Questions for Kerry Supporters: Can he survive, etc.?

[BurtWorm]

How is your support for him holding out during this period of turbulence in the campaign? Are you alarmed or do you think the media--especially the Kerry-hating Boston Globe--is manufacturing a worse crisis than actually exists?

If Kerry is doomed, whom will you switch to? If you believe he is not doomed, what more can he do to fix the problems and overcome the Dean onslaught in particular?

[phillybri]

1. I don't think he's doomed....

...All campaigns have ups and downs....

Am I a little worried? Sure...But, that being said, I still believe he's the best guy for the job and that he still has time to right the ship.

Should he fall by the wayside, I'll be supporting Clark.

[cspiguy]

2. Last Century Democrat - He is SO Over

fresh face please?

[meegbear]

4. Considering they are ALL from the 20th century ...

we don't have much of a choice.

[IndianaGreen]

3. All DUers, not just Kerry supporters, should read David Zephyr's

outstanding thread about Kerry and IWR that so eloquently describes Kerry's conundrum, and a possible solution.

Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=694826

[BurtWorm]

5. That is an outstanding essay!

Thanks for pointing it out.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Those who think Kerry were wrong and should admit he was wrong

apparently don't understand that supporting the President does not translate into a physical battle plan and occupation.

Dean says "It was the wrong war at the wrong time". Well Kerry says the same thing, in that the "war" Bush chose is different from the one Kerry would have chosen. Authorizing military force does not prescribe a method. Were President Kerry in charge we would not be occupying Iraq and the damage and loss of life in Iraq would have been a lot less. I think of all people, Kerry knows the value of American troops lives.

On IWR Kerry made the right choice as an American, and the right choice as John Kerry. Anyone who thinks he should apologize are mistaking intent with the actual action.

[Eloriel]

7. Oh, yeah, that works for me.

Not.

Just more rationalization. Read DavidZephyr's exquisite post.

Eloriel

[NewYorkerfromMass]

I read it, and it mistakenly assumes IWR was for a specific "war plan"

and that is a completely wrong assumption.

"The young men and women wearing American uniforms in Iraq today are in the same thankless place you once were" - True. But Kerry didn't put them there.

"The American people were cynically manipulated by fear and lies by the White House" - True. The American people includes Senators.

Kerry's vote and a subsequent war plan and occupation and exit strategy are completey separate issues. Again- why should Kerry admit he was wrong? He has nothing to "admit to". It was not his war plan.

[gratuitous]

8. Can Kerry survive?

Hard to say. I think he was wise to change campaign managers sooner rather than later. A change like that is always a bad sign, but the earlier you move to correct something, the more time you have to minimize its effects.

I think Kerry's campaign is wobbling, but he can recapture some momentum and get things moving again. He should ignore the nay-sayers and the fault-finders, and refocus on his message: Why is he running for president? I mean, except for the handful of political junkies on an obscure website in a forgotten backwater of the internet, nobody's all that tuned into the race for the Democratic nomination. Keep plugging away, John, play your game, stay true to your goals and yourself, and you'll be vindicated. Do you really want the nomination on your terms or on someone else's terms?

[blm]

9. I'm happy the dead weight was let go. Kerry's going to plow forward.

And Kerry's record holds up to intense scrutiny in a way that few can. Because of that, he can be trusted by Democrats.

[BurtWorm]

11. Did you read the article in the NY Times today on Bob Shrum?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/politics/12SHRU.html

They make it sound like a battle between caution and "edginess" in the Kerry campaign. I think it's a mistake to let caution win out. Dean's example seems to prove that. I'm a Dean guy, but I would love to see Kerry break out and land some blows (on Bush, not Dean).

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

10. No big deal

I honestly don't think the shake-up in his campaign is much to worry about. Only us political junkies are paying attention at this point, and now is the time for changes if a campaign is going to make them.

If he was the nominee, and it was September or October 2004 when this happened, then I would say it's time to worry.

[BurtWorm]

12. Is it just a media "story" that the donors were barking

about making this change? If it's true, then that seems troublesome to me. It's not a good sign when the money people are getting jittery.

[ModerateMiddle]

13. I don't expect this to hurt him

and depending on what happens next, the change could do a lot of good. Relatively few people are paying close enough attention that it matters to them who is behind the scenes in a campaign.

I expect Kerry to be in this for the long haul, so I won't be switching allegiences unless someone else gets the nomination. At that point, it will depend on who the nominee is as to whether I do anything more than vote for him.

[BurtWorm]

14. I'm curious about something, though. Suppose this damage is real

and he can't get his campaign off the ground. How long should he stay in? What good will he do in the race if he can't get any traction? The other side of the question is, how will he get traction?