Oh, crap. Walter Shapiro disses JK

[whometense]

I credited him - evidently without cause - with not buying into the hype, especially as he actually knows Kerry.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/13/feingold/

Suddenly, in fact, there is a large segment of not-for-Hillary Democratic voters up for grabs now that Warner and Feingold have both been winnowed out by the Me Primary. John Kerry too, if he boasts an ounce of self-awareness (a questionable proposition), should also consign himself to the sidelines after his maladroit Iraq "joke" right before the midterm elections jeopardized Democratic congressional gains.

Anyone else want to write a letter in response? I haven't yet, but am about to.

[beachmom]

1. We may need to ride this out for a while

I think the main thing we need to get through is that the Right Wing lied saying Kerry "insulted the troops", and that McCain continues to further that lie, and that Hillary threw him under the bus one week before the election. But he did screw up with that joke. I'm not going to argue with anyone on that point. The other part of it about whether it was going to hurt Democrats -- where are the facts to back that up? There are none. We did better than expected. As to whether he should run or not -- that is up to him, not what the pundits say. I'd like to read what you end up sending him.

[Mass]

4. I agree with you - I also think that the best way for Kerry to see this slowly disappear is to

be present on the forefront. If he is out pushing an progressive agenda on Iraq, security, global warming, and healthcare, as he announced he would, pundits will have other things to say about him more important than this joke.

[ginnyinWI]

26. I'm sure he will be out there, especially in the new Senate.

I don't think anybody could keep him back! :)

[ProSense]

2. Ridiculous!

What about McCain's self awareness or Biden's? Do they really believe that a failed political smear by the RW is the end of the world?

I recently spoke with Dan Rather, and he had a lot to say about the politicized atmosphere in which the news is received by the audience – the way this or that journalist or outlet gets tagged as having a partisan agenda. What do you think?

The day after Sen. (John) Kerry made his remark (about not doing well in school and getting stuck in Iraq), I talked to some people at the White House, and they knew what he was saying. So that night on the show I said to George (Stephanopoulos) "Does anybody at the White House really think that he intended to denigrate the troops?"

I knew the answer, but I also knew that some conservatives would take umbrage at the question. I remember thinking as I asked "You're stepping in it." And that thinking is insidious. All you can do is do your best to be fair. And in this case George was exactly right in his answer. He said, "They don't care. He's given them an opening, and they're going to take it."

link

The RW distorts Kerry's criticism of Bush for political gain, their attempt failed, and Shapiro believes it's worse than Hillary's Ghandi joke? He's the one that's joking!

Perspective:

http://thepremise.com/archives/11/13/2006/669

[whometense]

3. I had read Mark's post -

it's a really good one.

Part of me just wants to go crawl off into a cave for a month and wait for it to blow over. But I just couldn't let Shapiro get away with dismissing Kerry like that. It's not right.

I don't mean to raise a big stink over there - I just said my piece and that's that. He's a writer I admire, and this was a disappointment, so I don't mind telling him so - even if it doesn't change a thing.

[TayTay]

5. Mr. Shapiro is hanging out with the media people again

and is assuming a common wisdom that may not exist.

I do think this needs time to blow over. The damage is not from a joke. Everyone knows that and everyone knows that Kerry didn't mean it. That wasn't the damage that was done. The real damage done was that this gave everyone an openoing to re-discuss whatever people thought the failings of the '04 campaign were. The discussions about this are sort of technical in that respect.

It's not about the joke anymore. It's about why this happened, why it got on the news and who is managing the message. It needs to blow over.

[whometense]

6. I understand the wisdom of that.

I know life isn't fair - and certainly politics are even less fair.

Still, I expect more from him, fairly or no.

But I'm staying away from Kos, lest I be tempted. It surprises me how cranky I feel, given how well the election turned out.

[TayTay]

8. The good news is we won! The bad news is we won!

Remember, at it's heart, this 'pronoun-gate' is a fight among hyper-aware politicos, journalists who wirte about politics, DC consultants (who have been hired and fired by the people involved, probably a couple of times,) and people who want to undercut rivals for '08.

It was a 'not about us' moment. We the People don't actually give a flying f*ck about it. The actual error played in the news as a slur on the troops. It didn't really hold up as that though, because it wasn't. (Truth can be a fairly good defense you know.) That can be countered with truth from the record, if anyone even remembers this in a couple of months.

The blogs cared, for a couple of days, because they were/are hyper-aware politicos. Some people on the blogs still care because they believe they sound smarter if they can sound like journalists or consultants and stroke their chins thoughtfully and say, "why yes, that was a deal-breaker. Off with their heads."

Ah, the whole lot of 'em can bite me and nobody really knows anything.

[ProSense]

7. Frankly, I believe three things are at play here:

The pundits really want to protect the status quo; the insiders don't like Kerry's position on the war; and some are selling the candidates least likely to rock the boat. IMO, they both would lose to the Repubs!

THE NEXT CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Is America too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells
Sunday, November 12, 2006; Page B01

The 2006 elections were for the technocrats and the operatives, pitting the Democratic tacticians against the Karl Rove machine. But the next election is already beginning to look quite different: 2008 may be one for the novelists.

Viewers of the election returns late on Tuesday, after all, got an early start on the iconography of the next presidential race. The cable networks' cameras cut between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanking her supporters for an overwhelming victory in the New York Senate race, her husband standing pointedly behind, and a smiling Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, giving cautious, professorial analysis to the television viewers. Nobody noted the significance, but it stared us all in the face: The two presumed leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are a woman and an African American.

Snip...

Obama is frequently called post-racial, the suggestion being that because he has an exotic background, Americans are looking at a newer model of a human. The metaphor works for Obama politically, because it contains the idea that his youth lets him create a more modern and inclusive brand of politics than the rhetoric of civil rights-era politicians such as Jesse Jackson. Clinton's Jesse Jacksons are Ferraro, who bombed, and Pelosi, who is still hanging around.

Snip...

Fredrick Harris, a political scientist at the University of Rochester, sees a post-gender future out there, and its name is Condoleezza Rice. The secretary of state, he notes, "is unmarried, has no children, is completely dedicated to her job, for pleasure she plays the piano and works and that's about it."

Clinton has made different choices, but they have their limits. Politically, she has done everything that Obama has done: She has become a serious policy professional, moved toward the center and renounced the excesses of 1960s-style identity politics. And yet these moves are received as the tacks of a smart politician. For Obama, they are received as the arrival of his race.

link

Emphasis added: What an odd statement!

[Democrafty]

9. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Because, honestly, I think Shapiro has already been proven wrong - the "joke" didn't jeopardize Democratic congressional gains.

It did, however, create a media frenzy that allowed lots and lots of people to (re-)question JK's campaigning abilities. Fair enough. We'll have to deal with a lot of that, for as long as JK is in politics.

I'm interested to see your letter, though :)

[whometense]

10. Thanks.

Let me know if it's too over the top. I tried for restraint.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/13/feingold/permalink/aba4bbd2209dbe5857e2d357e2e21124.html

[ProSense]

12. Terrific letter! n/t

[whometense]

14. Thanks -

I'm waiting now for the pile-on. ;-) But Salon is a fairly civilized place, so we'll see.

[beachmom]

15. Great letter, that very well could change some minds. n/t

[whometense]

16. Thanks!

I find it really difficult to write these things - it's hard to know how they'll look to a reader's eyes. Above all, I don't want people to come away thinking that Kerry supporters are obnoxious.

Come to think of it, since I've had my Kerry bumper sticker on my car I've driven like much less of a Masshole. :D

[MBS]

22. terrific letter!

You pitched it just right, especially for the Salon crowd.

[Island Blue]

29. Perfect letter Whome!

I hope people will read it and stop and think about what's really going on here.

[TayTay]

11. Even that is silly

And a tempest in a teapot.

We don't like politicians cuz they are too slick
Except when they screw up a joke and that proves they are not slick at all. (We do like slick.)
We would like you to be informal, have beers with us and be a 'regular guy'
BTW, you are a US Senator, you live on a rarified plain. You can't be a 'regular guy'. (What were you thinking. We told you already, you don't get to joke about anything. You are aloof and reserved and ahm, won't lend us money. So, there.)

And remember, we want you to be 'real' and come across as human. Except if you commit a human error. In that case, forget the whole thing, we want the perfect. With beers, of course.


Sigh!

[whometense]

13. Now you've done it!

:rofl:

Perfect!!!!!!

[Democrafty]

18. For me, this is the hardest part -

trying to get people un-fascinated with personality and campaign style, and interested in policy. It is a hurdle.

Do you ever feel like the media's chief role in modern life is to distract us from everything that's important by convincing us that a bunch of insignificant shit is a pressing problem?

[wisteria]

32. Exactly, if something is to be made out of nothing than anything will do.

IMO, some insiders took notice right before the elections and didn't like the idea that he was gaining ground, what better way to take him down a notch or two than finding fault with him,one way or another. He could of just as easily been accused of being too harsh on Bush ridiculing him and giving the enemy cause to rally. Finding fault or finding an "outrage" is easy enough to do because we are all human and make mistakes. In other words, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.They were out looking to nail him on something. The interesting thing is, they virtually had to redefine what he said and sell it that way in order to gain traction. If someone sets out to smear you and they have no moral compass, then anything goes and everyone is just as vulnerable.

[karynnj]

17. I wrote a letter

Dear Walter Shapiro;
Having read your reports of 2004, I was really disappointed in your comment that John Kerry “should also consign himself to the sidelines after his maladroit Iraq "joke" right before the midterm elections jeopardized Democratic congressional gains.” John Kerry, in pushing the issue of Iraq when others in the party felt speaking of it could hurt our chances, in motivating people to stay involved and to participate after the loss in 2004, in campaigning and defending veterans who were attacked and in raising large amounts of money, was likely more responsible for the gains made in 2006 than many of his future opponents.

Going into the last weeks of an election where the Republicans’ internal polling had to show how much Iraq was hurting them, it was predictable that they would try to hit the Democrats on not supporting the troops or being for the terrorists – and John Kerry was the strongest opponent. Notice that many talking heads are using words said first by him in April – “that only a deadline will push the Iraqis to stand up for themselves” or that “we need to tell the Iraqis we will not stay forever”. The chaos of the civil war is what as moved them, but it was Kerry who first demanded we take that step in his NYT op-ed in early April.

If you ever listen to hate radio, you will have heard many quotes from Democrats taken out of context or twisted. The fact is had John Kerry been letter perfect in his joke delivery, they would have taken some comment out of the hundreds of hours that he has spoken that suggested the US couldn’t win and played it with a repeated inaccurate charge. The fact is that Kerry’s joke even as stated did NOT say that everyone in the military is dumb – no matter how many politicians opt to say so. At worse it can be interpreted that if they failed at school, there would be so few opportunities – that joining the service might be the only option.

As it was, when it became an issue, Senator Kerry within hours said it was a botched joke. The joke, as intended, was in the prepared remarks given to the media at the appearance. It was a joke he had successfully told before to college students. He started, in terms that sound like school - you study, prepare, are smart etc and do well- If you don’t – he shifts frames to the political world – and refers to the consequences of not having prepared on Iraq. It was a sophisticated joke that said the same thing he said in 2004 – Bush did not do sufficient planning for the war. He should have stuck with what he said in 2004.

This was an orchestrated smear following the pattern that was established in 2004. Matt Drudge picked up the story early Tuesday morning and by noon every RW talk show person and many politicians all were saying the same thing – Kerry said the troops were stupid. Kerry had his explanation out quickly and in fact he had not said that the troops were stupid. The media and even some Democrats joined in the chorus – even as it was clear what this was a desperate Republican ploy to damage the Democrats. In fact, the people who made up their minds in the last few days before the election went to the Democrats had a higher rate than those who chose earlier.

John Kerry’s respect for veterans and the work he has done in support of them since 1970 is well documented. In a “This Week” appearance a few weeks before this joke, Kerry was asked about the fact that so many Republicans seemed to be moving towards his view on Iraq and that they would likely change the course after the election. This same question was asked of many Democrats – Kerry was the only one to say that if they thought that they shouldn’t wait until after the election. That attitude supports the troops not the attitude of those who feel that more priority has to be given to the election calendar. This story did lead to one vet whose twin died in Afghanistan telling a story about Senator Kerry that likely would otherwise not have been told. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/31/175122/71)



So, should every politician who mangled a joke go to the sidelines. If so, what about those who deliberately tell a cruel joke about a 13 year old girl as McCain did or who tell a joke that denigrates an esteemed leader such as Hillary’s joke that “Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis”. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/ ) In the case of John Kerry, the problem was not the joke – that would have likely gone unnoticed by anyone else – but a smear that took a flubbed joke and turned it into two lies – that Kerry said those in the military were stupid and that John Kerry does not support the troops. Eliminating John Kerry for this is giving power to the smearers.

[whometense]

19. great letter!!!

I love it.

[karynnj]

21. I posted it -

Though I now wish I took out the Hillary line

[ProSense]

20. Excellent! n/t

[MBS]

23. great letter and I loved the headline

in bold:
"KERRY IS A SERIOUS CANDIDATE"
Well, exactly.

[karynnj]

31. After I posted it - I realized the better title would have been

Either "So, you want the smears to win?" because I don't really defend why Kerry is a serious candidate - but letting the smear knock out a serious candidate does what the country's reaction didn't do. It encourages more smearing.

If smears affect only the one smeared - like in 2004, it leads to more of them and leads to some who have not done this saying it's the smart thing to do. In 2006, it looked like it didn't help the smearers - but if it knocks out Kerry, they did gain one objective.

[whometense]

33. Your letter is an Editor's Choice!!

Congratulations!!!!!!!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:

[karynnj]

35. I never had that happen before anywhere

It also means the editor must agree to some degree

[ProSense]

36. OMG!

Your letter showed up on Google!

Newest First Oldest First
Salon - 2 hours ago
... Having read your reports of 2004, I was really disappointed in your comment that John Kerry “should also consign himself to the sidelines after his maladroit ...

Cool!

[ProSense]

34. Awesome!

Bravo Karyn!

[beachmom]

42. What a fantastic letter, Karynnj, and congrats for making the

editor's choice list. I am in awe at your untiring ability to defend Kerry even after a grueling emotionally charged election season. I'm still resting, and just enjoying reading everyone's opinions and links, as well as Kerry's speech on education. Meanwhile, you're still able to put together a most excellent defense that must have had an impression on Mr. Shapiro. Wow, Senator Kerry is lucky to have you on his side!

[karynnj]

44. You've done more of this than anyone

You have sustained a long term dedicated defense with Sullivan and you actually, in person, took on your local newspaper editor.

I think that what this group has done is pushed many of us to do what we had never done before. By having the arguments and sources here, we found that we could advocate effectively on DU. Then, we have pushed each other on. One thing I see, is that as we disscuss the issues here - we distill the arguments that can be made. We also can freely steal each other's best points. I know I was self conscious about writing letters to the editor.

This group has:
-identified where responses are needed
-posted all known facts
-posted each of our letters
-encouraged each other that what we were doing mattered
-heard from the Boston 12 that what we are doing was appreciated

I think Senator Kerry is lucky to have all of us on his side, but he has also repeatedly shown he deserves the support by being the person he is. I don't think it an accident that our group is unique. We know Kerry's positions, biography, and actions and our support is based on that - not on a one dimensional perspective. We aren't here because "he has good hair and a nice smile", or "he's from the right area of the country" or "he's not (list of others). We have become CSPAN addicts,reading the congressional record. Even if Senator Kerry opts not to run or runs and loses, I will be proud to have stood up for the best man we have had in government in my lifetime.

[sandnsea]

24. Ultimately, it's a rationalization

by people who never did want him to run in the first place. I think maybe remembering that would help keep these kinds of remarks in perspective. If it weren't the 'joke', it'd be something else.

What that indicates is that we've got to figure out a way to win these people over. I wish somebody on 'the inside' would explain what the hell it is that so many Democrats and journalists have against him. I've read too many antecdotes from folks who attended Kerry events who found him to not be what the media reported at all. So why does the media keep doing this? I still say he hasn't changed a bit, he's just gotten angrier as things have gotten worse in Iraq and the country. That's a natural response, not a 'reinvention'. I don't want a reinvented Kerry, the original was the Real Deal, and still is. The problem is how to get the media and the Democratic Party to respect that, or at least figure out why they won't.

[MBS]

25. some journalist on a talking-head show

said (admitted) that McCain was popular with the press because he was available to them 24/7. Maybe there was some incident where they felt brushed off years ago, and they're still annoyed. . or maybe he didn't give them enough candy on the press bus. .maybe they want nicknames?? I bet it's something juvenile.

[sandnsea]

27. He's not grandiose??

Yeah, that might be it exactly. The press seems a bit grandiose themselves, maybe you have to be to consider yourself qualified to go head to head with world leaders. Kerry isn't and they don't know what to do with him.

[MBS]

28. another theory I've heard, from a DC -based editor,

is that journalists loved W. because they knew they were smarter than he was and they could condescend to him; and they were uneasy around Kerry because he's too smart for them, because they couldn't condescend to him. Plus there's the power-tropism disease, especially prevalent in the Beltway: that people tend to defend and promote anyone they think has power over them and their career. Looking out for career interests (pleasing corporate owners, retaining access to the White House at all costs, following the money: their own) has really warped political reporting , especially over the last 6 years.

[sandnsea]

30. That's interesting

They feel inferior so they make him irrelevant, and once he's irrelevant, they don't have to cater to him because he'll never hold any power over their careers. Self-fulfilling, whether intentional or not. Sort of a - haha, I'll show you.

Maybe he needs to take some Nancy Pelosi lessons on behind the scenes power plays. :)

[wisteria]

37. I am not a member, but what I read gives me reason to think he is

just talking the talk of the gossip class and not really giving it much thought. Frankly, I think Kerry has faired fairly well from this- minus the wishful thinkers- who have other motives for wishing him out of the race. I would hope kerry will ignore another pundit that really hasn't put this "joke" into perspective yet and do what he wants to do.
Actually, as it stands now, who is going to be able to take on Hillary on a intelligent and experience level other than Kerry. It seems the Hill camp are trying to smear and strong arm everyone out of the way for her. Someone needs to do this. if she get the nomination, she will lose and take our majority in both houses with her.

[MBS]

38. there was a chilling article recently about

Hillary's chief political person, Larry (??). Wolfson, and his Rovian M.O. He's really into slash-and-burn negative campaigning, focusing on opponents' personality and "character", rather than issues. He's the one who dragged the Gillibrand campaign (NY) into the mud. I think this was in the NY Times, this fall. I think people are fed up with this s______ God knows I am.
I agree completely with your prediction (that she couldn't win the general election , and will drag down Congressional democrats with her).

[ProSense]

39. Thinking about all

the praise Hillary articles. They're celebrating her big win over a replacement no- chance-in-hell Republican. Casey over Santorum, now there was coup!

Imagine what the post-election landscape would have looked like without the smear and pile on! Kerry's momentum wouldn't have been interrupted and the contrast would have been Kerry to Clinton.

[karynnj]

41. That was why they kept setting the bar so low

to doing better than the first time or breaking 65%. Now they are pointing to the fact that she got only 2% lower than Spitzer, the most popular Democrat in the state. This ignores that Spitzer's opponent was far more credible than Hillary's. Hillary's opponent lost election was also obnoxious.

I'm not sure thay would have given Kerry the credit due. Dean, Rahm and Schumer had the official positions. It would have been better though. It was a really bad break and the media and Hillary personally took advantage of it. Time will tell though, I was impressed with how Kerry handled it in the SC video and the warmth of even his initial greeting at that event. These were Southern, mostly women, and I think from the video mostly white people who were education professionals. Their reaction as he spoke was incredible.

Though it's unfair, as a woman, Hillary risks being labelled a "bitch" for doing the same things a man could get away with. Her manner which has sometimes been impatient and curt and her shrill voice already suggest this. This adds an example of not being very nice. All the CW that you need to "like" the President may be put to the test.

[MBS]

46. correction: it's HOWARD Wolfson n/t

[Mass]

40. Congratulations to all those of you who answered.

Karynnj, whometense (the two I have been able to identify), those were two great letters. I liked the two of three other ones defending Kerry too, but I was not able to know if the authors are from here or not. So, if it is somebody from here, great job too.

[whometense]

43. Thanks, Mass -

Those other two letters were great!!!! And, note to Tay, one of them even said, and I quote, "Bite me." :rofl:

It's really encouraging to see there are others who can see straight.

[karynnj]

45. Thanks, Mass and Whome for posting it in the first place

I doubt the others are us - I think Ginny and Little Clarkie are our only WI people.