Kerry corrects CNN's Judy Woodruff.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/john.kerry/index.html

Presidential politics

Woodruff: We're already asking people what do they think of 2008, who do they think should be the Democratic nominee? Right now Sen. Hillary Clinton is out front in a couple polls. Is she the frontrunner?

Kerry: If she wants to be. I don't -- it doesn't matter to me who's the frontrunner right now. I think all of this talk about 2008 is unbelievably premature and then we have barely three months beyond the last election or four months, whatever. It's just too early.

And I think the focus for our party and for everyone really ought to be on these issues that we're just talking about and on 2006. We've got to win governorships, we've got to win state houses, legislators, Congress, senators. I'm going to focus on those efforts and, you know, what happens in the future will take care of itself.

Woodruff: Well, we checked, we looked back into -- and realized that it's been over 100 years since a losing presidential nominee came back to win the White House. It was Grover Cleveland in 1892. Does that history discourage you?

Kerry: I don't know what you're talking -- I mean, I thought Richard Nixon came back from losing and won in 1968. I don't think that's correct research, actually.

Woodruff: Since a losing presidential nominee came back...

Kerry: Yes, Vice President Nixon ran in 1960, lost to President Kennedy and he won the election in...

Woodruff: Four years later was the caveat. I didn't make it clear.

Kerry: Oh, well, I'm not sure.

Woodruff: Four years later.

Kerry: Look, you know what, I don't care what has happened or not happened. It's too early to be making decisions or thinking about it.

I'll make my judgment when the time comes and I don't care what history says or did. Now is now and these are the -- you know, the whole different set of issues, whole different set of circumstances.

But it's way too early to be thinking. It's just -- it's crazy to be thinking about it now. We've got 2006, all of us, to work on together as a unified party and that's what we're going to do.

So it's not surprising.

ulgy is as ugly does

I think I just insulted them

You DIDN'T FUCKING SAY IT AT ALL!! How long do these media ho's get to pull this shit?

I was reading the other day where CSPAN was having a guest on to talk about her book on the holocaust and for "balance" they brought on David Irving, the notorious liar and holocaust denier. Balance? For every person telling the truth, they're now going to present one person who spouts bold-faced lies?

How long does Judy (I blew half of the senior staff at CNN to get this job) Woodruff get to stay on the air in light of her stunning incompetence? Pardon me. I forgot. Being a screw-up in George Bush's America means that you get promoted.

Rant Complete.

I was giving you an amen from the choir.

..........David Irving to be on TV. Then people could see what an arsehole he is.

Just like Judy W!

He said, "I don't think that's correct research" instead of saying, "You dumbass, you were alive then and you're a 'reporter,' you should know this off the top of your head, as I do."

disbelief, made more obvious by his quick switch to a very serious look as he told her the "research" was wrong. What's weird is that she didn't have the sense to immediately respond that he was correct. Then correct her question.

Kerry is probably usually in the position of knowing far more than the interviewer, but this is basic history from her life time.

Kerry is just that type of person. I would've loved it if he said that. ;)

this needed to be in a subject header. And you owe me a new keyboard.

Not true, of course. She was wooed to CNN because she had a ton of cred from her mcneil/lehrer PBS days. She was one of the good guys.

Nowadays, well, "she sucks like crazy, but not in a good way..."

http://www.elroy.net/songs/Elroy%20-%20Republicans%20Suck.mp3

,...doing whatever it takes to establish an end result.

What end result?

Whatever "drama of the day" seems to increase profits.

ALL CM"news" should have their licenses pulled since they fail to provide "news". :grr:

Balance? For every person telling the truth, they're now going to present one person who spouts bold-faced lies?

David Brock brings this up in The Republican Noise Machine. That one of the right's gambits for the past thirty years has been to scream for "balance," (as opposed to accurate coverage) and how the media has taken the bait, resulting in the improvishment of us all.

There are many issues on which the pros and cons are closely balanced, and therefore it's fair to bring on one spokesman for each viewpoint. But there are other cases where an issue is objectivly clear-cut, and "balance" really detracts from truthfulness. For example, say you have an astronomer on to talk about how the earth is round. Is there really any question about that? But, under the doctrine of "we have to make sure we have 'balanced' coverage," it would be necessary to have someone from the Flat Earth Society on to offer "another viewpoint" -- even if it's one that's rejected by everyone with even the slightest knowledge of the subject. As a result, the viewers come away with the idea that there's a genuine "scientific controversy," with the truth still unknown, over whether the earth is round or flat.

:eyes:

Only a freaking moron (which is pretty much a condition of employment by the Bush Administration) would think that early childhood education could be anything other than a program in the best interest of the child and the community. Every objective measurement of education performance shows that the earlier we start teaching kids, the better they'll be years down the road.

But a pack of well-funded right wing conservatives keeps yammering that Head Start doesn't have any effect and that the program should be de-funded (as part of their ongoing jihad against public education). And so the mainstream media dutifully gives these people time to air their patently false accusations, which further erodes public support for the program -- which is pretty much right wing agenda.

And don't get me started on Global Warming.

She starts off (second paragraph) with the "hideaway" invective as if Kerry's taking cover. Then she pulls out a shive with "mandate" and tries to stab him. Kerry didn't wince and Woodruff didn't see any blood, so she resorts to revising history in a last ditch attempt to show the viewers pain.

What a bitch!

is she used Nixon too. Heh heh.

Life is beautiful. Just a little sanity can make the day so much better to behold. Thanks guys.

(If you missed the Bush Imploding thread here it is: )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1663827

(paraphrased of course). . .

Judy, you ignorant slut.

I'll be walking around work all today, giggling & saying to myself "Judy, you ignorant slut!". Thanks!

Kerry is great!

eom

Every damn one of them in the US-State-controlled-corporate media. They haven't a clue, and they just don't get it. They've rendered themselves obsolete.

"Woodruff: Well, we checked, we looked back into -- and realized that it's been over 100 years since a losing presidential nominee came back to win the White House. It was Grover Cleveland in 1892. Does that history discourage you?"

Everyone talks about how Richard Nixon came back, but they never mention the time frame. Judy just wants to make things look worse for Kerry.

Woodruff is really a sorry excuse for a journalist-one who attempts to badger Democrats (Kerry does not stand for this) yet stammers and cannot seem to ask followup questions to the Rethugs.

I wish Soros would buy the controlling shares in CNN and fire all these cowardly corporate hacks and replace them with real journalists.

:spank:

Probably some kind of Rove talking point that they forgot to check.

Why isn't everyone here boycotting cable news?

The only thing that speaks to rightwingers is money and ratings.

Sue

I just don't watch crap, so CNN is out.

Too bad really - I remember way back in college turning them on quite frequently to "catch up". But even a quick look at their website - which I had bookmarked until a few years ago, reads like the front page of the National Enquirer.

I'd actually like a news outlet which I could spend 20 to 30 minutes watching and be able to get at least a shallow update on the world's events - and no - the Robert Blake verdict doesn't count and neither so MJ's PJs.

Maybe the National Enquire is news and the msm is the national enquirer. :shrug:

I agree with you, and I think we, I, someone, should approach Ted Turner and suggest he do it again, but as an answer to Fox. Not even to pretend to be "neutral". An Air America cable channel that does news.

And a real, privately-owned newspaper. That would be -- astonishing!

are the reason I don't watch any MSM news. I also couldn't stand looking at Woodruff's scrawny neck (could it get more wrinkled?)any more.

We've got to make sure we don't frame issues in a way that portrays the right as "mainsteam." It's CMC, for "Corporate Media Cartel."

that got caught. They were setting him up so he wouldn't run in 2008. If history says that no "loser" has been elected President in over 100 years, then why nominate Kerry, he's just going to lose. The RW wants to control who we nominate. I think we're going to see more and more of this kind of spin from the RW, about any candidate that they think will beat them.

zalinda

because when he stops, we'll know the permanent election fix is in.

Welcome to DU

:hi:

Whoops, Judy...

The "Rover Cleveland" talking point!

Judy is a bimbo...She can't even get her facts straight!

made me laugh for around ten minutes.

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

According to her CNN bio she wasn't around until Carter as far as Washington politics is concerned.

<snip>

Before joining CNN in 1993, Woodruff was the chief Washington correspondent for The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. From 1984 to 1990, she anchored public television’s award-winning weekly documentary series Frontline with Judy Woodruff. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Woodruff moderated the vice presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen.


Before joining the NewsHour, Woodruff was chief Washington, D.C., correspondent for NBC's Today. She also served as NBC News' White House correspondent from 1977 to 1982, covering both the Carter and Reagan administrations. Woodruff joined NBC News as a general assignment reporter based in Atlanta in 1975. From 1970 to 1974, she was a correspondent for WAGA-TV, the CBS affiliate in Atlanta, where she reported on the state legislature for five years and anchored the noon and evening news. Her book, This is Judy Woodruff at the White House, published in 1982 by Addison-Wesley, documents her experiences as a journalist.

<snip> more here http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/woodruff.judy.html

In any event, she has been around long enough to know better. Kerry has proven, yet again, that he can think on his feet and he doesn't need anyone whispering into his ear to yell "BULLSHIT" when he sees it. I am loving that he sends them into a frenzy every time he calls them on their lies and disinformation. We need more of this by others in the Congress to make the "press" do their job again.

What a sorry excuse for a reporter she is.

Supreme Court???-----they never seem to factor that into their "history", do they???

They "won" dontcha know? :eyes:

after Kerry accurately refutes her, then she comes back and says "oh, we meant after four years." She has no grace at all.

I would have strung her along for a few minutes.

ME: Wow, that's a really interesting fact. Did you unearth that yourself, because it's really just remarkable.

JUDY: Blah blah blah I'm so clever blah blah blah whorage blah blah.

ME: Yeah, wow. I mean, it's details like those that really speak to your precision and your incisivness as a reporter.

JUDY: Blah blah blah I rock blah blah blah Aren't I smart blah blah.

ME: You know, your confidence in this is only matched by your incredible gifts for inaccuracy and smug-ness. Nixon won in 1968 after losing to Kennedy.

JUDY: But but but but but but did I make it clear that there was a four year stipulation?

ME: Nope, not a word about it. Which means you were either incompetant then or lying now. No wonder you like President Bush so much.

See, I'd be way more entertaining, but I would probably piss too many people off to be elected. ^_^

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Al least be honest about your/our concerns....

Sure, they're called rare breeders, but so are Star Trek fans, and yet they are counted in all surveys.

http://arctic.fws.gov/birdlist.htm

not the coastal plain where ANWR is. The North and South Slope have been producing oil for over thirty years without any drop in wildlife habitation. What makes you think that would change if they drill the Coastal Plain? Don't get me wrong I am against opening ANWR for drilling at this time but not for reasons I cannot justify.

Mating grounds. ANWR is still available, so we wouldn't necessarily see a drop in wildlife populations until it's gone.

"140 species of birds, including bald eagles, tundra swans and snow geese, use the area as a staging ground for migration. Many of these species migrate between Canada and the United States."

http://www.canadianembassy.org/environment/development-en.asp?format=print

"Golden eagles, arctic peregrine falcons, snowy owls and ptarmigan are among the few that stay in the Arctic Refuge through the winter"

http://www.oneearthadventures.com/anwr/who_lives.htm

years ago during dinner. It must have turned her on somehow.

against him.

Uh....Judy....we get it...you don't hold his vicious attack on your family against Bush. Now, can you go back to reporting actual news that isn't sifted through the Rove filter?

Could you PM me a link? Talk about media whores!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/100599a1.html

In early April 1986, for instance, George W. was miffed at a prediction by the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt that Jack Kemp -- not Vice President Bush -- would win the GOP nomination in 1988. At a Dallas restaurant, Bush spotted Hunt having dinner with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their four-year-old son.

Bush stormed up to the table and started cursing out Hunt. "You fucking son of a bitch," Bush yelled. "I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."
(I added the "expletive" back in...)

But I had not connected the two names together in my mind... Funny that Bush apologized YEARS later!

a politician? I mean except when they are denying they care about the polls. Kerry sounds like a man comfortable with letting life lead him where it does.

nt

not come in for the kill (as he easily could have). Hey, John Kerry has the gift of diplomacy ... a class act regardless of income bracket.

She best not pull that sh*t with Bill Maher though ... he'd chew her up and spit her out - confetti Judy? :P

it's crisis time

tick, tick, tick

without seeming to cast about for a nice way to say something. to be goddamn prepared with retorts before appearing on TV.

get the sound of attitude in his delivery.

nt

into sometimes a WWF smack down. It's part of the dumbing down of America. I don't want to replace one thug with another. Wes Clark has the same "intelligent" put you in your place style. Kerry DIS'd her but good ... one does not have to act crude to make valid points.

a smart man dissses someone like that with an intelligent comeback.

Why don't you post an example of what he SHOULD have said to make you happy?

I think "gentlemanly talk" serves us much better in an interview like this. She was corrected, facts were presented, and dignity was maintained. I do agree that it's crisis time, and on some occasions, "gentlemanly talk" will no longer do - for example, on the senate floor, for truly hostile interviewers, and probably many other occasions. However, I believe it was most appropriate for an interview like this.

John Kerry has shown he is up to the task of not being quite so gentlemanly - the Kennedy Library speech comes to mind. I think that's when he said Bush's budget should be filed under fiction?

I really don't see anything being gained by going on the attack in an interview like this one. I think he handled it perfectly, and that Judy looked like the idiot she is.

same sort of brainlessness.

Kerry interviews are really "Judy, you know Judy, Judy"..

what real human being repeats somebody's name over and over when
they are in a 2 person conversation...

drives me crazy and he's defensive too...

he almost shouts "Look" and so on and it just really rubs badly...

his message is almost always good, his facts are good and so forth...
but he comes across so damn condescending, phoney and defensive!

positively. It makes them feel that he is focused only on them - and he is. Neither my husband nor John Kerry is a phony. Broaden your world, expose yourself to more and different types of people.

I do not like that sort of conversation and when it is done,
I feel manipulated. There are many who feel this way since
this is a technique straight out of sales for beginners manuals and books like "how to win friends and influence people" and it's not natural.

I'm not alone in this assessment of Kerry and I find it very irritating
I did not say he was a phony, I said he comes across as a phony.

I do not appreciate someone acting like I am not part of the professional world, which I am or that I dislike Kerry.

I spent a lot of time w/ the Kerry effort and have heard my criticisms
repeatedly from others.

accused of is being manipulative or of reading "how to win friends..." - in fact my husband has never had a white collar job in his life. In any case you were passing judgment on something you considered unnatural which is not unnatural, people have different styles.

I don't get the "professional" bit, I think you're reading something that I wasn't saying.

And yes I agree that many people criticize Kerry for all kinds of things, that doesn't mean it's right.

I happen to have been a huge supporter of Kerry and he still
is in the top 10 of the democrats for me.

Why don't you go hit a repuke board and insult them versus
people who are on your side.

phony, condescending and defensive?"

How is it supportive to come onto a thread that is positive about Kerry's interaction with Woodruff and rain on it? Can you see how I might have thought you were one of the regular Kerry bashers? I hope so.

I assume we're on the same side, though I don't agree with your interpretation of JK. I am a supporter of JK who accepts him as he is, warts and all. I appreciate his style, I don't think for the most part that he acts against his nature. It seems to me that if he tried to be what many want him to be, THAT would make him a phony. Maybe the reality of JK doesn't appeal to some but I'd rather have him as he is than a made-for-TV candidate.

I'm sorry you feel insulted, it was a knee-jerk reaction to what I considered a slam on JK - and I do get sick of them.

The repuke comment was stupid.

you keep responding and w/ false statements from the premise.

I am talking about his public delivery method. You just got
a "made for TV" candidate and that's what the American people buy.

Here's a real slam on Hilary Clinton. She's a member of the corporate party. She has helped TATA take US jobs and ship them overseas,
heavily involved with the India caucus which promotes taking US
jobs and was going to vote for the bankruptcy bill.

If I could slam Kerry for real it would be on his free trade votes.
but he clearly realized during the campaign that the lies presented
about free trade were that and was discussing modifying them. The campaign was at least logically and discussed outsourcing but didn't release the plan to curb it until a week before the campaign ended.

Total screw up and so many didn't believe he'd do anything different from the Shrub.

It's not a slam on Kerry it's I want someone who has even the remotest
loyalty to the US and its people to win the election.

He won't unless he changes his delivery style. Think about Bush
winning with that debate performance and in comparison to the clearly
competent Kerry.

He won because people "think he's a nice guy" and some vague "moral
values" thing.

It's all pathetic, but that's what going on, huge corporate donors
buying favorites and spin on TV, propaganda is what is determining
the leaders...that and some highly suspect voting machines
and manipulating the voting methods.

"he comes across so damn condescending, phoney and defensive!"

You can twist and turn however much you like but thats what you said.

Until we can get to the point where you can admit what you said, I don't have anything further to discuss with you on this point.

comes across is not the same thing "as".

again, spare your quick attacks for the corporate party members please.

So I am not sure the initial criticism is justified.

My husband speaks the same way he does. There is nothing condescending trying to explain things. You may argue it is not a very good political strategy, but I happen to like that he does not think we are stupid.

I was buzzing past Rush today, and stopped to listen because he was playing a John Kerry soundbite from the JFK Award. It was the one where Kerry's talking about arbitrating the media and how most people did a good job of getting their news, but that there is a subset of the media that gets in the way of the truth in the name of entertainment.

Rush translation for his listeners = John Kerry says you're stupid. John Kerry is blaming me and the media for his loss.

Rush must think his listeners are stupid if he has to translate for them. That was the first thing I thought of.

I may have to write Rush an email, thanking him for the lovely snippet a and to tell him what a pleasure it is to hear such a coherent and intelligent individual speak. Quite refreshing really. The sound of his voice was an oasis in a sea of hate-mongering.

because he was a sitting VP who "lost" in a nailbiter and then would come back eight years later and win the election.

Her Bush sycophancy is barely veiled these days.

She's too bush reading right wing talking points.

she was so obvious there it's astounding .

either that or I'm able to recognize who the
paid Government media whores are .

Don't cash any checks Judy :grr:

....She was completely unable to play off of Kerry's comments, and just read from her - obviously given to her - questions script. Kerry's initial response, at least to a qualified journalist, opened up all areas for discussion. Things like the 2006 elections. State races, congress, etc. And its like she didn't even hear him. Complete moron and total lackey.

I remember when Judy Woodruff was a decent PBS journalist. Guess they canned her when she started drinking kool-aid.

fyi, this thread is being read (and appreciated) by Kerry's staff.

Say to the :hi: staff.

Pop into the Kerry group if you get a chance and have a lurk.

:hi:

Post on this interview from Light Up the Darkness
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=570

It was a mismatch--one of the more knowledgeable members of Congress versus one of the weaker members of the medial Judy Woodruff recently interviewed John Kerry, often displaying her conservative bias.

On Social Security, Woodruff claimed that "it's clear that Social Security in the long run has a real solvency problem." While attacking Kerry for opposing the president's plan, she asked "Don't Democrats have an obligation to talk about what you would do?" Kerry explained the basics to her, including that "what we're opposing by the administration's own admission does nothing, nothing -- understand that -- zero, to cure the problem of solvency."

She attacked Kerry's Kid's First proposal by saying "It would cost $22 billion a year. Is that realistic, Senator, at a time when we are in such -- this country is in such tight fiscal constraints?" Kerry responded:

"You bet it's realistic. You bet it's realistic.

"You know what the president's tax cut that he hasn't yet given to people to make it permanent costs over the next 10 years? $1.6 trillion. Just next year alone, the president's tax cut for people earning more than $1 million a year costs $32 billion.

"So this is a value's choice. What are your values? What are the values of the American people?

"Do we cover children with insurance who are not getting immunizations for diseases that we know we've cured, who don't get medicine for asthma? One out of three kids doesn't get medicine for asthma. Do we cover them or do we give millionaires a tax cut? That's the values choice for America.

And I know where I stand, and unfortunately we know where the president stands. He wants a tax cut for millionaires. I want to cover children."

Woodruff asked some questions on foreign policy, including repeating the ridiculous claim we've been hearing that progress towards democracy in Lebanon and among the Palestinians is "an outgrowth of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?" Kerry pointed out that the assassination of Hariri and death of Arafat which precipitated these recent events were not decided by the war.

Woodruff praised the president for taking on a less confrontational approach. Kerry pointed out that "It's what I advocated for long time. The president has adopted the John Kerry policy."

Woodruff tried to put down the possibility of Kerry running again by asking "Well, we checked, we looked back into -- and realized that it's been over 100 years since a losing presidential nominee came back to win the White House. It was Grover Cleveland in 1892. Does that history discourage you?"

Kerry set her straight on history with his response. "I don't know what you're talking -- I mean, I thought Richard Nixon came back from losing and won in 1968. I don't think that's correct research, actually."

Woodruff tried to weasel out of her error on a technicality, saying "Four years later was the caveat. I didn't make it clear." Note there was no mention of four years later in her initial question, and whether someone's done it four years later or eight years later is hardly important.

And his focus was exactly where it should be at this point in time - the issues at hand and 2006.

More Dems should have similar focus instead of gearing up/positioning for 2008. Winning some Governorships, SOSs, Congresspersons, etc in 2006 will be invaluable to the 2008 nominee.

I applaud Sen Kerry for carrying on a well reasoned, thoughtful conversation where he asserted his point well and disputed inaccurate facts without resorting to a purely emotional outburst. It surely is refreshing in the political climate * and the pugs have created.

08 is far away. We need to focus on now and the near future for the time being.

I don't know what it is about Dems that "lose" the WH but it seems to bring out the hard-hitting, here's the facts whether you like it or not side of them that I applaud.

Was I disappointed in Kerry's campaign? You bet. Do I love how he is kicking ass and taking names these days? Damn straight!

As you long as you're showin' spine Senator Kerry, I'm behind you 100%. Slap those media ho's but good!

Julie

:eyes:

I could have sworn I heard she literally cried when she announced that Bush officially "won" the 2004 election.

I can't stand CNN anymore, hell, I can't even even stand C-span (WJ) anymore.

yes indeed

get on my nerves! I hate that shrill hosebag! I can't belive Al Hunt is married to her. WTF?

I'd have ripped Judy "I Worship W's Lovely, Lovely Ass" Woodruff's face off.

Love Kerry, hate CNN....but it's not helping, if you KWIM ?

Love Kerry, hate MSNBc...but it's not helping, if you KWIM?

Love Kerry, hate Faux...but it's not helping, if you KWIM?

:shrug:

Sorry, just want to make Judy Woodchuck's eye's bleed when she shills her paycheck. We need to group, or just shutup going after the pundits.

As she said, she just didn't make the "four years later" part explicitly clear, although reading the transcript I understood that implicitly.

A Kerry re-run cannot be compared to a Nixon re-run.

She's a bitch anyway.

Classic Republican matriarch: Dumb, rich, and fully Stepforded.

should be required DU reading !

www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

My birthplace!

Very complex individual.

Very interesting man.

the CNN folks seem to taking on a set of common characteristics. They are expresionless for the most part, they cannot assemble a follow-up question, they just read the next one on the list given to them, and they honestly believe they are performing a news service.

Cleveland was a sitting President, was defeated initially for a 2nd term, then came back to win a 2nd term after a 4 year hiatus.

Kerry was never President.

Nixon was never President, although he was a sitting Vice President and lost.

So Judy's claim for the Cleveland example isn't even applicable.

Kerry's analogy to the Nixon horror is the only comparable analogy. DOUBLE the wammy for being correct, IMO.

They want people to feel the choice is between the manly leader Bush (who compared himself with George Washington in yesterday's press conference in case anyone hadn't noticed) and the Evil Demoness Hillary.

JK handled himself well. Woodruff is an idiot, and he exposed it for all to see.

I mean - she wasn't even embarrassed to be caught in an out and out inaccuracy! She doesn't have the journalistic integrity to qualify for The Daily Show.

for his speech he gave. I liked it. It was one of the best because it was the truth and needed to be heard, but what does Miss Judy say, "Al Sharpton has completely hijacked this convention." Then she and Candy accused him of "Bush Bashing." Unfortunately, that's when I realized that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC were heavilly biased against Kerry and the Dems. It's a joke we live in this media environment today.

...that was the writing on the wall.

What a abysmal interview with John Kerry, Judy.
If you didn't spend so much time kissing the current administration tush maybe you would have more time to prepare for your interviews. You need to know your political history a bit better before spouting off or one would think that you didn't deserve that job.

I canceled the Cable last Aug '04 after they were trashing Kerry and I could stand to watch cable anymore. I feel so much better now, since I don't watch TV anymore.

That was actually great- good stuff.

I hated CNN's coverage of the political conventions last year largely because of her inane commentary. Unfortunately, where I live (Japan) CNN is the only US news I can get.

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

is that as touched upon here by others (I gather from the thread) and which I surmise from it is that these CNN politics people have a researcher or producer who actually stretched to ask this question believing without knowing or checking the premise. This half-baked or outright bullshit-based work smacks of Limbaugh and others.

Are these mainstream news outlets now hiring "producer" hacks from RW talk radio to bait and try to provoke Democrats? Is this a trend we might see, as these high-salaried, well-healed, soulless people who work in the MSM like CNN and MSNBC try to compete for viewers with Murdoch News and are whorishly willing to go this low?

I will not be watching to find out.

Descending to the level of this lunacy which is slanted to make you look bad in the first place is a constant mistake of Dems going to the woefully corrupted media.

Is is worthwhile analyzing 20 at bats to define a ball player's whole subsequent season? America is not a thousand years old. Too many changes, too many variables to make other than qualitative observations(such a there are reasons Senators have a hard time becoming President- lately). Woodruff is stubbornly, mindlessly in the realm of useless speculation and meaningless statistics for the sake of trashing straightforward Dems.

That is what you deal with in a response, not taking her words at face value.

Such as "the media has underreported or not reported most of the major news events of the past four years and then always with an eye to White House press releases. So what is the likelihood that you will do this small interview right?"

As with politics and Bush so with dealing with the media. Sure you are smart and honest, but deal with the criminality not play like a dupe to the rules of a subverted system. First and foremost the problem is simple criminality(fraud, conspiracy, payola, etc.), not tolerating the corrupting evil for the happy day when the "good guys" get their turn. It may never happen at this rate.

Afraid of a scorched earth? Look around you. The only thing unscorched are lies and illusions.