Kerry faces hard road in presidential bid

As the race for 2008 builds, Democratic Sen. John Kerry has left little doubt about his intentions to try again after his narrow loss to President Bush in 2004. He isn't the only also-ran considering another marathon.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has the look of a White House hopeful. Three Democrats - 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware - sound a lot like presidential candidates; Al Gore, the Democrats' nominee in 2000, says he has all but ruled out running for president in 2008.

Kerry faces a challenge of major proportions, convincing Democratic activists that a candidate who just lost an election can still carry his party's White House hopes.

"I think the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party, has had a historic reluctance to give people a second chance," said Democratic activist Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer who was chairman of Kerry's 2004 campaign in Iowa.

Adlai Stevenson got a second chance against President Eisenhower in 1956, but many suspect that Democrats were pessimistic about the odds of unseating a popular president. Their doubts were realized when Stevenson lost again.

Republicans, on the other hand, are more willing to give their nominees another try. Richard M. Nixon lost the presidency in 1960 and won the White House in 1968. Bob Dole sought his party's nomination in 1980 and 1988. He secured the GOP nod in 1996 but lost the general election to President Clinton.

"I think the advantage is the first time you are fresh and new to a lot of people and they haven't formed a judgment about you," the former Kansas senator said. "The second time around, some people might say he's had his chance, we need a new face."

"Historically, the Democratic Party has tended to shoot its wounded," said former New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Joe Keefe. "John Kerry has done everything within his power to rewrite that chapter."

The Massachusetts senator has raised nearly $9 million for candidates and the party and has campaigned actively across the country.

In statements the party's liberal base has welcomed, Kerry has said he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and has called for an end to the conflict.

The Vietnam War veteran also has come out in favor of a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But he got precious little support, even among fellow Democrats, in recent Senate debate.

The amendment failed 86-13 and Kerry's push for the measure frustrated some in the party leadership.

Kerry has made three trips to Iowa. The state's caucuses launch the nominating season and Kerry's surprising victory in January 2004 propelled him to the nomination.

Attitudes have changed among state Democrats, with a recent Des Moines Register poll putting Kerry a distant third behind 2004 running mate Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Democratic consultant and Kerry ally Jenny Backus said Kerry must overcome "the Democratic curse" of dismissing losing candidates, no matter how well they perform.

"He has grown from the devastation of the last election," said former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia. "A lot of people who are reacting to Kerry are reacting to the Kerry of '04."

Kerry, who raised $233 million as a presidential candidate, had about $15 million left after the November 2004 election. That was a sore point with many Democrats who questioned why he did not spend it all to unseat Bush.

Kerry gave about $3 million of that money to various Democratic committees and spent about $2 million to buy the e-mail donor list from his campaign. After covering various campaign debts, he had millions left and has been adding to his accounts since then.

As Kerry moves to involve himself in the next campaign, some point to the flaws in his last run as evidence he shouldn't be the standard bearer again.

"I think he has to make an argument that he could do better than he did in 2004," said Democratic strategist Jeff Link, who is consulting with the political action committee of Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a potential Kerry rival.

"We had an unpopular president who had launched an unpopular war and Democrats were as motivated as I've ever seen them, but he couldn't close the sale. I think that's going to give a lot of Democrats pause," Link said.

John Norris, who managed Kerry's campaign in Iowa and ran his field operations in the general election, said candidates learn valuable lessons in a national campaign that could be put to use in a second bid. Sadly, he said, voters do not see it that way.

"That sentiment you talked about is really strong out there," Norris said. "You know, 'He's had his chance.' I think that's shortsighted."

Link said there is an inherent reluctance to give a candidate a second chance, regardless of how well they performed. He worked for Gore during the disputed 2000 election.

"I was a very strong supporter of Al Gore and when he sort of put his toes in the water in 2004 he didn't find the support I think he had hoped for," Link said. "And he had arguably won the 2000 election."

Veteran Democratic strategist Ron Parker said it isn't a very complicated set of dynamics.

"For most folks, Kerry's selling point was less about ideology, about experience, it was the fact that he was the most electable candidate," Parker said. "It turns out that wasn't true and that opens the door for somebody new in 2008."

Crawford, a close ally of Bill Clinton, said electability is critical to the Democrats.

"We, as a party, are going to get to January of 2008 and take a look at the national landscape. And if it looks like Hillary Clinton can win a general election, the great possibility is she will be our nominee," Crawford said. "If we get to January of 2008 and it looks like she can't win a general election, then it's open season and we'll go from there."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:T-YY5V3OYRIJ:www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html+the+Barrett+Report&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Dec 9, 2005
by Tony Snow

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "No wonder they call us the Stupid Party," said a disgusted Republican operative in Washington. "You've got to wonder what these guys were thinking."

At issue was the publication of a report by David Barrett, an independent counsel who has spent the better part of a decade looking into some of the most hair-raising allegations of presidential malfeasance in American history.

Like most independent counsels, Barrett didn't set out on such a mission. He was assigned the duty of looking into whether former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros committed tax fraud in trying to cover up payments to a former mistress.

Yet, as published reports have indicated, he soon discovered that he was onto something much bigger. He found unsettling evidence that Justice Department officials were actively interfering with the probe and even conducting surveillance of Barrett and his office. Worse, there were indications that Team Clinton was using key players at the IRS and Justice to harass, frighten and threaten people who somehow got in the former president's way.

The pattern was set early on, when the White House sicced the FBI on Billy Dale, who had served as the director of the White House Travel Office since the days of John F. Kennedy. They mounted a baseless probe of Dale's finances, while chasing after his daughter, his sister and others. Dale was guilty of holding a job coveted by presidential pal Harry Thomasson. But rather than simply firing Dale, the Clinton White House chose to destroy him.

By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects. At the very least, it would bring to public attention a scandal that would make the Valerie Plame affair vanish into comical insignificance.

Democrats know this. Using provisions in the independent-counsel statute that permit people named in a report to review the allegations against them and file rebuttals, attorneys close to the Clintons have spent the better part of five years reviewing every jot and tittle of the charges arrayed against their clients and friends.

This careful and continuous monitoring of the report explains why Sens. Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin and John Kerry took the highly unusual step earlier this year of trying to slip into an Iraq-war spending bill an amendment to suppress every word of the Barrett report. (Every other independent counsel finding has been printed in its entirety, with the exception of small sections containing classified material.)

Alert Republicans, pushed by talk-radio listeners and bloggers, managed to short-circuit that effort, but Democrats patiently pursued their goal. They got what they wanted recently, when the House and Senate met to iron out differences in yet another appropriations bill. Democrats inserted language that would prevent public release of the 120 pages of the report listing the Clinton transgressions. They offered what may have looked like a good deal. They promised not to object to letting Barrett continue with any prosecutions already underway.

Republicans negotiators, led by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich, took the bait. They agreed to keep the public in the dark about the important stuff in exchange for a big, fat nothing. Unbeknownst to Bond and Knollenberg, Barrett shut down his grand juries three years ago.

The move represents more than just boneheaded politics. It's grossly irresponsible. If the report contains the kind of bombshells that have been hinted at in reports published by The Wall Street Journal and National Review, among others, the public not only has a right to know, Congress has a duty to investigate.

If Barrett has found evidence that officials at Justice and the IRS served as a praetorian guard, that means some bureaucrats felt it appropriate or beneficial to ignore their duty to the public and instead to perform dirty work for the people who oversee their budgets.

Another big "if": If such behavior were covered up, the malefactors would conclude that they may do the same thing again for other presidents.

Something stinks, and the only way to get at the truth is to release the full report. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who fought a lonely battle to ensure the document's publication, is furious. So is House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc. The question is whether Republican leaders Bill Frist and Denny Hastert will step in and ensure the report's publication, or whether they'll just sigh and look the other way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.