some commentary on today's MTP.. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3723109

can't wait until this is on video, so I can see this.

"John McCain's judgment has been wrong, and it's dangerous for America."

Lieberman, however, is a pathetic shill and liar.

JK looks at the larger picture. Brokaw tries to "get" Obama over his drilling comment, parsing one comment as if it defined a whole person and his policy (and incidentally emphasizing the old flip-flop idiocy; I know JK now uses it, re McCain and other Repubs -- much more correctly than when it was used on him, but it still makes me cringe. It's a stupid way to look at political positions, and it is at its stupidest when used as a normal term of political commentary by someone like Brokaw in this setting.) JK says this is more about how Obama would *govern* -- meaning that he would be willing to come to a bipartisan compromise if it were the ONLY solution.

I felt the same way, but most on the blogs felt the need to defend Clark for his remarks. I am glad that I was not the only one who felt this way -- Sen. Kerry did, too. He eloquently spoke of McCain being a POW, saying he was in "awe" of him. This is a big deal. It shows that the Obama campaign will never go against McCain's service because Kerry has that kind of influence. Unlike McCain, who condemned the SBVT ads but did nothing real to stop them, Kerry will keep the Obama campaign honest and decent (not that it would be hard to persuade Obama to do the right thing here. It's just in comparison).

Nevertheless, prepare for a storm in the lefty blogs. They'll say Kerry threw Clark under the bus. Well, Clark threw himself under the bus is what is my view. The idiots will come out of the woodwork. I guarantee you.

on Kos the other night plugging for Clark as VP. I mean how tone deaf can people be? There is NO CHANCE Clark will be VP after his f*** up on FTN. I doubt there was little chance of it anyway, but his gaffe turned that to zero chance.

BTW, I am not sure Clark meant for it to sound so harsh. I would never say that about him. But it sure did come out wrong. Very wrong.

president (which is what Clark said answering to a real question of Schieffer and after having stated that McCain was a hero in his book) was not inappropriate, at best awkward. McCain said the same about Kerry in 2004.

However, I do not know who asked the question and why? It was totally irrelevant to this interview. And I understand why Kerry refused to let himself get stuck in this question when there were much more important questions to answer.

I agree with you that it seemed old news, and weird that Brokaw asked it. I think Kerry gave a good answer and I am not sure I saw it the same way as you. He didn't have to bring up standing in the cell with McCain if he was trying to just get off the question quickly. I think it was a tone question, as in the tone of the Obama campaign. I think it was important -- don't forget a lot of Dems and Independents liked McCain in 2000, and were disgusted by what Bush did to him. This is important in terms of getting those votes for Obama.

actually said (I sure hope he spends more time dealing with real problems than remembering every gotcha questions asked in the Sunday talk shows). I am not surprised by his answer and understand it, and it would have taken too long to explain what Clark had actually said. So, I am fine with the answer.

This said, for everybody who can read the transcript of the entire exchange, it was clear that Clark was not attacking McCain's service, just the relevance of this service in the race (something one can legitimately agree or disagree with). However, Clark's delivery is not necessarily the best and it was easy to distort his words.

And I think Sen. Kerry knew what happened, and knew what was said in context. It was a major media event for a week.

I think we are overall in agreement here. I guess I was happy to hear what Kerry said -- it means something for the long term, when people say he is not a good friend to McCain. It adds to the history of Kerry being a better friend. I will be bookmarking the transcript.

I do think Clark should have been smart enough not to say it, but jiminy effin' <fill in favorite expletive here>, the spin doctors can take anything anyone says and turn it into a negative, and it sucks that we can't have a dialog about the real substance of the statements politicians make.

What Clark said was accurate, and only inappropriate in the twisted world of politics. But I don't have any problem with JK or anyone else in that world calling it inappropriate.

(Disclaimer: I may have "flip-flopped" on this question. Please don't check my prior statements. The statement above only reflects what I think today knowing what I know today, as opposed to what I thought at any earlier time when I may have perceived things differently. :) )

I think anyone in public life should have that disclaimer tattooed on their foreheads!

Figuratively. I mean, ow!

He should have said that that experience did speak to McCain's character, part of what qualifies you to be President, but that does not change that his positions are wrong.

This exactly parallels why it was an important part of Kerry's resume - not from what he did at 25, but because it showed his character. The FP and military credential is from 20 plus years on the SFRC.

about not supporting the troops. Lieberman kept talking over Kerry purposely just so he couldn't get the truth out. That little segment conveniences me that Lieberman needs to be stripped of his leadership seats. I will even go so far as to sign that petition to get rid of him on the Dem side. With colleagues like him, who needs enemies.

that he wasn't allow to finished because "you interrupted me". Quiet and calm Kerry is pissed off Kerry.

And what was with Joe putting his arm around Kerry every other minute? I mean does he think Kerry is going to go out for coffee with him after? Geez. He's kinda smarmy.

"Kinda smarmy".. a little bit of an understatement :rofl:

This Little incident made me see Leiberman for who is really is. That was an un call for cheap shot and there was absolutely no good reason to do that to Senator Kerry.

AND did not get flustered by it, it made Leiberman seem like he was out of control - especially when added to the rude interrupt. It made Kerry's classiness more obvious.

did he do it more than once? I remember one time, don't remember the context, and it WAS awkward at best.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-obama-not-ready-to-lead-2008-08-03.html

It's only because Lieberman was nasty that he got the headline. I am not happy with Brokaw on MTP -- he let Lieberman interrupt and say absurd things, and not give Kerry a chance to rebut, always bringing up a brand new subject. Kerry did his best to rebut, but the format was pitted against him. I actually think Russert was usually better at moderating these things. I hope the new guy is better than Brokaw.

Brokaw asked Lieberman the first question, and JK sat patiently through his long, idiotic whine. When Brokaw finally let JK talk, he never really let him finish his thoughts. JK did great anyway, because he's good at taking a stacked situation and still getting his points across, but when Brokaw let Lieberman continually talk over JK, he was intentionally throwing the advantage to Lieberman. JK still came off looking better, but it was frustrating to see that little worm being allowed to behave badly.

...:7

It is ridiculous though, he is really not as good a person as he purports to be and he HAS NOT MILITARY EXPERIENCE OR BACKGROUND FOR THAT MATTER. Oh, I am getting mad now. Lieberman is going to do all he can to embarrass our candidate and our party while he pimps and lies for McCain. He should lose his leadership positions- period.
Gee, I wonder what Lieberman wants from McCain? A cabinet position of sorts? No one asked good ol Joe this question.

God, Lieberman is infuriating . BTW, smarmy is not strong enough a word to describe this whiny oil-slick of a man. :puke:

And Russert was way better at this than Brokaw.

Kerry finally being given a chance to speak. Good, as usual. (Though I found his gig against Kyl more satisfying.)

Not in here of course. :) I am no Lieberman fan. (And regret waving at him after a rally/even in 2000, and the chatter was that he was "cool" and Gore was the opposite :eyes:). Thanks for the video. Me will see for myself.

Or as Al Giordano would call it, Chicken Little. JK did just fine. The Deaniacs and Hillary supporters who can't get over primaries hate Kerry; everyone else thought he did well.

Including the Wash Post blog, which headlined with Kerry's words:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/08/kerry_accuses_gop_of_character.html?hpid=topnews

I am Chicken Little (LOL!).

But I have been out "there" defending Kerry when it comes to people dissing him to promote Obama. (Only to the sound of crickets or being questioned from someone that said that Kerry was boring, whether or not I did "squat" to help Kerry in 04). I have been to some urban blogs and do the same thing. People are not as Kerry friendly as we are, even with the endorsment and surrogate work for Obama.

It's all good. I have been wrong alot of late, Kerry related, and not Kerry related. I saw the Kos diary and commented in it. No problem, I was just curious. That's all.

letting Leiberman run away with the BS about who is qualified and who is not.

Leiberman behaved like a scorned and bitter little man spewing RW talking points. I had a friend tell me that they were less inclined to vote for McCain after Lieberman's appearance today. He said nothing new about McCain and just tried to frame him the way the Repubs are.

I almost hate I brought it up because I know now that it was be twisted as something negative. I was just curious.

from the important reaction - the people who are not yet firm in any camp.

Consider the Wes Clark comment was a problem for a week and Obama had to distance himself - yet those comments were loved hare.

It seems like a few in GD/GDP were pushing Biden (who's ok) or someone else to go up against Lieberman rather than Kerry (I think he still gets dogged out for being "nice" and "long winded" instead of the opposite cause you gotta break it down for the good ole boy/gal :sarcasm:).

I listened to the interview, I thought Kerry did very good (although the Kyl one was better), I thought Lieberman was given more time to spew the garbage than what he should have been allowed.

I remember people here were bashing Obama for "throwing Clark under the bus" when he did no such thing.

but NO ONE is ever won over by insults and hyperpartisan attacks. Solid coherent arguments, politely and calmly spoken work far better. (I can't believ that many have no seen that a person with Kerry's temparment is the hardest to beat - they end up looking more reasonable as you blow up and here he got the low energy Leiberman out of his usual mode.) Look at 2004, There is a CW that unless at least a couple of pundits advocate for you, you have no chance to make a viable run for the Presidency, but Kerry did and it looked almost effortless beyond Iowa when he got some unfiltered coverage. This does show that people will listen to him and he can ideas - and himself. Dean, Edwards and especially Clark had moments of being the media darling - Kerry didn't but he still won.

The other thing is that Obama will have many surrogates - none of whom will be perfect. Obama is not perfect. Kerry being one does not keep Biden from being one. As to the Clark thing, Kerry was 100% consistent with everything he ever said about McCain. He does not agree with Clark. I think Kerry is right because I think it is who you are and how you've lived your life. Being qualified is not something as narrow as time spent in a job or something that can be scored like the SAT.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/08/04/senator_sanctimony/index.html

Love the "Senator Sanctimony" tag for Lieberman!