Reply #30: You can't really know [View All]

[karynnj]

Hackett was running for the House, Kerry for President. It was also 7 or 8 months earlier. Polls show people thought Kerry did more negative campaigning that Bush. There were people Kerry won, who rejected Michael Moore.

Running for President, as someone not well known to most of the country, he had to show himself as Presidential and likeable enough that people could see him as President. Attacking Bush as bluntly as Hackett did would make him more liked by people who already detest Bush - people who already were going to vote against Bush. A large number of the persuadables would be less likely to vote for Kerry.

Kerry had a major problem getting the media to actually cover him at rallies. He did very strongly critisize Bush - but as part of explaing things that had to be done. When people actually saw him he gined votes - such as in the debates. Also, Kerry needed to be himself - he is courageous, has taken tough stands, but he is a polite, well- mannered gentleman.

Also, any negative canpaigning is much more affective coming from the VP or other surrogates leaving the candidate to project a positive image. Other than a very few surrogates (Clark, Cleland and Kerrey - off the top of my head), the Democratic surrogates were awful.