Kerry Blew It on IWR Answer! Should Have Rejected Hypothetical Question.

[WiseMen]

At least for a few weeks.

Bush's rhetoric was definitely designed to trip Kerry up.

There was no reason to answer Bush's provocation in the middle of his post-Convention tour. It was intended as a distraction. Rove is trying to get Bush and Kerry on the same plane in the national media stage in order to reset Bush's "the Bungler” image.

I don’t blame Kerry for this slip. Some campaign aide should have been dealing with this issue and protecting Kerry from the media wolves. I blame the campaign for not providing him with a steady supply of rhetorical questions to put to Bush every time a reporter repeated the hypothetical: For example, Kerry could have said:

Hypotheticals are full of pit falls. Is the issue “knowing what I now know about WMD’s in Iraq” or is the issue “knowing what I now know about George Bush?”

And we still don't know what happened with the Intelligence. Was the intelligence analysis influenced by the Whitehouse? Why have the Republicans in Congress refused to investigate this till after the elections?

What did the President know and when did he know it, about the WMD threat? I really don’t know what to believe? This needs to be investigated?

Knowing what you now know about George Bush, do you think it was a good idea for the Supreme Court to appoint him President?

Etc. etc.

In any event, his campaign should kept the press dangling a lot
longer while the foreign policy staff used the opportunity to
articulate the Kerry position fully and precisely.

[oasis]

1. Letting George Bush ask him questions via the media was a BIG mistake.

The mainsteam media and the Bushistas are joined at the hip.

[Snoggera]

2. I don't think he blew it

but remember when, I think during a debate, Dukakis had to answer a hypothetical question regarding a family member getting raped? That was the same type of set up, and Dukakis flubbed it.

I think they all should answer hypotheticals. Here's one for the first debate:

If Jesus came back today, which one of you two would punch him in the nose (or, as in the case of one of the candidates, have someone else punch him in the nose)?

[buycitgo]

13. here's one I like better?

Mr. Bush, sir, if Jesus came back to earth today, would he be a liberal or a radical reactionary, I mean, republican?

[Snoggera]

21. And Jesus would, without a doubt have to interject:

Look into your own heart (or what might be left of it that hasn't turned black) and you will have your answer.

.........and Mr. Bush stands for 7 minutes at the podium looking extremely perplexed and slightly, well, stupid.

[ClassWarrior]

3. You've got a lot there he can STILL use to respond to this...

I like, "Is the issue 'knowing what I now know about WMD’s in Iraq' or is the issue 'knowing what I now know about George Bush?'" What an awesome sound bite that'd make!

[Snoggera]

5. And gets right to the point. n/t

[mzmolly]

4. We always knew Kerry could not effectively challenge Bush on the war.

Kerry is in a no win situation here.

I am voting for Kerry but I didn't support him initially because I felt we needed a candidate who could really go after Bush on Iraq.

However, months ago Dems did not know if Iraq was going to be equated to Eden in the media at this time in the election, so Kerry was the choice of Democrats because Dems felt that no matter what happened in Iraq, he would be viable.

Overall, he's a very solid choice for a candidate, but there is no "good" answer from him on the war. NADA.

If he says "the war was a mistake" the quote about asking the last man to die for a mistake comes back to haunt.

If he says "the war was wrong, Bush mislead, we had no WMD's" then the quote about "if you don't think Saddam has WMD's or is a threat, don't vote for me" comes back to haunt.

He has to play this like he is, unfortunately.

[ClassWarrior]

7. I think WiseMen has come up with some fairly decent answers for him...

[mzmolly]

9. Me too actually.

:hi:

But I dont think Kerry can say what we'd all like him to on the war. Which is that it was wrong.

[uberlibrul]

19. That being said,

Kerry needs to watch his mouth. Remember when he took the bait about life beginning at conception? And that he opposes gay marriage? We progressives can give him a pass because we know what he's really about; that he has to say certain things to quiet certain shills, but these soundbites can backfire. Remember, voters aren't the brightest bulbs.

[mzmolly]

23. True.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

62. Hey Mz... As always, you speak the truth...

:hi:

[mzmolly]

82. Aw shucks! Thanks...

*blush* :hi:

[Classical_Liberal]

10. Exactly

.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. People are scared about this war. They really think Bush has

got us in so far that it can only lead to Armagedon. They don't think that even Kerry can pull us out. They believe that only if America admits that we made a mistake that we will get support to end this thing, and they don't even consider that an option. They believe America is too arrogant and too full of itself to do that.

What's worse, they believe that terrorist are already here and that they will begin a bombing campaign which will only escalate this mess. They seriously believe the end of the world is near.

[mzmolly]

14. Don't believe the end is near backlash. It's not. I felt that way in the

Reagan years. Something about a Republican administration does that to a person. I don't believe in Armageddon personally and I am a Christian. The book of Rev was written about the Roman empire, and it's no wonder it resembles the current empire in the US.

Kerry will win the election, and has said he'll start bringing home our guys/gals in 6 months.

Hang tight, "Help is on the way" :hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Thanks Mzmolly.

I'll ride your optimism for a while.

[mzmolly]

40. Good!

Here is what some say, and I believe (in a nutshell) about Revelations.

Revelations was written for people to have faith during the Roman Empire when so many were persecuted. It was not written by John, but by many people and they used the name John after the apostle because he was dead, and you can't kill a dead man. Revelations is not about the end of the world, but is the prophecy of the fall of the Roman empire. People during those times used these symbols so the if the Romans ever got a hold of these manuscripts they would blow it off as just some Christian gibberish.

I think when we have a President who subscribes to the Armageddon mentality, it's easy to feel a bit frightened. :scared:

But, me thinks Bush will be gone soon, and a reasonable replacement shall take IT'S place. :hug:

[JI7]

17. Why people who were anti iraq war or anti iwr voted for Kerry

Kerry was able to convince the people that his vote for the resolution was not a vote to do things as bush did and that he would have went about things differently.

kerry campaigned partly on his biography including his days of protesting the war. the way kerry sold his military service was done in a way to emphasize "service" rather than war, he talked about his buddies and how they would be there for each other. he let his vet friends talk about how he saved them. he didn't focus on the parts about killing and other violent combat fighting that went on. it was more about bonding with his buddies. this helped him win women's votes by large margins even though women tend to be turned off by military more than men. and of course women make up not only the largest group of voters in the general election, but a far larger group in the democratic primary elections.

and he also played up his protesting the war. he wasn't just a war hero, but he was a hero because he came back and protested what he saw as wrong. this appealed to people and it helped in them not seeing him as being prowar or supporting what bush did. they thought this guy would never do what bush did .

once he had that in place, they were able to ask him questions on other issues that mattered to them which have to do with their daily lives and they liked what he had to offer.

also, polls showed that while gephardt, edwards, kerry and lieberman all voted for iwr, less people thought kerry was pro war than the rest of them.

kerry is doing something similar now with his campaign, although altered a bit to appeal to general election voters rather than democratic primary voters.

[mzmolly]

26. I think since the vast majority of Americans approved of the war

including half of Democrats (before the invasion) some people went with Kerry. He represents a portion of the public that was also mislead.

I do wish he could say "I was mislead" but I don't think he will for political reasons. It might not be wise.

Especially if they magically pull WMD's out of the proverbial hat in the days to come?

Kerry is viable no matter what happens in Iraq, I think that's why Democrats by and large, selected him.

[JI7]

28. Kerry won the anti war votes

and most caucus goers and new hampshire voters opposed the war. but Kerry still won their votes.

[mzmolly]

31. Yes he did. After Saddam was captured. I have addressed why I think

he won such votes.

Kerry was *safe* no matter what happens in Iraq. And hey, who am I to question his strategy, he's ahead in the polls. I only hope we Democrats were "right" in our thought process.

[JI7]

33. education, health care, jobs

that's why people voted for kerry. that's what he talked about during most of his campaign. remember the ad about middle class tax cuts. that was one of the best ads he ran in iowa. the people who came to his events asked questions about these issues the most. it wasn't about iraq or terrorism.

[mzmolly]

35. I heard all the candidates address "education, health care, jobs"

and Dean was in a position to actually address these issues in Vermont.

Dean has an outstanding record on all 3.

IMHO, People voted for Kerry because Saddam was captured, and his position on Iraq was wishy washy. Democrats admired a clear position on Iraq, but decided in an election, it might be best to play it cool. Now were bitching because Kerry won't speak out against the war? It makes no sense.

[JI7]

38. polls showed they agreed with Kerry on those issues the most

those were the things Kerry talked about most with those who voted for him. remember, the iowa caucuses isn't just where you go and vote and come back. you have to be there for hours and there are 2 rounds of voting. you have to convince people to get out there and go through all that . getting people to commit to getting out there was hard work itself. but he did it because of his positions on jobs, health care and education.

the polls showed that most voted on jobs, health care, education, and on all 3 of those Kerry did the best.

john edwards did the second best. and edwards also talked mostly about those issues.

[mzmolly]

41. That's because they considered Kerry's position on the war in addition to

the things you mentioned.

I think Kerry was also represented by surrogates who were more experienced than some of the others, and he had the advantage their as well.

I think what happened was that Kerry was actually given consideration because of the war, and when people saw that he had good ideas on jobs/health care and education, they bit.

[JI7]

43. Kerry and Dean had different positions on those issues

Kerry supported keeping middle class tax cuts which dean opposed. and Dean went after Kerry on no child left behind, yet Kerry still got most votes on education.

and again here, Kerry and Edwards had the same positions and of course Edwards did well also by coming in at number 2 in iowa.

[mzmolly]

45. What the polls show is that Democtas cared MORE about the issues you

mention then Iraq, but ultimately they wanted to win, which is why they voted for Kerry.

BTW, Dean came around on the tax cut, but a bit too late.

Here is what voters deemed as "most important" in the poll you linked:

Cares About People (22%)
Takes Strong Stands (29%)
Right Experience (15%)
Can Beat Bush (26%)
Endorsements (1%)

[JI7]

47. "takes strong stands" is higher than beat bush and Dean won that one

which again comes to the issues where Kerry won on health care, jobs and education.

[mzmolly]

51. Kerry was a compromise because he was seen as a way to win.

I don't think anyone can beat Dean on the issues you mention frankly ;)

Also, if you look at the individual breakdown of the 'takes strong stands' vote: Dean got 31% to Kerry's 26% :P

By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush.

...

Tuesday, the electability factor wasn't just big; it was decisive. The networks anointed Kerry the nominee based on his sweep of Virginia and Tennessee. But Kerry wasn't the first choice of Tennesseans who selected their candidate based on the issues. Edwards was. The "can defeat Bush" voters were the ones who reversed the outcome and put Kerry on top.

Electability, according to Dautrich, is a key factor for Democrats in the primary. According to the poll, Kerry is the candidate voters feel has the best chance to beat Bush (58 percent), followed by Dean (6 percent), Edwards (5 percent) and Clark (3 percent). Dautrich said part of the focus on electability is a result of the controversial outcome of the 2000 election.

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2004/02/04/News/Kerry.Holds.Early.Lead.In.Connecticut.Primary-596968.shtml

[JI7]

63. that poll you cite was not for iowa

it was for the state of tennessee. where dean did not compete. it was after kerry had already won iowa, new hampshire and maybe some other states.

[mzmolly]

66. I didn't realize we were limiting the discussion to Iowa.

I was discussing why Kerry won the primaries, not just Iowa. :hi:

[JI7]

69. well, reasons are different for various states

the other states experienced different type of campaigning than did iowa ,new hampshire and some of the other earlier states.

but in iowa Kerry DID win on the issues. the same in New Hampshire, Kerry won among those who voted on issues such as health care, education, jobs also.

in tennessee which is what you cited, Edwards DID get most of the support from those who voted on the issues with 34 percent, but Kerry still got 31 percent on that also.

virginia voted on the same day as tennessee and kerry won on the issues in virginia.

[mzmolly]

81. I disagree. Dean who governed beautifully on these issues for 12 years

clearly had an advantage to anyone taking an honest look.

Kerry won because we wanted to beat Bush.

[sandnsea]

22. What quote?

There's no "think Saddam has WMD's" quote. He said something like "if you think I'd have taken us into this war, don't vote for me".

He voted to give Bush authority to deal with Saddam and that was and always will be right, even if we knew there were no WMD because Saddam would always be a danger. But that isn't the same thing as going to war in March which he has said wasn't necessary and he needs to say that again. As well as going to war at all, unless Saddam was unwilling to comply with continuing UN inspections. Since Bush decided to go to war, we're in a pickle and can't let the country turn into a failed state. Even though it was not necessary to go in, it's now necessary to get it right. Kerry's got the best possible position on this war, if his stupid advisors would just stay the hell out of the way and let him make his case.

[mzmolly]

25. Yes there is such a quote. There are many PAINFUL quotes from Kerry

on Iraq:

.. John Kerry said this in March 2003 on NPR:

Senator JOHN KERRY (Presidential Candidate): I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.

Kerry said so in February 2003 (quoted in USA Today):
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts chides the administration for waiting too long to make the case for invasion and do "the hard diplomatic work" of enlisting allies. But he says leaving Saddam Hussein "unfettered with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable."

Kerry said this in a February 2003 (quote in the Boston Globe):
...on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling."

Nor did Saddam have nuclear weapons merely because Kerry implied as much in this remarkable statement from January 2003 (quoted in the Los Angeles Times): ...Kerry refused to endorse Kennedy's call this week for a second congressional vote. And, in his speech last week, he told a questioner who suggested that force would never be justified against Iraq: "If you don't believe in the U.N. ... or you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Nor did Saddam have WMDs merely because of Kerry's speech in October 2002:
In a speech on the Senate floor immediately prior to the October vote, Senator Kerry categorically stated that Saddam Hussein was "attempting to develop nuclear weapons."

In addition, Senator Kerry stated unequivocally that "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." He even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs "are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."

Senator Kerry did not stop there, insisting that “Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq’s neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.”

Here is a nice lil' Freeper page on Kerry quotes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074054/posts

So you can see, Kerry has no choice but to wimp out on the war.

[JI7]

27. there is no wimping out on war

he is saying the same things he said during the primary. people complained then about his "nuance" complex thinking and positions as they do now. but even then he always stood by his vote as he does now.

[mzmolly]

29. I agree he is saying the same thing now/then.

Which is why I supported another candidate in the Primaries. :hi:

Kerry's nuanced position didn't appeal to me, but after the capture of Saddam, Dem's started thinking "hmmm, will Dean/Clark be viable if X happens" ? So Democrats selected Kerry, who will be viable no matter what happens in Iraq.

I don't have a huge problem with Kerry's position today, it is what it is. And, it may be beneficial down the road.

I am simply saying Kerry can't come out strong against the war now as some think he should.

[JI7]

32. Kerry won because

of health care, education, and jobs issues. most voters did not vote based on iraq even though they opposed it. they voted based on issues like economy , health care, and education.

this is where kerry was the most specific and detailed. it's what he most talked about with the voters in the primary campaigns. while some on du and other places may have paid most attention to what he said about iraq, this is not where most who voted for him paid attention.

and john edwards did well for similar reasons even though he also voted for iwr. remember, edwards was the favorite for vp among democrats also, even though he voted for iwr.

[mzmolly]

36. I disagree.

Dean talked up a storm about those issues, and had an outstanding record in Vermont to back it up.

They voted for Kerry because of his pro/anti Iraq war position.

Kerry does have a good proposal for Education/Healthcare and Jobs, but so did Dean, and Dean had the record to back it up.

[JI7]

39. the polls showed otherwise

about 71 percent voted based on health care, jobs and education, and Kerry won on all 3 of those issues. only 14 percent voted based on war in iraq and dean won that vote. but it was a small amount that voted based on that.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

[mzmolly]

44. What the polls show is that Democrats care about these issues.

This doesn't mean they chose Kerry because he had preferable positions on any of them.

Look at the "can beat Bush" category. That is why Kerry won, because people felt he could beat Bush.

Exit polls showed people agreed with Dean on the issues, but they wanted to WIN.

Exit polls indicated voters gave Kerry a second look because of his experience and leadership qualities and the perception that he may have a better chance of beating Bush. Kerry also had success with younger, first-time voters -- another bloc of voters seen as Dean's strength.

Edited to add link:
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20040120/FP_001.htm

The War was not the first priority for Democrats, beating Bush was.

[JI7]

46. the question was what is their top issue

and those who had health care, jobs and education as top issues mostly voted for kerry.

and i know Kerry won the "can beat bush" category but more still voted for him based on the issues than on that. if they didn't care where he stood on the issues they would not have cared whether he could beat bush. more people thought taking strong stands was more important than on whether one could beat bush. and dean won on that one.

[mzmolly]

48. Your reading it wrong. Education tied with Iraq, see here:

Of the Democrats sampled the most imporant issue was rated below as follows:

Farm Policies (2%)
Education (14%)
Health Care-Medicare (28%)
U.S. Trade Policy (4%)
War in Iraq (14%)
Economy-Jobs (29%)
National Security (3%)

Education is tied with Iraq. I think your looking at the breakdown of the individual candidates perhaps?

The most important quality breaks down as such:

Cares About People (22%)
Takes Strong Stands (29%)
Right Experience (15%)
Can Beat Bush (26%)
Endorsements (1%)

[JI7]

52. take strong stands is more than can beat bush

and on the break down of issues kerry won in education, health care, and jobs.

[mzmolly]

53. As I said, that's because "DEMOCRATS" care about those issues.

It's not because Kerry had a superior position to Edwards or Dean or X on said issues.

[JI7]

55. on the breakdown of the issues

next to the issue and the percentage of people who say it was a top issue it gives the candidates numbers that go with that issue. for example 14 percent thought the war in iraq was a top issue. but the breakdown of that 14 percent shows that dean got the most support of those people.

on the issues of health care, jobs, and education, the breakdown among the candidates numbers shows kerry with the most support.

[mzmolly]

56. It shows that Kerry supporters ranked those as important issues.

It doesn't show that Democrats felt he was stronger on said issues.

[JI7]

61. yes it does

the percentage number in parenthesis next to the issue such as Education (14%) Healthcare-Medical(28%) are the numbers that correspond to the most important issue. mean 14 percent thought education was most important , 28 percent though healthcare etc.

but those numbers are in turn broken down to show which candidate they supported by percentage. of the 14 percent of total voters who thought education was a top concern, most of them supported Kerry with with 38 percent as the number shows under his picture and edwards got the 2nd most with 30 percent.

which means most people who thought education was most important issue voted for Kerry.

the same pattern is true with health care and jobs.

more people thought jobs(29%) and health care(28%) was the most important issue than iraq(14%) which tied with education(14%).

so 71 percent thought jobs, health care, and economy was the most important issue and Kerry got the most support from those who thought that. Gephardt got the most support from those who thought trade was the most important issue with 49 percent, but only 4 percent of total voters thought that was the most important issue.

[mzmolly]

68. That doesn't mean Kerry won because of his stance on Education etc..

It simply means that Dems cared about these issues.

And, as I demonstrated they also cared a great deal about Defeating *.

[JI7]

70. i know they cared about defeating Bush, but they cared more about issues

and on the issues Kerry did get the most support from those who said Education, Health Care, Jobs was the most important issue for them.

Kerry won on those who said electability was important also. but he also won on the issues.

if it was only because of electability then the numbers on the other areas would have been about even among the candidates or higher than Kerry as was the case with Edwards getting about 3 points higher on issues in tennessee, but that was NOT the case. Kerry was a top choice among those who voted on defeating Bush, AND on those who voted based on Health Care, Jobs, Education.

[mzmolly]

80. The issues are WHY we care about defeating Bush.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

71. quotes from free republic

That's very sad. I'm familiar with most of these speeches and they don't say what these people are twisting them to say. I can't imagine why you'd want to repeat anything they have to say.

If you don't believe a dog with rabies is a threat, then you're an idiot. That's what these quotes mean, Saddam Hussein with any sort of WMD would be a threat. That's why Kerry voted for the authorization, to get inspectors in to find out what was going on. "If you don't believe in the U.N. ... or you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Which is not what you said he said:

"if you don't think Saddam has WMD's or is a threat, don't vote for me"

It's one thing to be concerned about Kerry's position on the war itself, that's a legitimate concern. But to make shit up in order to bash, I just don't get it at all. Unless you're supporting Nader.

[Raya]

24. He was in a much better position before he answered the trick question.

[George_Bonanza]

54. Very wise words Molly

I think the Iraq issue is so tragic because it's such a fricking albatross. Without it, Kerry's a complete shoo in and we wouldn't even worry about Nader or Bush for that matter. If only, if only...

Yeah, if Kerry said no, then a whole new can of dirt would've been opened up. I still think NO was a better answer, but barely.

[mzmolly]

83. Thanks George.

It's all very sad. But as they say "politics is the art of compromise" :(

[Seabiscuit]

84. If "he has to play this like he is, unfortunately"

...that just means he's already stuck his foot in his mouth so many times on the issue that no matter *what* he says he's shooting himself in the foot.

That's why I was against him throughout 2003 and very disappointed Dean or Edwards didn't trounce him and Gephardt in the primaries. He's a better choice than Gephardt, but not on the Iraq war issue. They both blew it big time beginning with their votes for the IRW, and their wishy-washy flip-flopping BS about it all ever since.

Kerry should some day soon come out and give a press-release and state very simply, "you know, the Iraq issue has become such a major issue in this campaign I've been spending much of my time reviewing and rethinking it all. And you know what? I think I finally learned a lot from my past mistaken thinking about it. One of the things I've learned is that given what I know now about George Bush, all the false claims about WMDs, ties to Al Queda, ties to 9/11, and "imminent threat" to the U.S., if I'd known this in October, 2002 I would have voted against the IRW." Then go into all of the administrations lies, their sending Colen Powell to lie to the U.N., Bush's refusal to abide by their own U.N. Resolution 1441 by cutting off the inpsection process and midstream and violating international law by invading a sovereign country without adequate provocation. Further, criticize Bush for pretending the Bush has some unilateral right to enforce U.N. Resolutions. Wrong! ONLY the U.N. can enforce its own resolutions. Then go into how if the administration had been truthful with the U.N. and allowed the inspectors to complete their mission, NOT ONE of the member states would have joined Bush invading Iraq, and he wouldn't have been able to dub the minor support he got from a few nations "the coalition of the willing". Then go into how he never intended to have an exit strategey - that the entire PNAC goal is to occupy Iraq for reconstruction and oil profiteering indefinitely, and that's why there's nothing but a despised puppet government there now, and that's why Americans all have targets on their backs there, and why our casualties continue to mount there daily. Then go into his plan for an exit strategy.

What's so difficult with this approach? As Bill Maher repeated eloquently on his recent show with Michael Moore, you can't lable "learning from experience" or "learning from mistakes" and "changing your mind" *flip-flopping*. If no one learned from their mistakes and their experience, they'd never grow or get anying right, except by pure luck.

If anyone knows how to get this message to the Kerry campaign, please do so. I've been banned from their Blog for posting such suggestions/criticisms. They're spineless.

[Kahuna]

6. I agree.

nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Me too. n/t

[Karenina]

12. Me too.

No wouldas, shouldas or couldas. All are past tense. Stick to WHAT IS.

[mzmolly]

16. I think Kerry should practice this very meme.

"I don't believe in looking back, I want to look forward..." etc. :hi:

[The Crazy Canadian]

15. Iraq has to go down in flames before Kerry will change his position.

The public is going to believe that Kerry and Bush have the same positions on Iraq. This was one issue that Kerry should have confronted Bush on. I guess its to late for that now.

[Raya]

18. Time for some Re-Org in Kerry Campaign. Kerry took over too much after

he fired Jim Jordan and brought on MaryBeth.

Going up against the Repub machine is a little different that the
democratic primaries. I think a new, strong, campaign manager could help avoid these missteps.

[sandnsea]

20. He needs a black/white answer

War or not, Kerry needs to say one way or the other. Frankly, if he supports this war, no matter how it was fought, he'll have no more credibility than Bush overseas. I think he's getting bad foreign policy or campaign advice. This war was wrong to fight on so many levels and no amount of Bush's Saddam rhetoric can make it right.

[Kahuna]

57. I agree. I think I know what he's trying to say. But to tell you..

the truth, I'm not really sure. What's so hard about saying, I gave the dumbass the authorization for war provided Saddam Hussien wouldn't allow the inspectors back in? The inspectors were back in. The Dumbass kicked them out so that he could get his war on, and I don't approve of that. Why is it so hard for him to put it in simple terms? He'd better get more succinct. Because I'm on his side and I don't know what the hell he's talking about half the time.

[hippiegranny]

30. "kerry" and "blew it" do not go together

he answered a question thrown at him by the complicit media. Had he not answered it things would have been even worse. Kerry is running a great campaign. Can't we all just chill?

[Raya]

42. Sorry Friend. I think WiseMen has earned the right to say Kerry Blew it,!

Check his archive posts on DU from dark days before IOWA.

Anyway, what is wrong with Kerry making a campaign mistake.
He, and others, have done it before.

[volosong]

34. Kerry Blows It

Kerry is blowing it alot these days. He is playing into the hands of the Bush camp and Rove. They keep Kerry dancing all over the place.
Kerry has yet to land a good punch on George; should have ignored this question and many others just like the respondent said.

If Kerry doesn't toughen up his campaign he'll be listening to George's second inaugural....

[wicket]

49. Please send this to the Kerry campaign!!!!

[Sugarbleus]

77. How does one get through to the Kerry campaign????

Whoever is managing him and his speeches etc.is lousy. Even liberal radio hosts are complaining about what "he should/could have said".

We know him, but the rest of the population needs to understand clearly what he stands for and what he MEANS.

I wish the media would show more of his travels on the campaign trail so I could be sure what he's doing out there. All we see are these little faux pases Yikes.

[Ducks In A Row]

50. it didn't matter what he answered, or if he refused to answer

it would be twisted regardless

[Kahuna]

58. Kerry needs to put * on the defensive. Duh. There's plenty of things

he could be asking * to give a direct answer to.

[Seabiscuit]

59. You can't blame Kerry's fuck-up on Kerry's aides.

If he can't think rightly for himself on his feet and exercise proper judgment on his own, how can we trust him to lead this country???

[Seabiscuit]

60. BTW, Dean had a real POS for a campaign manager

who brought with him a pile of incompetent aides. Yeah, it brought Dean down, but I don't blame them, I blame Dean himself for letting them mislead him and letting himself fuck up too often on his own. End result? A media image of a crazy guy with foot-in-mouth disease in place of the visionary progressive with spine who inspired his grassroots campaign through the "Sleepless Summer Tour" and beyond (for a few months before self-destruction set in). "The buck stops here", remember?

Kerry has no spine.

[Raya]

64. Molly Ivins says governing and campaigning require different

skills sets and drives. Bush, she says, is very comfortable campaigning but not so governing.

I think there are many aspects of running a political campaign that
have nothing to do with good governance.

It has been very clear that Kerry is a much better candidate than his
campaign.

One of the principal jobs of his campaign management and staff is
to protect him from media games. I agree with those who think they
failed him.

[Seabiscuit]

78. On the contrary,

I have always perceived Kerry's campaign staff to be far more professional and well-trained at campaigning than Howard Dean's staff ever was. Plus they don't have some corrupt, dumbass, greedy SOB like Joe Trippi running it.

I stand my ground. If Kerry is going to submit himself to questions, he should either be prepared to answer all on his own or have prepared himself in advance by seeking the best advice available from his entire campaign staff. There's no excuse at this point in the campaign for blaming his verbal gaffes on his staff.

The buck stops with John Kerry and John Kerry only on these points. The sad thing is he continues repeatedly to show he lacks the guts and spine Howard Dean had to stand up squarely to Bush on how wrong the war was in the first place and why. He seems even more stubborn than Dean in his own way - Kerry's stubbornness is far more troublesome to me because it shows a lack of character and devotion to principle, where as Dean's stubbornness had to do with his lack of flexibility about phrasing, dress, and backing off from stupid foot-in-the mouth statements such as the bit about the pickup trucks and confederate flags.

I'm of course going to vote for Kerry over Bush. That's not the issue. The issue is free speech - the right to criticize, complain, admonish, advise, and protest what I as a citizen do not like seeing in my candidate's public statements. I personally am disgusted with whoever is running the Kerry blog. I and numerous others exercising such free speech rights have been banned from posting there, because they're so thin-skinned they can't take *any* perceived negative input from their own supporters. This *NEVER* happened on the Dean blog - they were able to roll with the punches and take the good with the difficult. Kerry's people are gutless on this level. As a result, I will vote for Kerry/Edwards, but I refuse to contribute one plugged nickle or one second of my precious time to their campaign. Dean, however, got the federal maximum from my pocket, as did Edwards once Dean self-imploded with his "scream speech", but I've been hesitant all along to contribute to Kerry because he has never yet convinced me he's in the right place regarding the Iraq war, and he has always been a hard-core DLC'er, ever moving to the center, no matter how far the center keeps shifting to the right. And that's just plain wrong and unprinicipled in my book.

As you may suspect, I blame the DLC for the destruction of the Democratic Party. With a DLC'er in charge of our presidential campaign, I find myself wanting to barf every time I see Kerry play their losing political games in his speeches and interviews. He could lose this critical election if he continues down this corkscrew road.

And when will he have the guts to start standing up and defending his voting record in the Senate? He's been strangely silent in face of the mounting smears from the right-wing on this issue.

[radiclib]

65. Sorry, but this is a perfect example of what I hate about Kerry.,

Can anyone please explain what in the name of God is so terribly difficult about answering "If you knew at the time what you know now, would you vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq?" with "OF COURSE NOT. NO WMD, NO OSAMA LINK, NO SANE REASON TO INVADE." If Kerry is justified in fearing that he'd be considered a "flip-flopper" by a significant percentage of voters for this answer, then we're all totally fucked anyway and we might as well kiss our country goodbye for good. A vote to invest this simpleton and his warmongering neocon puppetmasters with carte-blanche to invade a sovereign nation without provocation, in my humble view, makes Kerry appear to be either incompetent, gutless or a warmonger himself. Which is it?
Please don't misunderstand. I support Kerry and will do anything I can to see that he wins, but this kind of crap is extremely discouraging. A child wouldn't be suckered by this kind of bait. What the hell is wrong with the Kerry team?

[Raya]

72. Let's not MISREPRESENT Kerry like anti-Kerry folk.

Your question "If you knew at the time what you know now, would you vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq?" missrepresents the IWR as
Kerry presents it.

Kerry's position, and that of many in the Senate, is that the IWR was
as much a vote to stop an impending invasion being pushed by
the NeoCons as it was to authorize the credible threat of force.

So, as much as I don't understand why Kerry says he stands by his vote,
it does not mean he would support invasion except under the conditions
specified and understood by the Senate.

[radiclib]

75. A vote for IWR was a vote to STOP the invasion?

I don't think so. Here's what I remember about October 2002. While the Taliban had been routed in Afghanistan and bin Laden had slipped into the ozone, Bushco had been sabre-rattling over Iraq for months, and many of us lowly subjects were begging for some sort of proof, which was clearly not forthcoming, of a threat from Saddam. Remember how people said, "Oh, they must know something, and disclosing proof would somehow...gulp...compromise our security!" Somewhere around this time,a California court ruled that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, and the members of Congress--ESPECIALLY Democrats, trampled eacxh other to gain optimal position on the Capitol steps to recite the Pledge and yell out "UNDER GOD" in a photo-op for the national media.(Kerry said later he was stuck in traffic, but really really wished he could be there.)It was in this climate of fear of being labelled unpatriotic that the Congress voted overwhelmingly to waive their warmaking powers and grant Bush the ultimate power to wage war on Iraq. I don't remember whether this was before or after they nearly unanimously passed the USA PATRIOT Act without reading much of any of it. I thought they were a bunch of craven cowards then, and I still do. Kerry can twist himself into a Gordian knot trying to "nuance" the issue, but it will never wash with most of us who were paying attention at the time.

[John_H]

67. He has to point out what even many DUers don't understand.

How many times have you seen a DUer say, "Kerry voted for the war!!!!" Apparently some of us have a similar aversion to nuance thast Chimp doeas--especially since we're talking about apples and oranges.

A Vote to give the president the authority to go to war if needed does not equal a declaration of war.

"If I say to you, "Here, I give you permission to use my gun if someone tried to break in yourrhouse and kill you." That does not mean I've given you permission to make up a bunch of stuff about the guy down the street, then go over to his house and kill him.

[TexasSissy]

73. I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE!!! That was a faux pas.

How could he on the one hand say that Bush screwed it up, and then say, knowing then what he knows now, he'd do it again? It makes no sense.

[gulliver]

74. Wrong. Bush has opened the door to question/answer sessions.

Kerry should ask Bush the next question. Actually, I believe he did that. Now it is up to the media to take the question to Bush.

Holding breath now...

Holding...

Holding...

[genius]

76. Should have said, "Not if I knew you were lying."

[allemand]

79. What Kerry meant

In the joint interview on Late Edition:

"KERRY: <...>
The president did not exhaust all of the diplomatic remedies and the inspection process and the building of an international coalition so that, Wolf, number one, our troops would be safer. So that the chances of success for this mission would be higher. So that the cost to the American would be lower. "

<...>

"KERRY: You make this not a mistake. If I were president, I wanted the authority. I wanted to give that authority to President Clinton in 1998. I voted to give the authority, and if you read what I said on the Senate, I made it very clear what the expectations of the president were: Build an international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and other countries, bring people to our side, and if you have to go to war, go to war as a last resort."

"EDWARDS: <...>
It was important, to answer the question specifically, it was important for the president to have the authority that he was given. I would have wanted John Kerry to have that authority if he had been president at the time. But the difference is, John Kerry would have dealt with this completely differently, and the result would have been very different.

He would have done the hard work to build international support for this effort. He also would have made sure we had a real plan to win the peace. We would not be in this place, we'd be in a very different place.

<...>

BLITZER: Let me rephrase it, the way the war was conducted, that was a mistake, was it?

EDWARDS: The way this president led up to the war and the fact that he had no plan to win the peace was an obvious mistake, yes."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/01/le.00.html


When you think about it, this is the only way to counter the "but it's a good thing Saddam is gone" criticism.