Does it bother anyone that the Kerry campaign unabashedly imitates Dean?

Disclaimer: I REALLY like Kerry and think he would be a great candidate for president. I have donated to him several times and would like to meet him/see him speak. His views on just about every issue match mine and that is just dandy.

However, his campaign has become a carbon copy of Dean's.

Exhibit A: The renovation of his website.
Pre-Deanmania, he had a very formal, austere website. Yet now, many of the elements of his new format resemble Dean's website in an uncanny way. All the cute little icons and gimmicks on the page don't even try to conceal the fact he is using Dean's format (good example being the "Send Bush back to his Texas ranch" equivalent of "the bat"). I've heard that he even got the same people who do Dean's website to redesign it in a similar manner.

Exhibit B: The Kerry Blog.
The Dean blog seems to be one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Hundreds of people congregate and discuss actions regarding the campaign as well as gather news on what the good doctor has been up to recently. It is a great forum for all those interested and really does facilitate the campaign as a whole. Obviously inspired and awed by such an effective tool, the Kerry camp decided to put their own blog on his website. Yet, the Kerry blog, while well intended, seems to have fell flat on its face and has yet to serve any meaningful purpose in helping his candidacy as a whole.

Exhibit C: The "America Courage Tour"
Fresh off the heals of the wildly successful "Sleepless Summer Tour", Kerry has announced a similar series of events planned in such a similar vein to the recent Dean events. It is billed as the "American Courage Tour". Good for him.

Exhibit D: His current attempts to be more "down to earth".
Face it, Kerry has always been portrayed as this elitist aloof liberal with no real connection to "regular Americans". As stupid and untrue I find these statements, they do play a huge role in elections. Honestly, I like the fact that he is somewhat "elitist". We need someone who knows what he's talking about and is head and shoulders about the rest. But that is my opinion. Regardless, his current "Cheesesteakgate" fiasco and current rhetoric in recent speeches attest to this fact.

Now, it is very possible that the man himself has little to do with these infractions. It could be he just has some very unimaginative people working under him. If this is the case, he should consider revamping the direction of his campaign, as I would like to see him go far in the primaries.

which is why he appeals to me (at least one reason)...I like Kerry as well, and frankly, I am damn proud of every candidate we have running in this race and would not hesitate to work for or finance any of them...

PS: look at my sig. below.....it's a creed all should follow...

What's next? Critizing candidates for running TV ads "just because dean is"?

the aircraft carrier announcement is going to come off phony as hell.
Dems hated when chimpy did it, and they don't like hypocrisy. Wouldn't have been so bad but Kerry is the one who kept bring it up at forums...

kerry actually served.

It does seem a bit contrived...

a lot of people here said Kerry should do one of his own, to mock Bush.

I think that's what it's about. Bush made a huge blunder by appearing on that carrier, and now the question is how best to make him pay for it. This is Kerry's answer.

it really got him upset kerry is doing this. it exposes bush for the fraud he is.

it is foolish not to copy it. The meetups/blog/etc. are working for Dean. Every candidate should follow suit. Taking internet donations worked for McCain, it would be foolish for Dean not to copy it.

This is a non-starter for me. All that matters is their stance on the issues, not whether or not they are pioneering unique ways of distributing their message.

crying about someone stealing "fair and balanced" as if they have some type of ownership to it.

People update their website looks all the time. Only when Kerry does it is it a cause for more bashing.

of another candidate who used Dean's contracters to renovate their site and had a final product that looked as similar to Dean's. Surely they must be outthere given your post. Please tell me where.

their websites all the time." PEOPLE...as in PEOPLE WITH WEBSITES!!!!

Why do you change what I say most of the time, and then argue with what I DIDN'T say?

the only way that could be is if Kerry was being singled out. That means that some other candidate had to have done the same thing. I asked for that candidate. It isn't my fault you chose to post an irrelevant post. Sorry next time could you please label posts as relevant and irrelevant so I can know? I would appreciate it.

I don't need any warning that your posts will most always twist mine to make your own arguments.

The thread was about Kerry "copying" Dean (an assertion with which I disagree). Website similarities were mentioned. You then posted that people update websites all of the time and that the media is just singling out Kerry in this case.

The discussion was not about updating websites. It was about Kerry's looking like Dean's. It does, mostly because the sites had the same designer. Kerry hired Dean's web designers.

When another poster pointed out that there was a difference between what you said and the gist of the thread, you accused him of twisting your words. In fact, he didn't. He simply brought to issue the difference between a website that's been updated (yes, as a lot of people do) and one that's been updated to resemble an opposing candidate's website (by the designers of that opposing candidate's website).

I don't think it's an issue. If you don't either, you're obviously getting no argument from me. However, dsc is in the right here. You DID make an invalid comparison and then make accusations against another poster when he pointed it out to you.

and I actually also agree that it isn't too relevent. But I am beyond sick of that posters delusions, there is no other word for them, that the press is in love with Dean.

Come off it. He said, "People update their websites all the time". Christ, you need proof of that TOO??

And what on earth does it MATTER? Did Dean copyright the use of the internet or certain means of connecting with people? And doesn't it stand to logic that if your opponent got good success using Brand X web designers, that you might call Brand X and ask them to do a webpage update for you? And that since Brand X had success with a certain format, that they would reuse that format??

Has there been coverage like that?

that were here just recently. there certainly were plenty of threads on it here.

That is a sign of intelligence.

I think it would have been smarter of him to wait until he was the nominee to do it but copying what works is a good idea. I think my guy is going to win but if he doesn't I hope whoever does copies the tactics which propelled him from a nobody to where he is now.

Nothing succeeds like success, and the Kerry folks would be FOOLS not to do whatever they could to make sure their candidate has the best chance possible to be the nominee. (and I say that as a Dean supporter) If they see that a certain web design does really well with Democrats, then why not learn from that? If a certain style of fund raising is really successful, then why not use that same technique?

It's really much ado about nothing. And ANYTHING which increases funding for ANY Dem candidate (ok, except maybe Sharpton ;) ) is fine by me.

I guess the reason why it bothers me is that the methodology used by the Dean campaign may not necessarilly "fit" Kerry's image and campaign goals as a whole. I like to see variety and new ideas.

You have to remember the reason why Dean's setup works so well is because a large portion of his supporters are activist grassroots types. Kerry doesn't have this constituency in his corner at the present. So, he should try to find his niche in a way that can tap the resources he has going for him.

Frankly, this whole "Kerry copying Dean" theory posted by some people on DU confuses the hell out of me.

Why do some people view Dean's use of the Internet as a technology (not a "methodology" -- I have no idea what you mean by that) and labeling campaign trips as a "tour" as some sort of genius innovation? And exactly when did Dean corner the market on being the "down-to-earth" candidate?

These arguments are a complete setup: Kerry (or another candidate) starts doing things that might appeal to some Dean supporters, and suddenly "Kerry is copying Dean." Then Kerry does something that Dean would never do (i.e. make a speech from an aircraft carrier or whatever) and -- lo and behold! "If Kerry were more like Dean, he'd have a chance..."

I also don't understand the pigeonholing of candidates in the last post -- i.e. Dean has the "activist grassroots types" so therefore Kerry should find some other niche constituency. How fragmented do you want the Democratic party to be? Should each candidate target their campaign to their own niche? Yeah, like that's going to get Bush out of office!

I agree with one of the previous posters: Each candidate should do whatever works to get Bush out of office in 2004.

(Edit: took out bad analogy)

"These arguments are a complete setup: Kerry (or another candidate) starts doing things that might appeal to some Dean supporters, and suddenly "Kerry is copying Dean." Then Kerry does something that Dean would never do (i.e. make a speech from an aircraft carrier or whatever) and -- lo and behold! 'If Kerry were more like Dean, he'd have a chance...'"

I don't know if this is directed specifically towards me or other people in general, but I personally never held these conflicting views. My personal stance is that each candidate should separate himself from other candidates as much as possible by asserting their individuality.

"I also don't understand the pigeonholing of candidates in the last post -- i.e. Dean has the "activist grassroots types" so therefore Kerry should find some other niche constituency. How fragmented do you want the Democratic party to be? Should each candidate target their campaign to their own niche? Yeah, like that's going to get Bush out of office!"

Well, when a campaign is planning its strategy, it should gear its focus towards the groups and factions of the party that it has the largest chance of garnering support from.

I hate to break it to you, but the Democratic party IS to an extent fragmented. Our 9 (10?) candidates range from centrist/right leaning Lieberman to the very left leaning Kucinich. Can you honestly envision Lieberman engineering an internet based campaign to reach out to people who would ordinarily support Kucinich or Dean? Or perhaps vice versa, could Kucinich make his money by lobbying the very same corporations he is rallying against on the campaign trail?

It is unfortunatle that Democrats come in all shapes and stripes, but we have to be realistic about the state of our party.

My previous statement was not directed at you personally, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I have just been seeing lots of threads along these lines lately, and that was why my reaction was strong. (Also, our network connection just went down, so this reply is late.)

I realize the Democratic Party is fragmented, but I see no winning strategy in candidates increasing the fragmentation of the party by appealing to different "niches". Each candidate wants the largest piece of the Democratic vote "pie" as possible. It's good to have a strong base, but if your appeal stops there, how do you get the majority?

This is not to say that I think that candidates should pretend to be what they aren't -- i.e. your vision of Kucinich lobbying corporations he has spoken out against -- that would be contradictory.

But I don't see anything contradictory in what Kerry's doing. Using the Internet, cultivating a down-to-earth image and appealing to people who actively want Bush out of office seems like a sensible strategy for *any* of the Democratic candidates (although of course Lieberman would come off looking a little dopey, given the Fox News interviews).

I am glad Dean is getting a lot of support, and I'd certainly vote for him in 2004. But while his strategies are proving to be successful, I don't see them as all that original.

(edit: too tired to be posting)

...then it would be for Dean to imitate Kerry. After all, what is Dean supposed to do-

Enlist in the service and earn a series of metals for bravery, then fight for civil rights, economic equality and the environment for almost 30 years while also prosecuting graft and corruption. And fight off a wildly popular conservative Governor for a senate seat, then move your way up in Senate Committees to sit on the committees of very important issues.

I guess its easier for Kerry to try to copy Dean by using the colors red, white and blue on his web page and then start a blog like thousands of other people from palm-readers to politicians. You are right, Kerry must be mimicking Dean by touring the country- must be the only two politicians in the history of humanity to get on buses.

don't know what to do. They have definitely become 'followers' and Dean is framing the issues and the race.

Dean '04...The New Leader of The New Democratic Party.

in the next four years. And lets hope he all of the sudden sees the light in foreign policy. And lets hope he changes his mind on energy and environmental policy. We better hope he funds education this time around. Let's hope for health policy.

Yeah- a vote for Dean means a lot of hope.

?

...the poster is implying that Dean is such a looney candidate that if he should get the Democratic nomination there is no way that he could come close to winning.

I would welcome such criticism of a candidate pending that such claims were backed by logical, cogent arguments.

But alas, apparently mean spirited opinions suffice for some.

I oppose his policies.

He supports leaving gun laws up to the states. What good does it do to have restrictive gun laws in South Carolina and none in North Carolina. You just cross the border. One set of laws to protect all Americans.

I oppose the proposed tax increases on middle and low income Americans. We are in a recession and the little guy (myself included) are already struggling. Kerry (like Clinton before him) had a plan of targetted tax hikes. These raise taxes on the wealthy individuals and corporations that benefit from the protections and resources of the US while passing their tax burden on to the lower economic strata.

I oppose Dean's last minute support of the embargo on Cuba. he sized up the polls in Florida and changed his position last minute.

There are lots of things I agree with Dean on and a few more I disagree but the most important problem I have with Dean is that he is the least electable of the candidates. Thingds are too important in this election cycle to vote for a pie in the sky candidate.

If Dean gets the nod, I will vote for him of course. But if we want to seat a president in the Whitehouse this cycle, you had better get behind Kerry or we will lose. Kerry is the candidate they fear the most with good reason.

You don't like his stance on the issues. That's fine. You should vote your conscience and with the candidate you most agree with.

But, what exactly is there about the above issues makes him "unelectable" and turns the general public off?

Do you think Americans like fiscal irresponsibility ala monster deficits and the raiding of social security funds? Do you think they like being deceived about huge issues such as an unneccesary war? Would they not like to see a fundamental change in America's health care system?

I can't comment on the Cuban embargo issue because I know little about it.

Imo, Dean's message is very palatable for your ordinary American. He has to just be able to combat the spin and smear campaign that will inevitably be launched upon him (but any candidate will face this).

Also, I should say that Kerry has impeccable credentials and would make a great president. But do you think he can get his voice out to the average man and woman out there? More power to him if he can, but frankly I think Dean would be more effective in this arena.

(Duplicate-sorry)

on low and middle-income Americans:

The increases (actually just a repeal of the tax reductions of the past 2 years) would have very little impact on low and middle-income people. They are really not "tax cuts" anyway, but a shift of the tax burden. Bush cuts trillions of dollars in tax revenue and, in turn, gives less money to the states. The states raise taxes and give less money to the cities. The cities cut services and raise taxes. Yet, there are some who still can't see that their $270 "tax cut" from Bush is immediately taken away in the form of higher property taxes and cut services.

The only people who saw any real benefit from the cuts were the wealthy. They pay tens or hundreds of thousands less in Federal Income Tax now. They don't feel the service cuts as acutely as the poor, because they don't go to the park, they go to their country club...they don't have to pay for extra-curricular sports in public schools, their children already attend private schools.

Hey, I did better under Bush's tax plan myself. I live in one of the most financially healthy communities in Ohio. We have great city services and no prospects of having them cut. I pocket more money, personally, with the Bush tax cuts. However, almost every community around me is desperately trying to pass school levies to make up for the shortfall from the state. Local income taxes are being raised. Property values in these communities are flat, and selling a home has become more difficult.

What is the difference between my community and those around me? Well, we are a wealthy community (i bought an older house in the "cheap seats" so, while I'm O.K. financially, I'm definitely not wealthy). My community is the home of local business leaders and sports figures. My community GOT the Bush tax cuts in a big way. Most of the communities around me are still predominantly working-class neighborhoods. NICE neighborhoods, but ones in which people didn't make enough to benefit from the tax cuts. In fact, these people are now being hurt by the tax cuts.

Dr. Dean's solution of going back to Clinton-era taxation levels and providing health care for every American and adequate funding for schols is the perfect answer in my view. THAT would make much more of a difference in middle-class lives than a few hundred dollars that are simply taken away by the state or city.

:puke:

by coming up with something purely original. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel. Most Dean supporters would get behind Kerry if he's nominated, and want to see him put on a strong POSITIVE campaign. The College Tour is a great idea. Dean didn't invent campaign stops, either.

Nor did the Dean campaign invent blogging, they just figured out how to use it best. However, the pure audaciousness of the Dean campaign comes from a fire in the gut that I haven't yet seen in the Kerry camp. This is not to say that there aren't many positives about Kerry. I think he should take a hard look at his assets and start pushing them OPENLY and HARD. I think he's moving in that direction with more focus on his military service.

Further, the Kerry camp MUST come out with some original ideas because the shadow of Dean's success is having a dreadful effect on morale.

On edit: Grammar

Unlike Dean Kerry is more than an overactive website.

Gephardt outing his daughter to prove he's an equal to Dean on gay rights and putting out his health plan, when Dean had been campaigning on health care for months.

Most of the candidates using the term Bush Lite.

But to be honest, Dean borrowed Wellstone's Democratic wing line, and Used Clinton's A campaign based on hope will beat a campaign based on fear line.

It all evens out, but the question is who comes off more genuine and able to beat Bush.

BTW, he admitted that he's not internet savvy. It's his computer-skilled campaigners making him look like Bill Gates.

"I've heard that he even got the same people who do Dean's website to redesign it in a similar manner."

Say it's true. So what? So the best candidate is the one who makes the flashiest website? How about, I don't know, history and policies?

" Exhibit B: The Kerry Blog.
The Dean blog seems to be one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Hundreds of people congregate and discuss actions regarding the campaign as well as gather news on what the good doctor has been up to recently. It is a great forum for all those interested and really does facilitate the campaign as a whole. Obviously inspired and awed by such an effective tool, the Kerry camp decided to put their own blog on his website. Yet, the Kerry blog, while well intended, seems to have fell flat on its face and has yet to serve any meaningful purpose in helping his candidacy as a whole."

Total bullshit. There are many discussions going on at the Kerry blog, which I am a part of. Hundreds of posters have showed up to talk about why they support the man. And when there's a doubter, there's always a rational explanation and attempt at honest persuasion. And since when did Dean invent the blog? Candidates before him have used it. Just because the media suddenly pays attention, it's his to keep, and for no one else to try?

"Exhibit C: The "America Courage Tour"
Fresh off the heals of the wildly successful "Sleepless Summer Tour", Kerry has announced a similar series of events planned in such a similar vein to the recent Dean events. It is billed as the "American Courage Tour". Good for him."

Oh geez, I didn't know Dean invented going around a country and collecting money. Sorry that Kerry refused to just sit in his HQ and doing nothing because Dean invented everything.

"Exhibit D: His current attempts to be more "down to earth".
Face it, Kerry has always been portrayed as this elitist aloof liberal with no real connection to "regular Americans". As stupid and untrue I find these statements, they do play a huge role in elections. Honestly, I like the fact that he is somewhat "elitist". We need someone who knows what he's talking about and is head and shoulders about the rest. But that is my opinion. Regardless, his current "Cheesesteakgate" fiasco and current rhetoric in recent speeches attest to this fact."

At a speech, he specifically said that he, like Bush, went to fancy private schools, but he was the one who came out saying, "Why can't everybody have a school like this?" Kerry is not trying to act like a Joe Sixpack, which he's not. He's been open and candid about it. And occasionally, for PR purposes, he has to associate with the regular joes, which he sincerely enjoys doing. And I don't know where you get off thinking Dean is someone like Gephardt or Kucinich, who came from modest families. Dean was the scion of a wealthy Park Ave. family, who didn't serve in Nam (because he couldn't) and took up skiing instead. Meanwhile, Kerry was in Europe, seeing post-war Europe, and went to war, came back, and protested it, along with the rest of the grungy veterans.

And he planned to make his move in the fall. Just because Dean has been in overdrive to make his headway, doesn't mean that Kerry has to imitate him or vary much from his own plans.

Kerry has started every campaign slowly. When he strikes, he does so emphatically and mercilessly.

other candidates. Dean's campaign is very negative and very dirty. Kerry is running a clean campaign. That's a big difference.

...

Come on, we have been getting pissed off at all the anti-Dean threads started...why start a thread that is obviously going to inflame Kerry supporters and start another fight? Kerry is the competition - Bush is the enemy.

But I do truly think he needs to alter his campaign strategies. I would be just as happy to see Kerry as our candidate as I would Dean. In fact I may actually prefer it due to his wartime experiences which will play heavily during election time. But, at this point in the race (which is still uber-early), I think Dean is more "electable" because he is constantly pumping out fresh and innovative ideas designed to get more attention and is motivating traditional non voters and centrists.

That Virtually all of Deans speeches and programs have been slowly ripped off from other candidates as the campaign progresses.

Dena continually has changed his stance as the campaign goes on by ripping off what is popular in the campaigns of other candidates.

Deans foreign relations speech was a literal re-write of Kerry's "Progressive Internationalism" Speech, every paragraph in Deans speech mimis and in most cases simply rewords Kerry's fpeeches of months earlier.

It reminds me of a recent cartoon in a black newspaper I saw with Sharpton making long and detailed points, and then Dean saying, "Yeah, what he said", when it was Deans turn, and then all of the Dean supporters in the audience yelling "BRILLIANT".

What a truth in the most compact format.

More than once.;-)

PS - My good friend would kill me if I didn't point out that cartoons involve moving images, and comic strips are sequential art on the page. He didn't make me read "Understanding Comics" for nothing!

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/006097625X.01._PE30_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

to who the leader is.