Reply #20: I think you need to assess why you think AAs cannot get information from the MSM [View All]

[karynnj]

and why the black media has not done a good job on communication here. The fact is that Kerry, in serval articles, is described as having had over 270 meetings on climate shange and he has given speeches and gone on talk shows. It says something that you ask that he be the one to carry this message to the black media. Have you stopped to think that the black media is just not interested.

Ophrah was, at best, neutral in 2004. My guess - she liked the tax cuts. She has never invited Kerry on her show - ever, though she did have Laura Bush on for her book tour (during which in true "mean girl" fashion, she trashed both Kerrys while being above politics.) Oprah is in control of her show, not Kerry. Of course, she had the Bidens and Obamas on, she was a strong, early endorser of Obama. As to Gore, she gave both him and Bush a show in 2000 and he was on after his Nobel Prize was announced. NONE of these people were on to advocate or explain policy. It was personal. But, this is not about Kerry - it is about getting the message out on the need to pass a bill that prices carbon.

However, from your comments, it seems that Lisa Jackson, head of EPA, and Van Jones, a fellow at Center for American Progress, have failed as well to reach the black media powers as well. From your comments, the black media commentors seem to have done less well than even the MSM on explaining climate change. The science is there and there are plenty of competent people - including blacks like Jones, Jackson and, of course, Obama (who seems reluctant to do so) - who could explain the need to price carbon. What leverage does Kerry have to push black media to do so?

What Kerry is doing is his job, of crafting a bill that will reduce carbon emissions, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce the deficit, and has a cost of less than 50 cents a household a day. This was done while getting support from the affected industries, environmentalists, et al. He also is working with his fellow Senators. Of course he is making compromises, no bill that EVER passed did not make compromises. This is important - it is FAR better to pass a bill that makes small steps in the right direction than to have a perfect, well designed bill that gets 13 votes.

As to Feingold and Franken being "progressives" that Jones could reach - on this issue, they are not all that good - Feingold is awful. He voted NOT to let this pass under reconciliation. Both he and Franken were among the Senators asking for waivers to let coal power plants pollute.

It seems to me that while you ignore the very negative posts here on Obama - you consider negative posts on Kerry to relect what most people think of him. The fact is that both should be taken with a grain of salt. It is fact though that BOTH men are actually thought of as definately more good than bad by the DU population.

I really don't know what to make of your comment "Glad you see decent people in the Kerrys. It is unfortunate that more don't". The fact is virtually every poster here would credit Kerry and his wife as being not only "decent", but likely very decent. The same goes for the Obamas. What people question is the policies - or in both cases - if promises they made and hopes they raised were met. In Kerry's case, he raised hopes as he closed in on Bush and seemed to be winning. In Obama's, it was a confused set of expectations that he would immediately fix a world falling apart.

I suspect that the intensity of the reaction to Kerry - versus say Feingold (who is closer to Nelson in his votes than to Sanders - is that history. But, for all the anger and disappointment, though some question his political ability, very few when pushed, don't question the idea that he is a principled decent man.

I'm sorry if this is perceived by you as "bullying". It just gets very frustrating when -no matter what the op on Kerry is about - you whine about how he's not reaching AAs. The fact is a higher percent voted for him in 2004 than voted for Clinton. In addition, he has an 100% record on ALL civil rights issues, wrote a lot of legislation for minority small businesses, and has always had high African American support in MA elections. (This is far better than Gore's Senate record) At this point, the people he needs support from are fellow Senators and from MA voters IF in 2014, at the age of 70, he chooses to offer to represent the state for 6 more years.