/">link

[JI7]

1. i watched and heard first hand accounts and that is exactly it

[MBS]

3. yes, indeed

and his determination to answer each and every question in Iowa is a contrast to the current celebrity-hyped, large-rally-type climate, when all 3 pre-ordained "leading" candidates have been skipping out on the question part much much more often than is good for them, OR for the Iowa caucus-voters in particular and us voters in general.

I remember that Jefferson-Jackson speech well, when he said: "send them a president, not a message". You betcha. That's why I worked so hard for JK. He was the president I wanted.

JK totally earned, and totally deserved, his victory in Iowa.

[Inuca]

4. I have seen a couple of Biden events on CSPAN

that's exactly how he behaves, and it is one of the reasons I think he is the best in the current bunch. I wish I had the smarts 4 years ago to use CSPAN...

[wisteria]

28. "send them a president..."

We really do need a real one more than ever.

None measure up to JK though. Again, America will have to settle for less.

[karynnj]

29. That's true

I really wonder if my problem is that I am watching too closely this year. Edwards is now lower on my list than Clinton, which I never thought possible. I am beginning to think that neither Edwards would know the truth if it bit them! Edwards saying that "she could not get insurance under Obama's plan" is a sleazy way to use her illness as part of an unconscionable lie on the eve of the caucuses. This adds to all the other lies.

[Dr Ron]

36. Edwards also fell lower for me

At the beginning of 2007 my attitude was somewhat anyone but Clinton (while I did like some more than others). After I saw how Edwards reinvented himself, it became far more anyone but Edwards. By anyone I meant Bloomberg if Edwards got the nomination and Bloomberg ran, and otherwise possibly even a Republican. (More likely I would have stayed home if Edwards got the nomination and there was no third party alternative which I might consider).

Saying anyone could not get insurance under Obama's plan makes absolutely no sense. The only significant difference was that people would not be required to get insurance under Obama's plan, but there were no differences which made it less likely for those who wanted insurance to be able to get it. Considering the problems with mandates, there have even been predictions by some, such as Robert Reich, that Obama's plan would come the closest towards universal coverage.

[kerrygoddess]

2. Those were the days

Thanks for posting this. Brings back great memories. I know I'll be glued to the TV and internet watching the Iowa results come in, but it won't be the same as 4 years ago for me, and thank goodness I won't be in freezing NH this time around either. It's nice to be on the sidelines just ready to support our nominee and work my tail off for whoever it is.

[karynnj]

5. Very nice that she was given this chance to

reclaim credit that is rightfully due - both to JK and herself. Compare this to what ANY of the 2008 people have done. Kerry, both in having the faith in himself to risk his house to get needed funds and that he worked so hard in Iowa, showed how committed he was. One huge difference between him and the 2008 people is that he did stay to answer every question - and did it without the gaffes that some 2008 people have had.

Cahill's strategy of concentrating on Iowa was excellent - as history showed. Imagine he had split his time and come in tied or second to Edwards, a NH win would have been downplayed by a media that pushed Edwards even after Kerry won 16 states to Edwards 1 and was ahead double digits in races the next week in which he clinched the nomination. NH would have been written off as Kerry and Dean being next door neighbors. In 1992, the talk was not the win by the neighbor, Tsongus, but the second place showing of Clinton.

Kerry and Cahill between them had the smoothest campaign to win the nomination that I have seen for any open seat without a VP. In the general election, it may be that too much cat herding for anyone was required to control the people who came in from other campaigns - not to mention a vain VP who even refused to use the campaign's slogan. (Yeah, I know I posted that too many times but it is infuriating that Edwards himself spoke of doing that in the NYT article obviously not getting that that action was harmful and wrong.)

[ProSense]

6. Awesome!

Has anyone posted this in GD? Excellent stuff!

[ProSense]

7. Op-ed

posted here.

[beachmom]

8. Thanks, Wisteria. That was a great read.

I do wonder, though:

That night, he told Iowa Democrats that it was time to "Send them a president, not a message!" Though we didn't know it then, that was the beginning of the turnaround.

For the month of December, Kerry traveled through Iowa on a bus, refused to leave events until every last question was answered, and worked to exhaustion.

Rather than attacking Dean directly, Kerry focused on a series of speeches and events laying out the first 100 days of a Kerry presidency.

That sounds fantastic. But ... why not a similar focus in the general election? I felt like Kerry found his stride in Sept. '04, but had he had a nice tight message, of maybe three things, and stuck to it from the time he won the nomination and onward, that would have made a difference. I do feel like there were sabateurs who came on after he won the nomination, because things did seem to change after he won the nomination, and didn't get fixed until he gave that great speech (was it at NYU or Georgetown?) after the RNC convention, then the debates.

[ProSense]

9. I think

the sabateurs included the Democratic pundits like Carville and Begala whose weakness on the talk show circuit did nothing to enhance Kerry's strong convention performance, which is what led the Swift Liars to turn up the noise. People like Carville seemed to go out of their way to add confusion instead of running with the strong message Kerry handed them. I often watched them go up against the GOP pundits, who never wavered from Bush's talking points down, and wondered why the Democratic pundits always backed down, giving the Repubs the edge more often than not.

[karynnj]

11. Then they had the chutzpah to attack Kerry's performance in their post 2004 book

[wisteria]

26. You are right, they didn't try very hard at all. Going through the motions

without really caring what the outcome was. Maybe they thought they should have been compensated for putting in a good word or two. The both of them aren't worth a dime.

[karynnj]

10. It was NYU

Supposedly, it was made at the urging of people like Cam Kerry, David Thorne and his wife. It also seemed to mark where he spoke more on the fact that he had been against invading when Bush did instead of trying to explain the IWR vote. Giving a speech on Iraq was directly against Bill Clinton's advice. I agree with you that that speech and the appearance (I think the same day) on Letterman seemed to somewhat let him take command. The University of Pennsylvania speech on terrorism followed about 2 weeks later.

Since we've seen Clinton's actions this year (and in 2006), I'm not sure they were sabateurs - they may simply have been both egotistical people who thought they knew best and completely wrong about 2004. What was clear is that between the conceited self important Edwards refusing to follow Kerry's lead, even on a slogan, and the Clinton aligned people, I'm not sure if ANYONE could have gotten these people to act together and stay in step. (I bet Kerry never thought he would need to lead a group with more prima donnas than were on the POW/MIA committee where he had to keep McCain, Smith and Kerrey from exploding or destroying each other.)

[politicasista]

12. This is nice about Iowa, however,

I am curious to find out what her response was to the criticism that dogged Kerry and the campaign during the primaries and GE about the lack of minorities on his staff? I remember people were bragging about the campaigns (and endorsements) of Dean, Clark, and Edwards, but I didn't hear much about Kerry's campaign staff.

Also, was it true that she said that "this will blow over" when the Swifty fools made their rounds? I remember listening to Tavis Smiley and he was slamming the campaign for reaching out to the Clintonistas for help in countering the smears. I also read that she noted at the end of the election that she "underestimated" their (Swifites) impact. I just ask because people still hold that against Kerry and the campaign.

[beachmom]

13. Warren Setti was Kerry's scheduler. That I know for sure. When

we learned he was going to Iraq, I researched his career a bit, and saw he was the scheduler, and was present in Pelosi's daughter's film, along with David Wade, so right there in Kerry's circle of aids always present, there was diversity.

[fedupinBushcountry]

14. Also

The people running the Kerry campaign here in our area was very diverse. The whole "Kerry did not have a diverse team" was put forth by an opponent ( I will not name ) and the media went with it.

[politicasista]

15. And...

Ayanna Presley is another scheduler. I remember Kerry's interview in Essence magazine, November 2004, and he directly took on the criticism (good interview :)), but I just never heard Ms. Cahill's responses to this and the commments about the Swifties.

I hope no one thinks I am hating on her, it's just that she was perceived (not just by the pundits or blogosphere) of running a disorganized GE campaign. Wasn't there a rift between her and Momma T (during the infamous Grand Canyon thing)? That was probably the gossip from the Clintonistas.

[kerrygoddess]

16. Kerry's staff

A list of Kerry's '04 staff isd here - http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry/kerrorggen.html

I would assume that Cahill wrote the OP/ED as reminder of the last Iowa caucus and NH primary and not to respond in any way to any questions, nor to discuss the General Election in any way. It is very clear from the focus of the OP/ED that is was her reflection on what happened with Iowa and NH.

And again, as I said in response to Wisteria's post, it was great to read the OP/ED given my early and direct involvement with the campaign.

[politicasista]

17. Yes. This is probably the plan

Thanks for the list and your involvement in the campaign. I didn't follow the primaries in 03 or early 04 , but I am sure that was a rollercoaster ride. :hi:

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. If I remember correctly

JK was the only candidate that had a woman as his campaign manager. They might have bragged about Gore and Michael Moore, but where did those endorsements get them?

She might have underestimated, but they went through the Swifties back in the spring, and they went back to the gutter they crawled out of, but.... then came into play Rove and the Texas money baggers, and the free media playtime for the scumbags.

I think MaryBeth Cahill did a terrific job, I have nothing bad to say about her, JK brought her into the campaign at the right time and she worked her butt off.

[politicasista]

19. True

I am always curious (not that it's important) about who is endorsing who this time, since the primaries are so early this time.

I am not mad at her, though I still think that her comment about the smears "blowing over" made her out to seem like she was clueless about how to run a campaign. She did well in Iowa despite the spin of how in the world Kerry got the nomination and Iowa as a whole. (I have had to explain this to 08 supporters elsewhere, but no response as of yet).

[karynnj]

20. The problem is that the Dean supporters talk to other Dean supporters

and create what are really conspiracy theories. There were attacks on Dean and they were exactly what happens all the time.
They have decided that Kerry was supported by the media and the party - because he won. The fact is that I have read as much as I could find from the first half of January 2004 and December 2003. The biggest topic about Kerry centered on when he would drop out.

2004 was the first time there were 527 and some of them were despicable. The 527 that attacked Dean on foreign policy was mostly funded by Gephardt unions. It makes since that if a group of active Democrats band together to try to stop a candidate that they dislike - they will have been active enough to have sent money to other candidates. That does not mean that the recipient candidate had anything to do with it. Many of the same people also gave money to their church or synagogue - so are they responsible too? If they genuinely were working for Kerry in late 2003 when this had to have started - wouldn't more of have given him some money, given that he really needed it.

Consider the experience of the Deaniacs. Dean was nowhere in early 2003 and he rose to be a very dominant front runner. At one point, he was on the cover of three major new magazines. I bet Kerry would have loved having even ONE at that time. By December, Dean got Gore's and Harkin's endorsement. This sounds like media and party support to me. What they missed - or ignored - were all the signs that Dean was not handling Iowa or being front runner gracefully. When Kerry won Iowa - they could not believe that he honestly just convinced more people. By doing what Cahill describes, working himself to exhaustion answering every question asked. (cheerfully and politely too.)

Rather than accept that the Orange hats annoyed people or that Dean did - they created their own truth and because many were the bloggers of the left, they have tried to make that CW, even though it is not true.

[politicasista]

21. You make some good points, though

I read Ms. Cahill's ariticle, I am curious as to what she meant by this:

Throughout the first half of 2003, he had run a classic front-runner's campaign - leading in the polls, locking up endorsements, and pulling in the money. By the fall, that had all been turned on its head. His vote for the Iraq war resolution had hurt him.

Did he lose endorsements because he was trailing or the Iraq war resoultion vote? Is she saying that he voted for the war even though he was against it? I think that was the senator's biggest mistake was the IWR.

Maybe I am missing something.

[ProSense]

22. Isn't that going backward to negate the point she made?

The point she makes is that Kerry was able to overcome the frame of the IWR with a strong message, which led to his win.

[politicasista]

23. No, I was just wondering what she meant by that

I remember hearing about the endorsements that Dean, Clark, and Edwards got (we see how they turned out),

I also remember that the media didn't report on Kerry's endorsements, which was the Firefighters union and an environmental group I think, but yes, he did something right, but it's too bad that it get's overshadowed by the GE "loss." There still is the line from supporters of 08 candidates outside of the non-political blogsphere that somehow we got "saddled" with Kerry when Kerry was not supported by the establishment party.

I guess I heard more negative than postive during early 04 (after the DNC when I paid attention). :shrug:

[ProSense]

24. "but it's too bad that it get's overshadowed"

It's a good thing Cahill wrote this BG article to shed some light on what happened.

[politicasista]

25. It is good

I understand that there will always be criticism of the campaign, but tt is too bad still that she is being seen as clueless, when she did the best she could.

I guess I am saying is that I don't remember hearing anyone that I know endorse the senator in 2003/04 like most are for the 08 primaries.

[karynnj]

27. In the first half of 2003, Kerry was polling as the front runner

He was one of the best known and charismatic.

He was also routinely called anti-war in the media - at least through April, because he did speak out that diplomacy was not exhausted, the inspections not done and it was not a war of last resort. (elements from what he said Bush promised in his IWR speech and repeated by Kerry through 2003 and 2004.) Kerry in April, a month into the war when it was at 70% famously called for "regime change here". I can't find it but someone (Dr Ron, I think) even posted a Markos summary of the candidates from that time frame that labeled Kerry as anti-war.

Then, in late spring and early April, Howard Dean was labeled the ONLY anti-war candidate. To be fair, many of Kerry's comments were less overtly anti-war, saying he would have given diplomacy more time. Comments that Deaniacs then took to mean he would have gone to war - but he would have waited longer, which is NOT what he said. The media in this time frame switched to labelling Kerry as having voted for the IWR including him with those supporting the war. This happened as the war became less popular among Democrats. (It also ignored that, in terms of what to do going forward, Dean spoke of being in Iraq for many years - only Kuchinich recommended leaving immediately (I have no idea what Sharpton or Baum were for. The media covered Kerry's plan for the war and kind of ignored Dean's, making the contrast greater.)

By fall, as Cahill describes his campaign was near dead.

[whometense]

30. There was also the matter of Kerry's

unexpected surgery, which knocked him off his game for a while (February 2003) at a time when Dean was gaining traction. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/12/kerry/

[MBS]

31. yes, people seem to have forgotten this, and perhaps

never understood its importance. Personally, I'm amazed at how fast and determinedly he bounced back, but, yes, surely, "knocked him off his game for a while" is exactly the right descriptor.

[politicasista]

32. I never forgot about his surgery

I remember listening to Tom Joyner one morning in 2005 and Congressman Meeks from New York was on promoting the Take a Love One to the Doctor Day. Tom mentioned that Kerry was a prostate cancer survivor, and Tom's gang did not know that. (Shows how the media works, doesn't it?)


I was just curious as to what she meant by endorsements (i.e. celeb or organizational). I know some that were around in 03 are endorsing 08 candidates this time around. Of course, they don't matter that much.

[karynnj]

33. It likely also hurt him on the war

Nothing can be proven, but given Kerry's positions in the fall and his Georgetown speech, I assume that had he not spent a large part of January - March on tests, deciding what option he was most comfortable with, the surgery itself, and recovery, Kerry would have been far more prominent speaking against going to war. (In April, he called for "regime change at home") Kerry missed that years Take Back America, where Dean made a fiery speech against the war. A healthy Kerry would have been there and as you say there might then not have been the opening for Dean on the left.

[politicasista]

34. Saw your other reply

I didn't follow the 03/04 primaries, but I the history is very appreciated. :)

[Dr Ron]

37. Did well with endorsements

Kerry actually did very well with endorsements in both Iowa and New Hampshire. While he did get some high profile endorsements, the key ones were really the people in Iowa and New Hampshire who could help turn out votes for Kerry. The national media missed much of this, which is one reason he campaign was not as dead as they claimed.

[politicasista]

39. But why did the campaign write off the South?

I never heard her answer for that either, which is too bad because it is perceived that Kerry didn't care about the South or even "put up a fight" here. He could have added more EV had TN been included as a battleground state.

I think the 08 field is learning not to take any state for granted this time. (Thanks to Dean also).












edit for word

[Mass]

40. Because there are only so many places you can go and with the electoral college system

it is better to focus on states you can win. There were only 1 state that could be seen as winnable in the South: VA. Kerry actually went in the South in 04, not in TN, maybe, that was not winnable, but he actually try to contest a few Southern states, until it became clear they would not be won and that the resources would be needed elsewhere.

Not sure that candidates will come more in the South this time. BTW, did Kerry really ignore Tennessee during the primary (he won there, as far as I know). I would not worry too much about what people say right now. Some of the history is really revisionist.

Also, some Democratic leaders in the South did not want to see Kerry in their state. Some did not come at the Convention or did not come at Kerry's meetings because ...He was too liberal :freeze:

[politicasista]

41. I understand. Focusing on the postitive instead of the negative has

been hard (I mean very hard sometimes). And yes, Kerry did win here in the 04 primaries, (I only heard Harold Ford Jr. was his only endorsement?)

I guess it's because I just heard all that back in 04 that it brings back some lousy memories, and I live in Gore country and remember how nasty they were to him back in 2000.

[Mass]

42. Also, remember that these guys may not quite remember what happened.

Memory may be selective.

[politicasista]

43. True n/t

[ProSense]

35. Well, here

is my positive message (all it takes is hard work and the ability to connect).

[ProSense]

38. Someone is having a

meltdown.