John Kerry and Democratic Party Unity

Now, fast forward a few weeks and what do I see happening over at DailyKos, by far the most popular Democratic blog on the internet?  A veritable Kerry bash fest, started by none other than "Kos" himself.  Here's an extended excerpt from Kos' latest piece, "How I feel about John Kerry":

The Kerry brigades think I have it out for their guy. And yeah, they're probably right.

I think Kerry is a great Senator, but he was a godawful presidential candidate. Of the serious primary candidates, he was the worst we could've nominated. How can I say that?

The man had no reason for running. He had no message beyond "I'm the most electable". Dean was running his anti-establishment campaign. Clark was weaving his sterling military service into domestic issues with his "New American Patriotism". Edwards had the best message of all, talking about the "Two Americas". Yet Kerry had nothing. And while his "most electable" drivel helped propel him into the nomination, it left him ill-prepared for the general campaign.

When your entire reason for running is that you're the most electable, where does that leave you in a general campaign? We saw first-hand where that left him.

One more note -- campaign insiders will tell you that no one loved Kerry. No one had any sense of higher purpose. People who worked for Dean, Edwards and Clark all passionately loved their man. The campaigns stuck together. Why?

[...]

Kerry's campaign was based in DC. The staffers didn't have to make a commitment to their candidate beyond taking a different bus or metro stop. They didn't hang out after work, since they already had their established social circles in town. There was no sense of shared sacrifice and commitment to their guy. Kerry, the consumate insider, ran his campaign from frickin' Washington D.C. And now he tells us he's an "outsider"? 

It was his race to lose, and he lost it. I'll support Senator Kerry to the end of his career, I will not support "I am now an outsider if it'll help me in 2008" Kerry.

This  post by Kos, by the way, generated a TON of comments -- nearly 800 as of this morning -- and a TON of heated commentary.  Basically, the comments divide about as follows:  1) a sizeable contingent supporting Kos' bashing of Kerry, with some even more critical of the good Senator; 2) another sizeable group basically agreeing with Kos on his critique, but arguing that "it's time to move on" and that Kerry bashing is destructive to the Democratic Party (as well as a sign of weakness and the "circular firing squad")'; and 3) a relatively small group DEFENDING John Kerry as a good candidate. 

I find this discussion fascinating -- and a bit troubling -- on several levels.  First, I sometimes wonder where the passion, pro- or anti-Kerry,  is coming from exactly, given that Kerry was one of the most passionLESS candidates I can remember.  Second, I wonder why Kerry is running for President again, in fact why he never STOPPED running for President, even one minute after his loss to George W. Bush this past November.  Third, I REALLY wonder what Democrats in Virginia think of John Kerry. A priori, I would have expected that Virginia Democrats would either have been a) NOVA Dean supporters or b) rest-of-state Edwards/Clark supporters.  Sure, Kerry won the Virginia primary, but that was after he had wrapped up the nomination and also after Mark Warner had done the politically prudent thing and endorsed the obvious nominee of the Party.

The bottom line question for me is this:  where is the Democratic Party heading (left, center, right?) as it moves towards 2006 and 2008, and who does it want as its standard bearer (Kerry again?  Hillary? John Edwards?  Wes Clark? someone knew?). 

Also, how divided is the Democratic Party going forward?  Can we all unite around Democratic candidates, whether liberal, moderate, or even conservative?  Or is there going to be some sort of "ideological purity test" imposed which  limits the Democratic Party to progressives only, and which bashes the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) type Democrats, people like Tim Kaine, Mark Warner and Bill Clinton? 

Personally, I am a moderate/progressive, Wesley Clark Democrat, but I am first and foremost a loyal Democrat, so I find this last option to be worrisome and self-destructive.  Of course, I will fight for my preferred candidate during the primaries, but I will then support the nominee of our party when it is decided.  After the election is over, my loyalty to that candidate -- John Kerry, for instance -- is over, and I will go back to fighting for what (and who) I believe in. 

This, to me, is the essence of the Democratic Party, and the democratic process more generally.  More to the point of this blog, I would strongly hope that my friends in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will find it in their hearts (and minds, and pocketbooks! LOL) to support TIm Kaine this year, even as he runs a centrist, even conservative Democrat. 

Tim Kaine is a good man, and a good Democrat, and all you have to do is look at his record to figure that out.  He's also infinitely better than Jerry Kilgore.  Which is why I can support him enthusiastically (while, of course,  pushing him to stay as progressive as possible given the political realities of a "red state" like Virginia).

I sincerely hope my fellow Democrats will do the same, and elect Tim Kaine governor of Virginia in November of this year.  Thanks.

Comments