Recently, three big-name liberals have taken the spotlight off John Kerry. Does it matter? Let’s take a quick look.
#1: Bill Clinton
The intern-touching, under-oath-lying, pseudo-moderate, impeached former President made a major media blitz last week with the release of his seemingly never-ending autobiography. Though no one is sure that a single word in the perjurer’s tome can be believed, he’s making the television rounds nonetheless.
Some have argued that such spotlight-hogging is bad for John Kerry because it reminds the country of the corruption that existed (still exists) in the Democratic Party when Clinton was running the show . . . which many claim he is still doing. However, we also must remember that even though Clinton’s out there reminding America of how corrupt politicians can be, Kerry’s own poll numbers over this campaign have tended to improve when he is not out front.
#2: Michael Moore
The not-so-svelte movie maker has really been eating up the limelight with the domestic release last weekend of his, as the Seattle Times called it, docu-satire, Fahrenheit 9/11. People everywhere, from the Right and the Left, have ridiculed the movie’s outlandish accusations, half-truths, lies, cheap shots, and all-around nonsensical blather.
Many pundits may think that it would hurt the Democratic candidate by making all liberals look as silly as Michael Moore, but Kerry can benefit. How? Now every negative thing Kerry says about the war in Iraq, Bush’s handling of 9/11, and the War on Terror will sound reasonable compared to the Moore screed.
#3: Al Gore
The former-Veep-turned-attention-deprived-loudmouth has been giving outrageous speeches blasting the Bush Administration’s handling of . . . well, everything. Gore’s most recent weirdness exhibition occurred last week at Georgetown Law School in which he likened President Bush and his supporters to Nazis and made other outlandish claims such as the notion that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are “intentionally misleading the American people” by asserting a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terror network.
Of course that statement runs counter to what the Clinton/Gore administration claimed in 1998:
- Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Kerry’s benefit from such Gore-rants is that the Democratic liberal base’s hunger for raw meat will be satiated without Kerry actually saying it. And, as with Michael Moore, Gore provides Kerry with the appearance of being mainstream: nothing he says could be seen as “radical” compared to the loud, Leftist cries from the man who would be President had he won his home state of Tennessee.