Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That Kerry is a social/economic liberal in the vain of Johnson and Roosevelt. I think he would give Bush a run for his money. Does Kerry try to hide from the liberal label?

there are many on the right who believe that.

Had a long chat with a friend across the aisle who is a researcher with a national rightwing thinktank. *gasp - I know we kid each other about our opposing views on many issues all the time*

He of course was denigrating the chances of the Dem front runners (as I denigrated boyGeorge). But then I asked him seriously, from his perspective who he thought would make it through the dem primaries... he felt Gephardt would be the guy. Now he didn't say that he thought Gep had a chance against his goldenboy, but the impression by some on the right is the Gep is a power to contend with. I think the perception comes from Geps long term leadership positions in the House, and the perceived access to labor money than anything else (sorry to denigrate Gep to his fans).

Just say that to suggest that while WE might view the first article you state as a plant and a joke - I have heard a sincere sentiment from a 'hooked-in' player on that side of the aisle.

I think Kerry is going to surge this next week and in the next debate. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he overtakes Dean in NH in a month.

in the poll numbers.

Forgive me for what I am going to write, because for true fans the framework may not be appreciated... but...

Outside of Washington and outside of the northeast, Sen. Kerry does not have inherent name recognition. Since leaving DC in the late eighties and living in two midwestern and one western state, and always being an avid news consumer (usually local/national papers), his was not a name often heard. He didn't chair controversial judicial hearings like Biden. He didn't sit at the front in the Iran Contra Hearings like Inoye or Hamilton. He wasn't front and center in the media circus stories that make it to.... say Detroit.

He hasn't benefited from a media buzz ala Dean's sudden fundraising feat that catapulted him from third or second tier to top tier. He hasn't benefited from the media buzz surrounding the will he or won't he story of Clark's entering the race. He didn't gain vaunted name recognition by running for Vice President, nor had he benefited from years of name recognition by being on the House Leadership team since the 1980s.

But he has name recognition. He has steadfastly been among the top dems in polls. He seems to be known without those things, on his own merits.

I think that is very interesting, and compelling.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have thought along the same lines. I think if Kerry was covered back when he should have received wider coverage, starting with his substantive criticism of Bush's military strategy in Afghanistan, then we would have a completely different scorebox today. The media had no intention of hurting Bush's credibility to that degree.

I challenge the American people to not be impressed by his heroic achievements in war, and in politics. The problem is that all they hear is Vietnam vet and Washington insider, and they understandably get bored. Those two things are not bona fide superstar makers. But they need to learn about his dynamic 80s senatorial career, his outstanding environmental, business, and gay rights work, and his remarkable intelligence. Plus, his love for sports and hunting will help him connect with non-elite rich Bostonian folks.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All Joe, all the time...

Here are the google news rankings from this week, courtesy of Interesting Times.

1 Howard Dean 5920 19.4%
2 Wesley Clark 5750 18.9%
3 John Kerry 4610 15.1%
4 John Edwards 3600 11.8%
5 Joe Lieberman 3040 10.0%
6 Dick Gephardt 2840 9.3%
7 Al Sharpton 1860 6.1%
8 Dennis Kucinich 1820 6.0%
9 Carol Moseley Braun 1060 3.5%

If you think you're guy's getting the brush off or worse from journalists, well, try following the media coverage of the Braun campaign for a few weeks--it's not that hard.

1 Howard Dean 5440
2 Wesley Clark 5020
3 John Kerry 4280
4 John Edwards 3210
5 Dick Gephardt 2920
6 Joe Lieberman 2820
7 Dennis Kucinich 1960
8 Al Sharpton 1830
9 Carol Moseley Braun 1010

The question is does someone want to research coverage in top outlets like Newsweek, Time, the big networks, etc....?

And so on. Here it is linked for convenience.

You could also do word counts. Or look at negative, vs. positive statements. The google news rankings are rough, but they are indiciative nonetheless. Of course there are wire stories repeated ad naseum, and many of the feature stories that mention John Kerry for instance will be about Howard Dean or Wesley Clark. The overall picture, however, does not seem strongly biased against Kerry.

However you slice it, Kerry will not be disadvantaged by his gender or his race or his pile of money. Those things do influence how or whether the press covers a candidate.

What you're seeing lately with the dropoff in coverage is roughly reflective of Dean's surge in fundraising and rise in the New Hampshire polls. For a while, Kerry was considered a frontrunner and garnered the most media attention, as you can see by the graph at Interesting Times.

Clark's splash is all about big money, and perhaps celebrity, for what that's worth. For a while it seemed that he might poll well enough to justify frontrunner status, but with his pullout in Iowa that's less certain. Expect his press coverage to dwindle unless or until he can establish himself in an early primary state--look to Arizona.

Third place is not bad for Kerry considering that Dean has a comfortable lead in New Hampshire, Gephardt leads in Iowa, and Edwards leads in South Carolina.

There has been a long "anyone but Dean" sway to the media as well.

Man, this is just the beginning. Just wait until the field narrows down.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't doubt we inhabit different planets. On my planet, Dean is ANGRY MAN. Dean is McGovern. Dean wants to raise the SS age and cut medicare. Dean sided with Newt. Dean is too far left, yet too far right. His campaign will be over in 2-4 weeks. Dean can't take the south. Dean supports deregulation.

Damn. I'm totally willing to agree that there is anti Kerry media out there. But I'd like for you to visit my planet sometime.

To just the top-tier guys, Kerry will surge.

If it's just Gephardt, Dean, Kerry and Clark up on stage, I think Kerry will hold his own and probably start to be seen as THE candidate.

It's too big a field for someone like Kerry to show his knowledge and grasp of the issues in 30-second soundbites. That's not how Kerry speaks.

Give the man a few minutes to flesh out ideas and details, and he'll be head and shoulders (literally and figuratively) above the rest of the field.

is what every supporter says about their candidate.

Kerry already IS head and shoulders above every other candidate. He just has to do it figuratively now.

:)

;)

Of a two-man debate. I found that very illuminating. A perfect chance to completely seprate from the pack, and they were suddenly big supporters of giving fairness to every the candidate. Interesting position from a campaign that has consistently called Graham, Kucnich, Braun, and Sharpton "second-tier" or "unelectable."

How do people feel about a two or three man debate? Who do they give the favor to?

If I'm not mistaken, Kerry's "anytime, anywhere" policy still stands.

all about Dean and the horserace aspect.

They do the same to Kucinich. They won't cover what they have to say because they both make too substantive a case against Bush.

please, whatever you do, please don't throw me in that Briar Patch!!"

Do you know that story from Uncle Remus?

About the Kerry coverage: on the one hand, I think the GOP is most concerned about Kerry and Clark. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that either one is being given particularly short shrift by the media - at least, not relative to DK, AS, CMB, & Edwards. Just my subjective 2 cents worth, of course.

The only time our guy gets "face time" seems to be an effort to paint him as a left-wing socialist kook in the eyes of the electorate.

criticisms of Bush's agenda are dead on, and most of the media is still in protect Bush mode. Kucinich is way more of a mainstream Dem than the media will allow the public to see.

Its true. Real unfortunate isn't it.

so he has to campaign in a way where he can't be dependent on the media to help get the message out. to be fair, kerry is n't the only candidate with this problem though. during 2000 when kerry made gore's short list for vp choices, the media started gossiping about kerry's relationships with different women and trying to connect it to bill clinton's private life. they said one reason gore didn't pick kerry was because of that and how it would conflict with his decision to run a morals campaign which is why he picked lieberman. this just goes with their reporting more on his hair cuts and other crap like that rather than issues that matter like foreign policy, health care, etc.

and thought it was excellent. He used really strong language in criticism of Bush*. I felt, after seeing that, that I could easily support him as a candidate.:shrug:

Bush was afraid to show his face there.

in the military and Bush* went AWOL. Technically, he was a deserter, according to a friend. He said AWOL is reserved for a short or temporary absence and Bush* was gone for over a year and a half.:shrug:

I have seen several of the debates and think it's a real shame that Bush* isn't included. They all are very well-spoken and any one of them could wipe the floor with Bush*!:grr:

I like him too.

But if he is nominated, I will have no trouble supporting him!:-)

Up to us. Write a letter to the editor every time you see something. Take out ads. Organize. Go to the people!

Kerry was asked by reporters to explain why he thought that questions surrounding George Bush regarding whether or not he had used cocaine were more substantively relevant than Gore's use of marijuana. Kerry, noting that Al Gore had already admitted his use of marijuana, said:

"(H)e (Gore) said 'I used it.' So that's not an issue... And I don't think Al Gore intends, you know, to make prior use an issue of other people, except to the degree that it affects public policy."

Pressed later on the question of the Bush cocaine rumors, Kerry laid out his thinking on why Bush's drug use, if substantiated, is indeed an important issue for voters to consider:

"The issue about George Bush is not the fact that he may have used it, said Kerry. "The issue about George Bush is, how can you, if you have (used cocaine), have a position that is so at odds in terms of being a governor where you send a lot of other people who may have done the same thing you do to jail. That's the issue. It's not a question of whether he used it or when he used it, it's a question of what his policy is today and whether that's hypocritical and dangerous."

The Week Online spoke with Kerry Spokesman David Wade, who reiterated the Senator's position.

"The Vice President has long admitted that he has used marijuana," said Wade. "Governor Bush, on the other hand, will say only that when he was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible. But when Bush has had the opportunity to score political points in Texas by promulgating tough, extremely punitive new laws against drug users, he has been happy to do so."

http://www.madkane.com/wwwboard/messages/20.html

Kerry was also known to toke during his zany anti-war days, but gave it up fairly quickly (certainly before he became a prosecutor!).

<>

It's time he make his OWN media and not make the mistake that the corporate media will allow his message to be heard. They are having too much fun covering and promoting the hot rhetoric of Dean to bother with real issues.

The environment isn't as newsworthy as "cockroaches" now is it?

Do you know how much national ads would cost?

Most of the country doesn't even know who John Kerry is, let alone that he's running for president.

Kerry's rhetoric isn't coarse enough to entertain the corporate media like Dean. Damn sad state of the press.

The dominos will fall in place, but only if Kerry scores in NH.