Why is Kerry Campaign imploding?

[WI_DEM]

At one time John F. Kerry seemed to be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. A man of great intellect, a good liberal record, and a personal history as a war hero. But something happened?

Can it be only his vote on the Iraqi Resolution? At one time in early 2003 Kerry was leading in NH by double digits. Now in the daily tracking polls he is in third place with 13%, three points below Wes Clark's 16%. When the tracking polling began on December 26th he was in second with 19%.

Clearly if Kerry comes in third in NH he is finished. He really has no other state to go to. He would be the first candidate to withdrawl, imo. (I think Gephardt will probably come in a close second in Iowa--well enough that he will continue).

What happened to Kerry? and does he deserve this fait if it does happen?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. we can't trust him because of NAFTA and the IWR

He does have a good record, but he consistenly sells us out on MAJOR IMPORTANT, HISTORIC issues - like the IWR and these anti-democratic "free trade" agreements.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. I wanted him to be the 44th President as of March of 2001, and....

I constantly supported him until the Iraq War Resolution. At that point a became an undecided. I was looking at Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich but I was unsure as to who I wanted. I am now a Wes Clark person. I believe that he is a social progressive who cares about people and he respects the International Community too.

John Kerry is a liberal/progressive too, but he screwed his own campaign up BIG TIME. He lost alot more support for flip-flopping on his war vote too.

[Atlant]

18. What Progressive1 said, except...

What Progressive1 said, except I landed in the Dean camp.

I really, really wanted to like Kerry, went to his events,
talked with him or his staff on several occassions, and
came away shaking my head "No".

Atlant

[WillyT]

35. Me Too, I Was Kerry, Landed In Dean's Camp !!!

For awhile there, I thought that the ONLY Dem that I could support and that would be capable of beating Bush, was John Kerry.

Interesting year, no???

:shrug:

[kerrygoddess]

3. Thank the Media! And FYI Kerry is not imploding!

Media:
The media thinks that if they put Howard Dean on enough magazine covers, Senator John Kerry will be irrelevant. It is really a huge joke isn't it? Howard Dean is getting all this media attention because he opposed the war against Iraq? Do you get the irony, or has it gone over your head, simply because the media is hiding the real story?

The real story is that the media is blaming John Kerry because the Bush Administration lied to secure a blank cheque to wage an unprovoked war, and John Kerry is fighting mad. In the meantime, the only obsession of the partisan media is to blame John Kerry for Bush's deception.

Lightweights like Howard Dean get a free ride from the media, because he does not threaten George Bush's re-election prospects. When was the last time the media gave a peace candidate so much attention? Remember John Lennon, he wasn't even a politician, and reporters spent most of their time trying to ridicule a man who promoted peace. Why is the media giving Howard Dean so much attention and publicity? Why don't they ridicule Howard Dean?

Reality:
The reality is, the media knows that John Kerry has the power to pulverize the Bush candidacy, and they also know that peace activists like Howard Dean are irrelevant until the shooting stops. Face it, the media is trying to lynch John Kerry, and if you do not believe that, just think back to the Clinton impeachment --another attempted lynching that failed, because Clinton's grass-root support, came through. Ironically, the assertion that Howard Dean has more grass-root support than John Kerry is the biggest joke since the failed impeachment. The other big joke is that the media is giving Al Gore publicity for inventing the claim that Howard Dean's grass-roots supporters control the Internet.

Did you know that Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and Senator Edward Kennedy have endorsed Senator John Kerry or is the media too busy promoting Howard Dean's supporters? Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is a good, intelligent supporter, but Senator Kennedy has arguably given and sacrificed more for his country than any living American, and if that is not the most significant endorsement thus far, it is probably because the mainstream media is too busy trying to find another way to create the impression that Howard Dean merits more publicity.

The mainstream media clearly understands the process. Salivating reporters failed to successfully impeach President Clinton because the people are smarter than the reporters, and now, the reporters are playing hardball. They suddenly think that if they tell all the people that Howard Dean is the grass-roots candidate, the people will believe them. Make no mistake about it, this report will not receive the light of day in the mainstream media because it's about the candidate who is the most progressive and most qualified to be the President of the United States, and that is what you call a grass-roots campaign. Howard Dean's grass-roots act is merely a matter of using blowhards to claim that the Internet is supporting Howard Dean. Very crafty, aren't they?

How many reporters does it take, to throw John Kerry off his feet?

If you watch CNN, the media is ignoring John Kerry, except when the media seeks to prosecute Kerry because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution. That is the only time that the media promotes John Kerry, and it is not to applaud his decision but to create the impression that Howard Dean, who did not even have to agonize over the vote because he is not a Congressman or a Senator, is a peace activist who merits constant, media publicity. Funny, isn't it, the media is giving Howard Dean millions of dollars worth of free publicity for doing nothing. Compared to the do-nothing, say-anything, Howard Dean, Senator John Kerry's progressive record is unrivaled, amongst all the Democratic candidates, and the media thinks that if it puts Howard's face on enough magazine covers, he will be more relevant that Senator John Kerry is. It's a great, mainstream media promotion, but the truth of the matter is, the media knows that John Kerry has the power to change the regime in Washington, Howard Dean does not --and that is the only thing that is driving this charade. Reporters are very crafty, aren't they?

The media thinks that it can make John Kerry irrelevant because he voted for the war, but he did not vote for Bush's war. "This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the UN to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for."

Senator Kerry Senator Kerry has repeatedly said, "if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me" and he means it because Bush promised to work with the international community and that war would be an absolute last resort. The media is essentially blaming John Kerry because Bush lied and that clearly betrays everything. And in the final analysis, all those reporters who support the war and who are endorsing Howard Dean will have a whole lot of explaining to do, when John Kerry is the President of the United States.

The media is trying to lynch Senator John Kerry because it wants George Bush to be "re-elected" and that is not the role of a free press. Get the message?

Face it, John Kerry and John Edwards make an unbeatable ticket, and the media barons think that if they put Howard Dean on all the covers of all their magazines, George Bush will finally discover the opportunity to win an election. There is nothing wrong with endorsing a candidate, but this sly effort to bury the candidacy of John Kerry is not right.
http://www.geocities.com/bobeshope/kerry.htm

[peteyb]

4. I can't figure it out either

. I allways liked him, and was prepeared to support him but he just fizzled out.

I like all of the candidates except Lieberman, but am supporting Clark now. Maybe it will be a good thing for Kerry to remain in the Senate, we need Democrats there.

[WI_DEM]

6. that's true

had he been elected he would have had to give up a senate seat in a state with a GOP governor.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Once again, a single senate seat is insignificant compared to the WH...

And Kerry is not even up for re-election (I believe).

[Padraig18]

13. Kerry IS imploding, my dear.

Stick a fork in him--he's done. I'll be surprised if he survives until SC. :shrug:

[Atlant]

19. I'm sorry, KerryGoddess, but...

> "Thank the Media! And FYI Kerry is not imploding!"

I'm sorry, KerryGoddess, but I was driven away by direct, first-
hand impressions of the man; the media had nothing to do with it.
My vote was JFK's to lose, and he did lose it.

And all the machine politicians in NH (who, BTW, are still mostly
lined up with JFK) won't be able to save the NH Primary for him.

Atlant

[chookie]

20. It ain't over yet

Thanks for presenting these strong arguments in support of Senator Kerry. I must admit that the vote on the Iraq war was/is a big issue with me -- *I* felt, as Howard Dean himself said, that based on what I was seeing in the papers every day, that the intelligence was not reliable, so why did Kerry make that bad call and not me or Howard? I think Kerry has done very well explaining his reasons for taking that position, even though I still may disagree.

I admire him immensely and think he would be an extraordinary President. I also absolutely adore his wife, who would be one of the greatest First Ladies ever.

Good for you for calling the media on their bullshit and pointing out their tactics, and keeping the focus on the issues.

Kerry is definitely still in the running. He may achieve a big boost from people who, after their initial enthusiasm -- which is a marvelous thing that Dean ignited -- are having a second look at him, and may yet throw their support behind Senator Kerry. With people like you keeping things straight and focused, he very well may rise as the nominee.

[adadem]

37. How very right you are

there is nothing the pugs can go after Kerry with...he served in Nam when bush went missing and another went skiing, he doesn't accept PAC donations, doesn't pander to the NRA (they hate him),nothing "dirty" in his record (except IWR for some), all the BCCI stuff that will be coming out soon.

God forbid the Dems would nominate someone with a strong background or someone with real integrity.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

5. I honestly don't know

On paper, he has all the qualifications to be the frontrunner, but something is getting lost on the way from resume to candidate, it seems. I don't know what it is.

It's a total mystery to me why he's not doing better --- both he and John Edwards are the two mysteries to me, actually. Edwards should be polling through the roof, and I have no idea why he isn't.

[peteyb]

8. Then again

I thought Mario Cuomo would have been the super candidate, and that Bradley oozed integrity, and that Dukakis was a schlub,

Not to mention that I still can't understand how anybody could buy Bush.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. I'm also with you. In addition, I liked Gore.

Guess I'm way out of the mainstream....

[edzontar]

27. I agree with you completely...

I originally supported Kerry, but he has driven me away with IWR and the incoherent position(S) he is taking on so many topics---I drifted to Dean and then was further annoyed by his boring, unfair and dishonest attacks on my man.

Edwards I really am impressed by though.

Hw is an excellent campaigner who should be doing better.

Maybe Clark has attracted some of his potential supporters?

[adamrsilva]

7. Because Clark stole his foreign policy schtick from him

and Kerry has no inspiring message nor particularly inventive policy proposals.

[PAMod]

9. He doesn't DESERVE to lose...

It's just that not enough people want him, to the exclusion of everyone else, to be elected president.

Obviously he is a brilliant man, a real Democrat, a talented legislator, etc. His character is beyone reproach.

But you could say those things about Paul Tsongas or Bob Kerrey or Hubert Humphrey, Stuart Symington and so on.

Only 41 people have been elected president out of how many thousands in public service over the last 228 years.

It is like catching lightning in a bottle.

Those votes on IWR & NAFTA merely gave other candidates the opportunity to appeal to voters that might have otherwise fallen in line behind Kerry.

[HFishbine]

10. I don't know about an implosion, but

Clark's entry into the race seems to have had an effect:

[Padraig18]

11. Well, when you piss of the base by voting FOR the IWR...

... it's sorta hard to get traction, IMO. :shrug:

[blm]

23. Dean: President deserves presumption of right on his side

Dean's explanation for B-L. Think how Dean and his supporters react when Kerry or the others say this same thing about IWR.

>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/

[Padraig18]

24. He supported B-L, but NOT the IWR.

Kerry DID support the IWR, which was NOT 'substantially the same', no matter how many times you desperately spin the meme that it was.

[blm]

28. You are wrong and I think you know it by now.

But, you can't help covering up for Dean on this.

The ESSENTIAL point that Bush would be given the authority for use of force was the same with the only added obstacle that Bush had to write a letter to the Speaker of the House and the Pres pro tem of the Senate.

There wasn't enough difference in the two bills to label the supporter of one as antiwar while labeling the supporters of the other as prowar. Therein lies the deception of Dean and many of his supporters.

[Padraig18]

31. I know nothing of the sort, blm!

Your conbdescension toward me is noted, however.

[blm]

34. Was there enough difference to label one antiwar and another prowar?

No.

[Padraig18]

38. "Was there enough difference to label one antiwar and another prowar?"

Yes.

[blm]

39. Name that difference.

Name that significant difference in B-L that would have kept Bush from using force.

[Padraig18]

41. I'm not rehashing this for the 10000th time.

bye.

[Scott Lee]

45. It doesn't matter, Padraig. Some wont be wrong even if the facts say so.

[Buffler]

30. Hillary voted for the IWR

and she leads every poll she is an option in. It has to be far more than his IWR vote.

[blm]

12. BushInc. NEEDS Kerry off the national stage because BCCI trial starts on

Jan. 13 in England. BCCI events and characters link DIRECTLY to 9-11. Kerry investigated and exposed BCCI and BushInc. needs him silenced BEFORE the issue heats up again and they can't afford to have him on the national stage with the focus of the general election. They needed him beat up in the primary, and Dean was the perfect tool for them, so he got all the media oxygen last year.

Also because Kerry put together the best team to bring down BushInc.

Gary Hart, Rand Beers, Joe Wilson, Gen. William Perry, Max Cleland. ALL of them have tough info on pre 9-11 failures and post 9-11 failures and coverups.

In addition, the general public had no idea who Kerry is...they don't remember or never heard of BCCI and IranContra and have no idea he investigated and exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker alive. The press denied Kerry important coverage to become better known. They wouldn't cover big events like when Kerry spoke to the VFW convention as the only Dem invited. His speech outshone Condi and Rummy's and he was wildly applauded, while they were not.

Post 9-11, one of the biggest endorsements you could get was the Fire Fighters. When they gave it to Kerry, none of the networks covered it.

You can't get known if the corporate media is pushing only ONE name.

[HFishbine]

32. If this is true...

Then Kerry's a fool. He could rocket to the top of the pack if he spilled the beans on 9/11.

[blm]

36. Hah...with WHAT % of Americans listening?

What drove down Bush's numbers? Lack of trust after Rand Beers and then Joe Wilson came out with their partial revelations. That was no doubt orchestrated by Kerry behind the scenes, both men were already aligned with him at the time. BushInc. knew this.

Dean gets the press plane in June, national covers in July and national covers two weeks before the primary. The media gave Dean most of the primary oxygen LONG ago and it just keeps ramping up.

[HFishbine]

40. I see

He's waiting for our undivided attention and willing to lose the nomination for it. Makes sense to me.

[MercutioATC]

44. Tinfoil hat time...it's all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy"....

Kerry stands where he does because of Kerry. Here at DU (where people are much more politically aware then the average voter) the question has been asked for months...what the hell is Kerry doing?

The networks cover what makes them money. Kerry doesn't. Frankly, neither does Kucinich, which is why the networks pulled their people from his campaign...not because they're picking favorites. Yes, it'd be great if all candidates could get air time, but the media is a business. Profits decide who gets play and who doesn't. It's not a conspiracy...it's economics.

[Hep]

14. What's to implode?

n/t

[lcordero]

16. In between NAFTA, the Patriot Act, the trojaned "No Child Left

Behind", the IWR, and probably many more examples. Do you blame anybody for not getting behind him?

A person will stop at nothing to punish somebody that has betrayed them.

[LuminousX]

17. I wouldn't call it imploding,

just languishing. He never caught fire.

[DemOutWest]

21. Wow

the Media, Al Gore and now DU'ers have decided who is done.

Let's see what happens on January 19th, we will then see who has to leave the race.

Kerry, his campiagn are in Iowa worlking hard and are confident. All of you experts that post on here, read too much into the polls and all of the pundits.

I am so priveleged to be able to read all of these experts on the DU!

I am not an epert, however, I truly believe until votes start to be cast, no one has won, and no one is out.

[LuminousX]

22. I'm prepared to be proven wrong

but since part of the game of politics is making predictions and seeing if they are correct.... that is all we are doing.

[adadem]

42. Thank you

for your excellent post...you are totally correct.

[Hoppin_Mad]

26. IMO it's his persona and his reputation as a "washington insider"

people are looking for 'outside the box' politicians, hence Dean and Clark

[Buffler]

29. What do you mean Kerry is imploding?

According to Kerry, it is Dean that is imploding!!!

I still laugh everytime I think of that comment by Kerry.

[Padraig18]

33. Kerry is delusional at this point.

I may not be Cassandra, but I can see far enopugh into the future to know that JFK ain't gonna be in the Oval Office in '04.

[quaker bill]

43. Because Clark is better on national security and runs more liberal

Clark is the perfect anti-Kerry candidate. He has better military creds and is running more to the left. He is also not dogged by the IWR thing.

Kerry called for Censure of Clinton early, loudly, and often. Clinton encourages Clark to run. Payback is hell.