Anyone watch Stephanopoulos????

[whometense]

First question of the round table was about the arrests of the potential terrorists in England. Stephanopoulos asked the group, "What can we take from this?"

First to answer was George Will, and I quote: "John Kerry had a point."

I know, I know - I almost fell over. He came prepared. He read from JK's answer to a question at the SC democratic debate, January 29, 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

KERRY: The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

[whometense]

1. Stephanopoulos also twisted

McCain up in knots over his self-condradictory stand on Iraq. Pretty satisfying. I highly recommend watching it online when it's available - or getting the podcast.

[Island Blue]

2. Wow, I missed that

but I did think I just felt a slight shift in the earth's rotation. I guess this explains it!

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. Thanks for the heads up

it doesn't come on here until 11:30, so now I will definitely watch. Another Kerry was right. arggggh!!!

[globalvillage]

4. How far into the show?

It's coming on now and I'm low on recording space.
Thanks, this is great.

[ProSense]

5. Excellent! Here's a post for Senator Kerry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2776346&mesg_id=2776346

[whometense]

6. Podcast is up

here: http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/060813tw_show.mp3

You can watch the video here: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

[demdiva]

7. YES. I was planning to post that for you guys!

Of course he had to preface it with something like .."There's a first time for everything", but whatever, he outright gave JK props.

[kerrygoddess]

8. Ron caught it

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=37
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3865

[JI7]

9. did Feingold really say McCain would beat him in a Presidential election ?

i assume that means Feingold wont be running. i don't see why anyone would say that. even if they thought it why would they say it ?

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. Yes, he did

I thought it was really weird that he said that. You know, I am tired of Dems praising McCain, they need to start praising other Dems.

[globalvillage]

11. I thought it was really odd.

But Snuffy had a quote from Sen Feingold saying pretty much that, and I think it caught him off guard. You would think, knowing he had said it in the past, he'd have a better answer ready.

[fedupinBushcountry]

12. You know

after he said that I came away with the feeling that Feingold is not going to run. Anyone else?

[JI7]

13. i didn't see it for myself

based on globalvillage's comment it seems like he had said it in the past and wasn't sure how to get out of it so he just said yes. so if that's true then he may still run.

but it seems like something he could have easily explained by saying something like McCain is well known if the election was NOW he would win. but as people get to know me things would change.

i asked based on what i read in another thread.

[globalvillage]

17. Personally,

My guess is that he wants the #2 slot. I think he'd make a good VP for Sen Kerry, although I'm leaning Clark because I think he can bring more votes.
Just a feeling. Who knows what might happen between now and then.

[ProSense]

15. Really odd.

McCain: super candidate. I don't care how many polls they run, McCain cannot win. The assumption that Democrats would vote for him over a Democratic candidate, that Republicans would turn out in force and all would forget about his position on the issues is ludicrous.

Despite his experience with attacks in 2000, when no one got to see the real McCain, a glimpse at the real McCain on the campaign trail will turn a lot of people off. He has a rubber-stamp voting record, horrible positions on a lot of issues and inaction on others, and he is the one who advocated escalating the war in Iraq.

He has also done some despicable things since 2000, which include enlisting the support of his attackers, flouting campaign finance laws and pandering to right-wing extremists. If his is the Repub nominee in 2008, the media will try to pump him up. Fortunately, more and more people are seeing through media spin and if the Democratic Party aggressively counters, as they have been doing, McCain cannot skate his way to the WH.

McCain is a not a super candidate.

Maybe Senator Feingold was using a little reverse psychology (I hope). There is no need to answer these speculative questions and definitely no reason to pump up McCain.

[globalvillage]

16. I agree, he can't win.

For the reasons you mention and also, he has a pretty ugly personal history.
Sucky candidate, despite the recent media buildup. I hope they try to run him. He'd be trounced.

[ginnyinWI]

14. I heard that!

My reaction: "No way! Amazing!"

And I'm sure he wasn't the only pundit who remembered what Kerry had said, and how * used it against him in more than one campaign speech. That's why they remember it--* repeated it several times in mocking tones.

JK is absolutely, 100% right and now we see the proof.

[karynnj]

18. Odd that you should mention the ridicule he got

My husband's first comment when I mentioned Whome's post about Will's comment was whether he mentioned that the media joined the RW and Bush in ridiculing Kerry on his sensible position.

More than any other "Kerry was right", the course set on the war in terror was on-going. Nearly the entire media sided with Bush, ignoring that Kerry's plan would lead the country out of the trauma caused by fear and into a more normal life. Kerry's way not only had more chance of working, a Kerry administration would have immediately led to a reduction in the tension caused by a permanent state of fear.

The big thing about Will's comment is when you couple it with the election exit polls - Kerry's position on almost everything was preferred to Bush's - the ONLY area where he was far behind was on terrorism. Will is a respected conservative pundit, but he is only one person. The Democrats need to pull out Kerry's 2004 position on terror and point out that this is what worked in Britain. (In fact even on 7/7/05, the day of the bombings - British officials were already on TV speaking about following the money trail.)

[wisteria]

19. You are correct. The party needs to emphasis this as well as

continuing to point out safety issues not addressed by the administration in the 9/11 report and also the Iraq war mess.

Oh, and I will add that somehow, Lieberman has to shut his damn mouth or the Dem's are going to have to start taking him on and getting critical of him over his positions on these issues of security and the war. The Re pubs are betting our party won't and this will be used by them as proof of divisions within our party and enhance there rhetoric of the "fringe left" controlling the party. They have begun associating our position on this war with the 60's already.
I now believe it is possible that Re pubs and Conservative Independents in CT. could make this a contest about to Dem's only. Melman mentioned Sunday, that he was told not to get involved in Ct. and did not endorse the Re pub running there.
I have lost all respect for Lieberman. He has been wrong regarding his position on Iraq, and he lost the race, but Mr Ego doesn't care what he does to the party. He only cares about his Senate seat and himself. Republicans are going to pour money into his independent campaign because if they have to have to deal with a Dem senator in Ct. Lieberman is much more appealing than Lamont. Personally, there might just be something to that mole theory. Republicans seemed to eager to come to his defense and now Novak is trying to down play the Re pubs reactions, saying it was all crocodile tears.

[TayTay]

20. I was willing to cut Lieberman 3 days slack to get over the primary

and make a 'graceful' exit from the race. He is, instead, going full-blown over to the Repub side. What he has said and done is pretty much inexcusable. Most Americans view Iraq as a killing field where the US military appears to be stuck due to the incompetence and inept handling of the White House in general and Rumsfeld in particular. Apparently, Holy Joe sees it as a way to score political points and to accuse the very Democrats who worked for him in the past and who worked to get him elected as VP in 2000 of low-level treason for even questioning his motives.

Democrats didn't desert Lieberman, he deserted them. He continually attacks Democrats on the national news and laughs about it. He disdainfully called anyone who disagreed with him a dupe of the far-left. He is enabling a longer war in Iraq with his antics and that is just inexcusable. He gives cover to the Repubs for false claim of bipartisanship and he makes the job of Dems like Sens Kerry, Feingold and Boxer, who want to get the US out of Iraq, that much harder.

I think the gloves should come all the way off for Holy Joe. He sures as hell thinks he should do that and is willing to betray the very people who worked so hard for him as a Democratic nominee in the past. Apparently, loyalty is a one-way street for Lieberman. Okay, Joe, that works for me too now.

[wisteria]

21. Very well put! Lieberman needs to be taken down, he gives us no

other choice.