Are Kerry fans pleased with his performance?

[Father Ted]

First off, I'm not trolling. As a Bush voter in 2000, I will not be voting for him this year. And I'm not voting for Nader. So that leaves Kerry.

But I'm not happy about the way he has failed to exploit Bush's weaknesses with the economy, Iraq, oil prices, spending etc. To me, he hasnt done a good job differentiating between him and Bush on some of these issues. I mean, the best ad I've seen is that "The Word" segment on the Daily Show. To me, it should be easy to beat Bush. But Kerry is either incapable or almost unwilling to be more ruthless.

Maybe the debate will help change some people. But it will probably end up like 2000 when Gore probably won but Bush came off looking the "nicer guy".

So, Kerry fans, are you dissappointed so far?

[nicephoras]

I'm not a Kerry fan, not least of all because of what you've written above. He's not a good candidate. The problem is that he's a much better candidate than the other guy. As history has constantly shown, the choice is not between good and evil, but rather a choice for the candidate you believe will be the least harmful. Kerry fits that bill, despite his overpowrering mediocrity on the campaign trail thus far.

[Chicago1871]

I am not, by any means, a "fan" of Kerry, but I will not be voting for Bush, and, let's be honest, it's a two-party system in the US. I think, win or lose, the campaign manager of the Kerry campaign should be fired right quick. The mis-management of this campaign has been incredible.

[bungadiri]

So, Kerry fans, are you dissappointed so far?
To an extent yes I am. And largely for the reasons you've cited.

Am I right in seeing Kerry's dropping the delayed acceptance strategy (which would have allowed him access to lots more money to address the swift boat garbage) as an example of his being not ruthless enough, or was there some procedural/legal reason that forced him to accept during the convention?

[-cman-]

I was in on a conference call to Iowa field organizers that Kerry made on Sunday morning. He acknowledged that his performance on the stump and the campaign's message strategy has been spotty. He promised to out-work us until election day (consider that he's talking to a bunch of 20-30 year-olds) and says he's really confident in the mix of people running the campaign now.

Kerry's a great closer. The tighter things get and the closer the election gets the better he looks. I saw him at an event about two weeks before the caucuses and he tore the roof off the place. I knew then that we (Dean) were in trouble.

So, I'm not worried. Yet. Talk to me in four weeks.

Oh. And ignore the national polls.

[Chris M.]

I was in on a conference call to Iowa field organizers that Kerry made on Sunday morning. He acknowledged that his performance on the stump and the campaign's message strategy has been spotty. He promised to out-work us until election day (consider that he's talking to a bunch of 20-30 year-olds) and says he's really confident in the mix of people running the campaign now.

Kerry's a great closer. The tighter things get and the closer the election gets the better he looks. I saw him at an event about two weeks before the caucuses and he tore the roof off the place. I knew then that we (Dean) were in trouble.

So, I'm not worried. Yet. Talk to me in four weeks.

Oh. And ignore the national polls.

That is heartening.

I am not a big fan of Kerry, but the alternative is not an option for me. He should have had a more focused, policy driven message from the start. I think his convention should have been domestic first, with a simple "of course I will be tough on terror" message second. It truly is the economy stupid.

Most of all, I feel like there is a real divide in America over Iraq -- almost 50/50. That is why I think a good strong "you were an idiot for invading Iraq" candidate like Dean would have been good, if for no other reason than to give millions of people a voice.

I have no doubts that Kerry will win the debates on substance, but could very well lose on the public opinion side. Hopefully, the questioners will not let Dubya get away with not answering the tough questions -- same with Kerry.

One final note. Most of the attacks against Kerry have been the most obvious. His 20 year voting record was obviously going to get dissected and spun as a negative. His swift boat stuff has been a focus of attack since his first run for offfice.

He should have been ABSOLUTELY ready to pounce on either one of these issues, and been prepared to turn it back on Bush immediately. Instead, these obvious issues have popped up, and just seem to eat away at him in a negative manner for days and weeks before he gets aggressive. Whad up John?

[Matt in the Hat]

First off, I'm not trolling. As a Bush voter in 2000, I will not be voting for him this year. And I'm not voting for Nader. So that leaves Kerry.

But I'm not happy about the way he has failed to exploit Bush's weaknesses with the economy, Iraq, oil prices, spending etc. To me, he hasnt done a good job differentiating between him and Bush on some of these issues. I mean, the best ad I've seen is that "The Word" segment on the Daily Show. To me, it should be easy to beat Bush. But Kerry is either incapable or almost unwilling to be more ruthless.

Maybe the debate will help change some people. But it will probably end up like 2000 when Gore probably won but Bush came off looking the "nicer guy".

So, Kerry fans, are you dissappointed so far?
Yes.

For all the reasons you have stated, I really wish that Dean won the nomination. I don't think the crazy man lable would have stuck for too much longer than it did. After all, Zell Miller at the RNC made Howard Dean look like Ben Stein.

[bungadiri]

Kerry's a great closer.
I've heard as much more than once, and actually his record tends to support it (e.g. recent primaries and vs. Weld for senate). When I contemplate the possibility of 4 more years of disastrous policies under Bush I repeat this to myself and trudge on.
Oh. And ignore the national polls.
I know the adage "never trust a poll done in August/on Labor Day" but is there some similar reason for us not to trust the ones being done now?

[Chicago1871]

I have no doubts that Kerry will win the debates on substance...
debate. Singular. Bush backed out of one of the two planned debates.

[superdave]

debate. Singular. Bush backed out of one of the two planned debates.
No, he's trying to back out of one of three debates.

[yossarian]

I was in on a conference call to Iowa field organizers that Kerry made on Sunday morning. He acknowledged that his performance on the stump and the campaign's message strategy has been spotty. He promised to out-work us until election day (consider that he's talking to a bunch of 20-30 year-olds) and says he's really confident in the mix of people running the campaign now.

Kerry's a great closer. The tighter things get and the closer the election gets the better he looks. I saw him at an event about two weeks before the caucuses and he tore the roof off the place. I knew then that we (Dean) were in trouble.

So, I'm not worried. Yet. Talk to me in four weeks.

Oh. And ignore the national polls.

I've heard the "closer" characterization also and I certainly hope you're right.

To answer the original question....yes, I'm disappointed for the exact reasons stated. His message has been muddled thus far and he should be doing a better job against Dubya. That being said the Republicans have "fear" on their side and that's a huge motivating factor.

[Chicago1871]

No, he's trying to back out of one of three debates.
When did they add a third one? Last I read in a WSJ article, he had dropped out of one of the two scheduled debates. That was two weeks ago though.

[IntheNet]

As a Bush fan, I can't say I am pleased with Kerry's performance... I had expected, by September at very least, to have an answer on Kerry's position on Iraq, but I guess that issue is still very much in flux.

IntheNet
Bush/Cheney in 2004

[ElJefe]

I'm not a Kerry fan.

In fact, I think that I wrote something along the lines of "Massachusetts liberal takes on candidate named 'Bush'... I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends" way back when the John Kerry machine was starting to roll after Iowa. But my choices are effectively George W. Bush and John Kerry, so I guess I am a Kerry fan by default and someone who is disgusted with the two-party system.

Anyway, I don't think that he's done a particularly good job so far. I believe that he served with honor in Vietnam, while the current President deserted from the ANG, but I don't think that should matter. After all, I thought that we crossed that bridge when we elected Bill Clinton twice. I thought that we as a nation said that what the candidate is saying about the present and the future is more important than who did what in the late '60s/early '70s.

But I guess I was wrong on that. I suppose that when you nominate a guy on the basis of his "electability" as a war hero and when your convention plays up his war hero status, you should expect the conversation to turn towards who did what in the late '60s/early '70s again. Which is a shame, because there is plenty about the present and the future that we should be talking about.

And on that whole "the present and the future" thing, the current president is vunerable. Any competent candidate would be able to drive home the points that this country is worse off now than it was four years ago. More people are in poverty, more people are without health coverage, a million jobs have been lost and many more have been lost and replaced by lower-paying jobs, our government's bills are currently being financed by the Saudis and Chinese, we're currently losing young men on a daily basis in a war that we chose to start on information that was either faulty or forged... I could go on, but you get the point.

And yet, what are we talking about?

[Finnegan]

I think the whole problem is that Kerry is a nuance type guy. We all know the type, who qualifies his statements because he sees more than two sides to an issue. He also feels compelled to give long explanations to detailed questions because he feels they deserve that kind of response.

This simply does not play well in a Presidential campaign.

Let's take for example the oft-derided statement "I actually voted for the 87 Billion before I vote against it".

The Bush machine has seized on this as ruthelessly exploited what he meant. And the media has played right along with them.

In reality Kerry did the right and responsible thing in voting for and then against the 87 Billion because the bill he voted for was RESPONSIBLE becuse it demanded accountability, a funding mechanism and a payback plan. Bush said he would veto that bill. So Kerry then voted against the blank-check 87 Billion.

He did the right thing but failed to explain it clearly and succintly.

What he should have said when asked? "I voted for the 87 Billion. Period."

If they wanted more detail "Our President choose instead to irresponibly pass the cost of this misguided war to our children and I believe that is a failure of leadership".

For the next 51 days Kerry needs to strip away all the qualifiers and B.S. Be as simple and direct as Bush. It may make us educated liberals cringe but no time for that now.

The media also needs to stop there crap "Process/ He said-She Said" reporting. Tim Russert's reporting was absolutely shameful yesterday on MTP. Shameful.

[Dan Loney]

Okay, I'm a Democratic fanboy, but here's what I've noticed.

(1) When there's bad news that reflects on the administration, Kerry shuts up about it. I don't think he's said a thing about this weekend's disaster in Iraq. To me, that's him trying to avoid politicizing soldiers' deaths, at least before it's absolutely necessary to. (Don't look at me like that. The subject will come up in the debate soon enough.)

(2) He may or may not be operating on a timetable that will work, but he's definitely got a plan. You don't make a midnight speech at random. Especially one that chocked with red meat. It was done because most independents and undecideds were paying attention to Bush's speech. Such as it was. The diehards on both sides, though, listened to Kerry. The Kerry fanboys went "go, team Venture!" The Reeps, like a certain vice-president, tried to fire back with "Kerry will cause a terrorist attack."

Was that speech designed to get Cheney to upstage his boss to defend his alleged honor? Dunno. It was definitely an extremely high-risk choice. "Desperate Kerry cobbles together cheap shots at Dear Leader" would have been a defensible take.

Kerry ran an awful primary campaign...until the primaries actually started. Do I wish he was up by sixty points? Sure. Think the Bush campaign is happy about the way things are shaking out right now, though?

[Ian McCracken]

Kerry's a great closer.

Here we go again.

[nicephoras]

Here we go again.

You have evidence that supports the opposite conclusion?

[Ian McCracken]

You have evidence that supports the opposite conclusion?

Has Kerry ever run a national campaign? He has not proven that he can close on a national stage, only in state and primary races dominated by a liberal electorate.

[nicephoras]

Has Kerry ever run a national campaign?

Yes Ian. Think about it.

He has not proven that he can close on a national stage, only in state and primary races dominated by a liberal electorate.

No one has claimed he has. People have merely pointed out that historically, he has closed well. You are, yet again, confusing issues.