John Kerry is a wuss.

[Archae]

There, I've said it.

He may have gone to war decades ago, but nowadays, he's a big wuss.

Remember how Bill Clinton handed Chris Wallace at Fox his ass?

Kerry wimped out against Wallace.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/19/wallace-torments-kerry-with-botched-joke-interrogation/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

2. You expected him to go screaming and turning red

over chickenshit Wallace's pitiful attempt to force a three-week-old issue?

Kerry handled it perfectly!

[Archae]

5. If it was me?

I would have said, "You bring this stupid subject up again, and I leave."

Wallace is a big asshole, a disgrace to his father.
For Kerry to just sit there and take it, reminded me of how he sat back while the Smear Boat Liars For Bush threw their shit.

[blm]

14. Clinton had FIVE YEARS of pentup frustration over RW blaming him for 9-11 and

being weak on terrorism.

He FINALLY exploded after EIGHT BOOKS and 5 years of attacks on him that accused him of coddling Bin Laden.

But then, that's what happens when you make your deals with the Bush family to hold off criticizing the dimson for 5 years.

[seabeyond]

3. you are an ass. there, i said it. does it make it true?

[rosesaylavee]

4. So you would prefer to have a DEM

leadership that does exactly as Clinton does and has done? Ok. That's a plan.

:sarcasm:

[blm]

36. Kerry's self-control kept his crew ALIVE - Clinton's self-control got him IMPEACHED

Kerry's self-control and determination uncovered IranContra, BCCI< illegal wars in Central America and CIA drugrunning.

Clinton, himself, controlled the coverup of BushInc when he took office in 1993.

[rosesaylavee]

38. Yes. Kerry has shown himself to be

committed to putting his country first before his own needs time and time again. He is true American hero. I don't understand why that is not more widely recognized and admired.

[MODemocrat]

41. Clinton "controlled" the coverup of BushInc?

What does that mean; and why would he have done that?

[blm]

52. He claims in his book he only wanted Bush1 to have a 'peaceful retirement' but

that wouldn't explain why he kept up the coverup even as CIA drugrunning story came out in 1995.

Here's the price this nation paid for Clinton's decision to drop and downplay many outstanding matters reBush1.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[mdmc]

89. thanks for the info

:kick:

[LittleClarkie]

72. Oh no you didn't!

You sure did!

Ouch.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. bullshit. clinton is a better orator. kerry stances are much more brave than clintons ever were

that saying i love them both. but kerry has true courage. clinton does not.

[politicasista]

7. Yawn

Democrat bashing never gets tired around here. :boring:

[Old and In the Way]

8. I'm shocked...you've always been a big supporter of Kerry on this forum.

[David Dunham]

9. I do agree that Kerry is toast for 2008

[Old and In the Way]

25. Because he botched a joke line?

Interesting to me how the RW media always scrutinizes Kerry's remarks. I know of no other candidate who has had a mangled phrase get such airplay. I wonder why that is? My guess is that they think he's the guy who'll bust the BFEE wide open and they are doing everything in their power to neutralize his chances. Hmmm....I guess that makes me motivated to vote for him in the primary again.

[MODemocrat]

33. Every knock is a break for John Kerry

Senator Kerry is a man with much class. He doesn't stoop to Wallace's level. I wish he wouldn't be on
that stupd man's show. He's be nowhere if his name wasn't Wallace. He's certainly not a thing like his
biological father.
After so much of this bull, people catch on and finally get enough. This last election was proof of that.
Thanks John Kerry for what you've done for our country. :hug: :patriot:

[INdemo]

35. Republicans mainly Karl Rove just sit back watch and wait for Kerry

to say something they can make an issue of..The reason why Republicans are so damn good a propaganda and making a non issue an issue is because people gobble this shit up.(Democrats included)Thanks to the MSM the Repukes get their message repeated over and over and there again people believe this stuff.The Republicans fear John Kerry because they know they stole the damn election from him and there is no way they could defeat him in 2008.So they want to get started early at dissecting every speech he makes looking for something to use against him,if not now later on..Kerry is the best campaigner in the field of potential candidates and yes the Republicans know this.

[MODemocrat]

39. INdemo, thanks for your reply

Democrats are getting really hung up on this propaganda; and it frustrates me so much. Anyone should know that John Kerry wouldn't knowlingly hurt anyone. He's a kind and gentle soul.
My husband wanted him to go after Wallace, but he did say, that Kerry has such restraint and class, that this might make Wallace look bad. He just couldn't move on beyond that foolishness/stupidity.

I remember full well when John Kerry was in Kansas City during his campaign, and the crowds were so
massive, there were people lined up for blocks; and nearly everywhere he campaigned, the crowds were
overflowing. He had larger crowds than any other candidate had ever had when he was in KC.

Of course, the republicans know he's a big threat to them, and as you say, they are just trying to
dis-credit him; that's why I don't understand whey our own side goes along with those crazy dipwad republicans/fascists. Have we come to a point where we hate our veterans? They are certainly treated
with disrespect by the media, if they are Democrats. :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr: :shrug: :shrug:

We need to focus more on this "disaster" that some insist on referring to as President.

[blm]

53. The man can make a 1000 speeches and 2 misstatements and get raked over the coals

while most other politicians can make 100 speeches containing 50 misstatements and get no scrutiny.

They've been doing this to Kerry since the Nixon White House and it became an institutionalized tactic by the Reagan-Bush years.

[ecstatic]

58. And sadly, this is why we cannot risk another Kerry run

He is an honorable man, but you yourself have acknowledged that Kerry gets raked over the coals, by both sides. People just do NOT like him, for whatever reasons. We cannot afford to ignore the gut reaction people have when it comes to Kerry.

[blm]

60. It's not gut reaction - Gut reaction, you'd choose Kerry in a foxhole with you

over just about ANY OTHER DC Lawmaker. THAT is a gut reaction.

And YOU may be one to give in to rightwing lies and spin, but I do not. TRUTH needs to prevail, and I am no coward when it comes to TRUTH.

What the rest of you choose is YOUR deal, not mine.

You want another COVERUP Dem administration to let Bush2 get away the same way Bush1 did, then keep pushing away the few anti-corruption, open government lawmakers left.

[LittleClarkie]

70. Another reason they're scared of him

They don't want some boy scout investigator getting in to the White House and snooping around. God forbid he should find something.

Would they be afraid of him if they thought he was a wuss?

[wisteria]

48. I don't really care what you think. It isn't over till it is over and if Kerry wants to try again

it is alright by me. You may be eating that old toast in 08.

[Megahurtz]

82. Nah.....

I bet there are many people that wish they had voted for him in '04 who would give him another chance in '08. He would be capable of cleaning up the huge mess that the WingNuts created.
You have any better ideas?

[wisteria]

47. He has? I have been a long time supporter and I don't recall the OP

at all.

[jaysunb]

10. I was not a big fan of Kerrys' presidential run

but he is a true patriot and a strong voice for progressive causes. I suggest you rethink your conclusions.....

[blm]

11. Wusses COVERUP for BushInc - REAL tough men investigate and expose them.

Because THAT takes risks.

[stepnw1f]

12. Your Bullshit Smear of Kerry is Boring and Old

Nice flame bait.

[AIJ Alom]

13. He is not a big wuss. He's a gentleman to a fault. And unfortunately

sometimes he needs to grow a pair of cajones, particulary when he's going into a show hosted by a conservative act masquerading as a journalist. He should have continually attacked Chris Wallace on the FoxNews look for terrorist happy with democratic win memo.

[globalvillage]

15. What part of that interview made him appear a wuss?

I didn't see that at all.
Every time Wallace asked him about he stupid pronoun incident, he deflected and made a point about bush's failed policies, the Dem win or what we need to do going forward.
Did you want him to poke at Wallace a la Clinton? That wasn't going to happen.
He had to address the mistake he made. But I think he did a great job with the interview. He came across level headed and serious, where Wallace looked like a moron who would rather discuss a failed joke than the real issues facing us. Sen Kerry faced the enemy and didn't back down, didn't allow Wallace to get away with anything, and didn't appear the least bit intimidated.
Nope. I didn't see wussy.

You want to know what the insult to the troops is? The insult to the troops is sending them to war for false reasons. The insult to the troops is sending them to war without the equipment that they need, without the armor, without the armed Humvees. The insult was having the secretary of defense who, for month after month after month, refused to listen to the Congress and listen to his own advisers. The insult is having troops who have a strategy that has them mired without the diplomacy necessary to resolve what everyone has said cannot be resolved militarily.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230589,00.html

[XanaDUer]

18. That's what I saw, too.

I saw no so-called "wussiness".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. You'd rather he was an arrogant

xenophobic cowboy?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[11 Bravo]

17. Tell him to his face.

Your post reminds me of a typical freeper "keyboard commando" attack.

[sendero]

20. I thought Kerry..

... did a lot better job than any I've seen him do in similar situations before. Yes, about the ninth time Wallace brought that shit up, he should have told him off, but other than than he did very well.

He was able to get his point across in a cool manner, and his basic message of "all you care about is a joke, the rest of the country cares about solving the problen in Iraq" was well heard by anyone listening.

[zulchzulu]

21. Obvious, inarticulate FLAMEBAIT -->any monitors watching?

Plus the opinion is bullshit.

Perhaps the poster is unfamiliar with DU rules on stupid, unsubstantiated, juvenile posts like his:

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

Look it up.

[wisteria]

50. Good point. n/t

[hurricaneric]

22. I totally disagree

And to be honest, I think you were simply looking for a Cintonesque response from John Kerry who has been his own man for many years. Ultimately, I can't believe Wallace actually has a job. He is an infuriating little peice of weasel shit. From the video it appears he didn't want to talk about anything substantive, only Kerry's remarks from two weeks ago that were totally taken out of context. I truly hate that bastard.

[boolean]

23. God, Chris Wallace is such a little shit

How is this guy the spawn of Mike?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Who's John Kerry?

eom

[LittleClarkie]

69. Tall fellow, Senator up north, walks around without an ass

having long since worked it off. Good guy, campaigned and gave money to the Congressional candidates and helped us win this last election. You should get to know him.

[upi402]

26. they hate it 'this much'

[fooj]

27. I admire and respect John Kerry. He walked the walk for these mid-terms.

Personally, I think Senator Kerry has endured enough bullshit from people who claim to be on the same team.

I voted for him in 2004, however, my level of respect for him has risen considerably in the past six months. He's a team player and he did everything he could to help put the Dems back in power. He STOOD WITH the voters of Connecticut. He did the right thing. I appreciate that. How many other Dems can we say that about?

John Kerry is a gentleman and a scholar. He's a decorated war hero. IMO, that's why Little Lord Pissypants and Co. does everything that they can to belittle and attack him. Pissypants is an insecure little prick. He knows he doesn't hold a candle to Kerry and I think that drives him crazy.

As for Bill Clinton...IMO, Bill lives for Bill. Period.

[pretzel4gore]

28. i thot Kerry handled the mediawhore well...

he said 'only you keep bringing it up chris..' sorta catching wallace off guard, forcing him to deny it...wallace was stumbling around, trying to redirect - and even when he brought up the woman whose son was killed in nam, Kerry stared at him momemtarily, then reiterated that he had repeatedly and forcefully apologised for the bad joke, which he explained wasn't such a bad joke considering EVERYONE WHO HEARD IT IN CONTEXT KNEW that he wasn't insulting anyone (but bush) It was the 'republican attack machine' that told the troops what the white house wanted them to hear blah blah blah, the point being wallace is destroying his career; and was no match for kerry. All us wise guys say we KNOW better how to handle the mediawhores, but consider Bill, for example. The pigmedia repeated ad nazism that Bill had 'gone nuts' on wallace (i think decades of pro repuke media has innurred any reasonable watcher to the media bias) and regardless of sentiment, that's what the pigmedia will record for history!
i wish kerry or someone would suggest senate hearings into the mass media's political activism and who's paying for it, and why, as it consitutes a form of terrorism against effective representative democracy....many years of proof of this are on the record. Such a threat of sworn testimony by the pigmedia whores would terrify them, maybe even force them to obey the laws etc

[Mass]

30. Sorry, I disagree. Kerry did that without being angry.

Wallace looked like an ass at the end of the interview and Kerry did not even need a totally rehearsed tantrum like the one Clinton showed.

[MODemocrat]

31. Chris Wallace is disgusting, Clinton got enough of him & retaliated

Wallace read a letter from a Mother whose son was killed, she berated John Kerry with the Swiftboat style. Why in the hell didn't she blame George W. Bush for starting the war with all his lies, and putting her son in harm's way in the first place? :cry: :cry:

John Kerry served his country in Vietnam, and he has served the people of this country in the Senate. So he tells a joke and it didn't come out right.I hear Bush bumbling every night on David Letterman's show, and I guess everyone's all right with that. Oh sure, after all he's the President?????????????? Chris Wallace wouldn't get off the subject when he knew damned good and well that Kerry was not calling the military dumb. For crying out loud, I wish the republican operatives, or anyone else who chooses not to like John Kerry, would do something worthwhile with their time.

[CatWoman]

32. oooooooooooooooook

*backs slowly out of thread*

:)

[CarolNYC]

34. Seantor Kerry did fine....

but, boy, that Chris Wallace deserves an extremely hot place in hell...His poor dad....

[CatWoman]

37. agreed

just watched it.

i don't know what Archae is talking about.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. It's Fox news, what would anyone expect? I think Kerry did just find in trying to express what the

American people want. Chris Wallace was playing the GOP bs blame game, because it is all they have.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. Feel better now?

:eyes:

[RagingInMiami]

43. This whole drama and hype about "the joke"

is such a joke.

[mitchum]

44. You couldn't be more wrong, my friend

[Octafish]

45. Nice guys don't have to finish last -- or second, for that matter.

Kerry, IMFO, would make a great president.

Kerry, I'd be willing to carry water for.

Same holds for several other Democrats.

[wisteria]

46. No way. Kerry handled it correctly. He kept his cool and he stated

his case. I came tell you more about what Kerry discussed than what Clinton discussed when he tried to defend his old record. To each his own, but Clinton seem to over react to me and number two, why does it matter what Clinton did? He isn't running for anything is he?

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. !!

:thumbsup: Exactly what I thought, Clinton isn't running for anything and Sen Kerry is still in the "game". He is being a politician and I thought he handled himself very well, as he always does. His little "gaff" didn't phase me at all. I got it.

[JI7]

51. Kerry doesn't talk about how he loves Bush and wants to be their son

and brother like Clinton does.

Kerry doesn't say we will win whether Lamont or Lieberman wins as Clinton did.

Kerry is not Clinton. Kerry came off well while Wallace looked like the jerk he is. if Kerry had left or done something else the whore media would have just used it to claim he got scared of the questions and left. and the same fuckers who complain Kerry ddin't throw a tantrum like Clinton are the same ones who will say Kerry messed up again. the same fools who took and continue to take the right wing side on attacking Kerry on the flub.

[bigtree]

54. Kerry inspires me with his work ethic and dedication to Democratic principles

I can't think of anyone wussier than Chris Wallace.

[The_Mule]

55. Chris Wallace is a jack ass.

There, I've said it.

For me, that's the defining connection between the Clinton and Kerry interviews.

[smoogatz]

56. Why any Dem would agree to an interview by Wallace is a mystery to me.

Dems should simply boycott Fox News, en masse, starting now. As Dean says, it's nothing more or less than the propaganda arm of the NRC; you're going to get sandbagged no matter what because that's what the interviewer is paid to do. It's just plain naive to expect anything else. So why do they keep doing it?

On edit: when Dems do Faux Nooz, they also legitimize it and its message. A big mistake.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Agreed.

Not because of some interview, but because he backed away from being anti-war.

[Strathos]

59. I agree eom

.

[devilgrrl]

61. Yeah, and you voted for Ronald Reagan.... TWICE!

What's that make you?

[blm]

62. Someone who hates Kerry for uncovering Reagan-Bush crimes of office

Maybe they lost money when Kerry forced BCCI to close.

[devilgrrl]

63. Wasn't Kerry a huge "wuss" for doing that?

Gee why did he have to investigate Reagan-Bush?:cry: What a WUSS!:sarcasm:

[blm]

65. He was such a wuss he had to wear bulletproof vests during that time. Had to do it again

when he testified to congress and advocated for gays to serve in the militrary - but then BRAVE Dems chose to go with Don't Ask- Don't Tell. REALLY brave stuff to be sure.

[LittleClarkie]

93. An even bigger wuss when he didn't go with Clinton's advice

to support DOMA in 2004. Whatsa mattah Kerry. Ya yellah?

[LittleClarkie]

74. A flip flopper?

Heh.

[CatWoman]

79. and who disrepectfully refers to Jimmy Carter

as Captain "Peanut".

does that make him even worse than a "wuss"?

[devilgrrl]

85. Carter is a bona fide humanitarian...

must be a "wuss"! :sarcasm:

"Captain Peanut" huh? :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

64. He's not a wuss, but he's not the best we can do

in 2008 either.

I'm tired of talking about John Kerry.

[blm]

66. Especially since we have so many anti-corruption, open government Democrats who are

willing to take that battle on.

And, besides, the REALLY EXCITING Democratic candidates will be more coverup Democrats, and that's the way we like 'em.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Why do some on DU think that everyone should rant at the opposition?

When they do, we love them, even if their records aren't exactly progressive.

That's not everyone's style, dear. He did fine, and kept on message.

You can SPEAK truth to power. You don't have to SCREAM it.

[RiverStone]

80. Between speak & scream, there is a middle ground.

Agree, no need to scream. Though John could have said to Chris (after the same ? was asked 5-6 x's), "Asked and Answered - period."

One does not have to rage back, but a more emphatic reply would have shut that Wallace weasel up a bit. Just as a more emphatic reply to the swift boaters may have won John the presidency.

[LittleClarkie]

83. And yet, when he gave a more emphatic answer to "Pronoun-gate"

it was declared a mistake by many. I was proud of him for saying he wouldn't apologize because he'd done nothing wrong except misplace a pronoun.

Sometimes it seems the dude can't win.

And yet it also seems you really have to piss him off to get the reaction you're looking for, like when one of his fellow Senators suggested on the floor that Kerry was trying to score political points using the troops, and he said, "No one spins me on that subject, period." (paraphrase)

I do love it when he's pissed. He's pithy when he's pissed.

[Greyskye]

68. Too bad we can't 'un-reccommend' a thread

I thought that interview made Wallace look like an idiot. I guess we're both seeing reality through our 'truthieness' filters.

[karynnj]

71. Kerry responded as a mature grownup

He dominated the conversation - getting his points out and took responsibility only for what he did.

I think LESS of Bill Clinton, who as an ex-President looked like a bully - he was in the position to walk out with dignity. Also remember the context - Clinton was already getting 100% support from everyone in the party. Kerry was dtabbed in the back by some Democrats even before this joke ("Heyjohn").

As to standing up - it was not just that he went to war - he was a decorated war hero with commentations for his bravery. (Clinton bravely wrote the man who kept him out Vietnam that he loathed the military.)

Kerry spoke truth to Nixon's power - in a day when enemy lists and harrassment of Nixon opponents was well know.

As a prosecutor, Kerry indicted and won convictions for members of the MAFIA

As a freshman Senator, Kerry stood up to Reagen, investigating drug and gun running to support the Contras in defiance of the Boland act

He stood up against the entiore Senate, the current President (Bush) and Jimmy Carter, who wanted to protect many people from his administration to close a corrupt bank - likely setting OBL back.

He, not Clinton, has been an anti Bush voice over the last 4 years. Kerry, in speaking out against the VN war, investigating the Contras, and investigating BCCI risked his career to do what was right. Clinton would likely have advised him to do none of these - like he advised him to back the gay bashing amendments.

Kerry has integrity and principles and he fights for things he believes in. Kerry knows exactly who he is and how he has lived his life. Kerry has far too much class than to throw a temper tantrum especially when doing that would have hurt versus helped.

Frankly, I suspect that Achae would be far too much a wuss to have done any of the things John Kerry has done - though I bet he could throw a temper tantrum.

[ohtransplant]

73. A wuss wouldn't have gone on Faux News in the first place.

He handled himself well. Articulate and firm.

Everyone knows he screwed up a joke. Move on.

BTW, "Some say" Clinton was angry and out of control in his interview. Just sayin'

[MzNov]

75. Well, well. You're all coming out of the woodwork like

little frightened roaches after somebody turned the lights on.....

DU should not allow threads like these.

:mad:

[RiverStone]

76. How many times did wimpy Wallace repeat the same damn question????

What, at least 4-5 times? This serves as a fantastic example of what future DEMS can expect from the Fox propaganda machine. I say go on FOX, just be prepared to dish it out back in return.

John Kerry's no wuss; but he could have been more forceful in telling Wallace - "Asked and Answered -period!" Of course, I would have been happy if Kerry shoved Wallace's face in a toilet and flushed.

[LittleClarkie]

77. There were indeed alotta "yeah, buts"

I don't think there was any getting Wallace off the subject, looking at the transcript. Kerry kept saying, moving on, and Wallace just kept up with the same damn question over and over and over. What a nut.

[natrat]

78. kerry sucks

[Greyskye]

81. And this is a usefull comment.... HOW?

Drive by insults do nothing to help anything.

[CatWoman]

84. and natrat blows

[Greyskye]

87. Are you sure...

... that you didn't mean 'swallows', instead of 'blows'? :evilgrin:

[LittleClarkie]

92. He sucks, blows and swallows. An industrious lad is he.

Sigh.

[Megahurtz]

86. Yeah? Ya got any BETTER IDEAS for '08?

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

91. Heh heh. You said sucks

Heh heh heh.

[mdmc]

88. meh, I'll still support him for Pres over all the rat worms we have runnin

except for G O R E !!!

[Unbowed]

90. He was supposed to huff and puff and blow the house down?

Just because one ex-president loses his cool, blowing your top should hardly become a standard to aspire to.

If confrontational interviews were to become de rigueur for political discourse, where would it all end? Clinton turned apoplectic, bellowed like a bull moose in rutting season and jabbed Wallace with his finger, so Kerry would have had to grab the guy by his lapels and lift him off the floor to trump that. Then the next interviewee would have to give the diminutive pundit a few slaps to Trump Kerry and so on until someone would ultimately be jailed for manslaughter.

Kerry didn't have to use a sledgehammer to drive home his point. Instead he used a stiletto. John Kerry completely outclassed Wallace. In this battle of wits Mr. Wallace was so obviously unarmed, I almost felt bad for him. This was comparable to a welterweight trying to take down Evander Holyfield.

It reminded me of the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique from the movie "Kill Bill" where the victim remains standing after the blows are administered, then takes 5 steps and their heart explodes. Wallace probably thought he held his own until he watch the tape afterward...and dropped.

[LittleClarkie]

94. It was as if he only had that one question prepared

Go out the night before, did we Chris? Not doing our homework? Hmmm?

[Unbowed]

96. LOL about the homework! Good thing this brain trust isn't running for office (God forbid)!

He's not a very good journalist. He was like a broken record. He tries to be tough but he's more like the "Mouse that Roared" and difficult to take seriously. Note to RW pundits: if you're going to do a hatchet job, at least bring a hatchet!

[me b zola]

95. I didn't see the interview, and I can't watch it on-line

...and I don't know you from Adam...but I've got to say that if my ass was on the line I'd much rather Kerry had my back than you. What the phuck do you know about courage? When did you serve? When have you stuck your neck out there for any idiot on the internet to take cheap-ass shots at?