Kerry blasts corporate media

[cestpaspossible]

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) criticized the media, blasted President George W. Bush's tax and foreign policies and discussed his own presidential ambition in a public discussion with Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Monday night.

Kerry criticized the mainstream media for contributing to an atmosphere of fear and lies.

"There is something wrong with who is arbitrating the truth," he said. "When fear is dominating the discussion, we have a problem."

Kerry said news conglomerates -- particularly of broadcast news -- were a large part of the problem. "The corporatization of the media has taken away some of the muckraking," he said.

Kerry also criticized politicians, calling on Washington to increase accountability for decisions. "The question is how we're going to create accountability in American politics," he said. "We had a saying: My country, right or wrong, when right, keep it right; when wrong, make it right."

Calling Bush's wartime tax cuts a "middle-class squeeze," Kerry said the administration offered too many breaks to the upper class while decreasing benefits for the average family, particularly when it came to education. "The tax burden of the middle class went up, while the education burden has gone up simultaneously," he said.
Kerry talks politics at JFK

[toddzilla]

1. lol what a fucking joke...

now that i've lost, let's talk about some stuff that matters!!

[blm]

3. He spoke about all this many times before. YOU choose to believe the media

depiction of Kerry as someone who never spoke of these things during the campaign.

Isn't THAT the problem in this country?

You think ANY Democrat will win the presidency without dealing with the GOP control over most of the media FIRST?

The DNC should be handling this now and I expect Dean will be joining Kerry on this issue real soon. He, too, understands the complicity of the media in keeping Bush and the GOP in power.

[98geoduck]

88. It's funny I didn't hear him complaining about the fiasco MSM served

Dean with. The only thing I recall is a snide remark he gave to a journalist when asked if he thought he still had a chance in January when he was trailing most other candidates. "If you ask a question that way, It's not going to help".

"Most electable" had the backing of the media all the way through the primaries. He represented the Corporate Media, which, is not, necessarily GOP media. If I recall, he had some pretty significant contributions from Time Warner.

With that said, I'm still pleased to hear him speak out about it, however hypocritical it is.

[Uzybone]

91. Rubbish post

Dean was the one on magazine headlines right until the voting started in the primaries. Kerry was DOA to the media.

"he represented the Corporate Media" :eyes:

[98geoduck]

96. Thanks for the simple minded response.

Just a little info for you're "rubbish"
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. That site reveals many unpleasant truths.

[cestpaspossible]

104. Name one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

106. Four of the Dem nominees had a larger percentage

of their donations (of the $2000 variety) than Chimp.

There's some good news though. Two of the candidates had over 60% of their contributions in the form of $200 or less.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=P

[cestpaspossible]

107. Could you speak more plainly? What are you afraid of?

Just say in plain English what the supposed 'unpleasant truth' is and don't be afraid to name names.

BTW you are misstating something, that page doesn't show the number of contributions of $200 or less, it shows the number of contributors of $200 or less. So my cumulative ten and twenty dollar donations that added up to $350 puts me in the 'over $200' category. Believe me, I'm no fat cat.

Also, I'd have to question the validity of making percentage comparisons between campaigns that had millions of donors with campaigns that had thousands of donors.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

120. Plain speak:

The Edwards/Kerry campaigns were rolling in corporate/elite cash.
The Kucinich/Dean campaigns were not.

[cestpaspossible]

122. Your plain speak constitutes a falsehood.

Simply an untrue statement -- as is made clear in the link itself, where it says 'How to read this chart'.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. No it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the corporate "Top Contributors" that your link shows. I'm talking about the $2000+ and under $200 type donations. It is very clear which campaigns were running on big spenders and which were not. Of course some of the information is misleading but I have taken that into account. It is as clear as day.

I stand by my plain speak.

[cestpaspossible]

125. Actually that isn't true either.

You are asserting something that is not true, which is why the link does not support it. That's why you can't explain the way in which it supposedly supports your assertion and can only say It is clear as day. But the sophisticated readership at DU will just follow the link and look the information for themselves rather than believing your unfounded assertions. Besides since most of us were probably among the millions of small donors who fueled Kerry's campaign what you are saying becomes ridiculous on it's face.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

126. I also believe that sophisticated DUers will look at the info

themselves and agree with my POV. Let me paint the picture as clearly as I can:


John Kerry

% from donors of $2K+ = 36%
% from donors of $2H- = 31%

Edwards

% from donors of $2K+ = 56%
% from donors of $2H- = 13%

Chimp

% from donors of $2K+ = 49%
% from donors of $2H- = 32%

Dean

% from donors of $2K+ = 11%
% from donors of $2H- = 61%

Kucinich

% from donors of $2K+ = 08%
% from donors of $2H- = 71%

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp


Clear as a fucking bell. As a matter of fact, Kerry's donations were worse before he became the nominee and are slightly skewed downward because he received many small donations from the Dean, Kucinich and Clark supporters after he was nominated. They much more resembled Edward's numbers before the nomination. I know this because I followed these numbers every reporting quarter during the election and often linked to this site, as did others.

Crystal fucking clear.

[LittleClarkie]

127. I don't get this arguement at all

would you have preferred he NOT be financial competitive with Bush?

I don't care if he had a printing machine spitting out currency in his basement, one of the reasons he was nominated was because folks knew he could raise money for the campaign.

Plus, as one of his aides has said, if folks who gave him money thought that meant he was going to favor them, they are sadly mistaken.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

128. Preferred? No. And he wasn't, although he didn't spend it all.

:freak:

There's a saying : Always follow the money. The fact that Kedwards received huge chunks of money from well-heeled supporters(some of those $2K donations were from middle class folks that gave that extra bit, but the vast majority were from players) tells the discriminating voter something. But more importantly, the broad base of support shown by the small donations tells the discriminating voter even more.

Kedwards was part of the Dem Party machine. Dean/Kucinich were actual grassroots campaigns. Dean, at the time that he seemed to be the frontrunner, started receiving some of the big money from the bet hedgers...but his numbers for small donations are still mind-boggling.

It's not about getting "favors." It's about a broad base of support.

[LittleClarkie]

129. Well, Kerry's support got him the nomination

while it didn't seem to do alot for Dean or Kucinich. :shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

130. He got the nomination based on voting in two conservative states

and the self-promoted mantra of "electability." There are other reasons but your point that "Kerry's support got him the nomination" is exactly my point.

[LittleClarkie]

131. He went through the primary process and came out the other side a winner

Is that somehow a bad thing in your eyes?

All the candidates were saying alot of things. What the voters decided to buy or not buy was up to them. Welcome to our democracy.

If the others couldn't make it through the primary process, they sure weren't going to win out against Bush. The margin of loss would have been much greater, I fear.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

132. He went through the primary process and came out the other side a winner

Is that somehow a bad thing in your eyes?

No.

All the candidates were saying alot of things. What the voters decided to buy or not buy was up to them. Welcome to our democracy.

You mean what the voters decided to buy, or not to buy, in two conservative states was up to them. Welcome to our democracy.


If the others couldn't make it through the primary process, they sure weren't going to win out against Bush. The margin of loss would have been much greater, I fear.

I think a couple of the candidates could possibly have won.

[cestpaspossible]

134. That's not true either. Why can't you make your case using facts?

2162 delegates required to clinch the nomination.

[cestpaspossible]

133. Sorry but your assertion is not true

Just for the record your original assertion was (post 120):

The Edwards/Kerry campaigns were rolling in corporate/elite cash


Now, you are quoting what the webpage actually says, which is, Kerry raised 36% of his funds from donors of $2000 or more and 31% of his funds from donors of $200 or less.


That is indeed a fact, however it does not support your assertion that Kerry was 'rolling in corporate cash'. That was the assertion and it is false.

It's too bad open secrets doesn't give the total number of donors which would enable us to calculate the average donation per donor.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

135. And that 36% is lower now that it has been diluted by small

donations given after he became the nominee. It was closer to 50% before the primaries started. Are the numbers given by OS written in stone? No. But they give you an excellent idea of the basic structuring of the campaigns finances. And in Kedwards case it resembles that more of Bush than that of the more grassroots campaigns of Kucinich and Dean. It's pretty obvious. If you refuse to believe the numbers....:shrug:

[cestpaspossible]

136. Your unfounded assumptions won't make a falsehood into a truth.

You simply are making a false charge, unsupported by the facts.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Cry

:cry:

[blm]

113. Your post is absurd. The MSM said Kerry's campaign was dead for MONTHS

and they refused to cover his positive moments like the Firefighters' endorsement, which NO news network covered even as a news story. ALL of Dean's crucial endorsements were covered live.

MSNBC reporter said for a long time there were only 5 of them, including Kerry, traveling in a van throughout the fall. She said she had to argue with her producers to get any airtime for her reports. That was after Dean had been given a press plane back in July.

The press declaring Kerry's candidacy dead for all those months in the fall of 2003 dried up his national fundraising.

The media OVERSTATED Dean's support on the ground in Iowa while UNDERstating Kerry's. That perception dried up Kerry's funds. To argue otherwise is absurd.

The overhyped scream nonstory happened AFTER the caucus.

[zulchzulu]

143. Dean sunk his own boat in the primaries with or without the MSM

Dean was up by 20% points in various polls a week before he continued his gaffe-prone collapse all while his face was plastered on every mainstream magazine.

Trippi helped Dean sink by being a crappy campaign advisor as well...

Stop with the sour grapes about Dean's primary failure...and your petulant assertion that Kerry represented the Corporate Media is so off the mark that it's not even worth giving a serious comment about.

[TayTay]

4. He's still a sitting Senator

Woudl you prefer that he sit back and do nothing or:

Oppose Condiliar Rice
Oppose Torture Boy Gonzalez
Oppose the Tort Bill
Oppose the Bankruptcy Deform bill

Take on powerful interests in the news media.

I would rather that he do this. But, you must have dozens and dozens of Senators who do this for you. Right?

[cestpaspossible]

5. August 5, 2004

QUESTION: Senator, the Federal Communications Commission last year voted to allow media companies to further consolidate, allowing a single entity to gain greater control of television stations and newspapers in any given market.

QUESTION: The ruling, however, has been halted by a federal appeals court, which questioned the FCC's plan.

Critics complain that consolidation is concentrating too much power in one place, limiting diverse views and eliminating job opportunities. Media companies, however, argue that they need to operate in a free market with less regulations to compete and grow.

How do you propose to deal with this ongoing push for media consolidation?

KERRY: I'm against the ongoing push for media consolidation. I think it's contrary to...

(APPLAUSE)

It's contrary to the stronger interests of the country.

I understand the world has changed with cable and Internet and the numbers of outlets that we have. But notwithstanding that, the concentration of power still remains, I think, a very significant issue.

I was in favor of the rollback. I voted against the expansion.

I've sat on that committee now for years; I'm familiar with all the issues. And as president, as I said, I will appoint people to the FCC, and I will pursue a policy that tries to have as diverse and broad an ownership as possible.

It is critical to who we are as a free people. It's critical to our democracy.

I mean, look, I don't know how many of you have seen "Outfoxed" or some of the other things that are going around. You can make your own judgments about it. I'm not going to stand here and give you a long critique here.

But I will say this, and I think most of you know it: that a lot of what is decided with respect to news and coverage -- look at the convention of the last week. I thought Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech.

(APPLAUSE)

America missed it. America missed it, with the exception of cable outlets. Because broadcast decided to cover these certain hours, I had something like 30 million people watch, versus 7 million on a certain night.

I thought it was a very important evening, very important evening, when Ron Reagan talked about stem-cell research.

(APPLAUSE)

My wife gave, I thought, a superb speech. These were moments that I think America ought to share.

If we're going to be a strong democracy, and if it's all driven by money, we're in trouble. I'm going to make sure we have diversity.
UNITY conference Kerry speech transcript

[TheIntruder240]

11. good one!

[cestpaspossible]

12. As long as accuracy is irrelevant, that is...

[0007]

70. Your saying that with tongue is cheek right?

[Laurab]

18. It's questionable

whether he really lost, I'm sure you're aware of that. I don't think it's a "fucking joke" at all, this stuff is quite serious, and I'm glad to hear Kerry, or for that matter, anyone, talking about it. I'm also glad to hear he's working on it. He talked about a lot of stuff that mattered during his campaign IF you were listening. He was also greatly affected by the unfair, unbalanced media, as were the american people.

The "fucking joke" is the idiot sitting in the WH, and the media is part of the reason he's sitting there.

[Just Me]

21. Absolutely freakin' stunning!!! Kerry continues to be active and

outspoken and someone just HAS to swing the bully bat!!!

People really do shock me from time to time.

[Guaranteed]

60. I know. I don't get it.

I slammed Kerry up and down during the campaign. But if he's going to show leadership, I'll sure as hell support him.

[ClassWarrior]

61. News Flash: Kerry Won.

NGU.

[cajones_II]

79. Flashover : he didn't get sworn in

ergo, he lost the war.
I blame the party mechanism more than the man himself

[Just Me]

86. So what? Who cares? Big deal!!! The man's not going away!!!

He's speaking up and speaking out!!!

That makes him a real American hero!!!

He doesn't give up just 'cause certain folks want him to just go away!

:bounce:

[Kimber Scott]

117. I voted for the guy. I don't think he's a joke. He was made out to be a

joke by the Right and their media. You must have been listening.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. ....

[Demit]

6. Arbitrating the truth? There is something wrong with how he constructs

a sentence. I mean, I am a big champion of this man, but how he can make what should be a clear comment and make it murky...I am in awe. Doesn't he mean, "arbitrating the truth is wrong?" Because the truth is an absolute, and can't be arbitrated? No wonder he leaves people scratching their heads.

[sandnsea]

7. No

arbitrate: to judge or decide

There is something seriously wrong with who, when, what, the truth is. The media is supposed to look at information and when it's bullshit, say so. They don't do that anymore. They actually aren't arbitrating the truth at all. They're just spewing out WH spin.

[Demit]

17. That's what I mean, though. You have to restate what he says to get at

what he meant. He didn't say "there's something wrong with what the truth is", or with what the media says the truth is. His quote is "there's something wrong with who is arbitrating the truth"--as if there should be someone else arbitrating it.

Besides, maybe in a legal context the truth needs to be arbitrated (judged or decided), but it's a strange concept in a discussion of what reporting is or should be--which is facts. Facts CAN'T be arbitrated. Kerry's use of that word, in that construct, is baffling to me.

[sandnsea]

20. "Facts" ARE arbitrated

An arbitrator sits down with two sides. They both give him/her the facts, as each side sees it or knows it. The arbitrator listens, examines evidence, and then begins a process to discern truth from misconceptions from misunderstandings from outright lies. The press is the arbitator of the truth. There's something wrong with who is arbitrating the truth. From the mainstream to the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's.

Nothing wrong with what he said at all. And I'll just leave it at that.

[cestpaspossible]

22. Only if you don't understand the vocabulary.

I'm sorry, but if you aren't willing to accept the dictionary definition of the word arbitrate then it is pretty pointless talking to you about what it means. Also, you may believe that you possess some absolute truth, but out in the world people have to judge - arbitrate - what the truth is for themselves. Since they obviously don't always agree with you, perhaps your belief that you possess some absolute truth is wrong.

It is true that Kerry does not speak at the sixth-grade level.

[Demit]

36. Of course there are absolute truths. If a person says that when you

jump off a building you float in the air, you know there's no judging whether it's true or not. You know it's false. Gravity is a fact. It isn't arbitrary. Death. Death is a fact; we all die. That isn't arbitrary.

You seem to want to put me down because you understood what Kerry meant, and I'm parsing it, to your seeming annoyance. I think I understood what he meant, too, but it's not from how he phrased it.

[cestpaspossible]

38. Argue it in Sophistry 101, I'm not interested.

I recognize that some conversations are not worth pursuing, and if you want to believe that my lack of interest in your comments means you've 'won', so be it.

[Demit]

41. Got beat, huh?

[karynnj]

47. Oddly, I really liked the phrase

truth is broader than "facts." All things are seen through the prism of the viewer's experiences and pre-conceived ideas. It's the context in which you put an idea. Sort of like defining the "common story that we all live by" or the accepted view of the past.

For a political example, consider Central America. The RW definition of truth is that of an epic battle between evil communists, the Sandinista (sp?) and good freedom fighters,the contras. From a RW definition of truth, John Kerry's actions while investigating whether the law was broken with regards to the contras were near traitorous, because Kerry was hurting the RW effort to help the freedom fighters. On Fox, Oliver North who was guilty of breaking the law on this is in the position to arbitrate the truth.

Note the FACTS are not in dispute - North is proud of arming the contras, Congress had made this illegal.

[cestpaspossible]

8. nt

[napi21]

10. That was Kerry's problem all along. He can't give a simple answer.

That's one of the things that attract people to Dean, McCain, and yes...Shrub too. I stead of trying to sound intelligent, they just say a relatively short statement of the truth (or what they think is the truth).

Remember the round about answer Kerry gave to the "why did you vote for funding the war, and then against it" question? Something very plain and simple, like "there were several bills, I voted for the one that......, and against the one that didn't". He gave 10 minute answers that nobody understood.

That's the reason I don't think he should try again. This kind of speach is just part of him, and I don't think he can change.

[politicasista]

14. I guess he was TOO intelligent for some people.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[MeDeMax]

15. he is intelligent...

he doesn't "try" to sound intelligent, he "is" intelligent.

It is an insult to this deep thinker's intellect to suggest he should be repeating wisecracks & sound-bites compiled by the party strategists.

Sorry to disagree, but it has been a long time since I have felt such pride in following a leader of such wisdom & grace.

Kerry's behaviour since the election has made me feel even more certain that I (we) stood behind the right man.

[napi21]

23. I didn't say he isn't intelligent!

And I am very tired of a President who is an idiot! That wasn't anything close to what I meant.

There are lots of ways to explain things. There's a very straight forward, no adjetives, statement, and then there's the group of mini-explainations, separated by commas, that many people just don't understand.

How many times did we hear Dems on the TV shows explaining just what Kerry meant.

I don't think it's intentional. I think this is the way the man speaks. Seems to me that's just not what attracts the majority of voters.

[politicasista]

25. Who could be better?

Not hating, just curious.

[napi21]

31. I prefer the straight talk of Dean, but he doesn't have the body armor

to handle a national run.

Closest I can think of in the Senate is Joe Biden. I don't agree with everything he says and does, but every time I watched him in a hearing or on the Senate floor, he doesn't pull punches, and he doesn't beat around the bush.

Let me also say, I think running a Senator in a national race is also a mistake. Most people don't understand how the Seante works, and almost every vote can be disected by the opposition to mean what you want it to mean. Governors do much better. I sure don't know every Dem Governor, and I'm hoping a great one emerges in 2006 or 2007, to sweep the field away!

[karynnj]

53. Watching Biden and Kerry on the Rice confirmation

was interesting. Biden seemed almost to swing back and forth from providing good information and making strong arguments to suddenly saying things that didn't seem to follow. Kerry compared to him appeared to be far more statesman like, logical, knowledgeable and consistent. One weird paradox was that Kerry, who voted against Rice, made an eloquent plea for bi-partisanship on foreign policy, which Lugar later echoed while Biden, who voted for Rice, seemed more combative. ( I apologize if this one hearing - the only one I saw was atypical - I know I'm drawing too much from too little.)

[cestpaspossible]

56. Biden was totally incomprehensible on Rice.

You're right, his conclusions did not logically follow from his arguments.

I'm not much of a fan of Biden's... I won't repeat all the reasons, they are no doubt known to most here... the bankruptcy bill is but one example...

[ginnyinWI]

57. watching Kerry

cross-examine Rice was pure poetry. :)

[karynnj]

73. Poetry is right

I initially was surprised because his tone was so different than when he was campaigning. From the debates and his speeches I knew he was very serious, brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable. At the hearing, it was clear that he was very very brilliant and that he was a very serious, studious, hard working Senator.

I loved the long time when he was the only one questioning her. When he patiently and determinedly repeated questions, changing maybe one word. His questions were so, pointed and succinct. I loved when, with regards to Pakistan and Khan, Rice answered that our needs were being met by Pakistan and Kerry queried, "Adequately?" Anyone watching, but not paying attention would have thought it a pleasant conversation, but he was really getting her on record. The whole Iran part was cool, especially when he smiled and asked "with regards to Iran specifically?" for about the fourth time.

Throughout the campaign, Kerry talked about being a prosecutor, seeing this I wouldn't want to be a criminal before him. He seemed to pick up on so many nuances in her answers which he then pushed for further information. (And when he was younger, he would have almost seemed innocent in his grilling until they said too much.)

[ginnyinWI]

90. yes--brilliant and articulate!

from the hearing:

<img src="">

[MeDeMax]

99. indeed...

"we all know you will be confirmed as the next secretary of state, whether or not it will be with my vote remains to be seen"


The man has sentence construction skills that scratch the stratosphere, and he does it on the fly.


Kerry <<=>> :yourock:

[MeDeMax]

98. sorry I misunderstood your comment...

my bad ! :-)

[cestpaspossible]

16. Am I the only one who wants a President smarter than myself?

It's true I've never thought of Kerry as an 'ordinary guy'... an extraordinary one, yes...

[Demit]

24. I LOVE that he's intelligent! But he's not making himself clear.

The I voted for the $87 billion thing is a perfect example. There were other politicians explaining what he meant, and then it was clear. He had several chances to state his position more clearly and didn't. It has nothing to do with multisyllabic words or anything. It's how he verbalizes his concepts--almost as if he wanted what he said open to interpretation.

Believe me, I can't wait for a day when we have a thinking person in the WH again. One that also has the grace and class that Kerry has. But he overthinks before he speaks, or something, maybe out of caution, and it obscures what he says. I think he was more spontaneous when he was young.

[cestpaspossible]

29. That's the thing.

To me he is clear; Bush is the one who sounded incoherent.

The 'perfect example' you cite is a GOP attack ad the extracted a few words of Kerry's statement in order to give a false impression. It wasn't unclear to the people he was speaking to what he meant.


He had several chances to state his position more clearly and didn't .

That's simply untrue.

[karynnj]

54. Definitely want one who is smarter

which in reality should always be the case and was through most of our history.

[ginnyinWI]

58. I do!

The presidency is no ordinary job! And I can't think of anybody who is more qualified for that job than John Kerry.

[MeDeMax]

100. I think many others do too...

I have always felt the guy in the house with pillars ought to be himself, and surrounded by, deep thinkers who have the security of this nation and global well being at the heart of their actions.

Unfornately, many others feel differently, they feel they are better represented (in all their elected reps, not just prez) by people who attend the same church as them, or proclaim the same denomination as them, or share their religious absolutes, or even share their mistrust for "liberals", or share their hate for (homosexuals)/(other-races)/(muslims).

...and they are easily seduced by the:

"good vs evil, together we'll fix the evil"

doctrine.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. You do make some good points

People are used to "sound bites." Bush can lie all you want but people always say "at least you know where he stands." :eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

28. And Bush stole this gem-- "at least you know where I stand" from Dean!

[sandnsea]

26. He did say that

Repeatedly. He finally gave up and said "I chose the wrong words, which isn't near as bad as choosing the wrong war". And after all this time, people who are supposed to be on our side still help the right smear our candidate with a completely dumb and stupid nothing smokescreen. The problem isn't and never has been Kerry. The problem isn't going to go away either, because there will always be Democratic henny pennies who fly into a frenzy every time the right throws a little meat. Meat that is designed to throw the left into a frenzy in the first place. It's exactly like Schweitzer said today, it's like a magic trick, wave your left hand to draw everybody's attention away from the bullshit you're doing with your right. If we can get OUR OWN Democrats to stop looking at the left hand, maybe we can actually get our message out for a change. Same was true for the stupid swift boat shit.

[saracat]

33. Yeah, he should "dumb down" I guess. Did you hear Shrubs speech on

Social Security, or read it? It is completely unintelligable. Noone has the faintest idea what the fuck he is talking about, yet it is okay to be unintelligable as long as you are stupid and have no command of language/ And people are complaining that Kerry doesn't speak"plainly ' enough? Give me a break1 Shrub can't speak at all. Put food on your children? Please!

[karynnj]

51. So true

Kerry was always articulate and almost always accurate, but because people who DIDN'T HEAR his speeches didn't get his message, he is a poor communicator. Bush bumbles along, the MEDIA REPEATS the talking points, so Bush communicates well.

Level playing field? Depends who ARBITRATES THE TRUTH in determining who communicates better.

[bread_and_roses]

81. Kerry is not a gifted stump orator

He does not have a gift for plain language, and phrases meant to be rousing often sound forced and stilted. To acknowledge that does not impugn his intelligence in any way, nor does it in any way affirm the illegitimate little puppet as a standard for "campaign - speak." Nor does it imply that misleading sound bites are the only alternative to Kerry's style.

That said, his difficulty articulating his IRW vote arose from his utter moral vacuum both in that vote and in his subsequent "better-war-than-you" approach. It was indefensible and he couldn't defend it. "I was wrong" is simple, plain, clear, and unambiguous. So is "the President lied," or "the invasion was an illegal violation of International Law." However, his subsequent hawkish stance made such statements impossible, resulting in those convoluted and unconvincing justifications.

[saracat]

109. That would be saying what some people wanted to hear.

Kerry never said he was wrong because he didn't believe that he was. Why do people want him to say something he doesn't believe? He stated over and over, it is the way bUsh took us to war and the way the war was managed that he was opposed to. He didn't think his vote authorizing the President to use force in the face of perceived immeinent threat was wrong. He thought Bush not letting the Inspectors finish was wrong. Period EOM. And Kerry is a very gifted speaker.Three of the best speeches I have ever heard were by Kerry. His speech in the 1970's , A speech he made anbout the military at Annapolis, and a speech he made at a local lunch I attended. He isn't consistently wonderful, but who is?

[bread_and_roses]

110. Well, we'll have to disagree about his gifts as a speaker

However, I think speaking at a lunch or before a select audience requires different skills than campaign speeches. He may well have been wonderful in those speeches. I just don't think he was wonderful as a campaign speaker.

As for his IRW vote and subsequent stance, I guess I give him less credit than you do since I believe he was deliberately equivocating from the start. Or maybe more. I give him enough credit as a speaker to be able to articulate a more comprehensible response on the Campaign Trail had he been acting and speaking from conviction rather than trying to finesse the issue.

Whatever you and I think, it seems clear to me that the general public found his articulation on this issue in particular to be hair-splitting, equivocal, and obfuscatory. The general public is not, as a body, stupid.

[cestpaspossible]

111. Obviously if you assume

that someone is lying you can't really judge their skills as a speaker, because your predetermined bias will override your critical judgement.

In such a case, all that can be done is to examine the underlying bias.

I believe he was deliberately equivocating from the start

So the question becomes, WHY do you believe that?

[karynnj]

112. General Public not stupid

That also assumes that the general public even HEARD Kerry's campaign trail speeches - I was TRYING to see Kerry on the news, but they more often had a tape of Kerry with their talking head saying "Kerry was in _____ and attacked Bush about____". Then they would show Bush giving his canned speech.

Until I found the Kerry blog which told people when he was on C-Span or occasionally the cable networks, I didn't see any real coverage where I would have known what he was saying.

As the original message says part of the problem in getting the message out was the corporate media didn't want it out.

I live in a blue state, so I never saw the candidate live. A sister who saw Teresa and Kerry in Arizona raved about both (but especially Teresa, because she hadn't expected much).

[saracat]

121. Well, there is where we must diagree. The general public are morons.

All we have to do is look at our educational system to see that. And lookee who is Prez! Sorry . You have a lot more faith in the general public than I do!

[karynnj]

49. In the debate Kerry's answers were clear, concise and truthful

In most of the Democratic dabates, Kerry came off better than Dean. Even Chris Matthews, who clearly liked Dean and had a mysterious dislike of Kerry, admitted it after a couple of them - although in a really snarky "I can't believe it but Kerry was the best today" way.

I agree that the $87 Billion was done badly - almost like Kerry wanted to explain all the reasons for perferring one bill over the others.

Part of it might be we live in a dumber down society. Where everyone wants things reduced to concise bullet points. Kerry's speeches in 1971 which were uniformly described as eloquent and articulate actually have even longer sentences and phrases than he uses now.
He tightened his sentences between the spring and fall of last year, and seems to be speaking in an even more direct fashion since losing.

As Kennedy also uses complicated sentence stuctures, maybe this is more acceptable in Massachsetts. If so, if he runs again Kerry may need to find a way to keep the content of what he's saying while cutting extraneous details.

[CatWoman]

68. yeah, too bad he doesn't speak "dumbfuckinese"

[DoBotherMe]

138. LOL!

Catwoman, I have tears streaming down my face on that one! Thanks for the guffaw. Dana ; ) God, I'm still laughing, uh oh, a Snort too.

edited because I couldn't quit laughing and had to share.

[saracat]

30. That sentence structure is perfectly valid. It is "who" is arbitrating the

truth, not that it is being arbitrated. He is saying the problem is with the judgment of who is reporting and their personal preference.See Websters Dictionary.Kerry has a superior comprehension and use of words than the average person. The duty of a reporter is to arbitrate the news.as it must be chosen what to report.

[AP]

9. He's exactly right about all of this. And when you put the pieces together

it's all about fascism -- it's all about the same things FDR was fighting in the 30s and 40s.

An atmosphere of fear convinces people that it's less important for them to be fairly rewarded for their labors than it is for them to be alive. It scares people into voting for itchy trigger finger right wingers. MSM is in on this. They help Republicans get elected who will ensure that wealth flows from the middle up to the top rather than ensure wealth remain in the hands of people who create it -- and one of the biggest ways the RW does this is through the tax code, and in reducing opportunities (like education) which would help maximize the value of the labor that people who work for a living sell.

Kerry was trying to tell us all these very same things when he had pictures of himself taken with a a copy of It Can't Happen Hear on his desk.

It's just too bad that, unlike FDR, Truman (and JFKennedy) he wasn't able to convert all these ideas into a campaign that showed people that these are the most important concerns that voters should have.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. kick

It is an irony in this country that all a right-winger has to say to shut-up a Dem is to call him a sore loser. Yet, the one quality that is revered in Republican business circles (other than a good cheater) is someone who hates losing.

I hope Kerry hates losing bad enough to shout from the highest mountain.

[Just Me]

55. Crazy. "You lost so go away and shut your brilliant, articulate piehole."

*LOL*

That position just seems crazy to me but obviously makes perfect sense to some folks around here.

:wow:

[Stand and Fight]

39. Hey...

Do you have a copy of that picture?

[Blue_In_AK]

27. John Kerry Rocks -- always has, always will.

We would be blessed if even half of our politicians possessed his integrity and intelligence. It's sad that so many Americans seem to be so dense or ill-informed that they can't understand what, to me, is plain English.

[cestpaspossible]

32. I can't help but believe that

I lot of people who claim to 'not understand' Kerry are simply lying. They understand perfectly, they can't refute, so they just pretend it's all incomprehensible.

[Stand and Fight]

35. There are two great evils --

Ignorance and stupidity. One is on account of having not been informed through no fault of the individual, and the other is on account of the individual choosing to ignore information.

[LeftyLizzie]

116. I agree completely. n/t

[Stand and Fight]

34. John Kerry says it plain and simple.

For those who have a problem with the way he says things, I would suggest they take a course in the English language and in US and World history. Perhaps even ordering up "Hooked on Phonics," because I have never had a problem understanding what Kerry says. It's direct, to-the-point, and not dumbed down because far too many people are unaccustomed and/or too lazy to think. Just because a candidate is not giving a 10-second sound-bite -- that is in reality and insult to your intelligence -- does not mean that he cannot communicate. It means that the receiver of the message is not understanding the sender through a processes commonly known as ignorance and/or stupidity. This is not an insult to anyone here, because if one had bothered to pay attention in civics class in high school they would understand comments like, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it." This article is a prime example of John Kerry telling it like it is, and people choosing to focus on other issues that have nothing to do with the issue he is discussing. In this case -- the media is NOT doing its job by delivering the news to people by separating the truth from falsehoods. He is calling out the basis in media power being consolidated into the hands of corporate entities, and thus the American people are lost because the Fifth Estate has erred in its ways. What good is freedom of the press when the press has shackled itself to corporations and special interest groups int he pocket of the Right Wing? What in the hell is so difficult to understand about that?

[cestpaspossible]

37. Your comment is a real breath of fresh air.

Thank you.

[Stand and Fight]

43. Thank you!

No, thank you for having the good sense to post this article. A lot of these people who complain about Kerry seem to conveniently forget the fact that he has expressed a lot of the views of progressives, liberals, Democrats across the spectrum. While I don't agree with his stance on the war, he at least had the temerity to take that stance even though he knew it would put off some of his base. He's been consistent in his message, and unlike previous failed contenders in the presidential race, he has stayed in the open and continues to speak out. Rather than seeking to divide Democrats, perhaps those who so frequently bitch about the guy should take a moment to reflect on the validity and truth of his words. Maybe they should take a moment to reflect that it does not matter whether or not he is saying it now or during the elections -- though I have yet to come upon anything he has said that he did not say during the elections, but then again I do actually pay attention and have average reading comprehension -- but the fact that he is actually saying it and the media is listening because he has the necessary political clout. That is what is important here -- that we have someone who is able to get the media to listen to them and they utilize that ability. Because let's face it, we should not be seeking to tear down our allies. We should be lining up behind them and only dismissing those -- like Biden and Lieberman -- who are towing the Republican line and working against our collective better interest. If you are going to expend energy, just make sure you're doing it on the right cause and for the right reasons. Attacking John Kerry is tantamount to fratricide in the current political climate, and if you do so you are giving into a divide and conquer strategy -- the oldest political war trick in the book. And believe me, ladies and gentlemen, when I say war I mean WAR. We cannot continue to cut down our own if we are ever going to get this country back on track, because if you are wasting time bashing John Kerry, Wesley Clark, or Howard Dean -- to name a few -- then you are working against your own best interests and into the best interests of the Neo-Conservative, ultra-right-wing, gonna have the "War to end all Wars," Rapture is coming soon, so we better get ready for Jeeeessssusss mentality.

[politicasista]

48. Great post

This is why we have to take back the media before thinking about 2006 and 2008.

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Beautiful, StandAndFight. n/t

[Robeson]

46. Good Points...

...unfortunately, I just don't know what can be done about it. The media is tied to the ruling elite. They work with each other. They make 6,7, and even 8 figure incomes, just like the ruling elite, who are usually the ones paying them those salaries, or giving them their stories to print or read on TV. They go to their parties. They eat dinner with them. Are neighbors in the same neighborhood, or their estates are close by. Their kids go to the same private schools. They ARE part of the ruling elite, and will consider themselves and their own status threatened if the "order" of things are changed. They help to perpetuate a system they are part of, and therefore don't want to tear down their own house. The myth, is that they actually care about those - us - who are not of their "station", as it were. And of course, that is the problem. They have been coopted into the system. In fact, they are dependent on it.

[Stand and Fight]

50. There are things that can be done. n/t

Just look to history for examples. The question is rather or not Americans have the guts to take on the elite.

[Robeson]

52. You have the guts, and I have the guts, and some on here...

...have the guts, but we don't represent the vast majority of Americans. It would almost take something on the scale of the Great Depression, for Americans to actually wake - or get shaken - up and take on the established powers in this country, i.e. literally a total economic collapse. I wish I had more faith in my "fellow" countrypersons, but its hard to. Those such as us on this site make up a tiny percentage of the population. Look how easily the public was swayed in this whole war thing. Look how easy it was to manipulate Kerry's record. Most people just don't care. They'd rather find out who Justin Timberlake is dating, play on their Play Station 2, or find out if Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise are ever going to get back together, or who was wearing what at the Oscars. That has always been a way the rulers rule: Weapons of Mass Distractions....

But don't get me wrong. The way things are going, especially with the sinking of our dollar on the World market, and Bush's economic policies, a total economic collapse may be closer than most think...

[Stand and Fight]

65. And I completely agree with you...

Have patience. The time will come.

[Robeson]

69. Thanks for the words of encouragement....

...:thumbsup:

[ailsagirl]

95. Stand and Fight, you are a helluva writer

[Stand and Fight]

102. Thank you...

And sorry for the typos, but I was at work and rushing to finish what I had to impart.

[ailsagirl]

118. Normally I notice those things but your message was so

compelling I, for once, didn't notice!!

Keep writing!!

;)

[TheDonkey]

40. Good for him, the media is a real problem

that I hope in the near future can be dealt with.

[Senator Lamb]

44. i always said this about Kerry

He may not have been the best spokesmen and he may have seemed like a typical politician saying anything for a vote, but in reality he thought a lot about the things we are thinking, and in the end he does whats right.

[GoSolar]

45. Thanks, JK.

Keep up the good work.

[Guaranteed]

59. WELL DONE, KERRY.

THAT'S the kind of leadership we like to see! :)

[welshTerrier2]

62. "This is a moment of unbelievable global opposition"

i'm current reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ... if you haven't read it, run down to your library NOW and grab a copy ... perhaps the Democratic Party should go into the movie business ... perhaps they should select a few top directors to turn the book into a non-fiction movie ...

in his speech, Kerry stated "This is a moment of unbelievable global opposition" ... but he failed to elaborate on what he meant ... he tossed out some reference noting that bush had to go back to Europe to try to patch up the damage he had caused ... that's it? a little criticism for bush?

If all Kerry has to offer for the REASONS there is "unbelievable global opposition" is that bush handled the diplomacy poorly leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he's wasted a very important observation with a very shallow analysis ... the central corruption, the epitome of U.S. arrogance, the search for global corporate hegemony is THE ISSUE ...

U.S. supported corporatocracy is terrorizing the rest of the world ... we are funding U.S. exported terrorism, assassinations, economic exploitation and illegal militarism worldwide all for the benefit of massive multi-national corporations ... the U.S. has toppled regimes in Iran, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, Guatamala, and Iran to name a few ... the U.S. has funded and supported a Saudi government that has funded bin Laden ... the U.S. propped up Saddam ... the U.S. bombed civilian targets killing thousands of civilians in Panama to force control of the Panama Canal ... Americans remain addicted to their oil habit and exploit both foreign countries and the environment making billions for those in the oil industry ... the rest of the world understands all too well that America is no longer the good guys ...

Kerry's comment that the media has been "corporatized" is dead on the money ... too bad he stopped there ... the entire U.S. government, including its foreign policy, has been "corporatized" ... its time, btw, that we stopped labelling this view as "left wing" ... the view, in addition to being the sad and simple truth, is "pro democracy" ... we need to take our government back from the greedy corporate tyrants who control all U.S. foreign and domestic policies ...

some may believe the U.S. can ultimately "succeed" in Iraq and free the Iraqi people and leave them with a stable, functioning democracy ... it just is not the case ... bush and his evil minions are hardly that altruistic ... Iraq is but one more nail in the coffin as the corporatocracy tightens its grip on the core strategic location in the Middle East ... Kerry's planned support for continued funding of the corporate agenda is DEAD FUCKING WRONG ...

I'm not sure what it is with Kerry ... he seems caught in a "no mans land" ... i'm confident he "gets it" ... and i'm not convinced he's sold out to the bad guys ... perhaps he just doesn't think he can safely say what he believes ... or perhaps he thinks there's no market for it at this time ... either way, it's pretty damned disappointing ... we will never make inroads against the corporate hegemony if we don't start voting against it and speaking out against it so that the American people can at least start to hear our message ... it's unclear whether Kerry will ever join our ranks on this, THE central issue ... and if he continues to play it safe, he will continue to be irrelevant ... i wish he understood that; i really do ...

[cestpaspossible]

63. I agree with a lot of what you said but

he will continue to be irrelevant

If Kerry is irrelevant, that what Democratic politician IS relevant? Based on what criteria?

I do agree about the "no man's land" comment. Take criticism of the corporate media... Kerry, Dean and a few others have discussed it but if they were to suddenly start talking like David Brock, their voices would be censored even more... look at the 'mysterious technical problems' that just always coincidentally happen when one of our forceful voices does get a few minutes of TV airtime...


"We seem to have lost Governor Dean's audio feed..."

[welshTerrier2]

64. THE criteria for relevance

again, I can't encourage you strongly enough to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ... the book is an insider's account on exactly what this country has become ... the U.S., using numerous modalities, is nothing short of a colonial empire ... we have become a terrorist nation that will do whatever it must to support its ruling corporatocracy ... we threaten, we assassinate, we exploit ... we foment discontent among civilian populations using media disinformation ... America has become the "bad guys" ... Kerry's point acknowledging this was dead on the money but he never took the next critically necessary step ...

to be relevant, one must find a way to communicate this truth to the American people ... i don't expect this to happen overnight ... but those who seek to lead America out of this darkness must begin the process of speaking the truth ... all other battles are pretend ...

[cestpaspossible]

66. I guess if

You are using criteria tha says no Democrat is relevant, then Kerry is irrelevant.

But I think a lot of Dems are relevant, and it is up to us to make them more so...

BTW, I haven't read the book, but I did see the author interviewed on Democracy Now, so I am familiar with what you are talking about.

[welshTerrier2]

71. tacitly endorsing the conspiracy

i didn't answer your question because i don't know the answer ... i would expect to find that there are Democrats who have spoken out on this issue ... i'd really hope to find that's the case ... i'm just about finished reading the book and i intend to go looking for kindred souls ...

btw, i also was introduced to John Perkins when he did the Democracy Now interview ... i'm glad you saw it ...

on this issue of relevance, here's how i see things ... we either have a democracy or we don't ... it's that black and white ... look, we've had FDR's new deal in place for something like 70 years ... as the corporatocracy consolidates their stranglehold on our government, poof!! it all could disappear in a haze of "free market, survival of the fittest" propaganda ... just like that ... and Democrats will, for the most part, vote against these rollbacks ... they will champion social security ... they will vote to increase the minimum wage ... they will advocate for more programs for the poor ... perhaps, just perhaps, they may still be able to prevail on an issue or two ... but we are engaged in these skirmishes on a ship that is sinking ... it's like two pirates are engaged in a sword fight on the deck of a ship that has been hit by a cannonball from the SS Corporatocracy and set on fire ... explosions are going off all around them and they continue their skirmish ... the duel they're having may be a fight for a noble cause ... perhaps i would honor their commitment and their values ... but it's just not relevant given the context ...

i don't know how to explain my perspective more clearly than that ... we need to tell the American people the truth ... at first, it could kill us politically ... this has gone on for a long time ... it's not clear how the public will react to such information ... "those wacky lefty pinko democrats are at it again" ... the problem is, that by saying nothing, we condone the status quo ... we are actually worse than irrelevant; by our silence, we are tacitly endorsing the conspiracy ...

[cestpaspossible]

72. I understand you

I just think you and I are at different points on the cycle of hope and despair...

[welshTerrier2]

76. perhaps you misread me ...

it would be wrong to infer that the seriousness of the crisis i highlighted leaves me without hope ... if i had no hope, i would not waste my time screaming at Democrats to wake up ...

these are very, very desperate times for the entire world ... the damage done by the power elite has been and will continue to be very severe ... millions, that's right, millions more are likely to die ...

but still, i remain optimistic ... at some point, we in "the heart of the beast" will find our voices first and our strength in unity after that ... we need, in the US, to have this issue brought to the public's consciousness by the Democratic Party ... eventually, i have some hope they will "get it" ... actually, i think many of them already "get it" but are afraid either for their own safety or the Party's political viability if they raise the issue ... i understand these concerns but see no other path ... we have to start telling the truth sometime ... in the meantime, by failing to address this core issue, the Party continues to grow weaker and weaker ... political viability is not exactly a convincing argument to stay the course these days ...

and if all that fails, there's still comfort in knowing that no empire ever has or ever will survive forever ... the pendulum will not be denied ... in the end, the simple greed and wrongness of right-wing, corporate policies will collapse under their own weight ... i just hope that Democrats will act to dismantle the conspiracy before it does ... millions of lives hang in the balance ...

[cestpaspossible]

83. No, I don't think so

I certainly didn't say or mean to imply that you have no hope.

Really, it is simply the term 'irrelevant' that I was taking issue with, which I think overstates the case and is therefore not accurate. In political terms, Democrats are less relevant than Republicans, and more relevant than every other political group.

I think we agree on the heart of the matter - out of control corporate power is the key issue. I just don't see this a struggle that will be won in the short term, it is just too tiny a minority of people who understand it, and I don't think ideas in the public consciousness can be changed overnight. I think ending corporate personhood is the key but I expect a multigenerational struggle since most people don't even know what that means or what a huge impact it has on their daily lives.

On a pragmatic level, I must cast a seed of doubt into what I perceive as your own hopeful belief that talking about this more forcefully would render Democrats more 'relevant' -- truth is not always a pathway to political success, and certainly no guarantor.

As far as the party getting weaker and weaker, I don't accept that premise, we have had some heartbreaking setbacks but there are hopeful signs like the energy of the grassroots and successes in unexpected places like Montana. The one age group that went for Kerry nationwide was young voters 18-30 -- that is an encouraging sign for the future.

[TayTay]

77. But this has been a long time coming

I hven't read the Perkins book, but, from the sound of it, it confirms what Greg Palast wrote in 'Best Democracy Money Can Buy.' The World Bank has a formula for lending money; it lends it at rates that can't possibly be paid back, forces the country into intolerable economic conditions and forces it to sell off public companies, privatize utilities and drastically reduce social services. Jobs are cut, currencies go into freefall, wackiness ensues. And certain corporate interests in the US profit handsomely.

This is hardly new. Eisenhower (a moderate and sane Republican) warned us about this in his farewell address against what he called the 'military/industrial complex.' We didn't listen. I believe that the rest of the world has caught on tho this and is waiting for payback when the US currency goes into freefall. Then we will know what it feels like.

We will defeintely disagree over Kerry. He has been my Senator for 20 years and I hve disagreed with him on a few votes. But I still like and respect him, because overall he has an excellent record. (There is no politician, living or dead, in world history that I can see myself agreeing with 100% of the time. That's representative democracy for ya!) I also think that Kerry learned something over the last 2 1/5 years of running for Pres. I am unsure whether learning something is allowed or not in Dem circles, but I like it. I think he's more in tune with what is going on in the country and more willing to fight it. The votes this year prove it.

[welshTerrier2]

80. yup, a very long time ...

yup, this has been going on for a very long time ... no disagreement there ... btw, i've lived in Mass for a long time too ...

when you say "we will definitely disagree over Kerry", i'm not clear what point i made that you're objecting to ...

i also agree with you that Perkins' book is not a new subject ... i commented on it only because it is a chilling read that came from first-hand experience ...

anyone who seeks to lead the Democratic Party needs to speak out regularly on this issue ... corporate, rather than democratic, control of our government is THE ISSUE ... i don't think Kerry (or anyone?) has done this ... my strongest criticism of Kerry is based on his horrible IWR vote and his intention to vote for the $81.9 billion supplemental budget to continue bush's war ... i really don't want to go down that road in this thread though ... it's not what this thread is about ...

[merbex]

84. My husband saw the author on booknotes on Sunday and told me

to get online and order immediately it-while he continued to watch booknotes

It's due to arrive on 3/5

[karynnj]

78. I had some of the same feelings

Because of clues that Kerry dropped, such as his terrorism speech in Philadelphia, where he hinted more than spelled out that he would fight terror by going after terrorists, not bombing whole countries. But with knowledge of his investigations, which seemed almost like a delicious secret, it seemed that he would be one of the most unusual politicians to become President in a long time and that he would change the dangerous direction the country is going in. He would take us back to values from our constitution and and to a more idealistic, moral time.

My hypothesis was that telling a traumatized country that evil was being done in our name would not cut it. So, although he talked some about BCCI I never heard the words contra or Central America. Maybe with Reagan's recent death (and near canonization), mentioning his major, legitimate accomplishments in stopping a lot of bad things here would not win votes.

Seeing the bad guys win hurt.

[welshTerrier2]

82. "would not cut it"

perhaps his silence is based on some type of political consideration ... perhaps this message would not be accepted by the American people ...

if Kerry is holding his tongue seeking the right moment, what can i say?? i guess that's OK ...

but it seems to me you have to start educating people about the truth or we'll never get anywhere ... and every day that goes by lets the corporatocracy strengthen its grip on power and its control of our media ... time's a wastin' and people are dying ...

[IndianaGreen]

67. Kerry sounds a lot better than Hillary!

and I was not a big fan of his to begin with.

[merbex]

85. I saw him yesterday at the Kennedy Library - he spoke without

notes and after listening to him I know what I believe is definitely in line with what he said and how he has voted the last 6 weeks

Hillary- both in her votes and speeches< the last 6 weeks >have soured me toward her nomination

If Kerry keeps talking and voting like this- who knows?

But he gets it

[Rainscents]

74. Media brought Kerry down... just like, they did with Dean.

[Rainscents]

75. Now tell me... If it was between Jeb(R) and Kerry(D) running in 08,

Who would you vote for? Of course, we would all vote for Kerry.

[Patchuli]

87. No more 'Bushit!'

I was upset with the quick concession but my spouse told me he thinks
Kerry knew he couldn't fight the cheaters with no paper trails and he has a plan. I still think that this is true...

[Rainscents]

89. I thought the same thing.

How could you fight something you can't proof? Kerry is extremity intelligent and he knew what he was doing.

[Patchuli]

94. I think he got the nickname Teflon Kerry

for some reason. And he has behaved as a president should which has
led to the Chimp scrambling to do the things he should have been
doing that Kerry has done before him.

We think he has a long range plan to defeat these bad guys.

[welshTerrier2]

114. i'm done with ABB ...

i will never again vote for ANY candidate who casts a vote to support bush's PNAC agenda ... i tell you this hoping that Kerry will change his mind and vote AGAINST bush's $81.9 billion supplemental to continue his colonial adventures in the Middle East ...

[wisteria]

92. Kerry's media comments are great!

They address the core issue in regards to all the misinformation being reported as real news. I now view news stations as anything goes as long as they get ratings. Real investigative news has been replaced by tabloid news. I am happy he is speaking out about this concern of mine. I hope word will get out about his comments and some honest discussion and resolution can take place.

[cestpaspossible]

103. Note, this article is in the Boston University paper

for some reason, no other newspaper or television station saw fit to repeat the words: "The corporatization of the media".

[katinmn]

93. Good comments. I hope he keeps them coming! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

97. My favorite line in the article link

"The question is how we're going to create accountability in American politics," he said. "We had a saying: My country, right or wrong, when right, keep it right; when wrong, make it right."

Ah, a little bit of the hippie kid showing through. I've also heard it phrased "My country wrong needs my help."

[Disturbed]

105. Corporatocracy

Pres. Lincoln warned the nation about this. It seems that it has come about and the Media is part of it. The elites travel in the same social circles. Tbey spar in public but socialize, sort of like lawyers mingling at the same watering hole and the next day fight each other in court.

In my view the Bush Junta is the most extreme Corporate regime that Amerika has had in the past 50 years. The Dems seemed to have allowed the Junta to steamroller them and to frame the issues. By moving more tho the right al Clinton the Dem party has lost touch with it's roots. A Recession or Depression won't rouse the RW base or the populace towards the Dems unless Dems offer actual solutions to Amerika's Middle Class and Working Poor.

I could write a long piece here but will save other notions for another time.

[GOPBasher]

108. This was awesome! Good job, Kerry! nt

[JNelson6563]

115. Honeymoon ended with primary season

Funny how that all worked out.

Julie

[paineinthearse]

119. Read a DUer's first hand account of the event.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3197008&mesg_id=3197008

Pay particular attention to the letter to Oliphant.

[LittleClarkie]

123. That was one spud ugly award

Green and crusty.

[paineinthearse]

139. Sorry, that thread has been locked......

And I have an interesting message from the Kennedy Foundation to post. C'est la vie.

[Armstead]

140. Where were you 9 years ago John?

The Democrats let this train leave the stattion in 1996 when they rolled ovetr to the Media Barons and passed broadcast deregulation.

A lot of people on "the left" warned them about it back then. But did they listen? Nooooooooo.....

A day late and a dollar short.

And unfortunately these numbskulls in Congress are STILL letting these monopolies float past without a peep.

[Dr Fate]

141. Call me back when he says it to Wolf Blitzer's face every night.

That is great- but heand every other household name DEM needs to be "on TV" talking about this, using the ignored GANNON scandal as a gateway for it.