Jack Rice
07-04-2004, 05:06 PM
As usual, Arianna's comments (http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=720) are compelling, but her dismissal of Bill Clinton's advice, that Kerry concentrate on image rather than issues, is wrongheaded.
Arianna seems to regard Clinton's style of realpolitik as some kind of cold war anachronism. I've always thought that realpolitik means being pragmatic and that if one is serious about being elected president, pragmatism is a crucial asset. Research indicates that while voters in local and state elections take issues into account, for president they generally vote for the guy they like. All Clinton is suggesting is that Kerry recognize, that for better or worse, personality is an issue and that it's not policy wonks like Arianna and me who decide elections.
In any case, I think Arianna, as well as other pundits who have commented on Clinton's advice, miss his point. Clinton is not trying to place Kerry in a 1992 time warp or urging him to abandon serious debate; instead, he is gently cautioning Kerry, that overly concentrating on our problems may cause voters subconsciously to identify Kerry as The Candidate of Problems rather than the Problem Solving Candidate.
John Kerry has repeatedly stated, that Democrat solutions are positive solutions and that he is positive on America. That's fine, as far as it goes, but Kerry must do more than just proclaim it. His "Positive on America" attitude must be palpable in everything his campaign says and does and, in this visually fixated epoch, in the way it looks.
Is Arianna suggesting, that the stakes are such that we can afford to trust that The Truth is some metaphysical force, which alone is sufficient to sway voters?
Arianna seems to regard Clinton's style of realpolitik as some kind of cold war anachronism. I've always thought that realpolitik means being pragmatic and that if one is serious about being elected president, pragmatism is a crucial asset. Research indicates that while voters in local and state elections take issues into account, for president they generally vote for the guy they like. All Clinton is suggesting is that Kerry recognize, that for better or worse, personality is an issue and that it's not policy wonks like Arianna and me who decide elections.
In any case, I think Arianna, as well as other pundits who have commented on Clinton's advice, miss his point. Clinton is not trying to place Kerry in a 1992 time warp or urging him to abandon serious debate; instead, he is gently cautioning Kerry, that overly concentrating on our problems may cause voters subconsciously to identify Kerry as The Candidate of Problems rather than the Problem Solving Candidate.
John Kerry has repeatedly stated, that Democrat solutions are positive solutions and that he is positive on America. That's fine, as far as it goes, but Kerry must do more than just proclaim it. His "Positive on America" attitude must be palpable in everything his campaign says and does and, in this visually fixated epoch, in the way it looks.
Is Arianna suggesting, that the stakes are such that we can afford to trust that The Truth is some metaphysical force, which alone is sufficient to sway voters?