Kerry Speaks at IOP Luncheon

[whometense]

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506241.html

Two of the IOP’s spring fellows, Associated Press political writer Ron Fournier and U.S. News and World Report political editor Roger Simon, organized Kerry’s visit.

“When we were named fellows, we decided that we wanted to bring in the best possible guests in order to help students learn more about politics, and about covering politics,” Fournier said. “Having just come off his own presidential campaign, Senator Kerry knows more than almost anyone about political campaigns.”

He added that the process of bringing Kerry to Harvard was relatively easy, since Kerry was “eager” to participate.

Alexander I. Burns ’08, who attended the meeting, said he was impressed with Kerry’s performance.

“I was very pleasantly surprised with his active engagement with people,” Burns said. “He seemed much more sincere and energetic in person than on television or in front of large audiences.”

He added that he enjoyed the back-and-forth nature of the discussion, commenting that he thought a “productive dialogue” had taken place.

Fournier also praised Kerry’s interactions with the students.

“He seemed to really enjoy sharing thoughts with the students,” he said. “It was interesting the way he solicited advice from the students. He really wanted to hear the students’ opinions.”

Note that:

The content of “special lunches” such as this is off the record by IOP policy, in order to encourage attendance and participation both by featured political figures and students.

Christoper L. Corcoran ’07, the chair of the IOP’s Study Groups Committee, instructed participants last night not to speak to the press about the content of the discussion.

In an e-mail entitled “Gag Order,” Corcoran wrote that “nothing about Senator Kerry’s responses, including either specific or topical matters, should be shared with the press.”

[JI7]

1. this quote is what i often hear from people

“I was very pleasantly surprised with his active engagement with people,” Burns said. “He seemed much more sincere and energetic in person than on television or in front of large audiences.”


part of the reason is because on tv they usually just show clips of him giving serious/formal type speeches or interviews. they almost never showed clips of his rallies and the moments when he was just having fun with the audience and joking around.

but one on one people get to see him directly for themselves. he is THE BEST when it comes to interacting with people directly.

[whometense]

3. Frustrating, isn't it??

Absolutely correct. It's crazy how much charisma he has up close, and how so much of it just seems to vanish into the ether on tv.

[JI7]

4. because they don't show it on tv other than CSPAN

it was on cspan and their showing political events where i got to see it as i never met Kerry for myself.

while i always liked Kerry because of his record on issues it was on cspan where i really got to see him as he is. i watched all of the candidate's events from the primary and Kerry really stood out.

but most americans who watch cspan are partisans and only few watch it.

most americans watch network news and they usually just show a few seconds of something and they are very biased in favor of republicans also. they almost never showed Kerry himself but reported on him by repeating the republican spin on him. with bush they would just show a clip of his rally and the audience. it was so fucking biased it made me sick.

[cestpaspossible]

8. You nailed it

The media was like an arm of the Bush campaign. You would SEE and HEAR Bush for 5 minutes, then 5 minutes where the 'reporter' assigned to the Kerry campaign would repeat the GOP spin about what Kerry said.

[sandnsea]

10. Exactly

I love the "enlightened ones", who are just as guilty of being duped by the drivel on cablenews as anybody else. In 2000, Kerry was being considered VP to add charisma to the ticket. By 2004, he was aloof and wooden. What makes me maddest is OUR OWN PEOPLE being duped by it and so many of them still are.

[JI7]

11. i think with some it's what they WANT to believe

that's why they attack Kerry as being a horrible candidate and everything negative. and then claim he only won because he claimed to be electable. being electable is something almost ALL candidates who run claim. like being from the South and Lieberman bringing up how he already won before in 2000 with Gore.

but you need to have a certain appeal to get people to support you over the others.

[ginnyinWI]

5. during the campaign

when CNN or MSNBC would show JK, they would just show part of a speech, or one little clip. How is a person supposed to learn anything about a candidate that way? The interviews weren't much better--too formal, or with dumb questions from Tweety or Larry King!

Cspan would cover the whole event, including shaking hands with the crowd. Cspan also had at least one good interview (in the Truman Library last spring). But how many people were watching Cspan, or had the time or desire to pay that much attention? The real John Kerry didn't come through in the clips and sound-bites. Most people only saw the convention acceptance speech and the debates--and while those were good, they probably weren't enough for some people to really feel like they knew him or could trust him. He remained a stranger. :(

I think any candidate needs to be able to get the media on their side, because they have the power to make or break them.

[whometense]

6. I agree,

and actually this is one of the main reasons why I want to see Kerry run again. To erase the head start he now has on his public profile (I totally discount all those stupid polls at this early date that put Hillary in the "lead". Too many people are hurt and still getting over the election we just suffered through.) is self-defeating - and stupid - in the extreme.

[TayTay]

9. Yeah, Kerry is a two cup of coffee candidate

Cuz it takes two cups to get the better look at the man. Sigh! Then the media kept reporting that his rallies, which grew in crowd size as the campaign went on, were boring. Sigh! IF they were boring, then why did they grow in crowd size? The reporters would talk to people who were having an great time and report back that the candidate was uninspiring. This pissed me off greatly.

[JI7]

7. in the Primary he was able to get around the media

by going directly to the people. and he tried to do that in the general election by holding so many open rallies allowing anyone to attend.

but in a general election it's tougher since it's a national election. in a primary it's a smaller audience which allows for time to go to all of them directly in the first few states. primary voters are also more likely to pay attention closely.

but it's one reason i wish Oprah had the candidates on this year as she did in 2000.

[whometense]

2. I went poking around on the

IOP website, and for anyone who's in the Boston area, their programs look fascinating. Especially this one:

IOP Study Group Rove's Brain: The White House's plans to create a durable Republican majority

Time: 4:00 pm
Location: L166, First Floor, Littauer Building
This event is open to the public and off the record.