Thread on FDL concerning Kerry and censure

I let you read it, because it is long, reasonnable, and difficult to cut without changing the meaning of the text.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/31/censure-hearing-today-fdl-patriot-action/

My impression:

- The blogger is very respectuous of the interview, even if the interview did not give her the answer she was expecting/hoping(?).

- It lets me wondering where Kerry is on this issue. When we called the office a couple weeks ago, several people got the same answer that Kerry was supporting Feingold's actions, though he had not made a public statement yet. At this point, he still has not made his statement and what this staffer said seems to be different (not opposing, just not taking position).

- I know this is just ranting once again and that there are people who disagree with me here, but I dont understand a silence that is just confusing. Is he for Feingold's actions? If not, why? Sometimes, it gets better just by saying where you stand and it creates a lot less confusion.

I guess I will send another email asking the question.

This said, I will stop to answer that the Senator supports it as it seems more and more clear that he is not ready to say so.

NOTE: I noticed the meeting was in the Boston office, which may be part of the confusion.

Kerry stands on the censure issue, along with every other Dem who was not in sight today. I'm very frustrated with the whole party at this point. I love Kerry, but think he needs to say something one way or the other; at least then we'd know.

and maybe I'm just being pissy here, but if Feingold didn't bother to ask him, maybe JK doesn't feel he needs to respond.

I'm sure he gets a ton of communications from people with all kinds of issues, and maybe even with rabid bloggers calling, it just doesn't rate next to other real concrete issues that people have. I am sorry, I can't get too worked up over censure because I don't see the practical result that can come from it at this time.

Meanwhile, I read this thing about how someone could be using my SSN and I would not know until my credit was ruined, and there is no way I could even find out about it before something bad happens. AND the government has the info they need to stop it - they just need to be told to friggin' DO IT.

THAT'S the kind of stuff I need Kerry to be fixing. But, 99.99% of DU apparently doesn't care.

It really looks like censure is not in the cards now. Kerry has said he wants it investigated and that it breaks the law. Feingold unilaterally made this an issue - if it goes to a vote, it could be spun as vindication of what Bush did. (The other thing is that it is a somewhat close case - unless it was done for reasons not related to security. We suspect but don't know this.)

Why should Kerry take a stand until its put up for a vote. What if the text changes between then and now. (Seeing that people here consider a Senator changing their vote during the vote a flip flop - it makes sense to wait and see what, if anything comes of investigation, before declaring. (Otherwise it's Alice in Wonderland, verdict first, then trial (investigation in this case). Remember that not only did they not threaten Feingold on the Alito cloture vote, there were some making the argument that in his case voting yes could be principled.

I agree that looking into this SS issue is something that should be done - that they know where these people are and do nothing is strange.

calling JK and other Senators not on the Judiciary committee demanding to know where they stand and that they support censure. The measure isn't up for a vote. Kennedy and Durbin have already stated their positions publicly. In addition, Kennedy sent out an e-mail yesterday.



The labeling of all Democrats as "cowering" before they even reviewed the resolution, the constant "pink tutu" reference and the calls even after support had been indicated is obnoxious.

I was just thinking about how JK didn't really take a stand on Alito until several after the hearings, and then he led the filibuster of that nomination. That kind of commitment to an issue is often the result of a long decision-making process, and this issue is certainly important enough to warrant some patience.

And I noted this in the comments there -

I gave up sending FDL Kerry news that I frequently send to other A List blogs, because unlike the other A List blogs like C&L, Atrios, Dibbt, FDL never responds or links.


MH - on the SS issue. Most of the stolen SS numbers used by immigrants don't have the person's indentity who they were stolen from on that fake ID's. Imagine a guy who clearly looks Latino carrying an SS card with an anglo name. A large protion the numbers they use are also made up.

I wrote my post above really quickly as I was headed out for work tonight so it's not as coherent as I would've liked.

There's so many comments on this thread I'd like to reply to but I need to go to bed.

So on the SSN thing (which I do think is one of many things more important than censure): I posted a separate thread on that. sandnsea set me straight about what is in Kennedy's bill to address this issue, and I'm really happy about that. But I don't think your point (kg) is accurate about the social security card thing. The employers in question are breaking the law to hire cheap labor that won't complain about pesky things like workplace safety standards and such; all they need is a number that will work - nobody's going to look at a card. Anyway, the articles I linked to in my other post are very detailed and well put together - coming from MSNBC with that level of effort, I'm inclined to think they're fairly accurate. And if the articles are NOT accurate on these points, I would love to see the blogosphere do what they do so well and nail them to the wall. But the blogosphere is so twisted up about censure these days they aren't even paying attention.

Ah well. Sigh.

There was a bill passed on the SS issue a couple of years ago - maybe '03, that I have not had time to research more. I did a Google search on Social Security and Illegal Immigrants and turned up a few links on this bill. If I am not mistaken, they (undocumented workers) used to be able to apply for SS numbers before this bill was passed.

I don't disagree about what the employers are doing and I think it sucks that some people are are having their SS numbers used falsely and even having their identity stolen. If I read the article right, those with false SS numbers don'f file taxes, they can't get money back, the employers file the W-2's and many of them are flagged as bogus. The people using the false SS numbers are paying into the system and actually not able to claim anything from it. Money goes into the SS coffers and some of it is indentified as falsely attributed to those SS numbers but the money stays in the system. Meanwhile the undocumented workers with the false SS numbers can't benefit from what they pay in. It really is all screwed up.

This does create a dilema for Kerry and most Demcrats. Ask in private if Bush should be censured and the answer is obviously yes.

Feingold's move is also very poor strategy politically. I'm sure people like Kerry wish Feingold never did this, but also don't want to actually vote against the censure which Bush deserves.

Maybe the best strategy is to 1) vote for censure and 2) after casting the vote, slug Feingold in the nose. :)

There you go the solution from Dr Ron!

Feingold took a unilateral action that tugged at the emotions of the lefty activists. Fair enough. But he sure as hell wasn't considering the fallout from this for other dems who were not consulted.

I like Feingold, and I do believe he's a man of principle. But. He put the other dems in a box of his construction, and I think it's fair that they deal with it in the way they think is best.

I have no problem with Kerry not saying anything. Perhaps it's a case of "if you can't say something nice..." Perhaps he likes the idea but thinks the timing is bad. Perhaps he thinks its a politically stupid move. Who knows? I don't really care, frankly. When he has something to sayy on the subject I'm quite sure he won't be shy about saying it.

Till then, his silence says plenty to me. One of the main reasons I took a break from posting was this furor over this. It seems to me that anyone who thinks Kerry hasn't said in the plainest of terms what a bunch of criminals the administration is, hasn't been listening. He calls them criminals, but isn't wildly enthusiatic about the censure motion. Don't see why that is so hard to reconcile. And. Dr. Ron, if anyone calls Kerry spineless in my hearing I'm going to punch them in the nose!

I actually would not mind about Kerry not saying anything.

It is NOT what he did and this is my problem. His office has been sending mixed messages, and this is what is difficult.

I know I am in a minority here, but I dont see the point of sending mixed messages. It only reinforces stereotypes.

It's my understanding Kerry's office said "he would support a censure" and not that he was supporting Feingold's censure at this time. "a censure" being key wording. Before he actually started the Alito filibuster his office said he "would support a filibuster", not he will filibuster.

Feingold and the bloggers supporting him on this have made it very difficult in my opinion, and meanwhile they ignore other issues that are important. FDL is another Kos in my opinion, high on the attacks of the Dems and full of themselves. They don't help the party they create more division.

questions were about this censure, not an hypotical one.

Not having an official position stating his position after an answer has been given is an error.

As I said, for me it is not a Feingold vs Kerry issue. It is once again an issue of how they communicate. And frankly, playing with words when people call is not a great idea either.

I know I disagree with many here, but I know plenty of people who agree and dont understand why Kerry is not more out there saying things as he sees there. When he does that, he is just wonderful.

as for Kerry's position on Feingold's censure proposal i don't htink he is playing with words. i think he meant it when his office said he would support it.

but i also think it's not a priority for him as some other issues are. just because republicans control congress and the censure itself wouldn't do much to stop anything bush is doing.

but if it came for a vote he would vote for it.

happened (attributed to his staffers). When things get mixed up, it is always better to make things clear. Boxer and Harkin made clear where they stood and then, they stopped talking about it and moved to something else.

He said that he was caught off guard by this and did not know enough. His staff may have responded with out enough info at first. I never called personally, so I don't know. I emailed those I have contact with and was given the impression there was to be no decision at the onset. Phone staffers are often interns.

Something I was told by a staffer in another senator's office is that the great disconnect with our pols and the bloggers is getting bigger because of this mess. There are critical debates going on right now that the netroots should be supporting and they are not - yet they want support on this. The threats and the namecalling from the A List bloggers is not helpful.

JK has his eye on the ball, the bigger picture, so do other Dem Senators. A censure is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. This whole thing is way out of hand IMHO.

I'm glad JK went on the radio yesterday to talk about kids and veterans and not a censure that will never happen. If Feingold wants to fight this battle, more power to him, but other Senators have the right to other priorities.

What are they fighting for:

- an lobbying bill that does nothing (thanks god, Kerry had enough integrity to vote against it)?

- a War on which Democrats cant take a position and whoever wants to take a position seems to be silenced?

- a healthcare crisis nobody wants to talk about?

- an immigration issue where the best bill has sponsors who say that immigrants take jobs nobody wants (without talking about the fact that these jobs would be taken if good working conditions were offered). And I am for immigration, no mistake. Just bring the real issues, like a living wage and striking hard on people who hire illegals (thanks JK for having talked about that), (and I understand why JK is not a pointman on these two issues, this is a subject TK has worked all his life)

- An NSA issue where the only thing the Dems seem to want to talk about is that of Bush had asked them, they would have change the law (once again, Kerry is one of the most outspoken on the fact that he broke the law).

The frustration I see around me from people who respect Kerry is not that he is wrong on issues or anything like that. The frustration is that he does not seem to take the lead on anything. Because of that, little things like his absence of position on censure becomes more obvious.

One of his best speeches, in my opinion, was the Katrina administration speech. He needs to be out more often with speeches like that. Right now, he seems to be too obedient to a leadership that has nothing good to say about him. It is just ridiculous.

I may be pissy because I have not seen a lot of good from Democrats these days and I really would like somebody speaking out, but I am getting tired of waiting.

Apology : here is the subject he is allowed to work on: SBA. He is doing a great job on that and I know it is important, but most people have no idea.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=63370

But I don't. I only know that they are all being rather quiet right now, so I am told.

Kerry took the lead on ANWR - where did it get him? Oh, sorry the blogosphere was obsessing with Feingold's resolution that day.

Kennedy has taken the lead on immigration and what does he get - a spineless acusation.

The war - well it seems to me that the new National Security plan spells out that their plan in that is pretty much JK's not Murtha's. But hey the blogosphere doesn't want that - they want Murtha's.

Frankly, I think it stinks that the liberal blogosphere could give a rat's ass about the issues that JK and others are fighting for. They are speaking out but both the MSM and the liberal blogosphere is NOT paying attention. Shades of election 04 if you ask me.

I've posted stuff the Dems have done in the past few days, speaking about various issues, and the liberal blogosphere has it head wrapped around one issue. I'm damn pissy about that! This isn't helping us at all.

REAL issues are out there that affect REAL people's lives, and the blogosphere is calling Kerry and Kennedy spinless cowards because they haven't give a full press conference in support of Feingold's censure? I am sorry, but after the petty, childish way Feingold introduced the measure, why on earth SHOULD they?

I don't want Bush censured, I want him IMPEACHED. But before that can happen, we need a Democratic congress, so I want to elect Democrats in 2006. I also want the left-wing activists to SUPPORT our good Dems who are trying to fight the Bush agenda every single day, but no, DU and firedoglake and DailyKos would rather scream about shit that doesn't matter.

Frankly, Feingold's resolution is about the worst thing that could have happened at this time. I agree in principle with a censure, but given the fallout, it was a horrible idea. Especially since Feingold clearly announced it with the intention of making himself look like the lone warrior ready to fight Bush, insulted the entire Democratic caucus, and then wonders why none of them are signing on in support. Gee Russ - you catch more flies with honey, know what I mean?

A concept so many people don't get! Good for you WEL for getting that! I'm fed up with the screaming from FDL, Kos, here in GD, on AmericaBlog, and the rest. Where is the substance? Atrios - open thread, open thread, open thread.

I agree with you about the liberal blogosphere. This is not what worries me. What worries me is that people who dont read the liberal blogosphere have even less ideas of what Kerry is doing and it is reinforcing the stupid view that the media has: that he is becoming irrelevant.

They dont necessarily care about the censure, but they care about knowing people stand on issues and they hear that X, Y, or Z are taking the lead on an issue, and it is never Kerry. This is my point.

What I am concerned about is the game the Democratic Leadership is playing ignoring Kerry and the fact that Kerry is not really doing anything against that. (Last thing he did was his talk on Iraq in Nov). BTW, what the Democratic Leadership adopted is not Kerry's plan. It is something that everybody from Lieberman to Murtha can live with.

I understand you dont have the answers. It was not my point. I was just venting my frustration about this situation. It has nothing to do either with Feingold or with the liberal blogosphere. It has to do with the fact we need a leader and nobody these days in the house or the senate seems to want to play this role. (and it is obvious to me that Feingold is not this leader).

He did when he lead the filibuster. He did when he wrote the DSM letter. He did when with his Path Forward and Real Security speeches. He did with his Katrina investigation request and subsequent reports. There was ANWR, PTSD, cracking down on child pornography on the Internet, KidsFirst, the port investigation, the oil royalty and so on. The fact that his ideas were incorporated into the Dems plan points to his leadership. Leadership is also knowing how to compromise and build coalitions.

yeah, she knows he is leading on these things. but people don't see that he is doing it. and that is something i agree he needs to work on.

and not the blogs who only want to complain but real people who do like Kerry, but don't see these things. the problem is largely because of the media. but it's something we need to work on.

but that doesn't equate with no leadership. I agree, the media problem has to be solved. It is also a problem for the Democratic Party.

I also think what Mass and JI7 are saying is that the Dems and media are trying to pretend that Kerry doesn't exist, therefore the non blogspherian American doesn't have a clue as to what Kerry has done or is doing. :shrug:

I understand the Democrats slight of Kerry, but to continue stating that the public at large isn't aware of what Kerry is doing compared to the other Senators, is not correct. There is the fund-raising aspect, he's one of the top. There was the search engine (hits) aspect, he was one to the (or the) top. There was the DCCC survey. There was Cegalis, the blog posts and other indicators.

If people are interested in what's going on, they know as much about Kerry as any other. If they're focusing in on a specific person, they may not know as much, but they can be pointed in the right direction. If they aren't interested, that requires a completely different approach.


People read the papers, the news that posted online. Here's what you get in search:

"John Kerry" 5120
"Russ Feingold" 3,120
"Russell Feingold" 2,710
"Hillary Clinton" 3,730
"Joe Biden" 1,060
"Joseph Biden" 656
"Mark Warner" 493
"Evan Bayh" 450

"John McCain" 8,910


Kerry was really high at the point of the filibuster, as Feingold is now with censure.


The problem with the slight is that they are not giving him credit for being a prominent leader.

typos

other than Kerry and Feingold, McCain gets more coverage than the rest of the Democrats cited combined.

JK has more blog posts on him than Feingold, McCain and Hillary combined

282,680 posts contain: John Kerry
18,226 posts contain: Russ Feingold
62,199 posts contain: John mcCain
102,141 posts contain: Hillary Clinton

http://www.technorati.com/search/

The numbers I posted were from a simple news search on Google, not a really reliable indicator. The MSM spends way too much time on McCain.

How important the blogosphere is in terms of posts about our pols. JK gets a lot of stupid, snarky crap posted from the right. I think it's really important to raise his pressence in the blogosphere.

Part of the whole concept with the liberal blogosphere is to be the media.

Well, if the liberal blogosphere or certain, highly trafficed members of the liberal blogosphere refuse to acknowledge what our dem leaders are doing then what the fuck good are they? Go read this on the Daou report today - http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=2d3fd933-7944-4135-95ec-8aaf8000a48b#

I totally diagree with his points. First he gives Kos's book a big pat on the back for his book which attacks JK and second the push is continue to attack the MSM with these inane Chris Matthews type attacks which distract from the issues.

I feel personally that there is a huge disconnect with the liberal blogosphere and the issues that everyday people care about. We get far more lurkers than commenters but people frequently thank us for talking about the issues. The A List blogs are a cacophony (spelling) of open threads and echoes of each other's thread and not much substance about what our dems are doing outside of their few pet issues of the day, week or month, like the current issue which isn't really an issue - the censure.

So we have duel edged sword, we can't get the media to pay attention and we can't get the A List to pay attention. So what to do. I've been speaking up occassionally on the A List blogs and asking where are the issues? Has anyone else done this?

The search engine hits my blog gets are primarily Kerry searches, but this week there has been a heavy focus on immigration however.

Technorati, the largest blog search engine has 282,661 posts on John Kerry.

I used to spend a lot more time hitting all the A List and posting links to all the Kerry news I post, but I can't do it and make a living at the same time and I have a business to run. I want people on the blogs to know what JK is doing and that's the primary reason for the Dem Daily. Under our categories we have (This is all since late July when we started):

John Kerry 557 posts
John Kerry In The News 241 posts
John Kerry Press Releases/Statements 149 posts
John Kerry Speeches & Floor Statements 61 posts
Senate 592 posts
Democrats 832 posts

I've begged, pleaded and cajoled with JK team for them to do more. I think we all had the impression a while ago that would happen and nothing. I'm frustrated too because I spent countless hours doing all of this and my business is suffering. I do it because outside of the group here, barely anyone acknowledges JK in the blogosphere. So if people can help spread the news around that we have, that would help, I think. We're the greatest source for all things Kerry outside of his websites which we often have stuff before, because they don't update as much as they should.

I'm also open to others from here who want to write about Kerry and post on our frontpage, to please speak up. Ron & I can only do so much. A few more voices there with Kerry news and points of view about what JK is doing would be a plus. I think that they (JK team) are reticent to do more (a blog) because it appears the community is limited.

I don't know if this makes sense to everyone, but in my eyes the problem is the MSM and the blogosphere. We need to prod the other blogs to post stuff, which I do when time permits or post links in their comments. I found three stories with JK mentions last night in the news. I dug for them and they are on the blog. The stuff is out there, we have to make it more visible.

not everyone is connected to the internet. and even on the internet , those who seem to be the loudest aren't always the ones with the most support.

in the primary, of those who used the internet to make their decision on who to vote for, Kerry got the highest percentage.

i mean, it is a problem, but i'm speaking more of outside the blogosphere. there are many more who don't come on the internet regularly.

it's about how to reach these people .

you can take someone like Obama as an example. he is not popular on the blogosphere, but he is popular among most people in the "real world".

Kerry's blog was run very differently than the other candidates blogs during the primaries. In a nutshell we stayed on message there and it worked. Yes, Kerry's website was highly trafficed and now there is none and the blogosphere does not exist for JK outside of the Dem Daily and a handful of others who occassionally post about him.

The online community goes online and reads and shares what they read with people off line. If the liberal blogosphere isn't supporting JK or other Dems for that matter it doesn't get out there to those who don't read the blogs.

More and more people get their news online than ever and blogs have become the hottest source for news. The top trafficed liberal blogs are Kos, C&L, FDL, AmericaBlog, Atrios, DU, Raw Story.

Maybe. :shrug:

who is not popular on the blogosphere and yet popular in the "real world". in fact many who are liked on the "blogosphere" arenot that well liked outside of it.

i imagine if/when Kerry decides to start up a national campaign again, his own website will be open and active again.

also, the ones who complain the most on the internet are those with certain agendas. i don't think these people would help Democrats even if it was mostly positive things happening. there are a certain type that just likes to complain and likes to be angry and play victim. in fact i would rather they NOT be out campaigning for whatever i support since they would most likely turn people off.

Obama more popular? Who lays claim to popularity according to the MSM: Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Guliani???

It's impossible to equate political popularitry with leadership or legislative efforts and successes.

or Giuliani or McCain.

Obama's speech to the convention and even what he is continuing to do IS very good. but even the popular support he has at the moment doesn't really mean support if he were to run fro President. most view him as a very good potential candidate in the future. nothing soon though.

i think Kerry can do the same as he did in the Primary. i certainly wont depend on whore sites like Kos to help out. the best is just to get out there ourselves and do what we can. in the "real world" most people are willing to listen and care about things that often aren't the biggest concern of the "blogosphere".

McCain mostly does well because of the media whores. but you can see it doesn't pay off too much since he lost the nomination and most Republicans aren't too big on him even after all the sucking up to Bush. Giuliani is anotehr media whore creation as some hero of 9/11.but i imagine the same thing that happened to his bitch Bernie Kerik may happen to him.

i'm not sure what to do. one of the problems is not the whoring for candidates as much as just what news and issues the media reports on. the problem is more that the media's horrible reporting has resulted in majority of americans thinking Saddam and Iraq were involved in the 9/11 . and currently the immigration stuff and the demonizing of immigrants and certain people who look different. the same with Katrina and how they made the victims out to be a bunch of unlawful people.

He's pro choice, supports gay rights, supports gun control, and during his divorce lived with a gay couple, I think someone like Allen would jump on that, I mean republis but republicans act like they love Guilani and maybe they do but they won't nominate him for president which is a good thing since he would be tough to beat, similiarly is the Hagel situation, Hagel will be given hell for having a not so black and white stance on foreign policy and not being a supporter of the Bush Doctrine. McCain's attempts to kiss the right wing asses of the Falwells and the like will also fail too I think. I think the GOP nominee will end up being someone like a governor lets say Romney or a solidly right wing senator like Allen. McCain won that straw poll yes but Romney's showing was impressive considering hes a governor of a liberal state. Though I think Romney's hypocrisy may be exposed.

jumps on Romney for his "flip flopping" and i hope they use that term also.

i hope there is a fringe candidate like Keyes or Bauer to call out those with real chances on moving too much to the center in order to win. one problem with the 2000 primary was they all focused on McCain but Bush ended up getting the nomination.

Romney may have done well because of his bashing his home state, but he went too far with the attacks on Kerry personally and had to apologize. it would be good to keep bringing that up also.

i can't wait for McCain to lose the primary after all his ass kissing.

Frist or allen would be great.

i remember watching the Republican Primary debates. it's so funny how the issues important to them are SOOOOOOO far from what we would care about.

their biggest applauses are of course when candidates answer about how much they oppose gays and abortion.

i wanted to puke when Bush answered to a question that his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. and then all the rest of the idiots jumped in with "me too". i heard how that was the moment Bush truly secured the religious nut cases vote which make up most of the republican primary voters.

it was funny when Bauer tried to "out moralize" Keyes by bringing up the mosh pit thing while the "cop hating band" rage against the machine was playing.

these things were the huge controversial issues for these fools. hahaha.

Seriously please Alan run again and go to a moshpit again too. Hopefully we get another christian right guy running, I was only one when Robertson ran in 88 but I heard he actually did decent.

impossible. Eleanor Clift put out a piece this evening about the Dems needing to take a stand on national security. She obviously just returned from Mars.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=78795&mesg_id=78811

rarely ever look at what is actuallly going on and just repeat bs .

i prefer people like E.J. Dionne who actually look at what politicians are doing and write based on those things.

It is crazy that she would write this the week they had an event on this - or maybe she was confused and thought it was a rerun (on CSPAN from 2004) because I doubt she will be pleased they took Kerry's ideas. She is a another non- Kerry fan.

These are the people who dominate the blogosphere, and it is not helpful. Wouldn't it be better to get other blogs that are not like the A List blogs in the forefront. Not just mine, but ToughEnough, FaithfulProgressive, Bob Geiger... there's a lot of good blogs out there that have a lot of news about what the Dems are doing but they don't get the traffic.

My business attracts clients from all over the country and I frequently talk about poltics with my clients. They all are fascinated by my connection to the last campaign and say they hope JK will run again. He is far more popular than Obama in my opinion and Kerry certainly gets more MSM coverage and blog coverage than Obama.

Also, the fact that someone is popular doesn't totally translate to support. Obama is a good example. The only things most people know about him are that he gave a wonderful speech at the DNC, that he is well spoken, handsome and had a huge win against a lunatic in the ILL race. If he announced tomorrow that he was running for President (Maureen Dowd would be happy), but most people would feel it was far too soon and he needed to strengthen his credentials.

Kerry has the opposite problem - he easily convinced people in 2004 that he had the gravitas, experience and intelligence to be a good President (and this shouldn't be minimized.) The question for him is can he be seen as "popular" enough. Most of the not likable things were not built on reality, so fortunately he doesn't have to have a "New Kerry" (like Nixon needed). The tough thing he needs to do is change perceptions of people who formed them based on very little information. I don't know how many NJ articles on his events here commented on how good he was with the crowds and how different he was from when he campaigned (elsewhere) in 2004. Having watched CSPAN, his 2004 interactions were every bit as good - even better as there was intense optimism of winning.

I would guess that his best chance is that most of his competitors will fail the gravitas test (making their personas irrelevant) and that the media may repeat the NJ observation - talking about a Kerry who has opened up and is sharing more of himself - (implicitly criticizing his 2004 campaign because it's easier than saying the media was complicit) and that this makes it easier to see that he is likable, that he is shy (or private) rather than aloof, and that he has become a "New Kerry". (even if he looks the same to us.)

very frequently in the MSM. And people know he is.

I agree that Kerry is getting very little credit for what he does, but he is leading and it is often his position that people ultimately come to. The other thing is that when Kerry does speak out on many of these issues, he really is better than many others. The hope is that with the radio shows, the cable shows, and the Sunday shows - what people see is a person still fighting, still absolutely solid and compelling. At this point, he is still mentioned -down the list - but still mentioned as a contender.

It may be that he is being the good team player that he is, but putting out his vision on issues and not demanding what he likely wouldn't get. Demanding that the Senate Democrats treat him as a leader would seem fair - he won the nomination very easily - so obviously the Democratic populace was positive about him, but he would be facing people who see the future with Hillary. The Democrats don't have many big platforms - and they will not give one to Kerry, who if allowed the normal status of party leader as the former nominee - could use it to increase his chances for 2008.

The other possible reason is that neocon ideas are not just on the Republican side. Kerry, whose first and possibly strongest influence on foreign policy was his father really doesn't buy these ideas. Remember that the NYT (and I think the WP)was very positive about Bush's 2nd inaugural address where he talked about spreading democracy. There was also a Biden speech where he referred to that speech as Kennedy with a southern drawl. We know Lieberman is ok with it. It very well may be that the lines on foreign policy, which are among the biggest choices the President can make unilaterally, are not split on party lines. Could this be the root of why normally Democratic partisans, within the party and in the media, were very cold on Kerry in 2004 and now?

explanation posted above. :hi:

hedge.

I think Sen. Kerry is thinking about this. There have been times in the past when he just took his time on something. (I think it drives the staff crazy, as they don't know what the boss is thinking. He hasn't told them. It's how he sometimes operates.)

The country is not talking a whole lot about the Feingold censure. The liberal web is, but the liberal web is not representative of the country as a whole. The liberal web desperately wants a smack-down of this President because liberals despise W. They want a grand gesture that will show that the libs hold this President in contempt and hate his actions. (Ahm, all his actions, why choose just one.)

This is a fairly useless obsession. The liberal web also believes, or a large portion of it believes, that if John Kerry had simply stated in '04 that he was against the Iraq War and had clearly said, 'I want the US out of Iraq NOW,' that he would have won the race. That there is absolutely no statistical evidence for this is beside the point. This patently false view is a sort of 'given' for a lot of otherwise very intelligent people. The actual fact that the US population had not really turned against the war and against the PResident in '04 is conveniently ignored as it doesn't fit their world view. These are people who do indeed feel entitled to their own facts.

The good Mass folks who met with the Senator's aide in Boston are sincere in their beliefs and in their desire that elected Dems stand up to the Prez. Well, that's fine. They have short-term memory problems as they forget about the DSM letter that Sen. Kerry sent round the Senate last July that actively pushed for an investigation. Okay, liberals are notorious for forgetting inconvenient facts.

I would also remind this group that we have 'met' with Sen. Kerry. Directly, face-to-face, back in Dec. in Boston. We asked him to please post on Daily Kos and to become more involved in the 'blogs' and the forums on the liberal web. (Again, not through an aide, but face-to-face.) I do believe that some postings on the web were made. We helped make that happen. (Ahm, yeah, we heard back. We helped make that happen.) And, if memory serves, I do believe a couple or few people from this very forum will be working in the Senator's Boston office this summer. Perhaps the topic of the liberal blogs and the netroots and such will come up. Directly and in the Senator's office. Ahm, I wonder which other national 'Big Dems' are doing that?

AHm, this is also a matter of perspective. The censure resolution is big news here. It is not as big out there in the wider world. Those issues are immigration, the war in Iraq and the daily concerns of getting and keeping health care and jobs and such. I think the Senator has been working had on these things as well as doing his job as RM of the SBA committee and trying to keep his committment to the people affected by Katrina. That is also very important stuff.

Thank you.

"The country is not talking a whole lot about the Feingold censure."

Plus the problem is that the media does cover this, they cover the Feingold censure and not Bush's violation of the laws. Rather than talking about restoring checks and balances, the media concentrates on whether this move helps or hurts Feingold's 2008 chances. I has just distracted from the real issue wthout any chance of success.

The one "good thing" is that not many in the general public are talking about it, so while an exercise in futility this year, it probably won't hurt Democratic chances in November. I just hope that the liberal blogosphere doesn't spend from now until November talking about who did and did not support censure, or how Democrats dropped the ball by not getting Bush censured.

Ironically, our best chance for punishing Bush is to let go of this and concentrate on winning in 2006 based upon issues voters really care about. Then, if Democrats take control of one or both houses, they can investigate and consider censure.

Ultimately history is going to be Bush's real judge.

Yesterday his counsel walked me into the hearing and we chatted on the way. Suffice to say he supports Feingold. But I also will share what Dick wrote in response to the comments at Kos and even DCP about the lack of overt Dem support. This is not about JK so much, but still may be helpful in dealing with the JK bashers:

I had to leave the Senate hearing yesterday to lobby with my friends from the American Dance Therapy Association, and my husband, Dick Bell, took over for me, documenting the hearing at http://www.democracycellproject.net. He also stayed for the post-hearing media event.

We just finished our Saturday morning review of the week (Dick is a progressive communications strategist and I am a college professor; he has the inside information and I do the performance analysis from observations). As we went back over the comments on Kos and at the DCP, it became clear that people were feeling angry at the Democratic Senators for not showing up for the hearing yesterday. Below is Dick's analysis of why that did not happen, and why it was unnecessary at this point in time.

I will only add that as I observed the audience in my time at the hearing, it was full of staffers for Democratic Senators, and the audience was decidedly on the supportive side of Senator Feingold.

Here is Dick's first-hand analysis:

The Senate, in operation, rarely resembles the model described in 6th grade civics books. When matters of great national and international import are at stake, one expects to see the Senate floor jammed with Members, or a Senate Committee Room stuffed with Members, the press, and the public, all sweltering under the hot lights of multiple network cameras.

Alas, it is rarely thus. As viewers of C-SPAN quickly learned when C-SPAN began broadcasting from the House and Senate floors, much of the legislature's business was conducted with barely anyone in the room at all. The visual images were so embarrassing that both houses placed bans on allowing C-SPAN cameras to pan the empty chambers.

The number of Members present at a hearing is an inexact measurement of the importance of the hearing. Talking to press after Friday's Judiciary Committee meeting, Feingold said that he was "perfectly satisfied" with the turnout. He repeated several times that he believed that the issues that he was raising, and the way in which he had chosen to raise them, was nonpartisan, that the nature of Bush's power grab transcended party lines. In a funny sort of way, he sounded relieved that there had been no dramatic outpouring of Democratic rage.

He noted that the Senate almost never holds hearings on Fridays because most Members travel back to their states. He laughed and said he had seen fewer Senators at hearings in the middle of the week, and he noted that Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, had made by far his strongest statement of support (during the hearings, Leahy was very active in pushing back against the Republicans, especially Senator Graham's personal attacks on John Dean.)

Feingold said that what mattered was that this hearing had taken place, period. He's absolutely right. Against great odds, starting off completely alone, in a matter of mere weeks, Feingold had taken chatter from the back rooms of the blogosphere and forced it onto the public record in an official hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have to recognize that Senator Arlen Specter played an important role in making this happen, since as Committee Chair, Specter could have quite comfortably chosen to do nothing.

The scorn that Bush supporters feel for Specter dripped from statements by Sessions, Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham. These Republicans and the witnesses they chose to present did not want to be in that room. They did not want to hear what Feingold had to say; they did not want to hear what Bruce Fein had to say; and John Dean, trailing the cloud of Watergate behind him, drove Senator Graham completely around the bend. There were times when Senator Graham was rocking back and forth so violently, biting his tongue as he waited his turn, that I thought Graham might pitch himself forward, completely over the Committee table.

Would it have been nice if every single Democratic member of the Senate had shown up with rippling muscular statements of support for Feingold? Of course. Was there anyone who thought such a display would happen? No. If this had been the SECOND hearing, we would be right to be angry that only one other Democrat showed up. But this first foray was designed to be balanced and nonpartisan.

Feingold was very impressive yesterday, both during the hearing and afterwards. He is a smart man and I am convinced that he has launched this effort with the expectation that he will be engaged in a long campaign.

This hearing was a victory. Unalloyed. Bush is still in the White House, but Feingold succeeded in making the case against Bush inside the belly of the beast, and walked away smiling. He should be happy. OUR job is to savor the victory, briefly, and continue the daily organizing that produced the grassroots support that made this hearing possible, to build toward the next steps in ending the Bush regime.

This really does put it in perspective.