It wasn't the "joke" - let's get it right!

[wisteria]

The following comment appeared as an EDIDTORAL in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette today. It was an editorial on Biden, but the editor couldn't help throwing in the lie about Senator Kerry. IMO, these types of misconceptions by the media need to be addressed and countered with the truth. I have contacted the, I am asking if some other would too. Power does come in numbers. Maybe if we counter this comment with the truth, they will not be so quick just to throw it out there again.

"Sen. John F. Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, eliminated himself from the '08 race after ill-chosen remarks in October. Sen. Biden now appears to have done likewise and should formally withdraw now before he wastes any more of his and the voters' time."


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07034/759086-192.stm



contact info below


http://biz.post-gazette.com/contact/comments_form.aspx?ID=40

[Inuca]

1. I heard something similar

yesterday on NPR, on "News & Notes" I think is the name of the program. Long discussion on Biden, dissecting each and every word, and at some point one of the commentators (I do not remember at all who they were, names unknown to me), compared what Biden said to Kerry's (fill in with an annoying adjective here, I don't remember what it was... inappropriate? something along these line) joke, and said that Kerry at least learned from it, and took himself out of the race. Same idea, that the joke was the main reason. And I am afraid that no matter what we say, what he says, what anybody says, this perception will stay with many, maybe with the majority. Depressing and terribly unfair, but I am afraid true. The whole NPR program put me in a really foul mood. I am no big Biden fan, but to hear the way he was demolished, ridiculed, etc. was depressing. I felt it was just wrong. He put his foot in his moth, for sure. But that should not mean more than everything, good and bad, the mad has done for 30+ years. And these were not RW pundits, but mainly left-leaning black intellectuals. Of course my gut reaction had a lot to do with the similarities with what has been done to JK, but not only. I felt it was wrong on a very fundamental level.

[wisteria]

3. Even though it is fighting Goliath, I still felt a need to set the record straight and

wrote a letter.

[Inuca]

12. I admire your tenacity, I REALLY do n/t

[emulatorloo]

2. Even worse I have read pieces that accept that "Kerry joked about troops educational levels"

when as we all know the joke was WHAT AN IDIOT BUSH is.

Sorry don't have links. But it seem like the media will do what the media will do.

I am starting to worry that the media's new standard for the Dem primary is "THE ONE WHO MAKES THE LEAST GAFFES"

Anyone who makes a "GAFFE" gets 24/7 coverage to exclusion of all other news.

This is absurd. What a way to choose a President.

[wisteria]

4. That is a good point. Next it will be about insulting woman.

It is coming and I bet the Hillary camp are just waiting to exploit it and gain some sympathy from it. I am disgusted with this whole race already and it is early.

[Inuca]

13. Yes, yes, YES

That's why I got so mad and discouraged and disgusted with the whole thing listening these last couple of days to the media circus about Biden. As if nothing else mattered except the silly things he said. I wonder what he said and how he was received at the DNC conference. If anybody knows, please enlighten, I don't think I have the patience to go through it myself. I was WAY less involved last time around until the very end. Was similarly nasty, petty, and superficial (I mean among the dems) or is it a new phenomenon?

[MarjorieG]

5. Wrote an LTE

They won't print it, as I'm a NYer. PA papers have not been kind to Kerry, and the Inquirer is now owned/run by an ad-exec, the result of the Knight-Ritter/McClatchey takeover. He's laying off people. I fear even more about our corporate media:.

The editorial, "Biden's Blunder," comments also on Senator Kerry's "ill-chosen remarks," as reason for both to withdraw from seeking the presidency.

Kerry left out the pronoun "us," giving the White House, and some Democrats running for president, just the opportunity they sought. To twist and to pile on, in order to take the chief fundraiser of the mid-terms, and most vocal critic of the Iraq policy, off the road and out of contention. They had the correct text, after all.

Sadly, the misinformation stands and circulates today. In effect, trying to take away his lifelong appreciation of the military, and his championing of veterans' rights. When it was all about Bush not knowing his history and repeating it with the disaster in Iraq.

Considering what we've had to endure with President Bush's intended and unintended language lapses, even taking us to war, I think you might cut our candidates some slack. I challenge anyone to be flawless after a full day of campaigning, having been followed by a tape recorder, just to find the opportunity to mischaracterize and mock.

The presidential election should not be about who the press leaves standing, about single words, but more about who could best do the job and why. We all have had enough of gotcha. Readers and voters are very ready for a fair, spin-free discussion of our future.

John Kerry is all about public service and truth-telling, trying to end the war. He could use Post-Gazette's help with that, as well.

[wisteria]

18. That is a great letter! I hope they will print it. They do sometimes with out of town people.

If they call, tell them you went to school in Pittsburgh.

[ProSense]

19. Terrific letter! Thanks. n/t

[beachmom]

6. The joke was a factor, especially the joke fallout

It's a delicate point of contention, but to say the joke plus the joke fallout had no bearing on Kerry's decision to not run is just not the truth. Before that, his poll numbers, while not fabulous, were within striking distance of the others. Then what happened? The Right and the Bush WH went after him, but what really made it terrible was first the MSM, then fellow Democrats, went after him, too, showing no mercy whatsoever. I just don't see how you can argue the joke had NO bearing on his decision. There were many factors going into the decision, and we can only speculate, but "Pronoungate", as we can call the whole affair, showed that the rules were going to be different for John Kerry, that he was going to be treated entirely unfairly, and there wasn't a damned thing he could do about it.

I consider the MSM to be hell bent against him, and pronoungate made that fact apparent. That had to factor in -- that having the media against you was going to make such a difficult race that much harder, and perhaps impossible to overcome. That plus stopping the Iraq War and people truly thinking he was a great senator who was needed in the Senate were what led him to his decision.

[TayTay]

7. Just so. It was because of what that revealed

and the deep, deep prejudice against another run by Sen. Kerry that had become part of the leadership of the Democratic Party. I think there were a lot of people who were looking for an excuse to do this to Kerry. This was the excuse. So, it played a part. Nobody can go through that much of a barrage of brickbats and not come out unharmed by it.

This is a shame. But, I agree with Beachmom, it played a part. Some of us talked about the institutional bias against Kerry with people back in Dec of 2005. It is no real surprise to see that this happened. We were, in so many words, told that the conditions were there for it to happen.

[MarjorieG]

8. Leadership was only going to support flawless.

And who can be flawless. Letting him work for two years towards mid-terms, gaining support, only to have the hammer dropped when they were ready.

Undermining 2004 is what keeps me up at nights.

[wisteria]

23. Exactly! n/t

[karynnj]

35. "Undermining 2004 is what keeps me up at nights"

Same here, it sounds unholy and evil. The Clinton people by then knew exactly what they had in Bush and let it happen. Then after the election a jovial Bill said that he liked both Bush and Kerry. He may be someone who really would prefer to share a beer with Bush. Looking Kerry in the eye after the election might have been harder.

Getting the Democratic nomination should have given him their support. Looking at how he handled the Lamont victory, I can see this means nothing to Clinton.

[karynnj]

10. I agree with both Beachmom and Tay Tay

It mainly reatffirmed that the powers that be absolutely did not want Senator Kerry to be President and still don't.

The party and the liberal part of the media which sat on their hands and gave Kerry tepid support at best in 2004. When you consider what happened since 2005, this is beyond sickening. The articles on foreign policy during the election in both the NYT and WP spoke of Bush having usurpted the idealism that liberals traditionally had and spoke of Kerry's policy in very negative pragmatic terms. Kerry's policy was idealist, but absolutely rejected the "US knows best", authoritarian, democracy by force that the neo-cons in both parties and the press bought into.

Then throughout 2005 and 2006, the media has stifled his message and have repeated constant negative messages - such as implying that he had no right to consider himself as a Democratic leader and that he was wrong to ever challange Reid, who was a leader. Consider how the NYT clearly wanted Alito filibustered, but ridiculed Kerry for doing it, then bemoaned the fact that it failed. They wanted it done, but not by Kerry. The fact that during that time period, everything Kerry said in 2004, that the media disputed and backed Bush on, was proven right. He also was leading where the American people wanted to go. He got pretty little support or coverage. Now, when Hillary has a clone Kids health care, it gets big coverage. When Edwards, with no record on the environment worth pointing tp lists global warming in his list of 5 points, it's news, as when he lifts Kerry's words on "moral leadership in the world". Kerry would even have had difficulty even claiming his ideas from 2004 as his.

The cruelty (to use Marjorie's word) of the October/November attacks showed that they were willing to go further. It seems, they were not far from where Nixon was in 1971, they were willing to destroy Kerry and anyone near him to prevent him from becoming President. Not running, but continuing to fight might have been seen as the best way to correct things that are wrong. Oddly, at a very different level it may parallel his decision in 1973 that running for Congress again was not a good idea because 1972 had made the situation too toxic.

[Inuca]

16. All true, but WHY????

Maybe I am just thick headed or refuse to look some obvious truth in the face... I don't know. I just cannot accept the idea that he is the lone knight on the white horse, the sir Percival of the democratic party, and all the others are just worms.

[karynnj]

30. I think two possible Scenarios

1) It had nothing to do with Kerry scenario: Kerry becoming President would preclude Hillary from being President. (This could be expanded from Hillary to the DLC wing of the party.) There is no way with Kerry as President (or heaven forbid with Edwards as President) going into 2008, that she would get the 2008 nomination. For many invested with Hillary, this was reason enough. If this is the case, watch for attacks if any of the others gain momentum. The fear since 2004 would be that he came so close with so little help and so many Democrats dragging their feet. With mostly negative press, in October, he was ahead of Edwards (though it was not significant) in several polls. (With both Edwards out for a few month, he was actually slightly declining.) Obama may be a flash or may be real. Kerry was the solid one and he was gaining - very slightly. Remember the Luntz focus group - when heard, he was the best and he would be heard in the debates.

2) The problem was unique to Kerry: This is a darker scenario. If Kerry became President, many more biographies would be written. His past - fighting corruption - reflects very well on him and poorly on most leaders of the last several decades. Consider how the legacies of other Presidents are impacted. Reagan/Bush/Bush are all clearly made worse (esp the first two). Likewise, Clinton, at minimum didn't question the CIA letting the Contras use Arkansas, the Rich pardon might be questioned and it would not be just on the environment, but on national security that the Clinton years would be seen as "the years the locusts ate" to use the Churchill phrase Kerry quoted. With Kerry, Clinton was likely fighting for his legacy as much as for Hillary.

[MarjorieG]

31. Too cynical and sinister to want to believe, but all seems true.

A Bill3 CYA operation, as well as protecting corporate interests, status quo. I do wonder what Bush the elder and Clinton really do talk about. Clinton does love playing with the big boys, and Bush's contacts have tentacles pretty up whatever food chain you care to mention.

[wisteria]

24. I agree in principal that the joke was a personal deciding factor for him

I am out to set the record straight and speak the truth about the misconception of the joke. I am out to let the general public know that the truth was not reported,he was the victim of a smear campaign.
I do not want to have people continue to believe that he insulted the troops, I want them to know the truth.

[karynnj]

40. Correcting those misperceptions is great

and the LTE you got published really did that.

[wisteria]

47. yes, and in turn the editor prints a misconception about the

joke. And I want to call him on the misconception. Refute the idea that Kerry smeared the troops and present exactly what he did say. That is all.

[Inuca]

15. Agree, think Levin

What he said I think is more revealing than what HRC said. "He does not speak for the party", that's what he said if I remember correctly. And this coming from an old timer with no other ambition as far as I know than to continue in the Senate, which I assume he can do for as long as he wants to. So no personal motive whatsoever. It's almost like a freudian slip, not that he does not speak for the party in that "statement", which I am sure Levin has more than enough brains to have understood in less than a second, but he does not speak for the party, period. Why this is the case, and what exactly it means, I do not know.

[wisteria]

22. Personally the joke played a part, however, it is the public perception of the "joke"

that I am interested in challenging. He was wronged and he was the victim of another smear, he didn't say what was reported. I am challenging that wrong and trying to right it with the public. I don't want people to believe that Senator Kerry did insult the troops, I want them to know he was speaking of Bush.

I am well aware of our party insiders and how they operated with this. I believe there was an effort by both Republicans and Democrats to do him in. It was just a matter of time and he was building momentum so they found this to go after him with.


Again, I am out to bring the truth to light. The perception that he insulted the troops is unfair and still needs to be addressed. He shouldn't be remembered for something he didn't say, but for things he did say.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Well

Senator Kerry himself said that was not a factor, I tend to believe him. You can't stop a war on a campaign trail, he puts the country first and not himself.

I will not speculate like the pundits.

[politicasista]

11. But, it feels like Rove won again

As well as the Clintonistas and others that played along with it. That's what is so shameful about "pronoungate."

Hope no one takes this the wrong way, but by him not running (which I don't blame him now) is being perceived like he let Rove, DC Dems, and the Clintonistas win.

[MarjorieG]

17. Who is saying?

The people not in Kerry's camp, the deconstructing purists in 04, blame him again for not saving them? They were saying he's oneof them, so now not?

Maybe the Clintonistas themselves promoting tougher storyline, therefore better.

Do people know hard to buck this Bill3 stranglehold, years in formation, as well as DC not really wanting honest change? Gee, if it were such a cakewalk, so winnable then, are they now admitting the difficulty and regret their own lack of support?

When I hear Hillary cozying up to AIPAC, Iran not off the table, I really wonder where they are. I don't think neo-con liberals, but still, not what I envisioned of a Kerry presidency.

[politicasista]

20. Yep. And..

it goes back to blm's comment in another thread. If Bush and the neo-cons were so beatable in 04? Why didn't Hillary, Biden, or anyone else run then?

And I don't like their stances on Iran either.

[wisteria]

25. That is why I feel such a need to set the record straight. I don't want any one

thinking he belittled the troops. I want the truth told.

[beachmom]

28. The war was one factor, true, and I believe him, too.

But that was not the only factor. Before pronoungate, he looked like a person ready to run -- remember the Jefferson/Jackson dinner in NH? He was on FIRE that night. That was an '08 appearance. After pronoungate, we never saw that John Kerry again. He still said he was considering running, but variables had changed at that point. Then there was his and Dodd's trip to the M.E. and Brian Freeman's death. That made the decision clearer to make, and he made the right decision.

[politicasista]

32. This was another factor

Apparently, his mind was made up before or after "pronoungate." :(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3074581#3076087


I agree that after that Jefferson/Jackson dinner, we never saw that Kerry again, it's like the momentum disappeared after "pronoungate." It's still unfortunate because he had a lot to offer in the 08 race.

[wisteria]

21. No doubt the treatment within the party and the media played a

part in his decision not to run. But, I still believe the media needs to be challenged on the distortion of Kerry's words and the part others played in carrying it further along. So, it isn't so much that the joke may have been a "personal" consideration in not running, but the issue of the media tagging him with this misconception which they created and perpetuating it as his downfall. It is bringing to light that he didn't say what was reported, but became a victim of another smear- unfairly. Maybe I am to much of an idealist, but what happened to Senator Kerry was extremely unfair and I think as many people as possible should be made aware of this in the general public.

[Dr Ron]

14. In a way it was the joke due to the lost opportunity and momentum

The joke did hurt Kerry--not because he said anything so bad but because of the effects on the dynamics.

Kerry had an uphill battle to be renominated. One of the things he had to do was to replicate the Nixon route of campaigning for other members of his party to gather a lot of debts and to be seen as a leader. At first it looked like Kerry had a shot of doing this with his fund raising and frequent campaign appearances. If not for the joke, Kerry could have been seen as a hero for helping the Democrats take Congress.

As a result of the joke he lost the exposure in the last week and instead had all the negative publicity. Instead of being seen as a hero to the party the conventional wisdom was that he was a detriment, even if not true. Unfortunately the off year election was a one time opportunity between 2004 and 2008 and losing the momentum that the midterm election should have brought to him was a major blow to his chances.

The sad thing is that the nominees are being picked due to factors having nothing to do with qualifications for office. To some degree it is an elimination contest where trivial things like the joke can eliminate a candidate. Instead we have Hillary as front runner primarily due to being so well known as a former first lady. Behind her in the top tier we have two men who are in their position for their charisma but who have minimal experience in national issues.

[wisteria]

26. Agreed. I am only trying to bring the truth to light.

maybe I should have worded my post differently,but I do not want the press to continue to suggest that he insulted the troops and this is why he didn't run. I want as many people in the public to know that he was a victim of a smear. In other words, I want to set the record straight.

[Dr Ron]

27. Agree, Kerry was smeared

It is a problem that this is presented as something Kerry did wrong. Some coverage continues to suggest he insulted the troops. Even the coverage which gets it right that this is not what Kerry said still implies that Kerry screwed up in talking and therefore would make a poor candidate. That miss the basic point that Kerry only looked bad from this because the right wing blog and media, followed by the White House, twisted what he said.

[emulatorloo]

29. Wisteria, I agree w you, and any fool who parrots "Kerry insulted the troops" to me gets an earfull

The job done by the right wing lie machine was thorough and effective.

I'll join you in trying to correct it w LTE;s etc.

I guess I am feeling really negative today . . . or maybe the better word is "overwhelmed" at how badly the media treats good Dems in general, and JK in particular.

We are to a point where these 'mistatements' about the joke feel calculated and deliberate.

[wisteria]

48. Thanks. That is all I am asking. n/t

[karynnj]

34. My guess is that only over time will this change

If Kerry goes on to be a real leader in the Senate or if at some time in the future a contarian decides to look at the history of the Clinton/Bush/ years may see Gore and Kerry as the people they are, who would have brought the US back to where it once belonged.

Now, correcting that he was against the troops is easy. As Ron said the view that he was a poor candidate is the one more pushed - it is also an attempt to hide what the media and the party did. That's why Prosense's absolutely awesome DU and Dkos post is the best response in the blogosphere because it addresses the full charge. Your LTE etc are great where there is little space.

[wisteria]

38. I hope so and that his good deeds on behalf of the soldiers are

brought to light.

[karynnj]

44. The story of Kerry and Dodd and Brian Freeman

was given substantial press. Although never said explicitly, one part of the story is that this young captain trusted Kerry and Dodd enough to seek them out to speak to them about his concern that they were being asked to do things they were untrained for. Do you think they were chosen randomly? He trusted Senators Kerry and Dodd enough to go out of his way to speak to them. This and other Kerry comments that vets and soldiers have sought him out and spoke to him show the real basic relationship Kerry has with the soldiers.

He will always have some Vietnam vets who hate him for telling the truth. That Webb, after Kerry helped him, still found it necessary to argue the Vietnam was a popular war in 1972, proves that even a very intelligent man can be blinded by not wanting to admit the truth on a major segment of his own life.

[wisteria]

46. Yes, it got some attention and that is wonderful. But, we need many

more stories of trust and respect from our soldiers towards Senator Kerry. Good deeds go unrecognized if you don't have someone spreading the word. Of course, perhaps Senator Kerry doesn't want this good works to be mentioned.

However, I see no harm in countering inaccuracies with the truth in the meantime, while Kerry gains back the reputation he deserves, especially when in the case of the editorial I linked to the editor himself is spreading the untruth.

[karynnj]

51. I agree with you on both points

The latter was probably why I found DU in late 2004 - it seemed so incredibly unfair that his good name was slimed just because he ran for President.

I trust that Kerry being Kerry is the best long term solution - it does come through to more and more people that he really is a class act.

[TayTay]

36. I understand that and appreciate it.

This will happen in time. In 2002 and 2003, Al Gore was a persona non gratis in the Democratic Party. Then a new election happened and he was 'let off the hook' by the Dems and 'forgiven' for the loss in 2000. This will happen with Kerry as well, in time. It will happen much more quickly when Kerry stands up as a voice of conscience for the Party in '08. This requires time.

I think the good Senator needs to continue pushing his issues and then concentrate on his book and then take it one step at a time after that. He has a unique opportunity to talk as we saw when he got back from Iraq and the Middle East in Dec. He was a sought after interview because he does have that gravitas. That is not going to go away, but it will emerge in a different way. (Truth check on '08.)

Nothing that happened was fair. Politics is not fair. That is a heartbreaking notion, I know, but it's true. You know, it's also not fair to lose your home in a hurricane, have your job outsourced to another country, lose your home and life savings because a relative got sick and any number of other things that happen to people all the time in this country. I think that Sen. Kerry is a good and decent man because he knows that.

The last Presidential race did change this good and decent man for the better, the proof of that is in those speeches from Faneuil Hall last year and those remarkable speeches at Pepperdine and at the Lance Armstrong LiveStrong event in Texas. (Ah, I believe the good Senator is still wearing the LiveStrong bracelet. I guess he means it.) One door has closed, that is true, but other doors will open. Give it time.

Watch the debate this week, if it happens, on the Senate floor on Iraq. Watch it and see if that passion returns. I'm betting it will. (As it will on health care, veterans issues and so forth.) Give it time, as you would for any other human being who has recently 'been through it' and come out the other end. Give it time.

[wisteria]

39. Oh, I intend on watching. And I intend on supporting the Senator-

that is if you don't mind me supporting your senator.(Mine is a little green and soft spoken) My aim was only to counter the lie and make the editor realize that people do know the truth. And, to make the public away of what really was said.
Senator Kerry doesn't deserve to be thought of as smearing the troops. I won't let the Repubs or Hillbilly do that to him or his reputation.
Tay, no doubt in my mind that Senator Kerry will be written about and remembered as being correct and being brave enough to speak the truth to lies.

[TayTay]

41. I would love to share.

After all, there is work to be done.

The commitments to the veterans is real. I saw it this week at that hearing in Small Business. Sen. Kerry talked to the officials from SBA and DoD and was pointed with them and asked specific questions that challenged these people on the great progress they claimed to be making. However, Kerry was different with the vets. He even invited 4 vets who weren't officially on the program to speak and tell their stories about dealing with the SBA. Ah, good job.

The best way to counter the silly idea that Kerry would have ever done anything against the troops is to pursue the agenda he has on the legislative calendar. Get these bills through Small Business. Complete the work on the parts of the Military Families Bill of Rights that have not yet been passed. That is the best rebuttal of the charges.

[wisteria]

45. Yes, long term if people are made aware of these good things,

but it never hurts to tackle inaccuracies from every angle. I have spent nearly three years defending the good senator. I can not just walk away from that now. Not when I have the truth to counter the lies and also mention the good works he has done.

[karynnj]

33. I agree with this

But, I think that even had Kerry not made that joke, some Kerry comment would have been twisted by the RW to try to eliminate his strong comments on Iraq. It would have been less devastating if it were not a sophisticated somewhat snarky joke - that some people were able to say was not respectful to Bush (lost on us at DU because it is mild compared to what we see daily.)

Consider how the RW jumped on the "terrorizing" comment a year before. Those Kerry interviews were incredible and made me see the problem of the US doing search and destroy missions in a country where they didn't know the language from the point of view of the soldiers and the Iraqis. Nothing before that had made me able to visualize the situation. Yet it was uncomfortable to hear the one phrase out of context. With hundreds of hours of Kerry speaking on the real issues, something like this would be found. Look how the very serious thoughtful Davos comments were used.

Kerry had to do what he did in 2006 - putting himself out everwhere and speaking out as he did. He also had to lead on everything from 2004 - 2006, which he did beautifully. He had no marging of error. The HeyJohn hit 2 or 3 weeks before the election shows how intent on hitting him some on our side of the aisle were - even as he worked his heart out to help. This showed they had no intention to play fair. The joke gave them the perfect opportunity and their action makes me aware of what small nasty people they are.

[wisteria]

37. OMG, they were out to get him. My mother who is very wise and

very political warned me about this. She had had her fill of politics while she was married to my father. She knows how the game is played. If it wasn't this it was going to be something else.
Still none of it is right, and it should be challenged and change demanded. We need to run our best candidates not the next in line.

[MarjorieG]

42. Do we have to worry about International Pariah now?

Should a SOS become available, which, frankly, he'd be great at deserves.

[TayTay]

43. No, not really

That mainly pissed off people who didn't agree with him anyway. It was fodder for RWers who saw what they wanted to see.

Funny that the media didn't report that Kerry said how bad it was for the Iranian President to hold that denial conference on the Holocaust and how much harder that makes it to do diplomacy. They also didn't report that Kerry said that the Iranians could end this standoff if they would just agree to a temporary moratorium on producing enriched uranium. All while sitting next to former Iranian Pres Khatami. That part didn't make the RW blogs.

Also, David Ignatious, of the WaPo was the moderator of this panel at Davos. He knows what Kerry said. I think he is an insurance policy against the loony view getting out of control. He was there and he is very much a member of the DC insiders and of the MSM.

[MarjorieG]

49. He had great solutions at Davos.

Delivered calmly, smart, cagey, and as matter of fact, for Israel, Iran, about Palestine, so much. I love that world view, and don't hear it enough, unless criticized for naivete. How do get such important comment out there?

"Looney stuff," said sarcastically as Kerry's smart solutions?

[wisteria]

50. Here is a positive spin on Kerry in Switzerland. The first I have seen, but addresses

a lot of the RW junk.
Not to crazy about the beginning though. There are many of us who don't want him to be quite, the establishment Dem's be damned.




http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/01/30/Opinion/Glendon.Y.Mccreary-2686169.shtml?sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com



Now, it has been well-established that John Kerry is not the best jokester in the world, and that he has a tendency to say things in such a way that they are easily misinterpreted. However, the implication being made by headlines such as the one above and those by conservative pundits goes far beyond criticizing Kerry's clumsy phrasing or even the viewpoint itself. It is suggesting that somehow Kerry's comments were damaging to our country.


No, what conservatives wanted to focus on was one word -- pariah -- and the fact that any American would dare criticize his own country. This episode, and many others like it, highlights an obsession with words, as opposed to actions, on the part of the President's supporters.


And Kerry hasn't been the only target of this kind of deceptive attack. With Congress set to publicly denounce the President's plans for putting more troops in Iraq, he and his supporters have warned that any kind of resolution passed by Congress refuting his Iraq strategy would be seen as "emboldening the terrorists" and "demoralizing to the troops." Of course, such assertions are not only baseless but insulting as well.