Why Kerry Is A Bad Choice for '08

[ElboRuum]

Now before all the Kerry supporters get up in arms about how Kerry should run, hear me out. The Hillary-haters should not implicate me in support for Hillary. This is exactly what it is: my feelings on a potential Kerry run. If my conjectures are correct, then he is a bad choice for running in 2008.

I like Kerry. I voted for him in '04, for whatever weight that vote may have actually carried. I think he is one of the most capable for the office.

But what qualities are particularly necessary for a President?

Well, it is said that you can have the best ideas in the world, but without the capacity to engage people with them, they could be the worst for all it would matter. In other words, charisma and the ability to engage not only his supporters but his detractors is vitally important to both becoming elected President and being effective as a President.

Kerry, while his platform is sound, seems to have a rift in his ability to communicate those ideas in a way that your Average Joe can relate to. It is almost as if he really doesn't understand what makes people perk up and take notice, and when he does try to be personally relative to the electorate, he's clumsy. His biggest failing, characterwise, is that he makes an erroneous assumption that so many people do: that everyone thinks in the same way he does and are motivated by the same things as he is. The result is that he doesn't tell us why his ideas are better than the next guy's nor does he attempt to change the minds of those who disagree. In his mind, they just are better ideas and obviously so, so he never proceeds to the next step: engaging people who may disagree into understanding why this should be personally relevant to them and what it would mean to them.

Following this theme, he's always taken off guard when his opponent resorts to twisting his words around, and rarely fights back. He erroneously seems to believe that people won't be taken in by such cheap tactics, again maybe because he thinks it too obvious for comment. Passion in his oratory might be beneficial in this case, making it more difficult to imply an alternate meaning to the statements he makes, but he is not comfortable in this skin. People respond to impassioned rhetoric, and whether this is a good thing or not, we almost instinctively respond to it. It has come to embody a quality we expect out of an effective leader. Clinton had it. Reagan had it. But both Bushes did not, and both would be probably ranked pretty low on "leadership quality". W is no leader, and his party has had to resort to election shenanigans to keep the Boy King in power... he could never win in a fair contest. He's tepid bathwater and he knows it.

Again, I like Kerry and I like what he stands for. But like Dick Gephardt, Kerry has that also-ran, uninspired aspect of characters which will never fly in the electoral process nation raised on examples of charismatic leadership to which they would ostensibly be compared.

Well, I'm pretty much done here. Let the flaming commence.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. why flame? A reasoned, sensible argument is always welcome.

and yours is precisely that.

[jgraz]

2. Ohhh here we go

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[bowens43]

3. Of course he's a bad choice. He lost to the idiot.

[Stevepol]

173. Kerry didn't lose. He won by about 3% of the vote nation-wide.

The reason I think he would be a poor choice is that he does not have the good sense to see that the voting machines along with other vote-stealing shenanigans cost him the election and will almost certainly steal the majority of elections in the future as well (where there's not an overwhelming landslide as in the 06 congressional races, see Ron Baimon http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/).

Unless and until he has the courage to stand up for the people's right to have their vote counted fairly (the most fundamental right we have as Americans), I don't believe he would be a good candidate. I will vote for him if he becomes the candidate, but he would not be my first choice by far.

In almost every other respect, I think Kerry would be a great candidate. Why he is unable to see the obvious amazes me.

When votes are counted in secret without verification, this cannot be a democracy. A fifth grader could see this.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

186. unable to see it or unwilling to do anything about it--that is the question

He caved in after the 2004 election, after promising that every vote would be counted should problems arise as they did in 2000. I would not vote for him again for that reason. Now, since we know he is intelligent enough to comprehend the issues you refer to, why did he clam up and go into seclusion only a couple days after the election? Ahhh, there was plenty of speculation on that back in Nov./Dec. 2004, and I won't be the one to drag it all up again, but one of my favorite theories was that he was in the pocket of the BFEE/neocon empire, because they had something on him...

[MADem]

4. I think it's unwise to rule anyone out before the primaries even commence.

Why duct tape the mouths of those who have something to say? Let them speak, let the chips fall where they may.

Any effort to limit the field at this early stage is not democratic. IMO.

[zann725]

208. Exactly. Particularly recalling before Iowa Primary in '04,JK was dissed my MSM then too

Let's not forget JK turned it around then in the home stretch. And since JK did not REALLY lose in '04, let's not rule him out this soon, simply to 'parrot' EXACTLY what MSM is hypnotizing us with...'that the only two Dem candidates ARE Hillary/Obama.'

Oddly, I don't EVER remember the media "deciding" SO early-on EXACTLY who "we the people" MUST choose. In the last few weeks of Prez campaign perhaps in the past there was some bias...but THIS early on? And SO "heavy-handed," makes me change channels quickly each time the mindless "hard sell" for Hillary/Obama starts.

[edwardsfeingold08]

5. Why not be for a candidate rather than against a candidate?

If you don't like Kerry, why not pick a horse in the race and talk him or her up? Volunteer for someone. Do something positive.

[ElboRuum]

20. Honestly, because I don't know who's got the chops.

I'm not really impressed by ANY of the potential and/or presumed offerings, otherwise I would suggest precisely that. The only one I believe has that Presidential Character (TM) is Al Gore. Howard Dean has the passion... maybe too much... he seems volatile sometimes, besides, I think he's better as an organizing force, per se.

Otherwise, I really don't know who else we've got who might fit the bill. The problem with Kerry is that we've already SEEN his flaws. They are well-documented, and they've shown no signs of improvement. The rest, I'll have to see them in action a little before I make any sort of decision.

[jgraz]

47. I think Clark does

In addition to Gore and Edwards. We'll see as the primary progresses.

[Quantess]

6. Kerry should NOT run for president in 08.

I dare say, he's in even less of a position to win, than he was in '04. He's too annoying.

[blm]

12. He annoyed every GOP administration, that's for sure. That's why they had to lie about him

at every turn with their bought and paid for newsmedia.

Don't you wish YOU had effected real history by annoying Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2? Imagine being the one Democrat that investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker in modern history. Imagine investigating and exposing IranContra, BCCI, illegal wars in Central America, CIA drugrunning, and how you would become a permanent target of the DC establishment. That would make you so annoying, they'd buy up media just to be able to shoot you down, too,

[Quantess]

17. No, I meant he's annoying to me.

Don't get me wrong. I wanted Kerry to be our president, but it didn't happen. He could not beat Bush by a large enough margin to show egregious voter theft. How in the hell is he going to beat the next Republican candidate, if he couldn't beat Bush?

[blm]

33. BushInc was at the top of their power from 2001 thru 2004 and even had the last

Dem president supporting him on every major decision throughout that time.

Kerry won anyway. DNC did a crappy job of securing the election process the 4 yrs they were given to do so. Kerry won his matchups. DNC blew it for him the same way they blew it for Gore - by not securing the election process at the very level where the votes get counted.

[jgraz]

41. Then why was Bush below 50% heading into the general?

He's the first president to hold office with a below-50% approval rating. Of course Kerry won the election and it was stolen, but you only have to look at 2006 to see how it should be done. We ran candidates that were actually attractive to the voters and they ended up beating their opponents by fraud-proof margins.

Kerry won in 2004? Of course he did. But it shouldn't have even been close. A better candidate would have handed Chimpy his ass on election day.

[blm]

55. McAuliffe collapsed party infrastructures in too many states - Dean's been rebuilding them

and strengthening them since he took over at the DNC - big difference.

You think if McAuliffe's strategy was still at work in 2006, the Dems would have been able to get all their votes counted?

[jgraz]

64. Be honest: do you think Kerry bears ANY responsibility for the 2004 campaign?

And if he does, what would you like to see him do differently this time?

[wisteria]

101. Yes, and he has admitted as such. That is what a leader does, takes

responsibility for his mistakes. However, their honestly was plenty of blame to go around, and his loss was close. It was a good campaign, but it came up short. A new campaign would be great.

[jgraz]

110. I'm sincerely interested in what you think he should do differently this time.

I agree that Kerry has many, many admirable qualities. I don't, however, think it's productive to pretend that he didn't run a fairly poor campaign last time. If you really want him to be President, you can't just say "Last time was great! Do that again!"

How can he run and win against someone who already is "Not Bush"?

[blm]

114. I think he was wrong to trust that the DNC had secured the election process, and that

he should have insisted that they go about the business of effectively countering the RNC 's tactics. I imagine tapping an RFK Jr. to oversee the election process and its security might be the answer for any future run.

He should also have never held back on BCCI issues, just because Clinton's people were running everything and were the main Dem spokespeople and wouldn't give him backup.

If necessary, he should buy a half-hour of time to to counter bullshit and NOT depend on the press to do its job and especially not the usual lame Dem spokespeople only schooled in defending Clinton for 15 years.

I imagine this year he'll have a better choice of spokespeople who won't fear bringing up serious govt. corruption issues that led to 9-11 and the rise of global terrorism.

[liberalpragmatist]

160. Actually, the last approval rating poll showed him at 51 before election day

Of course, some media outlets had him lower.

Not that Kerry didn't make some major mistakes. But Bush was nowhere near as unpopular then as he is today, and although his approval ratings fell to around the low 40s in some polls around late April/May of '04, they had rebounded by June (for whatever reason) and typically stayed in the upper 40s or low 50s.

[Cha]

153. Yeah, well, that was more

of Clinton's shame.

Yep, things are changed now..it's not 2004, anymore.

[JNelson6563]

53. Good summary. too bad it's wasted

Bottom line is like you said: He could not beat Bush by a large enough margin to show egregious voter theft.

Can I get an Amen??

It was the DNC's fault, no it was the swift boaters, no wait! It was....

Well certainly it was somebody's fault but Kerry had nothing to do with it! He was completely right to let milque-toast Mary Beth run the show (along with other clueless consultants) and depending on polls to shape the campaign message? Utterly brilliant!

:puke:

Another thing to mention, if Kerry had to slog through another primary season and take some beatings for the campaign he ran last time, well he will be beyond damaged goods by the general, if he even made it through the primary. And just imagine if he didn't win the primary! How embarrassing for him! It is my hope he doesn't run and makes his contribution to our cause as a powerhouse in the Senate for many years to come.

Julie

[janx]

77. I have no idea why people are talking up Kerry so much at this point.

There's no way he'd win the nomination twice in a row, especially in light of what happened in the general election last time. That was a terrible disappointment.

[AtomicKitten]

133. if not for the multitude of daily threads on DU

Dems wouldn't be talking about him at all. He is a nonentity in the upcoming election. No sense engaging the tag-team here on that point. That truism will come to fruition in time. No doubt about that. I can wait.

[blm]

178. He exceeded expectations. DNC planned to lose big in 2002 and 2004 after 9-11.

And they were completely unprepared for a close race and never bothered to counter the RNC tactics of vote suppression and votestealing as they promised in 2001.

[AtomicKitten]

32. Funny how he didn't mention that in the campaign or debates

when he had a microphone and the attention of the American people.

Your assertions about Kerry don't hold water.

[Quantess]

39. When he had a microphone and the attention of the American people

He fell flat. I'm sorry to be so blunt. People DON'T LIKE Kerry.

[karynnj]

60. If he is "too annoying" than he wouldn't have easilly won the

nomination in 2004 and no one would be posting that he shouldn't run - were there lots of posts telling Sharpton, Kuchinich and Mosely Braum not to run in 2004? These "do not run" threads are annoying.

[Quantess]

70. Ignore my words at your peril.

Trust me, I'm not the only American who thinks Kerry and H. Clinton are too annoying to be our next president.

[oasis]

7. The "Average Joe" American had better wake up. They don't need a

president they'd like to have a beer with, they need a no-nonsense administrator.

[skipos]

16. Sorry to be a wet blank, most of America will never wake up

45% of America felt it wasn't worth choosing between Nixon and McGovern. America has been apathetic for a long time, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. There will always be millions of people who vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with.

[ElboRuum]

24. Contrary to popular belief...

They want someone who relates to them and whom they relate to, brewed malt beverage notwithstanding. They're not wrong in this desire. And this is my point. Kerry may have every functional ability for the office but he needs to be able to SWAY people's opinions and MOTIVATE them to action, and sometimes the facts just aren't enough. Sometimes you need the gift of effective rhetoric, and Kerry just doesn't seem to have it.

[TayTay]

8. It's not a flame to disagree.

I disagree with your central premise: that Kerry can't communicate with an audience. I just saw him in Oct deliver a speech in Manchester, NH that got interrupted numerous times by huge applause and about a dozen or more standing ovations.

He seemed to communicate just fine to me. No one in the room shook their heads and said they didn't understand what he was talking about. They understood him and cheered what he said, very enthusiastically.

I think he should run again, but then again, I think they all should run and let the voters sort it out. That is democracy. I like a lot of voices in the debate, more issues and view points are brought out.

[ElboRuum]

30. Of course not...

Disagreement isn't flaming, c'est vrai.

I would conjecture that it is easy to inspire to applause those who already agree, but was the speech particularly moving? Or was it simply that he was in a room with people who already were down with the program? A charismatic leader needs to be able to get that sort of reaction from a neutral environment, sometimes even a hostile one. Do you have any links to some video? I didn't see that one.

[dwahzon]

156. The New Hampshire JJ Dinner video

is available here. My understanding of the audience is that though they were all Dems, they weren't necessarily JK partisans. The comments in various articles and blogs after the dinner indicated that he blew them away.

In fact, Keith Olbermann included a clip of it in his Countdown shortly after that because he evidently was impressed with it. I don't have a link for that but I'm pretty sure that I watched it over at Crooks&Liars or maybe at MSNBC.

Oh... I just went and checked and the Olberman clip is available here.

[jgraz]

9. Let's get the pro-kerry args out of the way right now

• He's really a great communicator! Most people just don't understand that when they see him speak!


• It's all the fault of the vicious, lying, Kerry-hating media!!!


• He DID fight back against the attacks! He just did it when nobody was looking, gentleman that he is.


• You're really a Republican, aren't you?


• HE WON THE 2004 ELECTION!!! WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON!!!!!!11111


• Here's 20 5Mb pictures that PROVE how cool Kerry is!!


• You're really Karl Rove, aren't you?


• Oh John...why don't you return my phone calls...sigh

[Nedsdag]

11. Gee

I couldn't have said it any better.

However, it's still Dec. 2006. Wake me up when it's 2007.

[jgraz]

13. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[hijinx87]

19. I think you forgot one.

Kerry lost because the clinton/bushco/DNC machine wanted him to.

[AtomicKitten]

21. I like the one about how the DLC pushed Dean over for Kerry

and then turned around and torpedoed Kerry's campaign.

[hijinx87]

26. that was the DLC?

*smites forehead involuntarily*

I thought that was bill clinton again.

[AtomicKitten]

140. well, it was actually a cast of thousands

The DNC, Terry McAuliffe, the DLC, Al From, Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions including Begala and Carville, and the MSM that conspired against Kerry who otherwise ran a flawless campaign and would be in the White House if not for others destroying the Democratic Party infrastructure, not securing the vote, and not supporting the candidate.

Oh, and the Republicans too but why even mention them when you can blame your own party for your loss?

[cadmium]

161. do you doubt all of this??

[LittleClarkie]

88. Let's get your args out of the way too

If Kerry became president, he'd sell us all down the river. Skull and Bones! Skull and Bones!!!

[jgraz]

90. Wha???

Whatever you're smoking, can I have some?
:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

99. This thread of yours here came damn close to tinfoilage, dude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3020370

That's what I was referring to.

[jgraz]

102. you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of satire

Or do you really think I believe that President Kerry would say "Die American Devils" while waving the North Korean flag?

Edit: I do, however, believe that a President Kerry would be far too conciliatory toward the Rethugs for my tastes. I also wonder, given his disgraceful decision to concede, how much his re-election would factor into his first-term policy decisions.

That having been said, I'm pretty sure that I've never raised the Skull-and-Bones connection ever.

[blm]

10. Dems will judge anew for ourselves during the series of debates, just as we always do.

And many of us DO remember that Kerry communicated better with the people during the debates and in Iowa than most other Dems, and actually won the election in 2004, but thanks to a DNC that never did its job to secure the election process during its 4 yr mission, those votes were never secured or counted.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Blame the DNC, blame Clinton -- blame everybody but the candidate

And that is precisely why you will NEVER understand why Kerry is not a viable contender for 2008.

This WILL be sorted out and one wonders what some of you will do when that happens, when it's over, when a fork is stuck in your pipe dream, when all your snotty, arrogant posturing will be demonstrated to have been for naught.

Pass the popcorn.

[blm]

22. I have asked you politely to stop hurling insults at me and others.

.

[AtomicKitten]

23. I have asked you to quit alleging "personal insults" when you feel challenged

It's a seriously lame debate technique.

[wisteria]

97. Actually no one is challanged, BLM has facts to back up what is said.

No need to feel threatened,when you present the truth.

[AtomicKitten]

129. Her interpretation of the "facts" is always fascinating.

And goes something like this ... The DNC run by Terry McAuliffe, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the various assorted "Hillaristas" including Begala and Carville, the DLC headed by From, along with the MSM conspired against Kerry collapsing the Democratic infrastructure, not securing the vote, and did not back up Kerry in his campaign causing him to lose. Kerry in fact ran a fabulous campaign and would have won if not for his own party conspiring against him.

Yep, that's about how the story is told.

You see, "facts" such as the above are a twisted interpretation of reality sprinkled with opinion that some don't like to be called on here at DU. So much for the facts.

[hijinx87]

36. honestly, it isn't personal.

but I have seen you blame the bill clinton, bush1, bush2, reagan, the DLC, and the
entire democrat national committee for kerry's loss.

the whole thing just rings hollow. sooner or later, the loser just lost.

[jgraz]

46. "democrat national committee"

Dude, you better get your "ic" on before people start calling you a freeper.
:P

[blm]

52. Did Bush win on his own or did RNC tactics pull him across the finish line?

At some point you have to notice that there is a difference between a party that allowed its infrastructure to collapse in many states and a party that strengthens its infrastructure in ALL states.

[TayTay]

25. Most democrats will continue the fight

to get better health care, more protection for the environment and for energy conservation and development, work to end war and advance peace, establish peaceable relations with the rest of the world and work hard to make education more affordable for Americans and so forth.

I often wonder what some here will do if Kerry does indeed not win and they no longer have a target at which to aim their venom. I guess their heads will explode or perhaps implode. Or perhaps the venom, denied an outlet, will simply rot them from within. Time will tell one way or the other.

[Inuca]

54. "snotty, arrogant posturing" is not...

... an insult? I must have another look at the dictionary, I guess....

[wisteria]

106. We all admit mistakes were made. Mistakes are always made in

campaigns. The Clinton's had to deal with some whoppers themselves the first time out. Kerry's couple of mistakes have been magnafied by those who have another agenda.
Could that possibly be you?

Oh, and a for the fork, I wouldn't stick it anywhere yet. Senator Kerry isn't done -not by a long shot.

[jgraz]

107. "Mistakes were made"

Now, where have I heard that before?

[blm]

181. Mistakes are made in EVERY campaign. No one wins or loses without plenty of them.

.

[hijinx87]

14. what's the "over" on this thread?

300?

:evilgrin:

[rockymountaindem]

15. If Kerry is a bad communicator

then how did he beat Edwards in the primary, who is supposed to be the Everyman?

[jgraz]

27. You do remember the continuing drumbeat of polls

showing Kerry as the only viable candidate against Bush, don't you? Many, many people switched their support to Kerry based on those polls, driven solely by an overwhelming desire to get rid of Bush.

[AtomicKitten]

28. It was ABB, pure and simple.

[jgraz]

34. Granted, from the set of "anybody", Kerry ain't a bad choice

But we won't have the ABB vote in 2008. We need a candidate people actually want to vote for this time.

[Quantess]

67. We won't have the ABB factor to fall back on in 08.

The 08 Republican candidate is guaranteed to be less vile than Bush. Kerry was not able to oust Bush, so how can we expect him to win against anyone else? It's just not viable.

[Eurobabe]

43. Yep, hold your nose and vote for the Dem in 04

I'm hoping '08 offers us more.

[rockymountaindem]

35. No I don't

I remember Kerry being well behind in all the polls until about 5-6 days before Iowa.

[jgraz]

38. Yep, that's when the first poll came out showing all the Dems head-to-head against Bush

And Kerry came out on top in that poll.

[rockymountaindem]

51. Well, ok then

That doesn't really support your argument that Kerry is a bad communicator though, if he was polled as the best one against Bush.

[jgraz]

61. Honestly, that always surprised me

I have no idea why he polled so high against Bush in the early going. It may have been his resume, it may have been his message. Hell, he may have actually been a good communicator early on and then shut down after all the consultants got their claws into him.

But during the general election and in the weeks leading up to the DNC, Kerry was terrible. Maybe he just tightened up once the national spotlight was on him, I don't know. What I do know (or at least strongly believe) is that a more competent, aggressive campaigner would have crushed that little dog-turd into paste.

[rockymountaindem]

146. Well, I part ways with you there

I don't think another candidate could have necessarily beaten Bush in 2004. I live in a rather conservative area, and I knew too many people, most of whom don't seem like fanatics, who actually thought their bare existence depended on Bush getting back in office. They were much more conservative times. Back then, I honestly didn't think any Dem. could win. Now I'm approaching thinking that no Dem could lose in 2008.

[TayTay]

40. You mean polls like this one?

IT'S A ROUT; N.H. POLL NUMBERS - DEAN: 45%, KERRY: 13%
Boston Herald, All, Sec. News, p 1 (12-05-2003)
By DAVID R. GUARINO

Staff shakeups, repeated theme changes and even a shiny new campaign bus have failed to stop Sen. John F. Kerry's New Hampshire nosedive, with polls now dropping him toward a pack of lesser hopefuls.

Two new Granite State surveys give former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean a 30-point lead over Kerry seven weeks from the first-in-the-nation primary - a bitter fall from the double-digit leads Kerry held in his backyard turf early this year.

"With Kerry, his ads didn't work, his message hasn't worked, he's had problems with his campaign and he's never recovered from it," said pollster Dick Bennett of American Research Group. "It's not over, but it's getting close."

Added St. Anselm College political science professor Dante Scala: "It's just astonishing given how far he's fallen this year in his back yard."

The Manchester-based American Research Group poll showed Kerry losing to Dean by a staggering 32 points, 45 percent to 13 percent. More troubling for the Bay State senator, he is now statistically tied with retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark.

Oops, wait, I forgot, you meant a different time frame. I'm sure that psychic message was sent out, it just wasn't written out in your post. Silly DU posters, some of them only reply to what was actually written, not the psychic posting network.

[jgraz]

44. You might want to consider a reading comprehension course

I said "head-to-head against Bush". Which part of that didn't you understand?

[TayTay]

49. Perhaps you ought to consider Special or remedial ed help

Your post makes no sense at all. Sen. Kerry was behind in the polls, by a very wide margin, in Dec. You are seriously suggesting that the voters of Iowa went poll-smoking and decided to vote for Kerry a few weeks later because some mysterious poll that you cannot cite or produce told them too!

Ah, what evidence to you offer for this? Anything, anything at all? Let's see it.

[jgraz]

56. Sorry, this is a chat forum, not a fucking PhD thesis

You want to prove me wrong, knock yourself out (seriously). Your continued call for evidence to back up every inconvenient argument is a complete red herring. You don't like what I'm saying, you have nothing to refute it, so you pretend to want more and more support for it.

I've stated a hypothesis that is easily disprovable. All you have to do is present YOUR reasons for why Kerry won in Iowa. Make sure you back them up with reams and reams of documentation, though. Otherwise, I'll be happy to provide you with directions to a hole you can crawl into.

[karynnj]

86. Maybe he won Iowa for reasons explained at the time

He was very convincing one to one. He also got an enormous boost when he was re-united with Rassmann, the marine he saved in Vietnam. I saw that on CNN and it was as classic Americana as you can get. The hero, modestly saying that "anyone would have done it" when it was exposing himself to fire to save someone else. In contrast in the name news cycle Dean was yelling at an obnoxious 70 something year old heckler. I could look for links - but these were pretty key events and you likely remember them. That was near the last week before the election - it likely did move people and Kerry was IMMENSELY likable in that clip.

[jgraz]

89. Another reasonable hypothesis

I'd forgotten about that, but yes, that had to get him more than a few votes.

I'm still flummoxed as to why he wasn't able to bring that kind of impression into to the general election. Partly I think that he was absolutely blindsided by the viciousness of the Rovian attacks and the media's willingness to repeat them. I remember him being rendered almost speechless by the whole "throwing the medals away" bullshit.

IMHO, someone as intelligent and experienced as Kerry should not have been surprised by this in the least. He should have known they would come after his Vietnam service and he should have been prepared for it. A more adept candidate would have turned this around on Bush and made him look like a deserter.



ETA: See, TayTay? Come up with some ideas on your own and we can have an actual dialog!

[karynnj]

149. I think the problem was the unprecedented intensity of the attacks

That was a function of two things:

1) Between 2000 and 2004, the RW echo chamber was enhanced. Stories would immediately spread from Drudge to RW web sites to talk radio and then a day or so later to the cable stations. Think of it now is there a single cable show other than Olberman that does not lean right. (Larry King may be non-partisan - but he's pretty useless.)

2) The SBVT did one thing that was below contempt but clever. Their book had 100s of accusations against Kerry - all sworn to by the people they sucked in. This meant that Kerry had to call non celebrity low level veterans liars. Also, the Kerry's team very quickly disproved the most devastating charges. At this point after convincingly proving the SBVT liars, the SBVT should have been considered to have no credibity. But many talk shows continued to invite the SBVT and the Kerry surrogates would be blind sided by a different set of charges. You can think of it as a cluster bomb - with hundreds of bombs going off together.

The combination of these two factors, meant that people were hearing bad things about Kerry's service from many different sources. This led many to question that so much smoke meant there was fire. The media then made it worse when some writers said things like it was impossible to know where truth lay. They in effect gave equal weight to proven liars and to a US Senator who in a public live of over 30 years has had a reputation as a very honest man. To make it worse, all the records were available (and actually out in public on his web site) and all backed Kerry 100%.

[jgraz]

154. Interesting...so how should a candidate handle it this time around?

[karynnj]

199. Excellent question

I think the first step is to try to understand more what happened. Soon after the election, Kerry received a livetime award from the Kennedy Center. Part of that program was a question and answer with Tom Oliphant - with some of the questions coming from the audience.

The question about the media came up. Kerry said the print media was fair. He also described the echo chamber and admitted that they needed to work out how to counter it. I assume that serious people in each campaign have looked at what happened and are likely trying to figure out ways to deal with generic problems.

In 2006, Kerry allies created the Patriot group that did prove useful in defending some of the veterans attacked. Senator Kerry himslf took the unusual (and successful) step of strongly striking back at swiftboating of Congressional vet candidates. (Unusual in that you have a top Senator, the last nominee for President acting as attack dog for a few people running for Congress - give me a similar example.)

The other thing that seemed to happen is that the public seems to have finally been sickened by the technique. The other thing to realize is that they are likely looking for new dirty tricks.

[ProSense]

91. Wow!

Someone pulled your string!

Ruffled, heh?

[cadmium]

162. Simple reason that Kerry won in Iowa was

that Ted Kennedy's team took on the campaign. Ted Kennedy has deep connections in labor, Vet groups, and local Democratic precincts. When Kennedy's team signed on everything changed. Kennedy is in the liberal wing of the party--so that hurt Dean the most. I suspect (without hard evidence) that this is the reason Edwards was big favorite for VP since Ted Kennedy and Edwards are friends.

[karynnj]

80. That makes no sense

You are saying that the polls where most people said they wanted Kerry made people pick Kerry?? Stunning logic.

[jgraz]

82. It's called bandwagoning. Look it up

Once the media bit on the story that Kerry was the only viable candidate against Bush, it didn't matter if people liked other candidates. We all just wanted to get rid of Bush. The other candidates had no hope of catching up.

[karynnj]

150. I remember when Making of the President called it

Momentum - I loved those books. what was unusual in 2004 was that Kerry started out ahead from the first contest and never lost the lead. I do understand the phenomenom, but Kerry, not some power structure did this. As he started winning and getting on TV with great victory speeches and looking stronger than ever in the debate, he did gain more and more support.

Part of it was that Dean imploded in Iowa. From NH friends, there were many people swinging between Kerry and Dean - many of whom had liked Kerry better, but switched to Dean when they thought Dean was the likely winner. After Iowa, they swung back to Kerry. The next contests on the first multistate day were in MO, SC, DE, AZ,NM, OK, and ND. These were NOT great states for a NE liberal. The media in fact chose this time to run Edwards stories. These were the real key to the Kerry bandwagon. In 1992, it was a similar multi-state day after Iowa and NH where Clinton emerged as the front runner. This was the point where Edwards (or Clark), if he was going to win, needed to have several victories. Instead Kerry won 5 of the 7. Clark won OK with 30 %, Edwards had 30%, but Kerry had 27%. In SC, Edwards had 45% of the vote to Kerry's 30%.

This day, likely made it all but certain that barring a major screw-up Kerry would be the candidate. He had won in places which were among the hardest for him to win. Kerry's primary campaign was exceptionally well run. It was when it had to rapidly expand for the general election that there were problems. Kerry was criticized for not bringing in more Clinton people - but looking at who advocated for what, it's too bad he couldn't clone the Boston people.

[Quantess]

29. I never understood that. Pretty baffling. Edwards is more presidential than Kerry.

[Inuca]

58. What makes Edwards so presidential?

Just curious.... I think he is charming and smart, but pretty light weight otherwise. I count chosing Edwards as VP as one of the mistakes Kerry did in 04.

[Quantess]

74. Well, this is just my .02

Voters tend to appreciate these qualities: moderately attractive, charming, well spoken. I don't actually know what Edwards' policies are, or what his qualifications are, but neither do voters, and voters don't really seem to care about substance as much as they care about the presidential image.

Clinton had a great presidential image. He was criticized in the primaries as being too lightweight, yet obviously he had mass appeal.

G.W. Bush is a complete dumbass who accomplished remarkably little, yet he also had mass appeal (for a while, at least). For a while, many people bought into his presidential image.

[ElboRuum]

37. Edwards is a worse communicator than Kerry?

I've never really been inspired by Edwards oratory either.

[zann725]

207. And let's not forget the Prez debates...which JK eloquently won ALL against Shrub.

Plus JK's stellar "communication skills" repeatedly shines on "johnkerry.com" website, where many of JK's amazing speeches SINCE '04 Election are posted for listening. Speeches every bit as 'rock star' as Obama speeches allegedly are.

[YvonneCa]

31. I think we Democrats seem to be...

...the people who hurt Kerry's chances to be President the most. We need integrity, honesty and experience...lots of it...in our next President. The world has a lot of serious problems to 'undo'. John Kerry is highly qualified for the job. I think you agree with this because you just said John Kerry is capable. But your conjectures about his people skills are totally wrong.

What will hurt his chances is if we Democrats continue this lie/spin (that started in Republican circles) that Kerry does not connect with regular people. Anyone who has ever seen him work the crowds, relate to students on college campuses, or talk to the troops during the past three trips he's made to the Middle East since 2004, knows he relates and communicates well with people. There is a 'perception', started by right-wing spin, perpetuated by the media and some Democrats, that this is true. Your post is an example of that. The 'botched joke' incident is another perfect example: Kerry is attacked for not standing up...and as soon as he fights back, he's attacked for doing so. The attacks coming from the Republicans make some sense...they are afraid of John Kerry gaining power. They understand his strength and courage. The attacks from Democrats, however, make little sense...why do we hurt our strongest candidates???

Since you seem to think Kerry would be a good president, educate yourself on this issue. Kerry will never be Obama. But Kerry, as Kerry, is pretty damn good. Start with the Take Back America Conference speech, check out johnkerry.com and listen to the energy speech, Dissent, and the Georgetown Speech on the Iraq War. Go to pepperdine.edu and listen to his speech on Faith and Politics. Listen to the Q and A sessions, as he relates to the audience. Attend Kerry events...watch how he relates to people. I think your opinion will change.:patriot:

Not flamin', just educatin'. :7

[ElboRuum]

45. I think you hit it right here.

"Anyone who has ever seen him work the crowds, relate to students on college campuses, or talk to the troops during the past three trips he's made to the Middle East since 2004, knows he relates and communicates well with people."

He may have this ability with small focused crowds where people may already like him. Good oratory wins you friends in a potentially hostile environment. When the crowd is too large and diverse, he can't engage well. Just look at how he handled criticism in the '04 election. He backed away, assuming a "high ground" position. He let his opponents control the conversation and paint him as a person in constant retreat. He couldn't respond as he should have because he honestly can't motivate anyone who isn't already motivated, can't sway anyone who isn't already swayed. You have to understand who you are talking to to be able to do this, and Kerry seems curiously lacking in this "sense" about people. You can't presume understanding and agreement in the realm of politics, you need to be able to make understanding and agreement happen actively.

[YvonneCa]

57. You haven't watched the video yet, have you...

...??? If you had, you couldn't say this. Start with pepperdine.edu. That was a hostile environment, for the most part. Ken Starr was in attendance. It was a very conservative audience. The topic was Faith and Politics. He took on the difficult issues, and did not back away. You should also know, that the line to get in was so long they had to turn people away on that day. I was lucky enough to get in.


johnkerry.com BE THERE! :patriot:

[ElboRuum]

125. You are repeating Kerry's biggest character flaw...

He doesn't seem to get that not everyone sees things in the same way or is motivated by the same things. With your statement, "If you had, you couldn't say this." you prove my point about it being a common affliction by adopting the same attitude. I did see it, and was unmoved.

Let me just see if I can sum up my feelings on Kerry in blunt terms:

Kerry gives his opponents ammunition to call him detached and aloof because he IS detached and aloof. He is as passionate about his beliefs as a college professor is about their particular concentration of study, that is to say, very. However he is possessed of a singular passion for his beliefs and opinions himself, like the college prof, he does not have a gift for imparting that passion onto students, maybe because he believes its draw to be obvious. The facts speak for themselves? Um, rarely. It takes a bit of raconteurship to persuade, as it also requires personalization of the argument. He avoids both like the plague.

[ProSense]

131. "Kerry gives his opponents ammunition to call him detached and aloof because he IS detached... "

Again, that is your opinion! There are people who do not agree. Also, here.

[ElboRuum]

165. Yes. It is my opinion...

Yes, others do not agree. And... what? That, on its face, is not persuasive.

[sendero]

191. An opinion I share..

... with the OP, as well as the rest of his post.

I havent' seen him lately, but in 2004 tepid would be a compliment.

It's an opinion that most non-biased observer shares, IMHO. Kerry has the charisma of a soap dish, and no amount of posting on this web site is going to "manage" that perception because it is obvious.

[YvonneCa]

132. Question: Why do you want a Democrat elected...

...instead of another Republican?

[ElboRuum]

168. Your current sig pretty much explains it.

I find them to be more intelligent, more favorable to the electorate at large, and interested in solutions satisfactory to the widest majority that they can throw their net over without doing so at the expense of diluting the results.

Democratic politicians, with all of their faults, have always tuned their ears toward workaday America, and they've done so without losing sight of the bigger picture of America's place in the world and how to improve it. They do this with intelligence, and whether or not that intelligence fails them from time to time, the results are infinitely better than what can be achieved through empty rhetoric and inaction. But all rhetoric need not be empty. It takes the ability to orate, to relate passionately in verbal form to your audience, which is often the difference between good leadership and great leadership. While Kerry's IDEAS are top-rate, he has enormous difficulty not coming off like a dispassionate stuffed shirt.

[YvonneCa]

180. Good Morning...

...ElboRuum! We have a lot in common. I'm a Democrat for many of those same reasons. :)

Did you know that John Kerry was diagnosed with prostate cancer right after he announced his candidacy for President? I had cancer, once, and it rocks your world. I give him a TON of credit that he even stayed in the race. I think he probably could have been a more focussed candidate if the circumstances were different. That's why I want him to get another chance. If you haven't watched the Livestrong Summit speech at johnkerry.com...I recommend it. I know you've already watched a lot of video...that's to your credit. :) If you don't think this is relating passionately in verbal form to his audience, then I wish you well.:hug:

[zulchzulu]

189. "Attend Kerry events...watch how he relates to people."

Exactly!

That's what won me over as someone who takes his leadership position very seriously...and he is actually pretty funny when he wants to. If people actually attend one of his events if/when he runs, they will see for themselves how great he is.

I've seen other candidates live in person as well and they all have their strengths. I just find he has more.

[YvonneCa]

197. That's the bumper sticker...

...I want ! :)

[paulk]

42. it's a sad comment on the electorate that they need to be talked

down to, and it's more of an indictment of them - that this is the case, than it is of Kerry. We get the leadership we deserve - and Reagan/Bush/Bush says some things about the USA that are not good.

That said - I will agree that there have been times when Kerry's communication skills have been found wanting - especially early in his presidential run... but, I do think it's something he's aware of and has made great progress in. One thing to remember - when the full weight of the RNC/MSM media machine is coming down on you - there's very few people out there that can deal with it effectively - and it's even harder when members of your own party won't stand with you (hello, HRC).

The argument can be made, since Kerry has already experienced a presidential campaign and perhaps has a better understanding of what to expect than the other candidates, that this makes him a good choice to run in 2008.

[ElboRuum]

48. Then I saw the video of that joke he made...

...about the President.

While I got the joke, it should have been pretty clear that what he said presumed understanding that may not have been there and, as such, was easily exploited by the RW.

When I saw this, I realized that, while he may have already experienced a presidential campaign, he learned little from that experience.

[jgraz]

50. Egg-zactly!!

Of course we all know what he meant!! Only an idiot or a liar would say Kerry was dissing the troops.

But if you're going to be a viable candidate, you CANNOT botch a line that badly. Kerry should have known this after 2004, and he should have known the limits of his humor ability. It showed me that he hasn't really internalized the lessons of that campaign.

[Cameron27]

68. And it happened practically on the eve of the

congressional elections. I imagine that caused a collective groan from most party leaders since the ripple effect in the press stalled the momentum of the stream of the GOP corruption stories. No one disputes that it was a botched joke, and I doubt that it played a factor either way in the election results...but we didn't need to have proponents battling about what Kerry REALLY meant on the news 24/7.

[YvonneCa]

72. And who do you hold responsible for that timing...

...the media, the White House, or John Kerry...our party's former nominee?? When we're in a battle (and we clearly are) I tend to place blame on someone other than members of the home team. Kerry's on OUR team.

[Cameron27]

98. What do you mean who do I blame for the timing?

No one told Kerry to try to tell a joke or WHEN to try to tell it. I'm not going to crucify him for the mistake, but it happened, and that was the result.

[Cameron27]

108. One more thing about our home team.

I've been supporting Clark for a long time. But just before he dropped out in 2004, I became very ill for a long time until I finally had a correct diagnosis...anyway, there was a lot that I missed during that year, so when a few days ago someone here leveled a charge against Wes Clark that I'd never really investigated, I didn't presume that it was wrong and I didn't take the word of other "Clarkies."

I temporarily suspended my support until I had googled every source I possibly could and found that the charge was false. If I didn't find out the truth to my satisfaction, I wouldn't have renewed my support for the man.

That's why I'm a Democrat, I don't blindly support anyone.

edited because I can never remember leveled has one L.

[YvonneCa]

113. We have a lot in common...

...seasonedblue.


" supporting Clark for a long time" I was for Clark, too, during the 2004 primaries.

"That's why I'm a Democrat, I don't blindly support anyone." Me, either...research is good.

"edited because I can never remember leveled has one L" :7 I LOVED this one,
because 'developement' is my word...does the e belong there?? :7


As to my question about blame...what I meant was that Kerry had been campaigning (2-3 rallies a day) for 2006 Congressional candidates relentlessly. The joke had been a part of many of those rallies. The flub was a big NOTHING. What turned it into a media event was White House spin for political purposes. THEY disrespected the troops by their spin. The media promoted it. A good man like Kerry, who was working hard to help Democrats regain some control of the government in order to begin turning the country around ended up being the brunt of jokes. That's just WRONG.

:patriot:

[Cameron27]

122. Yes, it was absolutely wrong,

but we're dealing with republican slime and will be, probably for the end of time x(

We have no argument that Kerry is a fine man and their attacks are despicable.
:)

[YvonneCa]

128. Thanks for responding...

... :)

[YvonneCa]

65. I was there, that day...

...at Pasadena City College, too. Anyone...including John Kerry...should expect the Republicans to attack him, whenever they think it will help them. And the Republicans didn't let us down on that one. We should also expect the media to spin it (unfairly, of course) in favor of the Republicans and against Kerry. The media definitly did their part to blow a non-event out of proportion. Again, that makes some sense...they know John Kerry is their most powerful opponent.

But what makes NO SENSE AT ALL is what you are doing. If you want another Democratic candidate to win, as is your right, support him/her. I support John Kerry for his experience, his honesty, and his integrity. I also think it is a POSITIVE TRAIT that he campaigned relentlessly for 2006 Democratic candidates to the point of exhaustion on that day in Pasadena.

We Democrats need to bring forth our best Presidential Candidate in 2008, whoever that is. It may be that experience, honesty, and integrity win the day...far beyond 'political like-ability' this time around.

[ElboRuum]

92. Now just hang on there.

I'm expressing an opinion. I'm expressing it because people seem to think Kerry is our best candidate. I disagree. I don't know how such a thing is nonsensical.

I don't know who I want to win yet. I proceed from a process of elimination, and Kerry, as far as I'm concerned, is eliminated. I felt like saying so.

[beachmom]

105. A process of elimination? You've got to be kidding me.

Is our field that bad, that you can't find it in you to advocate FOR someone?

You know, yesterday I had a nice conversation with an Obama supporter -- he set me straight on a few facts with good links, and we argued civally about what needs to be done in Iraq. He acknowledged that Kerry would get our troops out of Iraq faster than anyone, but he actually thought it should be done more slowly. Fair enough -- we disagreed on POLICY. We were arguing about our candidates but you know that if either of ours won the primaries, the other person would be ready to get on board with that nominee. In other words, we were POSITIVELY advocating for our candidates. That's how the Democrats are going to end up on top in Nov. '08. If the primaries are about ideas, the character of the candidates, and so on, with the expressed knowledge that at the end of it we can all come together to rally around the winner, then we'll have a big advantage.

I think that you should rethink your "process of elimination", because that will further the MSM line that Dems only consider their candidates as anybody but a Republican. For me, I enthusiastically voted for Kerry in '04, and I hope at the end of the day to enthusiastically vote for our '08 candidate. I hope it's Kerry, but if it isn't, I hope that the winning candidate has had positive advocates to get me excited about that candidate.

[ElboRuum]

139. Excuse me for saying so...

Why don't candidates have to impress me, instead of me having to be convinced by people, whether the media or through personal advocates like yourself and others, that I SHOULD be impressed by them?

If I feel this way, then CLEARLY, I'm not impressed.

I wouldn't NEED a process of elimination IF AND ONLY IF one of them would simply speak on our behalf and in the manner in which we would if so given the opportunity. That is with fortitude, force, feeling, and fact. He's got one of those three covered.

As far as my rethinking of my personal methodologies, I'll abandon logic when it abandons me, and it hasn't yet.

[YvonneCa]

121. I believe in free speech...

...it is your right to say what you want to say. People with other opinions than yours or mine have the same right. All I meant was that if we Democrats tear each other apart publicly, the Republicans won't have to do it. The more we can build the case for the candidate we support...whoever it is...the better. I want to build that case for Senator Kerry. I'll spend my time doing that, rather than publicly say why Obama or Clinton is not my choice.

[ElboRuum]

141. Let me ask you something.

Why not say why Obama or Clinton is not your choice. Maybe the problem with us Democrats is that we fight later what we should have debated long before in private. That includes the negative. The way to win is to play to your strengths, and strengthen your weaknesses. How can you do this if you don't have the whole conversation?

[YvonneCa]

145. I agree with most ...

of what you say in this post. We should debate ALL ISSUES and CANDIDATES early on and thoroughly. We should debate the positives and the negatives. I like what you say about playing to strengths and strengthening weaknesses. Believe it or not, that is one of the things I like most about John Kerry. Since 2004, that is exactly what he has done. He said he was going to LEARN, and he did. Could he become another person...no...and I believe his strength lies in being who he is. I know some here would not agree with that ( :) ).

Rather than say why Obama and Clinton are not my first choices, I'll discuss the traits of my choice. I want experience, lots of foreign policy experience, in my candidate. Kerry has this. Clinton has some. I also want a candidate who can both be nominated and then win the general election...Kerry has proven the ability to be nominated, and has learned from a high level 2004 campaign how to do it better in 2008. I don't think ( and I wish this were not true) the country is ready for a woman president...we were not even ready for a modern working woman First Lady when Hillary did that job so well. If I'm wrong and she is elected, she'll do one hell of a good job, though. :7 Finally, I want a candidate who is honest and full of integrity. I am watching all three carefully on these traits...so far, Kerry's in the lead.

Your words:

"Maybe the problem with us Democrats is that we fight later what we should have debated long before in private."

I think the key words are 'in private'. I debate with friends, family, and co-workers my support of Kerry and my concerns about other potential candidates. Blogs are tricky...they're a new variable...but they can become very public. When we debate publicly, as a Democratic Party, the media can pick it up and twist it. Then it becomes detrimental to reaching our goal: winning elections and RESTORING OUR COUNTRY TO ITS TRUE VALUES. :patriot:

[paulk]

66. anything any candidate says can and will be used against us

Kerry's flub was no worse than one's other candidates have made, and certainly no worse than any one of hundreds (thousands?) that Bush has made -

that it got blown out of proportion by the RNC/MSM conglomerate shows in detail that they are not on our side...

In the end, it's not going to matter - whoever we run is going to be subject to the same thing - and if there's not some flub they can twist around to suit their smears they will make something up, like they did with Gore.

The "flubbed joke" was not about Kerry, it was about a right wing media machine and it's attempts to influence an election. I think that we, as Democrats, need to be aware of this.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn

Riding that bus til the wheels fall off.

Thank you for your literate and civilly stated opinion. I happen to disagree. He has reached me.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[wisteria]

62. Senator Kerry can relay his idea and does in fact have appeal.

There was not enough exposure to him in 04. I don't know whether you know it or not, but he has drawn record crowds throughout the country during this past election as he politicked for other candidates, until he pulled himself out to take the focus off of himself after the RW attack.

Did you know that he gave a speech on October 12th in New Hampshire at a Jefferson-jackson Dinner that was sold out, and he had the whole place on there feet and cheering many, many times during that speech. I attended that speech, my first live experience and there was electricity in that room that night.

The Senator can reach the people,people do relate to what he has to say, don't buy into that media persona trumped up to boost Bush in 04 and others who have a vested interest in promoting another candidate. My support of the senator is all at my own expense and I do it because I believe in the man and what he can do for this country.

[karynnj]

63. So, Kerry can not communicate

I'll play a game with any of you. Give me the deepest, most profound, yet immediately understandable thing ever said by your favorite , then we can poll it against Kerry's words.

Obama, who I think is the best of the rest, is a wonderful orator and he deserves the credit he gets, but John Kerry is the only one who has already said something that will likely be remembered 50 years after he said it. That includes even Clinton.

If people are allowed to hear Kerry - he is very easy to understand. go to johnkerry.com and listen to Dissent - it has a huge amount of passion.

[YvonneCa]

69. That is the one of the most passionate speeches...

...of our time. :patriot:

[ElboRuum]

87. I will believe in his passion...

When he can evoke that passion when under harsher lights. But I will check this out.

[YvonneCa]

93. Good for you...

...that is what we citizens owe anyone who seeks to be President! :)

[Patchuli]

112. How about this...

" Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget."

CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT GORE DELIVERS REMARKS

DECEMBER 13, 2000

SPEAKER: ALBERT GORE JR., VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t651213.html

I supported Kerry. I think he won. I think Rove & * cheated. Again. I also know that my favorite won. And he fought harder than John did. For that, I will back him again. I pray that Al will run. I think John Kerry is more help to us right where he is.

Run Al Run!!!!!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[AtomicKitten]

135. I agree 100%.

Re-Elect Gore in 2008.

[karynnj]

151. "How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake"

which has been, unfortunately repeated, hundreds of times in the last few months alone. Kerry's Senate speech is already in some books of the last centuries greatest speeches.

[Patchuli]

155. That was a profound and great statement

and one that should be echoed again, for Iraq...

[zulchzulu]

71. This is, of course, your opinion

I've met him, seen him, talked to him, even bought him a Guinness once in Chicago. He is very, very smart. And he is a complex mix of many levels of character.

If you're thinking that he is too "nuanced" for the "Average Joe" on issues, I firmly find that assessment not really looking at the electorate for what they are or what they want.

If you think a "soundbite" candidate is better than a "nuanced" candidate, I'll show you how meaningless that is.

Here's the question. "How do you get to Cleveland from here?"

The "soundbite" candidate:

"Cleveland! Oh, yeah! I love that town!"

The "nuanced" candidate:

"OK. You need to take Route 12 east until you get to Route 80 east. Then I'd take that for a few hundred miles until you see Route 255. Then, look to approach the south side of the city because there is a lot of construction on the east and west sides. Oh, and watch for speed traps as you get near the Ohio state line."

Which answer is easier to remember for the "Average Joe"? If he wants to get lost and never make it there, but can answer back the bumpersticker answer, then some may say the "soundbote" candidate wins.

However, if a person wants to know the real answer, the "nuanced" candidate is the most valuable.

Of course, take the example of directions to Cleveland as only a template. If it's about health care reform or any other issue, I and most educated voters want the nuanced version.

I at least hope so and have found that to be the case when you work the streets doing grassroots political work.

Kerry is my number one candidate by a long shot. I just feel I've done my homework and am confidently comfortable with my choice.

[jgraz]

73. One question: Why the hell do you want to go to Cleveland?

Just asking...
:P

[zulchzulu]

117. Ever been there? Parts of it are pretty cool

Burning River Beer...mmmm...

[jgraz]

126. Never had that, but I would drink it just for the name

Any city with good beer is my kind of city.

[janx]

75. There's no way he's going to be the nominee again in 08. n/t

[Mass]

76. No flaming. Only one question?

If Kerry is that bad, why do you see him as a threat? There is no chance he will win the primary if he is that bad.

[ElboRuum]

85. Kerry isn't that bad.

I know it, you know it. But we're the choir. Preaching to us has little impact. Like I said to some others, he has difficulty relating to people who aren't already on his side, people predisposed to disagreeing with him. Whether we like it or not, we live in an era where the ability to communicate effectively with the electorate via visual mediums has made the Presidential race more one of a contest of personality rather than of issues. Yes, this sucks. But that's not going to change any time soon.

Kerry isn't that bad, he isn't a threat, but he's not a 'closer' with his detractors. Primaries are not about ideological opponents, and when among friends discussion issues is where his strength lies. It is in his somewhat... ah... less than deft handling of his ideological opponents which make him a bad choice 'round November '08.

[ProSense]

78. Obviously, you were taken by the spin!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3022553&mesg_id=3022553

[jgraz]

81. Translation: you're obviously a stupid freeper sheep who blindly swallows GOP propoganda

How dare you not be willing to spend hundreds of hours researching press clippings to find the few examples of Kerry not actually shooting himself in the foot!

ETA: :sarcasm: since by now all Kerry supporters are immune to irony

[ProSense]

84. Why would you intentionally try to insult the OP? n/t

[ElboRuum]

94. I don't believe in spin.

I believe what I see with mine own two eyes.

[YvonneCa]

104. Then watch the videos...

...:7

[ProSense]

109. Well then, forgive me, but where is this coming:

Kerry, while his platform is sound, seems to have a rift in his ability to communicate those ideas in a way that your Average Joe can relate to. It is almost as if he really doesn't understand what makes people perk up and take notice, and when he does try to be personally relative to the electorate, he's clumsy.

There is nothing to indicate that this is true: there is the media's negative narrative about Kerry being unlikeable, then there are the stories about people who actually meet Kerry and genuinely like him. From my own experience, young people, teenagers, have no problem understanding his speeches.

[jgraz]

111. The same place where your belief comes from

that Kerry isn't a clumsy speaker. Two people can watch the same event and come away with different impressions. Why are they victims of spin whenever those impressions differ from your own?

[ProSense]

115. The comments in the OP

are other people's opinions!

[jgraz]

116. I'm sorry, are you saying that the fact that other people agree with him

makes his opinions less valid?

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

[ProSense]

119. Huh? No, I'm saying that the comments in the OP are from other people! n/t

[ElboRuum]

120. Whoa. Time out.

These are my opinions. If they bear any resemblance to any others, it is testament to the fact that I'm not the only one that holds them.

[ProSense]

123. The comments in the OP, the original post that started

the thread linked to in this sub-thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3022381&mesg_id=3022562

[jgraz]

124. You need to understand

there's no way possible that anyone but the evil, vicious, lying Kerry-hating media could come up with those opinions. You may think you came up with those ideas on your own, but that only shows how completely you've been brainwashed.


Do I really need the :sarcasm:?

[ElboRuum]

130. I'm GenX

So by 'definition', sarcasm is my primary language. Such embellishments are unnecessary. In future missives, you may feel free to leave :sarcasm: out unless you feel it will be of benefit to others.

Thank you.

[jgraz]

134. hahahahah

Welcome to DU :hi:

Rule 1: You never, EVER leave the sarcasm tag off unless you want to be flamed by 2000 lonely people whose only reason to exist is to misinterpret sarcastic posts.

Rule 2: On the off chance you post something that is obviously, indisputably, no-one-but-a-moron-could-not-get-this sarcastic, Rule 1 applies.

[AtomicKitten]

137. and use several to hedge your bets

The tag-team here is an insidious bunch that has no problem and apparently plenty of time to beat a dead horse to a bloody pulp. They move in herds because it gives them the illusion (delusion ?) of a consensus, in other words wrongness in numbers.

[ElboRuum]

118. I too have no problem understanding them.

I just find myself uninspired by them. I actually took some time to watch that video 'Dissent' that others were speaking so highly of. As far as I'm concerned, my statements of not knowing how to communicate to people in a way that makes them take notice still stand.

Never once during that speech did he ever make anything personal. Everything is impersonal, pontificating, and detached. Never once did he say the one thing I think desperately needed saying during a speech that discusses the labeling of Americans who dissent as unpatriotic: "I know I'm tired of being labeled unpatriotic because I disagree. I know you are tired of being labeled unpatriotic because you disagree. And we are absolutely correct in our disgust and impatience with a war of meaningless, divisive words." Not obliquely. Not with view askance. I. We. Personal. Effective.

I really don't get what people see as passionate about this speech. He has exceptional command of the facts, but he delivers them like a UPS guy delivering a package. Sign here. Bye. Oh sure, there are ovations. Easy to do when everyone already agrees with you. Some of the time they were standing up and clapping before he had even begun to express his thought (see the bit when he says September 11). The ovations of partisans should be taken with the grain of salt they are due.

[YvonneCa]

127. I'm glad you took the time to watch the Dissent...

...speech. That shows you care and are listening. If many citizens did the same, I believe we would be in a different place today. I hope you will eventually watch some of the others, as well. I highly recommend the Georgetown University Speech on Iraq policy, October 26, 2005, the Energy speech and the Pepperdine.edu speech to start with...mostly because I believe POLICY is more important that politics right now. These speeches are all targeted at college audiences.

Kerry adjusts his speaking style depending on his audience, which becomes clear once you have watched a few. More informal settings would be South Carolina Teachers speech (bad acoustics, though), the TBA speech and some of the rallies. I do fear that you want Kerry to be 'just a regular guy', though...like the questions of 2004 "Who would you rather have a beer with, Bush or Kerry?" If that's where you are, I wish you well...but we won't agree. I don't want a beer with my President, I want him/her to help my country regain the respect we have lost around the world. :patriot:

[andyhappy]

136. ElboRuum

dont sweat it...all the people freakin. I am in your camp. Kerry had his shot, he blew it. Didn't even fight for ohio when we really needed him.

I can't believe how much support kerry has on this board.

That joke he blew....it wasn't the fact that he blew it. It was the fact that he blew his explanation. He just went back into hie whole, 'I love the troops more than anybody' line as opposed to just saying, 'look I blew the joke, but the point is that if our president had studied more in school we wouldn't be stuck in iraq'

He didn't learn one thing being the front runner in 04.




ps
I did a similar thread about a year ago and got flamed hard core. Its nice that we can all share our beliefs like a pack of 5th graders!

[beachmom]

138. Um, we're talking the president of the united states, not the next

guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show. Go read Lincoln or FDR or any of the greats. They don't tell you how they FEEL. They talk about IDEAS and the IDEALS that make this country great. Good God -- THAT'S what you're looking for? God help us.

Edited to add:

FDR only talked about his polio ONCE, only ONCE. And that was after his long trip to Yalta, and he was seated giving his speech to the Congress. So you're saying that FDR isn't a great communicator either?

[ElboRuum]

142. So you feel nothing?

"They don't tell you how they FEEL. They talk about IDEAS and the IDEALS that make this country great"???

I have, and what are you smoking? All of the great oratory is rife with passion. Ideals are ABOUT PASSION FOR A BETTER FUTURE.

"I have a dream..."
"Ask not what your country can do for you..."
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself..."
"This is a day that will live in infamy..."
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"

IDEALS are FEELINGS and they are PERSONAL. When I hear the above speeches, I feel as though I'm being engaged at some primal level which draws people to community through common experience, not obliquely relevant, detached, sanitized relation of fact. These speeches are ALL about feeling, about what it MEANS to be American. Kerry has yet to show me this kind of personal involvement in the words he speaks.

When Kerry speaks, he fails to make me believe in his personal stake. Everything is viewed askance, not from the first person. He points out details like he's pointing out something on a map. Distant. Aloof. Detached.

FDR was a great communicator, but Kerry is no FDR.

[andyhappy]

143. your good!

up to your neck in flames and kickin ass!

[ProSense]

148. Beachmom is exactly right!

Those speeches were all about a vision for the country, actionable in policy. They defined the periods in which they were given, not how the speaker "felt" at the moment!

Kerry has many such moments:

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Then go here and watch these.

[ElboRuum]

172. All of these speeches were all about feeling...

In some way, shape, or form, they express the one thing that all Americans need to be reminded of from time to time:

"We are one and we are all in this together." Talk about feelings. You miss what I mean by personal. I know a lot of people would like to believe that Kerry's loss wasn't Kerry's and there are certainly valid arguments to that effect, but the fact is that he doesn't talk like a man who sees himself on the same level as his audience. He never uses words that evoke a sense of community, never personal.

I've watched, in the past 24 hours more Kerry video, the so-called creme-de-la-creme of his oration, than I believe I would ever need to to find the great orator that everyone who has claimed such believes exist.

I'll tell you specifically what his issues as an orator are. Look at the line you gave me. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" What's wrong with that?

Well, a better line would be "How can we ask ANYONE to die for a mistake?" Emphasis and intonation on the ANYONE.

Granted this is taken out of context, but just look at what this says differently. We. This is our fault. How dare we ask this of anyone?

[YvonneCa]

179. I was hoping you would watch...

...some of the video. You must care a lot about this decision to do that. Did you watch the Livestrong Summit speech?

[karynnj]

194. I was a college student when Kerry spoke that line

I can tell you there wasn't a single person I knew at that time who didn't in the course of speaking about that whole event that didn't recite that line perfectly - exactly as Kerry said it.

I can also tell you that for the next month that school was in session that year, in every discussion of the war - Kerry was mentioned. and in 1971 there were many many discussions on the war.

There is far more imagry and poetry in Kerry's line than in yours. In fact I doubt your line would even have been noticed - it would have been one more line in a speech. Do you think Kerry is the only one who questioned whether Vietnam was worth it? I was there - he was not alone. But, what line is used by many many people to refer to it - Kerry's.

[beachmom]

169. I played that Dissent speech for my Mom, who's no big Kerry fan,

and she said she had GOOSE BUMPS. So you're just off base here. Here's some quotes from Dissent:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2723

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

Or my favorite:

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

It's poetry. And where is FDR talking about his feelings when he said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"? And dig up Abraham Lincoln. Read some of his great lines. I guess he's aloof, too.

What I know for sure is Kerry's 1971 line WILL be in the history books.

And for the person who thinks the poster is so brave against "flamers", my post is not a flame. This is a real discussion of what kind of leaders we want -- the Oprah variety or do we want a leader who takes these issues so to heart that he's willing to be attacked INCESSANTLY, and still come back for more, because serving his country comes before everything else. Because getting our troops out of Iraq is more important than being insulted in every possible way.

[karynnj]

195. You took the most famous lines of the most famous speeches

of 3 Presidents and a Civil Rights leader. Kerry's 1971 sentence actually is in that class and it is absolutely not detached - it goes to the emotional heart of the issue. It is actually MORE personal than any of those cited.

I don't see either Clinton, Dean, Edwards, Obama, Kuchinich or Clark.

[karynnj]

192. "Never once did he make anything personal"?????

The start of the speech evokes his own testimony before Congress. Did you miss "I was right to speak out ..." and ties it to his current speaking out against Bush in the first sentence.
The speech was intensely personal and emotional.

I was there and believe me it was intense! Far more than the smooth fake lip biting connections of some other speakers. The problem may be generational - you see the fake overdone emotion, but miss the genuine heartfelt emotion because Kerry isn't an actor in a bad play.

I seriously find your alternative language repetitive, trite and boring - certainly not inspiring.

[Bridget Burke]

175. Now, now, I'm sure it's just a coincidence....

That the OP's avatar means Toxic Waste!

[quinnox]

79. I have to agree

Kerry disappointed me, I thought he wouldn't make so many mistakes. He said he would have still voted for Bush's war late in the campaign and the Bush people took full advantage of it. That was a bad mistake. And before that he made his famous was for it and against it line, which the republicans used in commercials and it made Kerry look like a waffling politician and weak. And then in 2006, he reminds everyone of his tendency for gigantic verbal bloopers with his line about the troops being stupid. Kerry is history as far as the presidency is concerned. Frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing about him. And I was a supporter of his in 2004.

[YvonneCa]

100. Many of us were disappointed...

...after 2004. More than disappointed...devastated. But we have to realize who the enemy is. The enemy is not John Kerry.

I think we Democrats are sometimes the people who hurt Kerry's chances to be President the most. We need integrity, honesty and experience...lots of it...in our next President. The world has a lot of serious problems to 'undo'. John Kerry is highly qualified for the job.

What will hurt his chances is if we Democrats continue this lie/spin (that started in Republican circles) that Kerry does not connect with regular people. Anyone who has ever seen him work the crowds, relate to students on college campuses, or talk to the troops during the past three trips he's made to the Middle East since 2004, knows he relates and communicates well with people. There is a 'perception', started by right-wing spin, perpetuated by the media and some Democrats, that this is true. Your post is an example of that. The 'botched joke' incident is another perfect example: Kerry is attacked for not standing up...and as soon as he fights back, he's attacked for doing so.

The attacks coming from the Republicans make some sense...they are afraid of John Kerry gaining power. They understand his strength and courage. The attacks from Democrats, however, make little sense...why do we hurt our strongest candidates???

[JacksonWest]

83. I agree.

[wisteria]

95. I disagree, except for the part about liking Senator Kerry. I want him to try again in 08.

[beachmom]

96. Kerry is a very eloquent speaker and inspired me to get involved

with my local Democratic party. No other Democrat has affected me the way he has. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I vehemently disagree with this "he can't communicate" meme; it's just not true. Yes, he botched that Bush joke, but that was an anomaly, not the norm for him.

To illustrate my point, look at his Dissent speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/multimedia/

It's the 4th one from the bottom.

I'm from Gen X, and I can tell you this is the best political speech I've ever seen, and that includes all the Clinton speeches, too.

[Blue_In_AK]

103. At the risk of repeating myself...

John Kerry is my favorite candidate. He has been on our side for decades and continues to fight for us daily. I see no reason to cut him down, and I believe if he runs, he will have a lot of support.

This is not a flame. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[ohtransplant]

144. Count me in the "disagree" column.

I think the record shows Senator Kerry is articulate and statesman-like. Not only that but his resume contains all the attributes I'd like to see in a President. Actual experience - not hype.

To refer to him as uninspired or an also-ran is inaccurate. That's not the John Kerry I saw at campaign stops in 2004. He was persuasive, engaging and aggressive - and yes - plain spoken.

Inspiring? His Life has been an inspiration.

For anyone with an open mind (Not directed at anyone) John Kerry deserves another look. I believe we deserve an experienced statesman.

Going to dinner - will be back for the show.

[election_2004]

147. I agree that Kerry shouldn't be the nominee

I don't believe he can shake the "loser" stigma that has been stamped on him by the Noise Machine.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be the nominee in '08, not because of the myth that "she can't win" (she can, but so can almost anyone else!), but because her presidency would ignite an unprecedented coast-to-coast civil war among all social classes/groups, not to mention a congressional impasse like none other seen in the history of this country.

[wisteria]

152. oh, please Kerry knows how to handle negative press better than most other candidates.

Come back and post something like this when all the others who are running have been smeared, had their words twisted and had lies invented about them. I am sorry, but these are not good enough not to vote for him again. All candidates will be subjected to what kerry has.

[BlueIris]

157. Another poster who isn't going to be "inspired" in 2009, I guess.

Or in 2010, 2011...maybe you'll have health coverage though, even if the collapsing economy has crushed your income and drastically reduced your quality of life in every other way.

Hey, Super Genius? We don't have the luxury of nominating just any old replacement for Bush anymore (never did, in my eyes, which is why I started supporting Kerry in the first place, but I can see we have different criteria when it comes to who's qualified to run our country). The C-I-C we put in there next election actually has to be able to do the goddamn job. It is way past the time to worry about whether the candidate we run for the fucking presidency of the United States in the post-neo-fascist era has enough "personality." Not that I don't think Kerry has plenty of it in the eyes of, you know, actual voters, (how many did you register in '04, by the way?) but in 2008 as in 2004, I'm going to push to get us the nominee we need, not the one who looks the prettiest to the "Average Joe."

Why do I bother? You're either willing to think meaningfully about the future of your party and your country or you're not. We'll see how all of you deluded and uninformed enough to believe that superficial definitions of electability should determine who the Democrats run in '08 by oh, say, August of next year. We'll see how many progressives feel safe about nominating a purely "personable" candidate by the time their society has become the fetid cesspit this nation will be by that point.

[ElboRuum]

193. Answer these questions...

...and we'll see how deluded and informed all of us are, mmmkay?

1) Is it true that in order to be President that you must first win the election?

If the answer to number 1 is yes...

2) If a person cannot get elected, then it really doesn't matter how good at the job or well-intentioned he might be, right?

If the answer to number 2 is yes...

3) Which is more likely, that the average person stumps for political candidates and votes based upon a well-informed, reasoned opinion of who'll do the best job (your average DU voter), or that the average person, provided that they go to the polls at all, votes for the person that captures their imagination, regardless of (and often in the absence of) a particularly well-informed and reasoned opinion.

If the answer to number 3 is the former...

Then you are a better person than I am at explaining the following trend in Presidential elections:

Carter vs. Reagan (Reagan clearly had the weaker platform, but could communicate much better)
Reagan vs. Mondale (Mondale more progressive but, again, not an effective communicator)
Bush vs. Dukakis (Bush pretty bad as an orator and personality, but strangely, Dukakis much worse)
Bush vs. Clinton (Bush pretty bad and decidedly outclassed by Clinton)
Clinton vs. Dole (Are you kidding?)
Gore vs. Bush (Gore sincere but wooden, Bush not worth a spit but better at the personable factor, allowed the election to remain close)
Bush vs. Kerry (Bush, again, relying on personability, was able to overcome Kerry's sincerity and better ideas and again, kept the election close)

In every race, the winner was the one who could engage the people with his command of the subtle art of political rhetoric and become personal with his audience.

Just so you know, I've looked at most of the potential Democratic prospects for the office and I believe that most of them can do the goddamn job. They just need to get there.

[YvonneCa]

198. The problem is...

...sound-bite, biased, spun, media coverage...the corporate media chose their candidate.

[Old and In the Way]

158. Can't think of any Democrat I'd rather see elected President.

If he runs, he's got my vote.

[orleans]

159. kerry is a defeatist. he slunk away in defeat and headed off to arnold's

big xmas bash or some such shit.

edwards wanted to stay and fight & find out what the hell happened in ohio

not kerry--too busy listening to his handlers and not busy enough defending us.

[ElboRuum]

170. EXACTLY

If he would trust his passions... his instincts... rather than listening to the people behind him so much, he'd be more natural... less clumsy.

Is he so detached that he doesn't know that this kind of stand is exactly the sort of thing we expect from our future leaders?

[beachmom]

177. Where was the concrete irrefutable iron clad evidence for this fight?

Gee, Allen lost by less in Virginia; somehow, nobody here wanted him to contest or call for a recount.

Stop beating that dead horse. There were shenanigans in Ohio, but to prove that you could make up 120,000 votes would have been an extreme uphill battle that would have gotten us nowhere. It only would have made the Dems look bad (not just Kerry but the entire Dem Party). Real life has little to do with the goings on at DU. Most people have no clue that there are folks who think the election was stolen in Ohio. For most, '04 is over.

Kerry did the right thing to concede.

[orleans]

203. well, that's really nice that *you* were able to move on. n/t

[blm]

182. That's baloney - Edwards and Kerry were both arguing to continue but the LEGAL

team of election specialists could not come up with any math equation or any LEGAL CASE that could be made to a court to continue. They had no choice - EITHER ONE OF THEM - but to concede that day and hope that a whistleblower would come forward to rat out Blackwell.

And that was the same Dem party legal team that told Gore he HAD a case to continue.

And I would challenge you to find one specific detail of any case that Edwards said he would have made to continue. It's a myth that Edwards was fighting Kerry to continue - it never happened.

[against all enemies]

163. I agree with you 100%, from what others tell me here, you and I

must be republicans. Apparently if you're not a Kerry in 08 fan that makes you (and I) republicans. What happened to the big tent?
I'm a donkey but the clowns around here keep trying to put me with the elephants. What a circus.

[wisteria]

166. Now, that is not true. I disagree with the OP, I think Kerry still has much to offer as a candidate,

but in no way should that imply to you that because you disagree, I think you are a RWer. Frankly, I don't understand how you could even think that. There are many misconceptions about Senator Kerry, and many of them were created by the RW PR machine. Some have become accepted as fact. We are only out to correct the misconceptions, and to present honest facts on Senator Kerry to try and persuade you and others that what you think to be true about Senator Kerry, may actually not be true. Hear us out with an opened mind. We will listen to your POV too.

[against all enemies]

171. I'm not arguing that I don't like Kerry, I just don't think he can win.

He has too many negatives. Let's face it, he lost to the worst President ever. Even if it was stolen it shouldn't have been that close.

[cadmium]

164. Somehow Kerry's awkward moments are amplified while

his smooth or passionate moments are ignored. A natural bullshit artist can communicate smoothly when they are saying something they don't believe. Kerry doesn't do that well -- and I take that as a sign of honesty. When Bill Clinton says something stupid - it comes off as charming and when Kerry makes a gaffe it is a disaster. How much is political talent vs how much is incestuous media spin is really something as a lay person I can't judge.

I am 100% a Kerry supporter so I will get that bias on the table.

I also have an almost reflexive distrust of media sabotage of good dems. Jimmy Carter was slammed by the pundit class - including the liberals - in 1980.

I don't have time at the moment (at work) to send links to some examples of Kerry's decent speeches/interviews/debates--maybe later if I get back to this thread.

I personally thought Al Gore (who I love) ran a poor campaign in 2000 but I also think that he was mostly undermined by the liberal media.

I think there are lessons for Kerry here.
What did you think of Al Gore's campaigning ability in 2000?
What do you think of Al Gore's political ability now?

[wisteria]

167. I agree, Kerry doesn't bullsh*t very well, that is why I trust what he is

telling us and believe it to be true. I personally like that honest quality about him, perhaps others do not. Actually, it would be a refreshing change in the White House.

[ElboRuum]

174. Al Gore in 2K

Al coasted in 2K when he should have applied more gas. It was his to lose, regardless of the Florida bullshit. His biggest problem was making too fine a point of distancing himself from Clinton. You have to remember that most people who voted for Clinton had absolutely no problem with him knowing full well that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just a smear campaign.

Al Gore's political ability was never in question. His campaigning ability still may be.

[cadmium]

176. This is true. He was too complacent--I also think he got shafted by

the so-called liberal media -- harping on his personality consultant Naomie Wolf, his "finding himself", and sighing during the debates.

As far as a political stumble -- his people (I think) could have done a better job dealing with Ralph Nader. I get the impression they just hoped he would go away like Kerry's operatives hoped the Swift boaters wouldn't get traction.

[dailykoff]

183. Not to get technical, but doesn't this thread violate DU rule #1?

Example: "But like Dick Gephardt, Kerry has that also-ran, uninspired aspect of characters which will never fly in the electoral process."

DU Rule #1: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

:shrug:

[ElboRuum]

184. No...

Because I'm not supporting any Republican/independent/whatever. I will support a Democratic candidate for President. I just don't believe it should be Kerry.

DU, at least from what I've seen, is not an echo chamber. Disagreement seems to be well supported around here.

[dailykoff]

202. I don't find that remotely convincing. You're violating DU rules. (n/t)

[ElboRuum]

206. Well...

I'll leave that up to the moderators to decide. You are welcome to your opinion of course, but it is what it is, your convictions to the contrary aside.

You'll have to explain to me sometime how expressing my feelings that Kerry isn't the best choice for Democratic nominee for President translates into supporting a Republican or independent candidate (which is, I believe, the correct interpretation of the rule you quoted).

[dailykoff]

209. The rule is crystal clear. Maybe they just need to hear from us.

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

Right here at the top:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[ElboRuum]

210. So... exactly how is this an issue?

I am a member supportive of progressive of progressive ideals. And I do support Democratic candidates for political office. But it does not demand I support any specific one. And since we are pre-primary here, I believe that an honest discussion of potential candidates, both pro AND con is not only warranted, but necessary.

Here's a little thought experiment you can trudge through at your leisure.

How am I to vote if I don't, by necessity, support one Democratic candidate over others?

Look, I'm done with this. If you feel that you must 'take steps', it's your prerogative.

[Dr Fate]

185. Are you confusing used car salesmen and game show hosts with the Presidency?

Or closer to the truth- you are confusing being a good CANDIDATE with being a good President.

You may be right in the sense that you have to be a "good" candidate to even be President- but you may be wrong in the sense that the people of the US already saw what they get when they pick the 'best" candidate and not the best President.

I think Kerry should frame himself as "the best guy for the JOB" and humbly admit that he is "no used car salesman or gameshow host"- just a "hard worker who knows what he is doing."

Kerry could win if he takes this approach. Once he is in, I dont think he will need those game-show host, con-man qualities as much as you say he will.

[ElboRuum]

187. We are not all the same.

It is true that to become a good President you must first be a good candidate. It's an interview, and like all interviews, it's all about selling yourself to your prospective employer, in this case, the American people. And, like it or not, not all Americans are so concerned with the substance as they are with the pitch. Sad but true.

I'm not confusing it, I'm recognizing the need for it.

He could absolutely win if he takes this "I'm no used car salesman approach", that is, unless his Republican opponent uses his "used car salesman" skills to get out his message more effectively.

Once he is in, he will still need the ability to sell himself and his ideas. My guess is that a Dem-Dem WH/Congress won't be nearly as much of a rubber stamp as the Rep-Rep WH/Congress that we have now. So he's going to have to do some selling.

A non-trivial piece of the job of President is pitch-man/PR guy. He's the leader of his party and the face of their ideals, and spends quite a bit of time convincing people to support his/their agenda. If this is the case, then a case could be made that he can't do the job because I believe he really lacks these skills. I won't make it because I believe that the President should do much more thinking and much less talking than we currently have reason to expect.

I'm sure he can do the job, but so can most of the other potential Democratic nominees. But can he get elected when faced with the opposition? Can he appeal to people in the way that a leader should? I don't know.

[Dr Fate]

188. I dont disagree-but I think we underestimate or even distort his ability to convey his message.

He did not do as poorly at communicating as many on this thread would have us believe- in fact, he got half the vote if not more than half, depending on who you believe- against a war-time, incumbent President who had the media 100% on his side.

I dont disagree with much of your response- I still think a candidate like Kerry would do well to say "If you want con man who tells you what you want to hear like the last guy-vote for my opponent- if you want someone who may not be the best actor- but who knows the job and will work hard, vote for me..."

[wisteria]

190. Sen. Kerry has run good races and actually is a good politician, in the best sense.

You focus on one race, then use unsubstantiated reasons for his loss in 04, and declare him an unfit politician. Kerry has faced many tough races, and I believe, based on the mood of the public, a sitting war president and fear being feed to us on a regular basis, no one else would have done better in 04. You fail to note that he came very close, closer than any other candidate in our history to unseating a war time president. For this reason I think your post is much to negative. I see your reasoning as faulty.

[karynnj]

196. Not to mention he was a good enough politician

to defeat the other candidates for the nomination. That race was won in an overwhelming way - even though the media at various times strongly pushed others.

[ElboRuum]

200. Someone up a ways said...

...that they were impressed with my ability to hold my own in the hot seat. But even a veteran of the Message Board Wars goes weary from time to time. Yours may be one of the last I respond to.

Firstly, he's only had one Presidential race, and these are quite different than Senatorial races in a friendly state with incumbency on your side.

Secondly, I believe that it was HIS loss. The base demanded more from him. More defense and counterattack when under attack from the Reps. Regardless of the electoral shenanigans, it should never have been that close, just like Gore's coasting to the finish line in 2000 allowed Bush to win. In 2K4, at least from the conversations I've had with fellow Democrats (not here, but in my personal life) they voted for Kerry because they had to, not because they wanted to. Many wanted Howard Dean to be nominated, others Kucinich. Reason most commonly given: he just doesn't 'do it' for me. Paraphrased, of course.

Thirdly, I did not declare him and unfit politician. I think he's a top flight Senator and probably one of the few in the den of iniquity that is the Senate chambers who is deserving of admiration and should probably get at least a B on his report card.

Fourthly, of course my post is negative. I'm giving my reasoning why Kerry is a bad choice. I'm sure if I thought Kerry was a good choice it would have been much more positive. And if we'd have scored more points than the other team we would have won the game.

The fact of the matter is that while Kerry may be a capable Senator, he doesn't have the right qualities for President, and his opponents were able to exploit that. He failed to challenge their assertions when it was relevant and he allowed them to dominate the conversation. He allowed his opponents to define him, paint him as the one thing he COULDN'T POSSIBLY OR REASONABLY BE PAINTED AS, left it sit way too long, and allowed the close margin they needed.

But my primary contention of him as an ineffective orator is what is at issue here, and I believe he was ineffective during the '04 campaign, and judging by the videos I've seen on his website, I still believe that. He's factual, but dispassionate. He claims outrage, but doesn't show any. Even a simple smile looks like a pained and contrived act. His sincerity is genuine, but it seems false to me, because I know how I get when I talk about things that inspire personal outrage in me, and I know I allow myself a little license to express my anger. I believe he would be excellent if he could just get over this... this... reticence to engage in personal expression beyond the emotional display you might find in a physics lecture hall.

[ProSense]

201. I accept that you don't like Kerry!

I don't suppose everyone will! Of the 13 potential candidates, there will be people who are staunchly opposed to each of their candidacies as well. I don't think that makes all of them unqualified to run, nor does it detract from whatever presidential qualities they possess.

So, that's it. You don't like Kerry. You can support another candidate.

I believe he will make a great president, one of the best ever!

[Imagevision]

204. It's 2006 and with Obama - Edwards available? I feel good!!

[ripple]

205. It isn't even about Kerry

It's about how people respond to him. He's principled, intelligent, and a patriot. I agree with your assessment in th OP. He sounds great to me, but I follow politics and look to the issues, rather than feeling the need to somehow be entertained. The majority of people don't do that.

I think a second run would produce dismal results. I like the guy, too, and it's cool with me if he runs- after all, he meets the qualifications outlined by the constitution. Regardless of whether or not he runs, I'll still be supporting a candidate that I believe can actually win, and not by a narrow margin.

On the other hand, if Kerry runs and gets the nod, I'll back him all the way. No more football or windsurfing photo-ops, though. Perhaps he should take up billiards. ;-)