Kerry's interview on FOX: the best and the less good.

[Mass]

Most of the interview was about foreign policy and Kerry was at its best, challenging the premises of the questions, interrupting Chris Wallace, and showing his understanding of the questions.

He found an awesome answer to the $87 B question and was not to bad at giving an answer to his Arizona statement concerning whether he would vote to give Bush the Authority to go to war (not crisp enough for my taste, but still good).

Then came the political questions about how Democrats did not want him to run and why he deserved a second chance, and there, I am not sure why, he lost me, not that I dont think he should run again, but because his answer was so convoluted that you could see he was asking himself the same question.

Rather than answering that "he would run if he thinks he can give a better answer to the current problems than other Democrats" and let it at that, he went into a convoluted reasonning that was more irritating than anything. I was less than thrilled by that. I wished he would find a good answer to this question very soon, because today, he did not seem too assured.

[MBS]

1. I guess I'll have to look at the tape again,

but , when I watched it in real time, I just took all that to be about putting off any statement as to why he'd run until he's really ready to announce that he's running, and to make that moment the defining moment. I would guess he was focusing on not being tricked into "announcing" prematurely.
Overall I think he did a great job -- pushed back at the Fox propaganda with great style.

[wisteria]

27. I agree with you. If he hasn't announced, he really shouldn't be taking

on other Dem's' right before the election. The answer to that question is obvious, he does feel he is better qualified an can do the best job, but he isn't actually formally running yet. I say, it is fine to leave it vague at this point. Another thing, where does all the crap about Dem's not wanting him to run again come from. Paula Zahn pulled this bull shit too. Repub leaning media types are having a problem with this because he interferes with the Hillary play book.

Actually,elsewhere, I have heard him say something to the effect of wanting to serve in the capacity of President to guide this country to further greatness and respect- having plans and ideas he had wanted to implement in 04 and asking for another chance to do so now.

[rox63]

2. I watched it, and was mostly impressed

He did very well in a hostile environment. He's not going to deal with the 2008 question in any substantive way until after the mid-term election is over. It's all a game of dodging the question until then.

Of course, now I have to fumigate my teevee to get rid of the Faux News cooties. ;)

[Mass]

3. Except for this last set of questions, I was very impressed.

I guess I wanted him to skip the question. What is the point of it anyway: " the right to a second chance?". What type of a question is it? If he is the best man for the job, of course. This should be the only answer. In fact, somebody could be the best man for the job in an election and not be in another because the circumstances are different.

[ProSense]

4. Here is the transcript from

Fox:

WALLACE: We've got a little over a minute left, and I want to ask you a little about politics, because it's no secret that you are actively considering the possibility of running for president in 2008.

And you said in a recent article, "Next time I would campaign in more states, next time I would respond more aggressively to the swift boats." But why shouldn't Democrats say look, here was John Kerry in 2004, he had a great chance, he was running against a president who had gotten us into war for reasons, for intelligence that turned out to be wrong, he had his chance and he blew it?

KERRY: Well, some will ask that question, and they have a right to. But there's an answer to that question. The fact is that in the course of a campaign, you make some judgments.

Our judgment was that the truth was out there, that enough newspapers, enough people had the truth about my record. That was a misjudgment, a miscalculation, but I don't think that a tactical miscalculation necessarily eliminates you from whatever basic policies, basic experience, basic life commitment and ability to be president.

And finally, most importantly, you know, I think the real test is that it was a very different time. We were at war, one year out from the war. Osama bin Laden appeared in the last hours of the campaign, changed the whole debate.

I'm not embarrassed by that campaign. We did a hell of a job. Our people were extraordinary. You know, I'm proud that I won 10 million more votes than Bill Clinton did winning reelection in '96.

We exceeded our vote goals in every precinct in America. We came within 59,000 votes of wining in one state against a president in time of war who lied about my record personally — the campaigns did — and who lied about the war.

WALLACE: We have only 30 seconds left. A lot of Democrats, I'm sure, are saying look, a lot of bad things happened over the course of these four years from 2004 to 2008, because you — it may have been a good campaign, you got a lot of votes — you lost.

KERRY: That's right.

WALLACE: Why shouldn't you be held responsible and why should you get another chance?

KERRY: Well, Some will, and I'll make the decision based on what happens over the next few weeks. And when I do, I'll make the argument for why I should get a chance.

But look, why should Ronald Reagan have won four times for the nomination and finally on the fourth he won the nomination? John McCain, their leading candidate — didn't he get kicked around South Carolina by the same president because he wasn't patriotic enough as a prisoner of war? He's now their leading candidate for president.

Richard Nixon seemed to get kicked around pretty badly both running for president and governor, turned around and came back and got elected president.

I think in America, Americans give people a second chance. And if you learn something and prove you've learned something, maybe even more so. Now, I don't know what I'm going to do yet. We'll make that decision down the road.

These are answers he's used before, and IMO, these are cool because they point to the hypocrisy of the questions.

Emphasis: That is key. The media had the information, but chose instead to repeat the lies ad nauseam.

[Blaukraut]

5. Didn't see it, but from reading this

His answers to, what looked to be a two part question, were perfectly fine. Especially this part;

KERRY: Well, Some will, and I'll make the decision based on what happens over the next few weeks. And when I do, I'll make the argument for why I should get a chance.

Providing examples of people who have gone on to win the presidency or got nominated after having lost prior runs only strengthens his argument, imho.

[Island Blue]

6. The one thing I don't like about his answer

is that I wish he wouldn't compare himself to Republicans - ever - for any reason. (Especially Nixon and Reagan.)

[ProSense]

7. Yikes!

I think it was more to emphasize the hypocrisy than a comparison.

[wisteria]

28. He has to appeal to middle America and independent minded republicans to

win a general election. As a democrat myself, I don't mind the comparisons to Re pub's in this way. He only points out their efforts to achieve higher office.

[karynnj]

9. I have no problem with that answer

though I do see Mass's point that it counters the negative, but doesn't explicitly address the positive - ie why he is best qualified to be President. It is alluded to in the earlier answer:

but I don't think that a tactical miscalculation necessarily eliminates you from whatever basic policies, basic experience, basic life commitment and ability to be president.

In the answer itself, he says:
"And when I do (decide to run), I'll make the argument for why I should get a chance."

Wallace said there were 30 seconds left. A complex answer was impossible and premature. Also consider that Kerry waiting, lets him control the conext and it may well be after Gore formally (100% decides). If Gore is out, Kerry can make far greater claims on his dominance on the issues.

Considering that we are speaking of a FOX interview, Mass's op title is well taken. This is great.

[sandnsea]

8. Going to the Repblican "well"

I get kind of annoyed when Democrats do that too. Democrats don't care what crappy-assed Republicans do, I sure don't. He is going to have to have some crisp answers to perceived campaign failures, and I really think an answer to reaching southern and rural voters. It's not going duck hunting either. I do like what he said, 'we thought the truth was out there', it'd probably be a good idea if he had the exact number of people who refuted what the swiftliars said. But as to running again, he just needs to say he believes he's the best person for the job and ready to be the President.

[kerrygoddess]

10. Video Here

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4469

[beachmom]

11. He was overall great. I tend to agree with Mass on 2 counts

1. He needs to put together a crisp answer for a) why he voted for the IWR in the first place b) why he recanted his vote in October 2005. I know why but he needs to communicate that clearly and confidently. I saw some good points that he made, but he needs to tighten it up to a good talking point.

2. He needs to flesh out why he should be given a second chance. But there's still time for that.

Still, I think everyone can agree he was fantastic -- he didn't pull a "bill clinton" but still got his points in. Chris was not terrible -- maybe bc scared him and now he's afraid of Democrats (not)?

[Mass]

12. He was fantatstic.

[Mass]

13. My answer in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2400004&mesg_id=2401089

The premise of the question is absolutely stupid. This is not about
second chance and personnal ambition. It is about


WHO IS THE BEST MAN TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY
IN A DIFFICULT PERIOD WITH A LOT OF CHALLENGES.


If you think that Kerry is this man, you should support him.

If you think somebody is better, you should support this person.

It is about how you assess the problems and who has the best solution.

The rest is pure BS and I am not surprised that the question comes from FOX.

[politicasista]

14. Me commented

Very pathetic thread. I like Gore, the General and other good Dems but their supporters discourage me from wanting to support them.

Shame. :-(

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. And they don't realize that, either

When they are incessantly negative about Kerry instead of positive about their own candidate, it just ends up hurting their candidate - after all, if ____ is such a better choice than Kerry it should not be hard to come up with positive reasons to support him.

[politicasista]

20. Exactly

It's always funny they never respond to that challenge.

[Mass]

22. The funny part is that all these people who are mad because

they think Kerry was elected because people saw him as electable can only define their candidate as electable.

They just do not seem to see any quality to their candidate other than the qualities they are asking to the Ämerican Idol".

I ask the question on GD earlier to a few supporters of Edwards. I ask them to tell me what experience he had that qualifies him to be president. I certainly got any answer. Some people told me: we do not care.

So what? The American public doesn't pick experience.
Posted by Radical Activist


That's why Bush beat Gore, Clinton beat Bush I, Reagan beat Carter, and Kennedy beat Nixon. In each race, the person with less experience won. The person with a better message and ability to connect with the public will win over the person with experience. That makes Edwards a great candidate.

[JI7]

23. BUsh didn't beat Gore

but only reason Bush did as well as he did was because the campaign paraded that "great team" of Powell, Cheney, Condi , Scowcroft , Schwarzkoff, etc around. anyone who paid attention to that election can remember how often they would talk about what a great team Bush has. "at least he has a great team". of course we now see what a joke that was.

and Kennedy had 13 years serving in the House and Senate plus his own military service. and the election was close.

Reagan beat Carter because of the Iran Hostage mess. it was about foreign policy which Carter was seen as a failure in. and this case shows a Southern Dem isn't that much of an asset with a divorced hollywood actor beating him.

and Clinton got less than Gore and Kerry in their first elections. and KErry was a massachusettes liberal who ran at a time just after we were attacked in this country and were in wartime. one state would have made a difference in Kerry's favor. with the way they demonize the massachusettes northeastern liberal tag Kerry should have lost in a landslide.

Mark Warner dropped out because he had no foreign policy experience. he saw that he wasn't any Bill Clinton. and Bill Clinton had knowledge and experience . he is actually able to discuss the issues in depth. Mark Warner was not able to do that. he gave answers which showed he wasn't informed.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Exactly

It doesn't matter if the DU crowd "decides" he "deserves" a second chance or not - frankly, they trivialize the very serious nature of the presidency and the very serious job it is going to take to undo Bush's damage with their stupid parlor games. By making it into a popularity contest "Oh, he's not the DU favorite, so he needs to go away" - shows that they don't truly care about the gravity of the situation at hand.

[MBS]

17. yes yes yes

[StoryTeller]

21. Welcome to DU!

And to the Kerry forum. If you've already posted here, forgive me--I missed it. Just wanted to say hi and glad you're here. Every one is super nice--they've taken me in like long-lost family, so please get acquainted. :)

:toast:

[JI7]

18. i think some feel what they do and vote for is worth more than others

like WEL working for and voting for Kerry is committing some horrible thing against them. you wrongly voted for Kerry and took away the chances of whatever person they support.

take the Gore deserves more of a chance than Kerry responses. well who the fuck is stopping Gore from running ? it's not one or the other. Gore isn't prevented from running if Kerry does. i mean, wtf ? you are being unfair to Gore by supporting and wanting KErry to run ?

and of course if nobody likes Kerry why do they care if he runs or not.

[ProSense]

19. The chorus of no's are

not really all that telling since a few are shouting Gore, a handful are pushing one candidate or another, including Obama, Feingold, Clinton etc. These threads don't say a damn thing to me except all the no's want Kerry out of the way because he's the biggest threat to their candidate of choice. That's all it boils down to. It's the reason for those threads over at Kos too. If they didn't start these posturing threads to distract from the fact that Kerry is the most active and outspoken candidate, what else would they have?

[karynnj]

24. Also though that thread is long,there are not a huge number

of people posting. Beachmom and MH were incredible holding them to truth. (It's amazing that some Edwards fans want to say he was too inexperienced to be held accountable as a Senator - yet he now has no more experience and they want him as President.)

[MBS]

25. good point about Edwards

. . I'll file that way as a retort if I ever get into one of those conversations!

[ginnyinWI]

26. The video of the show is on johnkerry.com's front page today

That's where I was able to see it this morning, because I missed the morning showing of Chris Wallace, and then FOX preempted their evening showings because of the Hawaiian earthquake.

My response is, "SIGN ME UP!" I am never more thrilled and inspired than when I see Kerry take on a tough interview and triumph. Wallace would ask what he thought was a devastating "gotcha" question, only to have Kerry turn it back on him and make a brilliant point. Sigh!

He's better than ever at speaking clearly and to the point, and not letting the interview get away from him. He was better at it than Bill Clinton, because he kept his cool throughout, and even smiled charmingly back at his adversary.

I could see the Prosecutor and was so happy to see him do this interview. I liked it even better than the Jeff-Jackson speech, which was good but was basically a red-meat-for-the-base-type speech which was not difficult for him.