What's going on with Kerry's medals?

There is a big cloud of dust being kicked up on the right regarding Kerry throwing his medals (or where they ribbons?) over the fence at the White House. This is getting a lot of attention and its obscuring the issue. The fact that Kerry is booting the issue is just drawing more attention to his clumsiness, rather leaving the substance of the contraversy in the self same dust.

The real issue, for those who have missed it or forgotten, is that Kerry's actions and the context in which he undertook them imply a rejection of what many Americans hold dear. Kerry wants to interpret his actions in a way that is more palatable to many Americans. So the contraversy involves an attempt by the right to highlight Kerry's early 70's understanding of his actions in order to argue he's not the right man for the job.

We hear a lot about the fact that he's changing his story. This turns Kerry's current actions into the center ring, which is less damaging I think than his orginal actions. This is because its far more plausable to argue that his understanding of the act is not the same as a reasonable witness might infer. This is also because changing your opinion of things over a distance of thirty years isn't really surprising. Finally, a bit of seeing yourself in a positive light doesn't strike anyone as a grave disability for office.

Recently there is the issue of "where they ribbons or medals?" Kerry booted this one so badly with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America that his performace becomes the issue. I think some of this goes to communication style. Using Linda McCallister's model, there are three pure styles, the plain speaking noble, the intellectual socratic, and the relationship oriented reflective. George Bush is clearly a noble, so people who find that style acceptable find his communication tolerable or better. I find that a lot of people on the left really want to see some reflective and some socratic style. A figure who can manage both simultaneously (Clinton, a famous candidate style speaker) woos them. A figure like Bush who lacks either style is a real turn off. And yet, I don't see Kerry's media clumsiness and stiffness as a matter of style. I don't know who likes his style. Bush's style really appeals to those who respect the noble communication style. The president went on Russert's show and gave what struck me as a rather medicore performance and his poll numbers jumped. Kerry seems to have the effect that the more people see him, the less the like him. That's just communication, obviously his ideology will appeal to people.

While his revisionist history and his lackluster media performance are getting the talk, I think the key message, the intellectual content of Kerry's words and deeds, are getting overlooked, at least a bit.