Comically misleading link-baiting headline of the day

[babylonsister]

Found here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/

From here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/120939-kerry-blames-out-of-touch-voters-for-dems-image-troubles

Kerry blames out-of-touch voters for Democrats' midterm image troubles

That's based on this quote from John Kerry: "We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening." And Kerry goes on to say it's "appropriate" that public anger is directed at Washington.

Also: Alex Burns reports that the will today demand that Dem Senate candidates say whether they agree with Kerry. :eyes:

[Mass]

1. Sadly, not comical at all. You will find DUers stopping to read at the headline and blaming Kerry.

And the Herald and the Hill have so much distorted what he said by their spin that their intent is clear. (surptisingly, the Herald's title is better than the Hill, though both articles are stupid).

From the article in the Herald, here is what he apparently said:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
...
“I think a lot of the anger today - while it’s appropriate because Washington is broken - is not directed at the right people,” said Kerry. “Barney is prepared, as others are, to explain what we’re doing. I think when people hear the facts and they see what we’re doing, it frankly makes sense.”

n the interview, Kerry added that voters should be mad at stonewalling Republicans and “big money” in politics instead, referring to a bill blocked by Republicans Thursday that would reveal corporate and union leaders who fund big-bucks political ads.

He went on to blame the legislative logjam in Washington, D.C., for fewer federal dollars sent to the state.

Of course, if you read what he answered, it makes total sense and is not blaming the voters, but talking about the need to inform.

Sadly, you can count on the media to disinform us.

[bluestateguy]

2. A true statement that probably would have been best left unsaid

Much like Obama's Bittergate comments: true on substance, but there was no value to him actually saying something that would have been better said at an academic Sociology/political science conference.

[babylonsister]

3. He was being interviewed; should he have ignored the question?

fwiw, he is right. I'm glad someone is addressing this. And this is the actual Herald title...


John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1284069

[ProSense]

4. He should repeat it

loud and often. Every Democrat should.

Fox ‘News’ Personalities Seen As Most Influential In Political Debate

This is nothing like Obama's comment. There is absolutely nothing controversial about Kerry's statement. Why the hell should controversy be attached to it because the RW distorts the actual statement? They're not even distorting the meaning. They're claiming Kerry said something he didn't say.

[karynnj]

9. Actually, Obama's bittergate was by far worse

The reason is that he spoke of people hanging onto their religion and guns and not voting their economic interest. But, as a Jew, i have long heard the comment = proudly repeated that we earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Porto Ricans. In a way, it is more impressive when people are poor, if they vote knowingly against their economic interests because of other values. Now, I have to say that I disagree with those values, but i do think that people voting for reasons other than economic issues is entirely reasonable.

Here, the article does not have the question Kerry was asked. It would seem to have been a question on why the Democrats were polling so poorly in upcoming races or why there was so much anger. Kerry could have simply ignored the question, but the comments are a set of things that he has been speaking of - and they are important issues. Only when taken completely out of context do they say anything that most people would have a problem with - even if they disagree with him.

[COLGATE4]

5. Kerry's mistake has always been the same - the general

electorate doesn't do 'subtle'. He prefers the subtle, nuanced argument (much like Obama) and winds up getting crucified when the Rethugs and their pet MSM yank four or five words out of a two paragraph answer and beat him over the head with them until he's bleeding ("I was before it before I was against it").

[ProSense]

6. And people buying into RW interpretations has always been the same.

This wasn't a two paragraph response. It was a direct and accurate statement that has nothing to do with The Hill's ridiculous headline.

John Kerry is a magnet because the RW still sees him as a threat. He gets them press, and he has influence. Think about it: Why is a little known candidate in Delaware mentioning Kerry at events?

Greg Sargent does exactly what every actual Democrat should do: smack down RW distortions, not try to justify them.

[Mass]

7. Actually, it was a several sentence answer to a question about Frank.

I agree with you, but it is true that, while I still dont know what was wrong with the sentence, it was taken out of context.

[ProSense]

8. I hope

the NRSC does ask Democrats about this and I hope everyone of them mentions Fox News and the Politico poll.

That would be something.

[karynnj]

10. The problem is not subtlty - had he not spoken subtly and said the same thing

they would likely have had 4 or 5 more aggressive words to use. Consider what they have done - less energetically because he is less a threat - to Grayson's words. One thing of note here is that they can't really use Kerry's actual words in a video - because the actual words are not a problem. the inaccurate Hill and BH summations are.

The I voted for it, before i voted against it - was extremely unfortunate and was likely a product of Kerry's politeness more than anything else. He was asked the question at a live event and gave a great, detailed answer. He then was asked again, and rather than same "I answered that - next question", He said he had just answered it and then used the unfortunate phrasing. The problem is that that the media played dumb on it and ignored the many times Kerry explained to them that the text of the two bills was different. It was clearly the type of lapse of thought of how it could be used before it was said that is unavoidable if you are speaking close to 16 hours a day.