Reminder: Kerry to "Face the Nation"

Check your local listings. On here (east) at 10:30a.m. :donut:

Can't wait. :patriot:

Counting the minutes!!!!

and posts it online. I have to leave shortly...

Asked if Lieberman would do a better job as Secretary of Defense, Kerry says a lot of people would do a better job.

Rummy on his way out?

but that is not the issue. The issue is that 80% of the Iraqi people want us out.

but there was really not a better answer. To say that he wouldn't support him would have been much worse.
He followed up by saying a lot of people would do better.

Doesn't matter. Rummy is out and Kerry supports full withdrawal.

McMain, Leiberman and the why do you think you lost question. So far, Ive see two out of my three. They are so predictable here.

He's talking about the chill sent through the military due to the fate of General Eric Shinseki (USA, retired) after he advised that the Iraq invasion would require more troops.

Paraphrasing:

Schieffer: If you knew then what you know today would you have voted for IWR?

Kerry: No. (pause while MH yells YEAH!) Most assuredly, no.

Take that, DU.

I realized this might give the wrong impression to folks who only read the headers!!

I'll repost below, where it was supposed to be.

:-)

Very strong interview, IMO.
He did great.

Sigh...

Gird your arms and armor folks... there should be a fire in GD / GD-P any minute now.


(edit for typo. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. ...)

but it really shows how disconnected they are.

reactionary types who miss everything of substance and react to what the media whore wants to talk about.

Kerry saying something like "we need a sec def more like McCain".

I missed that line. Did Kerry even say that?? If so I believe he was playing to the common perception and respect for McCain.

But of course that is all the thread is focusing on now.

Sigh. I really MUST finish my term project today so I can concentrate this week on getting ready for Boston.

more like McCain (who thinks) and less like Cheney (who doesn't think). He might disagree with McCain, but Kerry has made it clear that Cheney lies and often doesn't make sense. He places Rumsfeld in the Cheney category.

I believe that is why the JK referenced McCain, who (much as I dislike and mistrust him) certainly has a better record of statements on the subject than Cheney...

impose my religion on them or offend anyone.

Christmas is still three weeks away.
Even though retailers are trying to nudge it into October, "Merry Christmas", for me, is something you say at Christmas.
It's the holiday season. Inclusive and appropriate.

Just like "Are you running in '08?", it's too early for "Merry Christmas".

JMHO

Loved the way he handled the 2008 questions.

Scheiffer kept trying to bring up non issues like will he run again, will you support Lieberman and other crap.

but Kerry's focus was on what was going on in Iraq and what needed to be done. said it's not enough for soldiers to just report instances of torture, they need to stop it also.

emphasized the need for no bases or any other permanence in Iraq and the need to let the Iraqi people know that.

Bob seemed to want to talk over him a bit, but JK stuck to his guns and got his answers in. He was very definitive about saying he would not vote the same way today, if he had known then what he knows now.

At the end he wished Bob "Happy Holidays". That should make a few right-wingnut heads explode. (Which can only be considered a good thing.)

{major paraphrasing here folks. If you want exact words, you'll have to wait for the transcript from someone who does this for a living.}

S: Are you running again?

K: (Too soon to tell...focus on 2006.)

(S. runs clip of Kerry at Rosa Parks statue interview saying "I know why I lost")

S: (tell us about that...why do you think you lost...)

K: (won't answer that question) I'm not looking backward, we need to move forward. (something about lessons learned.)

S: So what were those lessons learned

K: (chuckle) I'm not tellin'. If I decide to run, we'll show them to you. But I'm not talking about them now.

~~~~~~~

Tee hee.

K: (chuckle) I'm not tellin'. If I decide to run, we'll show them to you. But I'm not talking about them now.

he's talking about Election Fraud TEEHEE

i remember you mentioning you were going. not sure if you already did. but i hope you had a good time.

Loved how he stressed no PERMANDNT bases.

Of course out in GD-lalaland, its the same old rhetoric, and twisting of his words. God these people make me sick, they are so immature it is pathetic. You know if whoever they support said exactly the same thing as JK, there would be umpteen threads on it praising that person. They are such hypocrites. :argh:

My eighteen year old has better reasoning skills than these posters.

Yes, she does. Tell her I said hello, BTW. Cool kid.

He did better in the second segment than in the first. He dodged Schieffer's question three times on whether we would be more or less safe if troops were withdrawn. I think that was a mistake, as that is what most interests people (me, at least). Then in the second segment he did an excellent explanation as to how the terrorists are a small percentage, that the Iraqis would not put up with foreign Jihadis in their country once we're gone, and how we need to go back to going after bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists across the globe. Why didn't he say that first? As far as the McCain remark it was because they were talking about torture, and McCain has been an eloquent spokesperson against torture, unlike Cheney who wants torture. That was a good comparison for him to make.

I'm a tough love gal. Not one of his best interviews. He needs to reassure Americans first and foremost that we will be made as safe as possible, and he waited until the second segment to talk about the terrorists. Some of the other things he said were really good, but I just feel like he blew the interview at the beginning by changing the subject about America's security and how it relates to Iraq. Oh well, it's only 2005, he can improve on that message in the next few years . . .

Kerry used the opportunity to throw Rumsfeld and Cheney into the mix and address a more complicated aspect of Bush's dilemma: his administration is the problem. Also, it also gave him an opportunity to include the permanent bases comment. I think most Americans know that the increasing violence in Iraq is a threat, and America's presence in the reason for the violence. He did address the issue, but he addressed a lot more important issues and some of those comments had to be injected and they were powerful statements in support of his plan and holding Bush accountable.

When the media picks up his quotes, they'll have a lot more powerful statements than a comment about whether or not the American people will be safer if we withdraw.

answer that safety question with so many variables when dealing with such a volatile and un predicable group.Surely, it is obvious that if the object of scorn is removed some of the problems will dissipate. Actually, I figured the main focus was to get the troops out of harms way and allow the Iraqi's to start governing and protecting themselves. Violence is bound to still continue, unfortunately, but maybe to a lesser degree.

Personally, I thought it was a good interview for those of us who don't follow him so closely. He indirectly alluded to bipartisanship and got in a few good digs on Chaney and Romsfield (sp)and Bush's problems with receiving information he doesn't like.

And the interview was so "talking pointish". Maybe you guys are right that the interview will work better in sound bites, but I hate talking points and sound bites, which is probably why I stay away from Sunday morning talk shows, since I find them hopelessly boring without furthering the conversation on important issues.

I like off the cuff remarks and thoughts, but of course those are risky. I guess that's what he was avoiding, but I'm interested in a broad view of how the war in Iraq has made us less safe by, for example, giving the jihadists a training ground to practice in their "trade". Since the place is so chaotic it's a lot easier to do terrorist attacks than in the West. I know Kerry knows that, and I wish he had talked about that front and center. The American people are very worried about the American casualties in Iraq but what makes them pause is a worry that pulling out from Iraq would embolden terrorists, and turn Iraq into a full blown Afghanistan -- a failed state where terrorists can run around freely. I want a full rebuttal from Kerry on that. It's not enough for him to be against *. I want an alternative view and reassurance that his Iraq plan will not just better the situation there, but lead to better national security. In the past he has done that, but he failed to do so in this interview.

I too thought that Kerry did much better during the 2nd half.

Your feelings were very similar to mine.

i hope this interview plays out well in the public.
I want nothing but success for Kerry. I want him to be our next President. Did this interview help him? Or hurt him? We'll see.
And I'm not talking about what DU says, I'm talking about the spin in msm.

Nonetheless, I am so thrilled that he is making the rounds in the msm. And his first Sunday talk show since the election is huge.

You can't lay out policy on Sunday talk shows. Try it and you're dead in the water, not enough time. As far as security, Kerry's plan for Iraq is to improve the situation there and begin to address the political dynamics in the region. There is an array of other issues related to US national security, such as securing US ports, that also need to be addressed in the interest of making America safe from attack. We need to be vigilant to deter a terrorist attack, that is a separate issue from turning over control of Iraq to the Iraqis. Bush tries to make them one in the same.

Leiberman and the SecDef job:

Joe Leiberman voted for the resolution that the Senate passed a few weeks ago that would force the Pres to come to Congress and report on progress in Iraq and that calls for an eventual withdrwal after progress has been shown. Sen. Kerry was trying not to fall into the media and RW trap of agreeing that Democrats are in such disarray that they can't agree on anything. This is not true and Dems agree with each other way more than they agree with Bush. (Even Leiberman, as his vote on that resolution shows.) I thought this was an 'us' comment as opposed to a 'me' comment. (Us is, of course, the Senate Democrats and part of Kerry's job is to speak as a member of the Senate Democrats and show some loyalty and play some defense.)

What makes Iraq, and by extension, America safer?

Again, Sen. Kerry is a loyal American and wants the Dec. 15th elections to succeed in bringing about a real national referendum in hopes that it will make the job of our troops easier and safer. There is great news in the paper this morning that the Sunnis clerics are calling FOR the Sunnis to participate in the elections. I can only pray that this is real and that it gets stronger in the build up to the elections. It would solve a lot of problems.

We need that summit after the elections. This puts the ball in the Iraqi court and bring together all the allies and regional players in the area. This is the 'politicl solution.' We can't completely delineate a plan for safety until some of the building blocks are in place. This is one of those building blocks. Get that done, then move on to the next thing. This would make Iraq, and by extension America, safer.

I thought it was a good interview. I thought he made his points, avoided some traps and that he was very clear about his objectives.

Some people will turn the channel before he got into the meat of everything. Having said that, by the end he got a fair amount of info out there. But someone in GD said about the same thing as me (about him dodging Shieffer's question 3xs), and then said that we need a different nominee in '08. Obviously, I don't feel the same way, but I am a bit of an expert on JK's Iraq plan and various other plans, so I KNOW that how JK performs on one Sunday program does not reflect what he's about, but others don't know anything, and they turn him on and see him dodging questions right out of the gate. And they draw their own conclusions. We live in a fast paced society. He has GOT to learn to start strongly to get people to stay tuned. IMO he didn't do that this morning. But I agree with you, Tay Tay, that he was good about promoting Democratic unity and such.

the Sunday talking head shows. Their real use to the country, especially in an off-year, is as a source of sound bites and when they are viewed in general. I saw a sound bite from Kerry's appearance this morning on the evening news and it went to his strong answer in the second half on a litany of what needs to happen now. I think Kerry did what he wanted to do.

There were two things that got short shrift in the interview. The first was the notion of John McCain being SecDef (because of his sponsorship of the anti-torture amendment, I'll bet) and the crucial summit that Kerry wants held after the Dec 15th election. I know that the total interview time was brief (around, what 15 minutes total or so) but I would have liked another sentence on the first and another paragraph stressing the importance of the second. I really think that without what is implied by this conference then you can't answer the question.

I thought one of his strongest answers was the one about the factions in Iraq finally gaining some political power and then kicking out Zarqawi (sp?). That made a lot of sense and was very strongly put. It goes to the heart of the question, will we be safer if we pull out? Yes, but we have to do everything we can diplomatically to encourage Iraqis to keep out foreign troublemakers.

I didn't think the opening was that bad. I like that he goes after Rumsfeld as much as possible. Rumsfeld is an incompetent boob who shouldn't be there.

With bsh's ratings in the toilet, alot of people are having 'buyer's remorse'. Alot of people are probably wondering the same thing.

I have a feeling that Kerry is going to be asked that question ALOT.
He can't skirt around the answer. He needs to say something. Other than - wait and see what I'm gonna do different next time.

Do I have an answer what he should say? NO! Tell the truth - voting probs, the media spin? NO! I don't have a clue what his answer should be, but I think he needs to address that question.

Every candidate may sometimes experience a loss. I personally think if an answer is needed, he can say, I believe there are things I'd do differently and I'm movin forward towards improving lives (for Americans) here and now!!!

or as a friend of mine once said, 'FIMO'.

and in his efforts to rebuild the grassroots and bring them back into the Democratic Party. That also means that it wasn't 'his' failure alone, it was a failure of the Democratic Party. (And one that goes back a long way. It actually preceeds Clinton into the White House. Clinton was lucky in that Ross Perot ran and the problem on internal Democratic slinptering was a fatal error.)

If this is the case, then how can you talk about it? He is, correctly in my judgement, saying that it's a systemic problem inherent in the Democratic Party. That's a book, not a sound bite for Sunday morning. I think his answer was good, given that he didn't have an hour to extrapolate all that data. (Which is not a subject for a quick interview anyway.)

There is SO much to John Kerry, and you just don't get to see a fraction of all the great ideas he has and how he feels about this war. Everything is so polished and reduced to a couple of tired zingers against Rumsfeld (I mean it isn't breaking news that he should have been fired back in 2003). But he is sort of trapped in that talky pointy soundbity format, and the real John Kerry never gets to come out. Kerry on C-SPAN and at special events are the best way to see him. Press interviews stink. Reporters ask stupid questions and the politicians don't answer them and talk about something else not related to the question. It's frustrating as hell to watch. I think the only point to watch them is to see what tie he is wearing. I mean think about it -- the big "angle" of the interview is that Kerry is not against Lieberman to be Sec. of Defense. The whole thing is based on speculation, and is just plain stupid and irrelevant.

It's not news and we learn nothing new.

I think Kerry should think of another way to get on TV. Or get interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS who isn't interested in pointless speculation, and gives the person time to lay out what they want to say.

drop the no permanent bases bombshell. I jumped up dancing. And the rest was smooth.

The Rumsfeld exchange calls into question Bush's entire administration. I like how Kerry threw in Colin Powell, as if to say the Bush team's entire strategy is premised on deception.

They serve to both make and contain news. Kerry articulated that the Dems are much closer together on fundamental points on Iraq strategy than the media is giving them credit for. This was a very good thing. Dome of the media treatment of the Dems is inherently unfair, they pit one against the other and then don't bother to really listen as to where they agree.

I saw Cong. Murtha on ABC this morning and he was much more conciliatory with the Pentagon and the Bush Admin than he has been in weeks. He brushed aside some of his more strident early concerns by saying that the Admin is moving toward a withdrawal policy and that he was more happy with them. His current read on the Admin is that they will be out of Iraq by next Dec. (Hmmmm, Murtha was very happy with that, being out by next Dec. Methinks a transcript from ABC with those words on it will be on DU in the morning. I wonder what the reaction will be and if Murtha will be seen as backsliding?)

I believe Kerry when he says that he is focused on 2006 and the mid-terms. I also believe that his purpose right now in appearing on the talk shows and radio is to promote his plan but also to start to focus on where Dems agree on Iraq. If we are to successfully nationalize the 2006 mid-terms and make the issues resonate, then we need all hands on deck to steer the ship in the right direction. I thought Kerry did a better job at trying to get the interviewer to see this than any other Dem I've seen. Harry Reid should be very happy about this. His Dems are 'team players.' We need more of this to diffuse the media talking points that Dems are rudderless and divided and can't agree on a broad plan. They can. Even, as Kerry was right to point out, Leiberman. Build on this. It's very important, maybe the most important thing to come out of the interview.

Bush pushed this war and 9/11 to scare Americans into not changing horses. Sheeple across the country listened.

Remember the terror alert? Have you heard about it since November 2004.

Fuck you Bob, I'm not going to let the talking points this week be about why I think I lost. Oh no no, the quotes are going to be about Democrats being united on the war, a plan to end it, bringing troops home over the holidays, what a disaster Rumsfeld is.

Maybe that's one of the things he learned.

...as usual. I respect all the insight given in this thread about his performance. I think there is truth in most of what has been said. But I also think that most of the general public does not follow Kerry like we do. I've been very frustrated that Kerry's Georgetown speech with his thoughtful plan forward in Iraq has not been covered at all. This interview provided Kerry another forum to get that information out to those people who haven't heard his plan at all yet (and I think that's a lot of people). I would guess that was the goal...and if so, he did VERY well!:patriot:

even tho his first segment was slow. He is intelligent and articulate with a PLAN on how to isolate the insurgents. It's been so long since any one mentioned a real honest to goodness PLAN on the tee and vee that I almost fell off the couch.

I don't mean to be the Sunday Morning Grump. Maybe it's a case of way too high expectations for 10 to 15 minutes max of JK. But all of the stuff I was talking about is sincere. If I could ask him a serious question it would be about the danger of al Qaeda using Iraq as a base to attack America. It's not a * talking point as far I'm concerned. It's important. And Schieffer kind of asked that and I was frustrated that JK didn't point blank answer the question. But it doesn't negate the rest of the interview that went very well.

Actually, my favorite part was when the reporters asked him about "do you ever wonder why you lost to this guy" and his reaction. That footage was actually worth the time to check out the interview. What a smile (and genuine) to what for many would have been a painful question. That guy has got some class!

not a grump at all. Just voicing your opinion about this particular interview which is perfectly your right to do!

I guess I am a bit defensive today as the GD seems to be ripping him because of the lost election... again and again and again. (Just insane.) I usually flip around from one station to the other and finding Kerry on one station made me miss most of the other interviews I watch on Sunday as I truly enjoy hearing him speak and am interested in his take on things. There are not many people in Washington that I think are interesting enough to merit that kind of attention. Just wish more people shared my opinion on that...

But you are welcome to agree/disagree... I love DU for the discussion aspect of this. Please don't think my statement was a critique of what you said. I was just acknowledging that the first part was a bit slow.

So I'm a bit of a dissenter, although everyone knows I love and respect JK here on the JK forum, which is probably the reason you guys are putting up with my whining! So I wasn't directing my post to you only, and sincerely hope that the majority of people thought it was a great interview! I'm probably just nitpicking. I taped the interview so maybe I'll take a second look and see if my first impression was too harsh.

There is no purpose to any lock-step thread here. (And it would be awfully boring. Can you imagine 59 posts of, "I thought he was great!" followed by, "Me too!" We would never, ever have gone to 56,000 posts if we did that. We would be a dead forum.)

You bring up legitimate concerns. I think I was more interested in what he had to say on other Democrats because I perceive that as the biggest trap. The media wants the Dems to splinter and go after each other. I wish the program was longer so that Sen. Kerry could have said more about winning the House in '06 and more Dem seats and possibly the Senate in '06 as well. That seems to be what sticks in my head today. (And I loved the post in here from Faye that said he was thinking about election fraud. Nice!)

Who died and made me the Queen of Sheba? You saw what you saw and are right to bring up your concerns. At the very least, you made us all pause and think. (OMG, we had pause and think time in the Kerry forum again -- like that man never made us all pause and think before, LOL! Isn't that what he does best?)

Keep bringing up what you think. It sinks in to the rest of us. And it's, ahm, what you think. Since when is it a good idea to repress what you think just because someone else thought differently. Your views are as legitimate as anyone else's and certainly as earned and honest.

I didn't get to watch the interview, but just hearing your points and reading the transcript, I know what you mean. He did answer the question at the end of the second question, but Scheiffer came back with it again anyway so that didn't help. But the answer about why he thought the drawdown would make us safer was sort of buried in there. I see what you mean completely. But all in all, I think it was a very good interview.

I know what he needs, he needs that lesson in tell them what you're going to say, say it, then tell them that you said it.

can be watched here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml

I just donwloaded and read the entire transcript. Kerry did an awesome job. He was on for less than 20 minutes with commercial and other interruptions and hit a number of excellent points:

SCHIEFFER: ...the election. Senator, I want to go directly to what I think is the core question here. When the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was here three weeks ago, I asked him would the security of the American people, not the Iraqi people, but would the security of the American people be endangered if we brought home our American troops over the next six months? His answer was, `Absolutely,' and one of the things he said was, `Turning Iraq over to the terrorists who behead people would make for a more dangerous world.' How do you answer the question?

Sen. KERRY: Well, to begin with, I'm amazed Secretary Rumsfeld is still there. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld has misconducted this war in the most extraordinary way from the first decisions about when and how to go in through the last two-and-a-half years. And if there was ever a lack of accountability, it is the lack of accountability on the secretary. In fact, just this last week, General Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had to publicly correct the secretary of Defense about torture. The secretary of Defense said, `You don't report--our troops have no obligation to do anything except report torture.' And General Pace publicly countermanded him and said, `No, Mr. Secretary, they have an obligation to stop it.' I think we need a secretary of Defense who thinks like John McCain, not like Dick Cheney...

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well...

Sen. KERRY: ...and that's the starting point.

SCHIEFFER: And I want to get back to the torture question in a minute, but I'd like to go back to the original question.

Sen. KERRY: All right.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the American people's security would be endangered if we withdrew our forces over the next six months?

Sen. KERRY: I believe that you have to begin with the fundamental truth of the ground in Iraq. That fundamental truth has been set forth by none other than General Casey, the commander of our forces. He has said that the large presence of American forces in Iraq feeds the notion of occupation and it delays--this is critical--delays the willingness and ability of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves. Now that truth from our commanding general, you take it on its face. Then you have to operate on that which means you begin to reduce the number of troops. No one that I know of even on a six-month basis believes that that's going to leave us in a more exposed basis. Why? Let me tell you. We're not fighting World War II, Bob. The dangers in Iraq on a day-to-day basis to our troops are what basically, fundamentally, IEDs, improvised explosive devices, and suicide bombers. You don't need troops trained on the level of World War II or NATO troops and others in order to be able to do what we need to do, provide security in Iraq. And our troops could redeploy, pull back into a more garrisoned rear position. They don't need to leave totally so that you have no ability to intervene in the event that Iran played their games or Syria or others. We can provide for the security of our country but it begins with the understanding that success in Iraq is predicated on an exit strategy.

SCHIEFFER: So what you're saying here is it is more dangerous to the American people to leave the troops there than to begin drawing them down? Is that what I take from your answer?

Sen. KERRY: It is more dangerous to the mission to leave them in the large numbers they're in today in the status quo. The president keeps saying we're going to stay the course. Staying the course leaves the Iraqis the option of making the decision of when they stand up. If you say to the Iraqis--here's what I believe the president should do. I--these elections are incredibly important. I believe they're going to be successful. We want them to be successful. The day after the election, the president of the United States should announce to the Iraqis and the world, `Because they were successful, because the referendum was successful, I am withdrawing the 20,000 additional troops we put in to do them.'

SCHIEFFER: All right. All right.



snip... (after the Rummy clip)

SCHIEFFER: ...`Here's what he ought to do'; well, they're saying they're going to do that.
Sen. KERRY: That had never been said until it was said that Sunday, which followed almost directly on the speech I gave at Georgetown University, where I called on the drawdown and told them precisely why they could do that.
SCHIEFFER: So...

Sen. KERRY: That was the first time publicly they acknowledged what I had said. Now I believe the president needs to reiterate it, but it's not all he needs to say. He needs to make clear what this administration has never made clear: We will have no permanent basing and no permanent interest in Iraq. And part of the problem that feeds the insurgency today is that we are, like it or not, the inheritors of the legacy of both the British and the French. It is not a pretty legacy in that part of the world. And so the president needs to make it clear: 20,000 troops are coming out. We intend to shift additional responsibilities with a series of benchmarks-- political, economic benchmarks, military benchmarks. And as those benchmarks are met, then we withdraw. And that negates what the secretary and the president have said. It does not make Americans more threatened. It, in fact, improves the situation for Americans, because it will empower us to do more with respect to Syria, Iran, the region, the peace process, as well as free us up to do what we always should have been doing, which is getting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.


snip...

Sen. KERRY: Of course, I'd support Joe Lieberman. He's a friend and he's a very capable guy. But that's all inside Washington stuff, Bob. You know, what people really care about is how we're going to protect our country and get your troops home in a way that is successful. Now...

SCHIEFFER: Do you think Lieberman would do a better job than Rumsfeld?

Sen. KERRY: Well, right--I think a lot of people would do a better job than Secretary Rumsfeld. But let me come to the more important issue...

SCHIEFFER: Go back.

Sen. KERRY: ...80 percent of the Iraqi people have said they want us to leave. They want us out. The Iraqi leaders met in Cairo a week or so ago and asked to have us set a timetable for withdrawal. Forty-five percent of the people in Iraq believe that it's OK to kill Americans. Secretary Melvin Laird, the secretary of Defense under Richard Nixon, broke his silence of 30 years and said in an important article in Foreign Affairs that it is the large American presence of troops that feeds the insurgency. And he said you have to have a slow drawdown to establish confidence in the Iraqis themselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

(I missed the show because we were in the DC area for a Bar Mitzvah this week-end)

I think Kerry simply took control of the interview. The first "evasion" was important - Scheiffer in Sunday morning talk set Rumsfeld up as the expert - who said that fewer troops would mean risk of terrorism here. Kerry's first answer attacks the credibility of that staement by showing he was wrong every step of the way. It would have been a bigger mistake to simply address the question first - as there was a danger of more "Rumsfeld said" to any response.

He puts Bush's stay the course into the Iraqi perspective even referring to the colonial heritage of distrust. He then does explain his plan in a way that shows it could lead to more stability in Iraq - as he has many times before and points out this leaves us able to cope with other problems. As to McCain or Lieberman replacing Rumsfeld - Kerry called for Rumsfeld to resign almost 2 years ago. Either of those 2 would be better than almost anyone else because the SOD follows the President's orders - but they are both men of integrity. Not to mention, it's unlikely Bush will kick out Rumsfeld, so it would be very stupid of Kerry to say (of 2 peers) he would vote against them. (With McCain, we get a Senate seat).

As to identitfying reasons for his loss, I agree it's a trap. He would be a fool to say that it was media bias. As to any errors he himself made, speaking about them would reinforce them and if it was something that wasn't seen, he should just quietly correct it.

As one reading this not having seen it, I could be off base, but what I don't see are any major controversies or gaffes. I have yet to see a few of DU's favorites ever have a long interview, not followed with at least 4 or 5 days of controversy for some statement.

I missed it, I think I got football in its place too.

I watched the clips and then read the interview. I think it looked very good. What I caught was that he was trying to meld his plan with Murtha's, so that the entire party would have one voice. He seemed to integrate the ideas of Murtha's troops being there to prevent a terrorist takeover of the country with his own slower drawdown, and the need to push the political and economic solutions too. I just thought it was really good and I hope to hear Murtha say the same thing shortly.

Too bad he's not a team player, huh? :sarcasm:

to if he gave the administration the benefit of the doubt ?

Kerry was great on the Show. He said a lot of things that needed to be said. Mostly, he said clear and loud what the core of his thinking was:
"NO PERMANENT BASES OR PERMANENT INTERESTS IN IRAQ" . He also made clear that the US forces in Iraq were part of the problem and were making us less safe. He also said that Bush was not straightforward (I was disappointed by Murtha earlier declaring victory -- saying that the Bush team was moving in the right direction, because it is obviously wrong).

Obviously, the crazy crowd on GD was due to react when the name of Lieberman came, but I really think that him and McCain are the best that we can hope from Bush.

I also noticed that the Kerry bashers were not the usual suspects, but people who are not even Democrats and have been busy attacking ANY Democrats recently.

1. No Permanent Bases. Say it loud, say it often.

2. Totally clear on the "deliberately misleading" meme. Someone like Kos will find something to nitpick about, but I thought it was perfect.

I thought he was wonderful - short, clear answers, strong, and he avoided all the obvious traps.

Oh, and I loved his answer to the "why did you lose?" question. I think he's totally smart to not dwell on the past - once he starts down that road they could keep him there forever. It's a trap. And a challenge - he said, if he decides to run we'll see what he learned in action. I think that's putting himself right on the line.

You guys are right. He first needed to attack the credibility of Rummy, and he, in fact, did answer the question once he listed certain caveats. The thing is was that I was wrong about what I heard. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. But that fellow John Kerry -- he's just too smaht for me. And are y'all sure he's not Irish? We Irish have a way of talking where we paint a tapestry of words that are vitally important to the big story even if it seems we are on a different tangent. JK did just that this morning covering an incredible amount of bases in one swoop. I sit here humbled by his intellect.

were about the Lieberman comment. Here's what I heard:

Schieffer: If bush* nominated Lieberman for Sec of Def, would you support him?

Kerry: Of course I would, do you think I'm a freaking idiot? Now back to the point of the interview...

Scheiffer: Do you think Lieberman would do a better job than Rummy?

Kerry: Of course he would, do you think he's a freaking idiot? Now back to the point of the interview...


WTF was he supposed to say?

I agree that his deflection at the beginning of the interview was a tactic. He wasn't going to let Scheiffer control the conversation. It seemed a little disjointed at first, but it was effective overall.
When you know you have to get to your destination very quickly, you're better off being the one in the driver's seat.

*I'm* a freaking idiot, but I know I wouldn't be if you would only promise to translate what is really being said in every interview from now on...

I didn't expect the laugh, which made it all the sweeter. :-)

I'm so sure that is EXACTLY what JK was thinking!:yourock:

then the big issue that the whores would latch on to would be about how Kerry refuses to support Lieberman rather than the real issues about what is going on in Iraq and what we need to do.

and of course other Democrats would come out to distance themselves from Kerry and make clear that they would support Lieberman.

They did not really have a choice. Either they do that, either they explicitely oppose Reid, who is trying to hold the caucus together on issues where some people really disagree.

Of course, if Kerry had done that, the GD crowd would have said that he was trying to get the limelight.

I can see that most people on GD did not watch. It is not an endorsement of McCain as SecDef. It is a call to fire Rummy and Cheney.

Totally in the dark on that. Was he on a program this morning? I admit it, by the time I got up my sons had taken the tv hostage, all football, all the time. In fact, it's STILL ON.

(I have not seen Biden, but it does not surprise me he would go in this direction, and I was happy to see Kerry did not go).

Of course, he goes on by criticizing Boxer and Kerry on Lieberman. While I tend to agree with the criticism, I dont think they have a choice on that (caucus politics oblige).

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/120405.htm#120505

"Face the Nation" did not show at the usual time during this morning, instead San Diego CBS right-wing owned CH 8 played damn football all day. I kept looking for it. It didn't play at all. Finally I got pissed and checked their website for the local schedule.

"Face the Nation" will be shown at 1:30 am 12-5. You think the neo-cons at KFMB in San Diego did that on purpose, since the interview was with JK?

Bastards.

Now I have to set my VCR to record it.

They couldn't be more transparent.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

But Sen. Kerry also said he was in San Diego yesterday. That was where he got some confirmation from a retired General with knowledge of on-the-job operations in Iraq of the status of the war.

AHm, I don't think he gave a speech or anything. He does get around a lot.

I wonder if he will give a speech or press interviews this week after Bush delivers another speech on Iraq on Wednesday. That would be interesting. I bet he, at the least, calls one of the talk shows.

...on the motorcycle on the I-15 Freeway (the one who kept staring at my 'John Kerry for President' sticker and my '20,000 troops home by the holidays' sign) WAS really John Kerry!:7


Oh,well, one can dream, can't one?:hi:

You mean he was here in San Diego and he didn't give me a call?

We could have hit the waves and surfed at his old stomping grounds in OB (Ocean Beach).

Yesterday, was an awesome post frontal day after the rain, and perfect for free-flying at Torrey Pines. We could have gone paragliding together. Now I know he has let his USHGA membership lapse, but that is easily fixed (he has a H4 advanced rating license for hang gliding you know).

We could have at least gone out for a beer.

"aaaahhhh . . . beeeerrr"
---Homer Simpson
:toast:

Sen. Kerry told that guy in Boston that he could go cycling with him. Going hang-gliding with you sounds, ahm, very doable. (I mean really, it does, doesn't it. You know what your doing, he likes to hang out with people who really love the particular sports in question, hey, it could happen.)

was because they were discussing Rumsfeld's failure when it comes to the issue of torture. this is one area that McCain has actually been on the right side of the issue and whatever one may personally think of McCain he is a strong ally on this issue.