Desperate Times

Well, the NYTimes has managed to make my Sunday, (even before tonight's Bengals game). Under the heading (online, at least), "WHAT SHOULD KERRY DO?" the Times offers up four - four - articles by Democratic luminaries, advising Kerry as to the best, or only, way that he can salvage his doomed candidacy.

A couple of observations:

a) The entire premise of this feature - that Kerry's campaign has reached or is reaching disaster status - is exhilarating for those of us who badly want (and expect) Kerry to lose badly.

b) Ok, call me crazy, but who among the following does not belong: Bob Kerrey (successful white male Democratic Senate candidate, member of the 9/11 Comission), Leon Panetta (successful white male Democratic Congressional candidate, Clinton Chief-of-Staff), Donna Brazile (unsuccessful black female campaign manager for Al Gore), or Paul Glastris (white male speechwriter for successful presidential candidate Bill Clinton, Editor-in-Chief of Washington Monthly).

If you named the sister with no notable electoral accomplishments and one massive failure, you win - and you now fully understand the policies of the NYTimes Editorial Desk:

"Hmm, ok, people, think, which Democrats have the credibility to give Kerry advice about how to revitalize his campaign? Ok, Bob Kerrey, not bad - public loved him during the hearings. Panetta, yeah, that makes sense, Clinton's people know how to win. Any other Clinton people we can use? Glastris, excellent, he's got a following on the Hill. Very good.
Oh, crap. All of these are white males. Not good, people. You know the drill. We need at least one African American and one woman. Oh, hey, great idea, Jayson, let's get an African American woman. Hmm, Oprah? No, she told us to stop calling. Maya Angelou? No good, we need someone coherent this time. Miss Cleo? Nah, she's got that corporate scandal going on.
Hmm, Donna Brazile, interesting option. But don't people view her as a loser? Does she have any credibility? I mean, she was campaign manager for Gore!? Oh, you're right, excellent point - I forgot for a minute that she's a Democrat, black and a woman. Silly me. Good work, people."

Ok, the preceding was dramatization, and you might be inclined to dismiss it as simply (not) funny. But I actually think it possible that Brazile was added as an afterthought. Consider, her article is basically the same as Glastris's - each urges Kerry to focus on national security, and Bush's supposed failures in that area. The other two writers each focus on a distinct topic - Kerrey on trade, and Panetta on communicating a consistent message. Why have two writers say the exact same thing? Well, normally that would be odd, but - Oh, you're right, excellent point - I forgot for a minute that she's a Democrat, black, and a woman. Silly me.

c) Speaking of Kerrey's focus on trade - can anyone else here sense Kerrey's obvious frustration as he trumpets a campaign suggestion that is so mind-numbingly boring and vacuous that it should have been Brazile (or some other Gore lackey) who came up with it?

I mean, seriously, shed a tear for Bob. How the mighty have fallen! He can't really believe that the election hinges on

"The Columbus Summit meeting [which] would be a means of giving our political, education and business leaders a venue at which they can reach consensus on trade and globalism."

Due to his supposedly non-partisan post on the 9/11 Commision, Kerrey is in the unfortunate position of being unable to talk about his area of real expertise - foreign policy and terrorism, the overridingly critical issues of this election. Instead, Kerrey must settle for offering lightweight talking point about global trade. You gotta feel for the guy, but - bottom line - just shut up until the Comission is disbanded. You're the only (or, at least, most) viable Democratic moderate in 2008, have some patience.

d) Note the lack of specificity largely evident in these articles. All are bold on broad strategies, but less so on nuts and bolts. As Homer lovingly commented when Bart considered him as a father-role model, "No way. I don't want my fingerprints on that train wreck." (Rough quote, sorry). Thus, we have Kerrey:

"it is vitally important for this consensus (on trade) to be found...However, it simply will not and probably cannot be found during a modern presidential campaign. That is something Senator Kerry must promise to do if he is elected in November."

Terrific, Bob, let's give the voters one more plan lacking specifics.

And Panetta:

"Mr. Bush is most vulnerable on two issues - Iraq and the economy. Mr. Kerry needs to confront the president on both, with specific proposals that make clear the stark choices facing voters."

Gee thanks, Leon. Could you be any less helpful?

And Brazile, advising Kerry to make Bush's greatest strength into a weakness:

"Every day until Election Day, Mr. Kerry should remind voters that the Bush administration is making America less secure."

Great, Donna. You want to explain to us how that is exactly and how to get this message across? Cause the voters seem to think that President Bush's war on terror is actually making them safer. Shouldn't you be bitching about disenfranshised voters in Florida or something? Oops, sorry, Donna, I forgot for a minute that you're a Democrat, black, and a woman. Silly me.

Of the four, only Glastris puts himself on the line and offers specific plans for attacking the President's record and advancing alternatives. Perhaps it's no coincidence that he's the only non-politician (or the least of a political creature) of the bunch.

Go Bengals!!