How is this guys?

I picked "other" for his inability to give concise, direct statements. I don't think he has a message problem in regards to content, just to packaging. He'd be great if this wasn't the age of the soundbite, taking half an hour to answer any question with an in-depth analysis of what might change his opinion, but most people want a zippy, clear answer. What was up with "I voted for it, than against it" other than it was true? Lead with a clear, decent soundbite, then explain quickly and clearly. Instead we get horrible soundbite, long answer. He's acting like the lawyer he is, but in the "analysis" phase outloud, not in the "closing statements before a jury" phase. I'm hoping history repeats and he sharpens up in the home stretch.

Much Much better . All are achilles heels. I do feel he brings up his veteran status way too often. He has everyright to use it in order to elaborate on his service for the US but he is overkilling it. I especially think its overkill because I dont think its that big of a deal. I mean Bob Dole was a war hero and Clinton is widely regarded as a draft dodger.

I voted for lack of policy change from Bush as his greatest weakness. He essentially has the same idea on Iraq which is basically nothing. He may go crying to the UN but I dont suspect that will matter. He wont bring in any new allies but what he can do is be a boost of confidence. A change of face is so desperately needed.

I would say his weakness is not pulling himself away from Bush. However, it may be a necessary weakness. In the extreme masculine US mindset the word liberal is associated with weak, satan and gay in many eyes and Kerry is well a liberal....a liberal from the most liberal state in the US. Bush appeals in that drunken cowboy bar fight sense and Kerry needs to seem determined rather then logical. The US is a Bronze is better then Brains society. Here the one dimensional Terminator will always be more appealing then the cautious and self questioning Johnny#5

I'm in the "other" category as well and for the same reason as pennDerek. Kerry needs to learn to stop droning when he's on the campaign stump and in front of the cameras. He sounds like a pondorous lecturer instead of a campaigner. He needs to have a quicker tempo and deliver shorter sound bites.

That said, speaking of heels, Kerry's current strategy seems to be "let Bush shoot himself in the foot some more." Bush's negatives are going up and his approval rating is going down... all without Kerry having to advertise.

On the other hand, if I were Kerry, (in addition to speaking faster) I'd lay relatively low until September as well. Deflect any negative attacks and quietly formulate some great policy statements, but don't go all out. Wait until just before the GOP Convention and THEN let loose with all the negatives you can for the next 20 days. Then follow that with 40 days of positive-only ads and vision/policy statements. Until then, no one but the hard-core political junkie would pay attention anyway... and they've already decided how they will vote.

Well then, for us ABBers- let us hope that Kerry's staff reads this poll a bit then eh?

I do also think his best strategy may be as AMF suggests- and in fact, to me, it appears just so- whatever the flavor of the day scandal or idiocy the GW regime is up to, he just parrots it, for the most part, and then moves on. He could probably polish this up a bit. But for me, I think he needs to start, ever so slightly, releasing a tad bit of how he would do the job better than GW- just on minor issues that irritate, such as the patriot act- I think he could start distancing himself from the vote and start heaping it on GW in this area first.

I voted for other.

I can't warm up to Kerry. It's not his zombie profile or lap of luxury lifestyle or so-called "anti-defense" voting record.

1) Since Bush has been elected president I'm more critical of personality. Does it matter if the president is down to earth? Maybe it's an advantage at an elementary school but is an affable personality advantageous in a geopolitical sense? Call it the sleaze factor of politics if you will. I'll take a statesman over apple pie.

2) Three weeks ago Cheney ripped into Kerry, drawing fire to himself and attention away from his boss when Kerry wanted to discuss Bush's economic policies. As a result the soft-spoken Cheney, for better or for worse, defined who Kerry is. I don't believe Cheney for one lop-sided syllable but that's what I wonder; who is John Kerry? I don't have a feel for him. Maybe I should get over my reluctance to watch TV.

I would have to say it would be a problem of getting his own policies out and into the public realm. A lot of people know where Bush stands simply because when he speaks, the three networks listen, he doesn't have to vie for national attention out of his own pocket. Kerry is going to have to overcome some negative attacks, and at the same time, put forward his own ideas. It's a delicate balance. His website has a large collection of where John Kerry stands on the issues that is a good read. While potitical-internet junkies might eat up anything and everything on a website, Joe and Jane six-pack don't have time for such a luxury.

Well I voted for #2, 'Not distinguishing himself from Bush, policy wise.'

However all of the choices, even combined could not be as harmful to one's campaign as being an ineffective president for the last 3 years. That achilles heel belongs to Bush, and Apollo is busy sharpening his arrows again.

I voted "other" because what kills Kerry for me are things like his vote for a $5 bil. cut in the intelligence budget right after the 1st WTC attack. This idiotic tendency of his and his rampant lying/double talk will end it for him.

I voted for not distinguishing himself from Bush on policy matters. Let's face it: John Kerry is a LIBERAL! (Oops. Used the "L" word). But he's trying to run as a Democratic Leadership Council centrist.

It isn't making my heart beat faster. It sure isn't galvanizing support for Kerry. The "Anybody But Bush" sentiment will only go so far and then you've got to start giving people solid and concrete reasons to ditch the devil they know for the devil they don't.

I think Kerry should come out for a raise in the minimum wage to $7.00 right NOW.
I think Kerry should make minimum insurance coverage for the 40 million Americans with no health insurance a centerpiece of his campaign. He should pledge his allegiance to strict environmental laws and punishing polluters. He should be firm on a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion. He should propose a workable exit strategy to get out of Iraq but assure it doesn't become a haven for terrorists.

Kerry needs some Big Ideals that anyone can point to and say, "Well, I don't agree with all of his proposals, but at least I know where he stands now." Trying to be all things to all people only assures that at the heart there's nothing much to you at all.

That's Kerry's problem as I see it.

I believe we already refuted that $5 bil. cut issue.

I could have picked almost any answer, but chose 'service record' because I'm really irritated with his hypocrisy on this issue. While he was a war hero-turned activist against the Viet Nam war, he's against politicizing it for Clinton but for politicizing it for Bush... Has medals framed in his office, but threw the ribbons over the fence, but has his band of brothers on every stage, enough already. It seems like every questioning of any of his policies is met with 'i served in Viet Nam while Dick Cheney was in grad school.'

It's really sad - I'm holding my nose and voting Bush - I am against electing a president that is an elite, east-coaster, raised with a silver spoon and going to ivy league schools. As I told a Kerry supporter last weekend - I'd rather vote for the zillionaire that at least lives like a regular person in Texas, vs. the one who's staying elitist and proud of it. French cousins and all, it just gets to me viscerally. Like Lesly said I can't warm up to him. And his wife Yikes.

edited to fix grammar

Now this I think is a Kerry STRENGTH- he doesn't try to affect something he is not- he is not ashamed of who he is- GW is more Kennebunkport than he is Texas- and has never once had to worry where his rent check is coming from! LOL

So you are against Kerry because of

• Where his family is from
• What his wife looks like
• Honesty about his business dealings

That's quite the list. There are all sorts of valid reasons to dislike both presidential candidates; but you've managed to take an alternative route.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Bush born into fantastic wealth, and nepetistically ensconced at Yale? So you can add to the above list that Kerry is from the East-Coast (eghads!) and he doesn't talk with a southern drawl.

I’d have to say “other” – he comes off as boring and dull. I really wish he was a more dynamic personality, and would distinguish himself more from Bush on the issues. I’ve heard it said that the best strategy Kerry could have is lay low while Bush self-destructs, but it doesn’t seem to be working. And that in itself is troubling.

I agree with AMF, Kerry tends to drone on and on and on-he’s a boring speaker, darn the bad luck. Slate magazine has always poked fun at Bush with its “Bushisms”, now they have “Kerryisms”, where they edit out all the hyperbole and purple prose to “plain English.” It’s pretty funny stuff.

Kerry, elitist? Born with silver spoon? His father was a low-level government worker in the State Department and never did make ambassador, and though his mom’s family is one of New England’s oldest and most prestigious, she was far from rich. It was a wealthy aunt that paid for him to go to prep school. Being around all those other kids who truly were from rich and powerful families is probably what fed his ambition! Bush is far more an elite east-coaster; you didn’t think he was from Texas, did you?

I do think if Kerry (or Gore even) had half of Clinton's personality, the 2000 election wouldn't have been stolen by SPOTUS, or this election would be a no-doubter.

Crusin' -
If he's not ashamed of who he is, he should get a diction coach. Somehow in the battleground states and union halls he appears to have lost his g's. Now he goes' huntin' an' fishin' or sump'n like dat. It's a bit over the top.

Daffygrl, suggesting that Kerry's background is not elite is a bit loopy - he went to Swiss boarding schools and Yale, and summered on Cape Cod. His middle name is Forbes because his mom is from that family. Most of us can't even imagine what kind of life that is.

All - I was attempting to be ironic regarding rich, east coast Yale grads, but feel free to retort I think that we are all aware of President Bush's financial situation, I was merely saying that since we have to elect a zillionaire, I'd prefer the more down-to-earth zillionaire. I think even Nader is a millionaire, no?

UltimateJoe has already pointed out that Bush himself does not really have blue-collar roots.
And the second important issue - what's wrong with having an Ivy-League education? Somehow it's became a norm in this country that we blame people for being well-read, educated, smart (unless it's "street smarts" - that's OK!). "Damn it, I don't speak any foreign languages, and I don't want my president to, either!" It's hard to believe that Kerry's foreign language skills are being held against him. We are not electing a bar buddy here - we are electing a president representing our country! Being "average" here is not good enough.
I never thought that being "elite" is something wrong or shameful - "elite" are the people who stick out of the crowd. If being "elite" means having top-notch education, have broad interests, speak foreign languages, understand and appreciate arts, etc. - I wish EVERYBODY would try to become an "elite".

Never said that he did, nor did he. Actually I made a point of saying the opposite - Kerry and Bush are elites, or at least rich, but Bush doesn't wear it as much - you can call that an act, some would call it humble. Bush did grow up in Texas though, from age 2 I think, before he went to prep school and Uni out East. And he was governor there...

UltimateJoe also points out the fallacy in my argument further...


Which are much worse reasons than "anybody but Bush." Clearly. Plus, I said nothing about what his wife LOOKS like. Her snobbery, know-it-all demeanor, hypocrisy and liberal causes turn me off.



The thread is titled 'Kerry's biggest weakness.' While we disagree, surely you must acknowledge that, in 'flyover country' they really have no time for elite types who think more of France's opinion than Omaha's.

Here's a link to the article which makes a case for why we should pay attention to what other countries (including France) think of us - because, if nothing else, it hits our wallet:

U.S. brands lose appeal

Also I think that you may generalize here a little bit. One of the most well-read people that I knew lived in small town in Ohio - part of the "flyover country". I still don't understand what's wrong with being well-read, educated in Ivy League schools, speak foreign languages, etc. I wish I could have had Ivy League education - I didn't have neither money nor smarts to do it. It doesn't make me jealous of the people who could.

You heard it here first, folks: Kerry's biggest weakness is that he's easily stereo-typed as rich, Eastern, and related to French people. I hope this means that everyone rich, Eastern, or with French relatives votes for him. I guess the Bush and Cheney families will, and we'll pick up New Hampshire (Eastern) and Louisiana (where the black vote plus the French relation vote = landslide).

Anyway, interesting semi-on-topic point: we'e apparently seeing not only the famed red-blue divide, but the return of the "real America" tactic Bush featured in 2000. So if you're from, say, D.C., or Pennsylvania, or New York, you're not a real American. Us "fake" Americans, largely part of the 52% of voters who voted for a candidate to the left of Bush, should really worry. We live in all the places terrorists would care to attack, yet get less counter terror money per head than Wyoming. We want to go after Bin Laden; instead we get NYC first responders sent to Baghdad. And on top of all this, we're apparently no longer considered "real" citizens, especially if we're of suspect ethnicity. And now we're rallying behind someone so snobby that he was actually grateful for being rich enough to afford Yale, and returned after his service in Vietnam to become a lawyer (gross! lawyers aren't people!), albeit in public service as a prosecutor, unlike that tort-loving snob Edwards.

Maybe I was right in the first thread, when I cited Kerry's largest weakness as external, in terms of the Republican smear machine, and not internal, as in his frequent inability to form complex policy into a concise quip.

Kerry's biggest problem as far as I'm concerned is that he doesn't stand for anything.
He's not Bush, and that's enough to get my vote this election year, but on so many issues he tries to find a meaningless "middle ground". His wishy-washiness in regards to same-sex marriage in particular really annoys me: as with virtually every issue under the sun he is nowhere near as bad as Bush, but he goes out of his way to avoid making a real stand in opposition to the evils that Bush and company support.
Here is an interesting link regarding Kerry's lameness and why he's still far better than Bush.

Actually, my answer in the poll was the service-record issue



You must admit that the divide is dramatic.

county by county map



I doubt that all of the 'real americans' in those states and counties think of themselves as any attack machine. The point made was that he's hard to relate to, and this may hold back his election chances. This is related to class and income, plus probably being in politics for a long time makes most people lose touch with the real world. Was it the last George Bush who didn't know what a supermarket scanner was? If it's not elitism, suggest another word? How can he look a tool-and-die worker in the eyes and say "We paid $160,000 to move a fire hydrant that was in front of our multi-million dollar graystone." But we're regular folks, I mean, hey we listen to gangster rap

I'd suggest that Kerry is "lucky", and tries to hide that less than Bush. Bush plays at being many things he isn't- a rancher, a real businessman (one without a perpetual "get out of failure free" card), a combat pilot, etc., and plays down what he is- the rich, Ivy league son of a political dynasty from CT. I think Kerry's "elite" status is less offensive to blue collar folk who otherwise sit on the political fence. It's a good rallying cry for people who'd vote Bush anyway, but I don't buy that class issues will make workers genuinely in the middle choose Bush. I bet the general trend among independents earning less than $75,000 isn't for George Walker (Grandmother's maiden name, can you imagine?) Bush. So i doubt it will have much impact on the election.