Likability poll bad news for Kerry

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry, mulling a second bid for the U.S. presidency, finished dead last in a poll released on Monday on the likability of 20 top American political figures.

Among those placing ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona.

"This is bad bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to
President Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc_1

[leftchick]

1. .......

:popcorn:

[Radio_Lady]

84. He's made too many mistakes and just isn't viable anymore.

[leftchick]

85. agreed

:popcorn:

[blm]

97. he didn't - media exaggerated to say he did - they do that to ANY targetted Dem.

Besidesw - I don't suppose any of you checked the source for this piece is a McCain disciple - the fact that Lieberman ranked so high should have clued you in.

[Radio_Lady]

114. BLM, this is my gut feeling about Kerry. I didn't even examine the OP or where it came from.

I'm a Democrat.

I want to consider all of my options when the time comes to vote in a 2008 primary.

I'll make a selection NOT based on any damned poll, whoever sponsors it!

Then in the general election, I'll vote for the candidate of the Democratic party, even if they decide to run a donkey.

OK? Stop ascribing stupidity to your fellow Democrats. We know propaganda when we see it.

Good night and good luck.

[blm]

132. You claimed he made too many mistakes - he didn't - words were twisted to make it appear as he did

and if you are familiar with Cardinal Richilieu's famous saying, you can take 6 lines from the most honest man on earth and turn them into statements proving evil if you were so inclined.

The focus groups last summer were giving Kerry the highest ratings in honesty and conviction and presence, and the media KNOWS it - they set out to undermine him YET AGAIN while deliberately hiding the results from the fovcus groups.

The candidates they are pushing now did poorly, but that is not what they decided to tell their audience is it? Obama was not on the list at the time - but the others were.

The idea that Kerry is done and the others are more viable is still a media creation because it was their intention to make it so -

MATTHEWS: Hey thank you for calling me. It was a good thing for me, mostly.
DELAY: Oh really.

MATTHEWS: Oh of course it was. We got on the air as fast as we could....

<...>

MATTHEWS: Shannon told me, she called me, she said 'don't worry -- he's not calling in to complain'...

MATTHEWS: Have you seen this new focus group stuff on the candidates?

DELAY: No I haven't

MATTHEWS: It's great stuff. I'll send it to you -- it's great -- yeah it's great stuff. Hillary, John Kerry. All these guys, all these democrats, and how they do. And, uh, Frank Luntz did it...

DELAY: who I like

CM: ...and Hillary did not do well. Kerry did well.

DELAY: You're kidding.

MATTHEWS: I am NOT kidding. They didn't like Edwards -- they thought he was a rich lawyer, pretending to care about poor people...

DELAY: Too slick. Too slick.

MATTHEWS: ...and Hillary was a know-it-all.

DELAY: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all

<...>

MATTHEWS: Thanks. I owe you one. I owe you two -- today and last night.

DELAY: No you don't.

MATTHEWS: No, I do.

DELAY: I appreciate it.

[Radio_Lady]

169. The transcript from "Hardball" is just about what I would expect.

I assume that was Tom Delay???

In response to your original tract, I just have that feeling that Kerry is a politician who doesn't know how to conduct himself in the clinches. He's not particularly quick witted -- doesn't have that kind of a mind -- and clearly didn't have any inclination to try and "save himself" in the 2004 election. Something was clearly missing... maybe it was his advisers, maybe it was Theresa, maybe he just didn't want the presidency in his gut...

These are all very subjective opinions. I might feel entirely differently by 2008! Who knows?

[bowens43]

2. Kerry, like Gore, isn't a viable candidate.

[IndyOp]

5. Gore finished ahead of Kerry and is gaining as more and more people

see "Inconvenient Truth."

I believe we are moving toward a moment when "competence" may FINALLY become what makes a candidate "viable" -- and that puts Gore at the top, IMO.

[rainy]

12. I agree with you. No matter who we pick the media will make sure

all the crap the right throws at us will be repeated as if truth. We can't pick anyone that will change that. The difference is now Gore has learned some hard life lessons and is poised to be a great leader. I sure hope we are smart enough this time to give him a landslide.

[ecstatic]

13. But 14th place is pretty bad as well

Much better than last place, but still pretty bad considering he hasn't even been that much in the spotlight in recent years.

[blm]

102. The media will ALWAYS target Kerry or Gore for constant derision because they actually

do WELL when people are given the time to pay attention to them.

Remember this from last June - the Hardball open mic between commercials - Tweety and Tom Delay discussing a hush hush focus group that was never made public.


MATTHEWS: Hey thank you for calling me. It was a good thing for me, mostly.
DELAY: Oh really.

MATTHEWS: Oh of course it was. We got on the air as fast as we could....

<...>

MATTHEWS: Shannon told me, she called me, she said 'don't worry -- he's not calling in to complain'...

MATTHEWS: Have you seen this new focus group stuff on the candidates?

DELAY: No I haven't

MATTHEWS: It's great stuff. I'll send it to you -- it's great -- yeah it's great stuff. Hillary, John Kerry. All these guys, all these democrats, and how they do. And, uh, Frank Luntz did it...

DELAY: who I like

CM: ...and Hillary did not do well. Kerry did well.

DELAY: You're kidding.

MATTHEWS: I am NOT kidding. They didn't like Edwards -- they thought he was a rich lawyer, pretending to care about poor people...

DELAY: Too slick. Too slick.

MATTHEWS: ...and Hillary was a know-it-all.

DELAY: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all

<...>

MATTHEWS: Thanks. I owe you one. I owe you two -- today and last night.

DELAY: No you don't.

MATTHEWS: No, I do.

DELAY: I appreciate it.

[LisaL]

I think Gore is likable and viable.

[spoony]

161. I agree

I think people see that he's got far more personality than he was given credit for in 2000. And that he is infinitely more qualified has been tragically obvious for years.

I think the country would embrace him. I like other candidates too but people shouldn't too quickly dismiss Al.

[ruggerson]

32. Both Kerry and Gore are damaged goods

very good people, but horrendous political instincts.

[VOX]

42. Respectfully disagree-- Gore's transformed, loosened up, relevant and hard-charging...

and he's looking good right now, if he chooses to get into the race. Maybe, just maybe, intelligence and experience won't be generally accepted as "wooden" or "wonkish" this time out. The media will try to cast him that way, obviously, but the election just past gives hope.

:thumbsup:

[Radio_Lady]

87. I still like Gore and remember... he won the popular vote in 2000 by 500,000 votes.

I would vote for him in a minute, if he decides to make the race.

[cwydro]

138. Sadly, I have to agree

I like Gore pretty well still.

[mattclearing]

101. Yeah, that's why they both earned more votes and would be the President today

if not for people like Scalia and Blackwell.

This kind of comment is based on flawed logic...RFK Jr. has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kerry would easily have won Ohio without Ken Blackwell's efforts to limit access to the polls in minority districts.

Gore won the popular vote and clearly would have won Florida had the overvotes been counted to the intent of the voter in accordance with Florida state law.

Kerry and Gore were both viable candidates. Kerry wiped the floor with Bush in three straight debates.

Is Kerry still a viable candidate? No less so than any of the other '08 hopefuls...he just has a little more rehab work to do.

But Hillary has serious problems across the board.

Gore is looking pretty good, but I believe he has no interest.

But God, look at George W. Bush in 2000...he wasn't a viable candidate at all, and look what happened.

When the media backs you, it's amazing the people who will accept you as worthwhile.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. I like John Kerry

But I think he's an acquired taste. He's smart and compassionate and has done some great great things, but I don't think he appeals to people who don't bother to find this out.
Regretfully, because he would be a great president.

Likeability is a huge factor in elections.

On the other hand, how the hell is John McCain more likeable than ANYONE? He should be finishing dead last in this poll. Ugh.

[fooj]

4. The same poll that put Lieberman at 6th in likability?

BWAHAHAHAHA! Just goes to show you the "credibility" of the poll, eh? Lieberman is HARDLY a likable figure. They also rank Little Lord Pissypants at 15th. Wow. We KNOW that's not accurate either. Interesting how the focus is placed in the headlines as Kerry getting the bad news, eh? Someone out there certainly wants Kerry out of the pic. It's PAINFULLY obvious to me and to many others that I've spoken with.

[ecstatic]

15. The general public does not know about Lieberman

the way we do. Their last major impression of Lieberman occured during the 2000 elections. Gore chose him as his running mate, and Lieberman is still riding off of that popularity.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Where did you get that idea? Lieberman might still be riding off it with the

Beltway types in Washington, but I think the election proved that people at just about every level of your society have become unanimously politicised against the neocon Republicans AND their number-one enabler in the Democratic Party.

[fooj]

159. Look at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2989001&mesg_id=2989009

Lieberman isn't riding off anything.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. They're really scared of him, and some on here who are not too

progressive, either.

[sandnsea]

78. With Condi Rice 4th, ahead of Bill

The pollsters must have stumbled into the Bush family enclave in CT.

[AIJ Alom]

6. Good, viable, honest, moral people are normally not good candidates.

and thus we have to live in a world full of problems because sadly it is a popularity contest.

[Mz Pip]

7. I never particularly "liked" Kerry

but I voted for him. I didn't need to like him. I just wanted someone who was smart and competent.

So Bush may be "likable" to some people but he's one of the shittiest Presidents we've ever had.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LisaL]

20. I don't think Kerry is all that likable either. I voted for him, but

I would have voted for anyone running against Bush.

[nolies32fouettes]

46. Isn't that the point? MOst people didn't even look at him as a person

instead they just sat there and pushed any button. (Not that you did that. I'm sure you did your research and saw how often he stuck up for the vets, the middle class, and saw how he roped down some real scums on Iran-Contra.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. I Stand Behind Kerry 100%. However In 2008 It Just Ain't Gonna Happen For Him, Period.

That a sad reality and I wish it were different. I think he deserves for it to be different. But he just simply does not have any realistic shot whatsoever. :(

[Radio_Lady]

88. Sadly, I have to agree with you. He didn't stand up to the swiftboaters

and other Republican attacks. We sent him money and felt really psyched after the debates. But, then I don't know what happened. However, Kerry's toast in my opinion.

[ProSense]

9. The good news is

in September, Kerry was fourth from the bottom! And in March, the only people scoring lower were Al Gore (?), Bill Frist and Dick Cheney!

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=990

Then there is the fact that the assistant director seems to be hyping McCain's chances:

McCain's stock rises

GOP's loss improves presidential chances

By Peter Brown
November 19, 2006

The big winner Election Day wasn't even on the ballot. As screwy as it might seem, the Democratic takeover makes it much more likely Republican John McCain will be the next president of the United States.

That popping noise you might have heard early Wednesday wasn't just Democratic champagne corks; it was the starter's pistol kicking off the 2008 White House campaign.

For McCain, the perfect political storm – Iraq, corruption and the Foley scandal – that handed Congress to the Democrats was far from an ill wind.

Snip..

Simply put, the prospect of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Barack Obama in the White House come 2008, with the Congress already in Democratic hands, is likely to be a motivating factor for Republicans.

Snip...

Brown is assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. He can be reached at [e-mail]. This commentary first appeared on the realclearpolitics Web site.

Oh, and according to this poll Rice, McCain, Giuliani and Obama are more popular than Bill Clinton!

I call the poll BS, JMO!

[rockymountaindem]

14. Sounds like this poll fluctuates a lot.

Also, any poll that has Bush in the 40s for likeability while his approval ratings are way lower than that is kind of strange.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Tee hee. You got it!

[Radio_Lady]

91. John McCain is damaged goods! We supported him very early on,

but he has clearly moved far to the right in anticipation of a run in 2008. He says anything that's convenient -- you could string video tape clips all day with a range of McCain's canned opinions from left to right. He's a political chameleon and...

He's the original flip-flopper! Add to that, he'll be 74 in 2008 -- and he has/had skin cancer.

I don't think the general public -- even Republicans -- will see him as a robust candidate.

But, of course, this is my opinion.

You're entitled to yours.

[Joe Chi Minh]

139. It's an opinion I very much share.

Sounds to me like a similar m.o. to Clark's.

[Mr_Spock]

10. He may just want to hang it up WRT Presidency

I'm think there are fresher faces out there that people will feel more comfortable with.

[blm]

33. NEWSFLASH - Kerry was doing best in focus groups till new concerted effort to

drive his poll numbers down. Just as they did to Gore after 2000.

There was a huge focus group conducted of all the potential candidates earlier this year and it was deep-sixed by the mainstream media because Kerry scored the highest.

The only reason we even heard about it was from a comnmercial break on Hardball where Matthews was speaking to Tom DeLay and he asked him if he heard about it. Matthews went on to say that Kerry scored highest.

[Mr_Spock]

40. I wish that really mattered

He just hasn't been able to prove to people that he can handle himself well in a sticky political situation. I think people have lost faith in his ability to win support - at least for the time being. I'm sure his image can and will be revived, though I still think there are/will be better candidates.

[blm]

43. There are no other anti-corruption, open government candidates.

And Luntz held a very intense focus group, and he is no fan of Kerry's, but Kerry came out the best out of all the potential candidates, including Hillary, Warner and Edwards.

[Mr_Spock]

44. So Kerry is the only acceptable candidate because of that?

I am trying to imagine that meaning anything to the average voter who goes on gut instinct...

[blm]

45. The major issue in exit polls for both Dem and GOP voters was CORRUPTION

or is that so soon forgotten?

Besides, Mr S, it wasn't too long ago that the public was being kept from a truth that looked more like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2812844

[Mr_Spock]

49. Well, a study here and an exit poll there do NOT make a candidate

No matter how many times you restate the same two points. Things change over time - his little "gaffe" made him look all too human again and the "corruption" question on the exit polls was somewhat of a push-poll as the choices were not all there - at least that's what I gleaned from an NPR interview concerning the "corruption" question. Just like the "value voter" was BS in 2004.

[blm]

50. 60-65 million votes DOES make one a viable candidate and so does their ACTUAL

record of service,

Establishment Democrats have joined with BushInc's media and stepped up their efforts to take Kerry down since this hushed up focus group report - and we all know Luntz does not do unimportant little focus groups when it's being done on the QT.

[Mr_Spock]

62. Whatever

Hope you win next time, John.

[Radio_Lady]

116. BLM, you're really preaching to the choir here. If you are for Kerry, then do everything you can

for him IF he decides to take another shot at it. I worked for him for years when he was a Massachusetts senator -- lived in MA from 1972 to 1998. I know his record and I wish he had had more "spine" during the last race. He is missing some "sine qua non" for president. Call it charisma, call it chance, call it twisted media. It was NOT a good race.

However, beating up people here in an anonymous format is really counterproductive.

Don't you agree?

[Schema Thing]

11. It isn't fair, but from what I see, it's true.

Most of the people I know who hated Kerry, hated him for no deeper reason than their "gut". He just does not connect with a lot of people.

Believe me, I think they should have used their head as much as their gut (more, actually), but once the gut is leading, it is hard to change minds.

[Demobrat]

16. Kerry is a pompous bore

who's impossible to listen to. I WANTED to listen to him. I WANTED to like him. I WANTED to hear what he had to say. But I found it impossible not to zone out after 30 seconds of his droning. Can't imagine how long it takes people who don't care.

[LittleClarkie]

21. In your humble opinion, of course

other's mileage may vary. Like those in the Kerry group who've had a beer with the man and found him quite warm and friendly.

[Demobrat]

25. One-on-one I'm sure he's a great guy.

And I have no doubt his dog loves him dearly. Doesn't change the fact that he comes off as a condescending, pompous ass to anybody not a political junkie, and some who are.

[LittleClarkie]

26. I prefer the way you just put it to what you said before

"comes off as"

vs

"is"

How someone "comes off" is often different from the person they are. And I'd be the first to say Kerry seems to have to get to know you first before he warms up to you. Unless you're a vet, of course.

I found him infinitely easier to listen to when he was pissed off.

[Demobrat]

30. Oh, of course.

I have no idea who or how he really is, all I know, or can know, is how he comes across in speeches. Unfortunately for him, that's all the voting public can really ever know either.

[BlueStater]

86. I've never found Kerry pompous or arrogant n/t

[Eurobabe]

146. That finger AIR pointing drove me nuts

Kerry never got "succinct." I wanted to like him too, but agreed, he is B-O-R-I-N-G. Sorry, where's Prosense, I've got my flame-retardant suit on already.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

17. Too early for polls like this. A lot can happen in two years. nt.

[Nutmegger]

18. I like JK

but, yeah, I could see that. :(

[SoCalDem]

19. You cannot fake charisma or personal magnetism

You either have it....or you don't

[David__77]

22. I don't "like" him either.

I didn't in 2004 either. I winced when the establishment torpedoed Dean and promoted Kerry as a "more viable candidate." I voted for him. But it's time for something new, and a messenger who can communicate dynamically with the electorate.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Why is "new" such a magical thing?

As if politicians were Xmas presents, and only the brand new ones we haven't gotten all dirty were fun to play with.

And what is your definition of "new"? Is Clark "new" for example? Anyone who ran last time?

[DemonFighterLives]

68. Same here- Dean was becoming my favorite before his downing

Kerry is a great man, but the whole process was decided too quick and the others, like Clark, etc were interesting as well. I don't like to bash Kerry, but he gave out at the end and took the smearing of the swifties too easily- well with the medias help.
:dem:

[Radio_Lady]

93. Agree with everything you said above, Demon Fighter Lives.

Thanks for the post.

[DemonFighterLives]

99. Why Thank You Radio _Lady

I was more so expecting to be flamed for not worshipping Kerry.
I will of course vote for the nominee, hoping that we will get one that takes it to the Republicans.
:hi:

[Radio_Lady]

103. We're still getting email from Howard Dean and my husband even donated some money last week!

In a primary, we'll just try to scope it out among the various candidates who "put their hat in the ring" as we used to say. We won't take that lightly, either, although our state votes by mail late in the primary season.

One thing for sure... it'll be interesting.

Good night and good luck!

Radio_Lady

[Demobrat]

172. I still let him ding my checking account once a month.

Best investment I ever made.

[Mass]

23. I guess by this standard Guliani will definitively win!!

No need to vote. :sarcasm:

[Skip Intro]

29. I like Kerry and I don't get the bashing here.

We all did vote for the guy to be our president, didn't we?

He would have made a great president then and he still would.

Its a shame the slandering of the man has been so effective.

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Partisans, Skip. Unfortunately, it's a broad tent. I doubt if the slander

has been at all effective. The pollsters catchment ar highly unlikey to be reprsentative of the American people at large. Just look at some of their previous bullshit polls! As much so then as now.

[nolies32fouettes]

47. slander! exactly!

[Radio_Lady]

105. Skip Intro, what you say is true, but there are many things that have happened since

we voted for him. In retrospect, I don't think he handled the campaign well, and I don't think he is showing the leadership potential now. My husband expresses it this way: "That 2004 election was Kerry's to lose, and he lost it. We can't go back to that place anymore. He's way too problematic at this time."

However, there are two years to go and who knows what will happen?

[jgraz]

122. The bashing comes from being let down

Saying he ran a poor convention and a poor campaign is not slander, it's reasoned opinion.
Saying he conceded even though he was on record as questioning the results is not slander, it's fact.
Saying he gave up with $15 million in his campaign fund is not slander, it's a fuckin tragedy.

[Ksec]

35. With the press he gets its no wonder

Kerry is treated very unfairly by the press AND the Democratic Party who only seem to play along with the fictional stories that surface .
Its one of our weak points IMO. No loyalty when it is needed the most.

[AtomicKitten]

36. If the general electorate was intelligent and informed,

they would not find Kerry unlikeable; it is due to the sheer ignorance of the masses. But it is what it is, and we have to work with the entire public in elections. It's not that we need to dumb down our candidates, but we need to find someone who can speak effectively to a wide cross-section of Americans. Bill Clinton had that skill and I believe Obama does.

[MoseyWalker]

37. Kerry has, in my mind, a credibility problem

that said, I would vote for him and did. After Dean. After Edwards, After even Sharpton.

Who knows who is coming in the next wave? Let's give them some time to settle in and establish some "product placement and product viability?"

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

38. I do not give a flying !@#$ about who the MSM annoints as "likable"!!!!!

That's how we got our current President when they couldn't discuss enough about who America would like to share a brewski with.
Was Churchill "likable"? was FDR "likable"?

"Likability" could be used as a prognosticator for the LEAST likely to well in office.

[smalll]

75. Well yes, I think Churchill and FDR were rather likable! /nt

[roseBudd]

39. Kerry unfortunately has no charisma, it was painful to watch him on Jon Stewart...

especially since guests on TDS are usually funny.

[blm]

48. Clinton's funny, and he covered up for BushInc his entire 8 years.

so how is that good for our country?

[roseBudd]

58. I personally don't need charisma, unfortunately a portion of the electorate does

Clinton won 2 terms in large part because of his charisma.

[blm]

59. And how did that turn out for Democrats, the country and the world?

I believe that post 9-11, and postKatrina, the people are looking for something else.

For all Clinton's personalituy he helped Republicans a thousand times more than he ever helped the Democratic party.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[ruggerson]

110. Clinton got elected. Kerry didn't. n/t

[blm]

133. Granted, it is always easier for coverup Dems than anti-corruption, open government Dems.

.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

41. OMG! Have we learned NOTHING in the last 6 miserable twisted years?

How can people even seriously be discussing "likability" polls? Even hardcore right wingers that I know have abandoned this as a barometer of Presidential qualifications.

This could only be an issue with the 29-31% who have firmly established themselves as being outside the reach of rationality, or as we call them, Bush's base.

[DemonFighterLives]

73. It's a comfortable, cozy Grandma bush sort of thing

If you remember that saga.

Just think of baseball, apple pie, chevrolet and don't worry-be happy!
:dem:

[Glenda]

51. Condi is 4th??

:wtf:

[oasis]

149. Rudy G. is #1 so I'm not surprized by any b.s. this crackpot poll cranks out. nt

[Radical Activist]

52. I've never seen so many people work so hard for a candidate

that they didn't really care for. It was all ABB. And its also why we lost. We need to toss out the conventional wisdom about electability this time.

[blm]

56. I never knew so many who knew so little about a candidate thanks to corpmedia

who created a hero out of a zero Bushboy, and didn't let the public know 90% of what they should have known about Kerry.

Did the public know anything IMPORTANT that they should have known about Bush's first term? Nope. Media protected him 24/7.

Did the public know anything they SHOULD have known about Kerry that would EARN a warmer regard for him? Nope - whenever it was brought up, media downplayed and ignored it.

[Radical Activist]

61. Ok, I knew multiple Kerry campaign staffers

who were unenthusiastic about the guy but they were motivated to beat Bush. Even many hard core Democrats and people who knew plenty about Kerry were unexcited about him. We can't scapegoat the media for Kerry lacking the ability to excite and inspire people on a large scale.

[blm]

65. I would question how people choose their heros. If the Dem who investigated and

exposed more government corruption and helped end more wars and who was the first to track Terrorists and their funding can't excite a Democrat, then I would think they are pretty darn ignorant and are in it for the WRONG REASONS - like a person who likes ice skating to look at the girl's legs but cares nothing about their execution of their skills.

[Radical Activist]

67. The fact that Kerry was once so daring

made it all the more disappointing that he was so cautious in more recent years and during the campaign. It made people say, "why isn't he more like that now?"

[blm]

70. That's where the media picks and chooses what it runs with - the rest is left on

the editting room floor.

Did they show you when Kerry came out publically and challenged Bush to debate what they were doing during Vietnam? Nope.

Did they explain how Kerry was the one telling the truth about Tora Bora and Bush's failure there? Nope.

[Radio_Lady]

96. Radical Activist, I remember saying that so many times! We lived in Massachusetts for

30 years, while John Kerry was our "servicable" -- but not charismatic senator. He plodded along, not sponsoring much legislation. We voted for him for President, but he just couldn't make the connection with so many voters.

Also, he gave up too quickly after the election! It was stunning... how he let go literally overnight. Edwards was the bulldog; Kerry was the quiet kitten -- he rolled over and played dead.

Anyway, it's past history. I don't think the Democrats can afford to put him up again.

[LittleClarkie]

83. Oh that'll work out just fine for us. All y'all keep saying Kerry's not electible

so we're actually bucking conventional wisdom by supporting him. Heh.

[Cocoa]

53. Kerry has been counted out before

remember when he was something like 6th place, with something like 4% in the polls, something like 2 months before Iowa?

[LittleClarkie]

72. In fact, he runs best from behind. It motivates him. So this is actually good news.

Huzzah.

[karynnj]

76. Exactly as you said - I found this a couple of days ago googling

for something else on Iowa 2004. Note this story - labelled Kerry Death Spiral - Part II was written 7 days before the Iowa convention. (Incidently this and other things made me realize the media was worse than I thought on Kerry - note that this was right after his reunion with Rassman that was as close to an All American boy hero moment as you can get.

http://www.gregabbott.org/C1911143254/E1559797904/index.html

[Radical Activist]

54. Can't they just show us a chart of the results?

They jump around so much its hard to compare.

[Radical Activist]

55. Barack Obama is the most likable Democrat in America

Good to know. Why is the headline about Kerry at all?

[blm]

57. Because the purpose is to TAKE KERRY OUT COMPLETELY. If Obama was an anti-corruption

Democrat, the headlines over the last year would be constantly AGAINST him the way they are against Kerry for the last few years.

[Radical Activist]

60. It's all about anti-corruption now?

The headline is dumb, but don't you think there are bigger reasons why the media might turn on Kerry?

Obama rose in Illinois politics. If he wanted to be corrupt, he had plenty of opportunities.

[blm]

64. It's about WHO threatens the corrupt - and the person who has always done

the most to expose the corrupt of BushInc has been Kerry. The focus group last June showed Kerry doing the best - then the stepped up effort to tear him down from the media and within his own party in recent months.

No one said Obama is corrupt - but since he ignored the Downing Street Memos, he's obviously not into investigating the corrupt, either.

[dailykoff]

92. It does appear that way.

"Feeling thermometer" indeed.

:rofl:

[opihimoimoi]

Even Gary Bauer beat out Kerry...Oh Woe onto us..

[Old and In the Way]

63. If Kerry is on my ballot, I'm voting for him.

I don't make choice based on likability...that got us Bush.

[Radio_Lady]

106. Old and In The Way, what about the primary ballot? What will you do

in a field of likely Democrats?

That's what I'm talking about right now.

By the way, I wish you'd change your screen name. It's so maudlin! Just sayin'....

Radio_Lady (who is a YOUNG 67 and certainly will never admit to being in the way...

As a matter of fact, let others get out of MY way!)

[Old and In the Way]

126. I actually meant the primary...it's a no-brainer in the GE.

As far as the name goes, it's the namesake tune of the best bluegrass band I've ever heard. I was listening to the song the night I signed in for the 1st time...it just seemed right. I'll always be "in the way" of these evil bastards...

[Radio_Lady]

168. I wasn't aware of the bluegrass band... some of those band names these days are...

very interesting... to say the least. I wasn't aware of Barenaked Ladies until I read about them in the local paper. (There's a DUer who goes by that screen name.)

Thanks for the info. I'll stop imagining you are some old geezer living in your child's garage with no heat... somewhere!

In peace,

Radio_Lady

[Old and In the Way]

171. Actually, they're an "old" bluegrass band.

Circa 1974.... :hi:

[BanzaiBonnie]

66. First of all

I'd like to know who did the poll.

Some anonymous poll doesn't do anything for me. I participated in a recent poll by a MAJOR pollster and it was a train wreck. It was totally fishing for particular answers and was a terrible piece of work.

[oberliner]

71. Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut

It's in the third paragraph of the article.

[karynnj]

77. Quinepeac - which did extremely poorly predicting NJ

[NightOwwl]

69. It's a harsh reality...

but a successful candidate has to be able to connect with the people. Clinton had that quality, Kerry didn't. I think Edwards has it, but I haven't seen enough of him to know for sure. Obama has it, Hillary doesn't.

And I don't think it's a bad quality to have. I want to be able to feel that connection; it makes me feel good inside. Does that make me superficial? I don't think so. I still want a candidate who has the qualifications to be president, but when they are charismatic as well, it's an extra added bonus.

[blm]

94. Clinton GAINED his charisma over time. The more comfortable he became with presidency

the more comfortable he became speaking publicly in a way that connected.

[fedupinBushcountry]

124. Clinton got 43%

in '92 and 49% in '96. Kerry out did him on votes for each of his elections, so don't give me that charisma crap. A lot of good that charisma did other Dems in '94. geez.

Maybe if you were for him before you were against him you might have felt differently. I'll tell you one thing, you have no idea how many loyal supporters Kerry has, and the main reason is because he connected with us. So please quit with he doesn't connect, it's a false statement.

[NightOwwl]

125. Sorry, but I disagree.

How many loyal supporters he has has nothing to do with his likeability factor. It has nothing to do with his effectiveness as a politician. Methinks though doth protest too much.

[fedupinBushcountry]

127. Methinks

you have no idea how likeable he is. Protest? no, just the facts.

[Chomp]

74. The devotion to Kerry

by some is maddening.

Fine, you think he's a great guy who's done great things. Fine. Great.

But he will never be POTUS. NEVER.

And it is not about his qualities, it is about the POLITICS.

Politics and substance are 2 separate (if occasionally overlapping) things. I wish people would correctly interpret the former and stop confusing it with the latter.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Kerry krishna... Kerry krishna... Krishna, krishna... Kerry, Kerry

Come to the light...

:D

[sandnsea]

82. Except there isn't anybody else

Hillary? :puke:

Gore? lol. People REALLY hate him. Mr. Rogers meets Euell Gibbons.

Dean? Feingold? Kucinich? Not running.

Obama? Edwards? No credibility in national defense.

It's Kerry or Clark. Nobody else has a prayer of winning the Presidency.

What's amazing is the number of people who STILL let the media tell them what to think about Democrats. Even after witnessing the swiftboating of numerous people, they buy into it over and over again. It's pathetic really.

[NightOwwl]

98. If there isn't anyone else....

Dems are in big, big trouble. Kerry doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, and if you think he does, I have some land in Florida I'd love to sell you.

Fortunately, he won't be our nominee, and you can take that to the bank.

[DemonFighterLives]

107. I wouldn't count Gore out

Take your own advice in your last paragraph. Don't let anyone tell you what to think. Gore won but did not serve.
Edwards and Clark have good points -Obama maybe
Dean still rocks as well.
I'm sure there are more out there not counted.
:dem:

[ruggerson]

108. You keep repeating this

but the last two Democratic presidents were governors with no foreign policy experience. And I don't buy the bullshit that everything is different since 9/11. That's pure Republican spin.

People are thirsting for AUTHENTICITY. It's the key to winning the Presidency. Both Gore and Kerry, God bless em, are two of the most INAUTHENTIC candidates we have ever nominated. Hillary has the same problem. They are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as people with no core identities, who present a fake persona to the public to win votes. Gore with his makeover coach, Kerry with his lame hunting garb, people see right through this shit. Yes of course, Bush is a phony, but he is FAR more artful at SEEMING authentic than Gore or Kerry, who come across as incredibly bad actors.

We need someone authentic, who the average Joe and Josephine America can look at on television and think, this guy/gal is speaking from the heart and is not trying to fake me out. Someone who's personality is wry, accessible, tough, warm, steely and MOST OF ALL AUTHENTIC. And it doesn't matter one WHIT how much foreign policy experience that person has. Giuliani has zero foreign policy experience. But he will do well as a national candidate because people TRUST his candor and authenticity.

Kerry and Gore will never be President. Never. They do not have the media qualities necessary to succeed in this day and age. I am not putting a value judgement on how America evaluates its potential Presidents, but there you have it. They don't check off position papers on each candidate, they go by an innate FEELING that the candidate gives them - a feeling of likability and authenticity.

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. What's the difference between Kerry's "lame hunting garb" and Bush's flight suit?

[ruggerson]

123. The difference is

Kerry did his during a campaign, Bush did his AFTER he was already elected

[sandnsea]

128. The most likable and authentic to me

Both Gore and Kerry. Everybody doesn't see people exactly the same as every other person. But if DU wants to play smear politics, I can play just as good as anybody else.

[Radio_Lady]

109. Sandnsea, I urge you not to count anyone out -- or in, and to wait and see

exactly what the primaries bring. Your summary is way too simplistic for me right now.

People who predict this far in advance are destined to alter their predictions in a very real way later on.

Good night and good luck!

Radio_Lady in Oregon

[sandnsea]

129. And the media caricatures are - insightful???

Exactly the point of the post. If people don't find caricatures of their candidate helpful, then don't do it to others. Other people want to write Kerry off over made-up media bullshit, I'm going to remind them nobody is immune to that.

I'm also comfortable saying there are 4 viable candidates, Hillary, Obama, Clark and Kerry. Schweitzer or Kitzhaber could change that field. The rest are 2nd tier wannabes and their political weaknesses will be picked apart over the next year. You can copy that, and you're more than welcome to say I told you so if I'm proven wrong. I think it'll be Clark/Obama or Kerry/Obama for 2008, I don't see the core Democrats letting Hillary through.

[wisteria]

157. I share your Hillary feelings. n/t

[blm]

95. Politics brought us Bush2 - EVERY good thing Clinton did was DISMANTLED.

Because of REALITY of politics.


Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[ruggerson]

112. Thank you, this deserves its own thread n/t

[Mass]

130. So, you want to tell people how to think?

The fact that people are so intent telling us that Kerry (or anybody else) will never been POTUS is maddening.

I do not know the answer to who will or will never be POTUS. I just find amazing that some people want to tell others how to think.

Do not like Kerry if you do not want to? Think he will never be POTUS if you think so?

Do not tell us what to think! End of story!

[BlueStater]

80. Oh, please. This poll is bullshit.

The fact that Kindofaliar is ahead of Bill Clinton is all the proof I need.

[dailykoff]

90. Yes it is.

[mitchum]

81. And that's a goddamn shame, but what do you expect in a land of mouthbreathing yahoos?

I didn't develop my misanthropy overnight. It came about from long experience with my fellow creatures who walk (somewhat) upright

[Radio_Lady]

111. Wait. Who exactly are the "mouthbreathing yahoos"? Are you talking to me?

[mitchum]

115. Yes, that's why I typed very slowly...

>JOKE!!!< :)
No, I was referring to those who either believe the media smears against Kerry or who were put off by what they saw as his "stiff, nuanced style" God forbid this country ever elect an intelligent man of substance. But who in the hell wants that when we can have someone who gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling?
Seeing what was done to John Kerry lets me know exactly the heartsick feeling felt by Stevenson supporters in the 50s

[Radio_Lady]

117. I did NOT believe the smears against Kerry. I voted for him! Most Democrats voted for him!

I remember Adlai Stevenson's race -- although I was just a youngster, I was born into a highly affiliated Democratic family. My father was a Democrat and a councilman, vice mayor and judge in Florida. He voted for Stevenson and we were sorely sad when he lost. He was a cultured intellectual and maybe over-reaching and patrician in his desire to be accepted by the common voting public. Maybe he photographed poorly. I don't know. There are tons of books and articles about why Stevenson didn't win...

I'll repeat. John Kerry didn't fight as hard as he could for the presidency. Or he took the poor advice of his handlers and thought he could overcome all of the nay-sayers by just being quiet instead of scrappy. Some of us even felt that he wasn't hungry for the job! Maybe he wasn't!

Just like Ted Kennedy recognized he didn't want the presidency after all... perhaps John Kerry should just be the best senator he can be, and leave it at that.

[dailykoff]

89. Rating celebs on a "feeling thermometer" is NOT the same as voting for them.

Look what this idiotic poll asks respondents to do:

The survey asked respondents to rate 20 political figures on a "feeling thermometer." The warmer or more favorable they felt toward a person the higher score they gave them on a scale of zero to 100. Respondents were given the option of saying they did not know enough about the figure to offer a rating.

Also note that Guiliani finished first. I doubt that this poll is remotely predictive and I don't think it's intended to be -- I'm not going to speculate on what it's actual purpose is but this headline should give you a pretty good idea.

[Radio_Lady]

113. Oh, that explains it. The person I'd like to feel me up is Wesley Clark.

I'm short, and I like it military style... and I like the way he gesticulates with his hands...

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

100. Giuliani the "warmest" most likable politician according to the "feeling thermometer." n/t

[DemonFighterLives]

137. Ghouliani does sort of kill that poll right there

at the start.
:silly:

[sendero]

104. This comes as no surprise...

... a politician has one chance to make a first impression. Kerry made his, and he blew it with silly photos and a tiresome speaking style.

Kerry's a helluva senator but that is his highest likely achievement.

[Radio_Lady]

118. Righto, Sendero. I do believe you speak the truth, as I see it, from my vantage point, right now.

Of course, everything could change by 2008.

[Radio_Lady]

Righto, Sendero. I do believe you speak the truth, as I see it, from my vantage point, right now.

Of course, everything could change by 2008.

[Radio_Lady]

119. Righto, Sendero. I do believe you speak the truth, as I see it, from my vantage point, right now.

Of course, everything could change by 2008.

[Radio_Lady]

120. Righto, Sendero. I do believe you speak the truth, as I see it, from my vantage point, right now.

Of course, everything could change by 2008.

[Radio_Lady]

170. Sorry, this was a transmission error that I can't repair now.

I don't usually post four things at the same time.

[moondust]

131. Yes but where's Cheney?

He was declared one of the winners, you know.

[Katzenjammer]

134. You know Kerry's a stiff if he finished behind Hillary.

I doubt she comes in much ahead of Cruella The Crackpot in Florida

[wisteria]

145. Gee, this number couldn't be indicative of the massive manufactured negative news

on Kerry that the media has been drilling in peoples minds could it? I don't seem to be able to recollect anyone else listed receiving such intense negative reporting. Everyone else received fluff pieces and good PR- not so Kerry. But, of course that had nothing to do with anything huh?:eyes:

[Katzenjammer]

147. I don't know. I live in Massachusetts, and quite a few people seem to

grimace on hearing his name. The question you hear people asking is "what has he done for us lately? he's embarrassed us, but what's he done FOR us?" He's seen as a sort of Lurch-like, unintentional buffoon, nowhere close to being in Teddy's class. I get told I should look at his web site if I want to get sick (since I don't, I haven't).

[ProSense]

148. That sounds like a lot of

RW wing nonsense, especially the "Lurch-like, unintentional buffoon" part.

In MA, Kerry defeated a strong Repblican, Governor Weld, in 1996 by 53% to 45%.

Kerry and Kennedy do well when it comes to being reelected:

2006:
Kennedy 69%
Republican Chase 31%

2002:
Kerry 80%
Cloud 20%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2006

Kerry also won the state with 62% of the vote in 2004.

[Katzenjammer]

150. We've all passed a lot of water since 1996.

Weld wore out his welcome in Mass. Which is why he left.

From what I hear (and I live in an ethnically mixed (Latin (PR mostly), Caribbean, Black, SEA, and White) neighborhood in a Dem city---Dem mayor, 100% Dem city council, 100% Dem state reps and senators), Kerry might be in for a surprise in '08. People are disenchanted. It's not so much that they dislike him as are indifferent to him. He seems to be viewed as a zero these days.

[ProSense]

152. What about 2002 and 2004? Then again, what about 2006:

John Kerry celebrates Massachusetts Democrats
John Kerry celebrates Democrats’ victories

[LittleClarkie]

151. He campaigned and raised a ton of money for 2006 for one thing

Do you hang out with Republicans, perchance? They sound like it. Lurch-like, for fuck's sake?

Aren't his favorables still pretty good in Massachusetts itself?

[wisteria]

158. Where do you live in the Repub area?

And is that grimace as of late? Seems he has been the victim of some smears and lies lately. When I was in Mass recently, seems everyone I came in contact with liked him. The same goes for New Hampshire. I was there for a speech, and he was greeted with thunderous applause and many many standing ovations while he gave a speech. I don't know, maybe you need to expand your contacts.

[Felix Mala]

135. I know it's not fair, but it sounds like the start of a joke: Mel Gibson

John Kerry and Michael Richards are sitting in a bar...

[Jennicut]

136. CT resident here...Quinnie poll has always stunk

At least since I've been in CT, which is all of my 30 years! I'm gald I went to CCSU instead. Also it is a poll reflecting likability and not electibility. You can be not be loved and still be elected. Also, I think its high time voters realized that wanting to "have a beer" with a candidate does mean they should be your president:) I think once Guliani's past comes out he will not be so likable, the press can trash you real fast. Depends on whether the corporate media wants to do it. I asked my Repulican Mom who she likes best and it was Rudy because he is moderate on the social issues. But guess what she said when I asked her who she liked on the Dem side? I thought she would say no one but she is a moderate Repub. She said Hillary was very unlikable and harsh. She thought Edwards was too slick and Clark to unknown but intelligent, Kerry is bumbling and dull (which I did not agree with!). But she thought Al Gore was the smartest one and would be the best Dem candidate as he seems very real and genuine these days but thought he shouldn't put himself or his family through another campaign. I thought that was interesting. I for one would take this poll with a grain of salt. Condie as likable? Mayor Bloomberg? Not with any of my friends around here.

[fhqwhgads]

140. we keep talking about bias and rw spin...

...but here's the problem with that: most people are susceptible to it. most people aren't smart or engaged. the poll doesn't reflect what we think, so just because the results aren't what we think they ought to be, doesn't mean the poll is biased.

by the way, i'm not saying that the poll ISN'T biased, just that we can't judge bias based only on the fact that we don't like the results.

is the meme that kerry (or gore for that matter) is unlikeable merely the product of rw spin? maybe, but what does it matter? people believe it.

moreover, there is a difference between a politician's likeability and approval of his/her performance. it's not at all surprising that the nitwit's approval ratings are in the low 30s while his likeability ratings are 15-20 points higher. yes, most people think he's a bad president. yes, most people think the war is a disaster. but yes, some of the people who disapprove of his performance also think he'd still be an okay guy to have a beer with.

i think i'm starting to ramble...been having a little trouble articulating my thoughts lately.

[Sequoia]

141. He can forget about running. We need someone one who has a sense of humor.

[wisteria]

156. Oh, so he doesn't? Wow, that is a new one- even for the anti group.

Funny though, I have heard him actually carry out a joke and laugh at some too. Can you believe it?:silly:

[WI_DEM]

142. We need a strong candidate in '08 not retreads

[wisteria]

143. Whatever. Your to busy commenting on Kerry that you don't see

the forest for the trees.

[LittleClarkie]

144. Do you reject all the candidates who ran last time as "old" too?

We need young, new, "fresh out of the box so nobody knows them" candidates?

Like this was Christmas and only the new toys were worth playing with?

I never understand what's so magical about something new. Most of our leaders are pretty good. It's probably easier to deal with something new, but we should learn to defend the ones we have.

As for me, I don't care who likes the guy. I do. And I'm not here saying that just for 2008. If he doesn't run, I'll still be a person in WI supporting a senator from MA

[wisteria]

155. me too- in PA. He is one heck of a Senator and a truth to power guy.

President or not, their is only one John Kerry.Not one cent of money will go to any one but him. He has our backs.It is just to bad he can't pick and choose whose backs he protects- some here don't deserve protection.

[LittleClarkie]

153. Well, golly, if my candidate isn't winning the popularity contest, perhaps I need a new one

Maybe one of those Republicans toward the top should be my candidate, going strictly by who's more "popular".

[wisteria]

154. good point. LOL! n/t

[dorkulon]

160. Ummm...isn't winning a popularity contest the sole aim of a presidential campaign? (nt)

[wisteria]

162. Somehow I thought it was more important to pick a president based on abilities

and experience not because they are the popular kid in the class. We aren't picking sides for a team now, we are picking a person qualified to run and lead our government. I have to wonder how Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and Roosevelt would have done with jokes and being the most popular person? I bet Lincoln was a real comedian.

[dorkulon]

164. But...Lincoln won the popularity contest.

I understand what you're saying--character, intelligence, seriousness--these things are what's really important. But if a guy can't win, he can't win. That's simple truth, and I don't think anyone should feel bad for factoring in such decisions. After all, isn't that why everyone on DU villifies Nader vatoers?

[LittleClarkie]

165. I thought picking the better man was. Only fools pick a man based on having a beer with him

I know people who've had a beer with Kerry. They found him a nice and good fellow.

But if picking the better man means picking the more popular man, then are you saying the better man between Kerry and Bush is Bush?

But I suppose the better man to run for president isn't always the better man to BE president. And isn't that sad.

[dorkulon]

167. It is sad, but fools elect presidents.

In fact, the fool vote is the pivotal demographic in these things. I'm not saying you should back whoever's most popular, but I don't blame people for backing whoever they think has the best shot at defeating the Republican nominee. Maybe this ad would help:

[terrya]

163. Just out of curiousity...what possible qualification is likability?

Likability is in the eye of the beholder. I fucking can't stand George W. Bush...and yet, he's the President. One of the stupidest questions that are asked around a Presidential election is: which candidate would you rather have a beer with? Considering that my chances of having a beer with a potential President of the United States is...well, zero...it's a pointless, meaningless question. As in actually taking seriously someone's "likability"

[orpupilofnature57]

166. Ask a Freeper how they feel about Shrub?

[oasis]

173. A "credibility" poll of the Quinipiac "likability" poll had it dead last.

So that settles that.;-)