The best AP article about the non story

[Mass]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breaking_news/15904309.htm

Kerry gaffe shows pols must self-edit
2006/11

By JOCELYN NOVECK, AP National Writer 13 minutes ago

NEW YORK - We‘ll never really know if Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake." But we‘d certainly know if she made that infamous (and perhaps fictional) political gaffe today: The video would have thousands of YouTube hits within an hour.

Which is why, analysts say, Sen. John Kerry ‘s much-quoted remarks on education and Iraq , which he apologized for Wednesday, show that now more than ever, danger lurks when a politician strays off script. And it shows that successful politicians (and their staffs) must hone a few crucial skills: listening to yourself speak, and correcting a mistake the minute it happens
...

"What‘s lost in all this is any genuine discussion of the issue," says Cohen, professor of public policy at Columbia University. "Have we made mistakes in Iraq? Where should we go now? The questions have instead become, ‘Is John Kerry disrespectful to troops?‘ and ‘Is George Bush stupid?‘"

"It happens to people who give lots of speeches — you get tired, and you start to abbreviate," says Jamieson. "It wouldn‘t be like Kerry to criticize the troops — it‘s perfectly plausible that he was trying to joke about Bush."

"I‘m hard pressed to find a politician since Barry Goldwater who‘s had his words used against him so many times by the opposition," Jamieson said.

Of course, President Bush has gotten into his share of trouble when he‘s gone "extemporaneous." To cite just one example, he was ridiculed during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for saying "Brownie, you‘re doing a heckuva job" to Michael Brown, who soon lost his job as chief of the Federal Emergency Management Agency amid bitter criticism of his performance
...

[jillan]

1. But why Kerry?

I cannot believe that there has been no other
mispoken words by another dem that has been out campaigning these last weeks.
I'm sorry - I'm mad - fuming mad.

Hillary, Wes, Bill, Obama ... all out campaigning. You can't tell me that not one of them has slipped up. And I'm not even talking about the Repigs slip-ups here, just the dems.

Why did they jump all over Kerry like that?
Was it to remind everyone that he "lost"? Are the repigs so desperate that they wanted to remind everyone that they "won" in 2004?

Seriously - what was this really all about? To change message? - they could have done that with any number of things, or people. But why Kerry?

[karynnj]

2. I assume it is for the following reasons

1) The Republicans will take shots at any Democrat they fear can be credible - Kerry showed he was in 2004. Also, contrary to CW, little real stuck to Kerry - because he was always able to stand there calm and dignified. It's pretty clear to all but the lunatic fringe that he is a war hero.

In the context of now, 1971 is at least parallel to where he is - no one happy with his Iraq position is likely to not get the 1971 stuff. (Not to mention the atrocities stuff is more believable) They really have nothing against his from his Senate career. Nothing serious.

This actually aimed at a Kerry strength - he can talk military.
But I think this will disappear because as the CU person in the op said - Kerry is likely to make Bush jokes and very unlikely to say anything bad about the military. With any luck, the only people who will believe it are the RW who connect it to the SBVT fueled view of the 70s.

2) The Democratic right is targeting him too. Tim Russert on Tweety just said the Democrats are furious because it had already taken up 3 news cycles - now I didn't hear it till Tuesday morning, it's near dead now and it's Wed evening. They are also speaking of taking too long to apologize. It was an issue for around 24 hours when he apologized. (I even went back to the threads to make sure it wasn't Monday) They are exaggerating. Not to mention the media SHOULD cover anything important.

And it replaced duelling readings of Webb's and Lynne Cheney's most sexual parts - note one author got excellent reviews, the other ... didn't and the the Ford ads. Frankly Kerry was better than that for the Democrats - especially as the new poll shows Iraq is issue number 1.

[ProSense]

4. Exactly!

Step back, and this is a completely bizarre episode. It was orchestrated by the wingnuts and exploited all because of Kerry's strength on Iraq!

[karynnj]

10. And I forgot that Russert said that the RW fear

was that Kerry would immediately apologize that he messed up then attack Bush. This is the same media that gave Kerry flack for NOT freaking out on the SBVT. scum

[whometense]

14. Ed Schultz today said exactly that.

He said the republicans most fear Kerry because he has been proven to be right about everything - and he could (not that he would, mind you) conduct an entire campaign based solely on "I told you so."

And he talked about how this was a big chance for the Clintons to take out their biggest rival for the nomination.

Not that I agreed with everything he said - I didn't - but he did throw out some very interesting ideas.

Listen to this all the way through: http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/110106ShowOpen.mp3

What do you think??

[karynnj]

16. The two themes there are sad

1) he makes a perfect case for Kerry having been the one best for 2008
2) he is buying the idea that Kerry has hurt 2006.

I hope he is wrong - there's a thread where Carville is saying that the polls are looking better not worse. I sure hope so. (It's odd that the Dems wanted to frame him on HeyJohn - but they didn't do this.)

[ProSense]

17. In part it may be about 2006

Kerry was doing some strong campaigning and fund raising for Democrats. His campaigning for a number of candidates helped significantly, and even put a few back in the race. Although Kerry stood firm against the attacks, the RW effectively removed him from campaigning. Now fund raising and campaigning is what it is for the next five days, minus one of the strongest campaigners the Democrats have!

[sandnsea]

19. That's it precisely

If we want to move forward, we cannot let anybody associated with the Clintons win. We have to keep hammering away at this hatchet job and hope that enough Democrats 'get it' to work to JK's advantage.

[ProSense]

3. Isn't it bizarre?

I'm telling you, this had more to do with Kerry and than 2006!

[kerrygoddess]

5. Bingo!

He's the biggest threat to the Repubs.

[ProSense]

7. A new poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2921246&mesg_id=2921246

[karynnj]

9. I went into the detail and the polling was oct 27 - 31

So 2 of those days were when this nonsense was going on. This says there was no massive negative effect immediately - and this is something that more likely fades with time.

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Exactly

And how bizarre that the JohnKerry blog has been up for weeks and running smoothly and all of a sudden it is found by the wingnuts, who knew to direct them there. My belief is that Malkin started all of this, and reported to the WH who called Fox news and then the fix was in starting with the Fox news guy asking Snowjob the question.

KG what time did that event occur on Monday? Also where did they get the video?

[karynnj]

11. The one thing you can say is they have a great get the message out

ability - they quickly uped the posts.

[zann725]

15. Exactly. Particularly his "strong" passionate, articulate speeches last few months

...which no doubt they've been watching in a cold-sweat, next to Chimp's increasing incoherent mumbling-bumblings.

Also, JK speaks on so many levels...his "intelligent" multi-level verbal style unfortunately leaves him more "open" than more "plain-speaking" politicians.

Reminds me of an old "West Wing" episode which re-played last night...in which an innocent Bartlett "folksy" comment got misinterpreted/blown out of proportion by the Right. Bartlett's intelligent integrity, as portrayed by his speeches and "words" in that series parallels JK a lot.

[sandnsea]

18. Kerry leads against the war

He has been the clearest voice against the war in the last 2 years and has broken the path for the rest of Dems time and time again. He was against the whole bunch of them from Rice to Alito and hasn't backed down once. He knows the Bush slime inside and out. He is against the corporate corruption. He is the absolute cleanest and purest Democrat we've got right now and they know it. He is a threat to everything Republican, not just neocon, but the entire Republican philosophy. If he were President with a Dem Congress, he'd make earth-shaking changes a la FDR. The Republicans would likely never recover from it and they do not want that.

[TayTay]

6. Why Kerry?

Ahm, because he raises legitimate MORAL arguments against a war that we should withdraw from and that we never should have gone into in the first place.

Why Kerry? Because he has been unrelenting since the '04 loss in pursuing this Administration for the blunders and sheer incompetence that sent troops to war without body armor and without a plan to do anything after the inevitable fall of Baghdad.

Why Kerry? Because he gets overflow crowds on the road from people who want to hear someone talk in the language they feel in their hearts about why this war is wrong, why Washington is currently a 'house of lies' and why, morally, the people who did this to this great, great country should be swept from office.

Why Kerry? Well, you always try to pull the biggest thorn out.

Ahm, read my .sig. That's why it's Kerry.

[cadmium]

12. Sorry for the sparse posting in

This noisy week. I am doing 1 ten hour and three 12 hour shifts in a row this week--with a long train ride with no internet. I'm glad he got to air it out on Imus because Imus as annoying as he can be in his friendships with republicans is a sympathetic broadcaster for JK. He also has a wide audience. I dont' think I will have time to look over the bulletin boards tonight or watch an Olbermann clip. There should have been a cascade of support from all democrats which there obviously hasn't been.

[wisteria]

13. Oh, you have that right. They apparently were gunning for him in hopes of

pushing him out of the 08 race or because his view points and likability don't mess with the people in the states some candidates are in. Today was a sad commentary for our party, IMO. It showed its ugly, cowardly side. The media and a certain number of our pundits are doing a real chop job on him. I couldn't take it any more, I had to turn it all off. Sorry to sound so down, but it has been a sad day.