Even Bob Herbert is now trashing Kerry?

[malatesta1137]

Kerry is doing NOTHING wrong. Can't Herbert see that Rove's media is the culprit? That they are killing Kerry the same way the destroyed Gore in 2000?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/opinion/20herbert.html

I had a feeling John Kerry was in trouble when, coming out of the primaries, voters kept saying they were for him because he could win. It was clear that many voters had cast primary ballots for Mr. Kerry not because they liked him, or because they felt strongly about his positions on the issues, or because they were drawn to his compelling vision of a better future for the United States and the world, but simply because they felt he was capable of beating George W. Bush.

[buycitgo]

1. so, what else is new?

Nagourney

Wilogren

Purdum

several others I can't recall

New York Times=Washington Times

they're at least as bad as CNN

[bryant69]

2. I wonder how much of this

is due to leftover Primary Rancor. During the Primary we all had our guy we wanted to win; everybody in the party. If you placed your hopes in Dean or in Kucinich or in Lieberman (or one of the others) well, doesn't it stand to reason that you thought he or she was the best candidate?

I mean, would it really be all that surprising is Lieberman's supporters or Kucinichs expect Kerry to do poorly, because he isn't going to run the campaign the same way their guy would have.

In all fairness, I haven't seen too much of that here, but up in the pundit class, i wonder if that plays any role in some of these stories coming out.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[theKnave]

3. Bandwagon voters...

I can't stand them. That's one reason why I hate the popularity polls (i.e. Rassmussen, Gallup, Zogby, etc.). If the only reason you are voting for someone, is because they are leading the popularity polls, because you don't want to "back a loser", then stay home.

p.s. this is not directed towards you, malatesta, but is in response to your post.

[malatesta1137]

4. OK

so you're agreeing with Herbert in basically saying that Kerry was the wrong candidate?

[theKnave]

11. What? No!

That's not what I'm saying at all. I think that Kerry is the right candidate*. I was talking about people who decide for whom they vote based upon who's leading in the popularity polls on (or before) election day (i.e. currently Bush, depending upon the poll).

* I would have preferred Dean, but Kerry works for me.

deit: added caveat

[John_H]

5. Who cares? If the Dems won't help themselves why should we?

These people went to princeton; they're not cretins. They know that the media will keep whoring until they are either shamed or muscled into stopping. There response? What would happen if Kerry spokespeople and surrogates started calling the whores on their whoring, for their unbalanced panels, their skewed polls, their disproportionate "investigations?" Real time, on air. Are we afraid that the coverage would get worse? Can it get worse? Really? How, specificially? Could it be that if our surrogates and spokespeople are armed with facts and that these facts are used to confont mediawhores publicly, that they just might drift a little toward fairness, if only to avoid a conflict that might cost them money?

As long as they continue to play the whores' game according to the whores' rules while at the same time demanding that their rank and file supporters spend time and money confronting the media, I'm done.

Says the Kerry web site: "Use these talking points for your letters to the editor." How about making sure your fucking TV Surrogates use those talking points? They sure don't whenever I watch. The DNC sends someone here to ask us to write Judy letters to demand fairness. You have people on her show every day. Demand fairness yourselves, right there while you're sitting right accross from her.

[buycitgo]

6. THANK YOU for your very well stated assertions

especially the last paragraph.....I/m SO sick of their apparent fear of the media

what else can it be, except for utter incompetence?

couldn't agree more re: how much worse could it be? I think CNN is worse than Fox, btw, cause at least there's almost no pretense there

[flpoljunkie]

7. This post should go in a special forum, "Trashing our Candidate."

I am sick of it. Ignore this kind of crap, for once!

We must stand together, stand up and support our candidate, John Kerry, now!

[John_H]

9. For clarity's sake. I assume you're refering to my post not the OP's

The OP was obviously mad at Herbert, not Kerry.

And guess what? I'm not mad at Kerry either. I do stand behind my candidate--with time I don't have, money I can't afford.

Apparently, you're unable to distinguish between the candidate and the people he pays to get him elected. If you'd like to start a separate forum for those of us who can, I'd be all for it.

Meanwhile, since there will undoubtedly be dem surrogates on all the shows tonight, I'm sure you'll take the time to start a thread tonight explaining in detail how superbly they all did so we disloyal dopes can see how wrong we are.

[Doosh]

8. you think most repugs were in love with Reagan in 1980, or Bush Sr. in 88

it's always about the incumbent in an election, we don't have to be gaga over a candidate. That happens only once in a short while like with Kennedy.

[quaoar]

10. Some in the media are positioning themselves

So they can say they saw it coming if Kerry loses.

It's a cynical game.

And then there are some who just plain panic when the going gets a little tough. Gore was treated the same way. In the summer of 92 there was actually media speculation as to whether the Democratic Party might try to replace Clinton as the nominee.