May 01, 2004


In a piece that traces John Kerry’s increasingly nuanced explanations of his medal disposal method, Jeff Jacoby writes:

If John Kerry hadn't already clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his medals meltdown on "Good Morning America" this week would have sunk his campaign.

Hmm ... what might happen when Kerry names his running mate -- and that running mate invariably out-performs his leader? The week prior to the Dem convention could be very entertaining.

UPDATE. Howard Dean is working on the Dr. Phil demographic, while John Kerry has a lock on Al-Jazeera.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 1, 2004 03:44 AM

Isn't John Kerry likely to pick John Edwards as his running mate and then pick Hilary Clinton and denying that he ever picked John Edwards before explaining that he decided for John Edwards before he decided against him?

Posted by: Ross at May 1, 2004 at 03:58 AM

Tim, you have got to be loving your upcoming trip to the convention right about now. The material will practically write itself!

Posted by: Steven at May 1, 2004 at 04:14 AM

For those not familiar with the story, John Kerry decided to throw away ribbons or medals or both or either. Anyway, you get the picture. It's really not a story about the difference between ribbons or medals. It's about the votes he made as a US Senator and how they were affected by his long-held views regarding the US military.

Posted by: BC at May 1, 2004 at 04:19 AM

Conspiracy theory (i don't really believe this, but thought of it last night. maybe someone else has already posted this).

You know the DNC, run by all the Clintonphiles, wants Hilary to run for prez sooner or later.

Here's my thought. What if Kerry is in on this whole thing. What if he has no intention of actually running for president? I can't see how a politician can be on every side of every issue, read all the criticism every one gives him, and still does it. Already he has given the Bush campaign so much ammo that they have been blasting Kerry unmercifully on TV ads, spending US$50-70 million on ads. What if he is a red herring?

All of a sudden, he declines the nomination at the convention, and who is left to step up that will have the support of the majority of the democratic party? None other than Hillary Clinton, who, with the support of the soon to be #1 best selling book by her husband (1.5 million copies originally to be printed) and her own less than 1 year old book, will come out of the convention with campaign donations pouring in from all the moderate democrats who couldn't find a reason to donate to Kerry.

I know it's a crackpot theory, it just seemed to me that Kerry, being the presumptious nominee, is sure as hell trying to torpedo his campaign.

Posted by: Steve at May 1, 2004 at 04:34 AM

Oops, forgot one point:

And with the Bush campaign war chest down $50-70 million they spent wrecking Kerry, the war chests may be on a more level playing field.

Posted by: Steve at May 1, 2004 at 04:36 AM

Stop it, you're scaring me!

Posted by: Fuloydo at May 1, 2004 at 05:51 AM

Well, RNC and Bush/Cheney campaign keep hitting for donations. Just yesterday received in the mail two 8X11 pics of the Prez and the First Lady with the message: "Katherine, we know you are a wonderful person, the Future of the World as we know it depends on this election, can you spare $25 $50 $100 $200 other?"

Wonder how quickly the coffers will be replenished.

Posted by: Katherine at May 1, 2004 at 06:21 AM

Quickly - because he connects with people - they like and trust him and will donate to him. Kerry - well, without the soft money loophole - what finance campaign reform? - he would be broke and stay that way - direct contributions to the Kerry campaign are not going well. If the left wing political organizations couldn't supplement his campaign his limited chance would be gone. Heck, left wing media are already bemoaning his chances.

Posted by: JEM at May 1, 2004 at 07:01 AM

I'd love to know if he's popular in Vietnam. Perhaps someone can pay to ship an entire village over to see him at the convention?

Posted by: Woody at May 1, 2004 at 07:43 AM

Should think by now politicians would realize the sooner you 'fess up' the better. I agree with those who say what he did or did not do with the medals/ribbons is not as important as his telling 5 or so different versions of what happened. Plus, getting angry at people for still asking.

He keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper the longer he refuses to tell the truth. Apologize for whatever version(s) are incorrect or misleading, say what really happened and move on.

He doesn't need to apologize for throwing the medals/ribbons, just for the stories he has told about that event.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at May 1, 2004 at 10:11 AM

Ah, but an apology would require for him to admit that at some point he was wrong. And this he simply cannot do. "I don't fall down!", remember?
And hereby lay real character flaw.

Posted by: Katherine at May 1, 2004 at 02:42 PM

Word is the Dems plan on drafting Michael Jackson as First Lady if Kerry needs to be linked to a more respectable figure...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at May 1, 2004 at 03:06 PM

Reading that article reminded me of the movie, The Manchurian Candidate. (Brainwashed ex-POW runs for president, for those who have never seen it)

I wonder how many Americans are confused enough to vote for a president who undermined the country during, not one but two wars. What kind of peace Kerry will deliver us.

Posted by: Dwight at May 1, 2004 at 10:53 PM

I think we're giving Kerry way too much credit here. The only reason he's even considered a viable candidate by either party is that the Republicans fear Bush may follow his father's footsteps re a second term. If it wasn't for that, the Dems wouldn't be counting on anything except for Kerry to at least make a decent 2nd place.

Look at it like this: if it was the same guy (GWBush) in office today, but his dad hadn't been president, would we still be discussing Kerry? It'd be like considering Nader for president: no chance in hell.

Fortunately, W has differed enough in his presidency to set himself apart from his father, which is why I don't think we would have to worry about Kerry at all.

Posted by: david at May 2, 2004 at 05:54 AM

I think there will be a substantial "draft Hillary" movement at the convention. If Bush is at lower than 52% approval, she'll accept.

>Manchurian Candidate. (Brainwashed ex-POW runs
>for president, for those who have never seen it)

Actually, he's supposed to assassinate the candidate. Great flick; dry, black comedy disguised as drama, ala "Psycho."

"Why don't you play a nice game of solitaire?"

Posted by: Dave S. at May 2, 2004 at 09:31 AM

Whatever happened to kerry's medals doesn't change the fact that he won them through bravery in vietnam.
Those who had no opportunity to win medals include bush,cheney,wolfowitz,perle,feith......

Posted by: hunk at May 2, 2004 at 07:20 PM

Oh please... Give me a break, hunk of stupid. Past bravery doesn't count for present perfidy. No one is allowed to coast on their one or two good deeds forever, not even St. Kerry.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 3, 2004 at 01:25 AM

"Actually, he's supposed to assassinate the candidate. Great flick; dry, black comedy disguised as drama, ala "Psycho."

Dave S. I'm sure you're right. It's been about 30 years since I saw it and my memory's a little muddled. I don't recall it being black comedy either but your Psycho comparison is bang on. Tried to rent it last night but the three video stores I checked never heard of it.

Posted by: Dwight at May 3, 2004 at 01:55 AM