Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you think the Dems and the media may have set Kerry up?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 08:10 PM
Original message
Do you think the Dems and the media may have set Kerry up?
I am new to all this, but all this Hillary talk leads me to think so, as well as talk about how some Dems want Kerry to disappear.


If this is flamebait I can delete it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not flamebait at all.
I don't think so. Everyone knew that Sen. Kerry was going to make a run for the White House at some point in his career. Some thought it would be in 2000, but VP Al Gore was the favorite for that. When Gore lost and decided against running again, Sen. Kerry took a legitimate shot at the race.

He ran his heart out. Although I am no expert, it is my opinion that he put everything he had into it.

This talk about Kerry was set up and the Dems wanted a placeholder for Hillary to run this year and that stuff is all just wacko-talk. The truth is that Kerry ran a good race but didn't win. He had a very united party behind him, including the Clintons. I think 99% of Dems played it straight and fought hard for Kerry. That the Senator didn't win is a painful fact. So they blame him. Sad, but not uncommon. (Especially for Dems and the legendary circular firing squad.)

Now the political deck is being reshuffled. Other people want to take a whack at running for President. They are welcome to it. They will have to build a national base, find a way to stand out in Iowa and New Hampshire, raise money and find it within themselves to withstand the pressures of running for the most powerful job on earth.

Politics is a very rough game. (As 2004 showed.) The minute Kerry officially lost, other Dems started scheming for ways to become the next nominee. That's what ambitious politicians do, they try to assess the situation and figure out a way to gain advantage from it. The barnicles that attach themselves to candidates in the hopes that they will be carried to electoral power and glory are now trying to play the expectations game. Part of that is whacking the hell out of people who might take out your candidate. The earlier this is done, the better because then you can place tentacles on their 'money guys' and suck up the cash. This is what is happening now.

There are people who want Kerry to go away. He doesn't want to go away. (That I know of. Every indication is that he wants another shot at the nomination.) Sen, Kerry has kept an organization i place, has a list of 3 million Dems and potential supporters from across the USA and he still has money guys with him. If I was working for or thinking of working for another Dem, I'd try to take him out too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. no, and there has always been Hillary talk
the media is against most Democrats including Hillary.

there are "some" Dems who also want Hillary and other dems to disappear.

Hillary very much wanted Kerry to win. she was a very good supporter of his. if Kerry is the nominee again she would get behind him . if Kerry is not the nominee then Kerry would get behind whoever is just as he did other times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not in that way
I don't believe for one minute there was ever any Hillary sabatoge going on. But I definitely think the media is a neocon echo chamber and serious problem if we're ever going to have a fair shake at winning again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elshiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. The media was not good to Kerry, at all.
Alot of stupid ketchup-flip-flop-gigolo-elitist-metrosexual-weak-on-defense bullshit was peddled in the media.

As for Dems, every major Dem leader, esp. Hillary and her husband, were helping out Kerry after he got the nomination. Dean defended him in a debate with Nader, even.

As for Hillary, I did sign a petition for Hillary after Nov 3. Only because I didn't think Kerry would run. When people say he's running I signed a petition for him. Of, course I also signed one for Dean before he was running for DNC chair and I volunteered for Kucinich in 2008. It is OK, though. Whoever gets the Dem nomination, I will vote for.

I am glad that I do not have to make the final decision between Hillary Clinton and Kerry. I think Hillary would have made a better president than Bill. Yet I don't think SHE could win the presidency or any other SHE because we are a deeply sexist nation. Then again, people may not vote for Kerry for another stupid reason because he lost. Stupid becuase of Nixon and all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's the media
My brother is a news reporter in N.Y. and right after the election, he told me the media would talk up Hillary.

We have to watch the media very carefully, for some reason they think they know it all, of course they are run by the corporate.

But just think about it. The media screwed Kerry in the 2004 campaign. They played up to Dean because they knew he couldn't win, but they played down to Kerry because they knew he would win. Also Kerry knows they hurt him too, you could tell just by what he was saying in his speech and after at the JFK library.

Just my 2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It was very much the media
There is an Alterman article on the media in the Nation (warning: cover story--long)--a sobering look at the state of the media today. Media control is so powerful that they could have won just because of that alone. Don't know if that's all they did, though.

Bush's War on the Press
by ERIC ALTERMAN



Journalists, George Bernard Shaw once said, "are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." How odd, given the profession's un-equaled reputation for narcissism, that Shaw's observation holds true even when the collapsing "civilization" is their own.

Make no mistake: The Bush Administration and its ideological allies are employing every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function to hold power accountable. In fact, the Administration recognizes no such constitutional role for the press. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has insisted that the media "don't represent the public any more than other people do.... I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function."

Bush himself, on more than one occasion, has told reporters he does not read their work and prefers to live inside the information bubble blown by his loyal minions. Vice President Cheney feels free to kick the New York Times off his press plane, and John Ashcroft can refuse to speak with any print reporters during his Patriot-Act-a-palooza publicity tour, just to compliant local TV. As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."

But the White House and its supporters are doing more than just talking trash--when they talk at all. They are taking aggressive action: preventing journalists from doing their job by withholding routine information; deliberately releasing deceptive information on a regular basis; bribing friendly journalists to report the news in a favorable context; producing their own "news reports" and distributing these free of charge to resource-starved broadcasters; creating and crediting their own political activists as "journalists" working for partisan operations masquerading as news organizations. In addition, an Administration-appointed special prosecutor, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening two journalists with jail for refusing to disclose the nature of conversations they had regarding stories they never wrote, opening up a new frontier of potential prosecution. All this has come in the wake of a decades-long effort by the right and its corporate allies to subvert journalists' ability to report fairly on power and its abuse by attaching the label "liberal bias" to even the most routine forms of information gathering and reportage (for a transparent example in today's papers, see under "DeLay, Tom"). Some of these tactics have been used by previous administrations too, but the Bush team and its supporters have invested in and deployed them to a degree that marks a categorical shift from the past.


the rest of it at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050509&s=alterman

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
7. Well, I think it is a combination of things.
Edited on Thu May-05-05 02:39 AM by saracat
No question that the media did Kerry dirt. They didn't even give him the normal exposure for speeches he should have gotten and we all know what they did to public perception!But as for Hill and Bill, I think there is something there. Bill bothered me a bit the other day when he came out and said that he didn't know what Hillary would do but that she would be a fine President. Hmm. She has always said she wasn't going to run.And certainly Bill would know her intentions. Hillary and Bill are far too DLC for me, and they are NOT liberals. I got over my Clinton infatuation PDQ when Bill began to defend Bush, and vehemently so. He said Bush was entitled to whatever Inaugural he wanted as he won, "fair and square"and he told Kerry supporters to "stop whining" days after the election. he is always defending Bush policies. I have much more respect for Carter. And Hillary's latest comments are atrocious as far as I am concerned. But they are still head and shoulders above the repukes. But they aren't my first choice and I don't trust either of them! And I forgot Bill trying to get Kerry to support the marrige amendment and dump gay rights. Grr. I so respect Kerry. He won't pimp himself for anyone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whometense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. With you on that.
Edited on Thu May-05-05 07:23 AM by whometense
Put me in the I-don't-trust-the-Clintons camp. Don't like Hillary (though if she were the dem nominee I'd obviously vote for her). Don't like Bill - his new connection with the Bush family makes me ill.

I thought all that "They want Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in '08" stuff during the campaign was republican-sponsored bullshit. But I really am not sure what their agenda is - too opaque. I prefer Kerry's style (and substance!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. While I think the Clinton's respected Kerry and were behind him,
Edited on Thu May-05-05 12:02 PM by karynnj
I think a lot of the Clinton people really did not "get" Kerry. One hypothesis is because many of Clinton's political people really seemed to be into the game of politics. Clinton, though a statesman when needed could also be a political chameleon appearing to be different in different places. Many of Clinton's people (Cavelle, and Begala) seemed to evaluate Kerry through a lens of how he differed from Clinton.

Some of Kerry's strengths such as his character, integrity and his principles were almost seem as stodgy negatives making Kerry more distant and aloof than the looser Clinton. The characteristics that sometimes made Kerry seem to back away from the word, politician, preferring political activist, public servant or statesman, were things that Clinton loved and glorified in. Clinton also seemed to know how to co-op people like Carvelle (with huge egos)into thinking that they were running the show, when Cinton was.

(What's funny is that I think Hillary, at least when she first became fist lady, might be less like a Clinton than like a Kerry. I really have a hard time really understanding whet she stands for in the Senate.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. The media was all about Dean in 04, now they are all about Hillary in 08
Edited on Thu May-05-05 10:24 AM by emulatorloo
They just go for what they think will be a 'dramatic story.'

Once Kerry broke out of the pack in 04, that was dramatic for a while - 'underdog emerges.'

Then when the general got underway they went back to playing up Bush, and dissing Kerry because, um because, because. . .well who knows why they did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Many reasons
There were many reasons for the poor coverage. Some were bias, but that doesn't explain it all.

Part of it was the effectiveness of the right wing noise machine--they know how to manipulate even unbiased media better than Democrats.

Part was the benefits of incumbency which allowed Bush to control the news.

Part is the tendency to cover the horse race and pay little attention to complex issues. Kerry's positions didn't lend themselves to being reduced to sound bites.

Part is economic. Even reporters who are more liberal on social issues have a bias against politicians who want to increase their taxes. Considering the pay of major people in the news media, this hits them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Well, in the case of Chris Matthews, for example, Rove got to him
Edited on Thu May-05-05 12:24 PM by emulatorloo
by blackballing him and restricting access to the WH and various BushBots.

Matthew was doing pretty good for a while. He dismantled the Swifties. He took on Malkin. He asked Zell if it wasn't an exaggeration to say that JK would have our troops defend themselves with spitballs. He had a very tough interview w rumsfeld. Then Matthews went ballistic when the RNC used out-of-context Kerry quotes from Hardball to 'prove' that Kerry was a flipflopper. . .Matthews showed the RNC tape and went after Matthew Dowd, i think it was, hard.

Afterwards Matthews was interviewed on the Daily Show and said that he was cut off. Bush people would not appear on his show. If you remember the debate coverage, Matthews could not talk directly to any repug in spin alley -- those interviews were conducted by a MSNBC reporter. . .Matthews could talk to the reporter, but not to Karen Hughes, for example.

Then all the sudden Matthews went all Bush loving, and let the rightwingers run roughshod over the set.

So a lot of it does seem to be about access -- afraid to alienate Bush whitehouse because of thier ruthlessness and vindictiveness.

OTOH that doesn't explain the thing that always drove me crazy --- News programs would Cherry Pick the best Bush quotes frm his appearances, and then Cherry Pick the worst Kerry quotes. . .

Kerry's speeches were full of short pithy sound bites once he got rollling, but you never saw those in the national media. Instead they would find the worst parts of his speech, or do some lame ass VOICE OVER summary that never really represented what he was saying. All the while showing Bush at his most golden tounged moments. . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. I had posted this to see what everyone thought about this
You guys have given some good answers. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC