When Kerry Spoke, I Went Into A Fugue State

[cali]

Not all the time, but the vast majority of the time, and that included his convention speech. I tuned out in embarassment the minute he saluted and gave that ultra corny reporting for duty line. Most of his speeches just bored me; I couldn't focus my attention. He was good during the debates, particularly the first, but in general, I don't think he reached people with his brand of rhetoric. So was this it? Was his speaking style a large part of his problem? For the record, I don't think fraud, real as it may have been, accounts for the loss. I think he just didn't reach enough people. He never pieced together a compelling narrative.

[IrateCitizen]

1. To those of us deciding on "reason"...

... Kerry came across as competent, intellectually curious, able to understand the importance of nuance, and well-versed in the complexities of government.

For those who decided on "emotion", I could see how Kerry could come off as indecisive, aloof and long-winded.

[cali]

11. I agree that Kerry is competent, intellectually curious

and able to grasp nuance and the complexities of government. That wasn't what I was addressing. I was addressing his ability to effectively engage voters through rhetoric and image. A great speaker or writer has the ability to distill complexities into clear language. That's hardly an original idea. Orwell was one of the great twentieth century proponents of such.

Do Americans decide on presidential candidates based on intellect or emotion? I'd argue that it's both, but that emotion trumps intellect most, if not all, of the time.

[July]

16. But what about the crowds he drew? He seemed to inspire some.

I was one of them.

[IrateCitizen]

21. And like I said above, you were probably deciding on "reason"

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but when I watched Kerry's speeches on CSPAN, they did almost nothing to stir me on an emotional level. In person he may be engaging, gracious, and even with a good sense of humor -- but on the stump, he comes off as wooden, long-winded, and without a great deal of empathy or emotion.

For the voter deciding on how a candidate made them "feel" (which is the majority of the voting public), Kerry wasn't the kind of guy who was going to inspire them. He completely lacked that personal quality that made both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton such effective politicians.

[berner59]

2. And Bush was a statesman???

I'm sorry but it was kind of like night & day... Public image/style does play into account but compare these two candidates and...uh...no comment needed.

[cali]

13. Uhh, you need to read my post

I never compared Kerry to bushboy.

[berner59]

18. But isn't that what an election is about??

Between 2 people... And even if Kerry didn't "act" like an everyman or speak folksy, this was still about 2 people to choose from and I will never believe that Bush was the better candidate... 56 million people (and maybe more) voted for Kerry (some voted against Bush) so I think he got through... I do think the Repubs did an effective job of painting Kerry as someone that he wasn't and a lot of gullible people & news media bought it...

Our country's loss is how I see it.

[nine30]

25. To many people..

.. especially in the savage red states, Bush was "Us", Kerry was "Them". That was something Clinton could effectively handle
and no amount of nuancing or compelling arguments would convince them otherwise. This is what weakens Democracy. You have to convince a large majority of dumbasses that you are like them.

[demnan]

3. Here's what I think the problem was

When was the last time you think Kerry really was around ordinary people? When was the last time he felt a passion about something? I'd have to see it was the Vietnam War. He spoke plainly enough about that. Over the years he has become isolated. Senators really aren't part of the real world, they don't even know how to talk to people on a normal basis. This could be said about many of them, not just Kerry. Kerry was a good man and in many aspects a good candidate, but he couldn't overcome the fact that he really isn't like the average person and doesn't know how to talk to average people.

[Lerkfish]

7. but average people can't run for high office, apparently.

at least, none are. All have some sort of millionaire cushion.

why is that? Election reform? I have no idea. I think something needs to be done in order to allow the guy who works at the hardware store to be able to run for congress.

[Sallyrat]

4. Are you talking about the John Kerry with more votes than RR?

I didn't see him in that light at all, I was very proud of him and his statesmen like qualities. If you see him in a negative way, then you bought into the image the other side portrayed. They turned a zero into a hero and a hero into a zero. John Kerry, like Al Gore, would have made American proud, but instead, we join in with the other crowd and since he lost to a bunch of liers and thieves, you want to slam him and discredit him. I will stand tall for him and our party should.....

[cali]

17. Fine.

Stand tall and refuse to discuss why Kerry lost. As far as buying into image goes, I decided for myself what I thought of Kerry and his campaign. Didn't buy into the MSM as I don't listen/read/watch it. My sources are C-Span, the web, the New Yorker and Harper's. Hardly MSM talking points. I voted for Kerry, thought he'd make a good president, that doesn't mean I ignored what I saw as the failings of his campaign. And yes, most of his speeches failed to reach me.

[stubertmcfly]

5. hmmm....

i am with you on the whole "reporting for duty" rubbish and i personally HATED all the "hunt down and kill the terrorists" rhetoric but i totally disagree that he "never pieced together a compelling narrative" and frankly, i believe that the first debate was his worst. he just got better and better as the debates progressed.

i htink that you are correct that he had a hard time engaging with the public but a lot of the public didn't want to be engaged. the democratic platform of "republican lite" has WAY more to do with our problems than kerry's perceived personality issues. plus, the media created and continues to create a bubble around * that needs to be burst.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. Amen to that.

Although I kinda liked "reporting for duty," just because it was such a nice slam at aWol, in a convention that had so studiously avoided slamming the man.

We can nitpick all we want, but bottom line is, a slim majority of the public wanted to elect a RW asshole, and they got one, thanks not just to Klanboy Karl Rove, but to that steno pool we call "the media."

[opstachuck]

6. silly as it may seem...

i think if he had a southern, midwest, or folksy accent that maybe it would've been enough to put him over the top. that could just be wishful thinking. i'd rather think that voters are superficial and uninformed rather than just plain stupid.

[On the Road]

8. Stangely Enough, I Believe That's True

a few voice lessons might have given Kerry a few million extra votes, if he had just done the phony cowboy thing.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. It's one of several things, yes.

Sure, if he could've been a little more folksy, a little looser, that would've helped. But he couldn't. He did try, but it wasn't him, and it didn't feel right.

Remember how he sounded whenever he forced himself to say "we will hunt down and kill, or capture, the terrorists?" It sounded forced, beneath him, and IT WAS. We shouldn't have to remind people that it's sometimes necessary to kill enemies. We shouldn't have to say that in order to establish that our guy is a bad-ass. Arggh.

I happened to like the guy I saw--I had a tremendous admiration for him. But for some reason a lot of Americans want their Preznit-dude to dumb down his speech a bit.

I think it says more about OUR flaws as a nation than it does about his flaws as a candidate.

[BootinUp]

10. Sure thats part of it.

But I liked the reporting for duty line, and his convention speech better than most of the others. I don't believe Kerry connected with people during his speeches at the level he needed to. One need look no further than the primaries and how hard it was for him to gain momentum. I really don't care what others here think, or insults they throw at me. Its really quite plain to anyone that paid attention.

His speeches are not terrible to be sure. But when you are going against an incumbent, that is trashing you on your values, you need to connect to the ordinary people, thats how politicians get the trust established initially.

I was quite slow to warm up to his speeches. Of course I had no problem supporting him from a standpoint of what he stood for. He does much better in more informal exchanges. And he did very well in the debates.

This was a game of inches, I don't attribute any one thing to the loss, it was a bunch of paper cuts. We were so fuckin close.

[robbedvoter]

12. As opposed to the compelling "hard work" W? kerry won anyway, or ABB

so, this revisionism is pointless....

[CatWoman]

15. and when I read your thread

I instantly engaged in "disgust" mode.

[cali]

19. Good For You!

Or in other words, so what? If you can't be bothered to explain why you felt disgust, I could care less.

[Chiyo-chichi]

20. Kerry is a much better speaker than Al Gore, IMO.

Even if you do believe that this election wasn't stolen, Gore did beat * in '00, so I don't believe that his speaking style was the problem.

I cheered when he saluted & reported for duty, and was deeply moved by Kerry several times at the convention and on the campaign trail.

[emulatorloo]

22. When Kerry Spoke, I wept w joy at what America could Become

at several rallys I went to. I wasnt' the only one either. We felt anger, we felt pride, and we felt those emotions strongly.

Sorry Kerry was too boring for you. . .

[dogtag]

23. Cali, I think a bigger problem was the fact that

John Kerry got almost NO exposure. The average Joe Voter only saw him in ads. Some watched the 'nice' convention and some watched the debates, but generally speaking most didn't see much of JK at all. I had a difficult time finding the few stump events covered by C-SPAN. The counter spin on cable TV was deafening and the country is blasted by right wing radio coast to coast on a 24 hour basis.

If...JK could have gotten 'free' airtime to present his message to the people in a series of policy speeches the result would have been very different, IMO. The cards are stacked against the electorate. The media wants their ad money. They have no interest in informing the public.

Sorry if I strayed off subject. The way things stand now, we need to run a very wealthy, telegenic, flim-flam artist whose past contains no record to attack, etc., etc.

[Straight Shooter]

24. At first, I didn't like the "reporting for duty" line

It's odd, but I was thinking about that last night, wondering how many people changed the channel when he said that.

And then I got to thinking about how he said it with a smile, sort of in a self-depracating way, letting America know that he would be there for them, that it wasn't about him, it was about doing his duty for America again. (Ego gratification aside, being President is a risky, extremely difficult job, which is why bush and cheney are so bad at accomplishing what is in the best interest of America.)

I don't vote for someone because of their personality. I think that's frivolous and insulting to appeal to my emotions for such an important job. Those people who voted for bush on an emotional level probably make poor decisions in their choice of a dentist, doctor, mechanic, etc., because they don't think about whether the person is competent or not.

All that being said, once I learned of Kerry's history and what made him the man he is today, I had no problem supporting him 100 percent. I still do, without any reservations.