Kerry's 'wooden aloofness'

[boxster]

I'll start with the disclaimer - I'm a Clark supporter, but I also like John Kerry and think he'd be a great counterpoint to Bush in the general election. When all is said and done, I'm ABB next fall.

That being said, I've seen dozens of comments on DU in just the past few days about John Kerry's 'wooden aloofness' and seen him called, 'bland', 'boring', 'unexciting', etc. He is summarily dismissed by some DUers for no other reason than this perceived aloofness.

My question is this: how is this any different from what the media and the Republicans did to Al Gore in 2000? Many of us heavily criticized the media for it then, yet now, many Democrats are doing the same thing to John Kerry.

In a way, it's like Bush/Gore all over again. That was a classic example of the junior high mentality of "bash the smart kids; elevate the dumb jocks". Bush took that mentality to its ultimate plane (pun intended) with his stuffed flight suit photo op.

There is no question that voters take completely irrelevant things into consideration when choosing their candidates, but shouldn't we be better than that? Shouldn't our goal be to field a candidate that can effectively counter Bush's fake 'leadership' and his horrible policies in foreign relations and domestic issues?

Besides, I've watched every debate this year and caught stump speeches of most of the candidates on C-SPAN and elsewhere. If John Kerry is aloof and bland, I haven't seen it. Just because he doesn't rant and rave at stump speeches and in the debates doesn't mean that we should flatly discount him as a candidate.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. Kerry is from New England

We are not the most emotive people, but Kerry is hardly bland. Reserved, yes. Bland, no.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. From a NYTimes letter today:

Maureen Dowd rightly links Howard Dean's overheated speech after the Iowa caucuses and George W. Bush's "swaggering sheriff" State of the Union address (column, Jan. 22). I'd like to add that both of those hotheaded performances serve to highlight what used to be considered Senator John Kerry's weakness: his calm, thoughtful, statesmanlike demeanor.

As a genuine war hero, John Kerry does not need to rant and stomp and play "dress-up" in a flight suit.

Speaking as a woman voter weary of such swagger and shout, I find John Kerry's hard-earned soldier's dignity looking awfully good just about now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/opinion/L23DEAN.html

[HuckleB]

4. Sorry, those two speeches couldn't be further apart in tone or purpose.

Dowd really blew it on that one.

[question everything]

8. I think that Dowd was comparing appearances, not content of both

and if one does not want to register with the NYT, her column is syndicated elsewhere http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/opinion/1467717.html

I have to admit, the first 2 paragraphs were quite clever, and I had to read the next one to realize who was her subjec:

"Whoa! That was quite the steroid-infused performance. Who's the guy's political consultant -- Russell Crowe? He was so in-your-face, smirking his trademark smirk, it was disturbing to think of him in charge of the military. It's a good thing he stopped drinking and started talking about God."

"You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival: the taunting message, the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador."

[HuckleB]

11. Even then, as I said the tone was very different.

Dowd missed by a mile in an attempt to compare two very uncomparable speeches.

[HuckleB]

3. I dunno.

Many have offered concerns over the months about the opposite in regard to Howard Dean, so I struggle to see how it isn't a legitimate discussion point. After my morning conversations at the coffee house and clinic, the reactions from the undecideds to Kerry were all related to this factor. It definitely worries me. Should it be a legitimate factor? No. I don't think so. In this world, however, it appears that it may be a factor of concern.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Look. It concerns me too, but people do connect with him

his personal appearances really do have a positive effect on people who come away much more impressed than before when they only had TV images.

[HuckleB]

12. One could say that about all the candidates, however.

And most voters won't get a personal appearance.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. Then there's a challenge

and I feel Kerry is up to it.

[HuckleB]

34. Your feelings don't soothe my fears.

I'm not seeing any evidence of him being up to it. The perceptions of the undecideds I come across fit the "Kerry is aloof" model, so until I see that change, my fears seem to be validated.

[WiseMen]

6. Unfortunately, a lot of DU knocks on Kerry part of Repub Portfolio

of attacks on Kerry, some used in past Senate contests and others developed and field tested when Kerry was perceived as likely front-runner.

It is part of a very insiduous tactic of maligning the image of your opponent so he spends all his time trying to correct miss-impressions and ends up seeming phony.

It an extremely powerfull tactic because it looks petty to be constantly reacting to what appears to be small knocks, but these knocks can add-up to high unfavorability over time.

It is quite unforgiveable that DUers are doing this to a Democratic leader.

[HuckleB]

16. And the attacks on other candidates aren't?

Sorry, that goes across the board.

[blm]

27. Sorry. For Kerry it started in Nixon WH. It''s on the Nixon tapes.

It was ramped up when they tried to destroy him during his investigations of BCCI and IranContra.

Kerry was Scaifed by Scaife BEFORE Clinton.

[HuckleB]

35. How does that change the reality of my statement?

[liberalnurse]

28. The example was set and reinforced right

here at DU......The medicine served up here was actually poison....

[CWebster]

7. And if Dean is attacked for his temper and is written off

as unelectible?

I prefer a little fire and spirit and inyourfaceBush quality. Kerry had his chance to demonstrate what he was capable of in confronting Bush--hell, it was his job. So now we are supposed to reward him when he fell down on the job?

He is trying to pass his disconnected awkwardness off as presidential? Well, that is an image I am not buying.

[boxster]

15. I'd argue that being not emotive enough is better than being too emotive.

There are large parts of the country in which Dean's in-your-face approach is not going to play well, though I'm sure you and your candidate would disagree.

The polls seem to disagree that Dean's approach is better than Kerry's, at least for the time being. And, Kerry hasn't managed to make himself a national punch line for the past few days.

My point is, I have seen many, many DUers flatly discount Kerry for his perceived aloofness. I think that using this as a sole criteria is ludicrous and is no better than what the media did to Gore in '00.

Nor do I believe that Dean's speech should disqualify him as a candidate. Dr. Dean has more to worry about than that speech. He lost Iowa by 20% before the speech ever occurred, of course, and he had been dropping in the polls in NH well before it, as well.

[oasis]

9. After Bush, "the guy you'd like to have a beer with" is no longer on

the list of requirements to be elected president.

[zulchzulu]

18. I've had a beer with John Kerry....and he is a cool dude

Granted it was very crowded, but I bought Kerry a Guinness last August at an Irish bar after the AFL-CIO debate and chatted with him for a minute.

He's a decent, funny fellow. I'd much rather have a beer with Kerry than Bush...

[oasis]

20. Kerry will have a much easier time selling himself than Gore in 2000 since

Bush has been exposed as a calculating liar.

[robsul82]

10. It isn't that he's boring (although that hurts too), it's that...

...IN MY BONES, I honestly believe John Kerry will put up zero fight against Bush. It'll be the Bush/Gore debates all over again. Love him or hate him, Howard Dean is guaranteed to fight Bush with both fists.

Later.

RJS

[curse10]

13. It is no different that what the repubs were doing to Gore

and, as someone who has met Kerry twice and has followed his career and campaign for a very long time, I heartily disagree with the statement that he is bland, boring, or wooden.

[dreissig]

14. Four Years of Boredom

Given a choice between an interesting candidate and a boring one, the voters will choose the interesting one. The last election gave the voters a choice between two boring guys who inherited their high positions in government from their fathers. Had the Democrats nominated anybody interesting in 2000, we would have walked away with the election, something like 57-43.

Bush tries so hard to make himself interesting, but he's so conceited and stupid I wouldn't want to have lunch with him. We have a strong chance of beating him this year, but not if we nominate an equally boring, conceited candidate.

[Merlin]

17. Kerry aloofness and arrogance is still a big concern of mine.

I spent a day with him 30 years ago. We were both decorated Nam combat vets. I was head of VVAW chapters at a couple of locales, and had organized a benefit dinner for him at the U of PA. Earlier in the day we drove around to several other speech events in the Phila area. He hardly said a word to me. Every effort at conversation was handled with a brief response. He came across as aloof, unappreciative, arrogant, and anything but a leader.

Of course, that was 30 years ago, and he was only, say, 30 at the time, as I was. But I have heard countless times from his contemporaries in the Senate and elsewhere that he remains the same today.

That is the personality that had come across in this campaign up until about 3 weeks ago. Somebody clearly brought him face to face with the noose on the tree outside the window that he had a date with unless he changed his persona. He's changed it admirably.

But, a remake of self for political purposes is likely to be cast aside when one becomes the front runner. Then we're back to the same, old JFK2.

If that happens, he will be tagged with the same kinds of epithets used to defeat Gore. He will be perceived as somebody people don't want to spend the next 4 years with in their living rooms.

Right now, it looks good for Kerry. That's fine. Right now he's coming off admirably. BUT, I urge his supporters to ride his ass mercilessly, and carefully guard against a return to his native persona during this campaign.

If he's the nominee, we can't let anything defeat us. Nothing. We've gotta win this one. Too much is at stake.

p.s. - Theresa is fab!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Lucky you. If it was '71 he was 27.

He has definitely worked on his aloofness on the stump.
and Teresa is dynamite!

[dolstein]

19. Sorry, but Kerry IS aloof, bland, boring and, at times, pompous

I listen to this guy speak and I instinctively feel that this guy simply hasn't got a clue about what it's like for ordinary Americans. Seriously, I cringe whenever I listen to this guy speak. His speeches sound as if they've been vetted by committee. When I listen to a speech, I want to hear the voice of a real human being. And I just don't get that when I listen to Kerry.

Yes, this does sound a lot like the charges hurled at Al Gore. And for good reason -- they both have many of the same flaws. I voted for Gore, and I'll vote for Kerry if he gets the nomination. But I know that with Kerry, we'll get a truly uninspired, flat, focus group driven campaign, which is exactly what we don't need if we're trying to unseat an incumbent president.

If you want the Democrats to lose respectably in November, go ahead and vote for Kerry. But if you want to Democrats to have a real shot, Edwards and Clark are the only plausible choices at this point.

[ACPS65]

23. Edwards and Clark

actually need a shot at winning the nomination first.

[boxster]

24. Clark has a legitimate shot.

If he places a strong 2nd in NH, he's in a good position to do well on 2/3. If he can then win SC plus another early state or two, things look pretty good.

[John_H]

25. We need to be honest: Kerry is succeptable to the Gore meme

I think he can probably beat Bush, but it would be harder for him it will be for Clark.

[andym]

26. To the apolitical voter, looks, personality and celebrity are central

Let's be honest, in modern-day America telegenicity, that is, looks, personality and celebrity are the keys to success.

Kerry has reasonable looks (better than Bush), he is calm, he is a real New Englander, which makes him seem aloof in some parts of the country. He can be long-winded at times. But he'll do just fine. He is far better than Gore who appeared uncomfortable with himself. Just look at Gore's Goldilocks performance at the debates: too strong in the first, too nice in the second and just right in the last one. Gore is a brilliant policy guy, but a very mediocre politician. As a sitting VP in times of prosperity, he should have won that election by a landslide, not squeaked out a win in the popular vote.

Btw if telegenicity is really the major factor, we can order the candidates in terms of how hollywood, ie popular culture would perceive them:

1) Edwards- handsome and very personable
2) Clark- handsome, strong-willed, serious, but with charm under the surface
3) Dean- regular looks, but loud and dynamic (it's difficult to place where he belongs, because charisma and celebrity are the most important determinants)
4) Kerry -- was handsome, after surgery looks are somewhat attenuated (lincolnesque at times),
calm, steady

By this analysis, in a wide open race, I'd predict that it would come down to a two man race between Edwards and Clark, with Edwards having the advantage and Dean being an X factor.

Now, is this how should things work?
Of course not. But is it how things work.
Yup. If not the specific details, then in general.

What does it mean for the future of the country. Better hope we continue to get smart compassionate candidates who are telegenic, otherwise more W's (personable puppets).

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. Our sheriff (A Democrat) said...

that Sen. Kerry reminds him of Gov. Adlai Stevenson, our nominee in '52 and '56. He's bright, honest, has a good vision for America but will be perceived as an 'egghead' and will probably lose to Bush about as badly as Stevenson lost to Eisenhower.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Stevenson was bald hence the 'egghead' references

[Native]

33. As a Kerry supporter, I truly appreciate your diligence in countering

posts like these. Thanks!

[boxster]

38. Somehow I think the egghead story 'shared' above...

might be a tad apocryphal.

I could be wrong.

[bigtree]

30. Aloof

Rivetus . . . would fain work himself aloof these rocks and quicksands. --Milton.

OF obedience, faith, adhesiveness;
As I stand aloof and look, there is to me something profoundly affecting in large masses of men, following the lead of those who do not believe in men. Walt Whitman (1819–1892) Leaves of Grass, 1900.


THROUGHOUT the soft and sunlit day
The pennoned pines, in strict array,
Stand grim and silent, gaunt and gray.

But when the blasts of winter keen,
They whisper each to each, and lean
Like comrades with a bond between.

And seeing them deport them so,
One almost thinks they seek to show
How mortal-like mere trees may grow.

For men, in peace time, stand aloof,
One from the other, asking proof,
Of lineage and race and roof.

But let the blast of battle call,—
Lo! they ’re unquestioning comrades all,
Who side by side will stand or fall.

By Julie Mathilde Lippmann

[sandnsea]

31. It's media hype

I've had too many people tell me otherwise, seen him on C-Span with children, seen him listening to people's problems; he's not aloof. People just love to use it to bash. Whatever gets them going I guess.

[HuckleB]

36. Not in my experience.

I know some undecided news junkies who've been exposed to all of that, and they just don't feel he offers any energy. I'm very worried about his presence. It shouldn't be a factor, but the reality is different.

[paulk]

37. I think Kerry comes across as serious

This often gets interpreted as "aloof". Or "wooden". Or "distant".

I don't think this "seriousness" is necessarily a liability. We live in serious, even grim, times. Kerry's demeanor could very well end up being an asset when placed next to Bush's "what me worry" smirkiness.

[VolcanoJen]

39. Oh, let them call him wooden and aloof. This is NOT 2000.

I think we're really missing the mark by trying to compare Election 2004 to 2000 in any way. It's an entirely different world, and a new set of circumstances, this time around.

In 2000, the economy was soaring, Americans didn't even entertain the thought of being "attacked," and we were enjoying a state of relative worldwide peace. The 2000 election became a referendum on character. 2004 will be nothing of the sort, and I think it's time we stopped framing it as such.

The Rovians of the world won't be able to easily "Gore" our nominee this year. It's a brand new ball game.

[boxster]

41. Good point, but I'm not 100% in agreement.

With Gore, it was often all that they could attack him on, so you're correct in stating that '04 won't be '00 from that perspective.

I'm not 100% convinced, however, that the media and Bush will not try to make this a character issue. They are already intimating that Clark and Dean, for example, are mentally unstable.

You would have thought that they couldn't make '00 about character either, in light of the fact that Bush was AWOL, a former drunk & drug addict, and was a pathological liar. They convinced many people that Gore was somehow worse than that, so I don't easily discount the possibility of a repeat performance.

My point, however, was that it seemed as though we were using ths same tactics that we previously claimed to abhor. Not like that is anything new.

[VolcanoJen]

43. Oh, they absolutely *will* try to make '04 about character.

It's all they've got. As hollow as their argument is, it really is all they have.

They can be as phony as they want, and they can dumb-down this election if that's the way they want to go. They'll hold onto their base voters regardless... but this time around, unlike '00, I just don't think screaming Repub pundits charging that Kerry is "French-looking" or Clark "sweater-wearing" or Dean "off-his-rocker" is going to stick.

Too much at stake this time. And all those Gore '00 voters are wiser this time around. Will the Nader voters be?

[GalleryGod]

40. "Friendly Fire" from CLARK Fans!?

Kerry will "wear well" from California Primary Night to Election Night.

Allay those fears,friend. You are a "friend" right?


Vets for Vets in '04:grouphug:

[boxster]

42. Yes, I am a friend, and I really did not mean it as friendly fire.

I realize that it could be interpreted as damning with faint praise or making the argument I claim to be debunking, but that was certainly not my intention.

Kerry is my #2, for many of the same reasons that Clark is my #1 - I believe, more than many people, that this election will be focused on national security by the media and by the Bush administration. All of their other great qualities aside, Kerry and Clark are the two candidates that Bush unquestionably cannot assail on military experience and national security. The fact that they both profess and have stood for traditional liberal viewpoints on most other issues makes them all the better candidates in my view.