The Problem With Kerry

[iamjoy]

I didn't support Kerry in the primaries (I supported John Edwards) but once Kerry was the nominee, I volunteered with the campaign. Still, I wasn't enthusiastic about him, Kerry's ideas sounded good, but he just didn't really connect with me.

And then, one month before the election, I saw him in person - and he was absolutely phenomenal. I was finally excited about Kerry instead of being in an Anybody But Bush mode.

Since the election, I've said a few unkind and probably unfair things about him being weak, and I regret it. But now I hear some people think Kerry should be our nominee again in 2008 and I don't like this idea.

We can vilify Bob Shrum and the DLC all we want. We can nit pick and use hindsight for every move and decision Kerry made (and he did make mistakes) but the way I see it, the real problem with John Kerry is that while his "resume" is good, he just doesn't connect with people over the television. He did well in the early primaries not just because we were so anxious to defeat Bush but because he is very charismatic in person. But, in a general election campaign, the only people who usually go see a candidate are ones who have already made up their minds to vote for him (or her).

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. true

[Justyce]

2. It's a shame the general public

has become so superficial that a person's looks & charm outweigh his qualifications for a job. :(

[Psephos]

5. It goes a lot deeper than looks and charm

We use our emotional minds to make decisions about people, not our rational minds, and this is as Nature intended. The emotional parts of the brain are older and deeper than the analytical parts, and process social information far more adeptly. The emotional brain is common to all mammals, and responsible for bonding behaviors, sorting out who to trust and who not to trust, and other social decisions.

BTW, Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting take on this in his current book "Blink."

Kerry does not pass muster with a lot of people's emotional brains. Eomtionally, something about him fails to trigger feelings of trust or authenticity. That's a severe handicap for a politician. Politics, like religion, is rarely decided analytically. Political convictions are almost always the product of deep feelings. After experiencing these feelings, we then look for facts to support our already-established point of view. Emotional thinking is a profound shaper of perception. It literally changes how you see the world, and what feels right to you.

A great president is not necessarily a book-smart president, but is always someone with whom most people feel an emotional connection. On this score, Kerry can't deliver the goods. Although I'm grateful for his contributions, I will be supporting someone else for president in 2008.

[googly]

21. You are so right, and Reagan is an excellent example of your hypothesis

[pacalo]

6. I agree. I just so happen to love his looks.

I started out as an ABBer, & I was really put off that Kerry got the nomination, but at that time I didn't know anything about him. I started seeing old footage of him on C-Span, MSNBC, & CNN, as well as reading about his life, & I can't tell you how impressed I am of him now.

I just can't believe that we had an opportunity to have a man with as much class, integrity, and principle as Kerry to lead this country -- and at a time we needed him most.

As Seymour Hirsh said, this country has been hijacked by neocon zealots. They had plans for this country in 2000, so they stole the election. They didn't want to let go in 2004, so they stole another election.

We can only hope some of the corporate media develop a conscience, stop the propaganda that is enabling the neocons to do their dirty work, & help us get out of this mess.

[politicasista]

3. It's sad because he would have made a good president

yet people whined how he didn't connect with them. :nopity: :shrug: :cry:

[saltpoint]

4. If the Kerry-Edwards ticket was up tomorrow morning --

-- I'd stand in line for hours in a driving ice storm to support it, in and of itself, and ESPECIALLY in contrast to Dubya & Dick.

I do not believe that a President Kerry would appoint someone like John Negroponte as NID. We might have had Joe Biden as Sec. of State instead of CondiLiar. We would not have a man who advocates torture of "detainees" as Attorney General.

I hear your points, but it just feels to me as if the country missed an opportunity to have genuine and dedicated public servants like Kerry and Edwards instead of hyper-corporate assholes like Bush and Cheney.

[politicasista]

7. I agree.

Had he won, there wouldn't be so many haters saying "He failed us," "He was a lousy candidate," "Well, I am supporting someone else in 08" and so on. We give up on ours too easy while the GOP can stick together and trot out anyone. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[bush_is_wacko]

8. They did indeed miss the first chance!

Kerry would have had better appointee's, he would have worked in a very bipartisan fashion and he would have been a great president. As for his connecting with people, i understand it a little, but the reason people didn't connect is that they didn't do their research on this guy. The message of what this guy did for our country in terms of tracking down the bad guys and doing it at risk of his career and his life has still gone mostly untouched. The biggest mistake the campaign made was NOT playing that up IMHO!

He may be a modest man, but American's have become a society that can't see through rhetoric and sharing Kerry's record of catching the bad guys may have persuaded those "security moms" at the very least.

[kster]

9. There is none,

remember the train across America,remember the trips to all the states with tens of thousand's of people attending ,every now and again a star would come to draw even bigger crowds,remember. Thats because Kerry knew the only way he was going to get his word out to the people, was going to be on the ground,in person.

Wake up,the reason he didn't connect, was the media didn't give him a chance to connect,maybe a split second here and a split second there,He won all three debates hands down only to have the media pretend that he only won one maybe two,and of course there where the swifties,the fake reporter giving Kerry updates ,which were always negative to Kerry.This guy did fabulous against all odds went on to win the presidency, without the help of the media or anyone else , only to have it stolen from him.

[iamjoy]

14. We Can't Blame It All On The Media

I mean, some, but not all.

Look at Clinton, he didn't need too much help from the media to make a connection with people.

And Kerry just couldn't do it as well. I am not saying he was a bad candidate, he was an excellent candidate in every way that SHOULD count and would have made an awesome president.

An example, look at how he responded when asked that question about how he loved his wife (he talked about how smart women have helped and influenced him in life). And look at how Bush answered, practically glowing as he talked about Laura (what an actor he is). Never mind that it is a stupid, irrelevant question and none of our business what sort of relationship he and Ms. Heinz-Kerry have.

To say society shouldn't be this way, well, I agree, but it is and we have to play the game on the field there is, not the field we want.

[zalinda]

18. Clinton is a natural schmoozer

and the media loved him. The neo-cons never really considered him a threat, until it was too late. Remember he was the governor of a no nothing state, so he couldn't be taken seriously. By the time his second term came along, he couldn't be stopped..........and the media still loved him. He made them a lot of money, just by being attacked by the neo-cons.

I love Kerry. I think he tried to hold the election up to Senate standards, with the rule of being polite, no matter how much you disagree. He held himself up to a higher standard, and won.

I think he deserves a second chance. He already has name recognition, so he doesn't have to go around re-introducing himself to the rest of the country, like some of the other President wannabes. The repubs do run people a second time, and have some winners. We don't seem to like to do that, maybe that's something we could also learn from them.

zalinda

[Kip Humphrey]

10. 64+ million voters turned out for Kerry - who could do better?

Kerry didn't lose the election. Bush&Co stole it. Kerry needs no apology for his overall performance. He drew out the most voters by a wide margin. Yes, he was too slow to respond to the Swiftboat liars. Yes, Shrum and company made tactical errors along the way. Yes, if they knew in advance they would garner the amount of money and grassroots mobilization they ultimately did, they could have run a wider campaign.

So what?!!! THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN! No amount of anything could change the outcome. Rove would just tap the tabulators for a few more votes!
What if Kerry drew 68 million (he actually might have by the way given the range of exploits the republicans employed)? What if he drew 80 million?

IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE. If anything, the mere fact Rove had to resort to manipulating the tabulators on top of the voter-suppression campaigns and vote-switching e-voting exploits demonstrates Kerry was very effective (well beyond Rove's or the RNC's expectations). Kerry likely has no national political future at this point, but I still hold: Kerry would have made and still would make one of the most effective presidents we have ever had.

[JFK Dem]

11. Give it up!

Bush won the election by 3 million votes last time I checked. Kerry lost for the same reason Dukakis lost in 1988. JFK was the last Senator from the Northeast to be elected and that was 45 years ago! And he had LBJ to "carry" Texas for him. We'll win again when we're seen as to be as tough on foreign policy as JFK was and with progressive, innovative ideas such as the peace corps. JFK was pro-civil rights but he also cut taxes. We need to get rid of the tax party label.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

15. As soon as they

try to start the draft * will lose the support of his (in reality) ,28% of the people who voted for him. The 20% that where fooled by the media will come to sites like this, trying to find ways to throw him out,the great people here at the DU will be glad to give them all the ammo they need ,the other 8% will start running for cover as they did in Nam, at that point it shouldn't be to complicated to show him and his crew the door.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

19. But Kerry won in Ohio...can't convince me otherwise

and I don't agree with the three million either. I live in Florida and I actively work with the Dem party, and I know how corrupt brother Jeb is and was long before the elections.

[googly]

25. Even Kerry is convinced Kerry lost Ohio, but tinfoil is not yet

convinced lol

[Vektor]

29. Neither am I.

Nor millions of others. When Wally O'Dell, owner of Diebold AND Chair of the Bush re-election committee for the state of Ohio PROMISES, publicly and openly, to deliver the state of Ohio to George W. Bush, I believe him.

Why wouldn't I? He can do it, after all.

[fasttense]

32. I don't believe Kerry is convinced he lost.

Not anymore, the man is not dumb. He has to see all the facts out there. It's just that it is too late to do anything about it now. Maybe some legislation, but I'm not convinced the Repukes will allow any true election reform.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

35. I may wear tin foil but the emporer wears nothing

[Vektor]

30. Jeb is the worst-

as corrupt as the day is long. Worse than Georgie boy. He's pure evil.

[googly]

22. Yap, the ONLY reason dems are going down to defeat is....

the repugs have the lock on taxcuts. And who does not like
money? If dems ever decided to go for taxcuts, they would be
unbeatable in every election, local, state & federal.

[fasttense]

34. JFK Dem, You need to educate yourself on the election.

The facts are out there. It's just a matter of doing some digging and the obvious will present itself. The election was stolen twice by a lying and cheating minority party. That is why they discredited the people who mention election fraud so quickly. They can't allow it to become a true, open, discussion of rational thought. Once people see the logic of the numbers, the truth is very plain. They know they are a minority and will squash any dissent for fear of truth.

By the way, we wont ever, no not never, Get Over It (Oh, I mean Give It Up.). As long as I have breath in my body, you are going to hear about this election fraud. Live with it. You meant the same thing as those Repukes who say "Get Over It" only you used different words. Wow, how original.

[Catamount]

26. I'm so glad you reminded everyone about this! ....

It's so easy to get caught up in all the superficial bulshit. :*

[emulatorloo]

12. He can learn to project his charisma on TV

I agree that he is very charismatic in person, and it doesn't come across on TV.

But that can probably be learned w the right teachers. . .it is just a matter of projecting for the TV.

[anaxarchos]

16. The point is probably moot.

The last Democratic party candidate to lose (including "losing through fraud") and then to be renominated was Adlai Stevenson, 50 years ago. Arguably, he was renominated to lose a second time (it was percieved that none could beat Ike). Before that, it was another 100 years back to Andrew Jackson. The GOP has done it a few more times but it is rare for them too... The notable exception was tricky Dicky.

It is VERY unlikely that Kerry will be renominated.

[politicasista]

17. I guess so.

He looks so presidental comapared to the others. :cry: :cry:

[wisteria]

20. I think it is very likely he will be renominated.

I can't think of anyone more qualified and deserving of another nomination. So he doesn't come off as a salesman,Regan, Clinton and Bush are the only Presidents going back at least 70 years that have had this type of personality. I thought presidents were suppose to be "presidential"-individuals to admire and look up to. John Kerry has a lot going for him. A good PR person can work on the connecting to the people issue. Have you been listening to the media's accounts of who else may be running on both the democratic and republican sides?

[googly]

23. Whoever is the next nominee better cut the taxcut issue from

under the repugs. Lets face it every one loves more money
in their pocket. Who can resist $2000 extra spending money.
That and strong on defense will win every freaking election
for dems.

[wisteria]

24. Good suggestions!

[hijinx87]

27. the senate just isn't fertile ground . . .

for successful presidential candidates.

I suspected that putting two of them on the ticket was begging for trouble.

[Vektor]

28. I found him completely appealing on T.V. AND in person -

The media hung him out to dry. Every major news station is has a huge right-wing bias, and they did everything they could to promote Bush and destroy Kerry.

He who controls the media controls everything.

The "problem with Kerry" is that he doesn't have the news stations in his back pocket like Shrubco. does.

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

31. There is no . . .

There is no _the_problem with Kerry .

He did not lose the election. It was stolen through vote suppression and election fraud.

Would have been nice if from the get-go, we had all seen that it was inevitable the scum was going to do it, and could have prevented it.

Post 10 above is excellent.

Let's not let it happen again.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.