The Local Crank

Musings & Sardonic Commentary on Politics, Religion, Culture & Native American Issues. Bringing you the finest in radioactive screeds since 2002! "The Local Crank" newspaper column is distributed by Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cleburne, Texas, United States

Just a simple Cherokee trial lawyer, Barkman has been forcing his opinions on others in print since, for reasons that passeth understanding, he was an unsuccessful candidate for state representative in 2002. His philosophy: "If people had wanted me to be nice, they should've voted for me."

Monday, April 24, 2006

Better Late Than Never...

9 Comments:

Blogger Kvatch said...

That still doesn't mean that it would be a good thing. My problem is: Though I pretty much know who I don't want to be the Democrat's standard bearer in 2008, I have trouble deciding who I do want to be the candidate.

4/26/2006 1:31 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

I actually think Kerry should (and will) run again.

4/26/2006 2:53 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

I'm the wrong one to ask about this: I backed Tom Harkin in '92.

4/26/2006 5:44 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

Understandable: I'm hard pressed to pick a Democrat I'm wildly excited about being president.

On the other hand, I thought that for the most part Kerry handled himself well in the last election. Now that even the Bush administration is talking about leaving Iraq, Kerry might be able to articulate a simpler, more easily understood position. I think his experience in 2004 would make him a stronger, more seasoned candidate and possibly even a better president (if elected).

But, I suppose the odds are against him. The voters always seem to want new faces, even if they do come from political dynasties.

4/26/2006 6:43 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

I thought Kerry ran one of the lousiest presidential campaigns since Dukakis in 1988. His belated response to the Swift Boat attacks is a perfect example. There were some very talented individuals working on his campaign, but their talent was wasted on a mediocre candidate.

4/27/2006 12:36 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

Hmm, well... I would actually rate Gore's campaign as worse than Kerry's. Gore had more advantages than Kerry, and he squandered most of them.

And, I have to admit, my recollection of the last election is still heavily influenced by my perception of the "debates." Aside from the Iraq issue, I thought Kerry handled himself admirably; much better than Gore did in 2000.

I can't really argue that Kerry wasn't a mediocre candidate, but as far as I can tell the Democratic Party has nothing BUT mediocre candidates. For that matter, my recollection of 1992 is that most Democrats believed Clinton was a far-from-ideal candidate (damaged goods, etc.), but the recession and his savvy political skills saved his campaign.

So unless someone steps out of the wings REAL soon, I think the Dems could do a lot worse than to back Kerry for another run. I'd wager he has a better shot at winning than Hillary does.

4/27/2006 9:33 AM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

I would also rate Gore 2000 as worse than Kerry 2004, and for the same reasons you cite. I also agree that Hillary will make a poor candidate in that she has all of her husband's ambition (perhaps more) but none of his charm. She is notoriously thin-skinned, quick to perceive enemies, and will have little or no crossover appeal.
And you are right that Clinton was perceived as weak in '92 (which is why I supported Tom Harkin) but then again, FDR was perceived as weak in 1932. Democrats have always had low self-esteem issues...

4/27/2006 10:21 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

I was a Bob Kerrey backer in 1992 until he dropped out of the race. I still think he has one of the most compelling resumes of any Democrat out there. Sadly, he's a terrible campaigner and has the kind of "dull" personality that turns the media and the voters off.

4/27/2006 12:10 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

"...and has the kind of "dull" personality that turns the media and the voters off."

I think the former is far more important than the latter. Once the Media Groupthink come to a decision (Kerry=dull, Bush=stupid, Gore=liar, Perot=batshit crazy), that becomes reality and that is how the news is filtered to voters who get virtually all their information about candidates thru the media.

4/27/2006 2:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home