Clinton & not Kerry?

not conceeding anything here but lately i've been wondering how a Dean/Graham ticket would be doing in this election since those two were the most anti-war of the dems.

 

Me too. When Kerry gets squishy on the war, etc., I wonder what it would be like if Dean was mixing it up in there. It would be a more coherent message, I think. Like it or hate it, more consistent and coherent.

 

The problem with Kerry is the problem with intellectualism. Deeper thinkers see the shades of grey in every issue. Their courses of action arise from compromise, so tend to be diluted. While they are apt to have less negative effects than the more simplistic actions; they are harder for the general public to understand and so appear indecisive.

Although Bill Clinton is the intellectual equal of John Kerry and understands the nature of the complexity required to deal with the big issues like John Kerry..he's from Arkansas. He was perceived by the American Public as a goofy ol' Bubba, just like them.

 

You are the Truth Gene.

"goofy ol'Bubba" LOL

 

A Dean/Edwards ticket would have done well, too.

Kerry has an excellent shot at the presidency. He just needs to keep in mind that not everybody thinks in grey.

To Kerry's advantage, most Americans want a president who is smarter than them. I sure the hell do. But most Americans also want a president they can relate to. Kerry's having a harder time with the latter.

 

I agree. I think the 'he's too smart for y'all" line is a cop-out.

We like smart.

It's distant and cold that doesn't resonate.

 

Dean was my favorite candidate because he's not afraid to speak what's on his mind. He doesn't try to be all things to all people like Kerry does. He's a straight talker who was the first candidate to openly criticize the president.

 

If Kerry has a wild rumpus goin' on somewhere, he sure is keeping it well hidden.

 

that may be true for some of us... but not as much in the days of TV - smart may be as important as likabilty

we used to like smart a whole lot more



For the angry white man trolls out there - this is William Howard Taft (a conservative Rebublican) who was not a very good politician - but he might have been one of the smartest (or most educated) men to serve (he later became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

he was also very fat - and fairly unlikeable, but he got elected

 

Excellent post GP.

 

Well said.

I like both Clinton and Kerry for their intellectual ability. Clinton had "bubba talk" down, but also was a GREAT orator. Kerry is an intellectual, but more mono-tone in his speeches.

Speaking well in public is a nice skill to have as a politician: Helps in the art of persuasion!

I would have voted for McCain (smart guy). Even though he's boring.

 

I thought GP had a great post as well, as a moderate I think in the grey zone all the time and usually believe that going too far left or right on all issues is like determining a book by its cover.

With all due respect, I disagree that Kerry has an "excellent" shot, though for two reasons. 9/11 has created fear in our country, and a result of fear is to see things in black and white, good and evil. I've seen a good many intellectuals, who used to see things in grey, turn to a simplification of good and evil, black and white, wrong and right. Bush, being one of these people who sees things in black and white, has emphasized this growing perception in this country.

this leads me to the second reason, the administration has done an amazing job at changing the vernacular of the country. Words and phrases , which are "active" forward stepping words, which are backed with heavy social context and don't allow questioning have been introduced in the last four years.

Overused words and phrases such as, "pre-emptive attack", "our way of life", "freedom", " war on terrorism", "axis of evil", "support or troops" are very one-sided, words that have been used by the administration (quite tactfully i might add) . If you look closely at them, you will notice that they don't leave much room for consideration, but they are also not very well defined, all we know is that they are either "good" or "bad". It tells you to believe in it without questioning and if you do, you are "un-patriotic". These words are very open concepts and lack any sophistication or definition, but they are very forceful and are unquestionable.

If you listen to Kerry's language in his speech, it's very grey, and leaves a lot to be considered. even his slogan "a stronger America" I find is a very open ended. When I hear, "a stronger America", the first thing I ask is "are we weak now?" or "are we too strong?", "what needs to be stronger?", his slogan, as well as his general language, leads one to ask a lot of questions, it is strong to a degree, but the language is greyer, and thus, less forceful than President Bush. For this reason, he comes off as weak, which psychologically turns off many people.

If you ask those who are choosing Bush over Kerry, and are considered middle of the road voters, they will usually say that Bush is a stronger candidate. My theory is because his language is much stronger, its forceful and unquestioning, which is why so many people either love him or hate him, and why many undecided see him as a stronger person.

This type of personality is such that blends will with the current state of mind in the country: fear. when people are scared, they focus on those who speak with strong (which are really just forceful) words and who see things in black and white. We're conditioned this way by our comic books, movies, TV and cartoons to search for this type of person when we are scared. Obviously, not enough people in this country have watched star wars, otherwise we would know that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side.

Again, in the old days, we did want a leader who was smarter than the average bear, but societal norms are changing. Again, look at popular culture, the books and movies and tv shows we read and watch. Many americans have been conditioned to want a leader who is strong, assertive, but also one of us, an underdog of sorts, but also one that people can relate to. this isnt great policy, and some may disagree, but when people are in a group and something needs to be done, who usually becomes the leader? not the smart braniac, who considers all his options, but the assertive guy who leads the way, but is also one of the people. I'm not going to say that Bush is this type of person, but his public perception is.

This also goes towards that "who would you rather have a beer with?" question. This feeling leads a lot of voters to decide which president they want to choose, or who they trust more. Its a stupid question because it doesnt apply to the common man, it only applies to the pres when he is out drinking with foreign leaders, which no longer applies anymore because they hate his guts, anyway. Its sad that this question trumps, "who is more likely to make a rational, calculated decision?", a lot of people in this country are of the opinion that if you are the strongest country in the world, you dont need to make calculated decisions, you only need to make assertive ones. I prefer the Spiderman philosophy, "with great power comes great responsibility," others prefer , "HULK SMASH!!!".

Sadly, I think most Americans, or rather those in the swing states, would rather have a guy they can relate to and have a beer with, Bush (notice how Bush and his supportors try to emphasize that Kerry looks French, Americans don't want to relate with France), and would rather have an assertive guy than a smart one. Clinton had the luck to have all three qualities, who thought things out well, before he said it, but also used strong language to convince people, which is why he was called, "Slick Willy".

Bush (as well as general cultural trends) has done an excellent job in changing this country's language to lower the importance of smarts in exchange for character, people want a leader who is palatable. This also shows up in our reality tv, do we want the winner to be the smart guy or the likeable guy? Bush has done very well in getting americans to avoid his intelligence and the issues and put character as the leading reason for choosing a president. That's how he got enough electoral votes to get close enough to beat Gore, who was clearly a smarter person, but was portrayed as alien and inhuman. That lack of character was just enough for Bush to win in those close states that Gore should have won, and im not surprised he is using similar tactics on Kerry, who happens to be a somewhat similar candidate.