Kerry's Next Job: Cementing Image Among Voters

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 14, 2004; Page A06


Fresh off an impressive victory in the Democratic nominating contest and running ahead of President Bush in many national polls, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) nonetheless has entered a period of acute vulnerability, according to many Democratic strategists and independent analysts.


The next month will offer early answers to two of the most important questions on which the November election will hinge, these analysts and some senior Kerry advisers say. First among these is whether the well-funded negative ad campaign Bush launched last week in 18 swing states can succeed in defining Kerry -- who polls indicate is still a little-known public figure -- in a way that will make him unacceptable to uncommitted voters.

The second question, though, is how many uncommitted voters are left in a race with an incumbent president who has left few people neutral or ambivalent. It remains unclear what effect Bush's ads -- assailing Kerry for wanting to raise taxes and for votes cutting intelligence funding -- can have in such a polarized environment.

Tim Hibbitts, an independent pollster in Oregon, one of the states where Bush's ads -- as well as a Kerry response ad accusing Bush of misleading voters -- are airing, said history shows that Bush's attacks are virtually certain to weaken Kerry. "I don't think these are intended to be some kind of knockout punch; they're intended to chip away," he said. If Bush strategists "can't damage Kerry with that kind of money, they're incompetent, and I don't think they're incompetent."

The good news for Kerry in Oregon, as well as other states, is that even if the ads move some people off the fence, "there aren't that many people to move."

Many Democrats not affiliated with Kerry's campaign generally gave him cautiously positive reviews for the way he is handling his new status as de facto nominee. By keeping up a steady attack in his campaign appearances against Bush, and by responding quickly with rebuttal ads, Kerry is establishing himself in the public mind as a political fighter. Many Democrats privately said the candidate overstepped last week, to his detriment, by calling Republicans "crooked" and a "lying group." In general, however, he has offered welcome reassurance to Democratic partisans, many of whom feel that nominees Michael S. Dukakis in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000, were sunk by failing to respond adeptly to GOP attacks on their leadership skills or personal integrity.

"Part of winning is believing you can win," said Democratic communications strategist Howard Wolfson. "A lot of Democrats want reassurance that this is different, and we can win. . . . He's doing that."

Kerry aides acknowledge that they are at a critical moment. Kerry finished the nominating contest nearly broke, whereas Bush had raised $144 million by the end of January. "This is going to be a rough period for us; there's no two ways about it," one senior Kerry campaign aide said. "Certainly we have to fill in Kerry's profile."

For the most part, though, people in Kerry's camp say they are satisfied with events so far in March, in what amounts to the first days of the general election. They believe that Bush's campaign rollout was marred by controversy over his use of images, including flag-draped remains, from the World Trade Center attack, and that Bush's decision to personally engage in criticism of Kerry has moved him off the presidential stage and onto a political one. "One thing we've established," campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said, "is that we'll fight back."

While Kerry raises money to fund a more extensive advertising campaign later in the year, he will also try to establish a positive profile for himself with domestic policy pronouncements on such issues as jobs and education. Publicizing these will depend for the time being on what political operatives call "free media" -- news coverage, rather than advertisements.

Using this time well before the Democratic convention in Boston in late July is critical, said Tom Freedman, a political consultant who worked closely on President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection effort. "One thing we learned in '96 is how vulnerable a challenger is before the convention," said Freedman, who praised the Kerry decision to air immediate response ads. "There is no doubt the Bush folks are spending millions to try and define Kerry before he can introduce himself to lots of voters." Washington operatives and commentators "tend to underestimate how powerful an impact those ads can have, partly because pundits aren't seeing them every day. Real voters are."

Bush's critique of Kerry has had two prongs. One is a more traditional Republican attack on Democrats, for being too willing to raise taxes, and insufficiently vigilant in protecting national security. It is these themes Bush struck in his first negative ads. In public appearances by Bush, and e-mail news releases, a second line of attack has been opened: that Kerry is an equivocating, finger-in-the-wind politician who has been, as Bush recently said, "in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."

The "waffler" charge has an uncertain potential, according to some operatives not connected to Kerry's campaign. By itself, the criticism is not necessarily damaging. "Most people would say that's what politicians do," said Democratic pollster Mark Penn, who added that a willingness to change one's mind shows a "constructive flexibility" that is preferable to "rigidity." The charge becomes more lethal, he said, if Bush can frame it to say, "I'm a man of principle, and you're not."

That is precisely what Bush has been attempting to say. But attempts to define adversaries work better in some years than others, said Mandy Grunwald, a veteran of Clinton's 1992 "war room." She sees the election fundamentally as a referendum about Bush. Perceptions about his record on the economy and national security, by this reckoning, will matter more than perceptions of Kerry. "It's very hard for an incumbent to make the race about the challenger in tough times," Grunwald said. "They can do a lot of damage, but ultimately I don't think they change the subject of the election."

Recent polling suggests a mixed picture on Kerry. In a Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 49 percent of voters said they believe Kerry is likely to change his positions for political reasons. Yet a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that 61 percent of voters perceive Kerry as a "strong leader." The same poll suggested, not surprisingly, that positive and negative impressions are much deeper of the incumbent than the challenger. Nearly nine in 10 Bush backers said their support was more for Bush, rather than against Kerry. Six out of 10 Kerry backers, by contrast, said their choice was more against Bush than for Kerry. This suggests Kerry is still hazily defined in the public mind.

Steven Schier, a political analyst at Carleton College in Minnesota -- another state likely to be competitive this fall -- said the ads will help reveal whether the electorate is as polarized as some polls suggest. If Bush's attempt to define Kerry "is going to work, it should work this month," he said. "This is a good test of whether or not people are set in stone. . . . If it's really all about Bush, you're not going to see a lot of movement."