Kerry was on Regis and Kelly this morning (also Dr. Phil), but I read about it too late to tape it. I did watch him on David Letterman last night, the same day Kerry made a good speech in New York that discussed how President Bush made a mess of Iraq. Thankfully, he didn't come in on a motorcycle like he did on Jay Leno. The first impression one got was somewhat unpleasant. Sen. Kerry had this fake looking smile made worse by his usual stiff expression. Of course, President Bush in my opinion doesn't do much better, though for different reasons.
The interview itself (sorry, image counts in politics, even if we do not want it to dominate) went pretty well. His opening joke was a bit iffy and Top Ten lists supplied by guests rarely go well, but Kerry did have some nice light moments. An audience that showed so much appreciation at some points helped him, it almost sounded like a rally. It would be interesting to see how he did on the morning talk show circuit, especially sitting on that stool Regis/Kelly provides.
Dave started off focusing on the horse race aspects of the campaign, including polls and Kerry hiring new people. Kerry did a good job explaining how the new hires were not a sign of trouble, but just additional staff for a different part of his election campaign. Right around the time when I started to get tired of this line of questioning, Dave did focus on the war.
This allowed Kerry to get in some good shots at Bush and to explain how he would do things differently. Kerry noted that he could not tell exactly what he would do, since he didn't know how things would be on the ground next January. He did point out the need to regain the confidence of foreign leaders and tossed in a somewhat off topic AIDS proposal (Bush did enough on this subject to make this a dubious issue to use, even if some felt he didn't do enough). Kerry lacked specifics.*
This was fine though when he said he had a "four point plan," I expected a bit more. Kerry did say that if things went well, some troops might be coming home next summer, which doesn't sound very good really, but is probably realistic. So if Kerry won in 2000, would we be in Iraq now? Kerry first said (blurted out?) "no," but apparently thought better of it. Annoying.
He decided to go the nuanced route, but basically came around to the same stance. In other words, the authorization was to give inspectors a chance to do their jobs. Yes, we thought there was WMDs at first, but time would have shown that we were mistaken, and war would not have been necessary. Thus, Bush misused the intelligence he had. This works fairly well, and answers the "everyone thought there was WMDs" (not quite true) argument in the process. It also matches Kerry's style of thinking, which is important because a campaign must fit its candidate.
[I am somewhat upset that some other issues were not discussed, but his campaign is focusing on those that were, so that's okay. I'd add that I still find him stiff and not very inspirational, but on a lowered expectations basis, the interview put him in a fairly good light.]
The interview along with his speech might have actually caught some of the attention focused on Dan Rather admitting his source on the Killian memo story was iffy. Some are suggesting that he resign unlike his subject, who was misled and misled the country into war. This double standard is at least consistent -- the usual suspects loved to talk about Rather without underlining (as was shown in various media stories along the way) the basic facts the alleged memoranda helped prove remained the same. More evidence how, at least as used, this whole issue was a bit of a non-starter.
---
* The Washington Post summarized: "John F. Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq proposes ambitious solutions to accelerate the military transition, refocus reconstruction and ensure that democracy takes root, all while lessening the burden on the United States by bringing in greater foreign aid and support."
The analysis provided suggested his plan sounds good, but the likelihood it will succeed is questionable and is a bit lacking in detail.. I would suggest that this is probably the safest route to take given the necessity of leaving your options open, especially when the likely state of affairs in January is so unclear. The best bet probably would be: "Yeah, it's not much, but at least I didn't get us into this mess." Only the impolite will add: "Yes, you only authorized it."