Does Teresa Heinz-Kerry help or hurt John Kerry's campain?
 

I was thinking about this after reading the "What makes a great first lady?" thread. There have been a few reports as of late about Teresa Heinz-Kerry and her, for lack of a better term, big mouth. I.E. the "shove it" quote and her statements the other day at a Kerry for President rally in which responding to a few pro-Bush hecklers who were chanting "Four more years!", she said, "Four more years of hell?" I just cannot imagine that for the undecided, which this election hinges on, that this is helping Kerry. What do you all think? If you would like to participate in the poll please do so or post your thoughts. Thanks :)

personally, i like a first lady with some brains and attitude and opinions and class and such.


i think she helps, but then again, i've only been talking to new yorkers about her and a lot of them seem to just love her. i'm sure that's not the case everywhere.

still, she's got a great story and message and i am sure i would have no problems with her as first lady.

on the other hand, laura bush has done...what exactly?

She looks like a fucking android and acts like one too. I don't think there's any way that the American public could connect with her. She has nothing in common with them.

That being said, she probably hurts Kerry in only the most minor way. I doubt that any undecideds are going to say "that Kerry seems like a good guy, but I'm not voting for him because of his wife."

/still voting for Kerry.

Personally I think she seems like an ice queen, but after yesterday I'd have to say she definately helps. I think it showed a wife very dedicated to her husband and having some charisma.

(Wisc. rally someone heckled said "bush 4 more years."
she said, "someone wants 4 more years of Hell. we want 3 more months and led the rally to chant 3 more months.)

I agree with Wax_off. Who votes for a Presidential candidate based on the spouse? By my not voting I cast my vote for "Neither."

Who do you think is paying for this gig? He doesn't have any money.

Neither did Washington (his money came from Martha), neither did JFK, neither did a lot of presidents. When you choose politics for a life you aren't going to get rich on what you are paid.

If a wife is rich and chooses to support her husband I see nothing wrong with that. Personally, I don't think it's my business nor do I feel it should matter to anyone.

So what's your point?

I'm not voting for who has more money, I'm voting for the person I believe is closest to my views politically and socially. That would be Kerry.

I thought JFK came from a <i>very</i> wealthy family, as did his wife.

Anyhow, you vote for the president. You don't vote for the first lady. I think the family memebrs of the candidates should stay out of the limelight, pick a nice pet issue like education (Laura Bush) or healthcare (Hillary Clinton) and smile for the cameras. However, I don't think Kerry's wife hurts his campaign in any way.

Kennedy did come from an extremely wealthy family, but he personally didn't have that much. Jackie's family was one on the decline so while still rich to many, they weren't upper echelon rich.

I can't imagine the first lady hurting the Democratic presidential candidate anymore than the VP hurting the Republican presidential candidate. Between a guy's wife saying "shove it," and the President of the Senate telling a Senator on the Senate Floor to "Go fuck yourself," there are big mouths, and then there are big mouths.

Teresa was being consistently harassed by a reporter from the Tribune-Review. A blatantly conservative agenda newspaper run by right wing multimillionaire financier Richard Melon Scaife. A man who uses it to further his political agenda by selectively quoting and refusing to run fair coverage of candidates.
He wouldn't leave her alone, trying to mischaracterize something she said so she turns to him and says "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
That is not a controversial statement. Why can't people at least get her whole statement instead of the part that sounds inflammatory by itself?

MSNBC article

Ooh, and count me for a vote of "none of the above" She won't affect the election either way.

I agree with "none of the above", but i do take issue with the Theresa being mischaracterized. Whether or not she said unamerican "traits" or "activities" (personally i think he toned it down by quoting her as having said "activities") it's not unfair for a reporter to ask her what she meant. I think he asked her twice. I don't think it's controversial what she said, I just think she's a flaky off-the-wall bitch. Regardless of whether or not this reporter was from some "blatantly conservative agenda newspaper run by right wing multimillionaire financier Richard Melon Scaife." His question still stands unanswered. As much shit as i get for uttering the words "un-american" in here, and have tried to explain what i mean by it, don't you think that's the least she can do.

"Unamerican activities" has McCarthy Era commie hunting behind it.
It can be used as a slur.

Remember that this the Tribune-Review is a Pittsburgh newspaper, and Teresa is a local.
Scaife used his paper to punish her moderate/liberal husband (She was married to Republican Senator John Heinz, now dead) when he didn't tow a conservative line, which was often. After she married Kerry the paper became outwardly vicious to her. Early on in their relationship the paper started writing stories about John cheating on her with no substantiation whatsoever. They ran the stories again this year when another baseless "cheating" story came out.
The organizations that Scaife heavily and outwardly funds have been used to accuse Sen. Kerry of lack of patriotism, distorted his voting record and questioned his military service. And a Scaife group made a "report" saying Teresa was using the Heinz company to secretly fund Islamic extremists.

Teresa hates Scaife for the relentlesness he has pursued her and the shove it was meant for that editor to take back to his boss.

And I believe he questioned her about it 5 times, with her repeatedly saying she didn't say that. Maybe he could have rephrased his question to actually reflect what she said you think?

Option A. Yes, he could have quoted her exactly, or she could have said "I didn't say un-american activities, I said un-american traits, the difference of which are as follows...and that's what i meant by what i said.

Option B: She could have told him "You shouldn't have bothered coming because I hate your boss because he's conservative, an your questions aren't worth my time.

She's explained countless times how she doesn't regret what she said, but not one of those explanations I've read included of your very detailed justification. How an innocent question and a smart ass response turned into the actions of orginazations that the owner of the paper contributed to, that the reporter worked for who asked the question as a reason for the "shove it", I just don't find believable.

As testy as liberals are with that phrase, the question has still yet to be answered. Aren't you guys just a little bit curious?

No more curious than as to why the VP tells an elected Senator to Fuck off.

The politics of hate are taking their toll on everybody. Nobody trusts anyone anymore, and these people (senators and Reps. not just Kerry and Bush) and their families are under microscopes by the press, being blackmailed by their parties, other senators, corporations, donors, or the president, having to face unhappy voters and it never lets up.

The pressure is getting to everyone and I don't think either's (Teresa or Cheney) comments are that bad. I do think Cheney should have shown more respect but we don't understand the pressure these people are under, not just by their jobs but by every action they take. No matter what they do they get criticized and hate thrown at them.

One can say it's just politics, but it has never been this bad, at least in my memory.

One could say well if they can't handle that pressure they don't deserve the job. But if that's the case, with hate mongering partisan politics as bad as they have ever been noone would be able to run for any office, because we all have our breaking points.

I just wish the papers and the Limbaughs and the MM and the rest of the people who make money preaching hatred would ease up on the private lives of these people and focus on the issues. But then again they have set the tones and the masses want negativity, divisiveness and hatred because we have been conditioned to want it.

Kind of pathetic future we have if it keeps going this way, because nothing will ever get done to better the future because noone will take a chance.

I see hate coming damn near exlusively from one side for going on 4 years, I see reaction from the other. Both sides may be guilty from time to time, but one side has the monopoly on hate. That's the way i see it.

Personally, I don't know how a strong and intelligent wife could ever hurt the campaign of her husband (or vice versa in the case of a female politician).

While she has a bit of an abrasive public personality that I don't care for I think she can speak well on a number of issues (at least when she avoids playing the attack dog role) and portrays an air of confidence and ability.

Most people put off by her are people who wouldn't vote for her husband anyway.

Both sides are equally guilty, to say it comes from 1 side is foolish and promotes the hate. It's a disease and to point fingers just spreads it deeper.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and so on in the GOP preach hatred and noncompromise. Just as MM, to some degree Franken, Gore, Moveon.com and others on the Left do. It's all those people are about because it sells and makes them money. To say any of these people are legitimate press and they don't preach hate is to not listen to what they are saying or you are buying into everything they say which is scary in and of itself.

In the 90's it was bad when the GOP wouldn't allow a 2 time elected president do anything because they hounded him every day. But I suppose that was ok.

The Dems. try to do the same to Bush, but unlike the GOP of the 90's they don't control either house. If they did I feel Bush would be going through much the same (different scandals and types maybe) as Clinton.

I think it is refreshing to see a potential first lady speak her mind and be confident in her opinions. It shows she has a brain. Also shows she can do more than just smiling and be passive for photo-ops. Looks good on her mate too since his being isn't so fragile that he needs some bimbo eye candy so as not to be overshadowed

^^^see my previous post.

I think overall she'll help the campaign. While it's true that no one votes for a first lady I do think she'll impress some people for being a strong woman in politics. Realistically though, people who would admire a woman like that have probably made up their mind already. People who would really hate a woman like that have also made up their mind. The only way she's really ever helped Kerry is through money.

I'm thinking voters will discern the difference between "strong woman" and "loose cannon."

I really have no idea. My gut instinct is that she will have little or no effect, but I do think she will either be loved or hated as first lady. She is different, and not really a "mainstream" person, but that would not effect my vote. I mean does anyone remember what a witch Nancy Reagan was when she was in the White House?

We need a "neither" choice on the poll.

Art, I have nothing but respect for you and I know you don't get engaged in debate, but I really think characterizing the spouse of a Presidential candidate as a "loose cannon" based on her getting fed up with a reporter is pretty extreme.

Speaking of Richard Mellon Scaife -- "You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here." -- RMS to Karen Rothmyer, reporter for Columbia Journalism Review.

I suspect that Art is basing it on far more than the one episode. She has had plenty of controversy in her past and her statements have been, at times, a bit overbearing and uncontrolled.

Kadath,
understood.
I was speaking personally. If I were the candidate, I would consider everyone on my campaign as responsible to me for their remarks, including Heinz-Kerry and also Al Sharpton, for example. Their remarks during the campaign - if it were my campaign - would have earned them the "loose cannon" appellation. I also wanted to avoid any sexist connotations and the term "loose cannon" works for me.

I also expressed disapproval over Jenna Bush's errant tongue in that press photo of her from a vehicle window. I said something like: "If she was my daughter I would be displeased."

Kerry's wife does nothing but help his campaign. Being outspoken and expressing her feelings about people makes me want her to have some power in the government. I dont care that she told a reporter to shove it, its not like she said some racist remark.

I can only speak for a few people, but I know for a fact that unless something happens to change her mind, my mom is voting for Bush based on the first lady.

"I don't want that woman meeting the wives of other presidents and telling them to 'shove it'"

That seems to be the tipping factor in alot of middle aged women.

She has no problem with the v.p. meeting with foreign leaders and telling them to fuck off?

I have deep respect in Teresa Heinz-Kerry, she is smart lady, she speaks five languages, she is strong, she is a women, and she is not going to let a writer for a right wing newspaper put words into her mouth. I think she epitimizes what America should stand for, and she would make a wonderful first lady.