Franken thinks Kerry won't run in 08 now that Vilsack is running

[zulchzulu]

Um...Al...time to quit, pal. Let Thom Hartmann have the slot.

Vilsack has as much chance of winning in 2008 as Chris Dodd.

[SoFlaJet]

1. Gore/Clark 08

has a nice ring to it IMO

[AtomicKitten]

4. yep

or Gore/Obama with a side of Clark as SOS

[zulchzulu]

8. My betting money is that Gore will not run in 2008

I like Al, but yunno...he's only said that he wasn't going to run at least a dozen times.

[AtomicKitten]

10. the expiration date of my hope

is roughly at two dozen denials. :)

On edit: No worries about Vilsack. He has the word "sack" in his name. 'Nuff said.

[zulchzulu]

12. LOL...agree on the Vilsack name as well

Having "sack" in your last name is not, shall we say, presidential... Maybe Dick Lugar should run too. :->

[demokatgurrl]

16. I think Gore has had

about all he can take of running for office in this country.

[politicasista]

20. He could still make a difference reagarding global warming

even if he doesn't run again.

[AtomicKitten]

39. absolutely

and perhaps that's a nobler cause

[OnionPatch]

127. A few nights ago

I saw Al speak. He was asked a couple of times (amid much cheering) to run again but I went away with the feeling he really doesn't want that. He said he wouldn't rule it out entirely but said that really wasn't what he wanted to do. He said he's done his thing in politics and felt he was doing more good with his work to stop global warming. (paraphrasing) Sigh. Maybe he'll change his mind, but I had the feeling not. :cry:

[hlthe2b]

13. I'd take that side of Clark... any time...

:loveya:

(:evilgrin:)


Come on, all the ladies know.... elegant, intelligent, strong, and articulate and a devoted progressive. What a sexy combination.

[RiverStone]

136. YES! Gore/Clark or Gore/Obama

[Mass]

2. Al should stop punditry and start working on his race against Norm Coleman.

That would be more useful.

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. I didnt take it that way....

I thought they were two different thought lines. And I agree, I dont think Kerry will run now. Its unfortunate, but I think its true.

[zulchzulu]

6. Kerry's "botched joke" really screwed up the 2006 election, huh...

Kerry IS running...and Vilsack will be in the basement throughout the primary season.

[Sensitivity]

5. Maybe the point is that if Kerry was going to run VILSAK WOULD NOT

[TayTay]

9. I still think they should all run, let the voters sort it out

The more the better. It will make for more interesting debates and air the issues out more fully.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I agree.

the more the merrier

[karynnj]

17. Interesting interpretation - I know that his wife endorsed Kerry last time

but I never heard that they were allies to that degree. If he and Kerry appeal to the same clusters of voters that would make sense - I don't know much about Vilsack beyond the fact that he is a Catholic Governor of Iowa who was an orphan - ie essentially nothing.

I do think that if Kerry were signalling people that he wasn't running - it would leak as news. Kerry still has his non-Senate web site.

[blm]

7. BUY people for what they know and sell them for what they THINK they know.

Surefire profit.

[geek tragedy]

14. Kerry was done after that whole joke flap.

So, this isn't exactly cutting edge analysis.

[zulchzulu]

15. Yeah, it really backfired in the Demo. election results...

The "botched joke" wasn't anything more than a Rovian distraction. It will hardly be an issue in the primaries...that is, unless some candidate running is out of ammo and tries to use it as an "issue"...

[geek tragedy]

18. Thanks to the damage control other Democrats did.

The man is a disaster in front of a microphone. What kind of fool, when he's accused of being a flip-flopper, makes a "I voted for it before I voted against it" kind of comment.

He was treated unfairly by the media over this joke incident, but the man is too gaffe-prone and unelectable.

[AtomicKitten]

21. the media is merciless

and it is a shame people have to tread carefully to avoid their ridicule and wrath. Even Letterman cracked a joke at Kerry's expense last night saying now that the election is over the Dems can take the duct tape off his mouth.

I agree the feigned outrage at the innocuous remark was vintage Rove. It's junior high school caliber and, although it's not fair, it is possible it has sealed his fate for 2008. However, on the other hand, it may be entirely forgotten when campaigning begins in earnest in another year considering the media and the public's short attention span. Time will tell.

[geek tragedy]

30. As I noted below, the big problem was that he took their bait

and turned it into a big flamefest and made himself an issue.

Had he just quickly apologized for any offense caused by his misstatement, that would have been the end of it. But, his head was either in 2004 or in 2008 and he decided he had to show how tough he was. Problem was that it was 2006 and he wasn't supposed to be an issue.

[AtomicKitten]

37. agreed

It was like throwing gasoline on a fire. I don't begrudge him dealing with this in any way he sees fit EXCEPT before an election in which he is not running.

But WE TOOK BOTH HOUSES - WOO-HOO!!! - and if there are repercussions from this unfortunate incident, they will be Kerry's alone. It's petty and bullshit, but so is politics most of the time. :)

[geek tragedy]

77. Indeed. I would have loved to see this approach in 2004.

But, the big story is that we do control Congress.

And now he's CHAIRMAN Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

83. It's a great day to be an American!!!

I can still hardly believe we control both houses of Congress and Junior will be effectively neutered.

WOO-HOO!!!

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. God your whole comment just rehases every Rove talking point

How completely disgusting. :thumbsdown:

He's only more "gaffe-prone" than anyone else because the media and the GOP - with the help of backstabbing "Dems" - have been trying to crucify him for three years. Funny how he's made nonstop speeches for the last two years which the public never hears a word about until he accidentally drops ONE WORD and suddenly he's "gaffe-prone"? Spare me the bullshit. I'm so fucking sure you have never dropped a word in your entire life, and I'm sure no other Democrat has ever done so either.

But thank you for helping the GOP and media promote this utterly baseless smear. Too bad it didn't work. People are apparently smarter than you give them credit for.

[AtomicKitten]

25. A different take on this does not constitute a RW smear.

Your harsh, vulgar reprimand is entirely out of line. People are entitled to a POV that doesn't align 100% with yours and are entitled to express it without being assaulted.

[geek tragedy]

27. Thank you. There's nothing right-wing about

considering John Kerry to be a poor speaker or unelectable.

[ProSense]

36. That's nonsense!

going a couple of words off script, which still didn't change the context, doesn't make one a poor speaker.

[geek tragedy]

41. Okay--he also lacks political common sense.

1) He refused to say that he'd take back his IWR vote.

2) Voted for it before . . . .

3) Making himself and his gaffe the story a week before the midterm elections.

[ProSense]

44. This is about the IWR?

Geez! Catch up!

[geek tragedy]

58. The point is that he lacks common sense when it comes to

these kinds of things. He KNEW that a question on his IWR vote was coming, and he completely screwed his own campaign with that statement.

[ProSense]

70. The point is

this is nonsense!

Get the facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2885625&mesg_id=2885625

[geek tragedy]

73. Would you have voted for the IWR if you knew

what you did in 2004?

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. A personal attack from you.... what a surprise.

:eyes:

I stand by what I said. Dems who promote this smear as significant in any way, shape, or form are playing right into Rove's hands. And that would be true if any Democrat were the victim.

[AtomicKitten]

57. It's unfortunate that you construe what I posted as a personal attack.

It is that inability to discern the reality of situations that precludes you from participating in reasonable discussion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. Another personal attack from you... what a surprise

:eyes:

Hey, if you want to continue to prove to DU how mean-spirited and petty you are, knock yourself out.

[AtomicKitten]

80. I suspect you don't appreciate the irony of this.

You are exhibiting your own mean-spiritedness and pettiness by accusing me of same in a textbook illustration of projection.

I'll leave you to it; you are doing a fine job on your own. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Projection, indeed!

I think people viewing this thread can see who has accused who of "vulgarity" and "inability to debate."

Projection, indeed. Keep it up! :*

[geek tragedy]

61. I'm not saying he hates our troops, which is a rightwing smear.

I'm saying that he handled this problem extremely poorly.

The party is larger than John Kerry.

[geek tragedy]

82. No, pointing out a baseless flaming

is not a personal attack.

By the way, do you think it's a partisan, Rovian smear to call Kerry a flip-flopper?

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. Yes, it is.

It is false and therefore a smear; Republicans benefit from it, therefore it is partisan and Rovian. Some "Democrats" benefit from Rove smears too, of course, but that just makes them backstabbing cowards. Anyone who would echo Rove's spin on any Democrat is not a friend of this party. I am referring to certain "Dems" who went right along with the GOP's line in the media, and just saying that if I were you, I wouldn't be so eager to carry water for such unprincipled cowards.

[geek tragedy]

101. Here's an interesting link for you:

Dean Supporters Gave Kerry Flip-Flops For Christmas

Howard Dean supporters gave John Kerry a peculiar Christmas gift -- flip-flop sandals.

Iowans for Dean delivered the "present" to the Massachusetts senator's Iowa campaign headquarters on Wednesday. Both Dean and Kerry are among nine candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Sen. Kerry has been flip-flopping on issues throughout his career and campaign, and we thought we could make things a little more comfortable for him," said Dean spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.

[WildEyedLiberal]

107. Thanks for proving my point

It's shameful and treacherous for Democrats to stab each other in the back and hand Republicans their talking points on a silver platter. It was shameful in 2004 and it's shameful now. You can thank those very people in that article you just cited for helping Bush win. Until this party learns to stop getting in cheap-shot smears on intraparty rivals for crass personal political advantage, we will never beat the Republicans on a national level.

[laugle]

131. You know this whole thing could be

sooooo forgotten if people would just stop talking about it!!

Kerry botched a joke, he apologized for the perception----IT'S OVER!!

2 years is a long time in politics and the public has a short memory!

Now congrats to everyone--damn--we won....hello.....now the important work begins....

[karynnj]

138. Just because Dean wanted to push that meme, doesn't make it true

In reality, Senator Kerry is actually unusually consistent - fro example, his comments on the environment and the the actions needed to push people to make it an issue have been consistent for decades since he brought back a concept used in Europe to deal with acid rain that was adpoted by the NE governors. It worked well enough that it became the mechanism used by the Clean Air act.

In Madaline Albright's new book on foreign policy, she quotes John Kerry and comments very positively. The Kerry quote was not from 2006, 2004 or even 1971 - it was from 1966 when he was a Yale senior. Reading it there are elements of some of his current major policy speeches.

This action of the Dean campaign was not a dirty trick or nasty - but it also wasn't true. It's od that the Dean people get riled up about the waffles that Kerry people took them.

[AtomicKitten]

92. I agree. Pointing out baseless flaming is most certainly not a personal attack.

But then again in the world of some here, broaching certain subjects is off-limits to those not subscribing to a certain politician's fanclub newsletter.

Watch your tail, cowboy. :)

[geek tragedy]

26. His bigger problem was going ballistic in his response

instead of quickly apologizing and letting the story die. He has a political tin ear.

[Mass]

34. So, people should not attack back. Well, I am sure that we are going to win more elections like

that.

They attack the guy as being against the troops and he should have shut up. You are joking, I hope.

[geek tragedy]

67. They shouldn't attack back when they aren't running for office

and fighting back will be a benefit to the people trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

[zulchzulu]

40. Kerry's "ballistic response" was completely admired by many...

...if not ALL of news sources and progressive radio talk shows. He fought back. Kicked ass and took names. In fact, the event magnified the election to be about the failed war. People were tired and distracted by the Foley stories.

I know. He should have whimpered off and apologized, even though he had NO reason to apologize. Even in his eventual "apology", it wasn't really one.

[geek tragedy]

43. Step outside the echo-chamber. In the mainstream

world, the debate was framed as "Does John Kerry think our troops are stupid?"

YOU CAN'T WIN A DEBATE LIKE THAT.

[Mass]

47. Many editorials actually said that Bush is the one who should apologize.

And this include people who said the joke was stupid and do not like Kerry.

[geek tragedy]

50. What the average, short attention span voter saw

was "Did John Kerry mean to insult our troops?" followed by "Kerry refuses to apologize."

[Mass]

53. No dialogue possible here. You obviously live in another world.

[geek tragedy]

65. Yes. I don't live in the world where Air America

shapes public opinion on a large scale.

[karynnj]

141. We can if we answer "No, he doesn't"

nor do other Democrats and then show that it is Democrats who support veteran's benefits etc

This moves it from Kerry (although he is very easy to defend)

[karynnj]

140. How many WEEKS did we hear great applause for Clinton's

finger pointing rant that seemed out of proportion to the cause.

Kerry came out agsinst being portrayed as critising the troops - he DIDN'T. This meant something to him and he corrected things. He was FAR more in control when he spoke back thsn Clinton was. He was very much in control when he spoke very quietly about McCain knowing better.

Did an apology end the fake outrage over the Durbin speech? This was a planned RW attack - they would have traken some line of something - they do it EVERY day on talk radio. They twit comments from almost any Democrat you can name.

[LittleClarkie]

94. Yeah, that was great damage control that Harold Ford did

Uh huh.

Exactly what damage control are you referring to. Do you mean the way they cowered in a corner instead of defending the man? Was THAT the damage control?

The only damage control I saw was from Kerry himself when he decided to apologize, albeit for nothing. Then the incident went away.

I will remember the names of those who stood up for him at that time, including Kos, whom I don't particularly like otherwise; Ron Kind, a congressman in my state; "Give em Hell" Harry Reid; and Keith Olbermann. More should have had the balls to do the same.

[geek tragedy]

103. You just made my point.

When Kerry apologized to any troops who might have been offended, the incident went away.

That wasn't even his idea--Chuck Schumer practically forced him to.

[politicasista]

105. Then you should blame him instead

of buying into the Rovian spin about the one that continues to speak out.

[LittleClarkie]

126. Your point was that other Dems did damage control. My point was that Kerry did it.

Hence, I did not make your point. I made mine.

[karynnj]

142. That's not true either

The Newswek article has Schumer telling Kerry to apologize on Thursday - which would make sense if Kerry hadn't apologized on Wednesday - slightly more than 24 hours into it. Aldo it was necessary to fight beck first as strongly as he did - to make it tougher for them to spin an apology as being for something he didn't do.

[blm]

139. And Gore inveted the internet and Clintons trashed the White House.

And those stories went on for months.

Kerry is GREAT with a microphone and for all the focus on him on every word, he's had fewer slips than most.

You think the corpmedia is willing to give ANY Dem a break?

Name the Dems who never drops a pronoun, or flubs a joke.

How did you do with the CAREFULLY CRAFTED WORDING like this - "depends on what the meaning of the the word is is." ?

[karynnj]

22. After hearing Sean Hannity yesterday

take maybe 10 comments from various Democrats, inculding several from Dean and Pelosi to "prove" the Democrats are uncivil, it's clear that they were planning that type a last minute strike before Kerry even told the joke badly. If you could ever forget the absolute lack of civility of Cheney et al, these out of context comments do sound bad - and I know they do not sound like typical comments of these people.

They were losing on Iraq - Cheney had already used all his worst lines on how the terrorists would get us - and they needed something. I assume that had Kerry been struck with laryngitis that morning, theywould have taken some Kerry comment on how the war wasn't being won and distorted it in similar fashion.

Why Kerry? Kerry was the strongest voice out there on the war. The RW feels Kerry was anti-troops in 1971.

[geek tragedy]

24. The problem is that Kerry is such an easy target.

And he handled it in exactly the wrong way. If you misspeak, apologize quickly and move on. Common sense.

[politicasista]

28. Who isn't an easy target?

What canidiates are above the media spin? What candidiates are not "gaffe prone"? Name them.

[geek tragedy]

33. He's an easy target because he doesn't know how to deal

with his own gaffes. He also makes incredibly bad ones, such as:

1) I voted for it before I voted against it;

2) Claiming that he didn't regret voting for the IWR in 2004.

[politicasista]

52. You still didn't name the candidates that AREN'T easy targets

Sorry, my opinion remains unchanged.

[geek tragedy]

64. I don't know of any other candidates that have such a tin ear

when it comes to politics. I don't know of anyone else who would have campaigned against Bush's handling of the Iraq war but then said that he would vote to authorize that war again if he had a chance.

I don't know anyone who would say something like "I voted for it before I voted against it" when they had been attacked as being a flip-flopper as early as the Democratic primaries.

And I don't know anyone who would refuse to apologize for misspeaking and inadvertently saying something that could be considered offensive to US service people.

[politicasista]

78. That's right, you don't know

You assume that what happen to Kerry WON'T happen to any other candidate running. You think the media will go easy on anyone BUT Kerry. You think that everyone EXCEPT Kerry will wave a magic wand and make voters vote for him or her. Again, you think that from all the above that what happened to Kerry won't happen to anyone elese. If you think so, you are in for a rude awakening.

I hope you can find the perfect candidate. Support him or her to the fullest.

eom

[geek tragedy]

81. We can't handle what happens to us, but we can handle

how we respond.

And most people would have had a much better answer to "Would you vote differently on the IWR knowing what you do today?"

[blm]

143. It would ONLY be considered offensive it was TWISTED to be made offensive.

And ANYONE can be lied about if someone chooses to lie.

Did Gore clear up the lie that that spread that he invented the internet in any effective way?

How did Clintons do with that Clintons trashed the White House lie?

[AtomicKitten]

29. ideally that would have been the way to handle it

right before an election, but it is now water under the bridge. No harm, no foul.

If there are repercussions, Kerry alone will face that music.

[geek tragedy]

46. Amongst party activists and donors, you better believe

there have been repercussions.

[Mass]

31. So are Hillary. Obama, and anybody the media will decide are an easy target.

And of course, Democrats should fold when attacked. It is exactly the right approach. Please, beat me again! At least it is what I understand from what I heard said by some people . This certainly does not reassure about their ability to fight back.

[geek tragedy]

38. His approach would have been correct if he were in the middle

of a presidential campaign. He wasn't. As I said, his head was either in 2004 or 2008, not 2006.

[Mass]

45. I disagree. The story became a big story when the dems started to

have unnamed strategists and named polls talk to the media. Before that, it was no big deal, as can be seen by all the print media who did not talk about the story BEFORE Thursday.

[geek tragedy]

55. It was the LEAD story on the Wednesday evening news. eom

[politicasista]

60. So believe the lies of the media?

You could have educated the average voter. If you were that concerned, you would have stood up to truth, spread truth and debunked Rove's lies. Instead you gave in to media spin.

[geek tragedy]

72. Yeah, I was going to go on CNN and CBS and ABC

and convince people to pay more than 30 seconds of attention to the underlying issues instead of the headlines.

[Mass]

62. That was AFTER the Dems started to attack him. My point exactly!

The CA was Monday. Bush attacked on Tuesday. Kerry answered on Tuesday. Reid, Pelosi, and Schumer make statements defending Kerry and attacking Bush. A very balanced story on the news on Tuesday (except on FOX). Most papers have the story in inside pages on Wednesday. Dems attack on Wednesday. The story becomes a big story.

[geek tragedy]

68. No, it made the evening news on October 31st. It was after

that that every Democratic candidate started getting questions about his gaffe and refusal to apologize.

[Mass]

69. The story on Tuesday was balanced and was showing Kerry attacking Bush on Iraq.

It was a side story on attacks on the campaign trail. No big deal.

Except for those who fell for the FOX story. This said, the most important point is that the Dems do not understand the media. If they thought that Kerry apologizing and them attacking him was going to help, they were WRONG. Schumer was still answering questions on election day, which proves how they still do not understand that you need to counterattack.

[zulchzulu]

74. The reason the Democrats lost so badly was because of Kerry

Predictions were that Kerry's comments were going to turn off Democrats and the Republicans would keep the House and Senate. Those predictions turned out to be true, yunno...

:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

75. It was the lead story on all three networks.

The story was about him inadvertently insulting the troops and then refusing to apologize, instead attacking Bush.

And it is hilarious that Kerry defenders accuse others of not understanding the media. Kerry is about as inept as they come when it comes to handling the media.

[zulchzulu]

63. Kerry's head was in 2006...he raised the most of any major Democrat

Nearly $12 million... the next major candidates clocked in with about $6 million...

Name ANY candidate that is running or will run that would not have their speeches picked through to find a misinterpretation made into a demonizing soundbite.

The classic "I voted for before I voted against..." statement assumed that people had at least SOME civics 101 knowledge about how laws are passed in the Senate. As you may not know, a law can be voted on and not pass and then have crap added to it where someone who voted for the first version can't vote for the second version due to the crap added. Hence, you'd vote for the bill before you voted against it.

That's old news, but it certainly brings up the issue again that you should answer...what candidate is out there that wouldn't have their words taken out of context and "made into an issue"?

Name that candidate.

[geek tragedy]

71. As I said, I don't know of anyone else who lacks the common

sense to avoid the mistakes he makes.

[zulchzulu]

79. Name the perfect "gaffe-free" candidate NOW

C'mon Mr. Big Shot. You gots all the answers. Now tell us dumbasses who the perfect candidate is...please....

:crazy:

[geek tragedy]

85. It's not about being perfect. It's about avoiding

really stupid, damaging, and completely avoidable mistakes.

Turning that misstatement into a huge media event was a really stupid, damaging and completely avoidable mistake.

Saying that he'd still vote for the IWR was a stupid, damaging, and completely avoidable mistake.

Saying that he voted for something before he voted against it, when he was trying to avoid the tag of a flip-flopper, was a stupid, damaging, and completely avoidable mistake.

Nominating John Kerry in 2008 would be a stupid, damaging, and completely avoidable mistake.

[zulchzulu]

88. This broken record Rovian Dog Food Diet brought to you by...

um...nobody.

[geek tragedy]

96. Yes. Any criticism of Dear Leader Kerry is Rove nonsense. eom

[WildEyedLiberal]

111. No, criticism is fine

Reguritation of a Rove-created false talking point, however, IS Rove nonsense. It is quite simply not possible to "criticize" Kerry on this so-called "gaffe" without parroting the GOP's spin.

[geek tragedy]

116. Bullshit. Rove's spin was that he thought the troops was stupid.

The honest reaction of MANY Democrats was that Kerry fucked up big time with his response.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15562022/site/newsweek/?nav=slate

Chuck Schumer got right to the point. On Thursday afternoon, the New York Senator, who’s leading the Democrats’ efforts to win back the Senate, called John Kerry and let him have it. The Massachussetts Senator’s supposed “botched joke” about the president's handling of Iraq had become a feast for Republicans—sucking up tons of airtime and knocking Democrats off message in the crucial remaining days before the midterm election. Kerry’s attempts to fight back, by calling the Republicans “stuffed suits” and “right wing nutjobs,” was only prolonging the story and making things worse. Apologize now, Schumer told him, according to a high-ranking party official who didn’t want to be named talking about a private conversation. (A source close to Kerry said the exchange was cordial.)

Three different Democrats canceled their appearances with him. He made himself into a liability.

[karynnj]

145. The STORY IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!

Newsweek is wrong or Schumer is wrong.

"On Thursday afternoon, the New York Senator, who’s leading the Democrats’ efforts to win back the Senate, called John Kerry and let him have it"

Kerry had an apology out in the late morning on Wednesday.

So, either Schumer is lying through his teeth or Newsweek is.

[zulchzulu]

87. "geek tragedy" will now name us the Perfect, Gaffe-Free Candidate!

(sound of crickets)...

[geek tragedy]

98. You're not debating in good faith or addressing my points, so I'm

done wasting my time with you and your personal attacks.

Toodles.

[zulchzulu]

100. I knew you couldn't name a "gaffe-free" candidate

Checkmate.

[geek tragedy]

102. I never claimed I could. My point, which you dishonestly refuse to

address, is that Kerry makes incredibly bad and completely avoidable mistakes. For instance, stating that he'd vote for the IWR knowing what he did in 2004.

[zulchzulu]

106. OK..admit who you were for in the 2004 primaries...

I'll tell you the "stupid things" they said.

[geek tragedy]

110. Wes Clark. eom

Please tell me what he said that was as stupid as saying that he'd still support the IWR in 2004.

[zulchzulu]

119. So you think the mainstream media would have NOTHING to use on Wes?

Nothing?

I could think of a few MAJOR exploitations that could have been used on him. If you've done your homework, you'd know what I'm referring to...

[zulchzulu]

32. Not sure if you really followed the story...

No matter. You've made up your mind...good luck with your candidate not getting sandbagged by the media over a fairly inconsequential comment cherry-picked and handed over to the willing, lazy MSM...and exploited into a "story"...

[geek tragedy]

35. I followed it, and it became a BIG, multi-day story

because he went on the attack instead of offering a quick "oops, sorry about that."

[Mass]

42. It became a multi-day story because the Dems attacked him.

The story became how the dems dropped him and how he ruined his chances for 08 because of that. Had they treated this story correctly and simply dismissed it and counter attacked, as Carville did (and I am not a big fan of Carville), this would have been finished. The way to treat that was to ask Bush to apologize to the troops.

[geek tragedy]

49. Uh, no. The story was "Does John Kerry think our

troops are stupid?" It was a no-win situation that wasn't doing anyone but the Republicans good..

[Mass]

51. It depends which papers. Most major papers wrote editorials saying

that Bush should apologize, including some RW people.

[zulchzulu]

48. Did you really listen to how his response was percieved?

The only people that thought it was an issue was Fox News and a few of the usual Repigs in the MSM. The vast majority of progressive media and even some conservatives thought the Rovian focus was bullshit...

I know. He should have whimpered and apologized like a little girl immediately. Yeah...

[geek tragedy]

56. The progressive media is irrelevant to swing voters.

As I said, people need to step outside the echo-chamber.

[zulchzulu]

66. So say you...

Do you have ANYTHING to back up that statement?

[geek tragedy]

76. The fact that mainstream voters don't pay regular attention

to the progressive media?

[LittleClarkie]

95. My independant friend, who doesn't have cable but watchs the BBC news

on PBS, felt sorry for Kerry. I think most sentient human beings could see through the bullshit. Those who could not were either pretending not to for political reasons or were just that fucking stupid.

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. Bingo.

"Those who could not were either pretending not to for political reasons or were just that fucking stupid."

Hammer, meet nail.

[geek tragedy]

113. There are a LOT of stupid swing voters.

In fact, they are the ones who don't make up their mind until the last minute--because they don't pay attention or follow the issues very closely.

And an idiot's vote counts just as much as a genius's.

[WildEyedLiberal]

And there is a fool-proof way to get the idiots' vote?

Um, idiots are idiots BECAUSE they insist on believing completely false things despite all evidence and reason. Idiots still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Idiots believed that Kerry was insulting the troops. Idiots believe what they want to believe regardless of facts or reason BECAUSE they are IDIOTS.

If you are suggesting that we run a campaign tailored to the absolute lowest common denominator of the American public, I reject that outright.

[zulchzulu]

117. Yep. Presidential candidates should apologize immediately...

...if they upset ANYONE. Give in as soon as the Republicans shoot back. Don't defend yourself for fear that you look like you are upset.

Now if we can just find a candidate that has NO flaws, speaks perfectly, never blinks or looks down funny or opens his mouth in ANY way that can be used as making him/her look bad...and have them do that for 2 years straight with 10-15 hour days and a dozen speeches a day that are recorded and zoomed in and spoken about even though reporters were not actually at those events...

Yeah...

[geek tragedy]

118. You can't tailor to it, but you need to be aware of how the media

cycle works nowadays. Sound-byte politics has been around for decades, and a politician who can't figure that out has as much business running for president as does Laura Bush does as a driving instructor.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. "That's the way things are so we just have to deal." BS.

Basically, you are saying that yes, the media twists and distorts the words of Democrats, but that's the way it is so we just need to accept it.

THAT is precisely what we need to reject and precisely why Democrats, had they any spine, would have backed up Kerry to a man. This kind of crap will only continue as long as Democrats continue to put their tail between their legs and let the GOP and the media control the narrative. I am sure you think your candidate is somehow immune to this, but that's just a sad delusion - NO ONE will fail to make a single mistake in two years of rigorous campaigning. No one. What Democrats DO need to do is stop being mortally afraid of the media boogeyman and confront the smear, instead of bowing to the pressure, which will only ensure that there will be a next time. It is impossible to go through life without the threat of misspeaking and it is an extraordinary fallacy to expect that if our next candidate minds his p's and q's the media will not give him the same treatment. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The only way to stop the media cycle of distortion and smear is to confront it head on, which is what Kerry did. The cowardly Democrats who stabbed him in the back only ensured that the media and GOP can get away with spinning the most brazen lies against Democrats without fear of recourse. That will never change until the party has the courage to say enough is enough.

[zulchzulu]

128. I use this as the difference between sound-bite vs nuanced response

If we are to have to live in a sound-bite world, then perhaps we would use that same theory in real life.

For example, someone asks you for a sound-bite answer to how to drive to Kansas City from Phoenix. Your sound bite asnwer is:

"Kansas City! I love that town! Phoenix is a great town too!"

(applause...then, um, OK, so what are the directions...)

The nuanced answer (God forbid) is:

"Take the I-17 N ramp to Flagstaff, which is 139 miles. Then take the I-40 E exit 340A to Winslow/Albuquerque for about 851 miles. Then merge into John Kilpatrick Tpke for 25 miles and then take the I-35 N ramp to Wichita for about 225 miles. Continue on I-335 N for 50 miles, then I-70 E for 60 miles. You'll be very close to Kansas City at that point."

Which answer best serves the public?

[geek tragedy]

132. No, you have to know when's a good time to make a big stink

and when it's best to let a non-story just die.

The media didn't really pay attention to this story until Kerry started going on the attack.

[LittleClarkie]

122. Not this year there weren't

The swing voters were quite intelligent this year. Kudos to them. If they were stupid, then Kerry's gaffe would have had more effect. It did not.

[geek tragedy]

133. A lot of these people voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004.

It didn't help to have John Kerry up there reminding them why they voted Republican last time around.

Thankfully, it didn't make much, if any, difference.

[karynnj]

146. The exit polls

show that the 18 percent of people who made up their mind in the 3 days before the election were MORE likely to vote for the Democrats than the 82% who made up their mind earlier.

[Oak2004]

135. Wrong (or at least half-wrong)

I'm a real live bona fide Atwater-trained ex- College Republican who knows the unfine arts of dirty political spin and dirty tricks.

Yes, that fuss was a standard Rove manufacture. No, NEVER apologize for one of those manufactured controversies: instead, fight back.

The only issue I have with what Kerry did was how he fought back. He needed to strike back at the attack itself as well as point back at Bush's real insult to the troops: link them in fact, and add something like "if you're too stupid to know that I was calling Bush, not the troops, stupid, you're too stupid to recognize any apology I could give" -- something strong, a bit shocking (for headline effect), and that puts the questioners on the spot.

If it were possible to tease out the net effect of the Kerry affair, I suspect it was in the Democrat's favor, all thanks to Kerry fighting back (however poorly).

[karynnj]

144. Actually , the advise in speech is to let it go and continue

The words Kerry actually said were not the problem. they said something different than he meant, but NOT the right wing meaning which is absolutely illogical.

By the way - do I see you saying the same about Gov Dean - whose words have been twisted far more often.

[LittleClarkie]

89. That would explain why they appeared to be staring at him 24/7

Really, if they didn't give a damn about him, they wouldn't even bother attacking him. It's something of a badge of honor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. LOL

:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

93. Just think. The GOP could do that at will. And we'll agree with them when they do

Pray it isn't your candidate they're staring at 24/7, waiting for a dropped fucking pronoun.

[geek tragedy]

97. For the last time, it isn't the fact that he dropped the pronoun.

It's that he completely botched the response to it.

And anyone who thinks that Kerry is still a viable contender in 2008 . . .

[LittleClarkie]

104. In your opinion, of course. He did what many thought he should have done in 2004

And many here rather liked his response. The things he said in his press conference needed to be said. Makes me wonder, if he'd fought back faster in 2004 against the swiftboaters, if people would have said that was a botched response too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, esp. it seems when you're John Kerry.

And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn who thinks he's a viable contender in 2008. There is far too much knowledge and wisdom there to go to waste. I will support him if he runs. I will support him if he doesn't. If he doesn't, I will suggest him for a cabinet position. Failing that, I will be a Wisconsin supporter of a Massachusetts Senator. I have his back.

And in MY opinion, the ones who botched the response were those who didn't support him, and instead slinked away.

[geek tragedy]

108. It would have been a great response *in 2004*

This isn't 2004, and John Kerry was not in a presidential race. He was not supposed to make himself a story.

[zulchzulu]

114. The wheel goes round and round round and round round and round...

You bought into the mainstream media dog food that it WAS a legitimate story. The vast majority of media channels that I respect thought otherwise...

Wipe that Rove dog food off your lips...you know it ain't good for you.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

129. Likewise...

Whatever...

[LittleClarkie]

125. He didn't. They did. And he wasn't running for anything. So to make him

the story as they did was equally ludicrous.

I'm glad the swing voters saw through it.

[geek tragedy]

134. It became a BIG story when he refused to apologize

and went on the whole "how dare you chickenhawks attack me" rant. That fed the media cycle for at least 24 hours and amplified the intensity with which the media covered it.

[zulchzulu]

112. Excellent analysis of the Kerry "botched joke"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611010012

Granted, some here will say that NOBODY ever goes to Media Matters and NOBODY ever, ever, ever watches the news ...er...um...

[Thrill]

19. It would ne nice if Easley in NC would run

but he appears to have his eye on Dole's Senate seat

[LittleClarkie]

91. I don't actually care. I'll support him regardless

Just waiting for him to say it out loud one way or the other.

[rep the dems]

99. Ha, I just realized now we can post about '08 and not have

anyone say "Can we please focus on '06?"

[AtomicKitten]

123. Yes, we have crossed that threshold.

Still the gnashing of teeth here is such an epic waste of time, although a favorite sport for some. All the posturing here is for naught because the 2008 nominee will be decided by consensus of Dem voters in the primary. DU is just a tiny microcosm compared to the Democratic body as a whole, but I think some people are confused about that. It's never a bad idea to keep a good balance of perspective by keeping abreast of the real world, outside DU and outside the internet blogosphere.

Let the games begin. :)

[NJ Democrats]

115. Yes, Franken should quit

To run for Senate in '08.
Go Russ! And I hope Kerry doesn't run

[AtomicKitten]

124. A Senator Franken would cause convulsions on the right side of the aisle.

I'd pay good money to see that. :)

[NJ Democrats]

130. He could easily beat Coleman

[AtomicKitten]

137. I would LOVE to see that.

Paul Wellstone would probably love to see that too!!! God I miss him.

[dpbrown]

147. My prediction - US not ready for President with "sack" in his/her name

Especially one that rhymes with "Ill sack."

Nope.