Kerry vs. McCain

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2875811&mesg_id=2875811

[wisteria]

1. I saw Mccain's comments earlier today, and they angered me.

The Re pub's blame Clinton for everything. Even when he attempted to do something and Bush didn't even try, they tag it a Clinton failure.

Now, since Kerry did defend Clinton, do you think a Clinton will back him at when he could use some back-up? I won't hold my breath waiting for that moment.

[beachmom]

2. Of course, he won't. The Clintons only advocate for . . .

the Clintons. They don't care about building a long and lasting Democratic party the way Kerry, Dean, and even Clark do. Look, Clinton did a lot of good things during his presidency, but really, what the hell has he done for the party? Karl Rove and the Bushies have a failed presidency, but they built up their party. I just don't think the Clintons should be rewarded with a nomination when they obviously are not team players -- maybe that worked in the '90s, but it's not going to work now.

[karynnj]

3. Wasn't it just last week that a certain ex-President

was speaking about the "new media" and impling he uniquely knows how to handle it. The RW has had the "it's Clinton story for at least 2 days, there's been no reponse that I know of. It's a good thing that Kerry has his back. It's also clear taht Kerry is willing to fairly and tastefully attack McCain. I wonder if McCain will retaliate. (If so it is not a fair fight - the distinquished Senator from Massachusetts knows how to control his temper.)

[_dynamicdems]

24. Clinton came off looking like an opportunist or a hothead depending

on which pundit was describing him, so he obviously doesn't know how to "handle" the media any better than Kerry.

In fact, as of late, Kerry has been far more successful in dealing with the media. Bringing the interviewer into his office has worked wonders with Tweety, for example. When he does that, JK has the bird eating out of his hand. (Of course Tweety still will pick his eyes out when Senator Kerry is not around to defend himself. The bird does that with all Democrats. I swear he disses Dems in order to keep the Repugs in power just so he can piss and moan about how bad a job they are doing.)

[TayTay]

4. You know when they said in '04 that Sen. Kerry was a good closer

it didn't necessarily mean he was only a good closer for himself. I believe that his heart is in this race in '06 and that he knows this country has to have at least one House of Congress turn over. So he is giving it his all. The comments on Lieberman and the support for Lamont must not be fun for Kerry to deliver, but they are necessary. So is cutting McCain down to size. It's for the good of the country, which trumps everything.

Still my favorite thing Joe Klein ever wrote: (Tell me you don't see this now, I mean c'mon.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=102353&mesg_id=102398

And then Kerry's primordial sense of survival on the battlefield, honed and burnished in Vietnam, kicks in, and he does what he must to win: he acts like a real politician. From a distance, the process seems like a comic-book-hero transformation. Kerry enters the phone booth sipping French wine and emerges with a knife in his teeth, ready for battle.

[ProSense]

5. LOL! Perfect! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

28. That's a wonderful quote!

The only part I dislike is the "sipping French wine" reference because it is inaccurate (he mostly sips Poland Springs water from Maine) and because it feeds into the way the Repugs like to frame him as an elitist and French (ridiculous).

But the basic premise of Kerry as "superhero" is something I agree with wholeheartedly, which is why I saw him as Batman during the election. This time, I think he'll be more Wolvarine than anything else. He's certainly got the inner steel and I think his "claws" will be at the ready.

:rofl:

[TayTay]

30. I always saw the first part as the misunderstanding

of what a sitting US Senator is supposed to do, ahm, carefully deliberate about the issues that are presented to the legislature and cast votes based on how the issue impacts the government, the country and the people of Massachusetts, who elected him to the Senate to do just that. Unfortunately, the press thinks that carefully thinking things through so that we don't, for example, wind up getting American kids killed in an unnecessary war is effete. Maybe that's because, by and large, it's not their kids getting killed.

[JI7]

6. this is great, i hope others continue to call out McCain on his bs

all meant to try to get the Republican nomination.

i would love to see the personal conversations between Kerry and McCain these days.

[Mass]

7. I hope Reid, Graham, Biden and all those who were blessing

McCain's integrity and principles at the end of last month appreciate the thank you he gave them.

When will we learn.

Digby has more.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116052675502423116

[whometense]

8. Last night I finally got around to reading the

NY Times piece on Schweitzer. I was dubious to begin with of his much self-promoted "western strategy," but for me this bit clinched it.

Other than the fact that they grew up on farms, it’s not immediately clear what unites Schweitzer and Tester, Ritter and the Salazars. With his outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq — “I was very public before we went in that it was a bad idea, and history has borne that out,” he told me — Schweitzer has become a hero to progressives, while Ken Salazar has infuriated liberals with his support of Alberto Gonzalez’s nomination for attorney general and his endorsement of Joe Lieberman’s independent re-election bid. Governor Richardson of New Mexico suggests that such differences are evidence that the movement has no overarching strategy. “It’s happening from the bottom up,” he told me. “This is a natural evolution. It’s no grand design.” Or maybe it’s that the region’s Democrats simply don’t have many core beliefs in common. Schweitzer remains an iconoclast; he says he supported John McCain’s presidential bid in 2000, though he has since soured on McCain because of the way he has courted the religious right, and he says he is now intrigued by the possibility of a presidential run by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, in 2008. “If he gets the nomination, I might support him,” Schweitzer told me.

Some "new democrat." Feh. It's about more than the war. Where's his judgment?

[Mass]

9. That does it for Schweitzer. I was never very interested, but if he could

support Romney, I cannot support him.

[beachmom]

10. Kossaks need to be told this (heck, Markos, too)

There has been a lot of fawning about Schweitzer there (I fawned a little myself), but if you can't support the TOP TICKET for the Democratic party, then sorry, you've failed the test of being a Democrat.

Let's keep this piece of info tucked away and ready, when the next fawning about Schweitzer turns up. Then we pounce. People WILL be shocked.

[MBS]

13. Romney is so oily

and his own wooing of the far right also so transparently political, that I can't imagine how a supposed "iconoclast" could consider for even a minute supporting this man in a presidential race

[_dynamicdems]

29. That's the best description I've heard of Romney: oily! n/t

[ProSense]

14. Put in up in

bold! They like to pump up these guys as the solution to the Democrat's "problem" when a lot of times they are the primary reason people are confused! What the hell would make someone laud Romney? Supporting McCain over Gore?

Geez!

[karynnj]

19. The Romney part is more damning

It shows he is easily won over and willing to believe what image makers create. This could suggest, unfortunately, that Romney could sell his "moderate" views. The problem with Schweitzer is that he is not the man on the street, he is suposed to be a serious politician. (I mean they wanted JK to take lessons from him. The only good idea he had was that Kerry should have been seen on a horse. In reality, even though Kerry can ride horses, tis would have been condemned like the windsurfing and the hunting.

[whometense]

39. Exactly.

To me it says that he's not much of a thinker - which I guess is supposed to be part of his appeal. Only someone who doesn't look a quarter inch below the surface could think that Romney is be an acceptable prospect for president.

[Democrafty]

47. Do Kossaks like Schweitzer because

he's a total jerk?

Granted, that's just my opinion, and I hope I don't offend anyone who likes him, but he's spent the last two years getting attention by basically saying "Kerry's a phony and I'm not." Which is a claim that will certainly spark interest from some people, but does not a platform make.

[TayTay]

48. And things were going so well, just last summer

Sen. John F. Kerry, right, met with Montana's Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, second from right, in Helena last month to discuss state and national issues. (By John Ebelt -- Independent Record Via Associated Press) August 2005


Why Brian why???? Was it something that was said? The War in Iraq? That fact that in a 'who looks better in jeans' contest, you lose hands down?

What is it?

(As an aside, I can't even imagine showing up for a press conference or press availability or a 'oh I didn't know the press was going to be here today' event and find out you are both wearing the same ensemble. Tres embarassing, don't you think?)

[Democrafty]

51. This is why I don't like him.

If my memory is correct, he started saying negative things about Senator Kerry like, a week or less after these pics were taken. And I thought that was just mean and tacky, and extremely divisive at a time when there was no need for that. This was 2005, not 2007. He just didn't have to go there.

[beachmom]

49. It's part of that whole libertarian democrat western thing

I don't mind using that brand from time to time, but to pretend that guy is for our cause is ridiculous. Also, don't forget Tim Kaine said the same of Kerry in Virginia. This all makes me so mad -- George Allen pushing the whole evil "Clinton/Kerry/Kennedy" cabal, while our own Democrats agree with it by pushing the windsurfer phony meme. You know, I don't see too often Republicans in blue states dissing Bob Dole or George Bush with that kind of veracity. It operates from weakness, not strength, IMO. We should be PROUD of our last nominee, darnit. That kind of talk makes voters think we're ALL phonies if within minutes of Kerry's concession speech, everybody spouts, "well, we didn't actually like him anyway".

[Democrafty]

52. Well, right.

And honestly, if you want to be a national politician, or, um, employed ANYWHERE, you have to work with people you don't like. I don't care who in government thinks JK is nice or "normal." It doesn't matter. What does matter is making the debate about policy instead of about who freaking windsurfed last summer and who didn't.

I don't just get mad at these people for dissing JK - I get mad because they are weakening the party, and, frankly, wasting the time of the people who listen to them.

[wisteria]

35. Why do some Dem's feel as though they have to screw over Democrats

in order to look unpartisan like? Romney? I ask you, what is to like about this man? He looks and acts like a phony. he reminds me of that actor who does commercials and is always lounging around and has a tan. (I can't remember his name)

I remembered it- George Hamilton.

[whometense]

40. hahahahaha!

George Hamilton??? That's hilarious!!



I can see it.

[karynnj]

45. He does look like him - Didn't he date one of LBJ's daughters?

[Mass]

50. I posted this on GDP earlier. I got some interesting answers.

It is pandering. He does not take any risk saying that and, as far as they are concerned, it is fine because it is pandering.

:eyes:


I think sometimes that some people are ready to accept everything as long as they like who says that.

[Mass]

11. McCain's answer on CBS

http://newsbusters.org/node/8238

cCain had had enough: "I say that the attacks were made on President Bush, I responded to those attacks on this administration and I don't think I need any lessons from my friend John Kerry on politicizing an issue."

[beachmom]

12. Interesting, interesting . . .

A taste of what is to come . . .

What a load of bull -- HE'S the one who attacked the Clinton admin. It's front paged on AOL right now. That's really the entire GOP playbook right now -- yeah, we suck, but the Democrats are worse! I think it would be too much effort to even TRY to be as bad as the GOP -- they're giving us too much credit!

[ProSense]

15. McCain thinks he

can fight tough, well he's in for a rude awakening, and his background will show him as a snake flirting with everything corrupt!

[karynnj]

46. Compare how they fought the same enemy

Before the attacks:

McCain was better known and better connected to an adoring media Than Bush.
Bush was far better known, an incumbent wartime President protected by the press. Kerry disn't have even the full LW media 100% behind him.

The attacks:
McCain was subjected to several vile attacks. John Kerry and others defended him and the media decried the attacks

Kerry was hit by barrage of attacks on almost every part of his biograhy, character, personality, as was his wife. The media gave at least as much support to his attackers. McCain after one supportive comment spoke at a convention where his party members wore purple heart bandages.

Reult:
McCain blew up and his campaign imploded in a month

Kerry maintained his dignity, got out sufficent information for the print media and nearly won (or did win -if it were a fair game)

So, how was McCain as a fighter?

(Even in VN, Kerry gained his hero status because of intelligent brave strategies and risking his life to save another. McCain got captured and didn't take advantage of a way to get home.)

[wisteria]

36. Gee, is he a little pissed? To bad. Someone took him on and

he didn't expect it. Poor guy, he was only out there defending the President.

[JI7]

53. i think he is even more pissy that it was Kerry who called him on it

notice his use of "my friend Kerry".

he forgets or doens't care that he had done the same thing to Kerry many times incuding on the Senate floor.

[karynnj]

55. Interesting - and maybe a good sign

He was pretty quick to react to a Kerry comment, that did not sound all that contentious - it's certainly mild compared to some of his snarky comments. It sounds like Kerry can get under his skin while looking pretty reasonable.

[TayTay]

38. That is true. He has mastered politicizing issues

and could teach Graduate courses in it. That much is indeed true.

McCain is without honor and sold out the US Constitution because of politics. He voted to allow torture and to suspend habeas corpus solely because he wants to run for President. If that cowardly act isn't politics, I do't know what is.

[globalvillage]

54. check your pm

I loaded some pics for you.

[_dynamicdems]

26. Excellent point & thanks for the link! n/t

[wisteria]

31. They are idiots and appeasers.

I know why they do this, but they are shortsighted, and as this latest baloney from McCain has proven, it comes back to bite us.

Why would any Democrat want to give McCain credit for anything right before an election? How stupid. Oh, and this is the same bunch that didn't want Kerry to filibuster Alito or present his and Feingold's Iraq amendment because these things might influence voters and jeopardize our election chances.

[beachmom]

16. AOL news story contains McCain's stmt. plus Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/mccain-criticizes-clinton-on-north/20061010222909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I think Kerry's response was the most provocative -- it really went after McCain's character in a BIG way.

[karynnj]

22. Kerry's comments were provacative but

they were very well structured. The substanitive part of his comment reads as a fair statement. He admits it wasn't perfect but contrasts the status then and now. To me this is saying, it's not all black or white. This is the response of a mature stateman. The McCain comment, which goes to McCain's image and character, is stated in very understated language.

As to playing politics, McCain blaming Clinton when Bush has been President for almost 6 years - is political. McCain's counter charge doesn't hold as "everyone" knows Kerry would be an under dog to Hillary, so politically letting the Clintons take the hit and staying quiet, wouldn't be a negative.

I'm glad that, unlike CBS, they have both parts of Kerry's statement. The poll is not looking all that good for McCain. (esp given location)

I think Kennedy's comments, which I agree with, were the most provacative and they can be used by the Republicans - out of context - the comment that the US was the heavy - sounds awful.

[beachmom]

23. Good point! Everybody vote on the AOL poll.

McCain is losing 52 - 48, but this could be freeped any time. So everyone vote!

[karynnj]

25. Is this on DU-P?

[ProSense]

27. It's on the Greatest page! n/t

[karynnj]

33. great!

[ProSense]

41. deleted n/t

[karynnj]

17. The print NYT ignores Kerry's comments and instead

have Claire McCaskill's comment that this comes down on "our side of the equation" and a comment from a Hillary SPOKESMAN, saying Bush has let the axis of evil spin out of control. The first sounds like a serious issue is being seen only through a political prism. Hillary's spokesman's response doesn't answer the McCain charge and is an empty Bush snipe. Kerry's substanitive response and his calling McCain on his politicaly motived statement is not covered.

On the Republican side, in addition to McCain, they quote Cantwell's opponent calling Democrats hypocritical because they vote against missle defense (because the technology doesn't work yet.) The reporter puts the comments in an overall discussion of political sniping and how this plays politically.

This is balanced, a senior person and a candidate on each side, but the Democrats come off looking like they are angling for political gain. McCain's explicit comment that Clinton was too blame is far better balanced by Kerry's comments, which can be seen as a mild rebuke of McCain playing politics and a fairly consise comparison of the status under both administrations. Neither part furthers the reporter's theme that there is partisan sniping going on - because neither part can be played as "just attacking". (I would post this comparison of Hillary's indirect comment vs Kerry's on the DU-P thread on Kerry's comments, but it would be devisive. It is noteworthy that Bill, the only Democratic leader who can deal with the new media, has been silent on this for days now. It is interesting for us to observe who is learning.)

Three examples don't make a trend, but on WOR (the local ABC radio), Jim Baker was on calling for the need to tone done the bipartisan hate atmosphere. After he was gone, the host spoke of the Kean/Menendea race being an example where both sides are just smearing each other and not talking about the issues. This is the same way my local paper portrayed the last debate. In fact, the QUESTIONS were mostly on smears and Menendez when OT to speak of Iraq and other issues.

Baker's call reminded me of my childhood. A 3 year younger sister would start an argument, say her piece, then when I started to speak would repeat "ended, ended..." This seems to me what Baker, who the host was treating as if Baker's bi-partisanship was commonly accepted, was doing. The Democrats are just beginning to be heard after 5 years of almost complete Republican spin.

[Mass]

18. Local news here were only showing a clip of Hillary and a clip of McCain.

The media are doing their best to suppress Kerry.

[beachmom]

20. Luckily we live in the dawn of a new media age, where more

people get their news from AOL than the NYT. Kerry's quote was in there, and was called a "strong response".

[MBS]

21. plus

. . if you look at the byline of the AOL story, it's really coming from Associated Press, which increases the chance that Kerry's comment might actually make it into a few print newspapers.And that was indeed a real zinger from Sen. Kerry!

[karynnj]

32. Good point

[MBS]

34. AP story is now on MSNBC too. .

complete with quote from Sen. Kerry

[wisteria]

37. Ignore Baker. He is out to save Bush's hide.

Let the Dem's continue to do what they have been doing. Interesting that they didn't include Kerry's statement in the NYT. His statement was less partisan than the others. He was talking actual differences in approaches to the problem. Sure he did comment on McCain, but that is only fair since McCain made it political to begin with.
As you, I think Kerry's statement read and sounded so much better than Senator Clinton's. Hers rambled on and on and just attacked without getting to the point. Lets keep this opinion to ourselves, we wouldn't want to start a Hillary versus Kerry war in GD.

[whometense]

43. totally.

Once again, daddy send in his personal pal to save junior's ass. You might think Baker would have more personal pride, if you hadn't seen him in action during the 2000 election debacle.

[karynnj]

44. I agree on everything you said - especially not to set up a compare and

contrast.

Kerry's mention of McCain may be because this was in response to a question that referenced McCain's comments.

The other thing is - for people who ran Kerry's prior statements through software to get the grade level required - these are LITTLE common words and the implication is obvious. Any one old enough to vote can understand this - not so, Clintons.

[ProSense]

42. McCain is a

kook!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2877212&mesg_id=2877212