FYI: I just saw a commercial for Hardball; John Kerry and General Barry

McCaffery play Hardball on Monday.

Not to be missed, I think! Give 'em hell JK!!:thumbsup:

Thanks very much for heads-up. I won't be near a TV that night, so this gives me a chance to set up m VCR.

I was just going to post the same thing.

Nice to see you here. Hope that means things are getting better.

:shrug:

where Kerry would've been.

Senator Kerry does a fine job of commanding the interviews he gives. I was however a little upset that Tweety seemed to try and put him into a position of defending Hillary. Why ask Senator Kerry to defend Hillary's positions? I wondered if he was testing the Senator's loyalty to the party. Anyway, JK showed the grace and class he always displays and defended the parties positions on Iraq and troop involvement.

I'll have to check it out.

On an aside about Hillary: I was at the B & N cafe today and there were a group of women talking nearby. One was a ditzy blond rabid Republican. She was pushing everyone to register to vote if they hadn't, and then suddenly one of the other ladies said, they would DEFINITELY register to vote JUST so she could vote against Hillary Clinton.

I don't think we should be worried about Hillary becoming POTUS. We should be worried about her getting the nom, and look forward to the corrupt and nasty Rudolph Guiliani or the two faced McCain or anyone else of the R's becoming POTUS. She WILL lose, because people don't like her.

I'm just worried that Edwards and Obama are going to split the anti-Hillary vote and we'll be stuck with her. It suddenly struck me as trivial WHO gets the nom as LONG as it is not her. And I'm dead serious about that.

I also think the planning for this was begun long before the final results of the 2004 election. I worry about what happens when Obama is hit with bad press. I think he is where he is now to be Hillary's strawman. He is there to make the race interesting and have it appear that Hillary has a real challenger. And yes, there is a very real possibility that Obama and Edward's will split the anti-Hillary vote. It is still to soon to know anything for sure.
Actually, I hope for a dark horse to emerge and save this upcoming primary and the Dem's chance to gain the White House. Otherwise, as awful as it may seem, we may be stuck with another Repub for President and it might just be Guliani.

But, even when he was likely to run Matthews and others tries to turn the conversation to politics to solicit comments on others and their positions. I think it's assumed laziness of the viewers - that Matthews feels that they would appreciate politicians speaking about politicians more than politicians speaking about issues. Politics as gossip.

I do want to see this and from your answer, it sounds like Kerry defended the party's position, without dissing Hillary. (which makes sense as he needs to keep her in the group behind the exit plan ) Kerry's position on this is very complicated - he has his own position on Iraq and he was seen as a potential President until January, he is one of the Senate leaders on this and he will be sought for his endorsement - and all play against each other.

I know it will be hard seeing the media talk with more attention and respect to Hillary, Obama and Edwards on their plans - because I think all three have considerably less expertise. This will happen because they are being looked at as the "President". Because of that they will have advisors on everything and "their" position on the war will be put together with the advisors. Whoever is President will have the most say on the war, so this makes sense, but it's a transition I know I will hate. But, consider in 2004, Kennedy took a back seat when Kerry spoke of his health insurance plan - where Kennedy had a history going back 40 years.

My reaction is partially that although intellectually I have realized that Kerry won't magically become the candidate in 2008, emotionally I still can't picture the others in that position - it will take time.

Candidates are always being accused of telling people what they want to hear. As Senator Kerry said, he didn't think his ideas and concerns over the Iraq War were being given serious review. He has been saying, as a candidate his opinions were questioned in the context of campaigning for votes. He didn't want this perception to continue because this war is too serious an issue to dismiss serious idea because they may be politically motivated.

have got behind what was essentially more his plan than not if he were still the candidate. Can you imagine Clinton letting Kerry into a position where he would be labeled the party leader on this by his supporters - and have an amendment with 48 votes to point to.

It's already true that the ISG recommendations seem to reflect a lot of Kerry positions. The sad thing is that due to politics, Kerry had to fight so hard for that leadership role. Although the Clinton coup in November 2004 trying to take 100% of the leadership role for Bill and Hillary might have happened even if Kerry had never signalled he might run in 2008.

I do think the other Senators and people working on Iraq policy will take him more seriously. However, people like Matthews may see him as a senior statesman (or at least an emerging senior statesman), but as he is more politics than issues, the difference is that he will not see him as a potential President. Was this interview from the Senator's office?