Repairing Kerry's image--travel to Iraq

[politicasista]

From kerrygoddess' blogpost at The Democratic Daily.

I know the Herald is a right wing rag, but the columnist brings up a way for Kerry to mend the fences with the troops and millitary familes.

Kerry, be like Ike and repair image: Trip to Iraq would be in order
By Wayne Woodlief
Boston Herald Columnist
Friday, November 17, 2006

Dwight Eisenhower’s pledge to “go to Korea” and find a way to end the war there worked wonders for his presidential campaign in 1952.

So now Sen. John F. Kerry ought to go to Iraq. Kerry’s no Eisenhower. Who is? But taking a leaf from that old warrior’s playbook may be Long Jawn’s best hope to recover from his horrific botched joke that angered many of our troops in Iraq, gave the White House a free shot to clobber Kerry and endangered his hopes for 2008.

It wouldn’t be a gimmick for Kerry to make his fourth fact-finding trip to Iraq. He is in line to be third-ranking member of the new Democratic majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It would behoove him, the committee and the nation to check out the situation now as both parties seek an honorable way out of the Iraq bloodbath.

And while he is in Iraq, he has to visit the troops. Face them man to men and women. Take the heat. Maybe even meet with those soldiers who held a huge sign reading: “Halp us Jon Carry - We R stuck hear N Irak” - a delightful spoof on Kerry’s words that were interpreted as saying that if you’re not too smart, you “get stuck in Iraq.”

That photo got prominent play. By seeing those Minnesota national guardsmen, Kerry could show he can take a joke. He can re-apologize for his comments as they look him in the eye. And if I were him, I’d say:

“I lashed out too early at my rivals and apologized too late to you. I made a joke I meant to direct at an administration I believe has let you down in many ways. I would never demean you. I fought a war and know how it feels not to be fully supported in the field. But when I felt others were distorting my words, I let my anger get the best of me.

“I got mad because many of those same people in 2004 also distorted my Navy record in Vietnam. I did not respond readily enough then to set the record straight. This time, I over-compensated and did not at first focus on you.

“I want to apologize to you again now, to tell you I believe this is one of the smartest fighting forces we have ever fielded, forces who must engage a relentless enemy in psychological warfare as well as in arms. I want to tell those guys who dreamed up that sign that they are especially clever. And to tell all our fighting men and women in Iraq that I will never stop fighting to give you the support you have earned.”

The senator could tell them he led the way for passage in the Senate this week of an additional $18 million for more readjustment counseling and outreach services by the Veterans Administration for combat vets. He could remind them of what they already know but many here need to hear. As he said on the Senate floor, “Many wounds of war are not visible.”

Kerry was badly wounded for Campaign ’08 by the political firestorm over his failed attempt at sarcasm against President Bush. He had to shut down a swing around the country to help Democratic candidates as the final week of the congressional elections began. Kerry’s show went dark while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other potential rivals for 2008 hit the road, building up chits.

Yet the damage need not be fatal. Before his gaffe, Kerry had helped raise over $11 million, stumped for candidates in more than 40 states and - according to Kerry’s Web site - had Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the Democratic Congressional Committee chair, say of him: “Give me five more John Kerrys. He’s a fighter.” And the National Journal’s 2006 election scorecard for potential Democratic presidential contenders showed Kerry’s 58-23 won-lost record on candidates he stumped for was third best - behind only Barack Obama’s 37-9 and Edwards’ 44-18.

So Kerry still can recover if he does something dramatic about his gaffe. So go to Iraq, John. Go to Iraq.

http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=167714

Thoughts?

[rox63]

1. Suprisingly JK-positive article, considering it's from the Herald n/t

[karynnj]

2. I agree -

the win loss analysis needs a little more sophistication. You win if you primarilly go where you are not needed. The question should be are their people who were iffy that you likely helped win. (Also with Webb - if Kerry made the difference in him winning the primary - that is more than just stumping over there.)

I hope Kerry does NOT go to Iraq - he saw that it was in a civil war early this year - he already understands what is happenning - the ones who need to go are those who still speak of it as less chaotic than that. Hillary is on the Armed Serices Committee - and she doesn't seem to have a clear opinion. Ithink she needs on.

I think Kerry can do something with the veterans here.

[beachmom]

4. Well, if it's time for him to go again, then he should

However, didn't he just go this summer? I'm not sure it's time yet for that (it is a large burden on our troops for VIPs to visit), but if it is, then, of course, he should go (quietly, like the other times). I have a feeling they'll josh him about it, but I have serious doubts how pissed they really were. They've got bigger fish to fry than a botched joke.

I just read in Time magazine that members of the Baker commission went to Baghdad in September and were really shaken by the experience -- they never plan to go again (the plane and helicopter ride alone is terrifying because it's done to evade attacks). OTOH, as a member of the U.S. Senate and one who did vote yes to the IWR, Senator Kerry SHOULD go to Iraq periodically -- I really think given the law of averages, nothing will happen to him since he would only travel by air, not on the ground where all the IEDs are. I also know of people there, living only in the FOBs (Forward Operating Bases), who really are in very little danger. It's more the people driving the trucks and doing the patrols who are in GRAVE danger.

[karynnj]

5. I have a problem with the "IWR" comment

Kerry was NEVER for going to war.

I also don't think any Senator should go there almost as a punishment. My point was that I think Kerry understands fully the situation - and has been speaking to the reality. Although I agree that if it is time that he should go again it would be the right thing to do.

The troops have far bigger problems than a political flap over a comment - if he went, I would hope their goal would be to convey to Kerry - as to any Senator- what they see on the ground. The idea of Kerry using Iraq as a photo opt to recover from a joke is sick - I would hope Kerry values the soldiers too much to do this.

[ProSense]

6. Exactly!

Also, this is simply more of the "Kerry is damaged" meme? What the hell do they know?

Kerry was badly wounded for Campaign ’08 by the political firestorm over his failed attempt at sarcasm against President Bush. He had to shut down a swing around the country to help Democratic candidates as the final week of the congressional elections began. Kerry’s show went dark while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other potential rivals for 2008 hit the road, building up chits.

Seems to me Wal-Mart gunning for Edwards is a bigger problem, and still smear!

What do the polls show? The same nonsense, Clinton ahead, Edwards a couple of points above Kerry, and the Republicans win:









Then there is this completely unrealistic result:



But look at April v. November. It's all the same crap and it's all spin!

[beachmom]

7. He has said it himself that he bears some responsibility for

what happened. I agree with you completely that he never "voted for the war", but he did vote yes to the IWR, and whether we like it or not, that puts more on him than, say, Feingold. I don't feel I'm out of line for talking honestly about that vote, and how he himself feels about it (remember, he said it was the worst vote of his entire Senate career). Anyway, I actually don't think we have a quarrel here -- that's why I specifically said "Yes to the IWR" instead of "voted for the war".

I completely agree that he shouldn't go there as "punishment" -- which really would amount to politics, a HORRIBLE reason to go there. It would be unfair to the troops for him to do that. He'll go when it is necessary.

Anyway, I hope that explains my original comment better.

[karynnj]

8. I see what you are saying - and agree for the most part

I think the IWR vote DID give Bush the ability to say it was bi-partisan - so in that way the vote was wrong and put Kerry's name on an action he would never have agreed to. I do think that the war would have occurred regardless, but it's clear that Kerry will always regret that vote.

[beachmom]

10. Completely agree that Bush would have waged war no matter what

And, really, that's how I argue the point of the IWR vote on GD or dKos. But I don't think I would be honest if I said Kerry beared NO responsibility, and I don't think he would agree with that either.

Call me crazy, but I prefer somebody anti-war who played some part, however small, in bringing it about. That means they will work their heart out in ending it. In contrast, the "No" people can kind of put their hands up saying "well, that's not my problem". You can sense that already -- like, for example, Obama. He won't favor a timetable for withdrawal, calling that irresponsible, yet if you press his supporters on that, they answer "well, he was against the war from the start", as if that erases the fact that he favors the troops to stay there longer causing more to die. I think Al Gore also is against getting the troops out right away.
Something to consider for these anti-war people.

[ProSense]

3. It's as positive as BoHerd could be, I guess. This is pretty funny though:

That photo got prominent play. By seeing those Minnesota national guardsmen, Kerry could show he can take a joke. He can re-apologize for his comments as they look him in the eye. And if I were him, I’d say:

“I lashed out too early at my rivals and apologized too late to you. I made a joke I meant to direct at an administration I believe has let you down in many ways. I would never demean you. I fought a war and know how it feels not to be fully supported in the field. But when I felt others were distorting my words, I let my anger get the best of me.

“I got mad because many of those same people in 2004 also distorted my Navy record in Vietnam. I did not respond readily enough then to set the record straight. This time, I over-compensated and did not at first focus on you.

[sandnsea]

9. This might well be beneficial

To go directly to the troops and skip the pretense of 'fact-finding' because he doesn't *need* to go back over there for that, right now. It would definitely be taken that way.

Then again, once he apologizes directly to the troops like that, it will just be spun that he must have meant the joke was directed at the troops, otherwise why would he apologize. There's some underlying reason the guy can't catch a break. It's like people just love to hate him, I honestly have never seen anything like it.

[TayTay]

11. He should do it because it's not about him, it's about the troops

Oct 26, 2005, Georgetown University

Senator John Kerry "The Path Forward" Georgetown University October 26, 2005 As prepared for delivery

A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from the plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.

******************

The good and true Senator from Massachusetts voted for that IWR. He hoped that it would be different. I truly do believe he voted with the hopes that Colin Powell and others that he had successfully worked with in the past would do the right thing. They didn't. I do not believe that John Kerry voted for the war, I believe he voted to get the weapons inspectors in and so forth. But the Administration went to war without regard to advice, common sense or a plan. This is Bush's war, not Kerry's.

However, the highest responsibility of any Member of Congress is that vote that sends people into harm's way. It can be explained, it can't be expunged. We can only go forward.

Since that October 2005 speech, the following constituents of the Senators have died in Iraq. (One of them is from my town, btw.):

10/17/2006 Booth, Joshua L.
10/4/2006 Garvin, Edward M.
9/19/2006 Raymond, Jared J.
9/4/2006 Valdepenas, Eric P.
8/26/2006 Zayas, Edgardo
7/18/2006 Cayer, Geofrey R.
6/25/2006 King, Paul N.
6/16/2006 Babineau, David J.
5/31/2006 Mejia, Benjamin E.
4/26/2006 Ford, Michael L.
4/22/2006 Bouthot, Michael E.
4/2/2006 Procopio, Scott J.
11/15/2005 Schiavoni, Nickolas David
11/11/2005 Fisher II, Donald E.

Senator Kerry should go to Iraq because his constituents are there. The families that voted for him and call his office and ask him about Iraq deserve to have a Senator who really knows what is going on over there. The political consequences are of no concern to those families. The only concern on their minds is their loved one in harm's way. It is the proper job of a US Senator to care about that. Anything else is cheap and disgusting.

Senator Kerry has called this war immoral. That is what he should look the troops in the eye and talk about, not some silly joke. He should talk about all he has done to make sure that every single person in Iraq is there with the proper armor, a mission plan and a hope of getting back home alive. That is the proper role of a US Senator. The rest be damned.

[beachmom]

12. Beautifully said, Tay.

But . . . the Green Zone is not Iraq. And I worry if bringing in VIPs is a problem for the troops. Does going there really give a person an idea of what's going on if they're going by helicoptor, and only to fairly safe places (relatively speaking, of course)? I think if there's a way he can specifically go see Mass. troops and it's not an inconvenience, then he should. But if it's just going to go, he shouldn't. Not sure if you were able to see that BBC film I posted yesterday, but a senator absolutely cannot go to the REAL Iraq -- way too dangerous. And that makes me wonder if it's worth it unless it's a once a year or twice a year thing. I guess the bases in the dessert are probably safe to go to. I'm just thinking out loud here -- it's just Iraq is literally hell on Earth where a foreigner can be kidnapped in a matter of seconds -- not sure why he should go there to the Green Zone when he won't really be able to go to the real country. Perhaps it's better to go to Kuwait to see some of the Mass. troops?

[TayTay]

13. I couldn't agree more

You don't make a mockery of the sacrifice of all those families by using Iraq as a backdrop to reset a political wound. I don't believe that Sen. Kerry would ever do that, I think this issue touches him too deeply to ever do that.

If the Senator can go to Iraq or Kurdistan and not endanger anyone, then go. IF it is not safe for him and for any military personnel who would have to take extraordinary means to protect him, then he should not go. He should stay in Washington and pass the rest of his Military Families Bill of Rights.

That would be honorable in both intent and in action. I am deeply disturbed at the suggestion that you do anything with the troops that isn't about the troops and their families. Sen. Kerry has always held them in his thoughts and I expect that he would continue to do so. I cannot imagine that he would even consider using Iraq or people in harm's way as a prop for personnal gain. That is dishonorable to him and to the troops and the people who love and worry about them.

[ProSense]

14. Kerry goes to Iraq,

and trust me they'll spin it as a photo op!

[beachmom]

15. He should only go (plus what I said upthread) when the proper

interval has gone by to go again. And he should keep it QUIET. Because as Tay said, it's not about him, it's about the troops.

And, of course, Kerry is not a cold SOB like Bush is, who can't get enough of using the troops as a backdrop for his propaganda.

[ProSense]

17. Agree, he should go if he decides to!

A Kerry visit, or any Senator's visit to Iraq, is about policy. If it's not a fact finding trip, what's the purpose other than a Bush with turkey in hand photo op?

The troops are fighting for their lives. When Rumsfeld was fired, some said they had never heard of him!

[kerrygoddess]

26. I didn't get

that the writer suggested a media circus. He suggested talking to the troops while there on a fact finding mission. Something JK has done when he has gone there in the past and oh, yes there have been photos, because he's JK and the media does pay attention.

I guess I'm not so cynical because I see JK getting that this needs to be done. I also see this OP/ED coming from somewhere other than the snarky Herald.

I posted the OP/ED because a couple of readers who don't come here, emailed me and expressed they felt it was heartfelt although published in the Herald. I read it and agreed.

Ultimately he and his political team will do what they think is best.

I spent Veteran's day at a service for a Vietnam Vet who passed away before the election. One friend in the Guard got irate with me about JK's 'joke.' This misconception is out there with some of these guys and it strong. It needs to be countered.

[ProSense]

31. That's interesting

There are a lot of Vets who got it! You mention misconception, which is exactly what the media is promoting by harping on this distortion. Anyone, who gets the full story will know this is a distortion. This is a media character assassination! The media is completely in the wrong, but trying to project that it's Kerry who did something wrong and needs to "repair his image." If the media is so interested in repairing Kerry's image, they can stop distorting what happened and start telling the truth! This story would be over in a day!

[mloutre]

16. it's not a JK-positive article at all, y'all

It's a snarky little reverse-psychology zinger piece meant to underscore the false interpretation of his words, repeat the dubious arguments against him, cite the supposed damage it did to his '08 chances, emphasize the alleged need for him to make some kind of public atonement, etc. etc.

In other words, it's bullshit.

Senator Kerry doesn't need to go to Iraq again as some kind of bogus mea-culpa photo-op just because some bonehead media hack says he should. He's been there before for the right reasons, and if he goes there again it should and will be for the right reasons too.

[ProSense]

18. Exactly! Take a look at this little snip

buried in a NYT article:

On the Democratic side, the elections dealt a blow to John Kerry — his mangled joke about Bush’s intellect would have been, even had he delivered it perfectly, inexcusably smug — while perhaps opening the door further for Al Gore, whose defiant, antiwar fervor would seem well suited to the moment.

So now, even if deliver perfectly, the criticism would have been "inexcusably smug"? WTF? Did I miss all the nasty insults and low-life name calling by the GOP during the entire campaign?

It's all about the war and distortion. Gore wouldn't even support the timetable for withdrawal!

[politicasista]

19. It's still about the IWR

Gore didn't have to vote on the IWR, yet people here still use it as a litimus test and say he was against the war from the start. Lot of Gore threads have been popping up too. Go figure.

[ProSense]

20. The media assault has nothing to do with the IWR

It's about withdrawal!

[politicasista]

21. That's true

Yet, people give other candidates that didn't have to vote for it or haven't said much about withdrawal, or even mentioned election fraud or election reform are given free passes for being silent or neutral, while Kerry continues to be scrutinized for the joke and everything else.

I am with everyone that says that there is a double standard here against Kerry and it's really unfortunate that people pile on without knowing the facts.

[wisteria]

22. Because some pundit mentioned that Gore would really like to get in the race.

No comment from Gore though on this new development. My guess it is spin. The last I checked, Gore said he doesn' have any intention of running.

[kerrygoddess]

23. Funny - this discussion has come up

on the Dem Daily, DU and the JK Blog that JK should go to Iraq.

The Herald columnist actually has written some very favorable pieces about Dems in the past. I fail to see this as a "reverse-psychology zinger" when it points out that JK is the 3rd ranking member of the FR Committee, his recently passed legislation to help Vet's and all he did for Dems during the election.

JK has a lot repair work to do, we all know that. Going to Iraq on a fact finding mission, as the OP/ED writer states and meeting with the troops can only help. No reverse psych in that.

[Mass]

33. I agree. I am surprised at the way people react to this column.

It may be because the writer does note exonerate Kerry of all faults, but this is the Herald, people. For the Herald, this is a very positive editorial.

The writer is proposing something Kerry has done several times already (and he acknowledges it): going to Iraq and see how it is here. Last time he went was 10 months ago, so it is not stupid or pandering for him to go there and see how it is NOW.

I am at a loss, here, because I read the article and reacted like you. I know a lot of Kerry supporters here and there have said the same thing.

[ProSense]

34. The article isn't suggesting he go

to Iraq on a fact finding trip because he hasn't been there in 10 months. It's suggesting he go there to pander to the troops to "repair his image."

In fact, the analogy to Eisenhower is weird and snarky:

Dwight Eisenhower’s pledge to “go to Korea” and find a way to end the war there worked wonders for his presidential campaign in 1952.

So now Sen. John F. Kerry ought to go to Iraq. Kerry’s no Eisenhower. Who is? But taking a leaf from that old warrior’s playbook may be Long Jawn’s best hope to recover from his horrific botched joke that angered many of our troops in Iraq, gave the White House a free shot to clobber Kerry and endangered his hopes for 2008.

Not to mention the apology is bizarre!

[Mass]

35. For the Herald, it is as positive as it will get.

Compare to the column Vennochi posted this morning. I prefer this one by far, even if it is not perfect.

At this point, nobody is going to write a 100% positive article at Kerry. Find one who does and I will be happy. So, yes, I do not find this article that negative compared to all those which were written about him. The most negative articles he can have now are those who say he is finished, or who say people close to him think he is finished. This is not what this one does.

[kerrygoddess]

38. Yes he is actually -

"It wouldn’t be a gimmick for Kerry to make his fourth fact-finding trip to Iraq. He is in line to be third-ranking member of the new Democratic majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It would behoove him, the committee and the nation to check out the situation now as both parties seek an honorable way out of the Iraq bloodbath."

[kerrygoddess]

29. Here's a contrast

http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=167981

This from a Herald columnist who never says a good word about Dems or JK.

[MBS]

32. perfectly said. M. Loutre!

but I would expect nothing less from an aquatic animal, even a fresh-water one :)

[Firespirit]

24. I think it's an extremely bad idea, actually

The media flacks REALLY REALLY WANT to talk about the joke whenever they bring up Kerry, even though there is no indication whatsoever that anyone else wants to hear about it anymore. They are spinning ferociously to define his entire '08 run around the joke, rather than around the issues and the positions that he espouses. And I think there is a definite, sinister reason for it.

Who in their right mind would consider voting for a candidate whose candidacy was constantly associated with something so silly and unimportant, and whose actions underscored that as well?

'08 voters aren't going to be interested in that, and they won't give a rat's ass about a candidate whose every move is about "repairing his image from the botched joke." They'll vote for someone who offers solutions.

This is the Boston Herald, but I've noticed something. The overwhelming majority -- possibly the entirety -- of the MSM articles that still talk about the joke are from right-wing-biased outlets. On the blogs, this is called "concern trolling," pretending to espouse concern about your issue and pretending to offer friendly advice on how to avoid a catastrophe -- all the while psyching you out, and more often than not offering bad advice about a nonexistent (or minor) problem. It's nothing but a grand mind game when the blogosphere concern trolls do it, and I don't give it any more authority than that when the MSM does it.

Going to Iraq and talking with the troops this soon would give the MSM exactly what they want -- more grist for their little mill, more excuses to talk about the joke and use it to discredit Kerry.

He doesn't need to play their game. They are not his friends.

[kerrygoddess]

25. It's not playing anyone's game

As the OP/ED writer pointed out it worked for Eisenhower to go to Korea.

"Dwight Eisenhower’s pledge to “go to Korea” and find a way to end the war there worked wonders for his presidential campaign in 1952."

And also as pointed out it makes sense because he could/would be making it "his fourth fact-finding trip to Iraq." I could be reaching here, but after all the work he has done on the Iraq issue, he probably would have gone again during the summer recess, if it had not been for his commitment to campaign for Dem candidates. So, it makes sense he would now go again as the Dems renew the push on Iraq and as JK himself renews the push. And so this makes sense because JK is "in line to be third-ranking member of the new Democratic majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It would behoove him, the committee and the nation to check out the situation now as both parties seek an honorable way out of the Iraq bloodbath."

This is not snarky Jules Crittenden writing a pro-war piece, this OP/ED writer agrees we need to find an honorable way out of "the Iraq bloodbath." That is something JK is committed to, so why shouldn't he go to Iraq and while he is there why shouldn't he talk to the troops, as he has EVERY time he has gone in the past.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. The column was favorable, considering it was the Herald. The OP/ED noted the Senate passing JK's Vet's bill, what he's done for the Dem party, etc. So we should shoot the messenger because it's the Herald?

As someone who has spent the better part of 3 1/2 years deciphering news about JK, this piece was a good piece that was favorable. And it offered some advice that I would expect to hear from the likes of Thomas Oliphant as well if he were still writing for the Globe.

And I don't think the writer expects JK to jump on the next plane. It's called food for thought. I won't be surprised at all to find out that JK will make a trip to iraq after the first of the year. It makes sense given his other trips.

[fedupinBushcountry]

27. I'm with you 100%

And we don't need to go along with their game either.

I watched his speech that he gave in S.C., and I'm sure in that audience there were surely relatives of Iraq troops or veterans and maybe even veterans in the audience. That botched joke did not hurt his performance and the audience loved every bit of what he was saying.

Another thing, when it happened the JK blog was invaded by trolls for 2 days, and then nothing. Nobody can tell me that they were not sent by the RW hacks, because before that they knew nothing of the JK blog and anyone who said they were a Democrat, was either lying or out to damage JK because they are for someone else in '08.

I saw the same pattern back in '03 and '04 and it really pisses me off. I also believe that any Democrat that disparaged him owes him a BIG apology. Oh and by the way Bill Clinton did not help Ford either nor did Obama, why are they not questioned if they helped or hurt his chances?

I think the sooner we let this drop the better, I trust JK to handle it in his own way.

[kerrygoddess]

28. Unfortunately

my server is down right now for maintainence, so my points made about why JK should go to Iraq and what's done can't be pulled up. There was a basis for posting the OP/ED that I prefaced but PS didn't post that or the link to it.

Oh well.

I brought this up in another comment here. At my friend's memorial service on Veteran's Day I was talking to friends at the Chapel about Iraq. One friend is a Marine who is in the Guard. He's 48 and has been called up once and due to go back. He brought up the election and that the Dems needed to call for a summit. Knowing he was a Dem who voted for JK I said yes, like Kerry has suggested. he went off on me about the 'joke.' When we finally talked later I think he got it, when I explained, but his suggestion was that JK should go to Iraq and talk to the troops. What they hear is not what we do. Most everyone at the service I was at was a Vietnam Vet and a Dem, my friend was not the only one who brought it up. It was unpleasent at best. The other resounding thought that day among everyone was no Hillary, so it wasn't about people wanting Hillary over JK. Honestly I was shocked and so were the people I was drove with.

Sure a lot of people get what this is about. My Republican brother in law gets it. But for those who don't, a visit to Iraq to scope the situation on the Ground and talk to the troops, as he has in the past might be of help.

I try to look at things objectively, and if someone makes a point that I may not agree with, because I am biased towards JK, it helps me to understand what drives them to think that way. Isn't that what part of this is about. Understanding what makes voters tick and choose a certain candidate. If there is a group of voters that needs to be wooed, don't politicians try to woo them? Or should they just ignore them because they don't get a joke?

I trust JK to handle this in his own way too. I see no harm in him going to Iraq and talking to the troops at some point. He probably would have gone to Iraq if this hadn't happened. He should not let this stand in the way of going again. That's the point.

[mloutre]

36. I agree with your conclusion completely, KG

"I trust JK to handle this in his own way too. I see no harm in him going to Iraq and talking to the troops at some point. He probably would have gone to Iraq if this hadn't happened. He should not let this stand in the way of going again. That's the point."

Yes. There's no harm in it, in fact there's plenty of good in it, and he probably would have, and he most probably still will. For his own reasons, in his own time, and in his own way. He won't be going there for the sake of a gratuitous photo op.

But my point earlier wasn't about whether or not the Senator should go to Iraq again, or about whether or not he should address the misunderstanding of his 'botched joke' while he's there. It was about whether or not the article cited in the threader was a thinly-disguised snark in sheep's clothing.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a hatchet job intended to remind people about non-issues that should already have dropped off their radar. Fluff up the fake firestorm again, exaggerate the damage to JK's image, claim to offer advice so that "the damage need not be fatal," and oh by the way, let's don't forget to quote in full that insulting sign just in case any of the readers hadn't heard about it the first time.

Firespirit is spot on with the comparison to "concern trolling" -- that's what this article's all about. It's using a valid suggestion, one that's been made elsewhere in much more positive terms, as an excuse to trot out a whole laundry list of the Senator's supposed faults & problems so as to keep the audience's negative images alive and kicking.

Imho, this is one instance where it's actually more appropriate to shoot the messenger, not the message.

But that's just my $.02, of course. YMMV.

[kerrygoddess]

39. Just because the Herald

is known for not being flattering to JK and Dems does not mean they are not capable of writing pieces that are.

Woodlief cited many good points that are true about JK and it's not the first time he has done so. He's also written quite a few good pieces about other Dems.

You're taking the face value of the Herald and applying it to one piece and not looking at the fact that they have published JK's own OP/ED's and been favorable in some circumstances. I would suggest looking through the writer's previous works.

Woodlief honestly noted what we all know:

1) He is in line to be third-ranking member of the new Democratic majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

2) The senator could tell them he led the way for passage in the Senate this week of an additional $18 million for more readjustment counseling and outreach services by the Veterans Administration for combat vets. He could remind them of what they already know but many here need to hear. As he said on the Senate floor, “Many wounds of war are not visible.”

3) Kerry had helped raise over $11 million, stumped for candidates in more than 40 states and - according to Kerry’s Web site - had Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the Democratic Congressional Committee chair, say of him: “Give me five more John Kerrys. He’s a fighter.”

I'm sorry but I don't buy that every damn journalist is out to get JK and I sure as hell don't have a problem with giving a jounalist credit when they ever get a small portion of the truth right.

Finally, we all know damage was caused and why and that is also something that Woodlief notes. I get from this quote that he thought like we all did that it sucked that JK came off the trail while other '08 contender's continued to build up chits:

"He had to shut down a swing around the country to help Democratic candidates as the final week of the congressional elections began. Kerry’s show went dark while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other potential rivals for 2008 hit the road, building up chits.

Yet the damage need not be fatal."

If -- IF -- Woodlief didn't think JK had a shot and deserved a chance at '08 he would have said -- Kerry is done, not "the damage need not be fatal."

Good for him for saying what we all know there. Reverse psychology? No. Trolling? No. I know what trolls are - they take good things and twist them, I have plenty on my blog on a regular basis picking fights about JK says and does, and I get plenty of emails too.

After the "gaffe" I was quoted all over the right wing blogosphere for my defense of JK. I'm not afraid to put myself out there and actually answer right wing claims on my blog. That is something I see very little of from other Kerry supporters.

[ProSense]

30. I completely agree!

From Olbermann
http://video.johnkerry.com/video/flash/110106_countdown.html

to Maher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=113326&mesg_id=113326

That is the reality!

Posted this up thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=113695&mesg_id=113733

It all makes sense:

Bush and the White House needed to make a mountain out of a molehill -- and to muster the Swift Boat Kerry bashers -- because they have been swamped by bad news and reports of incompetence related to Iraq.

The NYT is for escalating the war:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2960279&mesg_id=2960279

It's the same reason they're going after Pelosi:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2976877&mesg_id=2976877

After that, where is the concern for repairing the image of slime:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2977026&mesg_id=2977026

They all need to go to hell!

[TayTay]

37. I would be horrified if Sen. Kerry went Iraq for image repair

And I would never vote for him again if he did so. There is a diffence between going to Iraq because you have a concern for the troops there and want to see what the situation is like. Sen. Kerry has gone to Iraq and to surrounding countries in order to dutifully fulfill his obligations as a US Senator. That is desirable, as long as it does not endanger him or the troops he is visiting. That is part of his job.

It would be about the troops, about the war and about this Nation's policies in that region. That is the legitimate duty of a United States Senator.

I heard Sen. Kerry say these words in Faneuil Hall on Sept 9th of this year:

It is immoral for old men to send young Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a strategy that can work -- on a mission that has not weakened terrorism but worsened it.

It is immoral to lie about progress in that war to get through a news cycle or an election.

It is immoral to treat 9/11 as a political pawn -- and to continue to excuse the invasion of Iraq by exploiting the 3,000 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who were lost that day. They were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=12

If it is immmoral to use 9/11 as a political pawn, is it not also reprehensible and immoral to treat American troops in a war zone, in harm's way for God's sake, as a political pawn. That would be, by the Senator's own definition, immoral.

I don't believe he would ever do anything more with that Herald article than wad it up and throw it in the trash. It is a disgusting suggestion. It dishonors the Senator's own stands on Iraq and it would, IMHO, dishonor the troops. I would never support someone who did that. And I believe I never have.