Kerry: Democrats relevant on war (Kerry team player again)

[Mass]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/13942424.htm

...

But former presidential candidate John Kerry, who is in Minnesota for a fundraiser, said those developments don't signal a waning of the war issue for his party.

"I think the war remains a central issue for Democrats … I think people need to be reminded that there were better choices and that there are better choices now," the Massachusetts senator said Wednesday. He ran his own unsuccessful campaign in part as a referendum on the war in 2004 and even launched a billboard campaign last fall calling for a partial troop withdrawal.

Kerry is coming to Minneapolis to raise money for DFLers in the Legislature, part of a national effort that he has promised will raise as much as $3 million for Democrats across the country this election cycle.

In an interview from Washington, Kerry said the challenges to Rowley and Hackett had more to do with the candidates themselves than with Democratic hesitation to take on Republicans over national security issues.

"An individual candidacy, particularly in Ohio, is based on more than one issue. And Sherrod Brown obviously has very strong views about the war," Kerry said.

...

[TayTay]

1. They are going to get more relevent as the year goes on

The war has just taken a very, very nasty and frightening turn. I think that the percentage of people who think this war was a mistake from the get-go is going to equal the disapproval numbers of the Vietnam War. This is very bad.

This is not a great interview with Kerry. (It's too short and too vanilla.) But I did notice that the Rethugs are, once again, allowed to critique Dems, while Dems are not allowed to do anything but critique other Dems. Same old media, same old spin.

[karynnj]

2. Not a great interview - but a very good stance

The writer obviously had an agenda, likely fanning the Hackett/Brown issue. He started with comments that the Democrats didn't want a strong anti-war message and ending with a GOP quote that essentially agreed with that thesis.

In the middle he had Kerry's quotes - which absolutely didn't do what the writer wanted. Kerry side stepped the Hackett/Brown question beautifully, without criticising Hackett, Brown, Schumer or Reid. He does say the Brown has strong views on the war. He also makes the point - which is true - that there is more than one issue.

The writer is left with an introduction and conclusion that are seriously out of line with the supporting paragraphs. This actually exposes his biases. Also, Brown's positions will be known in Ohio before the election - and he is likely to be more anti-war than Hackett was. He just doesn't call the President names.

[JI7]

3. yup,it makes no sense

the Hackett Brown race was never about any differences on the war. and if anything Brown is probably more anti war than Hackett.

how do these "reporters" get away with this type of thing. he is either totally ignorant or misleading people.

glad Kerry made clear Brown has strong views. i doubt Reid and Schumer would have been as kind in not being critical of Kerry.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. I think it's because of what Hackett said on "Hardball"

He made the claim the reason why he was "taken out" of the race (even though HE dropped out) was because he was very vocal against Iraq. Such bullshit since Brown is too and has been since the beginning!

[FreedomAngel82]

4. And I think that's how it's always going to be

*sigh* We don't have journalism anymore.