Kerrys to be on Larry King...

...just announced on CNN. I think it said Wednesday.

I hope he doesn't try to make it all 2004/Edwards/Brown - but Kerry is very good controlling conversations and King is really not that good.

I'll try to remember which won't be easy, I hardly ever turn to watch Larry King, I find the fluffy stuff he is doing 95% of the time unbearable. He can be quite good when he covers something worthwhile, but he obviously decided that prostitution pays better.

...I'll watch. :hi:

.

Won't this be the first time that John and Teresa will be on there together since the time they were in 2004? So cool that they are going on again! Always great to see them.

And knowing King's tendencies, I can see the Brown and Edwards questions coming from a mile away, lol..but I'm sure JK (and Teresa) will have good answers. :)

Looks like Vice President Biden will be on the same night, which is awesome as well. :D

After the Edwards stuff that is now awkward to read, other parts are really interesting. One interesting thing is that the McCain/VP answer he gave was identical to what he said later to a bog - in I think 2007. His answers on Iraq were very good too and you see how Lieberman was completely not a good surrogate. Teresa's comments are excellent.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html

hopefully, this upcoming interview will be better than the 2004 interview (still don't trust LK). Will explain if needed, but will just leave it at that (for now). :hide:

I only hope that it is not extremely short covering only the gossip stuff. In 2004, LK seems to have given him the entire show. This time we know that Biden is on too. I remember JK was on once - and it was advertised and instead the show spent most of its time with an inconsequential weird story and JK had very little time.

From that 2004 interview, you could tell LK did little or no "homework". This was after all the primaries. There was no way he couldn't have seen that Lieberman (who LK likes) was running with a VERY different Iraq POV - and Lieberman whined about that on many shows. How could all the other Democrats be wrong?

People may or will jump all over me for saying this, but it's another reason why hopefully this interview will be better with a stronger audience/following because the Kerrys were dissed by some on a blog (where I lurked at) back then for lacking the charisma that the Clintons (before the 08 primaries), the Obamas (and in some ways, the Bidens) have.

Guess their story or appearance wasn't as warm, fuzzy, or entertaining like the others mentioned? (no disrespect to the President and First Lady; VP and Second Lady :)), but there is nothing they (the Kerrys) can do about that. This isn't a knock/slam on them. That's just the way it is.

Even the panel on Basic Black (a Boston-based talk show focused on AA issues) was saying that Brown had charisma. Yuk. :puke:

First of all, Kerry is not dependent on being perceived as being charismatic now.

Second, Kerry is far more charismatic than Biden. No one, except for a small number of people on DU think he is. He was unable to get any traction in 2004 when he tested the waters (per one report it was due to having a similar background to the more eloquent and charismatic Kerry). I have often joined the Biden people defending him. His prevailing image is not charismatic, but a very unfair caricature of a somewhat goofy gaffe machine.

As to the others, they were or are President and First Lady. Michelle was treated like Teresa during the election - now as First Lady, see is seen for the wonderful woman she is. Now, Obama and Clinton are charismatic - Hillary on her own would likely have been as charismatic as Martha Coakley. However in 2008 as surrogates, Kerry's image as a decent, honest man made him a far better surrogate for Obama than the "charismatic" Clinton. Kerry had the credibility to call Clinton on "abusing the truth". It is not clear that anyone else had the standing and prominence to successfully do that.

The fact is that Kerry does very easily command a crowd and is a very compelling - even funny - speaker. His 2008 speech at the convention was the best speech given by anyone other than Obama and it got a huge amount of audience response - easily beating Clinton's. The difference is that the media has for decades denied that he is charismatic - even though through his personality and eloquence alone he was able to touch the soul of the country in 1971.

On the other hand, NO ONE a half year ago called Scott Brown charismatic. If the media says often enough that someone is charismatic people repeat it. (Another example is that in NC, John Edwards was not said to be charismatic.) The fact is this is something where people are unwilling to argue the CW, but I've found that many actually agree when pushed.

The Kerrys seriously do not need to be anything other than what they are. As to the Boston African American group, they may repeat the CW that Brown is charismatic, but they likely will vote against him and they have in very large numbers voted for Kerry. In fact, Kerry should get points for going to the Haitian community 9 days after major surgery and speaking to them in French, a very comforting gesture.Even in the desperate situation they were in, they gave him a round of applause for doing so. That is something that community is likely to remember. With other communities, there are other things he has quietly done that have built similar loyalty. Kerry, after all did get 66% of the vote in his race; Brown got 52%.

I agree. I've never understood that perception/characterization of him. I've always found him to be charismatic, charming, and interesting, from the time he first caught my attention during the '04 primaries, during that Harkin Barbeque sometime in 2003 (I think it was), as a 17 year old kid watching it with her family on C-Span. I remember him telling a joke with the punchline ("and then they SIT on their asses..", lol) and being immediately taken in by his sense of humor...then listening to his policy positions ), I was sold, knowing who I would vote for. :) So I never understood this characture of him as "boring", "stuffy", "wooden" or any of those other descriptors. I think it's because much of the MSM unfortunately bought into that spin by the Right and it became the meme to use about him, which has led to him (at least up until very recently) not getting half the credit he deserves for all of his many accomplishments. I don't get the "boring" perception at all. I find him and his story to be fascinating. :shrug: Teresa's too. I think she would've made a great First Lady, as has thus far Michelle and as did Hillary, though both of them got similarly criticized by the Right and elements of the press.

Looking forward to seeing the interview tonight! :)

Ok, very, good thoughts :). Nothing else needs to be said, so that's the end of that issue. The third paragraph is great, though hope that people I know (interact with every day on politics) never hear that part. (Long story there). :hide: (Hopefully, they will be there someday).



On edit, the site is http://www.wgbh.org/basicblack/

They have some good discussion every Thursday night. (Hat tip Jack & Jill Politics :)).

And looking forward to the interview too.

..but to no avail. I remember watching it at the time, but it will be great to see/read it again. :)

Of course, LK could not ignore John Edwards, and I guess they spoke about breast cancer, as Teresa was there, but he said something interesting about the MA election

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/10/kerry-calls-john-edwards-situation-a-tragedy/?fbid=IgR2D-MFWLi

someone like Brown to actually have a chance of winning in the first place. but as Kerry also said, if things campaign wise had been different like the Dem candidate actually campaign ...........

Then it was balanced by hope - but there were times where he spoke of where "greed and corruption" had taken us.

It is clear there is anger - you can see it here at DU on almost every issue. Nearly every issue becomes polarized with only limited solutions being tolerated.

Wonder what the senator thinks about this behind the scenes.

Though this won't be much comfort here, The Bay State Banner printed a response from Coakley's Outreach Strategist to an editorial about her lack of outreach to communities of color.




What Jackson-Blount was responding to from today's BSB:





Look forward to the rest of Kerry and Momma T. interview. Michelle Obama was terrific last night on LKL, (especially on that dumb Palin question).

I would guess that he likely thinks she ran an awful campaign - but as can be seen by the Edwards comments, he is not someone who will pile on when she is down.

(I can see from the comments on Mass's link that many are so unused to someone who really does avoid speaking ill of others that they completely misinterpreted his comments on Edwards. It is true they might not know that by the end of the campaign, they were not on good terms and Edwards then lied about many things. )

to hear what he thinks. Me thinks people get frustrated with the senator (unfairly) because he just won't come out and say how he really feels. It's ether taken as playing nice, being cautious or just too gentlemanly. It's still weird.

Guess there was too much reading from The BSB about what MA residents were saying about the loss and (and unfair cause he is no longer with us :() that Uncle Ted would have been furious because he never took them or the state of MA for granted, but that is all in the past now. It's time to move forward and focus on the midterm fall elections.

Nuff said from me on this issue. Peace. :hi:

But it's so interesting to see two people who really don't fit into the soundbite culture visiting it. LK is asking questions and timing them in expectation of slick, one-sentence answers, and JK and THK are speaking thoughtfully and in a very human, genuine way. I wish we could see them interviewed in that same spirit...

Still, it's wonderful to see them both -- THK is so beautiful!

What you say is so true - with all three, he wanted to speak of Palin, the tea parties, and Scott Brown - all media flashy stories. With Michelle, his question on Haiti centered around the Idaho group - her answer fantastically ignored them and spoke of the devastation.

I liked JK's comment to the question on Elizabeth Edwards that he and Teresa avoided listening to that because they wanted to work on real issues. What a beautiful way to avoid the question and to get completely above it.

I liked his answer when he was asked if he was afraid of Sarah Palin. He spoke of politics as entertainment - then after slightly sardonically say "hopey changey thing was a good line, I guess, before answering seriously that ideas and record mattered.

I liked at the end that Teresa had not heard that he was getting Kennedy's desk - which he said he learned yesterday - so this obviously was filmed last week (which makes sense as it couldn't be live.)

John Kerry. But we know that'll never happen. I missed most of the interview, and happened to tune in at the Brown and Palin questions. Pretty disappointing, but expected from King.

I really think many things JK said went totally over his head. I wonder if he even got the points Kerry was making about "politics as celebrity" or the personal attacks he eluded to in answering the Elizabeth Edwards question.

It is very kind that after all the Edwards did that JK has kept in touch with Elizabeth. Is there another politician openly saying he/she spoke to her recently now that she is poorly thought of by many? She clearly needs any friends she can find.

whether he is afraid of Palin, his first reaction was to say "Afraid?" (I think) with a surprised expression on his face, as if he actually wanted to say "what a silly thing to ask!"

It's nice to see and hear the Kerrys. They sound warm, genuine and throughful even through the filter of soundbite TV.

I think there were mistakes made by Coakley campaign, obviously, but also institutional mistakes that the MA Dems made that contributed to the loss.

In retrospect, and it pains me to say this, it was a huge mistake to change the way interim US Senators were chosen in Ma. We should have left it a Governor's appt to fill out the term until the next scheduled statewide general election. This was a bad idea from a number of points and I think that MA Dems reaped what they sowed here. (And I was in favor of the change, until I saw it in action. I think we should change it back. There are a number of sound reasons to do so, chief among them my view that I don't think the changed processed served the citizens of the Commonwealth very well.)

The truly odd thing about Scott Brown's election is how negative it was. Brown wasn't elected to do anything; he was elected, in essence, to not do anything. He was sent to Washington with the vague mandate to be bipartisan, which is not going to happen. His election was "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma," to use a Churchill phrase. Brown is a cipher and represents whatever the person viewing him wants him to represent. Sigh!

I think Sen. Kerry spoke volumes about the mistakes made and the atmosphere in politics right now both in his home state and nationally with his understated remarks. Sigh!

...of our politics and our democracy. Palin, Brown...even Edwards now...are symptoms of it. We DON'T need to elect 'effective politicians.' We need to elect effective, knowledgeable, experienced leaders. That's one reason it took me a while to get behind Obama...and why JK supporting him helped me with that.

The country is hurting right now. That can be addressed with positive action that takes a long time to implement or it can be addressed negatively with demagogues who try to lay blame on others instead of solving the problems. We are caught between those things right now.

Anyone here ever seen the musical Assassins by Stephen Sondheim? He has a remarkable song in there called "Another National Anthem" that deals with many of the things that the Tea Party people bring up. The surrealist play brings together presidential assassins and would-be assassins from US history and tries to answer the unanswerable question of why they would do such an unspeakable act. The song posits an answer that says they did it because it was a scream that would be heard.

This country is hurting. There are racist elements to the Tea Party movement, as there have been racist elements to every populist movement since America was settled. The pain out there is also real though and it can't just be waived away as a racist in every way. It isn't. The permanent campaign, unfortunately, plays to the worst aspects of that populist movement and promises a villain or series of villains who caused the country's problems. This is all kinds of dangerous. We turn aside from this at extreme peril.



Yeah, this is a dark posting from me. But these are scary times.

Assassins is one of my favorite Sondheim musicals (along with Pacific Overtures, which is a similar questioning of history and how it's made and how it's remembered) and I completely agree that the Tea Party movement, like other populist movements based on anger is the absolute embodiment of the message of that song.

The terrifying irony is that the song, taken at face value, is one of hope, one that sounds like a call to pursue the American Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:



It sounds like a message of hope, of promise, of the victory of the underdog. And that IS the seductive siren song movements like the Tea Party sing. But the irony is...this song is being sung by assassins. By people willing to KILL to get their way, to get attention, to get the "prize" they feel they've been cheated of. Willing not just to kill another human being, but to utterly destroy their own government and society in order to not feel so worthless and forgotten and ignored. This, in my opinion, is why JK speaks of understanding the Tea Party movement and the anger out there. It is not because he endorses it or is excusing it, but because he understands history and knows that when the people feel starved, they can be turned into a mob by demagogues. He is one who is willing to do something to try to make things better for the ignored and forgotten, but his song is not as seductive as the one sung by those who promise instant gratification, instant acknowledgment, instant inclusion and attention. He wants citizens to be responsible for working to make the "prize" available to all, not just to whoever can grab it.

There are so many strands of light and dark in the American psyche. We believe we are the land of opportunity. This is woven into our national self-perception and character. The upside of that is the optimism that Americans are famous for worldwide. We believe in "can-do."

The downside of that exists when people take all the right steps, do what society says we should do to achieve the "American Dream" and we don't wind up doing well. That is the dark side of our story. Thwarted dreams can lead to bitterness, scapegoating and, in some instances, violence as people seek to exact revenge on those who prevented this American Dream birthright. It is a very scary and dark landscape to traverse.

That song is one of my favorites, though it is a very dark vision indeed. (This show is one of the "you have to be in the mood" plays to contemplate. It is wonderful, but the themes are very troubling to think about.)

I think it was obvious that Sen. Kerry is frustrated with the atmosphere in Washington right now. And, he is pushing so hard for a climate bill- I really hope it does not stall. And, I loved the very end when Kerry was asked about the desk and Teresa apparently did not know that he had gotten it. Her reaction was priceless.

Both happy and excited and honest in complaining that he didn't tell her. I think the fact that she was surprised, let us see more of how much it meant to her. From Kerry's comment, it means a lot to him. (I think it means something in the Senate as well, as there are other Democrats with more seniority, who could have asked for it. I wonder if they either are happy with their seat, don't care whose seat it was or simply knew what it would mean to JK.)

On the health questions, it was only afterward that I realized that they really are not part of the sound bite celebrity genre. It was clear their answers were as honest as could be, but they were not willing to play to the audience or media.

when Larry asked Teresa she said no and Kerry jumped in and said he had spoken to Elizabeth and said something about how Elizabeth would like to talk to Teresa. i know Teresa would have no problem talking to Elizabeth but i wonder if Elizabeth would have felt a bit uncomfortable because of everything that had happened to her personally and the things they had said about the Kerrys, ,especially Teresa who isn't a politician.

both JK and Teresa look very good to me. i love watching them together. it is especially nice to see Teresa just so we can see she is doing well. i would never have guessed she had cancer or was being treated for it from the way she looked if i had not known.

i always thought Teresa was the best in communicating about health care during the campaign. when she spoke to people about it she was able to do it in a way where it seemed like she was just speaking to them. it didn't sound like campaign talk.

From the Imus interview back when the Kerrys were doing their book tour, they were asked about the stage 4 diagnosis that EE had just announced. Asked if they had spoken to the Edwards, they said Kerry responded yes, then both spoke of staying the campaign being her choice and one they would not second guess. Teresa spoke of it being a hard diagnosis.

I find it easy to believe that Teresa would not have reached out beyond that. She had gone out of her way to help Elizabeth when she was first diagnosed and it was clear that she like her in 2004. Now, Elizabeth had every right to ignore her advice or even to tell her that she didn't need any. However, it is a slap in the face that Edwards decided to write that Teresa speaking against the doctor she chose nearly led her to a breakdown. (In reality, it was not Teresa, but fact that she was confronted with making a possibly life or death decision where the information is conflicting.)

Edwards then,in the book and in interviews, validated many of the unfair Republican characterizations of Teresa (more than John) as out of touch with "normal" people like her. Note that even in yesterday's interview when Kerry spoke of not listening to the negative stories of others or themselves because there was work to be done, Teresa added that "they hurt".

Teresa had few chances to work against the lies about her and it was a real betrayal that Edwards returned the Kerrys' kindnesses as she did. Both were right to not return the attacks. Kerry's quietly keeping in touch with her behind the scenes really is just another example of refusing to leave someone in trouble behind. Much as I now really dislike the Edwards - almost enough to think of removing my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker - it is impossible to not feel sympathy for Elizabeth and horror that a life thet looked so promising in 2004 is completely in shambles (at least from public perception) now.

but why didn't Elizabeth try to reach out to Teresa ? Kerry said something about how she mentioned wanting to speak with Teresa but it seemed more like just something to say to avoid discussing why they had not spoken to each other.

i mean, i would have thought that when news of Teresa's cancer came out Elizabeth would at least have just called to give good thoughts even if they had not spoken of anything else.

i just read about Elizabeth suing Andrew Young for the break up of her marriage. the purpose is probably to make Young give up tapes and other things which might make her look bad.

reaching out to anyone not in her immediate circle. her life is a nightmare. It really sounds like John Kerry has been the one who has reached out to her. Teresa has friends and family who are clearly supporting her and she seems to have caught it early. I suspect the real truth is that there really is no long term friendship or close relationship between Teresa and Elizabeth.

With the Young thing, he is source of that story. I suspect that either reaching out to Young, which likely could have prevented the stories on her, or suing him is too late. The book is, I think, out and he seems to have been regularly on TV. The damage is already done.

at least on the Kerry's part. (LK can ask some pretty stupid questions sometimes.) They both looked and sounded great. One thing I disagree with JK about though is his assessment of the teabaggers. Maybe he was just being diplomatic, but he was far too kind and showed far too much understanding when talking about them. The teabaggers are racist, xenophobic tugs. Period. The only thing that makes them "frustrated voters" is that they're frustrated that they are not in total charge of the government that they would like to destroy. I'm sure JK knows all of that, but I wish he would have expressed it. Other than that, I really enjoyed watching.

I don't know... What you say is definitely true about the more vocal ones, the ones with the outrageous and disgusting signs, the ones we see on TV, or the ones who were willing (and able) to shell out hundreds to go cheer that revolting woman. These are the public faces of the "movement", and they are not pretty. But it's quite possible (likely?) that there is more to it, that they are just the tip of the iceberg, and I have no idea how large the iceberg actually is. It's all in the definition I guess, what you consider a "teabagger" to be...

is that they are white, poorly educated, and largely racist. They listen to (and believe without question) what Glenn Beck tells them. Their numbers are small (they are filmed regularly on our local news whenever they show up at anything), but they are receiving incredible media attention like they are the biggest movement around. When they are interviewed, they come across as frightened racists who need someone or something to blame for the bad ways their lives are going. They hate taxes, Democrats, and people of color. Too bad the media completely ignored all of the large crowds who took a stand against the Iraq War.

truly, truly SCARES me.

They are not an organized group, where you could say that their stands are a, b, c .... A comment hitting the extreme elements you spoke of would be distorted and used against Kerry and all Democrats.

Think back to the phony outrage of the right that pelosi (et al) called the tea partiers "un American" (which eventually morphed to Nazis something she never said). What she said was some of their tactics were unAmerican and disrupted town hall meetings. This led to many people identifying with some of the concerns - many coming from lies on the healthcare plan to turn off offended and even more angry.

Here, Kerry carefully validated some of the anger on things where he himself agrees. The economy IS bad. More jobs ARE needed. DC is NOT working as it should. etc. The deficit IS unsustainable. etc

He then though added enough to put himself (and Democrats) on the side of dealing with that. He spoke of the jobs bills. He put out ideas on the healthcare bill that are consitent with the existing bill and are things people want.

Fo those people who want DC to work together, he was reasonable and he was reaching out. Obama did this on a grander scale in the last week or so. The idea likely is to make people attribute more of the blame on DC not working to the Republicans. People need to see that Obama has done a hell of a lot on the economy and he did it with all but 3 Republicans voting "NO".

On the deficit issue, Kerry did vote for the panel to work on this - not so many Republicans. Scott Brown thinks the thing to do is to cut taxes on everyone - not a way to reduce the deficit in an economy where people are afraid to invest it. Supply side economics have a bad track record.

I think that answer was an attempt to reach out even to the tea partiers to point out where there is common ground. Now, I assume the majority of tea partiers follow Fox News and Limbaugh, and are not going to say that Kerry made sense, but if this anger fueled wave is broader than the core "tea party", this does say to people picking up on the tea party concerns that mainstream Democrats are concerned and working on the issues.

to see more Democrats follow former President Carter's lead on the true motive of the teabaggers aka Tea Party.

In a nutshell, it's racism and the president happens to be Black (or African-American). Understand that Carter is now a private citizen/statesman, but when they Dems on the Hill distanced themselves from his comments, they looked as if they were turning a blind-eye as to who these people and their motives are really about.

They are vile, racist, and xenophobic thugs and only out in force because President Obama is in charge of their government and it scares them to pieces. These people said nothing during the Clinton and Bush years.

Last weekend, the Palin media circus (and Barbie Loca) paraded all over here (in TN) . The media, especially CNN gave non-stop coverage to the so-called delegates.

It almost makes you wonder how many blacks (the few that were there) were paid to be there and/or on TV? There was one AA woman from Memphis identifying herself as a conservative, running for Congress babbling about the Constitution and Tea Party principles. She looked ignorant, as well as Palin's female followers. The whole thing and her fake, rambling speech were all disgusting. In fact, one of the GOP candidates running for Governor has embraced the other idioic, racist group The Birthers. :grr:



Back to the topic, it was a good interview despite the typical LK gossip questions. The Senator and Momma T. both look well. :)

..though I think karynnj also made some really good points about it in her post. I think I get where JK was coming from on that, of explaining the root of a lot of that "frustration" and anger (though I have to say it mostly just leaves me cold...I mean, where were these people while Bush was running up the deficit? For them to only be outraged about it, now that Obama is in charge, just makes me shake my head) about a lot of the problems the country is still working through, while identifying Democrats as the ones with the solutions, who are actually trying to do something about it, rather than just complaining or worse, obstructing (like the Republicans in Congress are mostly doing these days). But I do agree that it was pretty diplomatic on Kerry's part---a little too much so, if you ask me. But then again, I know that if he, as a prominent Senator, were to be more blunt about the more ugly aspects of that 'movement', the press would jump all over it, the way they did to Pelosi...and all the other points he was attempting to make--and in my estimation at least, made well--would be lost in the process. But I've seen him be a lot more direct about those aspects of it---he sure was during the Coakley campaign, for example, even calling a press conference about the blatant thuggery of many of those Tea Party Brown supporters. I guess he figured that the interview wasn't the place for it, especially now that the campaign is over and there are so many things to be worked on and accomplished in DC. I think he struck a pretty good balance and got the point across, though I honestly have to agree that those people don't really deserve his "understanding". :) Sure I know that they likely do not represent EVERYONE in the 'movement'...but the fact is, their loudest, public voices do convey hatred and a pretty obvious, reoccuring tinge of racism/xenophobia/sexism/homophobia, etc, etc and if more of them really do reject that sort of thing, they should try a whole hell of a lot harder to refute and rise above it..

But other than all that, lol, I really enjoyed this interview also. :) Both John and Teresa (especially after all she's been through lately!) looked great and had a lot of very interesting and on point things to say. I especially liked how JK summed Palin up. I think that was exactly on point and I loved his reaction to being asked if he was "worried" about her..lol. That made a lot of the point right there, I think. :evilgrin:

I also loved Teresa's reaction to finding out he got Teddy's desk...and just their overall interaction with one another. I just think it's so sweet how JK is with her..how he seems to carefully listen to what she has to say, how he looks at her..there just seems to be such a warmth there between them, contrary to a lot of the RW talking points about their relationship. I think they are adorable together....even down to his tie matching her dress (though that may or may not have been intentional, lol). :) And I'm glad to see her looking so well!

I was also impressed by how they handled the whole Edwards thing. They (and JK especially) could've easily thrown him under the bus..but neither one of them did. They acknowledged the situation without playing into all the sensationalism and without passing judgement. I really admire that. Classy, as always. :)

And just wanted to express my opinion that it was totally planned that their colors matched (his tie, her jacket) and they looked superb! The darks and brights brought out their striking good looks and made the two of them absolutely glow onscreen. Spectacularly savvy clothing choices for a TV appearance.

I noticed of course that they looked great - even with out considering that they are senior citizens. But, you are right, the colors match so well, I doubt it was an accident - and assume it was Teresa's doing.

They both looked healthy.

..I mean I of course know that they are, but they both seem-- in appearance, sharpness of mind and expression and their energy levels (the busy, productive lives they lead, all they still accomplish on a daily basis)--so much younger than their actual ages. If I didn't know better, I'd place them both somewhere in their 50's probably! lol :)



They make such a cute couple. :loveya:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/10/lkl.01.html

King only posts selected clips - for yesterday and the day before, he has Biden on Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama on ... Sarah Palin. No Kerry - obviously J was not effusive enough in his "praise". (Obviously, Larry King is obsessed.)

Dunno how long it will be up:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/02/11/lkl.kerrys.on.cancer.cnn?iref=allsearch

I picked up one think I missed yesterday. It sounds like Teresa called JK when the mammogram was suspicious and he was there for the later part. (if I interpreted it correctly)

That's a great clip.

(I admire that she was able to take this so analytically. I know until the node results came back 2 days before Thanksgiving, I was a wreck. Once this result was good, I was feeling so much better and calmer).

I agree with what JK says about the MA election and Brown.

But I could not avoid to wonder whether LK is getting senile. Some of his questions are so weird.

I loved his response to the Palin question

I think what John Kerry spoke of about politics becoming too trivial and celebrity oriented was particularly insightful. Sadly, too many people in the bases of both parties, supposedly news junkies and "activists" get caught up in the gossip and outrages of the week stuff. Frankly, I did to a certain extent myself. Now, I have no interest in it. And I simply am not going to be reading blogs as much as I used to, because they spend too much time on the trivialities (including HuffPo, of course, but also TPM, The Atlantic, and other sites/publications that I respect for many things but for which they put the garbage in with the substantive items so that you're stuck sifting through it all).

I was moved by THK talking about her breast cancer, and just the atmosphere of the interview. They are a great couple and I am happy that they are in D.C., but they along with the Obamas (and some other politicians I respect like Sen. Franken) are simply powerless to stop what has happened to D.C. The amazing thing is that GOPers seem all happy about their "success", but it is a nihilistic happiness. They won't get anything done either, and their ideology is still broken. People who think that electing Brown is "moving things in the right direction" (a quote from an LTE I read here in GA) are only fooling themselves. The health care system is still broken, dear Republicans. Your "victory" is hollow. The only way any of this is a "victory" is on the gossip/entertainment front.

Again, great interview.

They not only waste time that should be spent on more serious issues, but they often lead to outrage and anger.

I was really moved by Teresa's brave discussion as well. She really did let the situation itself answer the question of the frequency of tests. Had it been caught a year later, if she opted for biannual tests, it could have meant that she would have needed stronger treatment.

Really nice to see you again.