FINEMAN ADVICE FOR KERRY AT THE DEBATES:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6081444/site/newsweek/
* Be real. Presidential campaigns aren't mere personality contests, but they do resemble a race for class president more than one for head of the honor society. Brains matter, but likeability matters more.
* Be straightforward, concise. This isn't easy for a man given to nuance and prolixity. But there is no room for ambiguity here. Kerry has to speak from the heart, and clearly. He has to realize that he isn't running for secretary of state in the 19th century, but president in the 21st.
* Attack, but calmly and respectfully. Many Democrats loathe the mere sight of George Bush, viewing him as an incompetent, reckless fantasist who would be a joke if he weren't such a menace. If Kerry thinks that--and he probably does--he can't let that contempt show. It might feel good but look unpleasant on the air. I am told that Bush will try, in the words of one adviser, to "get under Kerry's skin, which should be pretty easy to do." Kerry can't let him.
* Establish a critique and stick to it. This is not college debate, or a case in civil court, where you can win with a kitchen sink strategy of making every argument, even contradictory ones. In fact, the "debate" isn't really a debate at all, but rather a theater of parallel press conferences. Kerry has to paint a portrait of Bush using the same colors and themes in every answer. Is Bush a liar or a reckless gambler or self-delusional or tragically simplistic or just plain incompetent? Kerry has to pick one line of attack and sell it every time.
* Critique Iraq but not freedom. Americans don't believe in Metternich and Kissinger, they believe in the perhaps naïve but inspiring spirit of Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan--in the idea that freedom is not only good for the planet but the birthright of all its inhabitants. We don't always honor these ideals but Kerry can't dismiss them. He has to argue that he would be a better, more effective champion of them.
* Decide, once and for all, whether he would have gone to war in Iraq and whether Bush's decision was right, however nightmarish the situation is there now. I thought he had finally achieved clarity on this--that it was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place--but he keeps saying that ousting Saddam was a good thing, even though he says that we are less safe for having gone to war to do so.
* Future, future, future. Kerry has yet to convincingly explain what his presidency would be about other than the absence of Bush and more and more earnest meetings of nations "at the table." Kerry always talks about "bringing people to the table." Enough about the table. His slogan is "stronger at home, respected in the world." He has lots of policy proposals for the former and puts his own person forth as the reason why we will achieve the latter. But Kerry has to summarize, clearly and convincingly, how he'll get us there.
Comments are closed on this story.