The issue is not the "issues". The issue is the candidate.

I posted this in another thread, but I want to get other comments. My premise: focusing mainly on policy issues will give us another defeat in 2008. We need a populist candidate that appeals to Liberals, Progressives, Centrists, Libertarians, Greens, and moderate Republicans. Let's leave the far right wing out in the cold for a little bit. I start the post commenting on our losses in 2000 and 2004.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1967685&mesg_id=1967776

Gore and Kerry lost because they campaigned like stiff wooden androids. Neither were charismatic, likeable, or animated in any way. Hey, don't get me wrong. I liked Kerry. I voted for him. But I share Jon Stewart's sentiment that Kerry is a titanic bore.

I know many of you loved Kerry and I shared all of your pain when we lost the election. But the issue is not the "issues". The issue is the candidate.

Most Americans have a general, albeit vague idea about what Democrats stand for: the environment, a woman's right to choose, welfare, pro-labor, etc. As a centrist (did my name give it away?) I would love for the DNC to take a more moderate, pragmatic approach to politics. But let's face facts: many Americans voted against their best interests when they voted for Bush in 2004. Clearly, policy issues are not on the forefront of the average American's mind.

We need to pick someone who can move people. Someone who can rally people, and not just the liberal "base". Half of this is the candidate and half of this is how the campaign is run. I think Hillary is smart to align herself in the center, so that she will negate the inevitable criticisms of being too "liberal". (Apparently that has become a very bad thing). I'm still unsure if she's our best shot in 2008, but I think she's making the right moves.

I KNOW some of you will be pissed to read this post but I have to tell it like it is because, well, I love ya man. I want us to take back this country. I love America and I am nauseous at what is being down in it's name. I know you are too.

When it all comes down to it, every discussion we may have about the environment, energy, economy, etc is moot if American voters do not like or respect our candidate.

He seemed like an honest and trustworth person, a strait shooter. Didn't trust shrub for 1 second. Didn't like Kerry either but was a better option than shrub.

There are just too many people from the groups you've named (Liberals, Progressives, Centrists, Libertarians, Greens, and moderate Republicans) who've already made up their minds about Hillary. They're not going to vote for her, no matter what.

For a presidential candidate who can appeal to the broadest array of groups, I suggest checking out Blanche Lincoln:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

She's my first-choice for 2008...and I'm not the only one who wants her to consider a run.

what happens, that's for sure. Hillary is sort of our version of GWB for those on the right, that is, they all despise her as much as we despise W. A new face may be what we need.

I checked out your link and Blanche Lincoln seems like a great leader. However, in this age of terror and war, I think that we would benefit from a candidate with more foreign policy or military experience. I read the website's arguments on this point but I don't think they hold up.

The foreign policy and military experience seems to be a strong point for Wes Clark, which is why I think he has developed such a strong following of supporters. I still agree with those who would prefer seeing Clark as SoS, although I do believe Clark would make a fine president.

Otherwise, NONE of the others who are named as potentials in 2008 (Bayh, Clinton, Kerry, Warner, Lincoln, Vilsack, Gore, Edwards, Feingold, Bredesen, Schweitzer) have a SOLID foreign policy record that is relevant to this decade...although I suppose you could make a case for Feingold, but I still see Feingold as being better-placed as a V.P. running mate.

that was all about the global financing of terror by international financiers.

If Congress had paid more attaention to it, 9-11 would have been prevented. It's called PRESCIENCE - some people have it and others don't.

In fact, BCCI is all about the funding of terror and arms dealing on a worldwide scale. That is somehow irrelevant to you?

Try reading Kerry's remaining questions on BCCI from 1992 and you will see first off that Pakistan and its nuclear proliferation dealings were a key. That's a start - read the rest - Then try making your argument that Kerry's record has nothing to do with this decade.

A more perceptive judge of history would know instantly that the roots of 9-11 and our current Mideast policy are found in BCCI.

and has been there for 20 years. He is the ranking member for Southern Asia. How can his experience be non-relevant to the current problems (N. Korea and China, for example).

he was on the list of possible VP candidates for Gore. He was described as charismatic when he was against the war. I was shocked when I saw Kerry on CSPAN at rallies - I thought he was at least as charismatic as any politican since Kennedy.

The MSM showed almost none of Kerry's rallies. If they would have shown as much of them, growing in size till the end, the band wagon effect would have taken effect. As it was, Kerry's only unfiltered appearances were the debates - that he won hands down. Kerry was not wooden. From the intense loyalty and respect he had from his fanily, school friends and others, it was clear to me that he was a good person who they not only liked but loved. (I was especially impressed by how much Teresa's sons appeared to like him.

It didn't help that the MSM kept referring to him as a "social Loner" even though he appears to have many close long term friends. Just looking at pictures in the George Butler book, results in seeing a very animated, connected person.

They say he has few real friends.

But Kerry has many lifetime friends, as you have said. I think that's a pretty good way to judge a person.

That could be said of many people in his administration, and his party, not that anyone cares. Those folks don't have friends.

The media reversed their actual personal qualities.

Suddenly, he runs for President, and the media labels him a bore. And for the first time in 10 years, the media is right. Amazing, isn't it?

as the GOP. PLEASE.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. Inexpensive. An easy read. And it'll change your life.

NGU.

it's all a lie. Media Matters, FAIR, and Take Back the Media have been lying to you.

All the voting rights groups who are concerned about the machines are wasting your time. I think they're in cahoots with Media Matters to keep the wool pulled over DU's eyes.

and the failure of our party to stand up to have the votes verified. Without fair elections, it doesn't matter who is running. Electronic counting could have had a chance of being stopped if our leaders came forth and protested it.

Kerry didn't campaign like a stiff, wooded android. Far from it. Did you ever see him in person? On the campaign trail he was warm, funny, charismatic and really connected with audiences and won them over. Blame the media for suppressing this information about Kerry, repeatedly. Blame the Democratic Party for having a weak image. Blame the campaign managers. Blame the voting machines and those who run them, especially. But don't blame Kerry for being something he clearly wasn't.

Kerry is always comfortable being himself. Gore, I think, was over-managed and kept trying to re-invent himself. So he came off as a phoney at his debates. Kerry was Kerry throughout all three debates.

:scared:

It's about both. The issues have to be framed in simple slogans. The candidate has to be a rock star. Presidents these days have fans more than they have consituents. Reagan was a star, Bill Clinton was a star, and sad to say, the Shrub is akin to Jesus Christ, Superstar amongst his following. Stars are teflon because fans will defend the object of their adoration against anything. They're not dealing with the real person. They're in love with the ideals they've projected onto that person. And that's why Reagan is considered the greatest president ever by many and given credit for things he really didn't have much to do with. Clinton can charm the birds out of the trees. Bush projects all kinds of qualities he doesn't have.

At the same time, issues are vital. Issues just need to be presented right, and forcefully and honestly. When Bill Clinton was campaigning, he told people exactly what he wanted to do for them. He told college students what financial programs he wanted to put in place. He told the middle class what tax breaks he wanted to give them. He mentioned dollar amounts. He didn't keep all his campaign promises, but he tried and he kept some of them.

The only reason to vote Democrat instead of Republican is that Democrats are better for the regular people. That has to be true, and there must be specifics to talk about. Vague intentions aren't going to make it. Also, they've got to be up to date. Some of our candidates were talking about healthcare coverage for all children, which is great, but while they were talking, more and more adults were losing access to coverage. They showed up at union halls and talked about manufacturing jobs - also good, but it took too long for them to notice that there were other jobs being lost as well. And a fair number of people had changed to IT careers when their old careers disappeared, so they were screwed twice. I didn't hear anyone talk about that until Wesley Clark got into the race. That's one reason why I preferred him. He seemed to be the only one really paying attention.

I love both Gore and Kerry, but I have to agree that they aren't great campaigners. Gore has a speaking style that comes off extremely goofy about half the time. That's too much of the time. Kerry has to be really careful not to bore the shit out of people. He got better at that, but not good enough. People here don't have perspective on that because we're interested in every word a candidate has to say, but the candidate has to engage people who don't have all that much interest in policy. Campaign speeches have to be constructed like newspaper stories. First the headlines, all the basics in the first couple of paragraphs and then further explanation, preferably in question and answer formats.

Both - Issues and a star. That's what it takes to win the presidency. Other offices are different stories, of course.

The "star" idea works if you mean "media creation." The Repugs obviously go for the blank-slate "being there" guy without a thought in his head (Reagun, Bush) while the Dems go for a charismatic "best-Republican-President-ever" like Clinton who gets that floating all the boats is best for the nation.

Clinton "projected" his own ideas, words and vision as President.

Reagan and Bush were "projected on" as you say-- the white sheet held up for the cartoon projector to point at.

As long as voters prefer the "I could have a beer with that guy" candidate, Democrats who want to address actual information and issues will be at a disadvantage.

We need verifiable and accurate voting and a public that gives a shit.

:bounce:

Sorry, but I call bullshit. Watch his campaign speeches, floor speeches and the debates, and block out the "Kerry is boring" meme. He's not. Post a link to any speech where you think he's boring, and I'll post three that will remind you that he's not. I'll start with last night's energy bill speech.
Jon Stewart? He's paid to make fun of politicians. He uses media sound bites and talking points to criticize, because that's his job.
LOL. Jon Stewart. Is that all ya got? If all he can do is show a clip of Kerry on some mundane topic and call him boring, well, good thing for him Kerry wasn't elected, cause then he's have to cover the senate, and he'd be cancelled in a month.
The 'liberal' media could have made Mother Teresa look like a world class bitch if they wanted to. They wanted to make John Kerry look like a spineless, boring flip-floper. Think about it. They bust their asses to make Bush look presidential. And sometimes they even come close to succeeding. If you consider what they have to work with, it's a freaking miracle.
Technology allows us to re-make reality. Sound bite here, little cut and paste there, and voila (sorry, French is bad, see what I mean?), you have transformed reality. It's MSM Photoshop.
He's not perfect, but, IMO, we couldn't have invented a better candidate than Kerry.

So, I guess I disagree.

Sure, he does not talk in two word sentences, but are people unable to think anymore?

Candidates have to appeal to people who never, ever see floor speeches. If you watch them, and most of us do, you're not seeing things the way the average voter does.

It depends of the media.

Remember Dean's campaign. For months and months, he was described as a great communicator, a charismatic person. ...

All of a sudden, something changed in the media and he was described more and more as a totally different person, prone to gaffes, not reliable, goofy, crazy. It was the same Dean. He did not change his behaviour. The media had decided they had to change the image.

This is why the issues are important. People who actually saw Kerry in a rallye generally liked him, but few people saw that. The media framed the perception and they will do the same with future candidates.

And he's really not a nutball!!!
He's actually pretty great!!!
Shocked the hell out of me, cause I was told he's a loon.

I think for Democrats and the presidential race they're equal. Issues should be the only thing, but that's not the reality. I can't tell you what the key is to the media, but the Democrats are going to have to figure it out. Sounds like Paul Hackett has it about right. Win or lose, he's making an impression and that's the kind of thing that people actually get a huge kick out of, as long as you come off competent and confident.

I think what happened to Dean was more than just the media. I think there were other things that gave the voters cold feet, not the least of which is his coming from Vermont. Think heartland or, even better, southern.

Kerry's speech on the senate floor last night was brilliant, fiery and full of passion. While I didn't have the opportunity to see him in person on the campaign trail, I did take the time (and make the effort) to watch as many of his campaign speeches (in full) as Cspan would show. (Let's face it folks, that's about the only place you were going to find them.) In my opinion, he was anything but wooden and boring on the campaign trail. That's a right-wing talking point that seems to have really caught fire with a lot of Democrats as well. (You know the Repuke propaganda tool of repeating things over and over again until everyone believes it - worked on a lot of DU folks it seems.) Just because they say it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Whoever our next President is (and I pray it's a Democrat), he or she is going to have to be an actual grown-up willing to take on the tremendous challenge of cleaning up a gigantic mess. And that I know for sure!

and none of the thousands of screaming, cheering people I saw looked bored. I guess I just caught Kerry on a good day, cause according to the media, he's really dull.

And we know they can't be wrong.

Amen.

does not need to be competent. He needs to be a TV star. This is insulting to the American electorate, but, as we do not see more than 2 mn at a time, we will never see if a candidate is a bore or not, nor will we know if he is competent.

This said, I have to disagree with you on Kerry and Gore. They are neither of what you say. This is what the media wants us to believe, because what they say cannot be wrapped in 10 words. But both are charismatic people, and are likeable (if this means something. The only reason people think Bush is likeable is because the media tell us so and do not allow people who would say the opposite, so do not expect they will allow Hill to be likeable).

So yes, I will continue to argue for the ideas, and a little less consultants around the candidate. I think both Gore and Kerry had too many people around them trying to tell us how they should be. The real person did not appear behind that (which is bad in their case, as much as it is good for Bush).

Did you ever meet the man? Did you ever do any research on him? Did you ever watch any of his townhall meetings or rallies not on mainstream TV but C-Span?

I have not been interested in any candidate since Bobby Kennedy, and once I did my research on Kerry, I said this is what America needs, a man for the people, for the country.

I get so tired of people repeating pundits phrases and yes that includes Stewart, just because they say something you run with it, do you not have a mind of your own?

Move people? 59 million + voted for John Kerry (if that ain't moving people I don't know what is) of that maybe 2% pay attention to politics 24/7, I believe that those that saw the inspiration and the real John Kerry, (far from Titanic Bore), will rally behind him again. I know I will. I also know that a lot of younger voters will too, I have 3 alone in my household, they like Kerry and his style and especially his willingness to change as time does.

So keep your discussion going on 2008, for we will never succeed then either if we don't change things in 2006, thats what the main topic of discussion should be. John Kerry is doing his part for 2006 and I think it is about time we focus on it too.

Just my 2 cents.

but bush won on "issues".

He hammered on the war, the "sanctity of marriage", "pro-life", etc. and never left the message. At the same time, he called any reasoned statement by Kerry as waffling - again "on message" all the way.

bush was wooden, stiff, gnome-like (in the debates) and tongue-tied inarticulate. But he hammered and hammered and hammered on his simplistic bullshit "message" without pause and was helped by his crooked helpers (especially in Ohio) to steal the election again.

The dems will have to boil down the message to a few basic points; Job security, Universal health care, freedom from government interference in private behavior, fairness and equal protection under the law.

Dems should say a word about abortion, gay marriage, or any of the other bullshit, smoke-screen issues that the repukes love to waste their time with.

without both, you're toast ...

and even if you can sell a candidate with marketing hype and charisma, you probably haven't won much of a mandate to accomplish anything ...

it is true, though, that most voters really cannot articulate the candidates' positions on issues ... but to abandon fighting for issues we care about and at least trying to convey them to the American people is why i participate in politics ...

if it all comes down to personalities, i'll go find something else to do ...