This is a serious problem

[politicasista]

First of all, I am hate to be pessimistic or force this on anyone with the big weekend coming up. I just thought I would share this with you guys.

Again, I am focused on 2006, but if Kerry is planning on running again, somebody is going to have to do a better job of putting his image out there.

I often spread the word about what he is up to and stuff, but this is coming from someone who really likes him.

I may warn you that it sounds like some of the rhetoric here, in the media, and among Democrats, but it's really troubling. It's probably why many are pushing other candidates also.

This is what she told me. See my reply in the 10 point plan:


"True, I don't think unless John Kerry changes, he's our man to do it..He just doesn't have "the complete package" to be president...I've alwayz thought this but I supported him anyway. We need someone sincere, smart, fiesty & thinks on their feet..I'm hoping somebody appears outta now where like that... or the dems are doomed again..."


Any suggestions?:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Well, what, in your opinion, is he missing?

What is the main criticism you hear? There are pretty effective ways to counter most every point of criticism against him - elaborate a little more and maybe we can help point out resources you can point people to to help explain Kerry better?

[politicasista]

2. He didn't stand up to "the worst president ever,"

and didn't fight hard. In other words, he is damaged goods. (the candidates I hear about are Hillary, Edwards, Clark, Warner, Feingold, or Gore). Some Dems just want a "fresh face" (e.g. the fresh face post). She is a dem, but just feels the Democrats lack direction right now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. That's a really subjective judgment

To me it just sort of shows a lack of thinking. Why dismiss any candidate because he ran before? In that case, no one who ran in the primaries in 2004 should run since they couldn't even make it out of the primaries.

Kerry lost by a hairtrigger margin, if he lost at all. He is still involved in suits in Ohio re: election fraud. All of this has been said over and over again - I guess I'd just advise you to scan the forum and find ways to refute it, because there are always going to be people who don't prefer Kerry and who will come up with any reason they think sounds logical to justify opposing him.

I think there are a ton of resources and links you could refute the "he didn't fight in 2004" crap with. That just shows a patent lack of paying attention in 2004. If this person couldn't be bothered to even follow the campaign in 2004, why should any Democrat trust them to select our party's nominee?

By the way, the rich irony of calling Kerry a loser and then advocating for Gore always gets me every time.

[politicasista]

5. I think she is just bothered by the direction of the dems

She didn't promote Gore by name, she just feels like the opportunity was 2004 to change things and Kerry blew it.

Someone in Kerry's camp is going to have to do a much better job of putting his image out there. Too many believed the boring, stuffy, flip-flop stuff.

[wisteria]

7. Then tell them to pay better attention, because Kerry is not

boring or a flip flopper. These are right wing talking points. Most of the people I know can see through them for what the are. Oh, and FYI, believe it or not, Clinton had a reputation of being a boring public speaker after a speech he gave at the Democratic Presidential Convention back when I believe Jimmy Carter was running.

[politicasista]

8. But Clinton was charismatic

and it's why AA still like him, despite his conduct and snafus. I know Kerry is charismatic, but the problem was that AA didn't see that and believed what the media said about him and how he was so "uncomfortable" (quoting Dr. Ron Waters poli analyst) around them. We know that wasn't the truth.

[karynnj]

20. The media, as you point out is the problem

"I know Kerry is charismatic, but the problem was that AA didn't see that and believed what the media said about him "

This is a problem and obviously Kerry knows it. What's harder is how to change that or why it happened. I am troubled by the constant feeding of RW memes by the media, even now a year and a half later. Yesterday, this week's NEW YORK magazine repeated as gosbel Joe Klein's allegation that Kerry did not speak on Abu Ghraib because it polled badly, ignoring that Kerry denied not speaking out. (I intend to try to write a LTTE) A simple search of the NYT archives backs Kerry.

The truth actually shows that the opposite is true, Kerry went against the polls on this. Kerry didn't need a poll to tell him what the reception to mentioning Abu Ghraib would be, but he chose to carefully raise the issue. That Joe Klein chose this as the issue shows he is a slimeball, given Kerry's history. The fact that the media is mindlessly repeating this charge is beyond sick. Possibly, we can help by complaining whenever and wherever we see this. This could do two things - actually correct things and demonstate he still has support.

To get back to your quote, I think people tend to take the media's opinion of people. Clinton (and W) played with the media and flattered them. The media helped them in their attempts to win people. The media did not help Kerry. Kerry had to win people over by going past the media and meeting people, which is harder.

[politicasista]

17. For the record, I didn't believe the RW talking points n/t

[karynnj]

21. At Dukakis's convention

only 4 years before. I think he is over rated as a speaker, although he was sometimes very good. I genuinely think that Kerry is better. The media really didn't show a single October rally. His convention speech and concession speech were both highly praised. The "no good sound bites" is simply not true - Kerry is great at clever witty one line comments - if they're reported.

[wisteria]

4. He did stand up and he fought back against president Bush.

Those statements are nonsense. What exactly does fighting back mean to your friend? Senator Kerry campaigned and fought hard against President Bush with his words, facts and his superior intellect. He did this without appearing arrogant or above it all.

Worst President ever? Come on, the country as a whole did not consider the President to be the worst ever. He had a large base of support and many other voters were inclined to believe the rhetoric of the day. At the worst, most people considered Bush to be mediocre as a President. Even I didn't at that time consider him to be the worst President ever.

Senator Kerry has worked his ass off trying to keep the promises he made during the campaign and people such as your friend who come to unfair conclusions or comparisons to "their candidate" make me cringe. If this friend wants to support Gore based on the way Gore challenged the 2000 election and suggests that Kerry should have acted in the same manner this friend is being unreasonable and the many issues that make a comparison of 2000 and 2004 very unfair.
Tell your friend that the 2000 race was for Gore to lose. He had all the advantages going in, he blew it and he didn't even win his own state. Gore challenged the election results not for fairness and honesty reasons, but for his own personal satisfaction. Ask this friend if Gore has every come out in support of voting rights and disenfranchisement concerns since he ran.

[politicasista]

6. But the media never reported it and people assumed he was "weak"

and that maybe Dean, Clark, or Edwards would have won (hindsight is so 20-20) I will ask her about Gore though.

[jenndar]

10. Well, this is where we come in.

This is why we have things like the empowerment thread - the information is there, but we have to help people seek it out.

You are right - we can't just throw our hands in the air and give up when voters don't recognize the Republican political machine in this country for the mess of corruption that it is. The person in question may be willfully ignoring information, or she might not have all of it. Or she might have a personality problem with JK.

Do you have any idea what kind of resources you need to better convince people? In other words, how can we help?

[politicasista]

11. Lots of things are at the Kerry news library could help n/t

[wisteria]

12. None of those people would have won. Democrats accross the

country choose the best candidate. The others had their chance and didn't appeal to a majority of Democrats and in some cases those candidates were loud and appeared to be "fighting" the President.

I don't ever recall the media reporting him as weak- that again was a RW point of view.

Look if your friend wants a loud mouthed, in your face Presidental candidate and to them this demostrates being tough, than Kerry isn't for them. Personally, I would find those traits in a US President to be unapealing and counter productive to the many issues a President must attend to.

[politicasista]

14. She doesn't want that

just someone who can appear out of nowhere. How many people heard of Clinton or Carter? She likes JK, but feels he doesn't have the complete package and that he didn't come across as sincere, smart, fiesty or thinking on his feet. She just hopes we can find someone to stir the masses.

[wisteria]

18. Wow, I hat to give up on anyone, but this person is a lost cause.

If she/he didn't think Kerry came across and smart, sincere or good at thinking on his feet. Did this person even follow the election and the debates? I can not understand how anyone could draw those conclusions about JK. Has this person any knowledge of what he has done lately? Has this person heard his speeches or read his comments?
Frankly, this person seems to be finding any excuse to not like Kerry- thats her/his loss.
Tell this person not to turn purple while holding their breath waiting for the perfect candidate.

[karynnj]

23. The debate should at minimum have given

Kerry credit for smart and thinking on his feet. He did better in the debates than any candidate I've seen.

As to sincere and feisty, I think we'll see some of that this weekend. It's their in Kerry's history. (Kerry's sinceriy is far more real than Clinton's - Clinton's integrity is not his strongest suit.)

[karynnj]

22. Excellent post

To back up your "worst President ever" comment. W's approval rating was around 50%, ranging I think between 46% and 51% in the time around the election. People were scared, so those who approved were likely to not risk a change. Some of those who disapproved were likely to the right of Bush. (Buchanan as a prominent example - who I assume did not vote for Senator Kerry). (Imagine if the approval question were asked of the challanger - there would have been Deaniacs who said they didn't approve, but intended to vote for him.)

Bush 1 was at 39% in fall 1992, at a time when people were looking for a change. There was actually a time in the summer when Clinton was third to Bush and Perot. He benefited from Perot's Bush bashing and Perot's then appearing to be crazy.

Gore challanged the results in 2000 because they were challangable. I do think that 2002 and 2004 would have been better had he fought for voting rights. I actually wonder if the 18 months disappearance was due to depression. He did return substantially heavier, with a beard and with an angry changed personality. My guess is the Gore knows that he will be hit with the type of attack Kerry was subjected to if he runs - the attacks on him in 2000 were mild in comparison.

[ProSense]

24. Excellent points!

Think about all the people now who believed they were duped by the media (forget those who were charmed by the snake and bought into the RW lies). If the media swayed only 5% of the electorate, that's more than 6 million voters.

[Dr Ron]

9. Maybe Kerry's not the complete package--but then who is?

The problem is that nobody is. It's not like she has an actual candidate--she's hoping that somebody appears outta no where.

If you want a great campaigner, Reagan and Bill Clinton were both better than Kerry in this respect. Both also have their obvious flaws and Kerry would make a much better President than either.

Beyond these two, neither party has had anyone else who would be the complete package by what I suspect her standards are. The Democrats ran a southern governor with Carter who, as an outsider, might have seemed the complete package to run after Nixon/Ford. He was too much of an outsider to get much done. The Republican ex-governor to last win is far worse in terms of inability to understand the job. None of the other recent Presidential candidates are likley to qualify as the complete package.

Spending all these years working in the Senate, as opposed to being a television personality, might make Kerry less of the ideal candidate in her eyes, but someone like him is exactly what we need to fix the problem the next President will inherit.

[politicasista]

13. That's true, but people are obsessed with electibility and image n/t

[wisteria]

16. IMO, Kerry is electable and I happen to like the image he projects. n/t

[wisteria]

15. Couldn't of said it better myself.

I wonder if Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln were in your face, loud "personalities" ?

[beachmom]

26. Lincoln didn't come close to being a "complete package"

He had a thin resume, he lost his Senate race, he suffered from depression, he had a melancholy demeanor. The guy had NOTHING going for him . . . except that burning desire that he needed to become president and do great things. And, of course, he ended up saving our country and emancipating the slaves. He is inarguably the greatest president we have ever had!

Tell your friend that we're not electing a game show host or late night comedian. We're electing somebody for the highest office in the land. And I have researched and watched John Kerry in an extremely close fashion for over a year, and I can tell you this: he doesn't lie; he always tells the truth. He puts his heart on his sleeve in the way he knows how and tells us the truth; over and over again. MLK and Rosa Parks are HEROES to him; his speech at Rosa Park's funeral wasn't an example of political opportunism -- it came from the heart, and showed how he thought. He gets up every morning and fights for working people across this land. He works for soldiers and veterans, for women and the powerless. He fights for America's reputation, and he thinks strategically on how to keep us safe, instead of knee jerk unilateral agression that long term keeps us vulnerable. He is no doubt the smartest man in the Senate both in his depth AND bredth of knowledge both domestic and foreign of EVERYTHING that affects us. And don't forget the BLM refrain: NOBODY has fought government corruption more than John Kerry.

I don't agree with others that this friend of yours is a lost cause. And I don't think that you should flood her with gobs of info. We, the Kerrycrats, are opinion leaders who have done the research and come to certain conclusions. What you need to figure out is which Kerry story will tug at your friend's heart. Just pick one. Share that story, provide the link, and then tell her why YOU support John Kerry for president. This is the only way it's going to work, guys. This is why we're here.

[karynnj]

27. Beachmom, this is wonderful

and really does make sense. She knows what her friends concerns are and a huge amount about Kerry - you are so right that one story (or a small number of stories) that counter that concern is better than volumes.

This might be good to start as a thread itself - because we all do want to become advocates for Kerry and, at least for people like me, your advise is really great.

[ProSense]

28. Excellent!

It reminds me of factcheck.org's constant assessments of Bush's lies, which they validated while refuting them, and Kerry's statements, which they categorized as true, but a stretch.

The one that sticks with me and is easy for people to understand is the $200 billion price tag Kerry attached to the war. The media was promoting $120 billion. To date, 18 months after the debates, the cost of the war is at $500 billion.

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. Just this part

We need someone sincere, smart, fiesty & thinks on their feet.

Tells me that this individual, did little to find out for his/her self about the candidate and relied on the media. Seems to me he/she has not woken up to what the media has done to us in the past 5-6 years. The quote above proves that he/she does not know anything about Kerry, and was more interested in someone else and had to settle for Kerry. Will he/she get fooled again by the 4th estate. Will he/she also say the same thing if someone else loses?

You know if your favorite baseball team lost the series, you'll hear some of the fans applauding their accomplishment, and from others you'll hear such things as, I'm through with them, or boy they played lousy etc.

But then comes the next season, and you know what, most of those fans don't jump on another team's bandwagon, they give their team another chance.

I feel that Kerry has just as much right as anyone else out there to enter the race again. Gore could have done the same thing, but he chose not to, why, I do not know, and he would of had many on his bandwagon. If many think Gore has that right, then they are hypocrites to say Kerry doesn't.

[karynnj]

25. The party and media even argued for at least

two years that the nomination was Gore's for the taking if he wanted it. (Possibly because in late 2001 and 2002 when people began speaking of 2004, Bush had approvals in the stratospere so 2004 wasn't that appealing.)

If Gore would have stayed active and said he wanted to run, he likely would have won the nomination and lost. Now, 2008 looks great for the Democrats, so the party officials want the nomination to go to a favorite of theirs.

[TayTay]

29. People always say that Presidential campaigns are long in

America for a reason. This is one of them. Right now we are in what Walter Shapiro called, 'the invisible primary' season. Ostensibly, people are focused on the 2006 elections and trying to get at least one branch of Congress to turnover to the Dems. (Preferably both.) So whenever a 2008 possible appears on TV they talk about that. (Cuz they have to. It is, after all, what we are supposed to be doing this year.) And yet, in the background are all these other things that the media wants to talk about but the possibles do not. (If they talked about it, it wouldn't be an invisible primary now would it.)

Mr. Kerry has his own road to go down if he wants to retry for the nomination. It will not be anyone else's road but his. He will come with baggage, it is impossible for him to come without the baggage of the last race. He comes in with many positives and some negatives. That simply is. The long, long, grueling road to '08 will showcase these things, the positives and the negatives. It is his test to show that learned from the '04 race and to strengthen his cause by shoring up any perceived shortcomings. That simply is. If you are hearing that Kerry has problems in the AA community then that is one more area to address, one more thing that must be looked at on his particular road. I think there are things he neglected to do last time. Perhaps it can be fixed. We shall see.

Americans are fickle. I have been voting for in Presidential races since 1976. There has not been a single election year that I can remember when the 'I wish there were different candidates running cuz these guys are sub-par' theme hasn't come out. It is a standard in American politics. The reason for that is because people go from being an 'ideal' to having to function in the real rough and tumble world of actual problems and actual voters. Nothing tarnishes a candidate more than having to deal with reality. Nothing turns off voters more than realizing that their candidates are mere humans and not figures from Mount Rushmore. (Figures that were, btw, reviled and made fun of in their own time. It was ever thus.)

The '08 race has not really begun yet. (And yet it has. It's that oddness that can be so disconcerting sometimes.) The teams are just now being chosen, the coaches and strategies are just now starting to go up on the drawing boards and the players are just now starting to be seriously evaluated. A lot will happen between now and next Jan/Feb when candidates start to really begin the primary season overtly. We shall see what happens in this pre-game prep and see if the things you talked about will be addressed. I think the folks with the Senator know about this. Now we shall see how they respond. (And when, and if it takes the focus off of '06, but at the same time showcasing the ideas of a good possible and yet making sure that local pols are included cuz we need local pols to take over in '06 and, btw, it's not a bad idea to do favors for some of these folks, especially in Iowa and NH cuz they might help in '08, and I'm not really running yet cuz we need to focus on '06, but remember next year who really helped in '06 and how they spread some financial love around and remember who stood up to the Rethugs and so it goes.)

The lane is long, someone has said, that never turns again
And fate, though fickle, often gives another chance to men.

...

But fame is fleeting as the wind and glory fades away;
There were no wild and woolly cheers, no glad acclaim this day;
They hissed and groaned and hooted as they clamored: "Strike him out!"
But Casey gave no outward sign that he had heard this shout.

Casey's Revenge by Grantland Rice ©
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case2.shtml

[_dynamicdems]

30. Sometimes too much effort is spent on trying to convince individuals.

Trying to use common sense and facts on most of these folks is like chasing chickens around a barnyard. It is just a waste of time.

In many cases people are too full of themselves and the importance of their one vote. I'm know I'm going to take hits for this, but seriously, one vote is only one vote. The problem isn't the one thinking voter who is still nursing wounds from 2004. The problem is that there are thousands of voters who simply do not think at all and who are too easily influenced by popular opinion.

Rather than prolonged discussion, the vast majority are influenced by talking points. Just keep repeating the same things over and over again and they fall into line. The best example I can think of this is the "F-F" campaign waged by the right wing against JK during the election.

The job of promoting the truth about Senator Kerry can't be done voter by voter. It has to be done on a larger scale. You are so right about public relations. The talking points of the right wing have seeped into the insecurities of the left and this is dangerous because people simply don't want the facts: they want a mantra. We need to give them a better mantra.

This sounds like oversimplifying, but it isn't simple at all. Changing opinion is very difficult and we lost a lot of ground in the last race.

We need to flood the Internet with pro-Kerry TALKING POINTS.

Remember KISS? That is what we have to do. Keep it simple. Most voters aren't brain surgeons. Most voters do not give a damn about legislation or care how Congress works. They want someone who they can admire, trust and look up to. They want a rock star and a hero. Promoting THIS is the job at hand.

[whometense]

31. If you are brave enough to go out on that limb,

the least I can do is back you up.

I agree. The thing is, and we've all seen this with our own eyes, even the most stridently anti-Kerry sentiments (on the left - I'm not talking about freepervile (intentional misspelling) can be turned around with a calm pointing out of the truth. Also, speaking positively about Kerry on the web encourages the quiet Kerry supporters to speak out in his defense.

Not rocket science, as DD has pointed out, and you have to walk a fine line between dispersing positive (and TRUE) info and spouting propaganda. You want to encourage people to see him in a different light, or, in the case of latent supporters, to trust that their inner positive feelings about Kerry are based on truth, and to feel confident enough to beat down the lies.

[beachmom]

33. You are SO right about this:

you have to walk a fine line between dispersing positive (and TRUE) info and spouting propaganda.

I NEVER want to be given talking points, other than in general terms. You know what the quickest way you can get me to change the channel? When the announcer pits a "Republican strategist" against a "Democratic strategist". Talk about BOORRIINNG!! Bloggers are too savvy to put up with propaganda (even if it IS true). So I think we should be given the raw data, and then put in our own words why we think Kerry is right on Issue X. Or why we think he is a great leader. And I can tell you right now, that I will never type something that I don't believe in. There are a couple of issues I don't agree with Kerry on and I may defend his THINKING, but I would say "but I disagree with him on this issue". I think this brings us street cred, that we're, to coin a tired expression, "straight talkers". If we start sounding like the Republicans, people will just scroll past our names -- oh, THEM again, spouting the same old tired talking points.

[beachmom]

32. Agreed on the Blogs, but don't underestimate the Opinion Leader

The Opinion Leader (this is from my Communications Science college class) takes the time to be up on the news (and now blogs). Then he/she tells their friends and family how to think. And then they tell THEIR friends and family. And so on. I saw it happen with my own eyes, when a bunch of Navy guys I knew went on and on about how JK was no hero in Vietnam and believed all of the SBVT lies, and sold them as the truth. A swing voter was present, and having the Vietnam war hero story essentially destroyed, it was easier for her to vote for GWB. It was NOT Fox News or the media that convinced her of their lies. It was these opinion leaders who did. That is why when people blame Kerry for not fighting back, I say no -- I also have to take responsibility for not fighting for his good name when these men dragged it through the mud. I was afraid to speak up because they were military and I was not. No more. I will never stay silent when I hear lies told.

I suppose the more isolated people become, the less influential Opinion Leaders become. But there is where the Blogs become more important. Anyway, I can trump down Kerry's sound bite to one sentence:

Tell the truth!!!

Kerry always tells the truth.

[karynnj]

36. I think this was also what Kerry was getting at when he was here

in NJ for Corzine. After urging people to volunteer, he also may a plea that we become the grassroots. (remembered from 6 months ago, so may be misstated) He said that at some point, there would be Republican lies about Corzine. He urged us to become informed and to counter these stories when speaking to friends, family and co-workers.

Even if we're not opinion leaders, we can by convincing even a few people each that a rumour is false, increase the number of people who will reject the rumour and not add to it spreading. If you consider the rumour to be like a virus, educating people is like vaccinating them. Just as a sufficiently high vaccination rate will stop a virus from spreading - convincing people that a rumour is false keeps the rumour from becoming accepted.

[ProSense]

34. Agree with your first point about some people. On this point:

The problem is that there are thousands of voters who simply do not think at all and who are too easily influenced by popular opinion.

Popular opinion is influenced by the media, and I'm not sure how to effectively counter the volume of media spin that exist except calling them out when they spin (similar to what happened with WaPo and the leak). Still, that a humongous task that would require outrage about every egregious spin, not the little stuff, but the blatant lies. The little stuff, repeated often enough, seeps into people's thinking too, as you point out. The problem is it's not coming only from the RW, but also the media.

Take this misleading snip from a Globe article (that has nothing to do with Kerry) that asks a question, inserts a Kennedy quote (said many times before, and probably not said to this author) and follows up with another question to leave a negative impression:

But does authenticity number among the strengths of John Kerry, whom Kennedy backed for president in 2004 and whom he has said he'll support again in 2008?

''I think John's learned a lot," Kennedy says. ''I think he'd be a better candidate now than he was last time."

Perhaps, but can one learn authenticity?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/18/the_world_according_to_ted/

This writer simply created a context to question Kerry's integrity and give the impression that Kennedy harbors the same feeling about the 2004 campaign.

There are some excellent points about Kerry in this thread, including Beachmom's point specifically about Kerry's authenticity. These are the facts.


You're right, the Internet can have an impact, but it will be a difficult climb because the RW noise also seeps into online discussions.

Then there are people who just want to make noise.

[beachmom]

35. Unfortunately, attacking the pundits may be part of the solution.

I say, unfortunately, because I don't really like going negative, especially if it's like the RW. But we can't deny that the punditocracy has black balled Kerry. If they don't change their minds then we will have to continue to target their lies and distortions. But, somehow, it shouldn't come across as personal, so we can still give them the opportunity to come around, that maybe THEY were mislead by the chattering classes.

[wisteria]

37. Or they are too lazy to stay up on what is current.

Begallia (sp) often is not up on what recent opinions have been offered by the Democrats- and he is one of our guys. Carvell (again sp) you can't understand half the time, so you just pay attention to his antics. And like you said, many of our other pundits have nothing to say at all about John kerry or they brush him off as over and done with. There are a couple of exceptions and JK has been winning a couple over recently, but the others need to be persuaded still.

The Repubs, the only thing I can suggest is that we counter them with better comebacks and more informed pundits.

[karynnj]

38. That's discouraging to me too - but they were just as negative

on him in 2004. I do think we help if we counter substanitive lies (mistakes). What I don't know is what percent of people who read the papers or magazine also read the internet.

If it's high, things like the Klein story are easy to refute. (in that case, whether there was a poll or not Kerry spoke out on Abu Ghraib. From his own life I doubt he even needed a poll to tell him doing this was not a plus. The point then is 180 degrees from Klein's read - Kerry spoke knowing it would hurt. This means he is not poll driven and Klein's thesis wrong.