Big Worries About John Kerry

by John Nichols
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0506-08.htm

LOS ANGELES -- John Kerry is going to have to decide who he wants to be when he grows up politically. His post-primary campaign has been so dramatically unfocused and ineffectual that -- even as George Bush has taken more serious blows to his credibility than any sitting president since Richard Nixon in the first years of his second term -- Kerry has not been able to open up a lead nationally or in the essential battleground states.

Kerry is making moves to muscle up his Democratic presidential candidacy, with a $25-million let's-make-some-introductions advertising campaign, an effort to sharpen his message and a sped-up vice presidential search. The next month will be critical. If he can open a five- to eight-point lead nationally and establish leads that mirror those of Al Gore's 2000 wins in Democratic-leaning battleground states, his campaign will be sufficiently renewed to make the race. If, on the other hand, he continues to hold even nationally and trail behind Gore's showings in the states that will tip the balance in the Electoral College, there will come a round of questioning -- prior to the Democratic National Convention in July -- about whether the party is making the right choice.

Kerry will still be the nominee. Modern political parties lack the flexibility to clean up messes, no matter how obvious the need. The was proven in 1996, when the Republican National Convention dutifully nominated Bob Dole, despite the fact that no honest observer thought he had a chance of winning.

Will Kerry be the Dole of 2004? That's the question that the Massachusetts senator needs to sort out this month.
<SNIP>

Wonder if Kerry is taking Viagra? If he's not, maybe that's what he needs.

Wonder how he likes his crow, cuz come November I think it should be shoved down his throat.

that should be very worrisome to the campaign and they better do something besides instruct everyone to browbeat people into sticking their head in the sand.

camps.

The day you can name ONE lawmaker who exposed more government corruption than John Kerry in the last 30 years is the day I'll concede that he isn't as worthy a presidential nominee as I think.

the corruption rages on. What has been the outcome of the exposure?

Didn't they?

I was manning the Kerry booth at the Wisconsin State Convention last year (June '03) when John Nichols came up to me and we talked about a lot of things. He didn't seem down on Kerry for the votes that he seems to have the biggest issues with (IWR and Patriot Act), but maybe that was because Republican Joe was still in the race and Kerry looked like sunshine compared to him.

I praised his book "Jews for Buchanan" and asked him if he truly thought Florida is in play. He believes it is, but I have my doubts because I think the Republicans down there cheat their asses off and I think Jeb still has 90,000 scrubbed innocent voters off the rolls down there. He will cheat for his brother, you better believe it.

Anyways back to my point. He seems to agree with Kerry on most stances but like many here they question a select few adamantly, maybe in hopes of shifting him back to the left. I think that may happen but it will have to happen with a Democratic Senatorial takeover and some house gains (even with the impending Texas bullshit).

Nichols is just echoing the questioning sentiment of many to the left. Albeit though he isn't as forceful about it as it appears the topic poster here has been in a variety of anti-Kerry posts he has put up.

blm, I love your posts but I think Nichols is with us. He's just hoping to be with us more towards the left which seems to be a common theme from Dems this year. :-/

Rp

ourselves in the foot. We need to help Kerry define himself, but I am getting so tired of seeing so many articles saying he is losing when Bush, being the incumbent, is barely holding at 50% and that was without almost any advertising from Kerry. I admit he has to sharpen his image and his message.

Some people want Kerry to dump all his cards on the table, 6 months out. That would only cause spontaneous orgasmic response in Gillespie, Rove and the others. That would give them 6 months to tear Kerry apart, craft a message that opposes both Kerry and reality and repeat it until it becomes the truth.

C'mon, peeps: Allow for them to use SOME tactical intelligence. As much as we want to win this, we have to exercise a little patience. We can't let our anxiety make us turn into Rovian buttboys and girls.

it will be too late. rove and co., will have already done that for him.

this far out and by election time the battles in May will be moot. I think he's playing it exactly right.

To be truthful, though I like Arianna Huffington, after her performance in CA. I wouldn't be taking any advice from her about how to run a campaign.

speaks the truth about the issues, problems and solutions that face us as a nation.

and there are some things I don't agree with and some things I do.
It has nothing to do with speaking the truth on issues, she ran a losing campaign, Kerry has won many winning campaigns. When it comes to strategy, I trust him more.

The whole idea of front loading the primary process was to quickly establish a candidate who can then clearly define himself and contrast against Bush. Or have we decided to follow the GOP strategy of changing plans in midstream and tell people that was the real plan all along. The longer that Kerry remains unfocused, the harder it will be for him as the election get closer. Kerry should be burying Bush at every opportunity, especially with all of the bad news coming out now. Don't give them even a single foothold to recover. Why do we continue to let our irrational fear of Karl Rove dictate our strategy?

up to the plate, now that the pressure is gone, he's on vacation. I'm really not happy that he is not hitting the ground running, he needs a vp, he needs a message, he needs to stop the gaff's.

They seem to show up so often in Kerry bashing threads. Very interesting! :)

interesting at all.

and his radical right wing team! Kerry will be a pleasant change.

John Nichols is always ready to criticize John Kerry--like you, Larkspur.

John Kerry is running a great campaign. Bush has spent over $70 million trashing Kerry, and Kerry is either ahead or in a statistical dead heat.

I am not worried about John Kerry, and neither should any Democrat--especially after the way he came from behind and won in Iowa and earned the nomination. He will not disappoint.

even as George Bush has taken more serious blows to his credibility than any sitting president since Richard Nixon in the first years of his second term
and this is the truth.

Kerry has let it slip under the pole.

I sincerely hope that he changes his approach in the coming months.

If he does not and continues on this, gentlemanly , testing the waters approach, I think he will lose many, including me and will lose the election .


Those who wil vote will want to vote, in these times, for a dicisive leader

Bush will put out propaganda that he is indeed a decisive leader and if it is NOT refuted, people will buy it without a thought to anything else.

People do NOT have the time to analyze further than
tv ads--and superficial word of mouth via the internet--or AOL internet.

Kerry, 60, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, said that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation ``months ago'' because the Defense secretary lacked a plan for dealing with postwar Iraq. ``The reasons I suggested ages ago over Iraq are just compounded'' by the abuse, Kerry said.

Kerry also said that Bush should take responsibility for the problems in Iraq.

``I will take responsibility for the bad as well as the good,'' Kerry said at an appearance in California. ``As president, I will not be the last to know what is going on in my command.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aBiOXhAlggpk&refer=top_world_news

huh? "the bad as well as the good" ? What was his major at Yale? He needs a REAL quickie marketing course. It's like .. shave with zema.. it won't hurt as much!! I really don't know what to make of it.

I guess we could say he definitely has a "unique" campaign style?

must have been the worst marketer or politician in history. I think his name was JFK.

Seriously.

I can't remember where I just read it, but he was paying homage to Kennedy's comments after the Bay of Pigs.

he's ever stood for, except the first.

And you? How many successful campaigns have you managed?

but thanks for asking.

Yes, he was defeated in his first election. Then, he became "anti-war" (organizer/protester/witness) and WON. He is now "pro-war". Back to Square One?

elections than does John F. Kerry, I'm simply asking you to back up your assertions with results. Pretty simple, really.

you would rather make this personal than attempt to explain this inexplicable behavior.

Perhaps he can "win elections" without communicating the *benefits* of electing him. :shrug:

you know more about winning elections than John Kerry? You have made it personal, by insinuating that you're a more experienced political operative than he is.

I'm just asking for your bona fides. Odd that you're so very touchy on that issue... :shrug:

I guess we could say he definitely has a "unique" campaign style?

I was trying to put a positive spin on his remarks. Tried to give him a compliment.

I KNOW NOTHING about "winning elections". My 7th grade English teacher said I gave the best campaign speech when I ran for student council. But the chick who threw out a roll of toilet paper for effect (true story) won instead of me. So I guess I know something about giving speeches, if you trust an English teacher to be the judge. I decline to attempt to prove it to you, however.

But don't let that stop you from making a perfectly good attempt to smear and drag down Kerry's candidacy here. I know of no Democrat, personally, who is questioning Kerry's ability to carry it to Bush. He will kick Dimson's wimpy ass back to his Texas dude ranch.

He's doing that perfectly well all by himself.

Oh for cripe's sake! Take a sip of reality. Kerry is not well liked by many Democrats. He is doing nothing to win the hearts and votes of many Democrats. If he and his supporters think he can win in November by capturing the swing voters alone, then reality just ain't your number.

Kerry has only one thing going for him - he ain't bush. And that just might not be enough.

Your opinions, luckily, doesn't make it a fact. Whatever reality you're sipping, I'm not ready to drink that kool-aid.

Kerry is going to be the most progressive President in my lifetime....precisely the right Democrat to lead, confront, expose, and dispose the BFEE agenda that's warped this country over the past 40 years.

And as much as you can wish to derail it, that's the reality you'll be living with in November. Enjoy it...have another sip.

My dog is more progressive than Bush, but that doesn't make my dog a real progressive!

Kerry on the Middle East:

Kerry Vies for Jewish Vote

by Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger, Jewish Telegraphic Agency

"I’m very sensitive to the pushback that came from overly aggressive presidents who tried to just advance the title" of a peace process, "without the substance," Kerry told JTA. "There’s always been a feeling of concessions driven without a return on it. I will never voice a concession that somehow puts Israel’s judgment of its security at risk."

The only president Kerry cited specifically was President Clinton. He praised Clinton for his efforts as an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians, but acknowledged, "Some people, obviously there are a few people, who felt he pushed too hard."

Clinton pressed Israel into offering unexpectedly large concessions at the Camp David summit in 2000.

Kerry also said his belief in a multilateral approach to foreign affairs did not apply to Israel.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12215

Kerry on Venezuela:

"He is breaking the rules of democracy"
John Kerry Says Venezuela's Chavez is Becoming a Dictator

Thursday, May 06, 2004
By: Eva Golinger - Venezuelanalysis.com

Thursday, May 6, 2004 (Venezuelanalysis.com): For the second time in the first quarter of the campaign trail, John Kerry, the democratic candidate for president of the United States, has declared that “democracy is a risk” in Venezuela. Kerry also said that Venezuela’s democratically–elected President Chavez is becoming a dictator.

The statements were made on Wednesday night during Kerry’s first interview with the U.S. Spanish-language network, Univision, in an obvious attempt to garner the Hispanic vote. The 38 million strong Hispanic population in the United States is considered to be an important voting block in the upcoming 2004 presidential elections.

The Univision interview, conducted by Jorge Ramos, was clearly targeted at Southern Florida Spanish-speaking voters, known to be opposed to Cuban President Fidel Castro and with strong ties with the Republican Party. Yet in recent months, South Florida’s Hispanic population seems to have placed its votes up for grabs; the candidate with the firmest stance on Cuba and Venezuela is likely to acquire its support – democrat or republican aside.

For the last two years, the anti-Castro Cuban American community in South Florida has attempted to link anti-Chavez sentiments to its four-decade old battle against Cuba’s government. Cooperation between Venezuela and Cuba during the Chavez administration has prompted the Cuban conservative community in Southern Florida to join forces with Venezuelan Chavez opponents, as the Venezuelan President is seen as helping Castro stay in power.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1265

Here is a rebuttal to Kerry's earlier statements about Chavez:

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

Seeking for the Right's Vote

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

He will be the most progressive President in our lifetime. That piss you off? Too bad.

I see we've moved on to the Venezuala as the #1 hot button issue to bash Kerry on. What happened to Skull and Bones and IWR...out of rotation?

SO I guess you'll be supporting Bush's re-selection in November, right?

SO I guess you'll be supporting Bush's re-selection in November, right?

DLC McCarthyism!

What are you going to say to us next year when we demonstrate against President Kerry's policies in Iraq, the Middle East, PATRIOT, gay marriage, Venezuela, Cuba, etc? Is the DLC mantra going to be that the Left is trying to undermine "the President's agenda"?

Those of us in the back of the Democratic bus are not going to sit quietly while the party becomes more Republican (as the GOP becomes more Fascist)!

He (Kerry) will be the most progressive President in our lifetime.

No, Kerry will not be the most progressive President in our lifetime, not even close!

The most progressive President in my lifetime was President Lyndon Johnson. He was destroyed by Vietnam, a war of his own making!

Those of us in the back of the Democratic bus are not going to sit quietly while the party becomes more Republican (as the GOP becomes more Fascist)!

Move to the right under a republican administration, "stay the course" under the following democratic one. At each election with an incumbent republican, rally the voters with the "do you want four more years of this?" cry. What folks should realize is that we are going to get four, eight, forty more years of this unless we start actually rolling policies back and not simply "staying the course." Maybe not this November, but sure as hell the next time a republican carries the presidency.

Valid as ABB04 might be, it totally misses the larger picture.

against President Kerry. Unlike the current maladministration, Kerry has experience with the power of protests.

Right now, I'll do anything I can to get Kerry elected. I now know what the * junta can and will do and I'm :scared: if they actually get elected.

I think Kerry is the most progressive on domestic issues but not foreign.

I happen to believe John Kennedy was the most progressive president in *my* lifetime. He was the LAST president to speak of and actively pursue Peace for the sake of "Peace". He was the LAST president with a balanced view of the ME. He wasn't perfect. No man is. Furthermore, it seems to me that if he were going to be the "most progressive president", JK would now be the "most progressive senator". And, please, before someone whips out his pro-liberal ratings, keep in mind that "progressive" and "liberal" are not necessarily inclusive terms.

What Nichols is mad about is he can't take Kerry out, so he's whining about the kind of Candidate he is.

"I can't cut him off at the knees so there must be something wrong with him and his campaign."

Kerry's numbers are slowly going up, Bush's slowly going down, it's not Memorial Day, Bush has spent a boatload of money so far...

I say, Kerry needs to make comments as appropriate, as he is, and then let these idiots hang themselves.

Enough with the handwringing already....

Kerry is even or ahead in the battleground states.

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

Kerry knows that a moving target is much harder to hit...its something military. He must stay vague and untargetable until the height of the season when Republicans will not have the time to do what they do best, repeat a lie about something Kerry says so many times that people will beleive that it is true. They have repeated all of the crap abour his voting record in the past, and his military career and Kerry has effectively countered it. GIving them a target about what he says he actually will do adn giving them plenty of time to attack it negatively is the very worse thing Kerry could do. because it would allow the Bush people to try to define what Kerry actually says about the future in as negative a light as possible.

Kerry has given them a nice group of possible VP candidates, but will not select one before the democratic convention. Giving REpublicans a nice time trying to figure out who he will choose, and the inability to attack any of them.

His biographical ads counter the Bush administration...and they will not dare attack someone who "VOLUNTEERED" to go to Vietnam, and allow Bush's non volunteering to speak for itself.

Only an idiot reveals their war strategy in the newspaper before the real engagement occurs. It is the means that defeated Dean, it is an even better strategy against Bush, who must give away his present actions and his actions as president on a nearly houry basis. All the press has to complain about Kerry is that he is not gingin him anything new for the press to attack him with.

constructive criticism being allowed.

You know Saddam Hussein didn't like being told bad news either, look where it got him...

This thread doesn't seem much different than FOX, Rush, Hannity, etc., when it comes to the "Bush Bashers". You can't question anything. If you don't jump in lockstep, you are being treasonous.
A lot of us are supporting Kerry and will be voting for him in November. However, that does not mean that we think he is the best candidate we could come up with, or that we agree with all of his deeds, policies and actions.

votes for him .. that also doesn't mean that he doesn't need to communicate his VALUE to other Americans!!

We have the claim that he will be the "most progressive". Yet if the dedicated progressives dwelling at DU are concerned that his message may be *diluted*, what of other, less committed progressives? We have the claim that he has to appeal to the *middle* or right leaning crowd. Does that indicate that the "most progressive" president ever has to take on the characteristics of flotsam?

I'm just not convinced that *not B*sh* is going to get the job done. I hope American voters prove me wrong.

The engineering department is often at odds with the quality assurance department. If they want customers, they work together to improve the product.

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

Vote for Bush. That works, too.


MzPip
:dem:

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

I'm a NYer from MA, too. And I agree that the Dole/Kerry comparison is off the mark.

they're both moderate war heroes who've had long senate careers.

They're both running against reviled incumbents who never served in war.

They're both "electable"

They both reject the extremes of their party. Dole was upset with the rise of the Gingrich crowd and Kerry doesnt seem to be good friends with the anti-war left.

I think they know what they are doing.

of Dean basically calling the Iowa Caucus a useless exercise and the people a bunch of rubes is what really started his downfall and allowed Kerry to win Iowa. I can't think of anything Kerry did on his own prior to Iowa that cause his sudden rocket to the top.

It seems constructive and to the point:

"...only the candidate can send the a broad and meaningful message that says his campaign really does promise fundamental change. Kerry cannot count on the "Beat Bush" message to carry him to victory in November. Nor should he assume that just promising to be kinder and gentler than Bush will be enough.

John Kerry needs to present himself as the candidate who offers America a clean break from Bushism.

If he does so, he will win. "