Yuk Yuk...I love it when the right wing spins our way...

[MH1]

A right wing blog(?) that calls itself "The American Thinker" had this to say about John Kerry helping out my Congressional candidate...

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Congressman Curt Weldon may be in trouble. His opponent, Joseph Sestak, has raised almost half a million dollars after an urgent appeal by John Kerry to his 3-million-strong email list.

Tee hee. Joe's raised almost half a mil, but that statement makes it sound like it all came from JK's email appeal. JK raised a bunch (I've seen figures from $50K to $90K) but somehow, reading that just made me chuckle at the idea they were attributing it all to JK. Making him sound like an even better fundraiser than he is! Works for me!

Oh the rest of the article is the usual right wing bloviation, you probably aren't interested unless you want a good laugh at the odor of desperation emanating from the page.

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5046

[ginnyinWI]

1. :-)

A backhanded compliment for JK--they had to admit to his big email list and fundraising ability to make the point. too bad it was at Sestak's expense.

[ProSense]

2. Yup!

They're going to wind up tripping over themselves.

[TayTay]

3. Washington Post Rates Kerry as among top 5 Dem Challengers for '08

John Kerry: Our belief that the 2004 nominee will run again in 2008 keeps growing. Two weeks ago Kerry spoke at Faneuil Hall in Boston to mark the 35th anniversary of his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after returning from Vietnam,. Kerry is also one of three candidates (Bayh and Clinton are the others) who will likely start 2007 with $10 million or more in a presidential account, ensuring him a spot on the Line for the foreseeable future. Kerry remains devoid of buzz among the chattering classes, but he has managed, somewhat remarkably, to reclaim his standing as a leader in the party over the last 18 months.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

[ProSense]

4. Glad to see this, but

it's disingenuous as usual:

Kerry remains devoid of buzz among the chattering classes, but he has managed, somewhat remarkably, to reclaim his standing as a leader in the party over the last 18 months.

Have they ever failed to mention him without snark, as this clearly is?

[TayTay]

5. Actually this is not bad.

This columnist is pretty good to Kerry. And, to be fair, Kerry has had it very rough ever since that loss in Nov of '04. We stone cold know that inside Washington is not going to be supportive. (I remember this coming up as a topic of conversation last Dec. in Boston. Someone said this in a rather point blank way. Gee.)

There are Ellen Goodman's and Eleanor Clift's out there who think Kerry should basically retire. He has withstood a beating from the press and from other Dems who want him to take the fall for the last Dem loss. He hasn't. He has battled back. It was noticed. I think this is a good thing.

[ProSense]

6. You're right!

It is the first MSM acknowledgment that he is a viable candidate in the top tier. So let me celebrate that.


:bounce:

[wisteria]

7. It amazes me that he is so focused and assured. He is remarkable.

If you go back to after the election, there were people like McGovern telling him he should not jump right back into things. He suggested Kerry retreat so to speak and give himself time to contemplate and heal. Others suggested it would be nearly impossible for him to even lead the Democrats while another said it would be a shame to waste Kerry's talents and the party should consider him for a leadership role of some sort, but it seemed unlikely. The insiders didn't waste anytime trying to blame him for the loss either. The problem they encountered though, when they tried to point the finger at him was not everyone was buying it.The election was closely watched by more Americans because of the previous 2000 election. The tricks, the games, the lies, the manipulation were there for all to see. It hasn't been easy for the media shills and some insiders to sell their idea that Kerry was a bad candidate. Much of it isn't sticking, IMO. They seem to only be able to repeat the same old worn out 2004 Repub talking points. Then you read some of the nasty blog stuff and wonder if these people aren't also so called insiders too,or insider want to be's.
None of this has stopped him though and with all the attacks I would imagine it is hard not to get discouraged.The efforts to marginalize him and malign him seem to just make him work harder to achieve what he wants to achieve. He seems to be leading our party in a new direction. I love how he has supported the grassroot efforts and how he has campaigned for others and reached out to the Mid-Western states. He appears to gets tired of waiting for the other Dem's to stop dragging their feet, so he takes charge of certain issues. He is proving to everyone that he is a true leader and the shills and their old talking points may just find their tactics are going to backfire. We just have to continue to - what's the term used during the campaign? Watch his back?

[karynnj]

8. I take the "remarkably" as compliment

I would use the same word myself. Neither the party or any part of the punditry (with the lone exception of Oliphant) had ANY kind words for Kerry. The party denied him any of the normal leadership role you would think he deserved by EASILY winning the primaries to lead the party.

Within a week or two of the election, Bill Clinton was putting out little stories. The main one, that he advised Kerry to endourse all the gay bashing amendments - including some that would destroy rights the couples already had, may have backfired. Politicly, it would likely have been deadly given Kerry's record. That Clinton brought it up is troubling - it shows how little he cares for gay rights and shows way too much eagerness to gloat over how much better a politician he was than Kerry was. Begala and Carville have been just as bad, but it was less troubling as they were and are party hacks.

So, that Kerry has standing as a leader is mainly his own doing - and it was mostly, keeping his head high, doing what he thought right and working harder than anyone. His behavior through all this time has been extraordinarily principled, honorable and intelligent. The MTP (etc) gotcha games don't work because Kerry is telling the truth and standing for what he's always stood for. That comes across. It's not that the pundits make it easy for him (think McCain - but realize the down side of being a McCain is that you're unprepared when questioned at all.)

Part of it could be keeping his link to the people on his email list. The press has spoken about his email list, but seems to oddly not realize that the point is that there are committed people (less than the 3 million) on that list who actually want to know what he is doing. It's not just a good fund raising list. The main thing though is Kerry's own actions. All of us are here because we saw the person we most wanted as President ever in Kerry. The odd thing is I have to actually think to come up with who I thought that of before, because it was a thought I really didn't have. (forced to answer: Hart)

So, I take the comment as a positive and hope that the Lapdog book hits people interest at the right time.

[ProSense]

9. That's true.

It's definitely his own doing. I was looking at the implication. Imagine Kerry, one of the top Democratic Senators before he runs for president, holds on to his seat as a Senator after losing that bid, then fades into obscurity as a sitting Senator. That really wouldn't say much about his leadership before, during and after the bid. Now if he had given up his seat, I'd understand "remarkably," but it implies that they expected he'd do a lesser job of remaining a top Democrat (along with Clinton) even though he is still in the Senate.

[karynnj]

10. Good points

That's all true and may suggest that it was certain people in the party who wanted all the power who prefered Kerry banished to the back benches of the Senate. I can't think of any way to explain the NYT scizophrenic coverage of the Alito fillibuster - where within 6 days they had - an editorial with an impassionioned plea for a filibuster, a Fox News like article ridiculing Kerry for trying, and a summary article (by the same author) bemoaning this as something the Democrats could have won- suggesting this was a very important issue to the NYT, but not enough for them to have used their voice with Kerry (and Kennedy) running it. Who do you think they wanted to lead this?

[wisteria]

11. I believe there is a tug of war of sorts going on in the party between

the Clinton side and oh, lets say those looking for a new direction. Personally, I think it is time for the Clinton's to step aside and allow others to advance the party. The idea that they are the only ones that can win can be shot down without much effort at all. It is just frustrating that some insiders buy into the Clinton's are the only ones who know how to win theories so readily without questioning the history of their elections. I have seen President Clinton show some anger when it is suggested that he won his first Presidential election because the Republican ticket was split badly. And, how about his competition for the second run- Bob Dole. Does Bill Clinton have personality plus? Sure he does, but that doesn't transfer over to Senator Clinton. She has won one -no real competition race and she is getting ready to win another similar race. Nothing in those races indicate to me that she can pull off a big win in a Presidential race.After all,President Clinton can't run for her, although I suspect he would if he could.