NYDN gossip: Kerry spokesman battling upcoming GQ story

[DeepModem Mom]

NY Daily News, Lloyd Grove "Lowdown"
GQ gives its read on Kerry,
and it doesn't suit him


Sen. John Kerry's flack traded barbs yesterday with the author of a soon-to-be published GQ mag article claiming that loyal Democrats, especially former Kerry aides, wish the once and probably future Presidential candidate would just go away.

"You read GQ to pick suits and ties, not to pick a commander-in-chief," Kerry's mouthpiece David Wade E-mailed me concerning Michael Crowley's hit piece, which claims party activists believe the Massachusetts senator "blew his best chance and that he's 'delusional,' as I repeatedly heard, to think he's still wanted."

Wade responded hirsutely: "As a GQ fashionista would say, the magazine's political coverage has the longevity of the Soul Patch and the sophistication of The Mullet. I won't lose sleep over the inside-the-beltway musings of a reporter too young to shave and the Chardonnay-drinking pals he met on the cocktail party circuit."

Crowley, who pointed out that he's 33 while Wade is only 30, retorted: "David Wade should show more respect for his elders. A juvenile response like that is what you get from someone without a real defense. And, by the way, maybe if John Kerry understood fashion better, he wouldn't have gone on those windsurfing outings, which made his own staff cringe."

Kerry, who was in Iraq yesterday visiting U.S. soldiers, hasn't announced whether he plans to run for President again. But Crowley quotes an anonymous "big-name Democrat" who "worked hard for Kerry in 2004," as trying to throw cold water - make that boiling oil - on Kerry's prospects....


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/383967p-325939c.html

[noahmijo]

1. I'm sorry did Kerry do something embarassing like put on a flight suit

and pretend to be an ace pilot and charge taxpayer dollars for his own private fighter jet with his name on it?

[Teaser]

2. Kerry is toast.

He as a tool that failed to do it's job. Let's find a better tool.

[blm]

4. Which Democratic "tool" controls the editting rooms of broadcast media?

Can you name one Democrat who has been able to control media message since 1997?

[second edition]

23. I disagree!! n/t

[renie408]

31. I don't agree.

I do not know who will win the nomination in 2008, but I think that with a little work, Kerry could be very viable. We don't know which issues are going to frame the next Presidential election, so it is a little early to be dismissing anybody.
Questioning and exploring, maybe; dismissing...no.

[henslee]

41. I would like a Kerry presidency but i do think he is toast. His moment

is gone.

[LittleClarkie]

98. I'm not looking for a tool at all

personally.

[ProSense]

3. Maybe they're pissed he gave Esquire an exclusive interview

John Kerry Tells Esquire What He’s Learned

John Kerry was interviewed for the What I’ve Learned feature in the January Esquire (contents not currently on line). Here’s some of what Kerry had to say:

Unfit for Command was a pack of lies. I said so at the time.
My crew said so. The Navy said so. But a lot of money was put behind the lies. If a lot of money is put behind a lie, it will become the truth for some people–particularly if they don’t get enough of the real truth. I take the blame for not making certain there was money behind the real truth. That’s what I meant when I said I should have come back and coldcocked him.

Katrina stripped away the curtain, and we found there wasn’t even a wizard behind it.

They should have gotten him at Tora Bora. They should have gotten him before Tora Bora. They blew several opportunities, and now it’s much harder because oall the bad habits he had–how he talked on his cell phone and the inattentiveness in the way he moved–have all been corrected. So now it’s much more difficult because of what Osama has learned.

A tranformation is taking place, so I’m very encouraged. But we have to translate it into people winning in the House and Senate and governors around the country. That’s one step in anybody changing anything or doing anything. You’ve just got to plow ahead and see where things fall.

One word I’d like on my tombstone to describe myself for generations to come? President would be a good one.


http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1440

[Orrex]

5. Anyone who supports Kerry for 2008 might as well just vote Republican

Regardless of how viable a candidate he may be, Kerry has no chance of winning in 08. If he runs, he'll have to overcome all the bullshit from his swift-boated 04 campaign, and he'll have to overcome the "Loser" image that will be pinned on him in every single article, interview, and photo-op.

Every interview will begin with this question: "Senator Kerry, after losing your Presidential bid in 2004, why do you think you can win in 2008?"

He has no chance. Forget him.

[ProSense]

7. He's a viable candidate, but can't win? Bush stole the WH, twice. n/t

[Orrex]

10. Hey, I voted for him

And I'd vote for him again against any Republican you or I can name.

But the fact is that the media would begin attacking him 24/7 from the moment he announced his intent to pursue the nomination, and they wouldn't let up until a Republican was in the Whitehouse. It happened the last two elections, didn't it?

If the Dems field a candidate who, in the mind of the public, is already the loser, then that's as good as forfeiting the whole campaign. That might change if the Ohio election fraud story gets better traction, but for now Kerry stands no chance.

I'm not thrilled about Gore's chances, for mostly the same reasons.

[ProSense]

15. Who says he's a loser in the public mind? The Media?

Aren't more people becoming aware that Bush lied and would do anything to get his way? Aren't more people becoming aware that the last election was tainted?

[Orrex]

17. No.

More and more people are recognizing that Bush is the most corrupt and inept President in history, but I detect no upsurge in the number of people who realize that the Ohio election was stolen. At best, the public might say "there were probably some problems."

All the Repubs have to do to defeat Kerry is to let him run.

[ProSense]

28. Not true. The Republicans are scared and are in Democrat attack mode. n/t

[jackbourassa]

113. I mean...come on guys!

I like Kerry and all. I supported him in 2004. But you can't say there's a huge groundswell of support for him out there. Even Gore led Hillary in the polls at this point in 2001, Kerry doesn't come close. I feel bad for the guy. This article seems like a hit piece. But I don't think he'll have much of a chance for the Democratic nomination.

But maybe i'm wrong. I didn't think he'd win in 2004 either.

[ProSense]

115. For a person who's supposed to be down and out the Republicans and these

people sure pay a lot of attention to him. If he doesn't have the support, why waste the energy? And that's a question especially for the Republicans.

[jackbourassa]

130. Alright, he has the support

His bad poll numbers are just a figment of people's imaginations.

[ProSense]

131. As much as Sen. Clinton's high numbers are. Here are polls.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 9-11, 2005. N=446 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.


Hillary Rodham Clinton 43%
John Edwards 14%
John Kerry 14%
Joe Biden 8%
Mark Warner 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
Evan Bayh 1%
Tom Vilsack 1%
Someone else 1%
None (vol.) 4%
All/Any (vol.) 1%
Unsure 7%

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Dec. 8-11, 2005. N=460 Democrats/Democratic leaners nationwide.

Hillary Clinton 33%
John Kerry 17%
John Edwards 15%
Joe Biden 7%
Bill Richardson 4%
Russ Feingold 4%
Mark Warner 4%
Wesley Clark 3%
Evan Bayh 3%
Tom Vilsack -%
Unsure 11%


Without Clinton (recalculated, based on second choice of Clinton voters):

John Kerry 28%
John Edwards 23%
Joe Biden 9%
Russ Feingold 6%
Bill Richardson 6%
Wesley Clark 5%
Mark Warner 5%
Evan Bayh 4%
Tom Vilsack -%
Unsure 14%

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

[renie408]

36. I disagree here, too. Gore has the perfect built in campaign slogan.

"Where would we be now if the election had not been stolen from Al Gore in 2000?"

I think this will be especially potent if the economy gets as icky as many think it will.

[Sparkman]

132. ECONOMY is icky...you have to go back 30 years since DJI were down 5 years

The surplus was given to multinational corporations, and war profiteers? am i naive here? Good time to own gold bullion, coins, the economy is so bad.

[renie408]

134. I have been looking into it. I keep thinking we would be better off

buying bullion and keeping it buried in the back yard.

[Sparkman]

137. The most famous American silver/gold horder, not Hunts, but Jack Binion

of the Horseshoe casino. His girl friend & his murderer tried to dig it up...literally buried in the Las Vegas, desert. Fine/appraised art, similar security from econ recession or depression.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. And which democrat will they not attack?

[blm]

13. Who is immune from media swiftboating? Clinton was impeached, Gore is

a serial liar, WH was trashed, Clinton soft on terror, Bush a hero against terror, Dean scream, Kerry swiftboated, DSM not news, Murtha wants surrender, etcetera.

[Orrex]

16. A Republican

Pretty much any Republican is immune to even the most cursory media examination, unless the crime is so egregious as to be impossible to ignore. And even then it's no sure bet.

But until that fact is overcome, there is no benefit in fielding a candidate who has already "lost" once.

[blm]

19. Except the charges are OLD and DEBUNKED by now. The swift-type charges are

like bee stingers - they can only be used once.

The media can't play them up any more than they already did now that all the records are out and because they have been politically connected to the RNC who rewarded the swiftliars at RNC dinners all over the country last year. During 2004, media protected RNC from collusion charges. Now they cannot.

[Orrex]

21. I respectfully disagree

The accusations are out there. Anyone who really cared in 04 was able to see them as bullshit the moment they were put forth, but they still overran the media for several weeks straight. Debunked or not, they will be dredged up afresh the next time around as though they had never even been questioned, much less disproven.

I also don't understand why you think the media can't now protect the RNC. They've been doing a great job even as recently as the past few days.

[blm]

24. But people do move past what they perceive as old news - and I doubt that

Dean's DNC would play as nice as MacAuliffe's.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush - it was the DNC and the leftleaning media that got their asses handed to them every day by the RNC and the RW machine. And it's the daily frontline battles that matter most.

The DNC and the leftleaning media should be tougher in 2008.

[Orrex]

26. Hey, that's a good point

Dean is a major factor for 08. I hadn't even thought of him in this context.

in the minutes since I posted, I also thought of something else. The Dems as a unified party could repeat the meme "Bush stole the 04 election" every chance they get. Of course, they'll need evidence strong enough to overcome the Republican campaign of denial.

And, of course, it depends on how strong a congressional majority the Dems win in 06.

[blm]

40. DNC will hopefully expose the machines in a way that MacAuliffe

would not, as he didn't believe the machines could be rigged.

[second edition]

25. Says who? You? Don't mind me if I don't listen to your bad advise.

he will need to make a case, but I have faith he will- one thing i have learned about Kerry is you never count him out!!!

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

120. So I guess the answer is "no"

[abbiehoff]

81. He can win in 2008 because he did win in 2004.

[Snivi Yllom]

93. oh please

He got his ass beat by an idiot after running one of the worst campaigns in history. Put the 2004 'election was stolen' excuse to be already. It didn't happen.

[LittleClarkie]

89. Ahem.

And the site they came from: www.poetsforkerry.com

Meanwhile, when the time comes, we shall see how many of us there are compared to how many there are of you.

In closing, let me just add:



Catch us if you can. Har.

[Orrex]

91. If he's on the ticket I'll vote for him

No shit.

But don't be surprised when he's bogged down to the point of unelectability by another relentless media onslaught far more fierce than the one we saw in 04.

[LittleClarkie]

92. I'll deal with that when I get there

For now, he's my guy.

[Dr Fate]

108. Could be. Offer us an alternative then. n/t

n/t

[zulchzulu]

111. Swift Boaters have been firmly debunked...

As for the question "Senator Kerry, after losing your Presidential bid in 2004, why do you think you can win in 2008?", I challenge any other candidate that ran in 2004 to answer the SAME question. That goes for Clark, Edwards et al.

Kerry would certainly answer the question well, since he actually DID win, but he'd say that it was the closest election EVER against a wartime President. Add that the lies and dirt the Repugs threw at him has been firmly debunked. I'll take Kerry against ANY Repug that will run in 2008.

[blm]

6. Sounds like Dem powers want Kerry silenced exactly as during BCCI.

And just like they wanted Gore to go away in 2001.

[Mass]

12. No surprise there - probably the same ones who wanted him silenced

in 2004 - DLCers for the most part!

[Capn Sunshine]

14. In light of current events

BCCI should be re-examined with the clean light of time and distance.
Who knows, it might prove more productive than domestic surveillance of Pizza Hut's telephone traffic.

[cindyw]

104. I got into the internet posting through the Gore 2004 website.

I seem to recall a whole bunch of people saying that insiders wished Gore would just shut up. Now he is a God again. I really could care less what these 30 something idiots who only have to worry about the color of their tie think. I wish they would all just shut up and knock off the popularity contest. I want actual leadership and I don't care if the President talks like a robot, bores people or gives hour long speeches. These people need a reality check.

[radio4progressives]

8. This points out two major problems people in the media and Kerry's Aides

refuse to discuss - and that's the ELECTION FRAUD that cost Kerry's election. Yes he ran a horrible campaign, no doubt about it. But in the end, it was the THEFT of another ELECTION that cost Kerry the presidency.

All these people in the media and his aides continue to cover up this lie, enabling the white house thugs and election theives to engineer the theft of future elections - which will include the 2006 House/Senate elections and people will be even more demoralized because these assholes won't help get out the truth.

[blm]

9. He ran a better campaign than media would show. That's why he won .

How many Dems could win with 90% of media showing up every day to promote Bush for 5 years?

[radio4progressives]

38. to be fair, C-Span covered the campaign without the right wing punditry

and yes the fascists Corporate MSM was no friend to the Kerry campaign, (as they are an open and unapologetic ENEMY of the Democratic Party for the past 15 years) but there was C-Span, and there were the debates.

and there was the terrible gaffs in SBVT responses that didn't serve his campaign well - and then there was that wonderful explanations on voting for the war before he voted against it, and "he would do it again, knowing what he knows now" vote(s)

and there were the debates... which were not interputed, skewed but not interrputed.

But my point is that this election like the 2000 and 2002 elections were riddled with election fraud, every passing day more and more evidence points to that Kerry actually won that election, but yet they refuse to bring this point home in the media.

[blm]

42. Kerry won the debates DECISIVELY. And the DU research forum proves the

swiftliars were addressed promptly and aggressively but the defense was mostly ignored by broadcast media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

And Cspan is hardly a discussion format that controls the daily message for the campaigns.

[radio4progressives]

62. Total Agreement see post #65 and # 66

:toast:

edited to correct table!

[karynnj]

112. But how many people watch CSPAN - I loved its coverage

[sandnsea]

44. 48.3%, 48.3%, 49.2%, 43%

Gore, Kerry or Clinton. Who got what?

[jackbourassa]

114. I think your numbers are wrong.

Gore 49.2%
Kerry 48.3%
Clinton 48.3%
Clinton 43%

[sandnsea]

133. You posted the same numbers

:shrug:

[Snivi Yllom]

95. they don't discuss election fraud for a reason

There was no widespread conspiracy to steal the 2004 election. Two years later where is the evidence, where is the coverup?

Kerry had a great shot to win and he blew it via a badly handled campaign. Fucking Bob Shrum is 0-8 and guess what? Some dumb ass is going to hire him again because he's connected.

[Mass]

11. Lloyd Grove - F* him. This is a non story!!!

So what, some dems dont want him to run! What a surprise? Be sure others really want.

[Mass]

18. You mean that Crowley found Democrats ready to badmouth other Democrats

That must be a first :sarcasm:

[cindyw]

105. More circlular firing squads by a bunch of people with no difficulties.

[TayTay]

20. Yet another attempt to cut fundraising.

Which has been, according to sources, going very well. As long as he has the will and the money, he can run if he wants to, no matter what 'former aides' to other candidates say.

They don't like it, they can go back someone else.

[second edition]

22. The Republicans don't want Kerry to run. This is a right wing paper.

The article is done for no other reason but to sell the magazine and the paper is carrying it as a service to the conservative viewership. If John Kerry had no support, it wouldn't be news and it wouldn't be carried by this news-rag paper or even written about in the magazine.

I would consider the sources with this hit piece.

I will also add, I personally don't care what the so called "insiders" or other supposedly former Kerry supporters have to say-they all have their own agendas and I'm sure none were quoted with names given.
If John Kerry runs again, and he is certainly entitled to do that, he will have my support.

[NYCGirl]

27. GQ is hardly right wing. NYDN is middle — New York Post is the right-wing

paper.

[second edition]

34. Disagree, on the paper. I didn't mean to imply that GQ was RW,

only that they are out to sell their magazine and apparently, Kerry sells.

[blm]

37. I'm thinking that it really is old Dem powerstructure talking. They never

supported Kerry's efforts as Senator, and never wanted Kerry to run in 2004. WHY? Because Kerry would have opened up the books on BCCI that they wanted kept SHUT.

[flpoljunkie]

94. This GQ article was linked, mentioned in the snarky ABC's The Note today

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

In the February issue of GQ, Michael Crowley details the unpropitious fallout John Kerry may be experiencing with some Democrats. Crowley interviews over a dozen former Kerry staffers and Democratic Party insiders to get a feel for the current mood towards Kerry.

"Kerry — who Democrats almost unanimously say is keenly interested in running for president again in 2008 — keeps reminding people of the bad old days, when the country had a choice and chose Bush. 'There was so much pent-up anti-Bush anger that has not dissipated,' says Carter Eskew, former chief strategist to Al Gore in 2000. 'There was no catharsis, and he's a reminder of that frustration and anger.'"

Crowley writes that Kerry's been dropped from the Democrats' "A-team" and quotes a prominent party strategist as saying, "he had hoped to make himself the voice of the opposition, and that has just not happened."

Among other quoted folks you will recognize: Joe Lockhart, Mike McCurry, and Jim Jordan.

Link to the GQ article: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_4129

[FreedomAngel82]

51. Exactly

The fact of them still doing this is proof enough. And as someone else pointed out it's like with BCCI.

[renie408]

29. "Wade responded hairily"...What does that MEAN?

If you don't know the meaning of words, you should look them up or avoid them.

And I think the story is crap. Who the hell are these 'loyal Democrats'??

[DemBones DemBones]

125. Exactly! I did a double take on "responded hirsutely."

I doubt there is an adverbial form of "hirsute." How would it be used, after all? (Apart from incorrectly, that is!)

Edit: I checked Merriam-Webster online and found the adjective "hirsute" and the noun "hirsuteness" but no "hirsutely." No surprise there, just noting it for the record.

[second edition]

30. You know it's inevitable, you can always count on these posts

and these types of articles whenever Kerry speaks out and receives the respect and press he deserves. for someone everyone counts out, he sure creates a lot of interest.

[DeepModem Mom]

33. You're right. I just thought it was an interesting report/exchange --

I didn't think about starting an internecine war by posting. I'm not anti-Kerry, or anti- any Dem.

[second edition]

35. I understand. n/t

[displacedtexan]

32. I worked for the Kerry campaign in the DC HQ...

from June, 2003 until the day after the election in 'o4.
I know of no staffer who's bad-mouthed Kerry since
the election... other than to lament the fact that he
didn't stand up to the swiftboaters.

This GQ article is fiction.

[kerrygoddess]

43. Exactly!

Well said. These BS stories about what "dems" are saying are all BS!

[NYCGirl]

45. Perhaps you should withhold final judgement until you read the story. NT

[kerrygoddess]

52. perhaps you should too...

First - I don't buy into what right wing rags say.

Second - everytime something like this comes up it's proven false.

[NYCGirl]

55. I haven't read it (and neither have you). I've only read what was posted

here. So before you start calling the GQ story trash, you should at least wait until it sees print.

GQ is right wing?

[blm]

46. I tend to believe that forces within the party don't want Kerry in just as

they didn't want Gore - they are both too honest and especially in Kerry's case, Dem powerstructure does NOT want BCCI papers made public.

I think the same people pushing Hillary, Warner and Bayh helped this article along.

[jenndar]

47. That's nice to hear.

Unfortunately, backstabbing is always going to be politics as usual for some people. Oh, well. I think David Wade is dealing with this admirably.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

118. Great post, because since we at DU seek the truth, you would

certainly be in a position to know. I hope you send that reply to both GQ and the Daily News, and demand that it be printed, instead of these hearsay comments from anonymous sources.

[ProSense]

39. Expected timing on smear for comments by Clinton, Gore and Kerry

Clinton: worse administration in history (Cisneros investigation, Laura wouldn't run)

Gore: repeatedly and insistently broke the law (MSNBC, RW rag?, Gore stopped investigation)

Kerry: most derelict and irresponsible administration (Democrat criticizes Kerry)

[iconoclastNYC]

53. I think you are reaching.

The party is changing (in good ways) and not in a way that helps a Kerry canidacy. Kerry has a sense of entitlement that reminds me of Gephart.

Kerry won't make it to Iowa.

[ProSense]

56. Reaching? The post was about smearing Democrats. Entitlement? n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

64. It was reporting gossip

And it's not about Democrats, it's about a Democrat.

[ProSense]

75. News reports are gossip? n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

76. That report is gossip.

Yes. Look at the section that the Daily News put it in. It's in the URL!

[ProSense]

80. My post referred to news. The gossip was about an actual article. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

82. The actual article is also about Gossip.

Who's going on record saying that Kerry is finished? Nobody! It's gossip from "unnamed sources"...which is a nice way of saying gossip.

[ProSense]

84. So then it's not credible. So why write Kerry off based on it? n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

119. I didn't need to read this article to write off Kerry

Trust me on that. I only needed to see how he ran his campaign, how he let himself be swiftboated, how he caved on the stolen election, how he failed to speak clearly and motivate people, and how he's failed to make any changes in his attitude since loosing.

I supported him because I wanted Bush out of office, not because he was a great candidate. He's not going to get very far in 2008, mark my words.

[ProSense]

121. Support another candidate. We'll see n/t.

[iconoclastNYC]

122. I do.

Maybe Kerry will morgage his sailboard this time to keep his campaign running.

[ProSense]

123. Good for you! n/t

[ProSense]

58. Another thing, support who you want, Kerry is the one to catch. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

66. The one to catch?

We'll see who raises more money in the lead up to the primaries. What makes you think that he's in any better position than he was last time when he had to morgage his house to keep his campaign staff paid?

He didn't have wide appeal. He was ABB.

[ProSense]

73. We'll see. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

48. Cat fight! Love it.

Kerry is delusional if he thinks he had real support. For 9/10 of his supporters he was the ABB pick.

I just hope we get enough DLC candidates in running in 2008 running to split the DLC bloc.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Sometime mid last year

I believe it was either Randi or Stephanie Miller who reported that Kerry had a 89% of support through the democratic party and that's the highest support a canidate has had in forever within their own party.

[Orrex]

57. Presumably you mean 2004

By that time, Kerry was the clear frontrunner for the nomination. 89% tracks pretty closely with iconoclastNYC's "9/10" figure.

Kerry was the candidate we got. I would have voted for you in preference to Bush, but that doesn't mean that Kerry was a strong candidate.

Sorry that this upsets you.

[ProSense]

59. You really want to believe this, don't you.

The false statement was that nine out of 10 were voting ABB. The accurate number is that 89% were voting for Kerry. Subtract the difference and he would still have gotten 4 million more votes than any other Democrat who ran for president. And that's without knowing the impact of the stolen and suppressed votes.

[Orrex]

63. I'd take any Democrat over Bush, but I'd prefer one who's electable in '08

I don't care how many Democrats like Kerry, if 100% of Democrats are insufficient to lock in 271 electoral votes, so whether it's four or four million really makes no difference. It's not the Democrats that we'll need to convince in 08.

What will be the perception among the mythic "swing voters," who recall Kerry as the Loser of 04? Others in this thread have noted that Dean's influence will be important, as will the status of the Congress following the 06 elections. But Kerry has huge obstacles to overcome if he wants to be remotely viable.

The 04 candidate, who was successfully painted as a flip-flopping wind-surfing elitist, will need to do a lot better than "I'm not Bush" if anyone wants him to win.

[ProSense]

69. Are you saying that 100% of Dems can't win? Don't see it that way. n/t

[Orrex]

72. I'm not sure I understand you

Are you asking if I think that 100% of Democratic candidates can't win?
The answer to that question is no.

Or are you asking if I think that the votes of 100% of Democratic voters are insufficient, on their own, to guarantee a Democratic President elected in 08?
The answer to that quesiton is yes, if we're talking about likely turnout, geographic distribution, and the like.

[ProSense]

78. Voters other than Democrats voted and will voted for Kerry. n/t

[Orrex]

79. Enough? Do you know that for sure? How?

I'd love to believe that, but I'm afraid that I can't without better corroboration than 04 performance and our own current perceptions.

[ProSense]

83. Do you know for sure? I do know he broke the Dem record for votes. n/t

[Orrex]

90. I'm not convinced that it was on the strength of his candidacy

He was competing against a strongly disliked and wildly incompetent incumbent and rode the tide of Anybody-But-Bush, but very little in his campaign (outside of the debates) showed him to be a strong candidate in touch with the voters.

I heard it said, in the weeks following his "defeat," that part of Kerry's problem is that any random person could give a better articulation of Kerry's positions than Kerry himself could give.

Caricature:

Moderator: How are you, Mr Bush?
Bush: Ahm great, thank ya.

Moderator: How are you, Mr Kerry?
Kerry: Let me begin by saying that I'm glad that you've asked this question. In answer, I'd like to take this opportunity to tell the American people about my views on this very important subject. We live in a time of great change and great challenges, but together we can rise to these challenges and stand united as a stronger nation. Mr. Moderator, I am very pleased to declare that I am fine, that the American people are fine, and our great country can be fine once again.


Kerry didn't begin to connect until very late--too late--in his campaign. He will continue to be painted as an out of touch elitist whose sharp-tongued wife is out of control, and he will be so painted from the moment he announces his intent to run.

[ProSense]

96. Good RW impersonation. So you connected w/Bush in the real debates? n/t

[Orrex]

99. Say, that's a funny one!

It appears that you're unable to distinguish between "identifying a problem" and "being the problem." If you'd like, I can try to spell it out for you in small words, but here's the essence of it:

I voted for Kerry because I wanted Bush out of office and because much of what Kerry said made sense and was right on target. But I knew in December 2000 that I would vote Democrat in 2004, as did most of us here. Kerry's problem (well, one of them) is that he was painted as a high-brow Ivy League elitist, and he never sufficiently overcame that portrayal to lock in an electoral victory beyond the reach of Diebold et al. If Kerry campaigns again in 08, he'll still have to overcome that impression, and it will be made stronger by another overdose of media saturation telling the masses that Kerry is a veteran of questionable merit who flip-flopped in the Senate and who couldn't beat even beat the most unpopular President in three decades.

And then, if he overcomes that obstacle, they'll attack him for his lack of decisiveness on Iraq, his inability to correct Bush's eight years' worth of mistakes, and his admirable stance on abortion. Any Democratic candidate will face similar attacks, but Kerry has already faced them (largely unsuccessfully), and he was the 04 loser (in the eyes of the public).

Absent some major overhaul of image, Kerry is a non-viable candidate for President. However, I will of course vote for him if he's on the ballot.

Do you get it now?

[ProSense]

100. RW TP. If you dont have that impression, why push it off on others? n/t

[Orrex]

127. Look

If you can't assemble a better argument than a subject-line soundbyte, I can't be bothered to pursue this with you.

[ProSense]

128. You don't like Kerry's statements, but you also hate sound bites? n/t

[Orrex]

129. (nt)

[iconoclastNYC]

71. What?

You can't know who would have voted for Dean, or Clark, or Edwards.

What makes you think Kerry is going to run a better campaign in 2008? He hasn't changed much about himself at all, unlike Gore who seems like a completely different person.

[ProSense]

74. You can't know that 9/10 were ABB? Where do you get your information? n/t

[wisteria]

67. I voted for Kerry because he was the strong and most knowledgeable

candidate.

[wisteria]

70. Actually 2005 is the correct year! he had slighrly more in 2004. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

68. That doesnt' tell you

If it was becasue they loved the man or they loved the idea of getting rid of Bush. My money is on the latter.

[radio4progressives]

60. I think the most important point of concern this article reveals is that

the Fascists Corporate Media is the ENEMY of the Democratic Party.

That's what should be focused on, this story was a hit piece on a Democratic Presidential Contender. And like all other Democratic Party presidential contenders, the Fascists Corporate Media intends to smear, distort and run hit pieces against that individual.

We really shouldn't be engaging in what kind of campaign Kerry ran, it's irrelevant - Kerry WON the 2004 election, but the Fascists rigged the election in favor of the Bush Crime family and the MSM is their Deptmartment of Misinformation and Propaganda Ministry.

I apologize for taking the "lousy campaign" bait earlier.

I need to be reminded of this point of this post too.

Repeat after me:

The Fascists Corporate Media is the ENEMY of the Democratic Party.

They are just as much the ENEMY as the Neo Fascists. They ARE the neo fascists.

[blm]

65. Media is the PR Dept of the fascist agenda.

Once you see how they controlled what Americans heard about DeanScream, swiftlies, DSM and 2yr coverup for Rove outing CIA agent, it's easy to see where they fit in to the plan of the war profiteers who sign their company checks.

[radio4progressives]

86. Eggsactly ... I watched all of that unfold right in front of my eyeballs

even though I knew the FCMSM was on a fast track in being solidly established, (especially, Clinton's Lewinsky brouhaha/impeachment/2000 elections)it wasn't until the run up to the invasion in 2003 when i knew it was totally locked in, and then the 2004 election campaign verified it for me.

edited for more accuracy

[radio4progressives]

61. The Fascists Corporate Media is the ENEMY of the Democratic Party.

Period. (See post above)

[LittleClarkie]

97. I suspect you might be correct

considering who this reporter works for, and who they wanted for president in 2004. I'm told they wanted Lieberman, and now want Hillary.

It also makes me wonder, to see what this guy has to say, if Kerry had staffers like that, who didn't really believe in getting him elected, it kinda makes you wonder how hard they were trying, you know? But it's hard to tell, when said staffers are anonymous, at least until I can read the article.

Funny though, I thought the New Republic used to be quite progressive. I wonder when it turned. I seem to remember hearing about a change in ownership.

[KerryReallyWon]

77. John Kerry is running again...

I have been told by a previous co-worker that he was contacted by John Kerry, and he said he is running....that was the weekend of Dec. 11

[radio4progressives]

87. well, we always knew that right? and that might explain why Gore was

dissed by Reid last night on PBS News Hour.

[ProSense]

88. I don't think Gore was dissed by Reid.

I think he offered another opinion that said the same thing.

[LittleClarkie]

85. Not a fan, I take it. I remember when that Kerry campaign movie came out

And Lloyd gleefully "reported" that Hillary staffers were giddy with anticipation that Kerry would look like the ass they all knew he was. Turned out to be a non-event.

Mouthpiece? Flack? Dude, that's his spokesperson. And one of the staffers you're talking about. So anyone who isn't disgusted with Kerry among his staffers is a flack. I see.

Biased little there, aren't you?

I don't know who Crowley is. I'll reserve judgment re: him til I find out.

And I should remind Mr. Lloyd, some of us share that "delusion."

Not to mention that if he can't name the anonymous big name, it throws cold water, no make that boiling oil, on Mr. Lloyd's credibility.

But then again, how much credibility does a gossip columnist have?

Is he a Republican? Or a Hillary fan? Is Hillary the big name?

[AnnieBW]

101. Hirsutely?

"Wade responded hirsutely"

Does this mean that he's hairy? Hirsute = hairy

[TayTay]

102. I like that.

Maybe he was having a 'bad hair day' when he was called for the comment and responded accordingly. :rofl:

[cindyw]

103. In the face of lossing our Democracy, Dems choose to argue over Kerry?

1.The only thing that matters in this world anymore is getting rid of Bush and Co and saving the constitution.

2. Kerry would make a good President.

3. I could care less what some piss ant 30 somethings who have never sacrificed in their lives have to say about whether Kerry is popular among their idiot friends. I don't care if he wears neon green spedos when he windsurfs as long as the minimum wage goes up and my family has health care.

4. Kerry continues to fight for us, when the people here trash him. He offers you a fight and you spit in his face. I'm glad he has the decency to keep up the fight in the face of a bunch of ungrateful punks.

[LittleClarkie]

106. Holy shit. You go girl.

Incredibly well ranted.

[rockymountaindem]

109. Well stated

I wish I could nominate your post.

[Inuca]

126. Four excellent points

Bravo!:toast:

[Dr Fate]

107. I'm not a huge Kerry defender at all- and I call B.S.

Hearsay & rumors from "the liberal media."

If this rag wanted to be relevant, they would cover current events, like BUSH crimes.

Many "loyal Democrats" like me are open on this- I say we let the voters in the primaries decide if Kerry gets another shot.

[LittleClarkie]

116. Indeed. It's just so... anonymous and all

And I think Lloyd is pretty much a Hillary partisan.

Let the voters decide and let the chips fall where they may.

[zulchzulu]

110. I agree with Wade...GQ is for pickin' ties...not picking World leaders...

As for Kerry "just going away", don't count on it. He's on my side and has been kicking ass for over 35 years.

I wholeheartedly will support him if he runs again... support whoever you want...we'll see who wins. And since Kerry actually did win in 2004, I consider his run in 2008 to be a re-election.

[Renew Deal]

117. Smart response from the Kerry flack. GQ is very good.

GQ is a very good magazine with very good articles. They interviewed the guys that were guarding Saddam. It was a terrific article. They ask questions most others don't.

BTW, I am not too enthused by another Kerry run. He's done.

[wisteria]

124. kerry must be hitting some nerves, this GQ piece is junk and comes

off as a gossip piece with no one credited for there statements.
John Kerry hasn't even stated he is running and people already have their attack dogs out. I hope he runs again.He has a lot of support and is still raising a lot of money through his PACs.

[NYCGirl]

135. The entire article referenced is here:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_4129

As linked by the Huffington Post.

[second edition]

136. So what, one jackass has it in for Kerry and does a smear piece

in a fashion magazine. I don't think GQ is the go to place for political quarry. Maybe Kerry didn't take their fashion advice.