Raw story about Kerry (By CNS)

[Mass]

Rawstory seems to have an obsession about this story, IMHO totally ininteresting and useless, particularly because of its origin.

Does somebody understand why?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kerry_blames_election_loss_on_Sept._1201.html

[jenndar]

1. When did that even happen?

I didn't catch that during the press conference yesterday. Was if afterwards?

[Mass]

2. I dont know, but even then, why is it newsworth?

and particularly at rawstory.

Kerry has said that times and times again. Why do they insist so much?

[TayTay]

3. The editor likes this story

and lalawawa must be away on assignment. (She's a Kerry friend.)

[kerrygoddess]

15. In my opinion

Raw Story has not been friendly to JK at all in recent months. More than once we've had to debunk them.

[ray of light]

11. it's not newsworthy.

and I'm cranky enough to just well. I don't know. Just something!

Frankly, EVERYONE and GOD knows that 9-11 CHANGED EVERYTHING. So what is newsworthy about it?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. Must have been a slow day at Rawstory.com they don't even have a link...just rumors.

[ProSense]

5. My thought exactly!

I didn't hear it. I heard the question: You ever wonder how you lost to this guy? And Kerry's response: No, I know how I lost. I liked the question (even the reporter's manner when he asked it) and Kerry chuckled and was very relaxed when he responded.

That story was marked developing when it was posted. The update pointing to an unpublished story calls the story into question. It's possible they didn't print it because it was out of context or it didn't happen.

[jenndar]

6. Exactly. And I was listening for it after I read rawstory.

The only thing I can think of was that one of the reporters who swarmed around him after it was over may have asked him. But I don't see what there is to obsess over. He's said that before.

[zann725]

12. Or the "answer" WAS in the sub-text, the non-verbal of JK's "I know."

Unless in-person, first-hand a lot IS lost.

Clearly JK wanted it left at that. 'Vague' as often he's criticized...sometimes less IS more.

In a script, that "I know"...WOULD say much.

[MH1]

4. The story below is much more interesting (and important) ...

Senate Intelligence Committee stalling pre-war intelligence report

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_stalling_prewar_intelligence_1202.html

I have no idea why they are carrying the Kerry story. OTOH, I think most people know that 9/11 had a lot to do with it, so it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's just that "Kerry blames...." spin that is annoying.

[LittleClarkie]

7. It's not news. He's said similar things before. And it was a bad day for

such a question. He was just leaving the Rosa Parks bill signing. He didn't want to talk about the election just then.

It was 9/11. It was the bin Laden tape. It was a president in wartime.

[politicasista]

8. Great rant (if allowed here)

up close and personal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1959808&mesg_id=1962238

:thumbsup:

[Mass]

9. Thanks, This is so good to read.

[politicasista]

10. No problem Mass

:patriot:

[kerrygoddess]

16. Yes it was.

Very good to read!

[Mass]

13. Here is the story, as reported on NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5037300

But then came a telling moment. A reporter asked Kerry if he ever asks himself how he lost to "this guy" -- meaning President Bush. Kerry said he did not wonder -- that he knew how it happened -- but he wouldn't elaborate.

As Kerry walked away, the reporter, Ken Herman, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist from Cox Newspapers, pressed his case: "A year later, do you any different assessment?"

Kerry responded in a whisper: "9-11." Then he quickly added, "No assessments. Not the time or place for it." And he would say no more on the subject.

The rest of the article is just BS (or opinion, as you like). But this is the description of what happened.

[jenndar]

14. Actually, that article could have been good.

But it seems hastily written and it's full of contradictions.

It's too bad it doesn't say more about the fact that JK pretty much laughed off the initial question. But whatever.