My New Hero: Teresa Heinz. And Eventually A Debate About Kerry's Campaign.

Great Debates
1

Slate has this article as their current headline:

Teresa Heinz

Before I read this article, I knew of Teresa Heinz. Being from Pittsburgh, I obviously knew of her late husband, Senator John Heinz. And, well, hey, you can’t swing a dead cat in Pittsburgh without hitting something that has the word “Heinz” on it.

But I never knew what she was all about. She is now my new hero, and I’m trying to find out all that I can about her.

My favorite part in the article is when she is quoted as calling fellow Republican Rick Santorum, “Forrest Gump with an attitude.” I almost fell off my chair!

And then the whole mocking of her current husband’s Nam Nightmares and then, after being told not to, talking at length about his colon cancer surgery at a fund raiser. Priceless.

I see Teresa as the anti-Hillary. No one, in my opinion, could be created as a more perfect opposite pole to Hillary than Teresa Heinz. She’s like Ann Coulter, but with class.

Please, anyone have any input or insight into Teresa Heinz, I would most appreciate it.

Now the debate, because their has to be one.

The article linked above centers mostly around her impact on her husband’s presidential campaign. It details how his campaign people were trying to deal with the “Teresa Problem.” They tried to put a lid on her, redirect her, and just plain shut her up. They saw her as a threat to Kerry’s campaign. But since she is unrestrainable, none of the tactics worked.

I’ll Start back at the very beginning on why John Kerry’s campaign has already failed, with just under a year to go until the election.

Just the fact that Kerry switched his campaign team means that he is doomed. With something as publicly studied as a campaign for a public office is, any little change immediately gets multiplied and extrapolated, and is viewed as a mistake. Personally, I see it as a lack of character or backbone. Any sign of trying to put on a false front is justly seen as having a lack of integrity. Gore suffered from the same Personality Switching Disorder, and it hurt him.

So, assuming that Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz, would be bad for Kerry’s campaign, they immediately tried to cover her up. But being the head strong, fiesty, firey, and outspoken person that she is, she couldn’t be contained. Now, it appears that she is getting more attention than her husband who is running for office.

Hmmmm. She’s got Chutzpah, and people take notice and like that. Even if they disagree with what she’s saying, they like that Teresa is saying it with confidence and volume.

So now the Kerry campaign, which previously ignored the “Teresa Problem”, sees Teresa for what she is: John Kerry’s best asset. To me, it is evident that they are taking a page out of her book, with Kerry’s recent vulgar embarassment of an interview in Rolling Stone. Atleast Kerry’s trying.

We see Kerry taking bad advice from his campaign team. We see them trying to cover up his wife, and then embracing her. And we see Kerry switching gears again, hoping that the public won’t view this as an insight into the shallow weakness in his character.

2

Forrest Gump with an attitude?

Sounds like she’s just oozing with maturity.

3

You hit the nail in the last line; the problem with John Kerry is the shallow weakness of his character. Teresa makes a better candidate than her husband, if she were running he would make a great first-husband (man? gentelman?). But, with the roles reversed, her dominate personality is a liability.

4

Kerry doesn’t stand a chance, really. Too bad, I was once a great admirer of the man.

MA voters are known for their loyalty to politicians who vote they way they would vote and speak out for what they would speak out for.

Take Ted Kennedy. The man’s personal scandals have been an embarassment to the democrats there for years. But they keep voting him in, not just because of some warmed-over Camelot-worship, but because when he speaks and votes, he is the voice of the Left. After sitting through the Anita Hill hearings, reduced to muttering banalities in the knowledge that any comments on the alleged acts of Clarence Thomas would have brought audible howls of derision for his hypocrisy, he apologized to the voters of his state. We knew what we wanted him to say then, we knew why he didn’t say it, and it was all his own fault. He actually apologized and managed to clean up his act somewhat. That, and the fact that MA hasn’t managed to produce a palatable new Democratic candidate for any office in years are why he is still in office.

Now take Kerry. He basked in a similar glow as Kennedy for a long time. When faced with a better funded Republican candidate, Rappaport, a number of years ago, who had a number of criticisms that struck home, MA voters stuck by Kerry, a fact for which he was demonstably grateful at the time.

How has he repaid the loyalty? By voting for Bush. The scrutiny of a presidential campaign only deepens doubt about him. As a Viet Nam vet, hasn’t he learned anything in the last 35 years? Could he not see the quagmire of Iraq coming? How could he vote for it? The only explanation is that he was pandering to those further to the right. How else might he compromise the wishes of those who support him? That’s why his numbers aren’t showing in New Hampshire. It takes a hell of a lot of resolve to be a Democrat in that state, and the voters have more than Kerry does.

5

Perhaps Kerry doesn’t think the lesson of Vietnam is pacifism?

6

Forget pacifism, I’m talking about having a clear eye toward what sort of conflicts America really needs to get into, and whether or not it posseses enough knowledge about a foreign environment to handle conflict intelligently.