BGlobe article on Kerry post on DKos: Not bad.

In outreach, Kerry posts to a liberal political blog
Bin Laden, Bush, Alito among topics he takes to task
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | February 3, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/03/in_outreach_kerry_posts_to_a_liberal_political_blog?mode=PF

WASHINGTON -- In an effort to reach grass-roots liberal activists, Senator John F. Kerry has begun posting entries to a blog that his presidential campaign disavowed in 2004.

Kerry has posted three entries in the past two weeks to DailyKos.com, a popular website known for freewheeling political discussions and left-wing bent.

The Massachusetts Democrat distanced himself from the site, which was linked to his campaign website, in 2004 after what his campaign termed an unacceptable comment by the site's author about the slayings of four US contractors in the Iraqi city of Fallujah. The bodies of two of the contractors had been hung from an iron bridge over the Euphrates River.

The site's author, Markos Moulitsas, called the contractors ''mercenaries," and added, ''They are there to wage war for profit" and then dismissed them with a profanity.

more

Boyd's quote is excellent, and 3,000 responses: Wow!

many calls were generated to senators from Kerry's call for filibuster. Why didn't they address how the media kept repeating "Switzerland" and "elitist" over and over again, simply repeating what Scott McLellan said? In fact, the filibuster was launch not from a place but cyberspace. I guess that is still incomprehensible to the MSM.

And Kos, basically lied when he said the comments were the typical response to a politician. I'd never seen a diary that big before, and I used to read Kos every day. Too bad the reporter hadn't done some research to compare number of comments on Kerry's diary vs. other politicians. There also wasn't the emotion, like you said Tay Tay with other diaries. Also, every time Kos mentions Kerry in a post, it generates a TON of comments. In short, Kerry stirs up a lot of emotions, negative and positive, on the web.

Still, like you said "not bad".

from the malcontents after admitting that most of the posts were positive. In their 'pull quote' from the article, they cited two bad comments and one good. This is a false representation of what was said and is opposite of what their own article states. Sigh! We have a ways to go with the media. Still, it is nice to get notice about this and a fairly decent article that is clear and easy to follow. So many papers still view 'bloggers' as the enemy that is trying to steal their function and jobs. At least this was 'half good.'

just makes the person who said it look stupid.