Interesting NYT article

[ProSense]

link.

I couldn't find an e-mail for the writer. If you want to write the the Public Editor:

[e-mail]

[MarjorieG]

1. Really feeds those mischaracterizations.

[ProSense]

2. Yeah,

somehow the poor Senator mischaracterizations don't mesh with the busy, worldly Senator referenced throughout the article.

[wisteria]

8. Yeah, makes me wonder if this isn't another effort to shake some of his supporters lose

by painting him as unpopular and distant. I met the man twice and did not come away with that impression at all. I think his unpopularity in the senate has more to do with his principles and unwillingness to do things a certain way just to be popular. He does have support though. This article makes it sound like he has no friends in the world.

[Democrafty]

3. Mark Liebovich is kind of a nut.

He's like the resident Swiftie of inside the beltway gossip - tries to nail the Kerrys any way he can, and just comes off looking creepy and weird. Google him, you'll see what I mean.

[Mass]

4. I did not find the article that bad.

A lot of truth: you do not see that many Senators rush to defend Kerry, I have no doubt Reid wanted Kerry to become another senator like the other ones, and he says clearly that he did not cry when he announced he was not running.

He also says that Kerry is still received like a star outside of DC, and I am sure that, if Leahy said what he said, some people will say that this shows Kerry is an elitist.

So, altogether, I do not find this article that bad. All it says is that Kerry is not popular inside the Beltway, and I did not need this article to know that.

[MarjorieG]

5. The whole of it is dour Lurch, which he isn't..

We knew Kerry was never a clubby guy, but this lonely guy characterization is not the person we've seen lately. Certainly makes him seem anti-social and elitist. Makes him seen not valued at all, when we are lucky we had as fine a representative of our party making it close. We can't always move from ideology in one election, and not with this misrepresented a candidate.

Makes the lack of support all because he is not valued, at all, not liked at all.

Really would like your take on why he did not receive more help on the trail, support when he returned, from an election many said exceeded expectations. Many not bothering to help on a losing proposition, because of war, incumbency, swift boats? How much was waiting for Hillary, and, seemingly, not getting Bill's call to help out.

[wisteria]

7. I agree with what you say. It was written in such a disapointing way

and it really did not clear up the "joke" issue. We know Kerry is happier and funnier that what this article portrays. The writer makes him seemed depressed.
What I did find interesting, is the part about Edwards.

[Mass]

9. I must be tired...

[karynnj]

14. I think that , dishonest as parts of them are, this article and the WP one,

are transition articles that will allow them to more fairly credit Kerry in the Senate.

I think that the media has a need to have a narrative on everything that makes sense. After Kerry lost in 2004, the narrative they wanted was that Bush prevailed because he appealed to America's idealism. Their almost uniform praise of his innaugeral address, which they compared to JFK's (clearly the most exceptional in my lifetime) was part of this.

Kerry was undeniably right on everything in 2004. If they also admitted that he is a very good person with a large circle of friends who have been at his side for over 35 years, how do you explain why he lost in a way that would make sense in a story. So, that the Levins, the Schumers, and the Reids don't want him as their buddy and that he has a sad face is their out.

I actually found the sentence that Reid admonished Kerry to take the place Reid wanted him to, to be jarring. Kerry was the titular head of the party and was selected to that by the people and he had very narrowly been defeated by Bush. Clearly he had earned a place as one of the party leaders - which is why outside the beltway, he is still a rock star.

Reid had just recently been picked as majority leader by the Senate almost because he was not super disliked by any faction and because he was in line for that position. Reid, is not and was not a rock star.

As to a dour demeanor - Reid looks and sounds whiny. We saw Kerry in early December, which had to be a low point (or near it). He could still smile easily and could still energize a crowd. He gave a speech at a SC educational association before that in the weeks after the joke - and he had that crowd 100% behind him. He was neither dour or sad faced - he even joked about telling jokes.

Because he is not dour when seen, this frame is unlikely to hold.

[sandnsea]

10. Oh man, that was awful

What, did you win the lottery and are on permanenty happy? :)

Funereal?? The only empathy the guy gets is from... McCain!! That was one of the worst hit pieces I've seen yet. So bad, you almost have to laugh at the extent the writer went to inflict pain.

[Mass]

11. I guess this is probably because I have little interest in what the DC elite thinks

in general.

He missed his goal with me. It just reinforced the idea that people in DC are idiots who only care about their ego.

[sandnsea]

12. I'm talking about the writer

The entire way he chose to put the article together. It didn't strike you as intentionally mean-spirited that the only real empathy given to JK comes from McCain?? That the whole thing is one caricature after another? The writer is such an ass that I don't trust anything he says the DC idiots say anyway. Waste of space all the way around.

[blm]

6. What the writer doesn't factor in is that Kerry was a pariah for many years because

of his determination to uncover the corruption of Reagan and Bush administrations, and it effected many people in the establishment powerstructure of BOTH parties.

It couldn't have been easy, especially when some reporters were turning up dead.

[beachmom]

13. Was this supposed to be a "news" article? Because it strikes

me as an op-ed piece fit for 6th grade consumption. And the letter by Sen. Byrd Mass posted is one big fat refutation of the entire article.

[MBS]

15. or you can just submit a LTE, too

[e-mail]


GOD, I'm sick of this. I agree with many others that a lot of this outrageously unfair treatment stems from JK not playing kiss-up games with the Beltway crowd (congressional and media elements alike)

[TayTay]

16. Look like a case for Media Matters to me

Riddle me this kiddies: When is a Senator a brave "maverick" willing to take on the entrenched power structure of his own party especially over Iraq? Answer: When that Senator is a Republican, like Chuck Hagel.

When is a Senator a "loner," shunned by his own part leadership and told to stop rocking the boat by the ruthless cabal in his own Party? Why when that Senator is a Democrat, of course.

The narrative of Hagel and Kerry couldn't be more different or more illustrative of how the press views Republicans versus Democrats.

Ah, they are doing the same thing. Kerry is probably experiencing some blowback for what he did last year in forcing the filibuster on Alito, forcing the vote on a withdrawal of American forces in Iraq (with Sen. Feingold) and on his very public criticism of DC Dem favorite, Joe Lieberman. (Remember, Kerry and Clark were the only two Dems to really come out and campaign for Lamont and were very vocal in calling Lieberman on his bullshit on Iraq. There were dozens of DC Dem Senators who either tepidly endorsed Lamont and did the least amount possible to help him or endorsed non-Democratic nominee for the CT Senate, Lieberman.)

This is payback for bucking the power structure. There were a lot of Dems who were furious with Kerry for making them take stands they would rather not have taken last year. The Dems wanted to run on domestic issues and on corruption. Kerry was warned in Jan 06 and in June 06 that he was really starting to piss off the other Dems who didn't want to tackle these issues because they were divisive and controversial. This is payback.

[beachmom]

17. Payback from whom? I want names. Chuck Schumer? Harry Reid?

Hillary Clinton? Carl Levin?

I want to know who is pulling this crap. Also notice that they quote Jim Jordan, who Kerry FIRED, for crying out loud.

[MBS]

18. they campaigned for Lamont, not Lieberman!

wonderful wonderful insights, Tay. I think you're 10,000% correct on this. Just brilliant, (But fix that typo if it's not too late!)

[TayTay]

21. Thanks, I got it (the error)

and blush, blush.

That just seemed obvious to me. Especially since the Dems were vocally angry twice last year about the filibuster and the Iraq withdrawal vote. That made the press. The Lieberman stuff is inferred. Ah, who got the standing ovation at the Dem caucus, Kerry or Lieberman? (Yeah, Holy Joe did. What Kerry did in so vocally supporting Holy Joe last year was side with the Dem grassroots over the Dem DC power structure. Surely we all knew there would be payback for that, right?)

As to names, Ah, come on, everyone who isn't Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold (indifferent, btw), Leahy, etc. There are lines in the Senate and Kerry is to the left, with a few other folks. But the Landrieus, Nelsons, Bidens, etc, are not real happy with being called to on-the-record votes on things that could cause them trouble with their electorate. (Ah, Hillary was not real happy with it either. She doesn't want to take a stand on anything controversial. Her whole campaign for the PResidency is personality based, not issue based. Having to vote on difficult things is bad for her.)

Also, keep your eyes peeled this week. There is a procedural vote today (I think) by the Repubs to block the Iraq measure from going to the floor for a debate. It would need the same amount of votes as a filibuster to pass: 60. Odds are, there are 60 vote to continue debate, but it might be blocked.

Should the Iraq Resolution come to the floor for a debate, it would be an amendable Resolution. Now, put your thinking cap on. Who do you think might just offer some difficult amendments on the Iraq War Resolution? Amendments with some real teeth in them? Now, ask yourself again, why certain Senators might have some bad press coming at them now, of all times. Maybe, just maybe, it's a pre-emptive strike to make those Senators look bad and discredit them in the press in advance so that they don't get positive press over more strident anti-war amendments.

It's not rocket science here. See, we didn't vote for those amendments because we think the war is right. Oh no. We didn't vote for those more strident amendments because only the loner and nut ball Senators whom nobody likes put them forward. We don't have to listen to them. They are not popular.

[ProSense]

19. The NYT mimics the wingnut photo smear

Anyway, I wrote them:


Please stop insulting readers' intelligence

Dear Public Editor,

A question: Is Mark Leibovich a comedian or is he on drugs? There must be some reason behind this silly article, "A Presidential Also-Ran, Kerry Adjusts to What Passes for a Normal Life in the Senate." The New York Times should be embarrassed for printing it.

If Leibovich is desperate for something to cover (why else would he be wasting time with fiction), I suggest that he track down video of last week's Senate EPW committee hearing and the recent Davos event, and watch the relevant segments featuring Senator John Kerry. He'll find some real news, that is, news relevant to the pressing issues. The last thing I expect to see is the news pages cluttered with stories about a media-driven persona, a caricature, of John Kerry. In terms of leadership, Senator Kerry is one of the few people qualified to lead this country at this time. Somehow Leibovich's poor Senator Kerry mis-characterizations don't mesh with the busy, worldly Senator referenced throughout his article.

By the way, silly articles aside, the disaster in Iraq and holding those responsible to account could do with a bit more focus and scrutiny by the media.

Leibovich may also need to face an unpleasant fact, he is an MTD (Media Transmitted Distortion) carrier. Please see the following for perspective:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/8430/89348

I hope the next time Leibovich writes such a silly piece he labels it appropriately: satire. Scratch that, it obviously wasn't intended as satire, and it really wasn't funny. Pathetic.

[MBS]

24. good for you

If the country is to be deprived of JK as presidential candidate, the very least people can do is at least to acknowledge the truth about this man. Why won't they give this worthy man the credit he deserves? Why are they so determned not to listen to him and to SEE him ? It just drives me NUTS. I think Tay's comments (#16) get it exactly right.

[wisteria]

32. Great letter! n/t

[karynnj]

39. Reading your post, I notice that even the title is biased

"A Presidential Also-Ran, Kerry Adjusts to What Passes for a Normal Life in the Senate

Kerry was the 2004 nominee, Edwards, Dean, etc were "also rans". They are speaking of the time from 2004, so they are not speaking of 2008. This is another in the series of times when they are saying that Kerry has no status other than run of the mill Senator, when in fact he has more claim to being a Democratic leader than Reid does.

[karynnj]

25. Imagine 2006, if these weak leaders had had their way

Iraq was the main motivator for getting out the Democratic vote. Without the Iraq amendments, the difference between the two parties would have been less distinct - would people have worked as hard. In addition, without the debate which Kerry led, would as many people have begun to accept the unacceptable that we created a mess in Iraq and that the situation would not result in a victory?

Even warned that he was pissing Dems off, Kerry could not have remained true to who he is and stopped speaking out. Kerry's repeated comment that he could not be a Senator in good standing and not speak out when he knew the policy was wrong linked to his comment that half the names on the Vietnam War were of people killed after it was known the policy couldn't work was very emotionally effective and it was very clearly where he was. Imagine if Kerry would have been given the media support McCain gets when he made these comments. The problem is not Kerry's delivery or Kerry's message - it got out in spite of massive attempts to contain it.


In addition to moving people's perceptions, it called out every Senator not working to fix the policy especially those who weren't due to political calendars. If they were pissed before, this likely magnified it. He was acting as their conscience - and they were ignoring him. I assume they knew he was morally right.
It also mirrored the 1971 question that people as unlikely as Scarborough repeated. The other Senators know the strength of Kerry's moral character - and they likely are uncomfortable looking him in the eye.

Not to mention a fair portion of people working hard in 2006 were motivated by Dean (who is equally out of step with DC) or Kerry. I heard NO ONE say they were there because of Schumer/Reid/Carville/either Clinton/etc. In reality, the leaders are not even on the same page as the Democrats.

[wisteria]

35. Kerry should be perceived as a maverick, but our party has to many egotists in it and

to many comfortable politicians that like the status quo. There is nothing wrong with Kerry's message and delivery- it is about the leaders in our party that don't want to really lead do nothing more than protect the Clinton ideals. In one way, I will be glad to see 2008 come and go and hopefully with it a new era for the Democrats without the influence of the Clinton's dominating the message.

[wisteria]

20. I have thought about this piece since last night and walking away from it and coming back

has made it seem worse then when I first read it. The picture of Kerry the writer lays out is of a depressed, unlikeable shunned man. The reference to Reid suggests that Kerry needed to be put in his place and Reid warned him to keep quite.
None of this references his support throughout the country and the money he was able to raise for other candidates.
IMO, this is another hit piece designed to persuade others that he isn't worth following any longer.

[ProSense]

22. Three words:

Set a deadline.

[TayTay]

23. And watch that debate this week

A lot of Dems abso-frickin-lutely do not want to have to go on record as voting for more strident amendments to block the troop escalation or the funding.

They are pre-emptively going after a Senator who might just force them to do so.

[MBS]

26. just saw the hard-copy version

there's a teaser to article right there on front page, and it's got a quite conspicuous amount of ink in the national news section (A14 in my edition). Both the teaser, and the article itself, are placed IN PARALLEL with article gushing about candidacy of John Edwards. Anyone who can bring themselves to answer this PUBLICLY, either to ombudsman, as Prosense did, or as LTE, or whatever, please do so. I'm kind of used up on my Globe letter thing, and I have an important job interview this afternoon, but anything anyone can put out there. .. let's get out the truth about Kerry; we can't let them get away with this s___ anymore.

[ProSense]

27. Interesting!

This too. Note the link in the second paragraph.

[whometense]

28. If TNR is trying to slime him,

Edwards may be onto something. http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=77868

[Mass]

29. Or may be TNR is on something for once?

Honestly, I cannot figure out what the pb is with Edwards. On the pure basis of what he said at the DNC Meeting, I should be 100 % behind him. But I cannot get rid of the impression that he is trying too hard. I think that somehow, this PoliticalInsider description depicts best what I feel:

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/style.html

Style

At the risk of creating crosstalk, I just watched the speech and wanted to add a thought. I used to like Edwards a lot. I liked him for crafting creative policies and having a certain talent to connect. I no longer like him very much. He really hasn't worn well for me, and I think the speech is a good example of why. On paper, it might have moved me. On radio, it could have worked. But when I actually see his facial gestures and the coordinated squinting that felt choreographed for every anecdote, it felt far too maudlin--Bill Clinton squared--and I know this is the way he rubs many people.

I'm not saying this is Edwards' fault. I have no doubt he's a smart, committed and genuine person. He might make a good president. But I don't see how he can overcome this, especially when you factor in the one-term-former-senator thing.

The race is going to showcase some fascinating, contrasting styles. We've got Edwards, who you can feel Reaching to Inspire (or Daring to Give an Honest Answer that May be Unpopular) in every sentence;Obama, who does that plenty but strikes a more sober, I Know My Own Strength kind of tone; and Clinton, who understands perfectly well that she's not built to be inspirational, she's a pragmatist and a pol who simply needs to show that she can get things done. That's not to mention Biden, Richardson and all the rest.

It is somewhat shallow, I know, but I cannot get rid of this impression and it really impacts what I think of him.

[MBS]

30. That political insider piece encapsulates what bugs me, too

thanks for posting it

[whometense]

33. Yeah, me too.

I admit it. Every time I see him, I think "snake oil salesman." Even felt that way in 2004. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that politicians like Bill Clinton and John Edwards are the reason I never became too heavily interested in presidential politics - until Kerry ran, of course.

A few more pieces on Edwards here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9832.html#more-9832

and here: http://www.liberaloasis.com/2007/02/sunday_talkshow_breakdown_18.php

He seems to be impressing people, but I'm not among them. At least not yet.

[wisteria]

34. You express my feelings exactly. I never cared for the Clinton type politician

and Senator Kerry seemed so honest and different. As for Edward's impressing people, I think people are buying into the Southern charm, Clinton personia. I never cared for him in 04 and I don't even care to give him a second look.

[wisteria]

31. Straight talker! LOL.

I watched that interview and he avoided answering anything straight. I didn't like him in 04 frankly and I find his stick and phony appeal to the middle class sickening. The man is an shallow suite with a big ego. :puke:

[karynnj]

36. I thought that the strangest comment in the article

Just taking his 2004 and 2008 profiles that he himself puts out - this can't be true and this is the newspaper that in 2004 had an article that was titled something like "Kerry shifting Iraq policy", where they quoted extensively from his 2002 - early 2004 speeches - ALL OF WHICH WERE CONSISTENT - then concluded, that yeah, if you read them they say the same things, BUT HE EMPAHSIZED DIFFERENT PARTS OF HIS CONSISTENT POINTS at different points in time. So, he was a flip-flopper, who really neither flipped or flopped.

Edwards goes from A to not A at will - and he's a straight talker.

[wisteria]

37. Russert asked him to comment on the questions that Biden raised in regards to Edward's position on

Iraq in that now infamous article that contains the Obama comments and Edward's brushed them all off, not even addressing one of them. He refereed back to the article and the comments made by Biden against Clinton and Obama and dismissed the whole line of questioning. IMO, Biden may have misspoke in regards to Obama, but his questions about Edward's plans were well thought out and intelligent and at least one or two of them should have been addressed.
Edwards at that moment struck me as someone -like Bush -who wants to play act the part of President, garner all the attention and not really tackle the real work-well rehearsed comments with photo-ops.

[dwahzon]

38. Has anyone seen

any rebuttal of this article or defense of JK in relation to this article anywhere in the blogosphere -- besides this thread, of course.

Anything that could be linked to?

I think that ProSense's LTE that she posted in this thread is a prime candidate for a comment over at the JK blog today which asks about LTE's that we've seen. This one may not have been published yet but it was written and as usual, very well-written.

[MarjorieG]

40. I'll do one later.

[Democrafty]

41. There's something of a response on wljk:

http://www.welovejohnkerry.com/2007/02/05/im-obnoxious-and-disliked-you-know-that-sir/