Humble Elias gives Kerry some advice for 08

http://chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/2006/03/john-kerry-surfaces.html

- posted by Elias @ 7:32 PM

I agree with it. I don't think 'conventional wisdom' means much this far out and a successful candidate will be one who thinks for themselves and decideds their own issues and focus. (Ahm, and, might I add, one who will listen to smart people already around them, especially 'wicked smaht' women they might be married to who have excellent instincts for reading the electorate.)

I wonder if it will be an issue or something bigger. After the chaos, duplicity, and lawlessness of the Bush administration it could be a need for reform, honesty, integrity and openness in government. This would also be an issue that Hillary can't pull off because her husband at minimum cut corners ethically. This might be a key issue in the campaign because it is a large part of what McCain will claim. I know nothing about Warner, but Hillary and Edwards would be somewhat vulnerable on this issue, while Kerry could easily steal it.

Kerry's quick backing of the line item budget - because he thinks its good policy - is in a way connected to this. It's just all part of good honest government. (Look at Kerry's list of 10 things they're for - many fit into this good honest government theme.)

Could re-introducing the Wellstone/Kerry clean elections be the big issue that fits with this? That it's reintroducing is important - this is a long term consistent POV he has had.

that will distinguish him from the others.

Edwards has poverty, Feingold has civil liberties,Clark has leadership. It does not mean they do not talk about other issues, but they frame these other issues around their main frame and it works because it gives the media the narrative to talk about that.

I am not sure where Hillary stands right now: family values?
Bayh has decided he would be about security issues (not sure he can be credible on that, but it is his problem), Warner seems to be more about being a governor in a Southern state.

What will be Kerry's issue: good governance, environment/energy, . There are probably other ones, but I hope he sticks to one and organize the rest around it, so that he gets an image that people recognize. I like the one you are presenting.

There was a couple of theme during the campaign that I liked (call to service, security for people, let America be America again ...), but they never stuck to one long enough.

range of positions in 2004 that were genuinely fleshed out.

I need to credit Tay Tay with having explained several times how so many Kerry positions come down to good government. That it resonates with the 3 themes listed from 2004 (call to service, security for people, let America be America again). The biggest problem might be that the Governors will likely try to take governing as their issue.

I also think that Kerry needs to prevent Clark from really getting leadership. He actually did in 2004. Clark had a military position that he was appointed to. His position gave him authority. This is not similar at all to leading in a democracy where you need to win support for your goals and plans.

(and he's probably very fortunate that I'm not) I would advise him to avoid anything that smacks of gimmickry. To me, his overall biggest selling point (aside from having been right about just about everything) is that he is not a niche candidate. He's the candidate who has fully realized stand on all the important issues. If I were him, I'd run on that: John Kerry: he can handle more than one issue at the same time.

have to articulate his communication around this theme.

I think that, during the campaign, the theme I liked the most was the one about security being about a bunch of issues , not just terrorism, but healthcare, job, energy, environment, ...

"Kerry - right from the start" (thanks to The West Wing, yesterday).

I think there are a few really good issues Kerry can stand strongly on. Mass pointed to good governance and energy/environment. There are others, including fiscal responsibility, foreign policy and job creation. One thing I know, reversing the damage Bush has done is going to require a steady and experienced candidate with fortitude.

by which he is recognized.

Reporters are lazy and cant be bothered looking what a candidate is about: this is one of the reason why Edwards and Feingold attract them so much: they have defined the theme for them.

Kerry needs to do the same thing. That does not mean that he has to speak only about one issue (IMHO, it is one of the weaknesses of both Feingold and Edwards). But he needs to say what he is about and articulate the rest around it.

But, he needs to go off into a cave for a while, talk with some great minds on the subject, and come up with a new vision that is simple for the American people to understand. Simple does NOT mean unintelligent, but full of wisdom. That vision should include:

1. Provide for an exit strategy from Iraq that leaves Iraqis better off than they were under Saddam Hussein (damnit, if our guys our dying then we should do this thing right instead of the half ass way * is doing it)

2. Talk about how me must carry out our struggle against violent Islamic extremism and that includes helping our friends in Europe and seeking out a dialogue with more moderate Muslims throughout the world. Also, should include going after terrorist financing and homeland security.

3. A comprehensive plan to deal with nuclear proliferation including what to do with Iran and North Korea, as well as with what Khan from Pakistan did.

4. Oil dependency and global warming. It is unacceptable that the U.S. is not the leader of the world on this issue. Come up with a plan that can ease our reliance on oil as well as, in partnership with business and the global community, reduce carbon emissions.

Now here's the kicker. He needs to come up with one theme that unites the above 4 points. He also needs to stop hemming and hawing about Iraq and stop trying to please every faction of the Dem party. He never got along with the radical leftist anti-war people in the 70s, and they'll never like him, so he should write them off to Feingold and capture the sensible liberal center of the party, who were against the war as it was conducted but feel horrible about leaving a country in a total mess of our creation. I realize many of you won't agree with my assessment of his approach to Iraq, but I will radically say that his main mistake was voting against the $87 billion Iraq bill, NOT the IWR vote. The IWR vote was about holding Saddam Hussein accountable for alleged WMD that most of the world (and even the Iraqi military) thought he had. It was * who rushed to war, in complete defiance of the spirit of the IWR . The only way to win in Iraq is to realize that there is a constituency there -- the Iraqi people. When you have 136,000 troops in a country, it's not exactly a full democracy. But we need to figure out what the Iraqi people want (not just the majority Shiite government) and start respecting that and region by region, stay or go, depending on those sentiments. Iraq is not black and white. Every region is different. Sure, the Iraqis want us gone; they're being shot at by us, after all, but they also don't want to live under terrorist rule like that town in the north in the Anwar province that was literally imprisoned in their homes by al Qaeda. Acknowledging that Iraq is not one monolithic country but has different areas with different views will make the place more understandable, and will make stability a very real possibility. I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of Iraqi people do NOT want civil war.

Okay, this is long, but you get my drift. I want TOTAL vision and leadership from John Kerry, that MOST Americans will feel compelled to respond to with the exception of the extreme right and left, whose dogma should be mocked and ignored.

:-)