All he and the Dims know is spin.
Posted on 04/28/2004 4:51:36 AM PDT by Liz
Edited on 04/28/2004 5:08:08 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
In recent weeks, even Senator John Kerry’s closest friends have been at a loss as to why the Democratic Presidential candidate has failed to communicate the most humanizing part of his biography: his war record as a decorated Vietnam veteran. "I know he’s quite capable of it," said Bob Kerrey, the president of New School University, former Nebraska Senator and fellow Vietnam veteran. "I don’t know why it’s not working now."
But there seems to be a very clear reason why: Mr. Kerry is terrible on TV.
"Abysmal," said John Weaver, the former strategist for Senator John McCain’s Presidential run and the man who coined the "Straight Talk Express."
Watching Mr. Kerry on TV, he said, "I don’t know if it’s a stream of consciousness or stream of unconsciousness."
"It’s a lot of words and no clarity, a lot of presence and no warmth," said Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball, who was preparing to interview Mr. Kerry for an hour on April 27. "And I think he’s got to deal with that."
Take a look, for example, at NBC’s Meet the Press on April 18. Tim Russert aired a tape of Senator John Kerry’s appearance on the show 33 years earlier, when he was a young, jut-chinned veteran, 27 years old, full of baleful gravity, expressing a sense of shame for his actions in Vietnam. The camera cut back to Senator Kerry, now a man running for President of United States.
"You committed atrocities," said Mr. Russert gravely, asking Mr. Kerry to address the statements of the young man on the screen.
Suddenly, the current John Kerry, of 2004, gave a stumbling, inexplicable guffaw.
"Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That’s a big question for me."
And suddenly, inexplicably, the question showed up: Where did all that gravitas go, John? That’s the big question for the viewer. The appealing young veteran disappeared, the angry, vengeful Democratic candidate disappeared, and John Kerry, the callow Swiss-prep-school boy returned, as vividly as George Bush the smirking frat boy makes his appearances on national television. "Awful," said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. "Just awful."
In recent appearances, Mr. Kerry’s digressions and obfuscations about whether he threw a war medal or a ribbon on the White House lawn in 1971—or whether the young Mr. Kerry should have used the word "war crimes" to describe actions in Vietnam—have obscured the candidate. At every turn, he has managed to turn the TV screen into smoked glass: He’s right in front of you, but you can’t … quite … make … him … out. With his morose patrician mien and robotic delivery—parodied with precision by Jon Stewart on the Monday, April 24, Daily Show, surely not a good thing for the candidate—Mr. Kerry’s TV performances are sounding a gut-level alarm about his ability to inspire confidence in the electorate. "He needs to speak the truth and speak from the heart and not try to calibrate his views or his actions," said Mr. Weaver. "The public catches on to these things, and they can see through whether there’s a calibration going on or not. He needs to stop that."
He didn’t need to speak the name of former Vice President Al Gore. But a media strategist for another Democratic Presidential candidate said that Mr. Kerry had to lose the "legislative speak" and begin talking "like a normal person communicates, speaking in simple, more declarative sentences that have a clearer meaning for people." Compared to President George W. Bush, he added, Mr. Kerry appeared more intelligent, "but there are many instances in which George Bush communicates more clearly."
The Republican attack ads about Mr. Kerry that have run in 18 battleground states have set the tone for Mr. Kerry’s appearances. Since April 15, they’ve speared Mr. Kerry for having said in the fall of 2003, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion—before I voted against it." The context, of course, was important: Mr. Kerry was criticizing Vermont Governor Howard Dean at the time, arguing over how to balance the budget in the context of the war in Iraq. But instead of squelching that image with a decisive blow, Mr. Kerry has continually cemented it with distended, lumbering TV appearances.
But it also showed the power of simplicity: a single one-liner could define an entire interview. Mr. Kerrey said the candidate needed to reconnect with his own history.
"I think he’s got to go back to remember what it felt like and help people understand what it was like in 1971," said Mr. Kerrey. "It was a terrible time, and he was a kid. And he just said some indefensible things. How unusual does that make him for a 25-year-old? Not very. Especially during that time. He served honorably, with great distinction."
But even when Mr. Kerry attempts to let his passion fly, he becomes hectoring and aggressive. On Monday, April 26, Good Morning America host Charlie Gibson asked Mr. Kerry to explain his inconsistent stories about whether he once tossed war medals or ribbons onto the White House lawn in 1971. Maybe it was a quibbling issue, all things considered. But was this the best way to tackle it?
Senator Kerry: Charlie, Charlie, you’re wrong! That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. And all you have to do is go back and find the file footage.
Charlie Gibson: And someone else’s medals? And someone else’s medals, correct?
Senator Kerry: Later, after, excuse me—excuse me, Charlie!
It hadn’t helped that the first live shot of Mr. Kerry was of him shaking his head in disgust at Mr. Gibson’s setup to the interview. On TV, Mr. Kerry projects a subtle disdain for the medium while he is appearing on it. He doesn’t even plan on answering the questions, if he can help it. "There’s no such thing as a trick question with Kerry, because he just won’t answer it," observed Mr. Matthews. "‘Well, let me put it this way, Chris,’ or ‘Well, the real question here, Chris …. ’ See, that’s the problem with him. And I find afterward, we’ll be having conversations afterward, and it’s hard to get to him even then."
Not only has Mr. Kerry not relayed his ideas with clarity, he has failed to relay the visceral presence of an unaffected personality. On his Meet the Press outing, he told Mr. Russert: "Now, we’re in a position now to be able to respond and introduce myself to the country. I look forward to that. I look forward to Americans getting to know who I really am." But why was he looking forward? There he was, live on television, with every chance to be himself.
"I’m not sure what the message is—that may be the essence of the problem," said Joe McGinniss, the author of The Selling of the President, the best-seller that detailed Richard M. Nixon’s media strategy. As a Massachusetts resident, Mr. McGinniss said he had never seen Mr. Kerry do well on TV—or even in public, for that matter. "When he sits down one-to-one with somebody, he’s not good," said Mr. McGinniss. But then again, he added, neither was Mr. Bush, or Mr. Nixon. "They knew Nixon was never going to be good in a situation like that. The shows that Roger Ailes directed had the appearance of spontaneity, but it was all carefully scripted. You put Nixon in a thing where he looks like he’s taking a risk where he’s not. They’re going to have to dress up the set for John Kerry, but he can’t do it on his own. He’s not Jack Kennedy, although he wishes he were."
Mr. Matthews described Mr. Kerry as more like Kennedy’s speechwriter, Ted Sorenson. "He’s kind of, like, world-weary, and he has that voice of wariness, almost like a Scandinavian winter," he said. "It’s cold and it’s weary. That’s what he sounds like when he’s interviewed."
Despite Mr. Kerry’s problems, a number of observers said it was still very early in the race. And it’s also not clear that the crucial voters even watch shows like Meet the Press or Hardball with any regularity, or even interest. "Typically, for the swing-voter type, when you’re asking somebody about the choice of words 33 years ago, those people have a 100 percent record of either forgiveness or completely not giving a [expletive deleted]," said Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC political analyst. "Have we learned nothing from George Wallace’s career?"
Mr. O’Donnell said these TV appearances were simply testing grounds.
"The reason we stare at John Kerry in April is that Tim is the best indicator there is on how rough it’s going to be on you in a Presidential debate in October," said Mr. O’Donnell, who like Mr. Russert once worked for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "‘Oh, look at that, there’s a vulnerability there.’ And, ‘Oh, by the way, he’s got several months to work on that.’"
Still, Mr. Kerry has a lot more history to contend with—TV history. "You create a tremendous number of obstacles in the obstacle course of life by going on television for 27, 30 years," said Mr. Matthews. "Because the age of television has created this incredible archive system. No matter what you’ve ever said, it can come popping out at you. But the only way you can replace old stuff is with new stuff, so you have to constantly make your new stuff more compelling. That’s how you do it. So television has a permanence, but you almost have to do battle with your old tape."
Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for Mr. Kerry to transform.
"The Democratic friends I have keep saying, ‘Wait, wait, he’ll get better,’" said Don Hewitt, the executive producer of 60 Minutes. "Well, I’m waiting, and I don’t know if he will or not. He may yet surprise me and make it apparent why he’s the guy I’d like to see as President of the United States. I haven’t seen it yet.
"Maybe he needs some good professional advice," he added, "if he’s in a mood to take it."
You may reach Joe Hagan via email at: jhagan@observer.com.
All he and the Dims know is spin.
Nice summary of Kerry's problem.
A liberal simply CANNOT get elected that way.
Liberal tenets have been exposed as bankrupt not only by the loss of credibility by the main stream media and the simultaneous rise of Fox News, the internet, and talk radio, but also by events, the Left has simply been wrong about everything lately.
Beginning with the success of welfare reform, the 0 for forever batting average on their predictions for the post 9-11 wars, opposition to vouchers alienating black voters, energy policies alienating unions, the obvious success of tax cuts in reviving the economy, and most damaging, the opposition to a war to liberate an oppressed people made transparent the Left's quest for power over principle.
Even Bill Clinton would be seen by more people as a dissembler if he had to defend such a mess as the Democratic party has gotten itself into, IMHO.
I doubt Don Hewitt has many Rebublican friends, maybe a couple of Rinos.
I guess Mr. Hewitt wants us the believe as an "unbiased" member of the press he has not yet made up his mind about who he wants to see as the next President. Excuse me while I go throw up.
Sorry, my TV-addicted-generation brain can't resist pointing out that 'Lurch' was on 'The Addams Family,' though Kerry could be a passable Herman Munster, though only in still photographs....(Not a slam on you, BTW, jerod, just my own compulsive nature...)
What I can't understand is why he isn't in the Guinness Book of World Records (snicker).
Kerry is doing so bad because he knows he is not suppose to run. By running, he can tell all of the lies he wants about President Bush, he can muddy the water, and if he is good enough at it he can force the Republican to go negative. So as you can see, any of the Democrats on the far left could have done this, the brilliance in this plan is they had three different people running, with each ready to take over when the others slipped.
Why you ask? Simple, Hillary is running for President, this year.
She is percieved as a far left Democrat, but notice she is moving herself to the middle, and compared to Dean and Kerry she appears to be a moderate.
If they can get the Republicans to go negative, (notice how the media is trying to paint the picture that the Republicans have already gone negative and it is the results of their ads that Kerry is not doing well), when Hillary steps in to save the Democrats she will make a plea for a "clean campaign" which is Democrat speak for don't you dare bring up my past record, while I question the facts over your birth, were your parents married when you were born.
Why is Hillary running now and not in four years? She is getting old. She has a senate race between now and 2008, and she believes President Bush is vulnerable.
I would also add that the old main stream media is losing its power. In four years, they will have even less influence over the population.
This is her year, and she is going for it, and that is why Kerry is doing so bad, he wants to be bad so he can pull out at some point, and Hillary can step in. The only question is timing. When is this going to happen? For Hillary late October will be best, but there will be problems if they wait that long.
Amen.
Teresa nixed it. She thought it was about their sex life.
Uh, maybe up until now his "record" has not been adequately scrutinized. Thus, his visable discomfort reveals the truth - his record really isn't worth crowing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.