Good or bad?

[ProSense]

Kerry's name pops up in a lot of articles. A lot of times the articles have nothing to do with him, but he's referenced in an analogy, good or bad, to make a point.

Why is that?

Obviously, the positive comments are not a problem, but what about the negative comments? What do they mean? We knew the SBVT agenda. But isn't it odd that those who make negative points always mis-characterize and twist JK's position to do so, and even when it's just an offhanded comment?

Why do they feel compelled to to twist the facts? Why not just leave out the reference? We're seeing that here on DU with KidsFirst: the deliberate twisting of the facts and reality to make an extremely positive issue seem irrelevant.

How much damage is caused by these snarky or twisted comments? Is there any value in such exposure? In other words, is the negative mention, given the obviously blatant twist, better than no mention at all?

It's not as though Kerry is an unknown. Will reasonable people see the negative comments for what they are?

It's pretty clear that people who continue to mention Kerry in a negative context, even when the reference is a stretch, really have a vendetta or agenda.

Since this situation is not likely to change, how will it impact his chances against the field of potential candidates?

Who are the potential candidate?

Dems:
Biden
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Feingold
Warner

Republicans:
Allen
Frist
Giuliani
McCain
Romney

(add others)

How strong are they? Do they enjoy more press? More support? Who are their spouses? Are their spouse out front on anything (Bill Clinton, I know).

I know I'm concerned about Kerry's chances. He does get a lot of negative press, but as Kerrygoddess pointed out:

JK has more blog posts on him than Feingold, McCain and Hillary combined

282,680 posts contain: John Kerry
18,226 posts contain: Russ Feingold
62,199 posts contain: John mcCain
102,141 posts contain: Hillary Clinton


What should he be doing to improve his position? Better PR stuff will effect more positive coverage, but the negative isn't going to go away.



edited to add: "negative"

[ginnyinWI]

1. additions

Dem candidates: Bayh, and possibly Gore
Repub candidates: Hagel, Graham

What I see Kerry putting energy into, politically, is making/maintaining friendships with media (Franken and Schultz this week, for example), and going on Imus--stuff like that. Not so much to be seen as to stay in touch with these media people. That, plus his day job and working for Dem candidates is doing a lot. Working for local races is also a good way to make friends for when it will matter later.

[Mass]

18. Add Dodd - Just out. It seems the whole senate wants to run.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-04155452.apds.m0490.bc-ct--doddapr04,0,4501218.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

[Mass]

2. My thoughts on that.

What should he be doing to improve his position? Better PR stuff will effect more positive coverage, but the negative isn't going to go away.

There will always be some negative coverage. Actually, no negative coverage at all is not good sign. It basically shows that the person is not considered a danger.

The goal is not to destroy all negative coverage. It will not happen. It is to get rid of the negative coverage coming from people who are lazy, uninformed, or who revolves to group-thinking. Generate another different type of buzz wo;; lessen the negative noise and create the balance that is really needed.

To create this movement takes effort, but, if it is done with a plan, it can have very positive effect.

The best way to do that is to provide the story to the media. Sadly, most of the MSM has stopped doing their job and is simply repeating what they hear. Find some saavy people who can provide the true image of Kerry (not too much spin because there is substance that can be used and because Kerry is one of the worst panderer I have ever seen). I am not a professional of political marketing, but there is such a thing as political marketing and unfortunately, it is not so different from commercial marketing. If I dare speak in these terms, "they have a good product", it should be easy to sell, as long as you dont sell it for what it is not.

This said, Ginny is right. Working with the grassroots helping to elect Democrats is a good way to start.

[wisteria]

3. IMO, just keeping his name out there is good.

I would certainly rather see all positive image forming references spoken and written about him, but that isn't going to happen. The trick is to have the positives over power the negatives, so that the first thing people think about when they hear Senator John Kerry are the good references. Sometimes I think we may be -or at least me- a little too sensitive about the negative things mentioned about Kerry. He does get good press, I just wonder if it the bad press hurts more and is remembered long after the good press. I think- for me- I am going to start keeping track of good press vs bad press and actually see if the bad out ways the good.
Every important person is subjected to negative comments. Bush, The Clinton's, Gore (Although IMO, a lot of times he provokes the attacks),Reid, Durban,Mccain (notice in his case though the good press out ways the bad and people remember the good things),Kennedy (poor Senator Kennedy, will he ever live to see the day the Republican's cease mentioning Chappaquiddick) and on and on.

Now, if someone has a way of turning the negatives into positives please let me know. Some people will always have a problem with Kerry and will have to let e3everyone know about it. We may be able to overcome these jerks with positive characterizations of Kerry.

[karynnj]

4. It;s also hard to know how much to weigh things

In the media, one criticism said we had the right message but the wrong messenger is actually an improvement from where we were a year ago - they are acknowledging the obvious - Kerry was right on many many things. These positions were not handed to Kerry, they were positions he developed over time. Of course there were advisers, but Clark, for example, didn't create Kerry's national security program (DU to the contrary).

What this does say is that in reality they know he is a very solid guy on both foreign and domestic policy. It may be that the mix of committees he chose and that he worked to be expert on them is what makes him so strong. His answers in the debates were so good partially because his knowledge went way beyond his response. You can't do this just by memorizing positions. Seeing Kerry, on say the Finance committee, and seeing the detailed knowledge that he almost effortlessly has and the respect shown by other Senators in picking up his line of questions shows the amazing range of knowledge he has.

They also know that Kerry's number jumped after the debates and during his convention which does show he can communicate. The comments that someone posted from the full Luntz focus group were really interesting. That Kerry's 10 points was the best sound bite means when he is heard he impresses. That they said he had warmed up since 2004 was interesting too. He was pretty warm in fall 2004, but this focus group suggests what the story will be if Kerry does get a surge in support.

If you think about it, this implies Kerry has already proved he could be a good President - his suggestions of what to do were right. No other candidate (other than Gore, who likely has since had far too many people question whether his temperament would work for a President - only on DU does in your face anger win points. If he can convince people that he lost because of things that are correctable - such as dealing with the Vietnam questions first and convincing all but the freepers that his actions were at least honorable - then he will be competitive with anyone.

[wisteria]

5. I missed the comments you mentioned from the full Luntz focus

group. Can you tell me where I can find this info?

[karynnj]

7. Here's a link to Sandasea's post referencing it

By the way, thanks for saking - I had meant to back and read the whole think (not just the Kerry comments) - but had procrastinated.

Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=78802&mesg_id=78911

The comments are reassuring, but we need to remember that Luntz is a Republican operative. It is good that his sound bite was rated best by both groups. Non-Kerry people forget how quickly and convincingly Kerry won the primaries. (The arguments used by some of the others don't make sense - Dean had more money and endorsements. Edwards had the opportunity of breaking out on the first multi-state day (mostly Southern or Southwestern rural states) - think of past year's primaries where the front runner changed one or more times. Clark spent a huge amount of time in NH, much one to one with people and he got 12% of the vote.)

Editted to say I read the whole thing. I think the comments on the religion segment were interesting and only wished that the tested piece was different. Kerry has played with this for a year and this was probably the most extended (way too long) example. The simpler statements seemed to work better. The comment that any residual good from 2004 will reside with Edwards is not borne out by the actual comments. (Kerry is given credit for being solid, experienced, and intelligent. Edwards is given credit for being good looking and a gifted speaker - but a lightweight. Which would you prefer as a starting point. Also, actually seeing Kerry on the video clips improved his perceived weakest areas - he was seen as warmer, and more human than in 2004. Edwards didn't counter his weaker side. The "too slick" comments are damning.) I found the comparison of Edwards' and Biden's rejection of their IWR vote interesting and wish they had tested Kerry's. (He's actually in a slightly better position - because he can, as he did on Imus, after saying his vote was wrong - but he told Bush not to go to war. )

The Bush bashing comment also reflects the clips given - Kerry is actually well suited as one who can state solutions - his health care plan in 2004 was considered innovative and everyone is copying his alternative energy words.

[TayTay]

8. The negatives are very interesting as well.

I did not react to the religious portion of that speech in NH very well either. As spoken dialogue, it just doens't work for me. I know it's sincere, I really think it is, but I also just don't think it's ever going to work. It doesn't look or sound right. I just don't like it. Kerry should have surrogates talk about that and then incorporate the themes more generally into his speeches. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=75298&mesg_id=75315

This is recoverable though. It is interesting that Luntz posits Kerry as the anti-Bush speaker and then claims that people will tire of this. In other words, he sees Kerry right now as softening up the opposition, but someone else moving in the for the kill. Interesting. However, everyone knows that Bush is not running next time. Anyone with even half a brain will begin to pivot from Bush and to a more positive agenda starting next year. So, Luntz' snapshot of '06 Potentials is just that, '06. The first half of the Luntz analysis on Kerry is really fascinating. People liked that 10 point plan. (I liked it too! It delivered well, but that was a friendly audience, it's really good to see it analyzed by non-New Hampshire people.)

The job will be, as noted here and by other real observers to walk that tightrope of making the case that the present system is broken which is a negative and the positive idea that there are ways to fix it and here are some of them. Hmmm, half way there.

[karynnj]

9. Interesting comments

I agree with you on the religious part - I really thought that was Kerry's worst attempt - worse even than the very early one I heard in Morristown - but it's clear that it's still in flux. (It's fascinating to me to see these things change in this early period. I do wonder about the Luntz comment in his preface that this should be left to the general election.)

Like you, I doubt Kerry would run in 2008 on criticizing Bush - that's just dumb. Even in 2004, running against Bush, Kerry concentrated far more on vision. Luntz chose the clips - his results would have been different if he took a segment of Kids' First. Also, it was interesting that Biden's comment on having an international effort to confront terrorism was extremely positive. This was what the Republican mocked Kerry for. This may be another Kerry was right issue in disguise. I would guess that a similar Kerry segment (from his 2004 terrorism speech) would have scored as well and thanks to the RW people know this Kerry position.

Kerry's support of the Line item veto plus his long ago support for Gramm Ruddman really may tie together on the deficit/fiscal responsibility issue. This will be an issue where he can generalize what is broken beyond Bush and push fixing it.

His comment on Kerry being good at bashing Bush is very humorous. Here, the accepted truth is that Kerry didn't fight back and that we need someone who will stand up more to the Republicans. I don't think either are the truth. Kerry is not an attack dog, nor has he ever wanted to be, nor is he the weakling that the LW lunatics suggest. If the Democrats are looking for a solid, smart "father" who still has ideas on how to repair our relations abroad and fix things her, Kerry may fit best. Luntz ignores Kerry's stated goal to keep identifying alternatives to Bush policy. What if Luntz showed the part of the Brown speech that Oliphant described in his column "Kerry's Roads Not Taken":

"As John Kerry had the temerity to say this week in Rhode Island: ''Today more than ever, when the path taken last year and four years earlier takes us into a wilderness of missed opportunities, we need to keep defining the critical choices over and over, offering a direction not taken but still open in the future."

This is 100% in sync with Luntz'a observation that people want to hear solutions.

[TayTay]

10. I do agree with this.

Gawd, I loved that Brown U speech. It was my fav since the election. That speech had a lot of pointers to what we need to be doing, but are not. ANd it was great red-meat.

The religious commentary needs a lot more refining, it was just too blatant and I didn't think Sen. Kerry was comfortable with it. It didn't flow. (The part of the speech with the 10 point plan did flow. That was the difference.)

I think people want new directions from Kerry and his good common sense ideas, but presented in light of the changes that have been occuring since '04. (Well, that's hardly a new revelation, I mean, duh Tay, of course people want that.)

[wisteria]

11. Thanks for posting the link. I also agree with much of what you said.

I quick -read the whole report and I came away with a the impression that Warner was highly well received and could offer a "fresh face". I don't agree, but I bring this up because it is mentioned in the negatives about Warner that "just as 2008 democratic primary voters will demand an unusual high level of intelligence from their nominee they will insist on political experience as well".He is saying Warner at this point lacks these things. I think Senator Kerry fills this niche very well, it could be said of Bidden as well, but side by side, I would think Kerry would be the choice.

First, Kerry no longer spends his time bashing Bush- he has moved on, so that point, and it is a major point in this report, is moot.

I also think this report needs to explain what they mean when they say Kerry has a lot to live down. Exactly what does that mean? Examples please!
And also the comment that many people are still very angry at him for his loss. What people? Maybe I wasn't the norm, but I have never been angry at him over this loss. What did he do, recruit some Daily Kos bloggers to critique Kerry's chances?

The religion issue, I agree, it all seems so awkward for him and mostly all Dem's to be incorporating this theme into their speeches. it's to easy for the Republicans to claim they are pandering. I like the idea of just letting others promoting Senator Kerry's strong belief in God and his faith. For Kerry, a statement similar to the one Senator Clinton made concerning the immigration issue would be much more effective and natural-it went something like this, Jesus would be made a criminal under the Republicans plan.

I don't see Senator Kerry's positioning as being such the uphill climb as he seems to think it is,it may even be easier and more comfortable this time around for JK. Perhaps, those reporting on Kerry chances are stuck on the old idea of no second chances for Democratic Presidential candidates.

[karynnj]

12. It is an interesting report

rich in details, that often contradict the conclusions. Your Warner analysis is a case of this. Luntz in the article we first saw mentioned he picked up the most support - but didn't point out he started with little. He may be the "John Edwards" of 2008 - new face, real positives, but ultimately not experienced enough. If so, it's a same he's not running against Allen now, both to possibly get that seat and to create a really good candidate in the future.

I hated Hillary's Jesus comment - because it went further than a literal interetation of the Bible allows. I like Kennedy's better - where he speaks of an LA cardinal whose outreach aides those in need - without asking if people are legally there. What he is doing is absolutely consistent with Christian values. Hillary's is more awkward. Oddly, in the little Al Franken interview - Al commented that the Bible doesn't mention Medicare, after Kerry said the Bible doesn't say anywhere that you should cut Medicare to give tax cuts to the rich. Kerry's very quick response was that that is where the Republicans would start the debate. This was a friendly interchange, but in reality both Kerry and Hillary need to be careful here. I know speaking of the values from the Bible is less direct than saying the Bible - but they really need to be accurate or they could sound flippant, which could be seen as disrespectful. (Oblicatory note: I credit both of them as sincere in their religious beliefs.)

I think it will be an uphill climb for any candidate to get the nomination, except perhaps Hillary, if she makes all the right steps (whatever they are) over the next year. I do think his comment that it will be more uphill than in 2004 ignores the CW as late as Dec 2003. It is interesting that his 2002 study for 2004 showed Kerry a winner - what it would have shown at that point in time was that when actually exposed to the 2004 potential candidates in video bites, Kerry was the winner. This really did predict what happened when they went out and met people in Iowa and NH. 2008 will have different obstacles. In 2004, he convinced people he could be a good President - many, even on Kos, preface statements that he's a good man and would be a good President, but they support someone else who they think will fight harder to win. (which makes the Bush bashing comment funny.) So, in 2008 the main need will be to generate enough excitement to make people believe he's a better candidate.

[wisteria]

13. Your point is well taken on the religious statements.

Hillary and Kerry seem to send the wrong messages with their statements. I like to say, if it doesn't feel comfortable don't say it.

[ProSense]

14. I agree, but to an extent

Kerry handled the Al Franken exchange well.

Oddly, in the little Al Franken interview - Al commented that the Bible doesn't mention Medicare, after Kerry said the Bible doesn't say anywhere that you should cut Medicare to give tax cuts to the rich. Kerry's very quick response was that that is where the Republicans would start the debate.

It has to be natural as Wisteria stated. The fact is the GOP runs on a religious/moral platform. Think about the recent clip of Santorum where he says "Europeans are dying" and their actions on Schiavo. That is where they start and carry the debate. While I agree that it has to be natural, it cannot be ignored: it's true.


As far as Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, I will have to eat crow if I'm wrong, but I don't see that happening. The lead she has in the polls is not real. Then they match her up against McCain and she loses by 20 points. This is not real.

[wisteria]

15. I wonder what the party must be thinking positioning her this way,

if McCain is the Republican nominee. Does any one still doubt he is positioning himself as the Republican candidate in 2008?

[TayTay]

16. He thinks he is. We shall see

I don't think McCain is the 800 pound gorilla he thinks he is. I really don't. I think he is destroying what 'his voters' liked about him in 2000. He seems like someone ripe for a fall to me.

[wisteria]

17. You brought something to mind. Imus this morning made a comment

about how unfair Russert's "interrogation" of McCain was this past Sunday. Imus said McCain isn't the type to hold grudges though. I realize this is a little off topic, but I am all over the place today. It just astonishes me this double standard at play here.

[karynnj]

19. Yesterday, Imus & co was actually playing it that McCain did well

which was pretty weird.

[wisteria]

20. I didn't catch yesterdays show. Sometimes Imus seems as

wacky as Mathews.

[kerrygoddess]

6. I posted about this

On the Dem Daily Forum - http://forum.thedemocraticdaily.com/viewtopic.php?p=455#455

Thoughts on what we can do to make a difference. A follow up on stuff discussed here and there a few months ago. (you all may need to log in there if you haven't been there for a while)