The Case for Kerry

Scott Aaron: This is Dr. Scott Aaron with Joe Bluehead, a Democratic party operative, talking about the Kerry campaign.
Joe Bluehead: Good to be here.
SA: Let's start with the primaries. Senator Kerry was well behind for quite a while late in 2003, but in January came roaring back to win New Hampshire and most of the primaries. Why do you think he was able to come back?
JB: My fellow Democrats realized that Kerry was the most electable of the slate of candidates we were presented with.
SA: Yes, electability. What do you see in Kerry that makes him electable?
JB: What do you mean?
SA: What distinguished Kerry from the other candidates to make him more electable?
JB: He was distinguished from the others because he was more electable.
SA: What set him apart?
JB: His electability.
SA: What makes him electable?
JB: His electability makes him electable.
SA: I see this isn't getting anywhere, so let's move on. What do you see in the Senator that would make him a good president for this country?
JB: Well, 35 years ago, before many voters were even born, John Kerry was a low ranking naval officer who saw combat and won some medals.
...long pause...
SA: Are you suggesting that non sequitur has something to do with my question?
JB: Of course.
SA: Please explain.
JB: He saw combat. He knows what war is all about and won't make the stupid mistakes Bush has made.
SA: So commanding a boat trains one to make far-reaching strategic decisions?
JB: Yes. Besides, at least Kerry served. Bush served, but not in combat. Cheney didn't even serve.
SA: Like Clinton.
JB: Totally different. Clinton avoided service to live in Europe, have a good time, and improve his education in preparation for being a great president. Cheney just had other priorities.
SA: um, OK.
JB: And have you heard that Bush missed a physical back in the mid-70's? I mean, come on. How much clearer could our choice be?
SA: Let's talk about Iraq. The polls show the president very strong on this issue. Yet, the Kerry campaign has chosen to make this the cornerstone of his campaign. What distinguishes the Bush approach from what Kerry would do?
JB: This is the most important issue of our day. We must be clear on the differences between this administration and the future Kerry administration. Bush has done everything wrong in Iraq and Kerry would do it right.
SA: So what precisely did Bush do wrong?
JB: Everything.
SA: What exactly?
JB: Everything.
SA: OK, what would Kerry have done differently?
JB: Everything.
SA: If Kerry had been president in 2002, how would he have handled the Iraq question?
JB: John Kerry would have handled the situation totally differently, in a way that would not have alienated our allies and gotten us into the quagmire we're in now. This is why we need Kerry to be elected.
SA: In what ways would Kerry's approach have been different?
JB: In every way.
SA: Can you provide any specifics?
JB: What do you mean, specifics?
SA: Lay out exactly how Kerry would be different.
JB: He would have been, and will be, totally different! How much more precise does one have to be? And have I mentioned that he's not Bush?
SA: OK. Well, thanks for talking with me. That was Joe Bluehead of the Democratic party explaining the case for electing John Kerry. The case:

• he's electable in some undefined way,
• he was a low ranking officer a generation ago commanding a small boat, which in some unexplained way connects to be commander-in-chief,
• he would have handled Iraq differently than Bush, whatever that means,
• and he's not George Bush.