Should Kerry Run?

Ellen Goodman in her column in today's Boston Globe discusses whether or not John Kerry should make another try for the White House in 2008, as seems likely.

"John Kerry is a good, honorable, thoughtful man," she writes. "And a lousy presidential candidate. He couldn't do ''ideas" the first time. He wouldn't do them the second time. It's just not in him."

Is this true? Is this fair? And should Democratic voters think seriously about giving Kerry a second chance?

For one thing, to say that Kerry was "a lousy presidential candidate" is simply not true. Kerry was a very effective candidate who made mistakes but who lost because he was trying to do what no presidential candidate in history has ever managed to do -- unseat a commander in chief in the middle of a war. He garnered more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate in history, and he came within three percentage points of sending Bush back to Crawford without having to impeach him. If a few votes in Ohio had gone the other way, we would be talking about President Kerry right now.

Goodman is just engaged in what has become an occupational disease among Democrats -- putting former presidential candidates in purdah for the sin of losing elections. That's why Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis have been virtual non-persons at Democratic conventions for the past few cycles. It's as if we can pretend we didn't lose those elections if we just sweep the losing candidates under the rug -- almost literally.

The fact is that John Kerry ran a disciplined, smart campaign and almost did the nearly impossible. Did he make mistakes? Yes. There is little doubt that he should have hit the Swiftboat assholes with everything he had, and he didn't until much too late in the game. Was that a bigger mistake than Gore picking "Holy Joe" Lieberman as his running mate instead of Senator Nelson of Florida, a move that almost certainly would have put him in the White House?

Kerry won the nomination, picked the right running mate and cleaned Bush's clock in all of the debates. I don't know what else he could have done, and I don't think any other candidate could have done better. Does Goodman think that Howard Dean would have done better against Bush? You've got to be kidding -- Bush would have won in a landslide instead of a squeaker.

I don't know if Kerry should run again in 2008. Part of me thinks that he deserves a second chance, but then part of me thinks that Al Gore deserves a second chance as well. And a big part of me wants virtually any Democrat to run except Hillary Clinton, who I respect but who I think would lose -- and lose badly -- if she gets the nomination. Anyone who thinks she can win a general election is delusional.

But mainly I think it's presumptuous for Goodman or any other so-called pundit to tell John Kerry what to do. If he wants to run again, let him. And let Democratic primary voters decide.

Tom Moran