DU's love-hate relationship with JK: some rambling thoughts

[ginnyinWI]

Why do some Kerry threads out there continue to get over 200 responses, while others, like those about Edwards get maybe 5? Given that some are trolls,I have an idea that more support for JK than people realize is lying dormant, ready to be re-activated.

For now that support is covered over by some negative emotions: anger--"he didn't win!" and also fear--"he's going to try again, and lose us another election!" But then--darnit--the man just keeps doing things that, if done by any other Dem, would cause them to pledge their undying loyalty. He's irresistable!

I guess it's a case of dissonance:
"I should support this guy! No! I can't support him, he lost! No! He's saying exactly the right thing! No! He'll never make it a second time!" This might account for a lot of the responses in the threads. People are just trying to figure it all out--this is something new for Democrats, after all: a politician who remains viable after a presidential loss.

To me, this is a fertile field. All they need is to get past their fears and start believing the JK can win again. I can see why JK is thinking seriously of running again, because I can really see how it could happen. But I think the far left will be the hardest group to win over--I think they are a very cynical bunch! Many are very idealistic and populist and really distrustful of anything that smacks of the establishment. They're always looking for some new hero who will make everything good again. They'd much rather get behind some unknown person who "appears" to be that hero.

Moderate Dems and recently disillusioned Republicans who have regretted their '04 vote will be another group to win over, but they are probably less idealistic and more practical. This group of voters votes on pracical matters. According to something I read recently, it was white non-college-educated married women who really put * over the edge in the last election. And their issue was "national security". It shouldn't be too hard to convince the working class than Dems are better on national security now. And doesn't JK have above-average credibility on national security when compared with the other Dems on the list of possible nominees? Plus he has that all-important name recognition.

I don't know if I'm writing anything coherent here--just some random thoughts that have been rattling around in my head lately. Thanks for listening. :)

[karynnj]

1. Interesting thoughts

I wonder if the people who post may well be more committed to a specific candidate than those who don't. It would make sense as it might be that what drove them to post rather than just occasionally read might be that they felt a need to defend or praise a candidate they liked. Having put themselves on the line, they are unlikely to switch candidates. Also, the entire spectrum of Democrats is not reflected on DU - only the more liberal side.

In 2008, one of two things will happen. Either Hillary will move to the left to be closer to the middle of the party. She and Bill will then mount a very public, media wise, return to the good times campaign- we'll hear the Fleetwood Mac song again and a huge steam roller will give Hillary the nomination. In which case all the flame wars and negativity between the more anti-war part of the party will have been for naught.

The other possibility, is that the anti-war side will coalesce behind someone. This reality is why Kerry's threads produce so many posts. We see them as "Kerry did something good again", they see them as "we need to remind people why he's still on the bad list" for the 2 reasons you gave and because it is counter to their dream that their candidate become President. That the most posts aren't for the cute "Kerry on Jury duty" threads, but Kerry's op-ed or Kerry's Faneuil Hall speech threads, makes sense as they want any lurkers to not align with Kerry.

There are less for others because in general there is less fear of them succeeding. Even though they don't admit it, it seems each group of supporters fears Kerry the most.

The Gore group is almost a group looking for a savior. There are 4 Al Gores - the conservative Senator, the competent VP in a moderate to conservative administration, a nominee who was wooden who won the nomination because it was his turn, and an angry to very angry critic who came back after 18 months away. Oddly some of his biggest advocates now may have voted for Nadar in 2000. The problem is which Al Gore does he run as and as he puts together a platform that needs to go beyond global warming and advocate for it, he can't be the angry Al. But, the decent, dedicated soft spoken Al was the wooden boring Al these guys didn't like. In the 3 debates, Gore did try 3 demeanors and was criticized by many. As a non-candidate, Gore doesn't have to answer anything he doesn't want to. I don't think he has recommended what to do about Iraq.


Before the Gore phenomenon started, Feingold was likely the closest to a DU hero, but while almost everyone sees him as commendable, he has not shown that he can lead. Feingold could have easily had the "Kerry" role on Alito, he was better positioned - and the strongest case Kerry made was on "Feingold" like issues - constitutional rights and balance of powers. Kerry's last speech (rudely interrupted) was spellbinding because Kerry very simply and dramatically personalized those issues. I'm sure Feingold cared as much, but he doesn't have Kerry's passion and eloquence. Feingold would have difficulty convincing people that he is strong enough on national defense. On Iraq, Feingold is trying to be the leader, but Kerry's plans have been more detailed, have had the diplomatic piece and Kerry can speak more convincingly on war.

The Clark people have been very touchy on Iraq. When Kerry's op-ed came out one had several posts that even claimed that Clark already was for it before Kerry- by virtue of a comment that there was a closing window of opportunity. This weekend they were obviously concerned about a blogged comment of Clark wanting to "tamp down the come home now" people. Their responses were to send people to long long interviews and position papers that were hard to find answers in. (But he is clear and concise unlike that Kerry who never has a snappy answer.) The likelihood is they like Kerry's position better but are unwilling to give up their allegiance - which explains the "blank check" and other threads.

Edwards may be under represented here - if the polls are accurate. The media support he has is the biggest concern I have. I think the focus group opinion on him - which coincides with the opinions of 2 non-political NC relatives - is likely accurate. His resume is still slim and while likable, he really didn't live up to expectations in 2004.

[ginnyinWI]

8. I like your analysis!

The Al Gore people, who can just about pick which Al they like--in other words make them into their own image.
Likewise for Clark, who is a good guy but untested--and yes, I've seen how they are touchy and protective about him. I don't think we do that here--but then we are behind the guy who won the party's nomination.

Fear is probably the single biggest reason for all of the reaction by posters--fear of JK's political power. I suppose if he were someone I didn't believe in, I'd be afraid, too. I agree, he is moving in on Feingold's turf and doing it better--or did Feingold move in on JK's turf, and he's taking it back? I do think they are very close ideologically.

People at DU want a new face, unless we're talking about Al Gore! Hillary's not really a fresh face either, and I think too centrist to attract this crowd. In general, the fresher the face, the less bagage they have and the more DUers can idealize them.

Any way we look at it, it's interesting. And when it gets bad around here, I just remind myself that DU is just the fringe, just a fraction of the Dem base.

[karynnj]

26. Fresh face, but with considerable experience and gravitas

I honestly think that in today's world, it is nearly impossible for someone with both to exist. Tay Tay has pointed out that, at and given time, there is really only a small pool of people who could reasonably be considered as President. (Bush, I think made it only as a proxy for his dad)

Clark was as close to a dark horse as I can remember - and while his foreign policy expertise was not in doubt - his lack of a record meant you couldn't project whathe would do based on he said and did in past. His military record proves his competence, but he (correctly) only did what he was commanded to do. He could almost make his personal views whatever he wanted.

I think that Feingold and Kerry likely always had the same turf. Kerry had Wellstone/Kerry to Feingold's McCain/Feingold. It's funny that on that issue, Feingold was the one who compromised and was a sponsor to a bill that likely did as much harm as good. On the Patriot Act - it's clearly the opposite with Kerry voting for a bill that he thought had more good than bad.

I think DU is far better than a year ago. I joined a little after you did and initially stayed in the group because Kerry was absolutely hated in DU. Now, there are names I don't recognize that defend him and those that critisize him are either clearly supporters of others or greenies.

[beachmom]

2. Then there are people who we don't want to support JK

Look in this thread a little bit down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1097907

They're calling for the bombing of the new American embassy. And I called them on it, and then they kept defending such an immoral statement. Their remarks were not unlike Kos's "screw them" outburst. God -- are some of these people going the way of the Weather Underground? Totally crazy and violent. Is this against the rules at DU?

[karynnj]

3. They are sick

and yeah, I was ignoring the radical fringe. I was a college student in the late 60s and early 70s. If anything the weather underground was more embedded in parts of the peace movement. I vaguely remember that they bombed a lab in one of the midwest universties (as well as causing an unintented explosion in a NYC townhouse). If anything they hurt the anti-war movement.

It was likely good there was no internet then.

I hope they have some rules on calls to violence as they're wrong and I think illegal.

[Mass]

5. The poster you answered too is totally crazy.

There is nothing that can justify his words, as bad as the project is.

This said, they are missing one of the worst element. I dont know if I will be able to find the source, but in the middle of the embassy, there is an open-sky swimming pool. Who was crazy enough to order that! How long before satellite pictures of men and women in swimming pools at the embassy are shown on the web and used to recruit new terrorists?

Incompetence in all its splendor!

Actually, dont read the GD thread, but read the article. It is frightening and aside from the violence of some people in the thread (I agree totally with you), the people who are outraged are right. This is purely stupid because it feeds the idea that the US wants to colonize Iraq or that it spends tons of money on this that could be used for something better.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2162249,00.html

[beachmom]

6. The moderator deleted the first message but not the others

Yes, I agree the article is devastating. Imperialism in a completely obvious form. But I was watching PBS yesterday about King Ludwig II in Bavaria who built Neuschwanstein, which the Walt Disney castle is modelled after, and now it's a museum (I went there -- it was great). My feeling is that this is what the embassy will become one day -- a museum. Too bad our tax dollars have to fund it.

I'm going to alert the mods to delete the other 2 messages. Then I'll delete mine.

Not to sound like a narc, but does DU contact the authorities when such violent speech happens? Hopefully, the posters are lazy people who only type that crap on the computer and would never do anything rash, but . . . it may be illegal.

Karynnj:

It was Univ. of Wisc. where a bomb was planted and there was one person in the building who was killed. I was told this story over and over again by conservatives in Wisconsin who despised the anti-war movement. Those radicals REALLY hurt the cause. I think I read there were some radicals and those tending toward violence in VVAW, so that is why Kerry had to leave. He could only keep them in line for so long . . .

[karynnj]

7. I was at Indiana University at the time

There was a marked decrease in the number of anti-war rallies soon after that time.

It actually sounds that Kerry not only tried to rein in violence in the VVAW. It sounds like he pulled many people into the more moderate VVA. His 1971 Senate comments show how concerned he was with people who came back after being changed by the military into not being horrified by killing. In Going Upriver, Bobby Mueller had some comments of how Kerry was able to calm a lot of people down and that that was very necessary.

[ginnyinWI]

9. I was attending UW-Madison spring of '71

I think the bombing must have happened either that semester or the one before it; I remember seeing the building with its boarded up windows.

That spring there were several anti-war demonstrations, and the smell of teargas was frequently in the air. But I didn't personally see any violence. The most I saw were stand-offs between the kids and the cops.

edit: Duh! (slaps forehead) It has suddenly hit me why I never saw that JK '71 speech at the time. I was in school and didn't have access to or ever watch any television at that time. (Back then, boys and girls, a student's room did not automatically contain a TV, DVD player, stereo, phone,toaster,microwave or what-have-you like they do today.)

[beachmom]

10. What -- you mean in the "olden days" :)

Sorry for hijacking your thread a little. I had never seen anything that crazy on DU before, and just felt like I needed to share and your thread seemed sorta related.

Back to the original topic, I think it is 2 things:

1. Fear that Kerry will lose twice (like Adlai Stevenson)
2. Distrust by lefties of Kerry as being Establishment, corporate, or whatever because of his background. Of course, Dean comes from an even more elitist background, so I think it has to come down to their not liking Kerry's personality, which is actually NOT his personality but the one projected by the media during the General Election and by primary opponents before that.

Solution:

He must prove he can win (that will be how he does against Hillary during the primaries)

He needs his real self to come through the television screen and he's really improved here, especially that Dissent speech.

[ginnyinWI]

11. oh that's ok--it is related

(some seriously off-base people on DU, I agree!)

I think Dean was more appealing to them because he was not "Washington", and therefore a more legitimate "hero" for them. At first glance JK is just one more establishment pol--until you look at his bio and listen to him speak for a few minutes. Why couldn't they do that? Why rely on the stereotypes Rove was shoving at them?

Your solution is right. He's got to become the champion of the left v.s. Hillary. And it's ALL the Dems who will vote, not just DU (thankfully!)

[karynnj]

12. With Dean and Kerry

it's also how they act. Dean grew up on Fifth Avenue facing Central Park - it's hard to get more elite than that. He certainly didn't work a labor job for spending money. The difference is that Kerry absorbed the dignity and formality of his family. Dean is a few years younger. I really think that makes a hugh difference. Kerry was in college when the 60s really hit - (to put it in popculture terms) Kerry was out of college before Sg Pepper. His part of the 60s was the Kennedys.

It's also just temperment Kerry is able to control his temper (or more amazing) takes a long time to get angry. Dean has a short fuse. In the real world, the Kerrys win, here among the fringe Dean wins because he's angry.

On the how do you debate Hillary - someone far down questions if there will be an effect because she's a woman. I answered vaguely, but wanted to say that Kerry's patient gentlemanly personality puts him at an advantage over many guys. That the 1971 reporter who did the interview that Whome posted a few weeks ago mentioned that Kerry almost immediately sat down rather than intimitate her - she was surprised what a big guy he was- struck her enough that she commented on it.

[ginnyinWI]

14. Yup, it's the anger that they love

Red meat, for sure. Anybody who blasts the administration gets the applause--even JK when he sought the filibuster or when he gives a fiery speech. But they need a new fix after a few days!

On Dean v. Kerry-- people probably mistake Kerry's self control for phoniness--like he really doesn't care. But that's just his temperament and his upbringing. He's naturally upbeat, for one thing, and stuff he's gone through in life gives him a philosophical attitude: after experiencing being shot at, what's a few verbal insults? Vietnam put life in a new perspective.

I think technically the Baby Boom generation was born between 1946 and 1964, so that would make JK a war baby instead. So were the Beatles, by the way--old enough(1940-1943) to be cultural heros for those of us who were in our teens in the 60s.
Everything began changing after JFK was assassinated and the Beatles arrived in the U.S. a few months later. That was the real start of the 60s; the "Kennedy 60s" was more an extension of the 50s.

[ProSense]

4. Great point!

Two things are certain: JK has a lot of support and there is a lot of support still up for grabs. These include not only the disaffected and disillusioned, but also the formerly apathetic voter.

[TayTay]

13. It's still so early.

There are still so many things that could and probably will happen. I think that Kerry is where he needs to be. He is showing that another run would not be like the last run and that he has learned from the last race. I think he is more 'himself' but don't ask me to define that, as I can't do it. I think Kerry has the baseline support to contemplate a run, I think he has money and I think he has that elusive 'other' that shows someone who really, really wants it. (Al Gore doesn't have this. He just doesn't.)

Actually, to tell you the truth, the closer we get to the time for a decision on whether or not Sen. Kerry will make another run, the more interesting it gets. He is innovating lately though a lot of this is going under the rader. (Not even most of DU is noticing it.)

[ProSense]

15. Great assessment!

It's early, but getting interesting.

[JI7]

16. it was this way even before Kerry became the nominee

for those who were on DU before the 2004 elections and even before Kerry won the nomination. what you describe has been the case with Kerry threads long before that.

but as you say, there is also a positive side to it.

[JohnKleeb]

17. I still think its because they're bitter because Kerry beat their people

If it was about Kerry "giving up" two years ago they would realize that what he's done since has mattered a lot.

[JI7]

18. that is the case with many of them

and as always it goes back to the primary thing. i notice the more honest ones say they wont support him in a primary but they support what he does.

but the ones that bash him no matter what usually are angry about the primary.

[JohnKleeb]

19. I think it's anger and a self delusion that

Diebold rigged the caucus for Kerry, to which I ask how do you rig a caucus and secondly if the primaries were rigged why Kerry?

[JI7]

20. why Kerry ?

skull and bones of course. hahhahaha

[JohnKleeb]

22. Oh crinkey I forgot

It says alot that very few of them can admit that Kerry outdid their candidate in 2004. Oh well that's their problem not mine.

[karynnj]

25. What's strange is some can't even admit that Kerry did anything better

On the thread about debating Hillary, there was a swarm of Clarkie's all agreeing with each other that Clark was the winner of the primary debates. They then go onto to referring to people saying so. I remember those debates - and know, overall, who was by far the best. Clark was caught off guard more than once when the topic wasn't war or foreign policy.

The claim that the media was most negative to Clark ignores several "Knight in shining Armor" stories that I admit were initially compelling. (The perrenial Democratic hope for the perfect dark horse candidate)

The Edwards people bemoaning that he didn't have the money in NH and Iowa is another. He raised nearly as much in early 2003 as Kerry. He personally had the fortune to do easily what Kerry did only by risking his home. As to Edwards' eloquence, where was it at the convention or in the debates with Dick Cheney? Edwards' couldn't have written or given Kerry's Faneuil Hall or 1971 speech.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Do we even know if Clark is going to run again for sure?

If anyone wants to know why Clark lost the nomination in 2004 it goes back to him withdrawing from the Iowa campaign. This isn't a knock at him because he nor could we all predict that Kerry would shock and beat Dean and Gephardt in Iowa in the way he did. So Clark invested most of his early primary time in to New Hampshire where he was gaining some momentum until Kerry shocked in Iowa and carried htat momentum to New Hampshire and beyond. I think Clark is a good guy but I don't know if I could vote for him in a presidential primary, definely as the nominee I may add however I feel partial to people who have actual experience with the government as either legislators or executives. That's my preference though not everyone feels the same way. If I recall when Clark first entered the race he got a lot of attention and was even leading in some primary polls. The candidate I'd support for me understands both domestics and foreign policy well which is why I am partial to Kerry right now. Not saying that Clark is a dummy on domestic issues nor am I saying Edwards is a dummy on foreign policy issues. However, I think Kerry of all the possible candidates understands domestics and foreign policy the most and furthermore his views are most similiar to my world view. I like Warner but some of that has to with a favorite son thing. I think people need to get over the 2004 primaries. They wouldn't be acting this way if their person had won but because they in my opinion want to rationlize or make excuses for their candidate's defeat instead of doing the mature thing and admitting that they were outdone. Sorry for the rant.

[ray of light]

21. I think Kerry is winning vets and women both.

The men well....It's hard for men to give up being Republican or anything else. I think it's part of that whole 'strength" thing that Bush utilized. Strong but not going to change his mind...

[ginnyinWI]

23. yeah and actually,

What passes for "strong" with * is actually only stubborness. On 9/11 he was the Missing President, heading for Norad or somewhere. Yeah--a real leader. :sarcasm: He was the president, and could have gone against everybody's advice, if that's the excuse.

Meanwhile, JK was thinking, "where's my gun?" and had to be talked out of heading up to New York immediately to help out.

[JohnKleeb]

24. I hadn't heard that story

Re: Kerry being talked out of heading to New York to lend a helping hand. I agree with oyu though it's stubborness. I like someone who sees the world in shades of gray rather than black and white. The latter is what Bush does, Kerry is definely more of the former.

[zann725]

27. Criticism I hear often from PRIOR JK supporters is that he'll "abandon"

them again...give up quickly, and walk away from EF.

"Loser," is also a comment I hear a lot from prior supporters (though I don't think they really mean it deep down.) Instead, I think they feel disillusioned at all the wasted hope and efforts they put into his campaign...along with his QUICK retreat (without protest) to questionable Exit Poll results. "Why bother this time?" they cynically reason.

JK really needs to bolster his image to "fight back" tis time...not only negative "Swiftboat"-type ads but also NO 'retreat' permitted AT ALL if poll results even 'smell' of tampering with.

I feel JK can win them back...particularly in light of the REAL "energy" in his recent Boston speech, and his equally "positive" appearance on Donny Deutsch the other night.

Let "Kerry be Kerry" this time...handlers. And I DO believe he'll win...that is, IF he also "fights back" like Repugs do. Polite and "fair" is nice...but when competing against thugs...gotta be tough there, Rocky!

[karynnj]

28. I agree

and think it might also be partially the intensity of the degree that many did believe in Kerry as a leader that made it harder when he lost. He convinced people that he was strong and he could win - that he would protect us, then couldn't.

That same feeling has been expressed by a lot of us here - This was a very very hard loss. Partially because as Kerry said a million times, it was the most important election in our lives and (to this point) it was. The difference is that we see that Kerry fought as hard and as well as he could. I hope that the lapdogs book at least generates discussion. What Kerry was up against was unprecedented. Throw in the voting irregularities (or worse) and you can see superman would have lost.

Now, the point is that Kerry is STILL fighting back - he never went away. But, he is doing it by working productively, supporting Democrats and putting the country first. There is a wave of buyer's regret regarding Bush/Gore. With more focus on the media (and I know one book does not a trend make) and on voting problems, I hope there is a change in the perception of Kerry - back to the positive convention and the respect for him after the first debate.

The likable, funny, but serious and brilliant Kerry seen in the best interviews is the Kerry of that convention. He is a grown man who would jump into water to save a hamster because he knew what it meant to his daughters. (How he lost the non-college educated white women's vote to the dad of the brats who snickered "Let's just say our hamster didn't make it" is still beyond me.) What it said was how far he would go for those he cared about.

[ginnyinWI]

29. the Superman factor

Yeah a lot of people thought he was indeed Superman and would use his Super Powers to win the election, regardless of the realities on the ground. So to them, of course he didn't do everything he could have. It's childish and unrealistic whining, but what can you do--they defy logic.

I so agree with your last point! And I also thought that to this demographic of women, looking at the difference between Kerry's daughters and the chimp's should have been very convincing. My mom is a white, non-college educated woman: she thought the Bush girls were bratty and really was impressed by the Kerry girls!
But it wasn't enough to sway her vote; in her case it was because of a life-long habit of letting her husband make the big decisions for her. I think education level has a lot to do with whether you think for yourself or not.