The PoliBlog
Collective


Information

academic site


e-mail
c.v.
columns
legal
rss .92
2.0
The Collective
Monday, August 21, 2006
By Dr. Steven Taylor

I noted in my previous post the comments by Senator Kerry regarding Senator Lieberman on yesterday’s This Week. I found the comparison to Cheney to be an interesting, and in the context of Democratic politics, rather harsh comparison (i.e., Mr. Cheney is considered by many on the Democratic side of the aisle to be perhaps the worst of the worst in the GOP side-as such, it was hardly an inconsequential comment).

Still, it occurred to me this morning that I missed what the likely motivation was for the comment: as Kerry thinks about making another run at the Democratic nomination in 2008, he is doing his best to position himself as the anti-war candidate. As such, attacking Lieberman on Iraq in specific serves that purpose. Also, since Mrs. Clinton has yet to repudiate her own vote for the war, such statements help Kerry position himself to her left on this issue.

While I maintain that Kerry is toast in regards to being re-nominated, I also am more than willing to assume that he isn’t willing to admit that to himself.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: General, US Politics, 2008 Campaign | |

3 Comments

  1. I found the comparison to Cheney to be an interesting, and in the context of Democratic politics, rather harsh . (i.e., Mr. Cheney is considered by many on the Democratic side of the aisle to be perhaps the worst of the worst in the GOP side–as such, it was hardly an inconsequential comment).

    I am still unconvinced by labeling this “harsh.” Particularly when last month’s CBS/NYTimes poll had Chaney’s “favorable” rating at a mere 20% and the latest Harris poll had 65% of respondents claiming he was doing a poor job.

    With his polling in mind, Kerry seems to be more in step with mainstream opinion than arguing a point that will only resonate with the fringe.

    You are probably right, however, about Kerry trying to position himself as an anti-War candidate. That is because an anti-war platform is more in line with mainstream opinion than Cheney and Lieberman would have us believe.

    As you indicate, Kerry does not have any credibility as an anti-War candidate for precisely the same reason as Hilary-they both were enthusiastic supports of the war in the face of evidence that the Bush rationale was weak.

    Comment by Ratoe — Monday, August 21, 2006 @ 9:29 am

  2. When analyzing anything said/done by Kerry, the first question is always: “how does this tie in to his campaign”?

    A similar test is useful with most politicians, but perhaps not quite so close to 100% effeftiveness.

    Comment by Steven L. — Monday, August 21, 2006 @ 2:53 pm

  3. Indeed.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 21, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The trackback url for this post is: http://www.poliblogger.com/wp-trackback-poliblog.php?p=10552

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



Take a Look At This!
Inquiries

Visitors Since 2/15/03
Blogroll

---


Advertisement

Advertisement


Powered by WordPress