The press manufactures John Kerry's tears

[ProSense]

The press manufactures John Kerry's tears

by Eric Boehlert

The Barack Obama madrassa hoax isn't the only recent, dishonest campaign story that deserves close scrutiny. Another, perhaps even more disturbing, press deception revolved around Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and the announcement he made from the floor of the Senate on January 24 that he would not run for president in 2008. Disturbing, because the fraud did not involve Fox News or the right-wing InsightMag.com but instead was driven by mainstream media outlets.

Kerry's speech, which was mocked in the press for being poorly stage managed (it was too wordy, pundits complained), was also badly mangled by scores of major news players who concocted the phony storyline that Kerry had shed tears of regret while announcing his plans to sit out the 2008 race.

Kerry did no such thing, but reporters and pundits went ahead and manufactured the narrative that the "emotional" and "choked up" senator became "tearful" as he publicly "let go of his White House dreams." None of that was accurate. Kerry did become temporarily emotional, but not while he was discussing his political ambitions.

Snip...

Not one of those descriptions was accurate.

For the record, at no point did Kerry shed any tears on the floor of the Senate last Wednesday; he simply did not "cry." Rather, during a single sentence Kerry became emotional and his voice caught. The press' key distortion though, was that the single sentence had nothing to do with running for president again. Instead, Kerry was momentarily overcome with emotion when he noted that the misguided war in Iraq threatened to undo everything he had fought for since his return from Vietnam more than three decades ago.

Snip...

The truth is, what Kerry did during his eloquent and passionate critique of the war last Wednesday was what our Founding Fathers hoped U.S. senators would use the chamber for: to speak in depth about the difficult issues facing the day. What the press was doing, I have no idea. Indeed, the same Founding Fathers, who brilliantly carved out a unique role for the free press in our democracy, would have been stunned if they had witnessed Kerry's address and then read the fictionalized accounts of him allegedly breaking down in tears on the Senate floor.

Snip...

Lastly, note the other manufactured theme that popped up in the Kerry coverage last week -- that Kerry didn't win in 2004 because voters did not know where he stood regarding Iraq.

Snip...

I recall a certain catchphrase Kerry used during the campaign to describe Iraq. He called it the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. (Kerry used that exact phrase in his Wednesday speech in the Senate.) And a search of the Nexis database yields more than 1,600 news references from the 2004 campaign that mentioned Kerry as well as the three phrases "wrong war," "wrong place" and "wrong time." That's because Kerry repeated the mantra at nearly every possible public appearance during the final months of the campaign. But now the press tells us Kerry never articulated a clear position about the war.

Then again, it's the same press corps that last week told us Kerry was crying on the floor of the Senate.

It's now a disease: Media Transmitted Distortion (MTD)

[zulchzulu]

1. The MSM is absolutely pathetic...and they'll do the same to others

Anyone who is in contention to run in 2008 will be treated with the same "treatment".

And what's worse is that people with videocams can now upload to places like YouTube, which will show in minutes the moment when a candidate passed gas while bending over to kiss a baby. Instant nostalgia..or in this case, instant distraction...

Gotcha reporting has now gone into the new frontier "Propagandtainment".

[emulatorloo]

2. kick and rec n/t

[Chiyo-chichi]

3. I didn't see or read any of these reports that he was emotional or crying.. but...

this is from the Boston Globe story:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/24/kerry_to_bow_out_of_08_presidential_race/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve "botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.
_______

See anything wrong with that paragraph? First, "botched joke" is in quotes as if it was ALLEGEDLY a botched joke. Well, it WAS a JOKE but it was NOT about the education level of US troops. He botched a joke about George Bush getting US stuck in Iraq. He left out the word "us."

So this reporter has editorialized and twisted the facts... and this is the BOSTON GLOBE!

[_dynamicdems]

4. The Boston Globe is often rather critical of Kerry.

It all depends on the "reporter" covering the story. :D

[blm]

11. The press also deliberately avoided EVERY WORD he said about Iraq and the immorality of what

is going on there and the DUTY of Congress to STOP THIS WAR.

But that's not what corpmedia wants - they never wanted the American people to be able to hear what Kerry is saying, so they edit out 30 minutes of his call to stop the war and why it needs stopping, and lie about the remaining 5 minutes.

This is what they do - they are corporate shills who won't trespass against their marching orders.

[cadmium]

33. The Globe has been adversarial to Kerry for more than

a couple decades. When they can't be blatantly anti-Kerry (as a couple of their columnists are) they spin the stories to make him seem unlikeable and conniving. I first noticed this in the early 1980's. Kerry ran against their favorite Jim Shannon for the Senate seat and pulled off an upset with an insurgant grassroots campaign. There are democrats in Mass and then there are Democrats (ie the Dems that the Globe likes). At the time Kerry was a gadfly as were some others that bucked that party establishment. In 1996 the ran favorable stories about his Republican opponent Gov Bill Weld---pretty much making it appear that Kerry was dead in the water. They are very manipulative. They know Ted Kennedy is solidly popular and they will put a lot of spin in stories to try to divide Kennedy supporters from Kerry. Boston politics are incestuous and the Globe the "paper of record" or main mouthpeice. At one time our most popular radio talk show host in Mass was Jerry Williams who was consistently on Kerry's side . The Globe hated him.

[Chiyo-chichi]

51. Thanks for that info.

Very interesting.

[Mass]

5. Sadly, this is how the media act against good and decent people.

Even more unfortunately, Democrats continue to underestimate this issue. Be sure that, whoever the Democratic nominee will be, he will be attacked and distorted for whatever pretext.

I have read these articles from the MSM (not even talking about the wingnuts here, and could not even start to figure out what all this was about, as I had seen the speech when it was given).

However, about as sad is the fact that people here that are supposedly well informed continue to tell us (and therefore probably to repeat to others) the various memes that the media pushed.

Be it for Boxer, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Clark, Gore, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel or whoever, this has to stop. When you attack, do that with facts, not because you repeat what you heard on MSRNC or LNN (Least trusted Networks), or even worse FauxNews.

[_dynamicdems]

6. It was a beautiful and knowledgeable speech.

Apparently the idiots in the media wanted him to explain the history that we are dealing with in Iraq in two minutes or less. A speech on the Senate floor is not supposed to be popular entertainment. For that, we have American Idol and Jackass.

Sure he got choked up talking about Vietnam revisited. Seeing anti-war protests again has made me break down in tears more than once. How could we possibly be doing this again? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam? How could anyone not get choked up remembering the horror of Vietnam and how we are repeating the same kind of blindness again in Iraq! Remember Kent State? Hearing the voices of protest reminds me of those not-so-long-ago chants of "Hell no! We won't go!" and chills me to the bone. Nixon's ghost looms over Iraq like an omen.

I can't even imagine how Senator Kerry must feel. He fought this dragon over 35 years ago and it is back with a different name and an even more insidious agenda.

To insinuate he was in tears over his decision not to run for president is about as vile a distortion as any I've seen. John Kerry knows what is and what is not important. And damn straight he got a frog in his throat when he talked about seeing this happen again. Who wouldn't?

The Middle East is a powder keg and the fuse we lit there is burning down fast. How about a little truth for a change? The real story is far more interesting and compelling than the one they invented. A decorated veteran who led protests nearly 36 years ago against an unjust war, now a United States Senator, has declared his commitment to ending another war perpetuated by lies and deception. How about the story of how one lying president sought to twist the truth about Vietnam and another is doing the same with Iraq? This is a much better story than the stupid one they made up about a guy getting teary over deciding not to enter a political race. Where are the priorities?

The mediaganda can kiss my ass.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Well said.

Very well said.

[PresidentObama]

8. The media gets old.

They ignore everything of importance, and instead pick out things here and there to make news. Forget what Hillary Clinton said the other day in Iowa, it was all about her botched joke about "Bill" instead of what she brought to the table on important issues--like the war in Iraq.

The media ignored the mass of Kerry's wonderful speech on the Senate floor other then the part about him not running, and here they are trying to tie that in with him getting emotional. He got emotional because he sees the pain this war is causing our country like Vietnam caused him and others back when he was a soldier.

He didn't cry like they said he did, but he got emotional. And rightfully so. I wish more Senators would show geniune emotion about this war, and work as hard as Kerry to end it.

[glitch]

9. The corporate media is the equivalent of factory farmed "food"

Managed media = no news content. Thank God for some bloggers, the free range of the media landscape.

[beachmom]

10. This gives me a feeling of superiority over the MSM, since the

diary I wrote about the speech got it right, while they were too lazy to listen or read the content in his speech. They're just a joke.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/25/152730/745

[ProSense]

13. That was an awesome diary, a must read! Thanks. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

12. "I cried tears in my beers" was a line from a popular country song years ago

But, the media has been slinging this bs so much lately I wonder if the reporters are using pitch forks rather than pens.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - now, there was a misnomer the likes of which I had never seen before. Those guys couldn't tell the truth if the yardarm swung loose and hit them squarely in their tail buckets!

[Infinite Hope]

14. He actually did get emotional after finishing his statement that he wouldn't run.

There's no reason to act like he's less of a man because of it. He's a man of conviction and badly wanted to become President and make positive change. It's hard letting that go because I doubt he'll run in 2012 either.

[ProSense]

15. Do you work for the media? n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

16. Oh please

You have no idea what you are talking about. Is that you Tucker ?

:argh:

[PresidentObama]

17. He got emotional....

Because he had to make the grime realization that this war threatens America much in the way Vietnam did. He felt the emotion come over himself because he knew more families were mourning, and the same kind of pain from Vietnam has stained our country now. It had nothing to do with his decision to bow out of the Presidential race.

John would have loved to be President. He's a leader, and a great one at that. But he knows the great benefits he can bring the country now, and he has no political chains surrounding him to prevent that from happening. He'll continue to stand tall on this war, and hold Congress' feet to the fire to help bring this war to an end. So families like Brian Freeman's don't have to lose children, brothers, fathers, and husbands.

Don't buy into what the media feeds you. John Kerry got emotional, but it wasn't about the Presidency. It was about this war, and how tragic it has become. We need more leaders like John. Whom will be honest, bold, blunt, and willing to stand up for whats right!!

[LittleClarkie]

19. It's not that he got emotional. It's that he got emotional about the war

not his run. The timing is what's being disputed. The media makes it sound as if he cries for his lost chance, and not because he's concerned about the war.

[beachmom]

42. Here's how it went from my diary (which is upthread)

But I have concluded this is not the time for me to mount a Presidential campaign. It is time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security and our ability to fight the real war on terror.

The people of Massachusetts have given me an incredible privilege to serve, and I intend to work here to change a policy in Iraq that threatens all that I have cared about and fought for since I came home from Vietnam.

(It was at this moment that he got really choked up with the word Vietnam -- his announcement statement was said clearly)

The fact is, what happens here in the next 2 years may irrevocably shape or terribly distort the administration of whichever candidate is next elected President. Decisions are being taken and put into effect today and in the days to come that may leave to the next President a wider war, a war even more painful, more difficult, more prolonged than the war we already have.

Iraq, if we Senators force a change of course, may yet bring stability and an exit with American security intact or it may bring our efforts in the region to a failure that we will all recognize as a catastrophe.

I don't want the next President to find that he or she has inherited a nation still divided and a policy destined to end as Vietnam did, in a bitter or sad legacy

[mtnsnake]

18. I don't understand what the big deal is anyway. Even if he did cry, so what?

Everyone knows Kerry is no wuss, so why is it so bad if someone thinks he showed a little emotion? What's wrong with a man shedding a few tears?

[LittleClarkie]

20. It's not that he showed emotion. It's that they make it sound like

he got emotional because of his lost chance at the presidency, when the emotion in his voice came when he was talking about the war and what was at risk. It's that they can't even get a simple thing like WHAT he was emotional about correct.

I don't care if there were tears or not. I know he got close, anyway. He had to stop a moment. But he wasn't crying for himself. The attempt is to make him look sad and shallow, instead of concerned for the country and the next president who might have to clean up the mess Bush is leaving.

[mtnsnake]

22. Thanks. Your explanation puts it in persepctive. nt

[ProSense]

21. So a little blatant distortion is okay? n/t

[karynnj]

25. The reason is that it was not true

I have seen times when Kerry has been very emotional and tears were in his eyes. Mostly it was when speaking of war and deaths of those dear to him. He also was very near tears when he conceded. Then as here, where tears filled his eyes in 2004 was when speaking of the consequences to others of not being able to do what he intended. In the picture at a funeral of a MA soldier soon after the election he was clearing blinking back tears.

I actually find that emotion makes him more rather than less. He is human - and a very good one. The point is it distorts what the Senate speech was - a very serious description of the problem by a one of the most knowlegable people in the Senate. Not to mention, I think he's the only Senator who left the Green Zone, unless Dodd was with him then too. As a vet, he does understand it better.

Also, if you read the linked article, the claim of tears - intended to belittle Kerry - their goal for 3 years now - there was a huge amount of sheer nastiness that Kerry did nothing to earn. Consider just Tucker Carlson, he said,
"MSNBC's Tucker Carlson mocked Kerry's "teary" campaign speech and told viewers it was "sad to watch John Kerry cry up there today" which was not true.

but then there was this - that should have got him fired:

"How else to explain the fact that MSNBC's Carlson not only made up facts about Kerry crying on the Senate floor but then suggested it would have been best if, as in the final scene from Of Mice and Men, somebody simply took a gun and shot Kerry as a mercy killing. "Just blow[] him into the next world," as Carlson put it."

Then, as if that was not enough:

Back at MSNBC, Carlson joked the address was "about nine hours long," adding, "It was like a Fidel Castro speech."

The speech was 36 minutes, but it is likely that that exceeds his concentration span, and he's comparing Kerry to Castro. Cute.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Part of this is the special nastiness they have for Kerry, part is what they will have for any Democrat. I think it starts by listening only to other RW nitwits and agreeing with each other -

[tinfoilinfor2005]

32. No one, I repeat NO ONE watches Tucker.

Tucker is the Chief Executives wife's brother in law, and that is the only thing that is keeping him from selling used automobiles. :hurts:

[karynnj]

37. That's interesting

The point is that the RW would be livid if this were a Republican leader. Do you see my point that when any of our leaders are treated with this type of contempt it hurts us.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

40. Of course the right wing would be livid. They are famous for their

righteous indignation. Fortunately few pay attention to their swoons and vapors anymore.

Politics is a tough game. All politicians are treated with contempt at some point in their careers. The ones who become great are the ones who realize this and actually learn by it and eventually use it to their advantage.

[karynnj]

44. Name one person who became great because

he/she was continually smeared.

John Kerry has lived with RW smears since he was 27. over 35 years ago. He has responded keeping his dignity and more amazingly, his faith in people and his ability to forgive. That to me describes greatness on a personal level. On a political level, had he done nothing but oppose Nixon on the war.

The dirty tricks and smears made it impossible for him to get elected - even in Massachusetts for 10 years. Nearly as soon as he was elected to the Senate, vets told him of the Contra gun and drug running - which pitted him against Reagan at the height of his popularity. That led to smears and even attempts to implicate him in the drug running he was struggling to fight.

When the Iran/Contra blew up into a big story, the Freshman Kerry was not included - and those who were seemed more into grandstanding than making a solid case.

There is no need to go on - the point is that he was and is great - smart and incorruptible. Did the attacks and smears make him stronger - they might have, but they made it tough to get support on things that needed to be done.

[TayTay]

38. Because Truth Matters!

People who advocate for others on-line and who say that the truth doesn't matter because, after all, what harm was done, are allowing lies to spread. Am I supposed to take anyone who posts that truth is optional seriously? How can anyone take this position after everything that has gone on for the last 6 years.

Of course it matters. It matters because it makes the story about Kerry being wrapped up in self-pity instead of Kerry having an emotional response to the war. This is the way the media disregards what actually happens in favor of what they want to say happened. Imagine for a second that your current favorite candidate had this happen to them. That the cause that impelled them to public office in the first place, the thing that is closest to their heart is irrelevant.

No, there is no shame in anyone expressing strong emotion. But there is also something to be said for truth. There is something to be said for a media that wants to distort what actually happened so that they can construct a narrative that is a deliberate put-down of someone. There is something wrong when they say something easily disproved by watching the video. John Kerry did not get a little choked up at the loss of another run for the Presidency. He got a little choked up at the thought of this endless war and the horrible thought that he had to go through opposing an unjust and immoral war again. Do you have even the slightest idea how powerful that thought is or how truly and honestly emotional that really is? And who the fuck is the media to to tell us that they really know that Kerry said this because of his self-pity instead of his thought at the uselessness of the war. That is a big god damned difference.

Truth matters. It is fundamentally wrong for anyone on a political board to pretend that it doesn't. After all, people advocate for candidates here. It will be remembered who thought truth was important and who thought nothing really matters and truth is optional.

[mtnsnake]

39. Good post, TayTay, but calm down. I never meant it shoudn't be a matter of truth

Jeesh!

Of course truth matters. That's why I'm always spending time keeping posters honest who post innuendo and gross exaggerations about people like Hillary.

Hey, the t in mtnsnake stands for truth. Didn't you know that?

[TayTay]

43. But it matters, truth matters

It doesn't matter that emotion was shown. But it does matter what it was shown on. That is a pivotal difference. This will come up for other Dems.

If there is one thing you are justified in getting upset about, it's that. Truth always matters. I mean, if the last six years have taught us all anything it is that.

[karynnj]

45. Why is it more important to tell the truth about Hillary

[mtnsnake]

48. Where did I say that? Anyway, thanks for providing the perfect example

of how people so often love to put words in other peoples mouths to spice things up. Then when the other posters defends themselves against the spin, they're accused of flaming. Sorry, don't have time for that today.

[karynnj]

49. You need to combine two of your posts

Post 1:
"I don't understand what the big deal is anyway. Even if he did cry, so what?
Everyone knows Kerry is no wuss, so why is it so bad if someone thinks he showed a little emotion? What's wrong with a man shedding a few tears? "

Post 2:
" Jeesh!

Of course truth matters. That's why I'm always spending time keeping posters honest who post innuendo and gross exaggerations about people like Hillary.

Hey, the t in mtnsnake stands for truth. Didn't you know that?"

This was the post I responded to. The problem is that you likely did not read the entire linked article, which describes how most of the media, print and cable TV, used John Kerry's announcement that he was not running as another chance to kick him. How can you read through comments that ridicule him and his speech and not see how people who respect him are disgusted - especially when he has no platform to respond from?

The fact is that in large parts of America, a man crying - which Kerry did not do- is taken as a sign of weakness. This on top of the way his real bravery in war was so distorted that people felt free to say he was hardly in Vietnam. Not to mention the whole attempt in 2004 by people like Fox's Cameroon and his fabricated "metrosexual" quotes to make Kerry seem less than masculine.

Every negative stereotype they have used was used again. His speech was "9 hours long", though it was really 36 minutes, most of which was a very substanitive description of what Senator Kerry, a foreign policy expert, sees as the situation in Iraq. As the article points out, this is a speech that fits the Senate where it was given. Can someone get this man some Ritalin? Also, what's up with the Castro analogy - is this a sneaky way of calling Kerry a hippie Communist (I know Castro was never a hippie)?

I ssupect that they fear Kerry as a spokesman against, not just the war, but the entire worldview that led to this war. Look back at the end of his 1971 speech. He ended by hoping that the pain of Vietnam could be diminished because it became the point where America turned. The one point Kerry chocked was in admitting that everything he did since coming back from Vietnam on this was in jeopordy. He spoke out on Vietnam, investigated the Contras, and the evils of BCCI - all at a huge personal cost because they were the right things to do. Especially on the last two, he had few allies and many enemies, but he was fighting for America's soul. He is the truthteller and they don't want the truths told. They need to discredit Kerry by ridicule, because nothing in his life does discredit him.

Senator Kerry is a person of great integrity and character. To win, the Republicans were willing the lie and cheat. The one thing they failed to do was to find any instance of corruption in this man's life - though he has been a public figure for 35 years. There is nothing Kerry ever did to deserve this constant ridicule. 2004 is over, he's not running in 2008, and they still refuse to cover him like the serious hard working Senator he is.

Ask yourself why they are doing this. Why did they not grant him a gracious exit? I've seen more sympathy for high level people exiting public life entirely because of malfeisance. Senator Kerry got almost none. I suspect it is because the country now knows the media covered for Bush, but many Bush voters comfort themselves that Kerry was worse. If the public knew that, politics aside, Kerry was a decent, honorable man, the media woud be seen as very very complicit in the mess we find ourselves in.

Consider that with Kerry, this treatment has been so pervasive for so long, that you and others are like the frog in a pot of water that was heated slowly and is now boiling. None of those comments - even Carlson's comment that he should be shot - which was not intended to be literal, but I seriously doubt he would be able to say that to, say, Vanessa Kerry's face.

By the way, I have seen you defend Hillary - and you do a good job. On some things, where I think the critisism is unfair, I have joined you - though I thoroughly dislike this woman for things she has done. I have tried to at least be factual

[MBS]

50. Fine words

Truth does matter. It's because we seem to have forgotten this that we have W. as our president, instead of John Kerry; and a 2008 presidential race that so far is a circus rather than a serious debate.

[sandnsea]

23. Let's not blow this into a story

It isn't a story right now, nobody with any credibility has said a word, let's leave it that way.

[mtnsnake]

24. Is this the video of what you're talking about?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lzLUyNAPr9M

[LittleClarkie]

27. The bit where he gets somewhat choked up is in part 4 I think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_onuKmpo4yY

This one.

[Infinite Hope]

26. Maybe someone should post the video.

I watched it live. Lame jokes that I must be the media because I happen to say the same thing in this instance are pathetic. That would be to insinuate the media is right 0% of the time and saying something same/similar is wrong.

To respond to the pathetic, yes, I'm the media and yes, I'm Tucker Carlson and yes I'm Simon from American Idol too. :sarcasm:

The truth is, I watched it all live and I teared up as he got emotional in announcing he wasn't running. He had been talking about the situation in Iraq for a very long time before and after he got emotional and didn't get emotional. It was toward the end of announcing he wasn't running and was trying to transition back to the topic that he got emotional.

[ProSense]

28. The video is linked in the article! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

35. And I do in post 27

FYI

[BlueIris]

29. Next they'll be trying to tell us that Wes Clark cried himself to sleep

after deciding to withraw from the '04 race. Yes, General Clark will have cried like a baby. Him, and Jodi Foster, and Cheney himself. BABIES.

[Alexander]

30. Not the first time...the RW press manufactured Ed Muskie's "tears" in 1972.

Muskie was making a speech attacking a RW reporter for trashing his wife (the infamous "Canuck Letter" where it was claimed Muskie's wife hated French-Canadians), calling the hack a "coward". It was during a snowstorm, and the press covering the incident were only too happy to refer to the melted snowflakes on his face as "tears".

It was later found the "Canuck Letter" was a pure fake created by Nixon's dirty tricks campaign.

Now that I think of it, John Kerry and Edmund Muskie both have a lot in common.

-Both are/were gargantuanly tall New England senators
-Both are/were Roman Catholics of Eastern European descent
-Both are/were avid environmentalists
-Both favored diplomacy and peaceful measures as opposed to military action
-Both men, while supported by the party establishment, were not favored by the grassroots (they instead went for McGovern/Dean)
-Both fell victim to the dirty tricks of Republican presidents and their subordinates (Donald Segretti/Karl Rove - Segretti was once Rove's mentor)

And, of course,

-Both men were accused of crying in RW smear articles when they really didn't

[beachmom]

41. One flaw there -- the grassroots, as in primary Democratic voters,

went for Kerry, not Dean, whereas Muskie lost in the primaries to McGovern.

[Alexander]

47. Iowa went for Kerry. After the "scream" other states followed.

The grassroots in Iowa went for Kerry largely due to the Dean-Clark-Gephardt feud, yes, but I think to a large extent the "scream", also like Muskie "crying", torpedoed an otherwise fairly good campaign by Howard Dean. I'm not convinced the primary results would've been such a huge Kerry blowout if the media hadn't manufactured that incident.

Plus, Kerry hadn't yet mastered the ability to haul in massive amounts of cash from many donors in a short span of time - that came after his nomination was assured. Perhaps I should've said the "netroots" went for Dean, but in today's world I think that constitutes a huge chunk of the party grassroots element.

In Iowa's case, it seems they simply got disgusted by the mudslinging triangle and voted for the two guys who agreed to be nice to each other - Kerry and Edwards.

[karynnj]

53. From comments of many NH Democrats

Kerry was always very well liked there. When it looked like he had no chance, many NH Democrats chose Dean who they also liked. Teresa did a phenomenal job campaigning for her husband while he concentrated more on Iowa.

When Kerry won NH, the Dean Scream happpened - so it is impossible to look at preference polls and decompose the two events. It is very normal to expect a candidate to get a big boost by winning, especially when the win was very convincing and unexpected. That Howard Dean did far worse than expected also contributed.

One signal that it was not the scream, was that Kerry pulled many people from Clark and undecided.
The problem for Dean was that his strategy was predicated on big wins in Iowa and NH carrying him to doing well in (SC, OK, MO, ND, DE, AZ, and NM) where he didn't have much organization. He said after losing NH that he wasn't contesting them - that he would try for the states in the next set. Dean had found out at that time that most of the money was gone - they spent nearly $40 million on Iowa and NH.

So, going into that first multistate day, Dean was not really competing. Look at that list of states. Had either Clark (who in fairness to him had never run)and Edwards been great candidates, that was the set of states they should have won and the momentum would have changed. Kerry won 5. This was the first moment where it was clear Kerry was going to win.

[Cha]

31. Guess what?

We're going to have to take our country back in spite of the corporatemediawhores or take them down..

[cadmium]

34. "a policy in Iraq threatens all that I have cared about and fought for

since I came home from Vietnam" This is where he chokes up. The media spun this to suggest that he broke into tears when he said that was not going to run for president. That insuation is a lie. I want to know how someone could make a public statement on the Iraq war and not have a tear.

My message to the Boston Globe commentators was "Why aren't you crying?"

[wildflowergardener]

36. Kerry's speech

I guess I don't really see that it would be something to be ashamed of to be choked up about giving up your dream to be president. I am a Kerry supporter, and that was what I thought he was choked up about. Of course I don't know him as well as perhaps some of you do, only having seen him in speeches on TV, at a couple of rallys during the election. Maybe I was wrong, and it was about the Iraq war - but I don't think it's something to be ashamed of, whether it was about the Iraq war or if it was because he wasn't going to be president. Or maybe he was thinking that if he'd been elected, he could have saved that soldier from being killed. That could have been what he was emotional about - he'd just learned that the man who he had talked to had been killed. In any case whether it was one reason or another - it's nothing to be ashamed of.

I'd rather support someone who gets emotional about things, than someone like Bush, who could care less that thousands of people are dying.

Meg

[wisteria]

46. I wouldn't of blamed him either. However, Carlson's comments were out of line.

I think from what others are saying he was emotional when he spoke about returning from Vietnam. However, I would not of thought less of him if he was upset over having to bow out of the race. I believe up until the end of October, this is what he was working towards. And, he put his heart and soul into it. He was wonderful, energized and happy.I have never seen a politician work so hard detailing plans forward for the US and giving such powerful speeches. It can not be easy to walk away from all that. All of that dedicated work towards a goal of leading this country forward. So, like you, it doesn't bother me that some reported that he was emotional, although they should be called out for getting it wrong. But, Tucker Carlson the vile, needs to be smacked down. His comments were way out of line.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. Congratulations!

You've just coined what might be the most useful term of the decade.

Media Transmitted Distortion -- Perfect.

So when do we hold our first MTD Telethon, and do you think Keith Olbermann would be available to host (assuming that Jerry Lewis is already booked).

[ProSense]

54. Thanks. n/t