Jonathan Alter on Imus this morning

[globalvillage]

Imus asked Alter this morning if he had spoken with any Democrats who want Sen Kerry or Al Gore to run for pres in '08. Alter said no, none. Then he talked up John McCain.
I find it odd that Alter has not spoken to a single Dem who wants either of them to run.

This is the only e-mail address I could find. Anyone have a better one?

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[ProSense]

1. That's so silly, but look at this:

Nearly 300 people gave a story about him and his upcoming book a 1-star rating.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4900673/site/newsweek

[blm]

2. My missive to Alter

Jonathan, you and the rest of the supposedly leftleaning media were the BIG LOSERS for 2004. You had your asses handed to you every day by the RW message machine who could promote Bush more effectively than the Dem pundits and objective reporters could tell the truth about Kerry.

They treated Kerry like an empty suit who only went to Vietnam, when as senator, he only investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

Seems the entire DC journalist pool, Dem pundits, and the DNC spokespeople all forgot about IranContra and BCCI and how they relate to everything happening today from 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq. Kerry, almost singlehandedly uncovered those crimes of corruption. You think Clinton could have won in 92 if Kerry hadn't been pounding away at and exposing the corruption of Bush1 for the 6 years prior?

Kerry WON every match up he had with Bush. He decisively won all 3 debates and crafted the best policy positions for the issues that effect most Americans. Too bad the corporate media decided to edit out most of that.

Sure is convenient for all of you who want to blame Kerry and who REFUSE to admit the daily beatings YOU ALL TOOK at the hands of the RW message machine who controlled the dialogue through their dominance of the broadcast airwaves and their disciplined approach to lying as a team. The daily news shows were the frontline for the debate and you got your asses handed to you.

The DNC, Dem pundits, leftleaning and objective media were the ones that were so overwhelmed and outplayed that YOU all cost this nation greatly. You are weak and pathetic and cannot tell the truth with half the emphasis and gusto that Republicans can lie.

[_dynamicdems]

6. Well put.

Seems the entire DC journalist pool, Dem pundits, and the DNC spokespeople all forgot about IranContra and BCCI and how they relate to everything happening today from 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq.

So true! You have to what has happened to journalism. Didn't we used to have tough journalists who looked for the truth and fought the establishment? Where have they all gone?

[TayTay]

7. The Official Media is stil dropping the ball

See this unbelievable report from Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601210001#1

[ProSense]

15. Yeah!

Now all of a sudden Kerry speaks out and they're pushing McCain today, like he's serious about anything. The funny thing is if he becomes serious, it proves Kerry's point that they have been extremely derelict.

[ProSense]

14. Bravo!

You are weak and pathetic and cannot tell the truth with half the emphasis and gusto that Republicans can lie.

:applause:

[jenndar]

21. Wow.

I hope you emailed that to him. I think it's spot on.

[blm]

22. I did. I'm sick of left media trashing Kerry for THEIR FAILURES.

.

[ginnyinWI]

30. well said, blm

There needs to be more accountability on the part of the media.

[emulatorloo]

31. perfect, blm -- n/t

[karynnj]

3. This relects rather poorly on his investigating skills

Nationwide open-ended polls show both men regularly getting a combined approximately 20% of the "vote" for who should run from self identified Democrats. That this happens when both are being treated as pariahs says that there would likley be more support if choosing them were considered "acceptable".

You could possibly counter that people choosing them are Republicans up to mischief, but how would you explain the support here at DU - where as many as a third of the respondents pick one of them - and half pick Clark who is absolutely ignored in the real world.

If he is only talking to people at Newsweek, then it makes sense. But I doubt there was any support for Kerry in 2004 at Newsweek.

[blm]

8. Newsweek FIRED Robert Parry for investigating IranContra TOO WELL. It

upset the Bush family that he was uncovering so much corruption so Parry was fired.

Isn't Newsweek a great example of journalistic integrity?

[karynnj]

12. I never knew that he had worked for Newsweek

just that he seemed to do some of the best reporting on that.

[Mass]

4. Alter should get outside the Belway once in a while.

(or is he so committed to Hillary that he cant see the truth anymore?).

[wisteria]

5. Well, this was predicable IMO.

One, Newsweek has never been kind to John kerry. I can't think of one single time they gave him credit for anything.
Two, JK went after Tweety last week, I think this was there way of getting back at him. I was actually watching this morning waiting to see how Imus and the station would react-well, I think we got our answer.

Thanks for the link, I'll e-mail my differing opinion there. I may also try to google Alter and see what I come up with.

John kerry is by far the best candidate they have. You can't tell me everyone is that charged up by a Hillary run. The others being mentioned just are not on par with Kerry. Personally, I don't think Hillary is either.

[karynnj]

18. I agree with you that Kerry really is head and shoulders

above the other candidates - in merit as well as height.

I personally do not see what is so special about Hillary. I think she is obviously intelligent, but I really don't see what her accomplishments are - and I do think that if the Republicans have a seemingly good candidate we will lose the Republicans who came to like Kerry. For many people, it almost seems like a ploy to get another term or two of Bill. The problem is that, other than the core, who really wants that? For myself, the further we get from 2000, the less I like Bill Clinton and see that he is an egotist who over all hurt the Democratic party.

One small example: if he had to put out his autobiography a month before the convention, wouldn't it be nice to credit the nominee for things he did. To write as much as he did on the importance ofopenning Vietnam (Bill's accomplishment), including Kerry's name only as one of several Senate vets whose approval helped is disgusting. In a 955 page book, one more paragraph wouldn't hurt. No one reading the book years later would even notice 3 or 4 Kerry paragraphs - but people in 2004 using the index in the back might be impressed. By mid-February, it was obvious that Kerry was the candidate and this was when Clinton was still making changes - in the case of Vietnam, it was Kerry's hard work that made the acomplishment feasible, so a less self absorbed person would have included a mention in the first place.

In fact the longest mention of Kerry is slightly unsettling. Clinton talks of deciding to make a campaign appearance for Kerry in 1996 in his race against Weld. He mentions his good relationship with Weld, but mentions he "didn't want to lose Kerry" because he was one of the Senate's leading experts on the environment and high technology. Seeing that a President likely wants to lose no incumbents, this tradeoff between his good relationship with Weld and Kerry's value sounds strange. Clinton then finishs the paragraph with, "He (Kerry) had also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the problem of youth violence, an issue he has cared about since his days as a prosceutor. Caring about an issue in which there are no votes today but which will have a big impact on the future is a very good quality in a politician." This slightly weird sentence to me shows the differnce between the two men - Kerry doing what is right, Clinton thinking votes and politics first (but conceding that doing it is good).

The problem is that this is in a book that was published to great fanfare the month before Kerry's convention! The paragraph is unsettling because it damns with faint praise. If he couldn't say something nicer, he could have delayed his book 6 months to hit Christmas 2004.

[wisteria]

24. I wasn't aware of Kerry being mentioned in his book, I agree

with you, in that Clinton looks less appealing the farther away from 2000 we get. I also agree, he brought down our party for his own gain. For this, we are still paying a price. I never felt he worked hard for Kerry, he couldn't even have his surgery without fanfare. It's always about him. I figure he always worked just hard enough for kerry just to make it look good, but not to good. After all, Hillary was waiting in line.

[karynnj]

28. I was given the book as a grab bag gift

I didn't get far because I seriously started to get very bored and annoyed with excuses. So, I looked people (of interest) or subjects up in the index to find what was said.

Clinton would have got the press on the surgery and it was non-elective - so I don't blame him for that. I think he did do what he could campaigning at that point. But where I think he could have helped in his convention speech was in at least focusing on talking about things Kerry did in the Senate while Clinton was President. Kerry didn't need Clinton speaking about how heroic he was in Vietnam (which given Clinton's own views was not sincere) - Kerry had his crew who had first hand experience. It bothered me that in his book he simply listed Kerry after McCain and Kerrey in the middle of the list on Vietnam.

When listing Kerry's expertise, note that he left out the years of foreign policy. If he were truely generous - which he's not - he could have mentioned that Kerry was the first (or one of the first) to worry about non-state terrorism. These last 2 things were key issues in the election.Bill Clinton had the biggest Democratic voice - other than Kerry's and he opted during what we all think was a key election to consider his reputation over the party and country.

[blm]

33. I beg of you - please put your observations in a GD thread. There are many

of us out there who agree with those observations and many more whose eyes will open just a bit more. Especially given Carville's performance yesterday.

[karynnj]

37. I have done that on several Carville threads

attacking him more directly - because it really angers me that he and Begala acted like smirky adolesents in 2004. They were 2 of the few Democratic voices and they seemed more intent on making clever jokes than in helping Kerry get out his message. That they now have the chutzpah to complain that Kerry, who was working day and night with his and Teresa's entire combined family, didn't get his message out is unbelievablely annoying. (He as Kerry was winning the primaries, they were still talking maybe Hillary would be brought in in a brokered convention if there was no clear winner.)

I was more leary of attacking Bill Clinton there because I was concerned that it would make people who like him (of whom there are many), even less likely to listen to me. So, I attacked the giggling school boys - I think Kerry made the right decision not to place them high in his campaign - they fit Clinton better.

I think I need to put real links (or at least quotes) behind some of this to attack the whole Clinton gang who did less than they could have. The sad think is you know that if Hillary becomes the candidate, Kerry will fight hard for her.

[whometense]

39. And wasn't there a tv show or something

about Begala coaching Dean before a debate?

It's crystal clear that neither of these guys put his weight behind JK. Every time I get a letter from the DNC with Carville's name on it, it goes straight into the recycling bin.

[fedupinBushcountry]

44. In fact

it was both Begala and Carville. It was a special on HBO about Carville (his consulting firm) on K Street.

[whometense]

46. Right!!!

Now I remember.

No friends of JK, either one of them. And potential major league backstabbers. Maybe we should call them frontstabbers, since there's no pretense of support.

[blm]

40. Just the part of Clinton's book that you exceprted really tells a story

that is apparent on its own with little commentary from you.

Still, a thread putting alot of this together may go a long way. It would certainly make a more informed group here at DU.

[karynnj]

42. Thanks what I should probably do is go through all the

references - there are only about 5. The one I excerpted is by far the longest. From memory, all the others are that he was a vet and Kerry's name is included when he lists the winners in 1996 that he worked for. I know there were people who questioned the timing in summer 2004 because it was Clinton stealing all the oxygen. Between Reagan's death and Clinton's book- Kerry lost most of the build up to the convention.

What I also should do is combine the information in the 2 posts - because especially given the timing - the fact that Clinton ignores foreign policy and Kerry's 14 trips to Vietnam is pretty bad. In contrast, McCain showered praise on Kerry's effort. Ignoring the whole BCCI thing is less surprising as it calls into question Clinton's not having his justice department (or Kerry) pursue it. I've heard the argument that Greenspan recommended against it, but it really wasn't a yes/no decision - and Kerry made a clear case for at minimum monitoring it. (Could this be the root of Greenspan's wife, Andrea Mitchell's lack of love for Kerry?)

One big question, is does anyone but me look things like this up in the index - I doubt that that many people, who were not dyed in the wool Democrats, read the book - so it may have done little real harm.

[karynnj]

50. BLM - I did as you suggested

There's a thread that is again saying Kerry would be a great President but ran a bad campaign. So, I posted some of the observations I had made here - thanks for suggesting I do it.

Here's what I wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2390582&mesg_id=2390686

[ginnyinWI]

32. All Hillary has is name recognition and money.

And she has the ire of the Right, and they will love roasting her over the coals any chance they get. I don't see how she can hope to win any of them over, given her association with Bill. And as for the left, we've got any number of Senators or Governors with more experience and proven ability. We need a lot more than a "name" in order to take back the White House.

I think it's great that she's in the Senate, though.

[wisteria]

9. You might be interested in what Begala said about JK & the Dems

on MTP Sunday. Of course, before he got to this we had to hear the Kudos to Bush campaign and the excuse de jour, we didn't get our message out, but I was surprised with his kerry comments. Do you think he is still looking to be aligned with someone? Or, is he just being totally honest? I've not been impressed with him in the past.



MR. BEGALA: ...about that campaign. But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/


Oh, and did that bitch,oh I'm sorry a typo, I meant witch,say some absolutely nasty things about Dean. Worse, Begala and that disgusting Carville did not say a word. IMO, this is why we can't get our message out, our messengers are ineffective.

[Mass]

10. The relevant part of the interview

From the few things I heard from Carville, I think he is in a quest to become Hillary's campaign manager. For that, he has to bash everybody that was in the 2004 campaign and push Hillary. This gave pieces like that in yesterday interview.

It would be nice if these losers could disappear and let a new Democratic Party appear that stands for what it stands (no more triangulation). But it is clear that the Washington insiders want to have a "Hillary-McCain" race (and probably would hate a Hagel-Kerry race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Senator Clinton’s position on the war in Iraq’s been clear, unambiguous, firm?

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, I think so. I think she supported the resolution, she did not support kicking the U.N. inspectors out when they were there, and she’s, you know, trying to get some kind of a solution that works. She’s one of 40 Democrats that said it was time to put Iraq on a timetable. Look, it’s a very difficult thing that we’re going through in Iraq, you know, I suspect that this president’s going to start pulling troops back, and they’re going to do exactly the same thing that the Democrats that they’re accusing the Democrats of urging them to do.

MR. RUSSERT: Who runs in away for the Democrats, Mr. Begala?

MR. BEGALA: Well, let’s see if the senator from New York gets re-elected. I’ve been very public in saying I want her to run, but there are a whole lot of other good candidates out there.

MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry runs?

MR. BEGALA: I suspect he will.

MR. RUSSERT: John Edwards runs?

MR. BEGALA: I suspect he will. I always think everybody’s going to run, you know. Vice President Gore may make—there’s some pretty impressive governors out there: Warner, Richardson, Villsac; maybe Napolitano, the governor of Arizona who’s a former prosecutor.

[wisteria]

11. Relevant, your right, screw Carville.

I have a tendency to dismiss those I am aware of who are obviously pandering to Hillary, but I should have paid attention to that remark.

Did you see who supposedly is the Repub front runner- George Allen. I don't even want to think about a race between Hillary and Allen.

[ProSense]

16. You're right: screw Carville. I posted

STFU Carville thread in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x211339

[Mass]

23. Another reason why Carville was on MTP (I missed this one)

When the political operatives will stop these incestuous relations with reporters and talk-show hosts, may be we will have some serious reporting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/russert-watch-announcing_b_14268.html

Fortunately, a faithful Russert Watch insider sent me an advance copy of the press release about the talk show and Carville's mystery partner. Here is the release's headline:

JAMES CARVILLE AND LUKE RUSSERT TO HOST NEW SPORTS TALK SHOW EXCLUSIVELY FOR XM SATELLITE RADIO

[wisteria]

25. Well there you go, that says it all. One small happy group- sticking

it to America.

[ProSense]

27. Another great find.

There is no excuse for Carville to attack Democratic Party with that BS spin about no message. If he considers himself a Democratic strategist, he should do his job---getting the Democratic message out with conviction---instead of falsely criticizing the party of not having a message.

[wisteria]

35. You could say he is shooting himself in the foot! n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. Maybe we could sent Jonathan Alter

Our thread full of donations for JK. Since, you know, he apparently needs convincing that real life Democrats want John Kerry.

[JI7]

47. these fools hang out with each other

and just view others like them as being important. that's why they said the same things they are saying now during the 2004 primary. the voters in iowa who they view as being ignorant types who never heard of green tea don't matter to them.

only these whores who debate among themselves and gossip with each other. they hate Kerry because he doesn't kiss their ass the way McCain does. Kerry played to the people on the group rather than the whore media.

[jillan]

17. But - think about what Kerry said yesterday morning..

That he's not going to get all involved in the Washington chatter.

Kerry's right on, as usual.

The talking heads are trying to sell the listening public into their way of
thinking.

Seems to me that John Kerry is now going to listen to
'we the people' rather than 'we the spin doctors'.

[karynnj]

34. I think you are very right

I think it may be part of the 2008 replay of sneaking up without being seen by those looking only at the surface. In 2004, it seems he won by meeting enough people and impressing them in the first 2 primaries and those wins then gave him enough momentum to get enough people out to see him elsewhere.

The Boston group did a great thing in getting him to think of going into Kos. From his emails, Kerry seems very comfortable explaining his positions, asking for support in calling Senators etc. He really does fit the blog world well because of that. He also seems to have given many of his bigger speeches at colleges. In both cases, he is speaking and listening to some of the more active Democrats. (He is also speaking to millions on his email list.) He knows who he is and the real question is whether when it comes down to it, these people accept his offer of leading them.

In terms of planning, Kerry should not be underestimated. At 27, he planned and organized the most successful antiwar event in the Vietnam war. He managed to change the face of the anti-war movement and make being against the war more acceptable. If he generates enough interest by the end of this year, by leading well - which is his job anyway, he might have a lot of people considering him as a possiblity. I would guess that Alexandra Kerry's movie and book, which will likely capture the excitement of October 2004 and show a personal side to Kerry and (probably) Teresa will be out at an interesting time. (Alexandra's speech was a high light of a really lovely convention - if her movie is as sincere, moving and sweet - this could help.)

Looking at the field of candidates, only Gore and Hillary have his name recognition. I really doubt that Gore wants to put himself through the pain of running for election again - especially after seeing 2004. He clearly went though something in 2000. Hillary will be the media candidate - the question is will she sell better than Lieberman did.

[whometense]

38. Did you see all of This Week?

During the round table discussion Stephanopoulos himelf pointed out that the stuff claimed in the GQ article about Kerry could just as easily be said about Hillary. He as much as said it was bullshit.

So I wonder why he questioned JK about it, then????? Just saying...

[karynnj]

43. I did see that, but didn't stop to think about it even though my

husband thought it was the only interesting comment in the round table. I can't figure what he would expect Kerry to do - I thought it was one of the most human moments, Kerry's laugh and smile were extremely disarming.

[TayTay]

41. A lot of people doing analysis also dismiss the youth vote

From a Boston Globe article: Youth Turnout in 2004

Despite long lines and registration snafus, voters under age 30 clocked the highest turnout percentage since 1972. The good news is that America's young people are more engaged in politics than at any time in two generations. Aging cynics have been quick to blame the kids for a host of political lapses, but the cynics have it wrong.

Start with the numbers. According to professor William Galston at the University of Maryland, at least 20.9 million Americans under 30 voted on Tuesday. That is an increase of 4.6 million voters from 2000. Four years ago, just 42.3 percent of young people voted. This year more than 51.6 percent did.

Young people were especially active in battleground states, with turnout at 64.4 percent of eligible voters. Furthermore, these estimates understate things, because college kids are more likely than other groups (except the military) to vote by absentee ballot. Surveys of college students around the country, done in the weeks before the election, found 42 percent of students planning to vote absentee. Exit polls completely miss these young voters who numbered, this year, close to 3 million.

According to exit polls, Senator John Kerry won the under-30 set with 54 percent of the vote to President Bush's 44 percent. The Democrats lost every other age group. Without young Democrat voters, President Bush would have rolled to victory in Wisconsin and New Hampshire; Iowa and Nevada, too, would have been much bigger wins for the president. In political circles today, Democrats are blaming young Americans for not showing up, and Republicans are chortling over their allegedly low turnout. Nonsense. Rather, both parties should be seeing their future in the eyes of young voters.

When I went to see JK speak at Brown, there were double the number of kids (and they were mostly kids not old duffers like me) than could fit in the hall. Charlie Rangle spoke at Brown a few weeks later and he got 3/4rd of the hall. When Sen. Kerry gave his Georgetown speech in Oct, it looked to me like he had a full house. I think those are voters who are not loyal to any Clinton, but cut their political teeth with the Kerry campaign.

That is something to think about.

[karynnj]

45. Not to mention, that is the generation that had the unfortunate

experience of having to hear while they were in elementry school or middle school about all the Monica details - it will be interesting to see what their view of Clinton is. I think some may have an interest in a woman being President, but might want it to be a woman without a former President as spouse.

I also think that Kerry radiates that he is honest and clean. He is just a very classy person, who is an antidote to the seediness of Bush/Cheney and Clinton. Hillary can't be this, because she brings Bill. No matter how many times Carville or Begala say Hillary can't be swiftboated, they ignore the obvious - the RW doesn't have to - the memory of Monica et al is real and can't be denied.

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. Hahaha

I was 13 when all that was going down. (GROAN, WORST PUN EVER :evilgrin: )

Anyway, I learned what oral sex was from Newsweek. Before that, I had always thought oral sex was like phone sex - talking about sex. Silly me. Thanks, Newsweek! I am deeply indebted to your tireless coverage of Bill's sleazehound shenanigans!

[ProSense]

49. Great points. And I love

your description:

...Kerry radiates that he is honest and clean. He is just a very classy person, who is an antidote to the seediness of Bush/Cheney and Clinton.

[sandnsea]

19. I emailed, thanks

I would be delighted if either Gore or Kerry ran in 2008. I would be revolted if Hillary ran. I am a 48 year old mother and grandmother who has lived in rural America since 1970. Don't even think for 1 second that Hillary Clinton has broad based Democratic support, I don't want her and nobody I know wants her. Hillary doesn't have support from the left, she doesn't have the support of many mainstream people, and she doesn't have the support of women. The only people who want her are the Clinton beltway surrogates. Is the media going to embarrass themselves with another Howard Dean style annointment?? Jonathan needs to get out more.

[wisteria]

20. Thats good!! n/t

[ProSense]

26. Terrific! n/t

[whometense]

29. Excellent!!!

Did you see the latest Molly Ivins column??
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html

Wow. Words right out of my mouth.

[sandnsea]

36. I did

And have side-stepped commenting. Because while she's right in a sort of broad view, she's wrong when it gets into that devil in the details place. For example, on the recent impeachment poll. It actually said "consider" impeachment, not support impeachment. The get out of Iraq polls are the same, it is still only around 40% for getting out NOW, the rest are for getting out while trying to avoid Iraqi chaos. People are for protecting the environment, until it comes down to protecting a water bug in rain puddles on their farm. That's where the left loses where Americans are really at and where we lose elections. Supposedly people are for single payer, but we had a chance to pass it here in Oregon and it went down 60/40. When it gets down to it, people are afraid of giving up the known for the unknown. So it really isn't as simple as that column makes it out to be and I think some people in DC know that. At the same time, I don't think the centrist Democrat way is quite where people are at either. That's why I've always liked Kerry and Feingold, they really seem to have the real answers people would want, if we could just get their real views through the noise from the left and the right.