Kerry biographer calls Gore unstable (Aaron Brown last night)

Hey,

I rarely watch cable news but happened to see CNN last night. Aaron Brown had as a guest Nina Easton, co-author of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry. While it wasn't clear whether or not she was trying to hurt Kerry (although some have said there is a hatchet job element to the bio) her remarks about Gore and Dean were very offensive. She gave Gore the eye-rolling treatment, said he appeared mentally unstable in his speech, that this put him in the same category as Howard Dean post-Iowa, and argued that Kerry needed to keep distance from both of them to appeal to swing voters.

Another youngish, stylish, attractive faux blonde engaging in character assassination on cable TV. Don't we have enough of those? She totally avoided the substance of Gore's remarks and focused entirely on his style, indulging in a psychological smear. Wonder if she's pals with Krauthammer, who should have his license revoked for psychoanalyzing unwilling victims on national TV.

CYD

I haven't had the chance to watch it, yet. But most of the people I know have said the 90-95% of the speech is 'typical' Gore and the remainder is what they're airing ad infinitum on the cable news shows. Figures, if true. They're doing the same thing they did with the Dean Scream. :(

As a fervent Dean supporter who coughed up a lot of money to his campaign, I was thoroughly disappointed in 'the scream'. Not that it should have been a campaign-ender, but because he wasted a golden opportunity to pull his campaign out of a nosedive (while Kerry and Edwards capitalized on it fully).

Gore's speech was powerful, passionate, moving. Check out highlights at:

http://www.moveon.org/pac/gore/

You too ? :)

Dean was the only person I ever sent money, to help a Campaign. He was the only one of the 7, that was not afraid to say what needed to be said. No hard feeling on my part. He got the ball running against Bush. Money well spent

"The Scream" was totally manufactured. It was a political hit. And here you are perpetuating the myth.

Go here immediately for deprogramming:

Deliberately cut, closely cropped, carefully tailored, out of context, repeated ad nauseum, specifically to derail Dean, create and sustain a false impression, to cripple his campaign legitimacy

http://www.deanport.com/caucusnight/


Edit to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1681433#1681458

:wtf: Was it a "wasted golden opportunity" or was it a "meme?"

it really can't be a 'meme' if that was my initial impression on seeing it, can it?

Compare it to Edwards' "Two Countries" speech. Edwards stepped up to the plate ready to play ball, and Dean was unprepared, just as he was in the Iowa "Brown and Black" debate where he broke the rules and got his hand slapped.

Sorry -- just not 'programmed' to accept that supporting a candidate means you believe they are infallible :eyes:

What about Edwards? Superfluous.

I have many doubts about Dean, particularly his genuineness, but the "Scream" ain't one of them. My initial objection is to your spreading the myth of the "Scream." It's provable bullshit. If you think he blew it during the debates, fine. I might even agree with you, just don't try to pass bullshit off as truth. This isn't about my support blinding me, it's about an important issue: Propaganda. I get pissed off about it because it's about the power of the media, the dollar(read corporate interests) and political powerbrokers to offset common sense. Just don't aid and abet them.

Dean's "speech" after the Iowa caucus was bullshit ranting, false enthusiasm after a disappointing loss, and yes, screaming. Now how is that trying to pass bullshit off as truth? I saw it with my own eyes. Have you even watched it?

I defy you to prove to me Dean did not scream after the Iowa caucus.

Why? Because if he hadn't he wouldn't have been able to have been heard. If this equates to "bullshit ranting," fine. False enthusiasm? You're right. He should have cried.

Passing bullshit off as truth. The message of the speech was "We will not give up." The message portrayed by the media was that this man is unfit to be president. The question is not "Did he scream?"(Answer: Yes) The question is "Why did he scream?"(Answer: Because he had to). The even greater question is "Why was it replayed a thousand times out of context?(Answer: Because there was an agenda).

Moreover, when I talk about "The Scream," I'm not really referring to the speech, I'm referring to the "The Sound Bite." He screamed at what was, for all intents and purposes, essentially a pep rally. The replaying of....wait a second!...if I have to explain this shit, forget it. We'll agree to differ. I say political hit, you say bullshit ranting. We'll just part ways there.

When you heard the scream the first time, did you hear it with all of the crowd of people also screaming, and him trying to be overheard, or did you hear the filtered version that was aired ad nauseum on all of the news programs?

I saw the whole goddamn thing with Edwards' and Kerry's speeches as well. IMO, in comparison Dean's "speech" was very disappointing. It's my opinion and I really don't care what the 'meme' is. This is coming from someone who has supported the guy from very early on and met him personally.

http://homepage.mac.com/dylanm/Iraq_Crisis.mp4

Also we have an MP3
http://homepage.mac.com/teetsee/Iraq_Crisis.mp3

You can also buy a copy on DVD from MoveOn PAC for $5:
http://www.moveonpac.org/gore/

"They" didn't do anything to me -- I thought that speech finished him as I was watching it.

The Gore speech, on the other hand, was outstanding. Head over to c-span.org and watch it as soon as you can. It takes him three or four minutes to get rolling but when he does, he's far better than "typical" Gore.

Why are you making the comparison? Dean was at a rally for his supporters, not giving a policy speech. There should be no comparison between the two.

finally, a statesman has spoken out forcefully, and, yes, at times in anger.
we should be angry, have every right to be angry, and are angry,
and al had the courage to say it.
they don't like the message, hence "kill the messenger", and, you're correct,
just like they did with dean.

Awesome! *standing ovation*

Gore did a superb presentation. Clear, concise, authoritative, and spirited when appropriate. There was not one bit of irrational anger in it. He even made the statement that after 2000, he consciously make the decision to rise above it all and do whatever it took to support Bush and help bring the country forward...so not even sour grapes.

*still clapping* BRAVO!!!

.. you'll see that Gore is in fine control of his faculties, he is simply passionate about a few points, and really just sounds a bit like a southern preacher. He's not out of control, he's not rambling, he's sticking to his speech, and he's passionate.

Just because someone wrote a biography about Kerry, for a newspaper, does not make them a Democrat, or an expert. She's way off base. See it for yourself on moveon.org's site.

If all Democratic politicians showed some backbone and some righteous indignation like Gore, Dean, and Kucinich do, we'd have a super majority.

Gore's "demeanor"? You people must be crazy, this was an old-fashioned rabble-rousing populist speech. This was the best speech of Gore's career, bar none. I say give me more of it. Everyone is talking about it.

Really, really pissed ≠ mentally unstable
Really, really pissed = let's think a moment about what this obviously intelligent ex-senator and president-elect might be pissed about

righteous indignation. He said things i have been thinking. Damn fine speech.

It's about being pissed at what they are doing. Nothing unstable about it. To me, its more unstable not to recognize the US is in a mess right now.

lots of crazy people out there, they think everything is normal, nothing much wrong with the Bushies, and they all seem to be on TV.

from the Boston Globe over the years and they are selling it as THEIR version of his biography.

Easton is a HARPY with a superiority complex.

CSPAN had a little chat with that Boston Globe gang - they sneered and spat out silliness from giant overstuffed leather armchairs, Easton was particularly grating.

Jeff Jacoby is the outfront right wing voice - but the editorial staff seems to find it necessary to spin anti-Kerry , and anti-Gore, every chance they have.

Actually, from emails with a few of them, I've concluded they are classic "we are not controlled by the right wing GOP - we just act like we are".

As someone said, the test is to imagine a State controlled, Bush controlled, press - and compare it to what we have now - and note the lack of a difference.

is yet another example.

It makes me want to scream. In fact Edward Munch is my own personal image for watching the news.

I guess we need Edwards then. Cause he's so pretty, it doesn't matter what he says. (yeah as a chick, I do find him attractive, but I actually care what they say, silly me)

right on the mark. And it sounds like she's commenting more on style than substance. After what happened to Dean in the primaries after 'the scream' I don't see how you could argue with her. Those type of speeches may appeal to the base, but all they're gonna do is scare the swing voters away - and that's who you need to win elections.

I do think there may be some smart strategery behind what Gore is doing tho. He could be trying to help keep the far-left voters in the democratic party, and away from Nader. He's sort of playing bad cop to Kerry's good cop; he can say things and fire up the base in a way that Kerry can't.

but you are not discussing the substance of Gore's remarks.

what sunk Dean was him saying:

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Notorious_Iowa_Speech_Jan19_2004.htm

"You have the power to take back this party."

His success with grassroots organizing struck fear in the hearts of DLC, and to them, he was issuing a threat, so they sunk him.

she's way OFF the mark.
ferchrissake, you even admit you haven't heard the speech. do yourself a favor and at least listen (watching would be even better), then come back and tell us she's "right on the mark."

Gore said everything that needed to be said, eloquently and passionately.

she was opining about in high regard. I don't like either Dean or Gore, does that make me suspect of being in cahoots with Krauthammer?

You're obviously searching for a point. You haven't posted anything she said that was offensive, you just said it was offensive, period.

I knew where this was going...

Part Bushevik, Part DLC.

Which makes it ALL BAD!

:hi: Trumad, you Lousy Freeper!

(in case you want to ALERT me, people, this is an "inside joke" between trumad and myself thatI'll never live down anyway, so I'm just sort of going with the flow)

is absolute bulljive. Absolute bulljive. It WAS righteous indignation (applied to a beautiful speech). He did have a bit of a sweating problem ... he is a sweat-er, and the lights must have been intense. So, he kept wiping his face with a giant cloth and his hand. It was a little disconcerting ... but I'm in a sweat over Bush Admin. policies, too! He was like a Southern preacher, rallying the faithful! The Bible quote about "by their fruits shall ye know them" -- genius!

Go Go Al, it's ya' birthday ...

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

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

So does it really matter? Go read up on Easton then. Bah, same point.

In fact I like most of Dowd's recent stuff. Anyway, go read up on Easton.

?

Gore's speech was EXCELLENT. He said EXACTLY what needed to be said in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of history. He MEANT every word of it! The people occupying high positions in the White House today ARE A DANGER TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. I know, I know, this sounds EXTREME -- but it is not. They are way beyond incompetent; they are a danger to every man, woman and child in this country.

Enough 2¢ psychologizing from in-denial no-nothing talking heads whose mortgages on their million dollar condos depend on their ability to do hatchet jobs on anyone who speaks TRUTH to power! This country is in deep deep trouble on several fronts but most specifically on the foreign policy and national security front.

and I have to say I sat and cried while listening to him. I know how bad it is, I read and watch everything I can - but listening to Al Gore yesterday just brought it all home. He showed so much passion. For a little while yesterday as I sat and listened to him, I had hope. Something I haven't had for a while now. I sit and wonder how different our world would be today had it been him instead of the asshole we have now. Anyone that hasn't watched this, needs to. He is our voice. His speech will go down in history.

The tears were flowing. It was a very moving speech.

They are there to hamstring Kerry at every opportunity. Fortunately, Kerry has prevailed despite their dogged efforts.

- That's how character assassination works.

I'd call anyone who still thinks Bush is doing right for America ignorant and or, greedy!

That was one of the best political speeches I ever heard in my 53 years! Al Gore is a patriot!

According to Bob Somerby, the Globe has a far from unbiased opinion of Kerry. Look at all these instances....

The Boston Globe accused Kerry of war crimes. Are you struck by their great liberal bias?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021003.shtml

That troubled gang at the Boston Globe continues its War Against John
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030603.shtml

Kerry’s accuser remembered it wrong. But so what? The Globe didn’t tell you:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050504.shtml

Kerry’s a liar, the Globe quickly said. So where’s the rag’s famous liberal bias?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021303.shtml

The Globe trashed Gore during Campaign 2K. Will Kerry be next?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050604.shtml

Boston’s big paper went spanning the globe. It showed how they love spinning bio:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020703.shtml

What’s up with those puzzling portraits of Kerry? At long last, a Globe pundit tells:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011703.shtml

pretty fucking obvious what they're trying to do.

Collecting your own newspaper's stories that did their best to smear Kerry for 30 plus years does NOT qualify you as his biographer.

Calling someone Kerry's biographer denotes an official cooperation with Kerry. So far, only Douglas Brinkley qualifies for that title.

Hey,

It's entitled John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best. Don't know where you got the notion that calling someone x's biographer implies official cooperation, but that's inaccurate. It would be impossible by that standard to refer to the overwhelming majority of biographers as such. E.g. you couldn't call Isaacson "Franklin biographer" because Ben was dead when Walter wrote his book. (My phrase was "Kerry biographer" not "Kerry's" but the latter would not imply official cooperation either.)

It is obvious from my post that I disliked her and had doubts about her biographical work in light of her behavior in the interview. But a biographer is such whether or not the work is slanted, inadequately researched, cobbled together from preexisting articles, or bad in whatever other way you can think of. Perhaps "official biographer" was the phrase you had in mind. But they're responsible for a very small minority of biographies.

CYD

.

Isn't that a bit misleading?

I'm a library director and have both the authority and the responsibility to tell people which books are and are not biographies. The Kerry instabook Globe bio goes in the biography section, while Coulter hasn't a prayer of getting classified in the biographies.

History, as it always does, will decipher the rational
from the irrational. Al Gore provided numerous examples of the Bush administration's incompetence based on hard evidence.
Anyone who labels him as mentally unstable shows a fear that his message is right and a disconnect from reality for not admitting that he is right. George Bush's lack of emotion and reasoning with the consequences of his decisions and actions shows the essence of mental instability. He doesn't give a damn. He is cold and calculating. Kurt Vonnegut has labeled him a psychopathic personality. Vonnegut says, "PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!"

Besides, many so-called experts labeled great speakers such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X as mentally unstable. In truth, they were disturbed by their environment and protesting what was and is unjust. The authorities feared them and their answer was to dismiss any protest as a sign of emotional instability. I think history will prove that Gore's message provided reason during a time of unreasonable leadership.

The same people who willfully ignore all the glaringly obvious evidence that Bush is crazy, evil, and stupid will leap at every opportunity to attack Dems over little or nothing. It's on the same principle as the BS labeling of Dem criticism of the admin as "political" -- as if their own behavior weren't, and as if that had any bearing on the accuracy of the criticisms.

Slate devoted a couple of pieces to the subject:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094235

It's counterintuitive that John Kerry should expect more hostile press in Massachusetts, where repeatedly he has won re-election, than in the corn fields of Iowa. The Boston Globe, which sets the tone for political coverage in Massachusetts and much of New England, should logically cheer on its hometown boy as he reaches for the big brass ring. Ideologically, the Globe and Kerry occupy roughly the same left-of-center niche, and through three Senate elections the Globe has never failed to endorse him. And as decades of adoring Kennedy coverage have demonstrated, the Globe doesn't blush at playing the "homer" (journalese for a reporter who roots openly for local sports teams, institutions, and civic leaders).

But screwy as it may sound, Greenfield's analysis is correct. Kerry really does get unfavorable coverage in the Globe. The paper has exposed relentlessly, and mocked frequently, Kerry's least attractive character traits. Granting that the news pages almost always follow scrupulously the profession's strict guidelines for objective reporting—and that opinions and attitudes inside a newsroom are never entirely uniform—it is nonetheless the case that, broadly speaking, the Boston Globe has it in for John Kerry.

Chatterbox cannot provide scientific proof that the Globe dislikes the junior senator of Massachusetts. He freely admits that his is an impression based on occasional perusal of the newspaper, rather than a counting of favorable versus unfavorable stories. But the impression is widely shared by others. The Kerry campaign, of course, thinks so; its former campaign manager called the Globe coverage "distorted, insignificant, irrelevant and vindictive." But most of the Globe-ies and ex-Globe-ies Chatterbox interviewed for this story (mostly on background) think so, too. This group doesn't think the Globe's coverage is "distorted, insignificant, irrelevant and vindictive," but it does recognize that the Globe gives Kerry a much rougher time than, say, the Des Moines Register.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098811

Three months ago, Chatterbox made the case that the Boston Globe had it in for John Kerry. Within hours of the column's posting, the Globe endorsed Kerry for the New Hampshire primary. Since then, Chatterbox has not noticed that the Globe's Kerry coverage has been especially nasty. In a March 19 report, for example, the Globe's Patrick Healy reported that Kerry collided with a member of his Secret Service detail while snowboarding in Idaho, but Healy did not report—as Ed O'Keefe did in ABC News' weblog, The Note—that Kerry growled, "I don't fall down. That son of a bitch ran into me."

Still, Chatterbox is not yet willing to take back what he wrote about the Globe. Partly that's because the Globe long ago established a pattern of endorsing Kerry while simultaneously portraying him unsympathetically. Partly it's because Chatterbox thinks it's logical for a presumptive presidential nominee to receive better press after he sews the nomination up but before the general election goes into high gear. Mostly, though, it's because the Globe itself insists on churning up additional evidence of its distaste.

The latest evidence is the preface by Globe editor Martin Baron to John Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best. (The authors of the book itself, which Chatterbox has not yet read, are Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton.) Ostensibly, the purpose of Baron's introductory essay is to persuade readers that the Globe's Kerry coverage has been unmarred by hostility. In practice, however, Baron's preface demonstrates Kerry's unique ability to get under the Globe's skin.