Depressing. New book claims Kerry lied about throwing his medals back!

The book is "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008." It is by Mark Halperin and John F. Harris. In the early section entitled "The Way to Lose" they go through a depressing litany of Kerry's "mistakes" that were exploited so cleverly Drudge, Limbaugh, Hannity and the like. While they do expose the cooperation of the RW media and the White House, they imply that Kerry had said one thing in 1971 (that he "never implied" that the medals were his) and in 2004 when he said the medals were his.

I'm considering taking this thing back to the library. I was expecting an interesting exploration of the way WE could have a chance at winning in 08, but I'm getting frustrated.

For one thing, it is my understanding that Kerry was truthful when he said the medals were his. So this came out of the blue!

I'm beginning to wonder if this is just another "You Dems will never win because you can't play the game as well as the Republicans" or what.

ONe thing I note is that Halperin is the political director of ABC News, so I am sensing a real defensive posture here.

Folks here who have lots of info about the Kerry campaign, can you reference this medals thing for me?

only the 28% crowd read these books, and then only because the RW sugar daddies buy them in bulk and give them away to the sweaty, toothless, seething masses.

I truly thought this might be an interesting analysis, altho Halperin's association with ABC News is a red flag for me.

though I guess its not surprising that Random House would want to cash in on the GOP gravy train, too.

Does it ever occur to folks to look things up before they post?

He had someone else's medals, and his own weren't the actual medals -- which he'd left at home and didn't have time to retrieve -- but the ribbons instead.

AND although I think he didn't blatantly state they were his medals, he gave that impression at or about the time that he threw them. I don't recall that he brought up the medal-throwing at all in the 2004 campaign, but merely responded to questions about it (by Swifties, no doubt)...and as I recall, he made it clear in 2004 they weren't his medals, but were his ribbons.

The book is already some months old, I think, and is claiming that Drudge is a model for the media.

Halperin has left ABC a while ago, I think, and I am not sure why what these two tools say matter.

By Thomas Oliphant | April 27, 2004

WASHINGTON
ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.

As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.

It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.

At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.

In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."

With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice. Nor did he drop the decorations. He sort of lobbed them, and then walked off the stage.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/27/i_watched_kerry_throw_his_war_decorations/

and never claimed he threw his medals (he threw someone else's medal who asked him to). Some people threw their draft notice or other military awards. The idea was you were supposed to give something away that the military gave you.

Those idiots who wrote that book run Politico, and this is NOT a new book. Why are you claiming this is "new".

;-)

However, it's publication date is 2006.

The book starts out looking disingenuously describing how the media has turned into a freak show and how the debate over substntive issues don't persuade the voters, that the frivolous and superficial stuff does.

Thanks for the info about these two authors. I don't know Politico. Is it a web site?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290002?offset=20&show=1

BREAKING: Drudge links to Politico 45 times during its two-month existence

As Media Matters for America has noted, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen's March 27 article, "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama," was apparently flagged by Matt Drudge's website, The Drudge Report, approximately one hour before The Politico posted the article on its website on the evening of March 26. John Harris, Politico editor-in-chief, has written about the media's interest in having their work linked to on the Drudge Report. Several commentators, including blogger Glenn Greenwald, have noted an apparent tendency of Drudge to link to Politico items. Media Matters has reviewed the Drudge Report Archives and found that since The Politico launched on January 23, Drudge has linked to Politico items on at least 45 separate occasions.

In The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (Random House, October 2006), Harris -- then of The Washington Post -- and then-ABC political director Mark Halperin devoted an entire chapter to Drudge's influence over the media, titled "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World," in which they state that Drudge "leans right" and warned that "no Democratic politician will survive in the 2008 presidential campaign," unless they "understand" Drudge and have a "strategy" to "defend" themselves "against" Drudge. Harris and Halperin noted the great interest on the part of media, political operatives and political figures to have the Drudge Report link to an article or other material of theirs, even citing Harris' own book, The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House (Random House, May 2005) as an example. They also noted that Post editors are "delighted when Drudge does link to stories at Washington.post.com" and "frustrated" when he does not.

The freepers have been obsessing over Kerry's medals for years now.

Who cares?

Mark Halperin, by the way, is no friend of objectivity. He ran their "insider" newsletter "The Note" and insisted on nannying the Washington press corps to follow a set narrative about each candidate, each campaign, each "scandal" -- he's a good reason why we have Bushco squatting in the WH.

Bushwah! I wouldn't trust anything from him.

of who was "shading" the truth about something in their past, which is a joke because the Repubs successfully HID Bush's past so no one could see it! They even go into the thing about Kerry's haircuts (and they are trying it again, successfully, with John Edwards!).

This book is gonna make me tear my hair out if I don't return it!

is that the story had Kerry getting $1000 worth of highlighting, styling etc including fake quotes showing that he was fussy and vain about his hair ( that he seemed to have kept in the same cut from 1984 thru 1994 and even now lets grow long occasionally.) when what really happened was that he got a $75 hair cut in DC that he paid for.

The Edwards story was essentially true - he did get a very expensive hair cut because the stylist came to him. The only problem was it was inadvertently paid for by the campaign - so it became public record.

As to shading the truth - the fact was Kerry did participate and it made no difference which he threw. If anything, it would have seemed sneaky to later claim to all the people angry with him on this, that he didn't really throw his medals.

get to say you still have them later.

After a while, he decided he was proud of them and hung them up in his office.

I don't think my friend understood that the point was just to throw something the government gave you. It's not my friend's business what Kerry was thinking when he did it, what it meant to him, or what he was going to do with his medals later.

why are these people so concerned with John Kerry? What are they afraid of?

"a reason" Kerry lost. I'm sorry I checked it out of the library...

I've been reading 'fiction' lately...seems to be more in tune with reality.

They portray Drudge as a brilliant hero completely skipping the step where THEY and their mediawhore friends PUSHED Drudge's LIES for him and Rove and did so GLEEFULLY without conscience and without any concern for JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY or the well-being of this nation or respect for the citizenry.

Harris and Halperin have long been two of the PROBLEMS in this nation - and this book is their contribution to pointing all blame at Kerry while the media complicity and election fraud goes unchecked.

They need to cement that Kerry lost because HE made mistakes, not because they ran the dirtiest, foulest, most criminal campaign since 2000.

Because if this nation ever really truly believes they did what they did...they just might spend ten minutes in jail.

questioning our candidate on stupid stuff that puts into question their credibility. Essentially playing on their turf. So we need to get a different strategy, it seems to me.

Telling the truth to the media, evidently, no longer matters. We are hopeless if we try to straighten out innuendo with the facts. They will always twist things to suit themselves and they are masterful at it. They've done it now for several presidential campaigns and gotten away with it. Only not with Clinton. I haven't read far enough to get to why they think Clinton survived the RW hate machine. I may not make it because I already hate the book enough to give it back to the library unread...

. . . is to back a candidate whose polarizing views make the presidental contest a close call. America needs much more than 51% solutions. Vote for Joe Biden and get your country to unite once more.

that he threw his ribbons, which represent the medals. His actual medals were in Boston. He had argued against throwing the medals when the events were planned - and only in the aftermath of testifying and being with the other vets was he moved to throw his ribbons. There is a photo in the book of photographs that Butler, a college friend, who became a life photographer took of Kerry sitting on the grass in the mall with his head in his hands, with his wife, Julia comforting him taken after the throwing the ribbons. He threw some medals that were given to him by relatives of some servicemen who asked him to do so. Kerry, at one point, stopped making the distinction when people accused him of throwing his medals - likely because it sounded like he was making excuses saying he did not participate as much. He did answer this in 2004, explaining that only the ribbons were his.

Incidently, maybe you should mention that that was the book that labeled Matt Drudge, as our Edwards R Murrow and spent several pages praising a story he created out of thin air of a $1000 hair styling/highlighting etc that Kerry got with fake quotes on how fussy he was. The truth - Kerry got a $75 hair cut. Teresa Heinz Kerry was asked about his book at a book event this March - after a pause and a smile she said - that John Harris was not a friend - then launched into the strongest defense I have ever heard of her husband.

of info about JK.

I think the medals flap was totally engineered to fit a meme about JK that he "flip flopped." And to drive up his negatives because of his past antiwar activism (to dilute his war record, which I am sure was thought sacrosanct by Kerry).

The sad thing is that the RW has the power to infect the entire media with its message viruses. And I for one do not know how to stop them. Whoever our candidate is will have to find a way, tho, because they are not going to stop what they perceive to be a winning strategy.

I totally agree with you on the last paragraph - and it is why so many of us JK group people have fought so hard on the SBVT thing. In 2004, we had the luxury of a candidate with a nearly 4 decade public record (if you include the Navy), who really had remained very clean. Going in, they had to frame the anti-war effort for what it was a well mannered principled use of the freedom of speech coupled with equally strong efforts to keep a huge number of very very angry people in the system and to eloquently advocate that the vets get the assistance needed to re-enter society - including improving medical care and dealing with PTSD. (As to the acceptability of who he protested, recently a letter to John Mitchell in 1971 suggested the Republicans recruit Kerry to run for Congress.)

That medal/ribbon thing actually started under Nixon. Oliphant reported what Kerry did correctly when it occurred. Other reporters got it wrong - as they reported only what they saw. So, there were 2 stories out there. There were interviews when Kerry was asked why he thought it was ok to throw his medals - and he did not correct it. He choose to answer on the significance of the action - quibbling over ribbons/metals would have looked like he was trying to minimize what he did - by parsing words. The point was he did participate, he has always stood behind it - and it was clearly the culmination of a very emotional anguished couple of days. It showed how desperate the RW was then and now to find things that challenge his honesty. Here, there is no story there - it would not have mattered to people against it what he did, they would have said it was equally bad. The people impressed with his running the protest, speaking before the Senate, and being an advocate would not have been less impressed even if he opted not to participate in this at all.

If you have access to it, watch Going Up river. Kerry was the one who got all the permits, was the main media contact, coordinated people coming from all over the country, and moved from location to location arbitrating situations with the potential for things to blow up - even on the way to the Senate to testify. He succeeded in keeping thousands of very angry vets non violently protesting for 2 or 3 days. That peaceful, yet angry, sentiment let Congressmen and Senators join them on the mall. (unlike anything set up by Moveon or ANSWER in today's world) That was the last day, and from the Butler photo, Kerry was emotionally drained - the photo is taken from a long distance, likely respecting him. If it were not labeled, you can even miss that it was Kerry and his wife - it is a powerful photo.

campaign had to "frame" (if you will) Kerry's antiwar actions. That is because his had a rational basis and was the truth. The SBVT theme, with its theme based on lies and vendetta, got picked up by the MSM after Drudge and his cohorts did their job for the White House to float it.

One thing the authors of this book do get right -- and as much as I hate it, I think we must consider it-- is that the truth is not enough. We MUST make the narrative ours, not theirs. I had a Marine veteran tell me "Kerry lied" in explaining why he would never vote for Kerry. I was sputtering in rage, but I had a sinking feeling at the time. This guy was only a few years younger than Kerry.

Similarly, I was bewildered that Kerry's windsurfing was made into such a negative. But here again, I am an East Coast liberal who visits Nantucket's sister island, Martha's Vineyard, each summer. Kerry's windsurfing was as natural as breathing to me. I had no idea anyone could turn it against him!

Just some musings as I contemplate our 08 campaign...and what our candidate, whoever that is, can do to beat the RW slime machine...

Fighting with the truth was the time honored way of disputing any charges that were provably untrue. Having someone go to the media leaders and making an open and shut case WAS what ended things immediately. Anything else, like attacking the attackers, arguing it was taken out of context, etc usually kept the story going. As to framing the anti-war stuff, they didn't really get into it much - other than with Going Upriver, possibly because the republicans made his service the issue.

What I get from this book, is that there is a problem in the corporate media when they propagate lies from known liars - and then turn around and praise the liars - SBVT or Drudge because they were successful. They were successful precisely because Harris, Halperin, and their peers took those lies and repeated them without siding with Kerry's people who had provided the truth. It is also tough to control the narrative if, for the most part, the mass media is pushing the lie as a viable alternative. (Kerry might have had more success if he had more media time in June and July - June was non-stop coverage of Reagan's death and he lost at least 2 weeks of July with wall to wall Clinton interviews because he put out his book then.) I wish that the Kerry book event in NYC was taped and available - when asked about these guys, Teresa Heinz Kerry gave an incredible defense of her husband after saying of them, after a beautiful smile, only that they were "not friends" followed by a meaningful pause. There is nothing better she (or anyone) could have done. The Kerrys are good people - these guys, by their own lack of ethics and values, aren't.

I don't give them credit for saying we need to control the narrative - that is a tautology. What they fail to notice is that they as part of the media acted as the people who always most define the candidates. When they praise Rove et al as they did throughout the election and do everything in there power to distort Kerry, it is beyond disingenuous to then fault Kerry for not getting his message out. I wish I could believe that at some point in the future they would really look at what they did, admit it and take some of the blame themselves.

Years later, I think that in retrospect, the Kerry campaign's best chance on the windsurfing thing would have been to immediately call the windsurf champion, who is friends with Kerry and produce a counter ad. Using a short video, not of Kerry, but of the best looking, most fit wind surfer they could find obviously surfing into the wind - argue that in windsurfing, you need strength, focus and the willingness to go against the wind - then transition to the many times Kerry has done this - with BCCI, clean elections etc and how that strength, focus and determination could right the country. (The Republican ad did not even show windsurfing - it took a cut out of Kerry, not even from that year, and slowly and laconicly moved it back and forth - as if the wind pushed the windsurfer.)

it wasn't used during the campaign and I don't know why. What you say about windsurfing is another way of looking at the socalled "issue." But the fact is, it wasn't done and I don't know why. At the very least, it would have neutralized that nauseating ad with Strauss' waltz playing in the back ground.

My guess is that the campaign thought such nonsense wasn't important and that is a mind set we ignore at our peril. I know, it's disgusting...

You are right about the MSM having a responsibility that they ignored. Therefore, the campaign has to make up for their deficit, if we are not to throw up our hands and give up.

Here's my best suggestion: take those programs supported by Dems that are wildly popular with the people and play on them almost continuously. The S Chip program COULD be one of those, as long as it is cast as a help for the middle class (I know that sounds callous but it is sadly true). Medicare and Social Security. Care for our veterans (more from Bob Woodruff!). FEMA. Stuff the rhetoric of the Repubs on these issues right back down their throats and never stop doing it.

I agree with you that they likely thought it wasn't important - and, in fact, we may be highlighting it because he lost. I have never heard anyone suggest they should have countered the ad - I thought of this only after responding probably 50 times here or on Dkos when people claimed it was stupid for him to spend a few hours windsurfing when the Republicans had their convention. (That August photo op wasn't even used, they used a different photo.)

In reality, that August windsurfing in a non-toxic media environment would have been considered excellent. For one, it countered any fears that he still had a health problem. It also was good, healthy, clean fun on a beautiful Nantucket Day. You had many reporters in the boat and a smiling Teresa.

There were so many things going on simultaneously, that I doubt anyone spent as much time thinking about it as we did in retrospect - ie , if I can think of a way to re-frame it, the people who do ads and work on strategy could have created something far better. My guess is that they were scrambling in many directions - and this looked innocuous compared to everything else.

I agree with you that we need to get the differences out where we are better, but I suspect that even in 2008, terrorism and foreign policy need to addressed head on. It also may be the media will back a Democratic candidate as they did Bush in 2004 - or better they may cover both sides fairly. I do think we need to be prepared to compensate if the media is still against us. (In fairness to Kerry's team, the broadcast media shifted very significantly between even 2000 to 2004.)

our campaign team has to think like the enemy and anticipate their snark in advance. Here I do think Hillary has the right experience and thus, the right frame of mind. I don't believe Kerry had that instinct. For instance, the remark he made about Mary Cheney (which was positive) was literally pounced upon. I remember hearing it during the debate and I said "Uh oh." It sounded a bit forced. It's that kind of thing that winds up biting us in the ass.

A further thought is that our candidate needs to use real people to make the Dems case, particularly on domestic issues. Moms who have kids in an S Chip program, Dads who HAD great health insurance but then lost his job and his coverage, that sort of thing. Do you know about that 06 referendum in Mass. that would let convenience stores sell beer and wine? Polls showed support for changing the law and then a simple ad that featured a local police chief telling of his department's difficulty in controlling drunk driving, esp. young people, turned the whole thing around and the referendum item was rejected. That police chief was the real deal, even down to his pronunciation "mini mahts"!!

As for terror and the war, they simply must be treated separately. We can say how the Iraq war adds to terrorism, but we can't be painted as opposing the war on terror in general because we oppose the Iraq war. I think it can be done.

I hope with you that the MSM repents its past sins. But certainly "The Way to Win" indicates that some of them are still in denial about what they, rather than Dem candidates, have done and the wretched results. We have had the apologies of both the NY Times and The New Republic on their earlier stands on the Iraq War, something I despaired of ever seeing.

I absolutely agree with you that we need to anticipate as much as possible, and be prepared to counter quickly. (Even if we have to send everybody on the email lists we have a Utube to get it out fast enough. We, JK DU people have been saying this since early 2005. We need to assume the mass media is not on our side - if they are so much the better, but we need to assume otherwise. I didn't catch the Cheney thing - though I have three gay immediate family relatives - one in a 24 year relationship. The rest of his comments were beautiful - even if he more vaguely said that there were gays, close to their families in families where their sexuality put them at odds with the family's culture and friends making this an unlikely choice - it would have expressed what he likely wanted.

I think Democrats have long used people as examples - and Kerry did too - in fact the ones used on environmental issues became the stories in his and Teresa's book. In fact, Kerry had far more real people than Bush had in 2000 and 2004 put together - starting with Rassman and his crew. There were firemen, the Youthbuild kids, many people hurt by the lack of healthcare and other economic issues. This was something that actually fit Kerry well, because that was how he saw it - after the election, in a very nice moment in the Senate, he read comments emailed to him when he asked families of servicemen for things that could make their lives better - he spoke of things like letting widows stay a full year in military housing as they work to get their their lives back together. In 2004, all these things in the rallies were not covered - except on CSPAN. If that happens again, as you said, we need to get it out even if the media won't.

Anyway, I hope that people running the nominee's campaign will try to prepare in advance to deal with the worst case scenario - and hope it doesn't happen.

were running the DNC up until 2005 and THAT is why they never strengthened the party infrastructure and why they UNDERPERFORMED on television and throughout the 2002 and 2004 campaigns - they needed Bush to stay in office - and let the RNC gain control of the electoral process in the crucial states of Florida and Ohio, as well as others.

It was about getting the Clinton's elected, and not really worrying about bring other Dems with them, I'd heard.

this has to know this was not cynical move, and was very difficult for him:



Kerry weeping as his wife comforts him after the medal throwing ceremony

These two are just as bad as Hannity, Limbaugh and Drudge. Oh, and I will add Colter to the list because just like her, they twist the slim facts they bothered to research and print many lies with no reference points.
The matter over Kerry's medals has been explained over and over again and backed up with proof, but Halprin and Harris would rather not deal in truths. The outcome of the 2004 campaign has been over played by those who wish to discredit Kerry. And, these two are still willing to trash the senator with distortions and their own selective memory of events in order to make some easy money. Don't buy into their scam- return the book and donate to real Democrats-like Senator Kerry.

:thumbsup:

to throw for them.

The medal throwing was an idea that came up the day before the event that Kerry was organizing, and his own medals were at home in Mass. So he threw his ribbons and the medals he was given to throw for others.

The point you should be pissed about is that TWO REPORTERS know the truth but CATAPULT the LIE instead and CONGRATULATE the liars for a lie welltold.

Halperin and Harris are Clinton-loving toadies who love the GAMING of politics more than the reporting of truth.

I believe Bill Clinton helped hawk their book by praising it effusively - even though it deifies the media muscle of Rove and praises known liars like Drudge.

I mean, if he wasn't have been such a fucking rich-boy coward douchebag and all.

at least if some reports on his NG record are correct.

what he told mil-bloggers a week ago. How they (some Iraq vets who had lost buddies) could continue to listen to his blather after such an insulting remark is beyond me. You had your chance, Georgy boy, in Vietnam, and you chose to get out of it!

:rofl:

TC

and frankly wasn't even trying.

But then some are saying this this publication might not strictly be "on our side"

Gore and Kerry and show the MSM going on their merry way. Almost writing with a smirk on their faces.

Dems are going to have to work twice as hard to get half as much in 08. Our candidate is going to have to understand and anticipate that. Can't get hurt or mad. Have a well staffed "war room" 24/7 and not regard anything as sacred, not even their own sterling record because they will find a way to tear that down. So far, the only candidate who looks like understanding that is Hillary. I don't know about Obama or even Edwards, whom I am supporting. I worry...

It was one of the reasons I decided way back when that I liked this person and could campaign for him after starting out ABB,



Whatever he was doing, it seems to have meant something to him. That's all I needed to know.

There are those who say this was staged, but then there are those who would say just about anything in regard to Kerry.

in his book, and said Kerry's wife was comforting JK, and it was right after the medal throwing ceremony. It is genuine. No doubt in my mind. And a picture tells a thousand words.

All the best Dems in town have joined the fascists, why not you, too?

So to her it was new.

check out Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty" in which many of the lies came about because of this book and because of a man named Roy Hoffman did not like the way Brinkley described him. So this guy Hoffman who by the way stood with John Kerry in Mass. when he was running for re-election to the Senate in '96, didn't like the truth of his actions in Vietnam. Hoffman also being a republican enlisted the help of the the sleazy John O'Neill and others and a certain Texas financier like Perry.

There is an interview with Brinkley which I think many have not seen which occurred in Oct. '04 on C-Span. Here is the http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Douglas+Brinkley&image1.x=38&image1.y=13">link , it is the last video on the page. Brinkley is a known historian not a DC pundit, and his book "Tour of Duty" is probably one of the most informative and certainly most credible accounts of John Kerry and that time in his life. It is a fascinating read, I could not put it down when I got it in Feb. '04. In this interview you will hear Brinkley mention that Kerry was leading in the polls in OCTOBER '04, as so many mention August and how Kerry didn't fight back, well he must have done something because he was leading Bush right up and I will argue on the day of the election.

I believe Douglas Brinkley a known Historian to any political hack.