It's the media, stupid.

[ginnyinWI]

After seeing recent coverage of the Camp Casey vigil, do we really need any more evidence that the media, TV in particular, had a big role in the outcome of the election?

Look at the Cindy Sheehan story. It's August, other news is slow, Washington is emptied out, and it's an easy and compelling story to cover--so she's getting a lot of coverage. And the more positive the reaction by the public, the more media outlets jump on the bandwagon, and this thing is snowballing!

A year ago, the media was only too willing to cover the SBVT and their lies--another easy story--which just happened to not be true. Another August with not much other news and everybody jumped on the bandwagon. In both cases, the power of the press was huge, and the affected party had a limited ability to counter it. Rove has not suddenly forgotten his stuff! They've tried the usual smears but they have not worked.

The media seems to be a pretty amoral entity--they don't care if a story is fair or not--they only care if it is a "good" story. There are still people out there today saying that the Democrats have no clear message, or that Kerry was no true alternative to *. But those of us willing to dig for it on the internet had the message. Those of us who attended the rallies knew. Even those who read print media got some good information. But those who relied on TV got WH spin, plus some token clips of Kerry along with a "reporter" talking over him about what songs Bruce Springsteen was going to perform at the rally. Or he'd be giving a major policy speech and CNN would have a one-sentence clip, while the other networks didn't cover it at all. If not for Cspan, nobody who wasn't physically in the room would have ever heard a word. You had to go out of your way and look for his coverage. I relied on messages on the Kerry blog to know when and where to see him on TV--but how many busy and non-engaged people are going to do that?

This August has renewed my conviction that there was nothing wrong with Kerry's message at all. He's right in saying that the Dems don't need to go right or left! All we need to do is get that message out, despite a lazy and overly cautious media: find a way to make it irresistable and oh-so-easy. During the campaign, the Right had the simplicity thing down pat--we need to make it just as easy for an indifferent TV media to cover. All they want is an easy story, and we have to do their work for them by pre-packaging it. Then the message will get out to the remaining 5% of the population that we need to win elections.

[TayTay]

1. Absolutely true! The media is lazy

Real news gathering is expensive and time-consuming. It is much ceaper to let two opposing groups show up on TV and shout at each other. The news media gets to claim that they are 'fair and balanced' because they put two sides on and let them both speak.

It is not the job of a free press to just let two sides speak. It is the job of the news media to get at the truth and to serve the public trust by exposing lies and the ones who tell lies to the public. In today's debased news culture, it is possible to have two sides debate, "Is the earth flat?" without anyone pointing out the obvious truth that the earth is not flat and that flat-earthers are crazy.

The Rethugs have played the cheap media owners like virtuosos. Unfortunately, Dems have to do the same thing, at least until the media resumes their job and starts to do some actual reporting.

[karynnj]

2. So true

I also counted on the Kerry blogs mentions of TV - otherwise I never would have hardly seen Kerry. Unfortunately, the only people compulsively reading the Kerry blog were already committed.

I'm not sure an opponent to a sitting President can ever have as simple a message as the President. Any President's is essentially keep me (with the added "terror, terror" last year). After Clinton won, they said the message was "It's the economy, stupid" and that became conventional wisdom. (You could just as easily say, people were just sick and tired of Bush) What was Clinton's economic message? - one of my majors was economics - and I don't remember. His message was really more "Don't stop thinking about America" things are going to get better. (Not much different than Hope (Help) is on the way)

One big difference, is the media showed Clinton and Gore's train trip and talked about the momentum building up. In the month before the election, they showed triumphant Clinton rallies with a happy Clinton. They quoted Bush calling them Bozo and Ozone Man. (Bush I could have rightly blamed the media.)

Think of the land slide Kerry would have gotten if they covered 2004 that way. Kerry's October rallies were fantastic. Imagine if the media mentioned: Kerry's look of almost incredulity that so many people were screaming for him as having a kind of good boy next door appeal. He clearly was not either unexcited or nonchalant about the applause as someone who would take it for granted would be. Watching it (alone with all the other Kerry fans), the rallies grew in both size and excitement. I wonder what, if anything, Kerry could have done to get Clinton-type treatment.

[whometense]

3. I think this is a hugely important issue.

Unfortunately, I still can't separate my emotions enough to be lucid on the subject.

When I think of those crowds...when I think of how excited they were...when I remember how if you weren't watching c-span or checking the news online you would never have known they were even happening, it just makes me want to cry.

I think Ginny's onto something, but today I'm feeling really down after last evening's foray into MSM World. I was hoping to see some semblance of a change, but it was same old same old - shouting, lies, and more lies. Lou Dobbs made some pretty sharp antiwar comments. Ron Reagan's heart seems to be in the right place, but I hold out little hope until they all adopt Olbermann's format and get rid of the shouting matches. You can alternate interviewing right and left leaning guests, but having them on at the same time is hurting America.

And Corsi ought to banned from all tv appearances anywhere for life.

[ginnyinWI]

5. It's depressing, all right

I do see a difference between cable and broadcast news though.

Broadcast news has more content, less fluff, and fewer crime stories that go on and on and on. They are impartial, and at worst will leave something out (which I later see on the Internet anyway).
I favor PBS, and also NBC's Nightly News, and ABC's Nightline and CBS's 60 Minutes. I have a DVR so it is easy to record these and then just delete them if they aren't interesting. I also add a daily dash of Al Franken from the Sundance channel.

I appreciate CNN and MSNBC for breaking news coverage and the occasional documentary like "Dead Wrong", but that's about it. Oh and of course I can't forget Cspan, to which I owe almost everything I ever learned about John Kerry from TV!

[blm]

4. Media in 92 was more balanced. Now it's a part of the corporate machine

and blatantly used to further their agenda.

[Island Blue]

6. The problem with television news media today

is that they turn everything into a drama for very simple minded folks. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling everyone who watches news programing simple minded, but for some reason that seems to be what the television news outlets think of their audiences.) They have to set everything up as good vs. evil (although I often question their definition of good & evil), blue vs. red, well read yet shy candidate vs. some dufus I'm supposed to want to have a beer with for some vague, non-specific reason. The entire business has been turned into reality television, but not real reality, fake reality like Survivor. The more drama, screaming and crying the better, as long as you don't spend but about a minute exploring any given issue. (Unless some blond girl goes missing.) This of course doesn't leave much room for a nuanced thinker like John Kerry. Thank goodness for Cspan during the campaign!

I think our biggest hope has to be that sooner or later (hopefully sooner) the internets will render television news as we know it today obsolete. You have to weed through a lot of crap on the internet, but the good stuff is out there. I think the internet can have a profound effect on social change and the outcomes of future elections. Look at Paul Hackett's campaign - interest in that (on a national level) was almost entirely internet driven. Would any of us have know who Paul Hackett was if not for Al Gore's fantastic invention? Not likely. I think in order to be successful in the future, Democrats HAVE TO use the internet in as many ways as possible starting on the grass roots level. I think JK made some great progress doing this during the '04 campaign, and I'm excited to see that he continues to improve his internet usage as a way of reaching supporters. And that's all of that rambling post!

[ginnyinWI]

13. I do see a problem with news primarily from the internet

And that is that there are so many partisan sites that you can stay with those of your own party or persuasion and never hear any other viewpoint. Some people on DU think that the "revolution" is almost here, because all they do is listen to the left side of things. People who watch only FOX are getting another skewed viewpoint.You really need to seek out and read both sides deliberately to get any sense of balance, and in today's market you have to do this yourself. And the key is knowing that you are consuming a partisan viewpoint in the first place, and taking that into consideration. And many don't.

[Noisy Democrat]

15. And of course the internet sites aren't always honest either

To say the least.

A couple of days ago, Kos made a post defending his shoot-from-the-hip style. If he doesn't want to edit himself, that's his choice, but I think it's more than fair and reasonable for people to do what they can to ensure that word gets out that he's not a reliable source of information -- especially on Kerry, though at this point I'd question anything he said about anyone. I posted this comment:

That's interesting

There are no drafts, no editors, no time buffers that allow for more careful consideration of the words used.

That's a very different take on things than I would've expected. I assumed that bloggers themselves, out of self-respect, respect for their audience, and respect for the truth, took the time for more careful consideration of the things that they say. You seem to be saying that the fact that no one is looking over your shoulder means you can't slow down and weigh what you're saying carefully, you have to just let it rip. If that's how you feel you need to blog, obviously that's your choice.

I wonder if that explains how blatant inaccuracies, or what some have called lies, about Senator Kerry have gotten posted here -- e.g. the utterly false claim that Kerry once supported gay marriage and then changed his mind, or the false implication that Kerry was claiming to be a Washington outsider. I was pretty shocked by those, and even more shocked and disappointed that there was never a retraction, especially in the case of the gay marriage claim, when the facts were quite clear and there was no room for subjective differences in interpretation. But again, it really is your blog and your choice. You can publish totally made-up fantasies about Kerry's statements and positions any time you want -- no sarcasm intended, obviously you really can post anything you want on your own blog. But people who are aware of the history of those posts will naturally discount anything you post about Kerry until it's been doublechecked against a more reliable source. That's the flipside of the blogger's decision on whether to think things through or just shoot from the hip -- the audience becoming aware that some bloggers are more reliable sources than others. That's part of taking the good and the bad together, too.

[whometense]

7. Who "made" George Bush? - Must read

I found this thoughtful editorial, extremely critical of the media. And very supportive of Kerry. Best description I've read yet of how Kerry was swiftboated by the media.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_r__j__ko_050825_president_cnnmsnbcfo.htm

It should be kept in mind that immediately after the Democratic convention Kerry had a comfortable 3-5 point lead. So comfortable, in fact, that he signaled that he might take another look at media regulation and the effects of consolidation.

At the beginning of August, the infamous "slow news" period, "liberal" TIME (August 3-5) and "conservative" FOX News (August 3-4) conducted polls asking which issues were most important in the 2004 presidential election.

The public chose the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care or Medicare, moral value issues, education, and taxes.

Cable news offered viewers, "Kerry and Vietnam- Liar, Traitor, or Both?" Network news, in an apparent effort to hang on to some sense of decorum and perspective, stepped aside preferring to let cable news carry the smear burden.

A sampling of programs from August 5th - 26th revealed that the CNN, MSNBC, and FOX provided more than 283,593 words and over 34 showings of an otherwise sparsely seen attack ad(s) on the smear for free within the body of "news" stories.

This bit is great:

Anticipating criticism, cable used the "provocatively dressed" defense. Cable pundits stated that by referencing his service in Vietnam, Kerry "opened the door" and "asked for it". "It" being a torrent of - "Kerry has not been honest. He's- lying, lied, no war hero, betrayed, dishonored, lacks the capacity to lead, can't be trusted".

9 repetitions of all 18 prime time Republican Convention speeches skewering Kerry on character, trustworthiness, and strength would be required to approach cable's effort.

[lala_rawraw]

8. I agree 100%

[TayTay]

9. Hey kid, thanks for checking in!

You have been doing outstanding work on Raw Story. Just outstanding.

So, how have things been going? How are you feeling?
If you need anything, just call.

[lala_rawraw]

12. Hey you, thanks

Am feeling so so, have been having kidney invovlment lately, so that is no fun. But writing my arse off anyway. You guys never post in GD I noticed. You are hidden:)

What has been going on with you and Whom and others?

[TayTay]

17. I post in GD occasionally.

I should post more. Mea culpa. Little Clarkie, Mass and others in here post in GD a lot. I'm the chicken, I guess. (But I like it here. It's warm and cozy and safe. Aw shit, that means I should get out more. Comfy is rarely good.)

We are doing well. Like everyone else, we are following the news, the Plame case, the Roberts nomination and the Iraq War. I am trying to puzzle out what the hell we are supposed to be doing in Iraq, what Cindy Sheehan's challenge means to me and how I justify what I think I believe in. (I think I'm introspecting again with a vengeance, trying to figure out what the hell I want.)

I want someone to come in with a solution that will be so clear and precise and true that I will just spring up and go, "Damn, that's what I want." But instead I am stuck with my brain, my conscience and my soul which are plainly flawed and inadequate and that's why I can't figure out what I want on Iraq. (Wussy-girl.) Sigh!

Ho hum, the usual. How's by you? Hey, I had a recent trip to Scotland and that was lovely. Came back, found out that Dipshit is still President and we are still at War. Kind of a bummer. Oh, and that bastard Bolton is now screwing up the UN.

Eh, average summer. You?

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. Candy Crowley just ONE example

In late september, i spent a week on the Kerry plane. Unlike the 2000 Bush plane, which became notorious for its party atmosphere -- margaritas flowed at the end of the day and affairs among the press corps were widely rumored -- the feeling on the Kerry plane is professional and businesslike. It soon became apparent that many members of Kerry's traveling press make no attempt to hide their open dislike of the candidate. The morning after Kerry had addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala on the evening of September 15th, two members of the press corps were talking on a campaign bus. "That event was stupid," one said, referring to the previous night's occasion -- one of the largest Hispanic galas of its type. "A waste of time," the other said.

Other reporters were just as dismissive. Kerry had gotten a series of impassioned standing ovations during his speech. But when Elisabeth Bumiller described the event in the New York Times, she said, referring to a moment when Kerry spoke an entire paragraph in flawless Spanish, "Kerry's audience . . . listened in startled silence, then broke out into cheers and applause when he made his way through ."

But to report on these events accurately would mean you had to say something unqualified and positive about Kerry. This is something his traveling press corps has been -- and still is -- loath to do. On the evening of September 21st, outside an auditorium in Orlando, where inside more than 7,500 people were screaming wildly as Kerry spoke, Candy Crowley stood next to the venue and reported on CNN that Kerry was "trying . . . to rev up the crowd." The implication was unmistakable: Kerry's supporters in Florida were resistant, even standoffish. Just to make sure Crowley was able to get away with downplaying the event as she was, CNN never showed a wide shot of the large, cheering crowd.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A//www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6539090%3Fpageid%3Drs.Politics%26pageregion%3Dsingle4%26rnd%3D1097588324609%26has-player%3Dfalse&ei=fIUQQ6PjONDYsAGEqJWdCg

This is what she received for her so called eloquent reporting of the 2004 campaign. The Murrow award, :wtf::crazy: it is the media, stupid.

Crowley Wins Murrow Award for Presidential Election Coverage
June 13, 2005

Candy Crowley, CNN’s senior political correspondent, has been awarded an Edward R. Murrow Award by the Radio-Television News Directors Association in the “Writing – Television Networks” category for her comprehensive coverage throughout the 2004 election year.

“Candy consistently delivers incisive political news with an eloquence and precision that is rare among even the top professionals in our field,” said Jon Klein, president, CNN/U.S. “Her reporting and storytelling from the 2004 campaign trail was truly second to none, and we congratulate her on this great honor.”
http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Press+awards+for+Candy+Crowley&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dbc2afb56b115ecaf%26clickedItemRank%3D6%26userQuery%3DPress%2Bawards%2Bfor%2BCandy%2BCrowley%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.timewarner.com%252Fcorp%252Fnewsroom%252Fpr%252F0%252C20812%252C1072546%252C00.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResults%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timewarner.com%2Fcorp%2Fnewsroom%2Fpr%2F0%2C20812%2C1072546%2C00.html

[whometense]

11. Are you f***ing kidding?

She won an award for that spew?

Great Rolling Stone column - thanks for that link. This is even worse than I'd thought it was.

So, late on Friday night, well into a flight from Denver to Boston, McCurry made his way to the rear of the plane, where network cameramen, still photographers and reporters who do not work for A-list dailies -- a group that includes both reporters from the newsweeklies, such as Time, and members of the press from states sure to go to Bush, such as Texas -- are seated. One reporter not so jokingly referred to this section as "steerage." McCurry approached Nedra Pickler, an Associated Press correspondent -- a sturdy, unflinching woman who takes her job deadly seriously.

"Would you be willing to participate in a group interview on deep background," McCurry asked her, "should Kerry come back to the reporters?"

"No," Pickler said flatly over the roar of the jet engines. "It is the position of the Associated Press that if John Kerry were to meet with reporters, the interview should be on the record."

"But it will give you an idea," McCurry said, "of what his thinking is at the moment about the campaign. You can attribute what he says to someone close to the campaign. Then next week we will have an on-the-record press conference. This can help you prepare for that."

Some reporters, such as Susannah Meadows of Newsweek and myself, were happy to meet with Kerry on background -- a perfectly acceptable journalistic practice. But all of the reporters had to agree, McCurry said; otherwise, no deal. This, however, is what was strange. The reporters seemed to take a perverse pleasure in standing up to Kerry, in not giving him what he wanted. "He gets more out of this than we do," one reporter said loudly. "He's the one in trouble."

[TayTay]

18. The press rolled over for Bush

and showed their tummies and begged to be petted.

But for Kerry they barred their teeth and growled. This is fairness?

Sad, pathetic and so true!

[JI7]

29. they hate Kerry because he calls them on their BS

he was overheard complaining about the whoredom during the Dem Convention. how they were not showing enough of the actual convention and the coverage seemed more about the pundit whores.

and when whores like Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer, Fox News etc question him on non issues he calls them out on it rather than play along with their shit.

[ginnyinWI]

31. I've seen him do that! Kerry untamed.

Candy Crowley or somebody tries to get him to say something a certain way, and he won't--and takes off in another direction entirely. Probably puts some noses out of joint. He also did this with Tweety. But other politicians do this, too. They need to say what they need to say!

It must get really frustrating, especially for someone like Kerry, who likes to explain things fully--and of course they only want a limited answer and then go to commercial. He doesn't make their jobs easy.

His ideal format is something like the nice leisurely Cspan interview he did during the campaign, sometime in the spring, before the convention. It was a sit-down interview with Susan (last name?). They sat in the Truman library and talked, and she had this kind of dreamy expression on her face all through it-lol! I'd loved to have seen more coverage like that. It was one of the first in-depth looks I got of him; he had such a presidential manner, especially in that setting, that I thought, WOW!

[ginnyinWI]

14. this is beyond the pale

It makes me want to just cry.

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. It is

and that is just one example the list goes on. The saddest thing is that everything negative put out about Kerry was debunked, I saw the debunking daily on the Kerry blog and Media Matters did an outstanding job of putting out the facts. To bad the media let the lies continue, I wonder who the media was embedded with during the campaign, I know it wasn't our guy.

The biggest thing that also remains in my mind is what really happened to the exit polls on Nov. 2nd, how were people added to the polling long after the polls were closed, who were they embedded with? Its the media, stupid. I think that phrase needs to repeated over and over and over again.

[karynnj]

32. Eloquent reporting

In 2000, she sounded like a Bush groupie. This year her reporting on Kerry offered absolutely no insight. Her "He asked for Green Tea? He is out of touch" nonsense after the election was atrocious. He wasn't rude to the waitress, he was just asking for a beverage and chose another when he was told they didn't have it. From Candy's own demeanor, I bet if someone went back to the restaurant, found the waitress, and asked her who was more likable, nicer, or friendly - Candy or Kerry, my bet would be on Kerry.

[jillan]

19. Your picture of Biden and Kerry brings up an interesting question

How is it that Biden is on the Sunday morning talk shows almost every
Sunday morning.....

and Kerry has only been on once??

Who makes the decisions?

I wish Kerry was the one on every Sunday. All he has to do is show up and say "I told you so."

Biden is again tomorrow, on This Week w/ Stephanopolis.
Btw - Max Cleland is on Late Edition tomorrow.

[beachmom]

20. A few points (sorry, longish post)

1. With the free market, niche marketing, and now the internet, we have so many choices, that it is our duty, as citizens of this country to discern what is bullshit and what is good reporting and analysis. But people get lazy and they either fall for the stupid stories (that Aruba girl, Michael Jackson, for example) or they only listen to or read what is comfortable for them to hear. I know plenty of people who ARE engaged who fall into one of the above traps. And it's not just from the Right, it's the Left, too.

2. If you haven't already seen it, I encourage you to check out "Journeys with George", which with all its "fun" atmosphere, is a documentary about how an entire press corps was seduced by W, and surrendered their responsibilities as journalists. He was the "popular kid" and made them feel good for being invited to the party.

3. The reporters seem to think that cynicism is a necessary credential for covering a campaign or the White House. Part of this is the politicians' fault, with their stupid spin doctors, who just bullshit the truth away. I want a press corps. who gives candidates a benefit of the doubt, until they can get real facts to prove that they are being lied to on a regular basis. I'm not saying that Kerry hasn't embellished the facts a bit -- all politicians are going to pull out the stats that back up their policy ideas -- but I don't think he blatantly ever lied to or disrespected the press corps. But since they started from a position as adversaries before the game even started, they blew it in telling the right story.

4. As far as TV goes, I'm like GinnyinWI. I DVR a bunch of TV news programs, and then skim through them to get different perspectives, but I try to go international, too, because I think American news outlets are HIGHLY lacking in good reporting and analysis. I program Jim Lehrer (PBS), Democracy Now! (Link TV), BBC World (BBC America), and Deutsche Welle (German & Int'l News in English on LINK TV). I rarely tune to Cable news for the same reason I don't look at E! -- I don't want to rot my brains!! Democracy Now! is blatantly left wing biassed, and some of it, I am laughing it's so skewed. But I check it out because it is SO different from regular news. The BBC is anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, and they don't even try that hard to hide it. DW TV is just fun to see what's up in Germany, and their coverage of Iraq is like our coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- sad, frustrating, a mess, BUT so far away, and not the German people's problem. I enjoy that perspective, when I just can't take it anymore. Lastly, there's Jim Lehrer, which I think is the top news show on TV (although because it's an hour, I'll often skip some of their in depth segments). It IS mainstream, of course, and falls into some of those traps, but if Kerry is working on some obscure thing like eliminating government funded propaganda in the U.S., they are more likely than most to cover the issue in depth and give Kerry his due and his soundbite (which are MUCH longer than commercial TV).

5. I'm a dinosaur, I still believe in paper!! I read The Economist, The New Yorker, our daily paper, and The Atlantic. And, by the way, I STILL can't figure out Iraq.

With all that effort, I think I have some bragging rights to say I am a pretty damned good informed citizen!! And I think Kerry is the finest candidate I have ever had the pleasure to vote for president (I've been voting since '88). And I feel like I have the data in my head and the hard evidence on the internet to back up that claim. Anybody else think that Kerry is at his best in print? Yes, he is a handsome man, but its his words that are most attractive to me. But if a person doesn't read, then they're not going to know, and before we know it, enough ignorant people have gone and voted that nit wit president again. I say to them, next time, if you're not willing to put in the necessary time into making such an important decision, then stay the hell away from the polls!!!!

[Noisy Democrat]

21. About Kerry being at his best in print...

I tend to agree, though he can be an excellent speaker too. But I was "converted" from being ABB to being pro-Kerry when I read his October 9, 2002 speech on the Senate floor, the one he gave right before the IWR vote. I appreciate the way he thinks, and by the time I got done reading that, I felt that I could trust him. He made some points that made me think about the situation in Iraq differently in some ways, and most importantly, I realized that if he took the country to war, I would believe that it was actually necessary -- entirely unlike what I think about the war in Iraq we're currently in.

[karynnj]

30. I also think that Kerry is the over all best candidate I ever voted for

I first voted for McGovern. I agree with you on the fact that his words and ideas are the most attractive thing about him. I honestly don't care whether a candidate is attractive or not - and I think that much of Kerry's attractiveness is a reflextion of his inner self.

Although I love reading things he has written, I do think that some are more persuasive when he speaks his words. The passion and genuine concern is more obvious when you hear his voice and see his face. In several of his speeches - especially in the one where he used his letters from military families, he used their plights to carry the emotion message while speaking almost softly asking his Senate counterparts to vote for his military amendments - he was not engaging in oratory, but very directly speaking to his peers and hoping to move them.

[ginnyinWI]

22. Well, Biden is the ranking Dem on the Foreign Relations Committee

That may be one reason. Another might just be accessiblity. Maybe Kerry has his reasons for not going on TV so much. I do like to read his printed statements, too--and some of the issues are complex and you can read them over to get them straight. But the best is when he is giving a speech from the heart--he got really better at that during the campaign--because it shows how strongly he feels about the issue at hand. He gets that way over kids' health care, and veterans, and a lot of other issues. If only he got decent coverage.

[beachmom]

23. Agreed that Kerry has given some great speeches on TV

I was very pumped up after his speech at the Dem convention. In fact, thinking back to that moment chokes me up a little. He was so on fire, and I was so hopeful that we could turn things around. But it was articles in print that made me a true Kerry fan. There was an article about him in the New Yorker about his days as a prosecutor in Cambridge, that got me for the first time to become a true advocate for Kerry, instead of ABB. It's all those little things he does that you can't see on TV, like being a good Dad and being kind to people who work for him. Or how he's a very emotional guy, which he doesn't always wear on his sleeve, but you'll read a story about him crying at a movie about Vietnam. Or that he was so unbelievably angry and hurt by those Swift Boat guys. You're not going to learn these things on TV, unless in the form of a documentary. You will learn them, if reporters do their job and make an effort to find out about a person, and write a good article, for which there are indeed many fine examples that can be found on the internet. If we lived in the 1800s, Kerry would be our president and Bush wouldn't have even got out of the primaries for his own party. But, alas, those days are over and we have to deal with the world we live in, not a world we wish we had . . .

[TayTay]

24. I think his best is the questioning

I re-listened to some of the Bolton hearing at C-Span(Part 2 on April 11th) and he made Bolton look like a fool. Kerry has this way of grabbing onto something that is undeniably true. He will quote, verbatim, from a report and then confront a hostile witness with their own words. He did this beautifully with Bolton on that day.

Bolton was trying to be all nice and say that he would be respectful of the UN and Kerry just nailed his ass to the floor. It was a beautiful thing to see. Bolton was still answering Kerry when he was being questioned by other Senators further into the hearing. (Boy, Kerry got under his skin.)

I have intermittently watched committee hearings in the past. I have watched more this year than any other and I am just amazed at how good Kerry is in questioning, when he has something to say or something he wants answers on. (Not every committee hearing is or should be a confrontation, of course.) There have been a number of hearings, like the Condi Rice hearing and some other in Commerce that Kerry has just altered with a few well chosen questions and comments. (He altered that hearing on Identity Theft in Commerce when he just suddenly asked if the Data Collection Services had ever been asked to sell their vast info stores to political consultants. The witnesses couldn't answer and the other Senators just about jumped at the idea that all this info could get to the spin-masters without filters. It was a Wow! moment.)

[jillan]

26. Tay-Tay, I definetly agree.

He is so down to earth while he is softly nailing them to the wall.
I love watching him in action.

No matter what they say, he quickly comes back with a zinger. And doing it all with that confident attitude, and that calm, sexy voice.

I bet people fear him. He's so smooth. I think he was the most effective one with Condi. At the end of his questionning her, I remember her saying to Kerry, "Senator Kerry, I would be happy to meet with you at another time to discuss this more." She knew that he knew that she was full of caca.

This 'talent' of his, is one of the reasons that I am still here, watching his back. He should be on the Supreme Court!

[TayTay]

25. Usually the Dem leadership has a hand in this

They choose leading Dems to go on TV to explain positions that are pretty common to the Dem Party. Biden is the Ranking Member of SFRC, so he gets asked on a lot.

When Bush spoke in June about Iraq, CNN gave Kerry the first ten minutes of the Larry King show to respond. I think if Sen. Kerry wants time on the network news shows or the cable talk-fests, then he has but to ask. I think he is not going on TV too much in order to attend to other business at this time.

I do think that if he changes his opinion on Iraq, that he will get an hour on any show he wants. That would be very big news, especially given the current PRes's poll ratings and the current mood of the country.

[jillan]

27. I'm waiting, and hoping.

There is nothing more I would like to see than Kerry come back from the August vacation and stand up and be the President that this country elected.

[ginnyinWI]

28. well, we certainly need him now!

There is a definite leadership vacuum in this country! Even the repubs are complaining that * always says the same old thing--"stay the course, blah blah blah"!

Unity, we need unity on the Dem side and we will begin to lead the way, change the agenda and take seats in '06.

[politicasista]

33. I still get mad sometimes over the media bias

especially when it came to the 3rd debate when Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney. He got slammed and ridiculed by everyone from the MSM to the ladies on The View, while Uncle Tom Keyes called her a "selfish hedonist" and NO ONE said anything. :grr: