BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

New parlor game: Who’s worse?

29 comments on New parlor game: Who’s worse?

New parlor game: Who’s worse?

: Glenn Reynolds makes a few points in today’s anti-Kerry post that I feel compelled to address.

First, he quotes Hugh Hewitt saying that:

Kerry’s problem is that he is simply the worst major party candidate of my lifetime, period running against a likeable incumbent backed by a growing economy and a record of bold action in the global war on terrorism.

I’ll leave the last two-thirds of that to your judgment. But “simply the worst major party candidate of my lifetime”? Really? I thought Hugh was older than 8.

I offer for your consideration Michael Dukakis… Walter Mondale… Jimmy Carter (the loser)… George McGovern… Barry Goldwater (who cares if you love him; he made landslide a household word)… “Simply the worst major party candidate” of this generation? Naw, not yet.

And then Glenn says:

The Democrats’ problem is that the base, which, like bases do, cares mostly about emotional returns, wanted Howard Dean. But the leadership, which, like leaderships do, cares about status and connections and thus about winning, knew that Dean couldn’t win. They tried to split the difference with Kerry, whom they thought could fool the gullible folks in flover country into seeing him as a more-macho version of Bush, while winking to the base that he was really a tall Howard Dean with some medals. This was a dumb idea, and it hasn’t worked.

No, the Democratic base did not want Howard Dean. That’s why he never won a frigging primary! Give the people some credit! The Democratic base isn’t nearly nutty as Dean became.

This all came because BoiFromTroi speculated what things would be like with Gephardt instead (as I speculated the other day about what things would be like with Gore instead). And the moral to the story is still the same, I will readily grant: Kerry is neither an inspiring nor is he burning up the polls.

Oh, to have a Clinton….

29 responses to “New parlor game: Who’s worse?”

  1. sbw Avatar
    sbw

    Jeff, I think the practical way to overcome the peripheral noise is to use the Bill Clinton experience to project which candidate addresses one’s innermost concerns most effectively. In other words, — “Who gives a flip about yesterday’s indescretions, it’s the _[fill in the blank]_, stupid!”
    For me, the issues are two-fold. First, Bush appreciates that facing down tyranny is sometimes important and that if the U.N. doesn’t do it, we will. Second, in domestic policy, he appreciates that my money tossed at everyone else’s problems demonstrates impatience, not necessarily good policy.
    Bush’s negatives (like Ashcroft) are so high, I’d consider supporting a Democrat with the same clarity of vision. Kerry hasn’t shown me he understands.
    So who else can get beyond National Guard/Swift Boats?

  2. Mike G Avatar
    Mike G

    I am normally suspicious of such comments– it usually betrays as much historical ignorance as the Bush=Hitler meme. (Even Nixon wasn’t Hitler, and Bush, sir, is no Nixon.) I love that ditty someone found about a footnote like Martin Van Buren being Satan incarnate, that puts Bush-hatred into the perspective it lacks (or at least I get a kick from responding to the latest anti-Bush rant with “Stop the Satan of Kinderhook!”)
    All that said… really, now, I think they might just be right, that Kerry is a uniquely awful, tone-deaf, unable to say one thing that will connect with the electorate kind of candidate, the likes of which we’ve never seen in our lifetime, and for whom even the historian, searching for a parallel, is forced to turn to such forgotten names as Alton B. Parker and Horatio Seymour.
    Some of the guys you name, notably Goldwater and McGovern, maybe also Mondale, were decent enough advocates for unpopular positions. Carter was an effective campaigner, which is why he won as a campaigner and failed as an incumbent. Dole is usually cited as the model for Kerry’s brand of entitlement-candidate, the senator who thinks it’s his turn for a promotion, but jeez, Dole’s basic position (a day in which he’d prevented government from doing something is a good day) is a model of clarity and purpose next to Kerry.
    Ironically, the candidate that Kerry seems closest to in his lofty, entitled incomprehension is… George H.W. Bush. Take the bored, impatient, watch-checking ’92 campaigner who couldn’t see his way to actually doing the grubby things Clinton was willing to do to please the little people, and make him genuinely pissed off instead of befuddled that it all isn’t his by acclamation– that’s Kerry.

  3. Kim Avatar
    Kim

    A Clinton? Ugh, and voted for him. Hillary? No, no, no. The candidate that should have won the primary was Dean. Yes, I said it – Dean.

  4. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Kerry isn’t much–but he wants to do with Iraq as he did with Vietnam–declare defeat and apologize. His only plan for Iraq is the same as Spain’s–give in to terrorists. A garter snake doesn’t change its stripes…shed the old skin and the yellow stripe remains. Kerry is an enemy of our forces in Iraq. They deserve better. One betrayal is enough.
    http://www.drudgereport.com/moveon.htm

  5. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Jeff-
    Do you suppose Chelsea has political ambitions? As putting Hillary in the White House (again) would be a significant mistake, IMO.
    Regards,

  6. Lennie Avatar
    Lennie

    I hope you mean Rodger.

  7. shark Avatar
    shark

    Oh, to have a Clinton….
    Lets reword that for accuracy:
    “Oh, to have a do-nothing President who ignores terrorist attacks for 8 years, and supplies nations like N. Korea with the ability to get nukes.”
    It’s called perspective. Get some.

  8. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    My memory goes back to the Carter re-election effort, and I can say that in my opinion, Kerry is running the worst presidential campaign in my memory. Worse than Carter, worse than Mondale, and worse than Dukakis. His inability until very recently (maybe, well see…) to talk about anything else other than his own time in Vietnam or George Bush’s lack thereof has robbed our country of an important national debate over the war on terror. His oscillation on every single issue is far worse than the Rose Garden strategy of Carter. Heck, people make jokes to the effect that it benefits Kerry when he stays out of the news for a day. So to many people, the Rose Garden strategy is an improvement!
    Kerry looked far sillier in a Nasa clean suit than Dukakis did in the tank. And let’s not forget that Kerry was the man whom a very ill Clinton advised from his hospital bed: Stop talking about Vietnam (and all of the other 30 year old crap while you’re at it!) If Kerry’s running a barely adequate campaign, why is a man about to undergo quadruple bypass even worried about it in the least?
    And compared to Kerry, Dukakis was a great candidate. Sure, there was that hypothetical question about his wife being victimized that Dukakis answered dryly. At least the man had self control. Kerry and his supporters stilll to this day think that it was a mistake not to get even more entangled by the Swift Boat Veterans. Kerry is reportedly furious about it! Doesn’t it tell you something about the man that even though the polling data shows that the “Kerry(TM) Vietnam Superhero Versus George Bush Fortunate Son” theme just doesn’t have any traction, the man is still angry with his staff for keeping him from digging himself in even deeped? Dukakis wouldn’t have done that, he had self control. Kerry has none of that.
    He is the windsurfing, skeet shooting, infallible man of the people on skis, who by the way served in Vietnam. What is even mildly compelling about the man?

  9. Robert McClelland Avatar
    Robert McClelland

    The ultimate height of arrogance; when you decide how your opponents feel about something. Just one more example of how the right whingers are living in their own little world.

  10. Mara Avatar
    Mara

    Oh, to have a Clinton….
    Four more years.

  11. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    Robert:
    Who’s deciding? Look at the polling data.

    Only 20% of all voters believe that the media should continue investigating questions about George W. Bush’s National Guard service. Seventy-five percent (75%) say they focus more attention on the things he has done as President.
    The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 84% say the media should focus more on things that John Kerry has done as a Senator. Only 10% believe they should continue asking about his military service in Vietnam

    It’s the ultimate height of arrogance to be presented with empirical evidence of a bad campaign strategy and ride it into the ground anyway. It’s been obvious since the first Swift Boat Ad that both sides of the Vietnam issue were toxic for Kerry. There’s the Rasmussen poll data which says that it doesn’t matter. And there’s the obvious fact that the TANG issue didn’t work 4 years ago. I call that evidence, not “deciding how you feel”. Get over it.

  12. Karl Avatar
    Karl

    Oh, to have a Clinton.

    Can I have a Lewinsky instead? It doesn’t have to be from Monica, of course. In fact, I would prefer otherwise. But you get the gist.

  13. Robert McClelland Avatar
    Robert McClelland

    I call that evidence, not “deciding how you feel”. Get over it.
    I call that confusing the media with the Democrats. A poll showing how people feel about what the media is doing is irrelevent when the subject is about how duh perfessor is declaring that this is how Democrats feel about Kerry.

  14. Mumblix Grumph Avatar
    Mumblix Grumph

    Ah yes, let’s have another Clinton, but only if:
    1. We can coast on another internet boom and pretend that we’re getting rich again. Remember when we all thought our Pets.com stock was going to buy us a condo in Maui?
    2. We let companies go back to lying and covering up debts like Enron and Worldcom did when Clinton was in office.
    3. We treat terrorism like Fibber McGee’s closet and pretend that everything is fine and dandy and never let anyone open the door and look inside.
    4. We go back to not caring about our candidate’s Viet Nam experiences. Hell, Bill Clinton never even served in the National Guard because he “loathed the military”. And it was cool, man!
    5. We once again think it’s groovy to unilaterally drop bombs on a country (Kosovo) that is no threat to the US.
    6. We go back to believing in fairy tales like the ones that Kim Jong Il sold Carter and Albright.
    If we’re willing to do the above, then sure! Let’s bring back good ol’ Billy Jeff!

  15. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    I guess it depends on how you define “worst”. Most ineffective? Or least admirable? Kerry could win, and still be a less admirable candidate to many of us than most past losers.
    What seems to prompt many to say Kerry is the worst (myself included) is because he has all of the unfortunate demeanor of the bored elder Bush, as Mike G notes, but with a lot more excess baggage than most candidates. Few presidential candidates have testified publicly about committing war crimes, accused fellow soldiers en masse of war crimes, and then go on to run for president as a war hero. That’s chutzpah on a grand, decades-spanning scale.

  16. Jonas Cord Avatar
    Jonas Cord

    pdq,
    Doesn’t seem like your link to the polling data worked. I’d love to take a look at that.

  17. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    I disagree; I think that Kerry is a worse Democratic candidate than Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, or Goldwater. Nobody wants to vote *for* him. I’ve yet to hear anybody make a serious argument that he’d be a good President, or even an acceptable President. He’s just “not Bush”, which is all some people want. If Bush and Cheney had gotten hit by a bus and killed a year ago, and the Republicans had run with someone who said and did all the same things as Bush, but without his 2000-Election/Iraq baggage, Kerry would be getting utterly annihilated now.
    Basically, Kerry is an absolutely atrocious candidate who is doing as well as he is solely because he is running against a widely-hated opponent.

  18. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    Oh, I don’t know — I think at this point it’s become more a “not-Republicans” than “not-Bush.” Democrats seem to hate everyone else in the Republican party almost if not as much as they hate Bush. Democrats hated Republicans when Clinton was in office. I should know — I was one of them; I was convinced (as all my Dem pals were) that Republicans wanted to turn the clock back to 1953, just before rock music (we based our perception of the pre-rock Fifties on that scene in Back to the Future where the songs on the radio in the Fifties scenes were tunes like “How Much is That Doggie in the Window”), a time we were all sure when women were kept chained to their kitchen sinks. Yes, we were that shallow.

  19. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Actually, wouldn’t the worst candidate be one who had rushed into a war no one wanted, on the basis of attacks by another entity entirely than the one made war on? And went back on previous environmental measures such as logging roads through protected forests, attempts to violate Alaskan wilderness to produce more oil (rather than explore viable energy alternatives), seek to replace controls on food producing industries with ‘voluntary’ compliance which has produced more cases of food poisoning than ever before, imposed federal requirements on schools which they could not meet because of severely reduced spending, supported increasingly authoritarian regimes in countries not directly in the line of fire, opted out in banning weapons law enforcement agencies unanimously want banned, cut back military salaries and benefits while relying on them to stay on far past their expected terms of service, supported industries with tax breaks that reduced employment in this country while sending services abroad, actively drove up a deficit which will take generations to pay off, attempted to further emperil the country’s financial status while the current account deficit blew past prior records such that (former Fed.Reserve Chairman) ‘Volcker believes that there is only a 25 percent probability that the U.S. dollar will not collapse in the next five years’ [financial columnist Danielle DiMartino], and can only campaign against his opponent by mis-stating his positions and name-calling?

  20. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Ruth–how can anyone mis-state Kerry’s positions–they change daily . If you criticize him today, you may forced to adjust that to the Kerry of tomorrow. It’s hard to hold down a flip flopping slimey fish. And Ruthie–the Dems have the market covered when it comes to name calling. I suppose they hate even the slightest competition in that regard. They’ll even attack babies if confronted. And they’ll forge documents if need be. Talk about mis-stating–It’s a lie but it’s our(Dems) truth.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040917/480/wvrs10109170018

  21. pdq332 Avatar
    pdq332

    Jonas:
    Sorry, don’t know what happened:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush-Kerry%20Vietnam%20Service.htm
    Robert:
    I call that confusing the media with the Democrats.
    So are you really upset at Dan Rather for keeping this non-story in the spotlight? I guess we agree then, though I tend to suspect the media reflects where the campaigns wants the spotlight to go more than you do. Especially CBS and the Kerry campaign.
    Ruth:
    Actually, wouldn’t the worst candidate be one who had rushed into a war no one wanted, on the basis of attacks by another entity entirely than the one made war on?
    No, the worse **candidate** is the one who, in the full context, declares that he would have still voted for that war if he had it all to do over again.

  22. Les Jones Avatar
    Les Jones

    “Oh, to have a Clinton”
    Jeff, you’ll probably enjoy this, from Siflay Hraka:
    Jimmy Carter in 1980: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
    Walter Mondale in 1984: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
    Mike Dukakis in 1988: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
    Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996: “Ya’ll want a beer? I’m buying, and you have got to see the jugs on this waitress.”
    Al Gore in 2000: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”
    John Kerry in 2004: “America needs to take its cod liver oil.”

  23. Andrea Harris Avatar
    Andrea Harris

    The Clinton frathouse party was fun, but oh boy, the hangover…

  24. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Ruth: “Actually, wouldn’t the worst candidate be one who had rushed into a war no one wanted…”
    Probably the least useful definition of “terrible candidate” is “the one I disagree with politically”. That’s where dems are making their gravest mistake these days: I believe this way, it’s the right way to believe, therefore ALL PEOPLE agree with me, except of course right wingers who don’t count because they are mindless, subhuman neaderthals.
    What really alienates voters is that the definition of “right winger” has been expanded to everybody who agrees with right wingers even a little bit.
    I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton; I disagreed with a lot of his politics. But he was a TREMENDOUS candidate.

  25. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    to kat pdq332 and carsonfire
    Read the rest of the message. We’re not talking just about the war or about name calling but we’re talking about a comprehensive message.
    And from some one who came back alive and will not continue in a career in the army: it’s just a matter of time until we give up and get out of a country that doesn’t want us, need us or plan to go on buying from us or selling oil to us. When a dear friend did an analysis of the possibilities of the Vietman government instituting programs the U.S. government wanted to see there; the problem is that this is a society that is incapable of instituting these programs.

  26. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Ruth: The comprehensive message you present is your own framing of a message, and not one that everyone agrees with, which is my point.
    If you’re just talking about political disagreement, the “worst” candidates would have to be the third party candidates who only get a small percentage of the vote. I think when most people say that Kerry is the “worst candidate they’ve ever seen”, they’re not talking about politics that they disagree with, but the measurable aspects of him as a campaigner, like his recent 30 day avoidance of the press, or his tendency of saying opposite things to different audiences, not realizing that in a national race all of his contradictory statements are reported verbatim.
    You wouldn’t have to agree with Bush’s politics, on the other hand, to understand that he’s running a competent campaign, by comparison. You don’t agree with his positions and his record, but he has presented them well for people who do. You could, of course, point to Bush’s own mangling of the English language, or other missteps he’s made in his campaign. I think that would at least go more to the “worst candidate” argument.

  27. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Actually, thank you, as campaigner alone, if you accept Bush’s voters as mindless and dedicated to complete ignorance, perhaps for those types he may be an ideal candidate. But having managed a few campaigns myself, I tend to choose candidates who have a record of positive achievements, as the people who actually read and vote tend to be people who read and think.

  28. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Would you mind enlightening us as to Kerry’s record of positive achievements?? His record stinks.
    Actually I accept Kerry’s voters as mindless and dedicated to complete ignorance, but I was too polite to say so–you fit that category of mindless and ignorant and rude.

  29. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Ruth, turn the hate beam down a few notches, wouldya?