Reply #31: That may be why a real debate between those people

[karynnj]

is useful only if it is:
- specific to an issue or to issue(s)
- fact based
- presented in a non-emotional way
For example, to use one of your points, when someone says Kerry calculates every move based on politics, one side needs to show examples where that appears to be the case. The Kerry side needs to explain how that move was consistent to Kerry's philosophy or believes. If the former group simply says "Kerry always has his finger up seeing which way the wind blows" that will not convince anyone unless it's attached to facts. Likewise, the Kerry people can't simply say "No he doesn't." as it will convince no one.

As a Kerry person - I think this is one of the most easily overturned negatives - because Kerry has, at various times in career nearly made himself a pariah in the Senate and in the Democratic party to do what he thinks is right. The obvious examples being when he continued to fight the terrorist bank after he was told be every power in the Democratic party to stop (because the bank had bought various Democrats as well as Republicans.) and when he risked ridicule and his career to continue pursuing the Contra/drug scandal - where the government ALLOWED the Contras to bring cocaine into this country unimpeded. Kerry as a former prosecutor had been very involved with under privilidged youths and knew the damage. (He has fought for one youth program that he saw work his entire Senate career.)

Given more than one example where a very promising politician was willing to derail his career what is right - which Kerry has done - the charge that he is driven by polls etc doesn't hold. In fact, before entering politics, compare Bill Clinton and John Kerry. In choosing to avoid the draft as he did, Clinton refers to "maintaining his viability". On 60 minutes in an interview with Morey Safer, Kerry was asked in 1971, if he wanted to be President - his answer was something like there were important things that needed to be done now and he didn't know if he could do them and still keep people happy enough for him to become President. (Interesting that the Boston Globe biography ends the answer at "them" distorting the meaning. - when the 60 minutes transcript exists. This is a very interesting example of intended bias where the primary source is in the public domain.)

Now, to me the above detail at least suggests that Kerry is motivated by an internal sense of right and wrong - and I might be able to convince someone who is neutral or who is convincible with these examples. It is more likely that - like Little Clarkie talks about, this type of information might cause someone to investigate whether these are true and to relook at things they thought backed the alternative conclusion more closely. I would certainly not expect anyone to read a post - by someone who accuracy or motives aren't known and be swayed. So, the goal would be to push for some one to be open to relooking at Kerry.