Kerry is running a hell of a smart campaign, part II

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25791-2004Apr19.html

Kerry's Terrorism Offensive

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A19

Here is the biggest surprise of the 2004 election so far: It is John Kerry who is eager to talk about terrorism and national security, and President Bush's campaign that is trying to quash a far-reaching debate on these issues.

It wasn't supposed to be this way, at least according to the conventions of presidential politics. Usually it's the Republicans who try to change the subject to foreign policy.

Ronald Reagan in 1984 and the first President Bush in 1988 both did exceptionally well among voters who said that international questions and toughness on defense were central to how they cast their ballots. Just a few months ago, George W. Bush was expected to have the same advantages on the same issues.

But the contours of the election have been altered by events, and by Kerry's reading of the 2002 midterm election results.

The current president's standing on terrorism and security has been dented by the situation on the ground in Iraq, the early findings of the Sept. 11 commission and one book after another calling into question Bush's decision-making on the war.

Kerry's approach also marks a break with the patterns of the past. Kerry is said by his advisers to believe that the Democrats made a crucial mistake in 2002 by largely ducking terrorism and foreign policy. Democrats thought they could win by trying to shift the focus of the election to domestic issues: the economy generally and prescription drugs for the elderly and a patients' bill of rights in particular.

...more...

See the first thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x505826

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. If kerry has been so "sucessful" then why is * leading in the polls???

51% trust * with Iraq and 62% trust him with the War on Terror.

[WilliamPitt]

2. You trust the polls?

[w4rma]

4. I trust them. I think we have alot of work to do.

I think many Americans live in a fantasy land created by the whore media. Maybe they can critically think, but their perception of the world is filtered and distorted by big media and years of opportunist politicians.

[AlinPA]

13. I agree on the fantasy land created by broadcast media; but polls

this early in the campaign don't scare me nor do they encourage me, because I don't believe them at this stage. Lots can happen before November.

[Snivi Yllom]

10. In your part 1 of this thread you post articles to make the point

the polls are close. Now you don't believe in polls?

[Bread and Circus]

18. I don't trust the polls....not entirely and especially not so far...

from the election.

If I trusted polls more than a few weeks before
an election, I would be supporting Nominee Dean right now.

Polls matter, but only about a week or so prior to an election.

There are a lot of worry warts on DU.

[juajen]

19. Nope, I don't

Polling this early is not reliable, unless it's to let you know what to work on. Most independents or middle-of-the-roaders have yet to get up close and personal with Kerry. We political junkies know him much better than they and, for the most part, really like him.

IMO, his best polling is yet to come, probably in September and October. This will be the time the pugs bring on everything they've got and can get, mostly by nefarious means. If we have a terror attack, it will be then. If we capture Bin Laden, it will be then. If we find WMD, it will be then. Kerry, his campaign, and us, his supporters, should be laying out our responses to all three of these scenarios as soon as possible.

So far, this is child's play. Kerry's taunting georgie to bring down oil prices, now, is a great answer to Woodward's revelations. So far, I believe this campaign is being managed brilliantly. We will prevail, as long as it is us who hit the trifecta. We have to stay three steps ahead of these neocons, and I think Kerry has a fantastic circle of major dems who will help him, including both Clintons, Wes Clark, John Edwards, Gephardt, etc., etc. What absolute wealth! He must be giddy with joy.

[w4rma]

3. incumbancy, media whoring. (nt)

[GalleryGod]

9. Poll!Poll! Pick-A-Poll,Pally!

If you're so clairvoyant-why are you posting on DU and not a consultant?
I've got College Sophomores with more Poli-Patience!
:hurts:

[Andromeda]

20. During the 2000 campaign

we were inundated with polls showing Bush ahead of Gore over 75% of the time and this continued up to the election. Gore won the popular vote by a wide margin so that didn't exactly work out the way the pollsters said it would.

[saracat]

5. Yeah, Right. And that is why ,despite everything coming into play for the

And that is why ,despite everything coming into play for the Democrats, Kerry is trailing in the polls.Now that being said , I do believe the polls will bounce around a bit before the election, and aren't indicative of anything this early.But they do indicate a potential problem. The problem is that people don't like Kerry. This hurts us with the undecided. They are counting on the devil they know rather than chancing a switch.
The campaign needs an image overhaul. And they should start by firing back at anyone who references Kerry's lack of charm. The oft repeated mantra is sticking. They are doing what they did to Gore about being wooden. They should point out Chimps bad dye job the way the Repugs spewed about botox. Juvenile but effective.
And Kerry should be the most Presidential version of himself he can be .He shouldn't become someone else but he has to be a larger than life version of himself in order to differentiate between himself and the chimp. In fact, whenever the dearth of charm issue is raised, all Kerry talking heads should be armed with positive rebuttals such as "presidential", statesmanlike, ect.
I am a theatrical director and producer, and this is just my two cents in how to market Kerry to Joe Sixpack.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[revcarol]

21. He's more macho than Bush, right?

The whole thing seems to boil down to who can be the most bellicose, show the most balls, be a gutsy leader....GAWD, haven't we had enough of that shit with Bush. Now Kerry's got to out-Bush Bush.

I would settle for a little sanity in I/P and not just go along with Bush's dumping the policies of 6 Presidents; I would settle for a little soul-searching on Iraq. SAY the President lied, and now we have to turn over EVERYTHING to the U. N. and no bases in Iraq...just some common sense wanted.

He's running such a smart campaign that Greens here are talking about staying home.

[Guaranteed]

7. This IS a good thing.

Yes! Good, Kerry.

[Merlin]

8. Agree he is now. But he blew it bigtime last month when Bush "defined" him

I agree with you, Will, that the way he is handling things right now is perfect. When the other side is committing suicide, do not commit homocide. Or, as you say, never get in the way of a good train wreck.

I was really pissed at how he blew it last month in losing the war of first impressions, apparently because he didn't trust his ability to raise enough funds to be competitive. I deeply believe Kerry will get all of the money he needs in this cycle.

The key thing now is for Kerry to introduce himself gradually to the electorate, avoid peaking early, continue steadily raising an overwhelming warchest, and be ready to rain holy hell on these rotten bastards in October.

Bush is going down!

[mouse7]

11. Bush spent $50 million. You can define the color blue with that money

Someone spends $50 million on ads in one month, they will define something by the end of that month.

[mdguss]

12. I agree Bush is too negative:

He's spent 60 million dollars, and he's only five percent ahead. Both campaigns have similar cash on hand. Kerry is about to run ads that will show who he is to the millions of people that are just starting to pay attention, and this Kerry is Michael Dukakis crap will blow over. My guess is Kerry wins by 5 percent--provided that Nader stays off the ballot.

[democrank]

14. Wish I could agree....

but what I`ve seen is a boring, middle of the road,have a little something for every side campaign filled with Senate-speak lectures. Kerry is playing it safe which must please the anti-liberal DLC.

If that moron Bush can advance in some polls in spite of the Richard Clarke book, the Bob Woodward book, the 9/11 hearings,the gazillion outsourced jobs, the outrageous college loan debts, the high cost of health care, the growing unemployment lines and the horrible conditions in Iraq, then something is wrong.

We don`t need a 200-paragraph sermonette on hydrogen fuel cells, we need a candidate who can define himself and his positions in language average folks can relate to. Trouble is, when it came to defining Kerry, the Republicans beat him to it.

[SEpatriot]

15. I agree, mostly...

Kerry is going to have to roll up his sleeves and get some fire in the belly...very soon. Those of us who hate Bush and the corporate takeover of America are already in the fold, but playing it safe with the electorate is a foolish game. Most people aren't paying attention to the fact that they are being poisoned, robbed, misled and raped by Bush's policies. Sure, its a close election, but Kerry needs to wake people up! Bush is an incumbent who has to go negative before the convention - that spells clear vulnerability!

[mzmolly]

16. S'actly!

:toast:

[newyawker99]

23. Hi SEpatriot!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KoKo]

17. Part II, is more inspiring that Part I. Thanks. Good Dionne article.

A little ray of hope for Kerry differentiating himself with help from a columnist who is well respected.

[salonghorn70]

22. Effect On VP Sellection

It would seem that if Kerry is going to emphasize national security, then he will reflect that with his VP sellection. This means Clark, Grahm or Richardson.