Is Teresa Heinz Kerry a benefit or disability to the Kerry campaign?

[Perci Mac]

I've been paying attention to Mrs. Kerry for a while now, and I've been wondering, is her presence in the Kerry campaign a benefit or a disablity? Recently the Kerry campaign came to my area and Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke, but the enthusiasm of the crowd diminished and wasn't regained until another speaker took over. Thoughts?

[pseudobrit]

I think she's a strong character and an independent woman. Not a politico, but nevertheless a good woman for a politico.

I imagine the right has Hillary-like plans for such a witch.

[zimv20]

I think she's a strong character and an independent woman.
which, for a lot of people, is a problem.

[pseudobrit]

which, for a lot of people, is a problem.

I'm sure they'll want to see if she floats.

[Hoef]

Not sure if the US is ready for such a straight in your face lady ... She would be received well in Europe

[Thomas Veil]

I think the question is, is she a benefit or a liability?

Unless, of course, she's planning on breaking someone's legs or something. ;)

[romerom]

benefit.. she speaks like 6 languages!! she's a natural diplomat

[IJ Reilly]

Tonight was my introduction to Teresa Kerry. I think her speech was best summed up by something the camera caught briefly as it panned through the audience as she was speaking. A guy turned to somebody next to him, pointed at his forehead, and then towards the podium.

She's an asset as far as I'm concerned. A great public speaker? No. A politician? Probably not. But clearly she has ideas and depth of experience, and I like the idea of a first spouse who challenges the president intellectually, if only because she'll be able to say things to him that even his advisors might not.

[zimv20]

A guy turned to somebody next to him, pointed at his forehead, and then towards the podium.

i didn't see her speech and i'm not sure what that gesture meant. what's your interpretation?

[Thanatoast]

She's a liability. The Republicans will paint her in shades of Hillary, and the Democrats do not know how to effectively use her gifts in a national campaign. In my personal, non-too-humble opinion, they should take the very traits which people fear in her, (strength, intelligence, will, straight-talk) and treat them as the assets they are. Aggresively promote these things as *good* traits for a first lady to have. No more June Cleaver first ladies, that era is over.

[Awimoway]

I think her knack for chilling a crowd is not that we find her intimidating, but that she's just a little out of touch with American politics. She's too ponderous and precise. I still can't believe she digressed about Hubble and Cassini in her speech tonight. WTF? Those are great programs, but they don't exactly fire up the party faithful at what is supposed to be the rally of all rallies.

Don't get me wrong. I like her immensely and think she would easily be the most service-oriented, capable, articulate and intelligent First Lady we've ever had, not to mention a terrific ambassador of goodwill to the foreign community.

But she's no campaigner.

[Lyle]

benefit.. she speaks like 6 languages!! she's a natural diplomatAh, diplomacy. I know I've been waiting for a first lady who can tell the world to "shove it" in six languages. :D

[takao]

i'm amazed what a big role the wifes of the candidates are playing for the US public...here in election campaigns they are completly ignored and kept out of 'the line of fire' by the candidates and the press (as long as they are not scandalous or the candidate is having a divorce etc...)

and saying "shove it" to a (perhaps annoying) reporter is far from being scandalous..

shouldn't an election be about themes,ideas and most important politics ? ... i know these things are boring and not very entertaining but the US presidental election is about voting the perhaps most import and powerfull statesman of the world ,and not some bad TV show
are the candidates so similiar that you really have to decide because of their wifes ?

[Lyle]

i'm amazed what a big role the wifes of the candidates are playing for the US public...here in election campaigns they are completly ignored and kept out of 'the line of fire' by the candidates and the press (as long as they are not scandalous or the candidate is having a divorce etc...)You're right, of course. I don't think it was always this way, but it's hard to point to exactly when the potential first ladies started to become such a big factor in the campaign. Hillary Clinton clearly raised the bar (i.e. with the "two for one" theme).

[jayb2000]

This really goes back as far as Dolly Madison. She was the first First Lady to make it a visible position. Not only by hosting state parties and such, but during the War of 1812, she saved the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington. Since then, a number of First Ladies have been very visible, Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, etc. Certainly the 20th century, with the accompanying rise of feminism, gave rise to a more visible role to the First Lady.

I think THK will be an asset with anyone who thinks its ok for women to be smart and independent. I think she will be a liability with anyone who thinks women should stay in the background and be quiet.

I think American's in general are predominately in the former category and thus will be an asset, even if she is not a great public speaker.

[Sayhey]

I think she is very much a benefit. She is an inspiring figure with her own personal history. With her intelligence and drive, she can win new voters that would sit out this race. For those who are unwilling to vote for Kerry, few are doing so because of his wife's outspoken ideas. She is a plus for the base and for widening the base of the Democratic party. Who else in this race can speak to young women the way Heinz Kerry can? Laura Bush? Lynn Cheney? In fact, the combination of Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards is a wonderful one for the Democrats. They are both assets to this race.

[IJ Reilly]

i didn't see her speech and i'm not sure what that gesture meant. what's your interpretation?

I took it to mean, "she's a thinker."

[2jaded2care]

She's a liability. The Republicans will paint her in shades of Hillary, and the Democrats do not know how to effectively use her gifts in a national campaign.

Didn't watch the convention, but saw her briefly on the news. She reminds me of Hillary, came across very prickly IMO, only sounds like Arianna Huffington, like the rich and privileged, not a "regular person". Of course, I'll admit I'm biased...

Predictably, Dems will like her and Reps won't.

[Lyle]

Didn't watch the convention, but saw her briefly on the news. She reminds me of Hillary, came across very prickly IMO, only sounds like Arianna Huffington, like the rich and privileged, not a "regular person". Of course, I'll admit I'm biased...

Predictably, Dems will like her and Reps won't.I am a Republican and I like her (as much as I can "like" someone I've never met in person and only know through ten-second sound bites).

I don't know that I'd say she's "prickly", of course that's a little subjective. It does seem that she's got a little bit of a short fuse, but she's obviously under a lot of pressure; despite her support for her husband's campaign, she may not crazy about being forced into the political spotlight herself.

She won a lot of points with me when I read an interview with her in USA Today, probably a month or so ago now. If I recall correctly, the interviewer tried to play up the differences between herself and Laura Bush, and generate some kind of artificial rivalry between them. Mrs. Kerry's response was something to the effect of, "What do you want to attack Mrs. Bush for? She seems like a nice lady -- back off."

[2jaded2care]

She won a lot of points with me when I read an interview with her in USA Today, probably a month or so ago now. If I recall correctly, the interviewer tried to play up the differences between herself and Laura Bush, and generate some kind of artificial rivalry between them. Mrs. Kerry's response was something to the effect of, "What do you want to attack Mrs. Bush for? She seems like a nice lady -- back off."

Back off? OK, prickly's too subjective, how about "stand-offish"?

[The Muffin Man]

I always appreciate strong women, especially in politics, because women have been shut out for a long time until about the 80s. Her international heritage could easily help bring more world views to the American political stage. As someone else said, her sexlingualism can only benefit because she can speak to many audiences about issues, and she can help campaign to those same audiences if need be.

[yellow]

Besides.. at all the fund raisers.. FREE KETCHUP!

EDIT: And barbecue sauce! Mmmm!

[Lyle]

Back off? OK, prickly's too subjective, how about "stand-offish"?To set the record straight, I went back and found the interview article I was thinking about here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-23-heinz-kerry-cover_x.htm). The bit I was vaguely remembering appears in the "On the Record" sidebar that appears on the left-hand side of the web page:
On being first lady: ''People are so funny, they're so strange. They say, 'Oh, you're just like Hillary.' I say, 'No, I'm not at all like Hillary. I'm totally different from Hillary.' They say, 'Oh then, thank God you're not Laura Bush.' I say, 'Why you say that? Laura Bush is a nice lady. You don't know Laura Bush. I don't know Laura Bush. Leave her alone.' People come in with these preconceived notions of what you have to be to be accepted.''So, she didn't use the words "back off" -- that is just the sentiment I took away from it.

[Sayhey]

...her sexlingualism can only benefit ...

Why do I have visions of this quote being front page news on drudge and newsmaxx? :eek:

[mischief]

Perhaps she is a Disability bennefit? What does the ADA or OHSA say about Opinionated wives and Candidacy? Does this mean that Kerry's campaign platform must be equipped with a 15% Rant Ramp? :eek: :D ;)

[zimv20]

she would only be a disability to the campaign if she were lame

:-)

[Thomas Veil]

she would only be a disability to the campaign if she were lame

:-)
...and it that isn't a straight line... ;)

[2jaded2care]

But is she handicapping this Presidential race?

[pseudobrit]

Does this mean she gets a special parking space?

[2jaded2care]

Does this mean she gets a special parking space?

Yes, the broom closet.

Just kidding! Honest!

[IJ Reilly]

But is she handicapping this Presidential race?

Gimp me a break!

[zimv20]

Gimp me a break!
IJR, this punning must stop. i suggest a conference be organized. we'll chair a panel discussion.

(read it again)

[Colirio]

Can't say that I have ever voted for a first lady... Generally, I like to vote for the candidate himself but hey, to each his own!

If choosing a VP didn't cause his poll numbers to maintain a greater lead or cause him to lose points then I doubt his wife will either.

[Sayhey]

IJR, this punning must stop. i suggest a conference be organized. we'll chair a panel discussion.

(read it again)

I suggest fines of post counts for the most egregious punsters. Some of us will be in negative posts in short order. ;)

[Awimoway]

i'm amazed what a big role the wifes of the candidates are playing for the US public...here in election campaigns they are completly ignored and kept out of 'the line of fire' by the candidates and the press (as long as they are not scandalous or the candidate is having a divorce etc...)

...

shouldn't an election be about themes,ideas and most important politics ? ... i know these things are boring and not very entertaining but the US presidental election is about voting the perhaps most import and powerfull statesman of the world ,and not some bad TV show
are the candidates so similiar that you really have to decide because of their wifes ?

I think one reason is that we have a frontier history. America was not rich enough to not need women, to ignore wives, cheat on them (well, not originally :rolleyes: ), to treat them as mere chattel (though, to be fair, it's not as if we gave them full civil rights, either). They were joint-heads of the household because they had to be. They helped the family survive and although their religion taught them subservience, experience forced independence and capability on them. We estimated the character of the man by the character of the woman he chose, because we knew that, in most homes, they stood by each other because they had to. It's not politically correct to remember this now, but one reason the women's vote took so long is because, in many homes, it was understood that the woman of the home had a voice in the vote. Just not a direct one. (Told you it wasn't a politically correct thought.) Women were respected and honored.

Europe, on the other hand, has always looked to aristocrats for its political model, even in democratic times. Politicians are expected to be regal and urbane in addition to being dishonest. And in aristocratic societies, women are ignored. They are a dowry, a name, an incubator for the heir. Aristocratic women get married so they can have affairs with other men. They are not a reflection of the measure of the man they married.

So that's why the wife has a tradition of being important in America. It will be interesting to see how it reacts to the first "First Husband" or "First Gentleman." If they ever get a chance. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I suggest fines of post counts for the most egregious punsters. Some of us will be in negative posts in short order. ;)

Apparently, puns are now a violation of the rules. Many of my punniest posts in this thread were deleted. Care to explain, moderators?

[mischief]

As I recall Elenore Roosevelt was quite outspoken and similar questions were posed about her at the time. Though her impact on the social programs enacted during her husband's time in office earned her a permanent place in the nation's heart.

[Sayhey]

Apparently, puns are now a violation of the rules. Many of my punniest posts in this thread were deleted. Care to explain, moderators?

Now, IJ, I was joking! If we were to start deleting posts because of bad puns there are whole threads that need to go to the wasteland. While I won't vouch for the quality of humor on these boards (IJ and zim excepted, of course) I can say that I think a little joke now and then goes a long way in reducing tensions. Let's not start deleting them without very good reason.

[IJ Reilly]

Now, IJ, I was joking! If we were to start deleting posts because of bad puns there are whole threads that need to go to the wasteland. While I won't vouch for the quality of humor on these boards (IJ and zim excepted, of course) I can say that I think a little joke now and then goes a long way in reducing tensions. Let's not start deleting them without very good reason.

You may be joking, but the moderators are serious (maybe a little too serious). Most of the posts in last night's rapid-fire pun exchange were deleted, including probably five of mine. I really would like to hear the from a moderator on this one. I had no idea puns were against the rules.

[pseudobrit]

You may be joking, but the moderators are serious (maybe a little too serious). Most of the posts in last night's rapid-fire pun exchange were deleted, including probably five of mine. I really would like to hear the from a moderator on this one. I had no idea puns were against the rules.

That's no pun.

[2jaded2care]

My guess is some puns were seen as bordering on making fun of the disabled.

The word "handicapped" nowadays is considered un-PC, and "disabled" is getting there. People are "differently-abled" or some such. I guess in the case of, say, Stephen Hawking, who could argue?

[mischief]

I guess in the case of, say, Stephen Hawking, who could argue?

Have you ever wondered if it isn't really him but his speech box that's so clever? :eek: :D ;)