How about a middle of the road on this Kerry thing....

[vi5]

I'm a Kerry agnostic at this point. But Is it possible to think that his "denial" today on Imus was less than heartening while at the same time finding the vultures on here expressing glee over this to be more than a little pathetic?

It was not even so much the nervous cough/laughter thing that made me uneasy. I think that was just the way you react when an uncomfortable subject is going to come up but hasn't been broached yet. But just the wording and phrasing left me a little less than comfortable.

The only thing that doesn't jive for me is that Kerry's critics are always accussing him of being careerist and calculating every move towards his political future (I kind of agree with this, even though it doesn't bother me as much as it does some people) then why would he do something like this? Especially after Clinton. I'm not saying anybody is above stupid behavior, but it does seem out of character.

We'll see. My gut feeling is that people didn't care about this stuff when Clinton was running....and most people didn't even care about it when it came out when he was president. And both of those times there was little else to worry about in the country since everything was going well. Now that we've got a lot bigger fish to fry and problems to solve, I just can't see this really working to the right's advantage.

I could be wrong.

[Guaranteed]

1. They DON'T care...but, in a primary, it matters.

They're nominating Kerry because they think he's "electable." If this is true, he's not "electable."

And no one wants to relive what happened with Clinton, during an election. Ten months of this garbage? No way.

[vi5]

2. I guess I don't see why this makes him not electable....

Any more than it did Clinton. That's my point. I just don't think that given the feelings in this country now and after all we've been through...that even if this is true that people will care enough to have it affect their vote either way. I really don't.

I think at this point it's all in his handling of it. If he comes out and even admits its true and says that it's between him and his wife and this girl then I honestly thing it would have zero impact on the election.

I do agree that if the non-denial-denials keep up that it could be an issue.

We'll see.

[dsc]

4. because more than a few people

took Clinton's promise not to engage in that behavior again seriously and watched, with horror, as he did so and ground his presidency to a halt. Yes, the Republicans were both hypocirtes and Inspector Javets when it came to this, but Clinton provided the underlying charge for them to be that way and did so after repeatedly telling us he wouldn't.

[quaker bill]

13. It is simple really

Because the bad experience with Clinton will make people recoil at the notion of reliving it.

There is no rocket science here.

In my estimation, it is not a matter of "how it is handled". The party has been voting for Kerry as a "low risk" or "electable" choice. If there is any substance to this at all then the perception of Kerry being "low risk" or "electable" collapses.

I honestly believe that crap like this should not matter. But it will.

[liberalnurse]

5. No way in my lifetime

do I ever want to relieve a Clinton-like scandal. I don't want to waste valuable time for the Party and the people we serve. So many have suffered since the Clinton-Monica affair. We lost it all because of it; Congress, the White House and the future Supreme Ct. seats....It takes a generation to regain.

I don't have the patience to wait. Maybe he needs to come clean this weekend.

[polmaven]

11. If President Clinton had not

wagged his finger and denied it so vehemently, and had not essentially equivocated while under oath, but had come out at the beginning and admitted the affair, the outcome, IMO, would have been far different.

The American public made it very clear during that time that we didn't care about the man's sex life, and, as a matter of fact, that we weren't really all that happy about the impeachment! If Bill Clinton had been able to run for a 3rd term, I truly believe he would have won hands down.

John Kerry is NOT naive enough to have NOT learned from that.

So far,we have a full story written by the National Enquirer. That story was picked up by Matt Drudge, and is now being "noted" by the mainstream. We also have a report from the Sun Times, a Rupert Murdoch paper, saying that he tried to woo her, and there is no proof that there was an affair. If Murdoch can't do better than that.......I mean...He offered her a job.....OMG!!!

Unless it is proved that Kerry chased her, caught her against her will, raped her, and then threatened (and/or paid)her to keep her mouth shut, I don't believe this will go anywhere. Lets wait and see what kind of legs it grows before we pronounce the man unelectable. Do you not think the RW is capable of using the same story, change the name, against ANY of the Democratic candidates?

Lets not automatically assume the truth of the story.

edit for punctuation

[mopinko]

3. wrongo

first- "then why would he do something like this?"
monkeys invented politics to see who would get the babes. deep, deep down that is the primitive drive that fuels the climb to power. genes- passing on the genes. add that to the stories posted here about the boston talk show host who like to light up the phones by saying- tell us your jk stories. they all ended with "don't you know who i am?" that's why.

second- "My gut feeling is that people didn't care about this stuff when Clinton was running....and most people didn't even care about it when it came out when he was president"

people had no idea how this was going to be spun and inflated. even the people who thought it was ridiculous then are puking now at the thought of 4 more years.

his ONLY HOPE of making this go away is to come clean and move on. an di think this is slim slim slim.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

6. He flatly denied it, there is no reason to "assume" it is true

Too many people here are too anxious to see this story grow legs whether there is any truth to it or not. i don't believe for a minute Kerry would flatly deny this if he did indeed have an affair with her.

Even the story in the Brit paper that quoted her parents said that her parents said they DID NOT have an affair. THAT doesn't seem to be enough for the vultures foaming at the mouth demaning Kerry drop out of the race.

This is truly pathetic.

[seventhson]

7. He did NOT flatly deny ANYTHING

It was a Nondenial denial.

"Nothing to report. Not a story. I am not worried about it"

I am NOT impressed with his dancing around it.

[eileen_d]

9. You've got to be kidding!

That is a denial.

It seems to me that some people won't be satisfied unless they can put words in Kerry's mouth. That's not going to happen.

[CWebster]

8. hasn't stopped him from lying or positioning himself

on any other subject....from war to botux.

[polpilot]

12. I immediately thought of 'easy rider' Kerry on his motorbike and thought,

'Fits.'

Dean '04...America's Patriot

[vi5]

10. I'm no Kerry hater at all, and I don't WANT this to be true...

But when Clinton came out and said "I did not have......" then I was one of the people saying "That's it he denied it unequivically. Nothing more to see here".

You have to admit that Kerry this morning was slightly less emphatic than even Clinton's statement was.

Like I said, I don't want it to be true. But I'm worried and for me personally he really didn't soothe my worries as much as I would have liked.

[quaker bill]

14. No it is not

The man is being marketed as a "low risk" or "electable" candidate. It is based in an appeal to emotion and speculation.

This is the weakness of this approach. Not only is this approach very vulnerable to just this sort of attack, but in fact, it will elicit them. The only counter argument to the premise that a candidate is the "low risk" choice is to point out the risk factors.

A campaign based on issues is debated on the issues. A campaign based on perceptions of "electability" is debated on measures of "electability". This story is a direct assault on "electability". Kerry's approach has set him up for exactly this kind of attack.

I have been saying this for a while. This is the essential weakness in Kerry's campaign. This is not specific to John Kerry, the same weakness would be there for any other candidate that chose this path.

I made my choice of candidate on other issues and do not find this kind of scandal relevant personally. However since scandals are the only response material to the theme of "electability", expect to see more.