Can Kerry excite the crowds like Clark, Dean and even Edwards?

He apparently had a few "flashes" of brilliance and a few good days in Iowa BUT can he keep it up? He must be able to in order to beat Dubya. Will he be able to "rally" people in the South?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094065/

MASON CITY, IOWA—Whatever John Kerry is doing right in this campaign, he isn't doing it on the stump. At least, that's my impression after watching him last night. Granted, it was the end of a long day for the senator, who spent much of it flying around Iowa by helicopter, and Kerry is a notoriously erratic speaker. The speech I watched him give had the quality of a rambling answering-machine message—Where is he going? What is he talking about? Will it ever end? But Kerry is the candidate that I've seen the least of in person, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I've just never seen him on a good day. If his momentum in the polls is for real, he must be doing something right.

-snip-

The audience doesn't seem wowed by Kerry, and he isn't bum-rushed by supporters the way I've seen crowds swarm around Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and to a lesser extent on Thursday afternoon, John Edwards. What am I missing? I wonder. But driving between Dean events today, I hear a radio ad that might provide part of the answer. It supports Ryan Lizza's theory that Kerry is gaining ground by pushing an anti-tax message. Unlike unnamed other candidates, "John Kerry is not going to raise taxes on the middle class," the announcer says.

-snip-

By cramming so many primaries and caucuses into a small part of the calendar, McAuliffe created something much closer to a national primary than ever existed before. Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark are taking advantage of the new game by staking their candidacies on the states after Iowa and New Hampshire. And if John Zogby is right about John Kerry, Howard Dean may be forced to do the same thing.

Totally ineffective against GWB.

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

But I did see Kerry a few times in Iowa, he had 'em on their feet, he had them crying, he had them inpired. No body was asleep - a funny complaint I heard from a friend is that "he was too rah-rah." So much for "remote" and "cold"

I think he won that poll. Kerry's strong point is his gravitas--when he tries to be real exciting it looks a little forced. It won't fire up activists, but the oldsters will approve. :)

But maybe that's because I don't go to campaign rallies expecting someone to cut a WWF promo or smother me in Southern charm.

And you thought gore had problems? At least Gore was fundamentally likeable.

Calling Kerry likeable and less "phony" then Gore. How Gore was "phony", or how he is "less likeable" than Kerry, I leave for you to guess. Maybe Maureen Dowd can tell you. :crazy:

He found his footing when he became his own man.

Kerry has been a nasty complainer his entire campaign, whose only advantages were due to someones else's pillorying from the establishment media. Kerry curries support by casting himself as "safe" as opposed to challenging. He did very little challenging in the Senate. As someone who lived through Viet Nam, and opposed the Iraqi adventure, I am not impressed with his strutting - as if by killing a man, someone is better qualified to lead. I know enough about Kerry to despise him. It is only a matter of time before others realize the error of the media manufactured moment.

Kerry has not earned my vote.

but I do.

I understand that it's part of that "Dull Effete" meme, just like the "Ambulance Chasing" Edwards, the "Emotionally Unstable" Dean and the "Republican Phony" Clark. and of course, they are all liars who make constant gaffes.

Still, I just don't get the energy from Kerry that I do from the other 3. I can't see him keeping the momentum that Dean and Clark initiated.

I saw him in Iowa on more than a dozen occasions and he packs houses and gets people uplifted...standing ovations...plenty of admirers asking for autographs and such after... I've heard he's doing the same in New Hampshire.

The best part about Kerry is his level of detail he can go into with Q&A on any issue. That's a true test.

After a while, simplistic generalities and over-wrought, over-used and tired pronounciations that the other major candidates use in their stump speeches have much more fatigue, imo.

I was at a small event with Kerry. All highly educated folk. A fervent Kucinich supporter asked a passionate question and was teary-eyed after Kerry's thoughtful answer. About a third of the group was republican. They asked tough questions, there was some animated back-and-forth. Kerry eventually had them mumbling that he really bested Bush in that he understood the issues.

Kerry is also know as a powerfull debater.

I agree, he is not a Jesse-Jackson quality stump speaker. His natural speaking style seems more suitable to the lecture auditorium.

gin

Not the most inspirational speaker.

Way

Unlike the other candidates, Kerry drills into the issues and provides detailed responses to questions. I get excited after a Kerry event because it gives me hope for this country again - we can improve dialogue in this country and talk about REAL issues again.

I've been to several Kerry rally events and he can get people excited when he's genuinely into it. He's not great at faking it though.

In my opinion, his speeches sound tired and dull. I haven't watched an entire speech of his, so I could be wrong -- but so far he hasn't captured my interest enough to want to watch a full speech.

Dean, Clark, and Kucinich have far more energy behind their words. Dean is the only candidate that I have watched give an entire speech -- and he has a passion and wonderful energy that is evident when he speaks. I just don't see that same passion with Kerry.

I think he's the best of the bunch.

hatred for Kerry would affect anyone else over at Slate. Kaus has lost his wits over Kerry and has turned into a raving loonatic.

It's the "no" times that have me worried. Not whether he would be a better President than Bush* (any of them would) but whether he would keep fighting with enough passion to get to the WH.

world, though. People don't have to get all pumped up for him, they just have to get up the energy on election day to go to the polls to vote against shrub. The big money guys will handle the funding.

I know I'm a Dean supporter arguing against his "energize the base" argument, but that's how I feel at the moment. Kerry can win in November--not because he's John Kerry, but because he's not George Bush.

Pretty sad, but that's how a lot of Dems are looking at the primaries. We'll end up nominating the "safest" candidate, and pass up two very unique candidates that may not come our way again in a long time: Dean and Clark.

Same Old Shit. Hooray for the two-party system.

Edwards is a barnburner, so they must have caught an off day. I do agree that Kerry is the least exciting speaker, after Joe, of our candidates. But I'm not sure speechmaking is everything.

I do like this very much:

"It's not even mission attempted," Kerry hollers. "It's mission deserted! Mission abandoned! Mission not even tried!"


On edit: clarification

The crowds I saw in Iowa were cheering, crying, and very fired up by his stump speeches. He was better at some of the rallies than others, but so what?

What I find fantastic is the notion that GWB is more inspiring electric etc.