Rumor; Kerry not happy with the way media effecting campaign; may endorse DK

Please keep in mind that this is just a rumor.

I just got a phone call from a friend who knows someone that's an intern at the State House. He tells me that John Kerry is really not happy with the way the media is treating the primary debates and the face time given to certain candidates.

Another possibility is Richardson.

basicly the word is they are considering trying to shake this thing up for two reasons;

1) So that the media doesn't get to frame the issues in this campaign. The candidates do.

2) To keep the right wing attack dogs off their game. A lot of folks weren't happy with the way the right was able to arganize against the candidates so quickly during the last cycle. Keeping the candidates close in the polls and media exposure may offset that.

Before anyone flips out just keep in mind that this is a rumor. The only thing that sounds close to the truth are the complaints about the media coverage and face time given the candidates.

He fucked over Ted Kennedy on the Bankruptcy bill.

Kennedy against windpower in Nantucket Sound; Kerry voted for the eyesore.

But Kerry screwing over Kennedy is a little different. Kennedy is Kerry's mentor so those two having their differences is a very different story. It's really no secret that those two will have eachothers backs and their dissagreements fall into a different category. And even Kennedy knows he was being a complete asshole on that issue as well.

And the issue raised was "why not Biden?"

Kerry supported Kennedy's ammendment to that bill. Biden screwed every democrat who tryed to ammend that bill.

to Cape Winds. Do you think I had a choice when they built large power line towers near my home? No, because I am not rich and powerful like Ted Kennedy is, not to mention the fact that the wind turbines are good for the environment, and are not a an eye sore (you can barely see them, and European countries have them offshore) Every environmental report thus far that has studied the Cape Wind project have come back positively for the project, so "it will kill the birds" meme is just not true, as that has already been studied. I have also been vocal in wanting Kerry to do more in support of Cape Winds. So, I think that is a bad example, as I think Kerry probably would go further on it, if it weren't for Kennedy.

unless they build them near the big cities where the power is needed.
I am against all eyesores- wind turbines AND power lines.

has no control over whether something is put in by their house. Ted Kennedy, however, is using his wealth and power to stop what anyone else would not be able to stop. It is called elitism, and it's wrong.

You're opposed to wind turbines???????????????? So I guess global climate change is not really one of your issues, because if we don't start getting alternative energy solutions soon, then we will never stop the "tipping point", where in the words of NASA's scientist Hanson, there will be "catastrophic" results.

Go drive through Europe some time, and you'll see wind farms everywhere. They're actually fascinating to look at, and look far nicer than power lines. Of course, other than the large transmitter lines, the Germans bury their power lines (and have a lot less power outages, I may add), but that is beside the point. Wind and solar are part of the solution for global climate change, and are worth the eyesore, although I think it is arguable whether it is an eyesore.

and they really don't provide a great deal of power in the big picture.
We need better solutions.

that Rep Young of Alaska tried to hide a provision (that Kennedy did support) that would have barred any offshore wind projects up to 200 mi from shore. Kerry caught it and got it kicked out. Kerry is an environmentalist and this was against his core believes. Even after this Kennedy still was 100% behind him for 2008 -just as he was in 2004. (Kennedy seemed to be become more supportive of Kerry as he ran in 2004 and from his comments, thought that Kerry would make a great President.

As to the rumour, I seriously doubt he would endorse anyone if he could not make a case that the person was better than anyone else. Doing it to make a point would seem very unlikely for someone who is essentially a very serious person.

Kerry & Biden are good friends, and Joe was one of Kerry's chief advisers on foreign policy, during his campaign. So it should be interesting, if he is going to endorse someone....

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE ADVISERS; Kerry Foreign Policy Crew Has a Clintonian Look to It

Seated in leather swivel chairs in the glass-walled conference room at Senator John Kerry's Washington campaign headquarters two Fridays ago was a veritable reunion of President Bill Clinton's national security team: Madeleine K. Albright, Samuel R. Berger, William J. Perry and Gen. John M. Shalikashvili. Richard C. Holbrooke joined his former colleagues via conference call from Tokyo.

But perhaps the most influential voice, pouring forth from the speakerphone at the center of the oblong table, belonged to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., calling from his home in Wilmington, Del. Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry's friend and the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, talks to Mr. Kerry at least three times a week and, several people said, is his premier gut check on all issues international.

''Senator Biden is probably the first among equals,'' said one senior campaign official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named. Another member of the foreign policy kitchen cabinet agreed: ''Senators rely on senators. Biden clearly is someone that he listens to carefully.''

With Mr. Kerry on an 11-day swing that focuses on national security, perhaps the central issue of his campaign, he and his staff are in nearly constant communication with a large roster of experts on Iraq and other areas of the world. Many of these confidants travel abroad frequently and report back on conversations with government officials and business leaders, feeding Mr. Kerry's confidence that a change in the White House could revive withering alliances.

Besides the Clintonites and Mr. Biden, those in the loop or on its fringe include former Senator Gary Hart, who ran for president largely on a foreign policy platform in 1984 and 1988; Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations; and James P. Rubin, Ms. Albright's former aide, who just moved from London to join Mr. Kerry's staff and is traveling with him this week.

These deans of the Democratic foreign policy establishment have been corralled into a coordinated chorus of television appearances in recent days to speak in Mr. Kerry's stead about President Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. They traded e-mail drafts of the speech Mr. Kerry gave Thursday in Seattle, as they did last month for a similar speech he gave in Fulton, Mo. They are also summoned by cellphone when the candidate has a question on their area of expertise -- or, in the case of Mr. Biden, for half-hour chats after 10 p.m. on the intersection of politics and policy.

''He'll call and say, 'O.K., Abu Ghraib prison, what do you think, Joe?' '' said Mr. Biden, who made a bid for the Democratic nomination in 1988. ''It's like a marriage. We start off with an assumption that there's a 95 percent chance we're going to end up in the same spot. It really mostly is, well, how are you going to say it, what do you think I should lead with, do you think I should get into the middle of this story?

''My constant refrain for John is 'Be declarative,''' Mr. Biden added. ''Don't explain. Just be declarative.''

In interviews this week with a dozen of Mr. Kerry's top foreign policy aides and advisers, there was a clear consensus that he should not respond to the declining public support for the war in Iraq by speaking of exit strategies. To a person, they described their candidate as better versed on international affairs than anyone else seeking the White House in decades, save the first President Bush. Many used the same language -- ''We only have one president at a time'' -- to explain Mr. Kerry's seeming caution about saying more concretely how he would handle Iraq differently than the current commander in chief.

But if the common Clinton bond makes for comfortable conversation, old rivalries have also been revived. With the prize of being secretary of state in a possible Kerry administration looming, several people said, a shadow competition seems to be unfolding among Mr. Biden; Mr. Holbrooke, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations; and Mr. Berger, a former national security adviser. And some are concerned that the Clinton coterie is crowding out other important perspectives, including Democrats strongly opposed to the Iraq war and several foreign policy aides to former Vice President Al Gore.

<FF>
Mr. Biden follows up their frequent conversations by sending lengthy memorandums and drafts of entire speeches to Mr. Kerry via fax or e-mail. ''I'm not going to go through a campaign where I get filtered through three staff,'' he explained. ''If John wants to know what I think, I tell him directly what I think.''
(typical Joe statement, LOL)


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1DA103EF93BA15756C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Bill

if he endorsed Biden, Richardson, or Dodd it would be cool. But DK? I find that hard to believe.

These are MA Democrats and guys named Joe are not too highly regarded.

He could do that without actually endorsing DK.

damned refreshing.

Anything that speaks for a far more responsible media is likely a good idea.

Edwards was ready to go after the b*stards!

the early 1970s.

I believe you and I appear to be supporting the man Kerry chose as his veep nom.

Must be some awfully sound judgment in the tall guy to endorse our political preferences like that.

consideration this time, the Edwards group on DU were very welcoming.

I'm too long a long-time Democrat to put up with any Puke, so I'm for our ticket no matter what.

But if it's a brokered convention and they call me up and say, "Hey, Old Crusoe, we're locked up here in Denver -- you have to pick the nominee" -- then I'm choosing Edwards at the top of the ticket with maybe Biden for veep.

And Iowa is just 40-some days out now. It's going to be a barn-burner.

after supporting him for a few weeks.

The slime campaign his camp is conducting is unbelievable. Yesterday, they were coming out with diaries smearing Clinton almost hourly in Daily Kos. Today they
came out with a diary claiming that Clinton was smearing them.

It was pointed out in this blog that Edwards, for all his sanctimony about feeling the pain of the poor, voted FOR bankruptcy reform. He didn't bother to vote condemning
Iraq abuse of prisoners resolution or even worse for the FCC Media ownership bill.
Which gave his buddy Murdoch the go-ahead to expand relentlessly.

If you think Edwards is on the up and up, Iook at his record.

Hillary Clinton is my choice. Bill did a great job, and she does not deserve being
torched by a power hungry, do nothing little punk.

In 2000 when it was gore getting fucked in Florida I didn't see him stand with the Democratic Black Caucaus. He was one of the sneators that could have signed but didn't.

Not one word on voter suppression or any of the known problems - Kerry did. The fact of the matter was that 2pm the next day was the second slowest concession in modern times. Kerry spoke to the lawyers and there were irregularities, but no case to be made. Even almost 3 years later there is not sufficient proof that he won. (Even then in 2002, the Democrats proved that the Republicans blocked the GOTV efforts - it took until 2006 to get through the courts. Kerry needed a definitive case and he needed it by early January at the very latest.

Edwards has never clearly said that he saw a way to challenge it - and on what basis. He also has NEVER said in the MSM that they won Ohio because ....... and they should have contested it. If he thought there was a case shouldn't he have fought it?

after all the damage he's tried to do to Clinton.
I think people have become totally grossed out by his smear tactics.

Rewriting history is tiring...

The argument was with those Dems who wanted to conceded earlier that night knowing the numbers were impossible to make up once the provisional ballot numbers were reduced by 100,000 after Carville's phone call to Matalin.

The MYTH that Edwards wanted to fight the count is false - he argued to WAIT to concede and Kerry sided with him.

The Edwards had an opportunity to give details to NC papers interested in the report that Edwards wanted to continue fighting the election in court. There was no story.

and still couldn't win.

Silly me.

It never stops churning.

Kerry did or didn't do about Ohio..I think he's come a long way since then. Same with Gore(both were denied their destinies in the White House).. they were all political at one time in their lives and now they seem to have gotten down to having their priorities coming from the heart. Just like a lot of people who aren't even in politics.

Wouldn't surprise me if Kerry supported DK, Larry Flynt does! :)

His 2004 campaign is a record for what "not to do." Sad, but true.

True to form, that probably means he is going to support HRC.

I personally would like to know who he will endorse,

Meanwhile, if you think he's going to endorse Hillary, you don't know him very well.

Doubt there's any love lost there.

Some would even say she, and the Clintonistas, actually hindered his efforts in some cases. I heard rumors at the time that there were people in Kerry's organization who weren't really on his side. And then there was Ragin' Cajun spilling his guts to the missus about Kerry's plans in Ohio.

triple bypass. And he came out and campaigned very soon after surgery.

Hillary could not have done a thing for Kerry at the time. what is the point of
bashing her? Bill was the one Kerry needed, and he came through as best as he
could.

The stuff in these blogs is such crap. I would vote for Hillary twice if I could.

ran The Note. Pathetic. If Kerry was so terrible why did he come within a hair of winning? Everyone wants to forget Mondale & Dukakis, I guess, to try to knock Kerry.

with that quote. At the first book tour event, Charlie Rose in NYC read that quote and asked Teresa to comment - pointing out that she was outspoken. Teresa first got a slightly mischievous smile, that immediately became a very demure, pretty smile. She answered that John Kerry had worked hard every day and spoke from his heart, offering a positive platform, listing example from foreign policy, to healthcare, to the environment. She spoke of the respect that he received overseas on tripos where she accompanied him. It was a spontaneous and brilliant defense of her husband and the campaign - ending by saying that she was sorry for him if this was how he saw things.

Books like that one and the various Clinista books (about the campaign that they were NOT really the insiders of) all ignore intentionally that the Clinton in mid 2003 thought it unwinnable. That they even stayed at least as close to Bush's position on Iraq as Kerry's was because they thought that was what would best preserve her viability for 2008. Imagine if all the Clintonistas - starting with Begala and Carville - had forced themselves to appear enthusiastic about Kerry. This was a close election - small changes could have made the difference.

that ever entered the oval office! And he STILL couldn't win.

you and me he seemed back in 2004 to be the worst president ever, but that was not how most people thought, certainly not in my red area. Also don't forget how much support there was for the Iraq War at the beginning. It is important that we remember history the way it actually was, not just how we felt in '04.

and a war that all worked to his benefit. And, lets not forget the color coded security alerts, the lingering fear from the 9/11 attack and the bin Laden tape.

silly me.

Have I misinterpreted your post?

If that's one of the points we're working with, I'd just throw in that he has a point.

There's just a unvierse of difference between an interview by Moyers, Lehrer, or even Charlie Rose and interviews by Blitzer and Couric and so forth.

If what qualifies someone for the presidency cannot be managed fairly or clearly by mainstream media, then it seems to me that Kerry's feelng on this is extremely sound and justified.

I had not even had breakfast the morning after that election day and he was already turning the country over back to the rift raft in the white house. just shut up kerry. just shut up.

...

says so twice in the OP.

To be honest, I feel like I'm missing something here. I haven't been following every primary play lately -- is this in reference to something?

and you're wrong.

I read it has "humor", not "rumor". I guess I am getting old. If he said he was going to endorse DK, I am SURE that he was just kidding.

He conceded at 2 pm EST, the second latest concession in modern times. He conceded only after many calls to lawyers all over Ohio. There was NO smoking gun and no enough outstanding ballots. It is now almost 3 years later - and no one has proven that more votes were cast for Kerry. This was not Florida where there were ballots to reexamine and count, many votes were lost because people were prevented from casting them.

This was something that the Democratic party in the states - the states have jurisdiction over running the elections - needed to do after 2000 - it was not done before 2002 or 2004. The question is whether it is fixed now. In Ohio the change in the governorship may have fixed the problem in that state - which would have been enough had it happened in 2002, not 2006. Without Blackwell, Kerry very likely would have won Ohio and the Presidency.

He'll have no effect so why are you so upset?

Sweet dreams!

as much as you are. just shut up now.

say that Kerry had left for an international trip? This would make it unlikely that he is going around endorsing anyone. (It also sounds like he is working - I doubt Wade would have said that if he and Teresa were vacationing.)

occurred. It could have been two weeks ago, but the poster may not have talked to the intern until this past week.

.

the fact that Bush outsourced the attempt to capture OBL to Afghan Warlords who just weeks before were allied with the Taliban OR that the ieds being thrown at "our kids" were made from ammo from dumps that we knew about, but failed to guard OR that Bush mislead us into war without planning for the peace, without letting the inspectors complete their work, without exhausting diplomacy and NOT as a war of last resort. Not being a war of last resort makes it not a just war - which is a pretty tough attack.

Oddly, 3 years later, I remember these words. I don't remember ANY of Dean's or Edward's attacks. I don't mention any attacks by the Clintons - as there were few and to make up for it there was, in Bill's case, some back up of Bush.

hopefuLLy, that'LL get teddy off the pot too.

he'd be my guy

That would make me regain respect for Kerry.

I'd like to see Kerry endorse Kucinich, but it will not happen.

My bet right now would be on Obama or Biden, if he endorses somebody.

But I've been wrong before.

:evilgrin:

She would've had him fighting back instead of turning the other cheek and ignoring the charges of the swift boat lying assholes.

well it's hard to say if the troops would have been brought home by now!

According to you she'd have crushed Bush so why didn't she run? Selfish? A definite win in 2008 better than a risky run in 2004?

but you make a good point about the "wait" thing.

:thumbsup:

Hillary was afraid to mount a risky run against an "imbecile."

Number of troops killed 2005 to date: 2538

There is only one word for someone who believed they would have crushed Bush, but chose not to run: Selfish!

Even if she thought she had a better chance to win than Kerry, she should have gone for it.

which proved to be a very smart move, judging by the reception she's receiving so far as our frontrunner in the Primary.

You're just jumping to conclusions now. I said you made a good point about the "wait" thing. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean that I agree with you that she waited for the reasons you're stating. Far from it. Most likely, one of the biggest reasons she waited was to gain another 4 years of experience in the Senate. If you deny that, then you're just reaching.

If anything, Hillary took the harder route by waiting 4 years because she knew she wouldn't have the luxury of running against an imbecile like Kerry did. I still can't believe he lost to that moron.

"If anything, Hillary took the harder route by waiting 4 years because she knew she wouldn't have the luxury of running against an imbecile..."

So you're saying she gave up an easy shot at the presidency because she wanted gain more experience to prove she could win? :crazy:

I repeat:

Hillary was afraid to mount a risky run against an "imbecile."

Number of troops killed 2005 to date: 2538

There is only one word for someone who believed they would have crushed Bush, but chose not to run: Selfish!

Thanks, Senator Kerry, for giving us 4 more years of Bush because you bungled an election that should've been a cakewalk for Democrats.

She couldn't run without experience.

plus for 2008 - so why do I hear her speak of 30 years of experience.

cleaning up his messes and such, might account for something.

She is of course experienced. The problem is that she wants to pick and choose what to claim from Bill's record.

would not give it anywhere near equal time.

And TeamClinton never showed up to create a wall of sound on that for Kerry, the way he showed up for Bill in 1992 when he was attacked as a draftdodger.

I suppose that wasn't John Kerry that everyone in the country but you saw ignoring the SwitfBoat liars. Who the heck was it then? Ichabod Crane?

Wow, talk about a selective memory lapse!

but when it did, and Kerry knew his campaign manager had been wrong in thinking it would all blow over, they did indeed counter the info. I'm sure blm and others could cough up several examples if you can't remember this happening. To be sure, it wasn't exactly rapid response. But I remember Kerry bringing out his military record for the press, calling people like Rood (was that his name?) from the Post, resulting in an article from the man where he told what he knew of Kerry's actions. Kerry also called other friends, looking to gather evidence. One was dead, and the widow hadn't kept his letters from that time. Things like that.

He didn't just sit there with his finger up his nose the entire time. There was about a two week gap before things started happening.

And the campaign did have reason to think this all might blow over, since all the same info had come out in May and had nil effect. They were wrong, of course. But I can see why they thought they could take the high ground.

Any particular reason why you feel the need to swiftboat Kerry over being swiftboated?

to be BROADCAST - especially since Firefighters had endorsed Kerry - but corpmedia REFUSED to air it and did not put the clips of Kerry attacking both the swifts and Bush and challenged Bush to debate their services publicly instead of hiding behind the swifts.

Gee - WTF - can people not SEE that the corpmedia refused to focus on that event BECAUSE they needed Bush to win? They would do anything, including not covering key events.

Fer chrissakes, people, what the eff do you think Dan Rather has been saying?

Let's stop playing along with the liars who claim Kerry did nothing. They know the truth by now, but are more interested in using the lie because lies make them feel more important.

that they would never trust otherwise.

for the f*cking corporate media, it's all in their plan.

dp

Give me one 1992 BC attack that was countered with as much information as the media had before the August attacks took place. They had his records, Nixon's private comments, the guys on his boat, and an historian's book.

Consider the draft story - where Clinton's first response was unbelievably that he didn't remember what he did on it! Then he said he considered ROTC but got a high draft number. When the story came out that he signed a commitment to enter ROTC when he got back from England, he argued about it - but the letter he wrote saying he wasn't coming existed and appeared on the front page of the NH paper.

Clinton did more disseminating and changed his story more often, but Kerry actually proved that the charges against him were NOT TRUE. Clinton got the media to say they simply didn't care.

Consider that Bill Clinton shamelessly attempted to use the word swiftboat in conjunction with mild criticism given HRC - borrowing the distaste the word has. If he did not think those attacks were unusual, he wouldn't use the word.

They had his records - but maybe he wrote them himself

Nixon's private comments - eh, Nixon was a pussy

The guys on his boat - but those were just a bunch of enlisted men. The officers a hundred yards away could see better than a bunch of measly enlisted men.

Oh, and Brinkley was a partisan hack... all of a sudden...

There was an answer for everything, wasn't there.

It does point to the fact that nothing Kerry could have given them would have convinced them. The problem was that their fragile minds couldn't accept that the war hero, athlete. pilot, musician, stateman, debater who didn't need a wire was a MA Democrat.

but then you forgot it.

The media is quite adept at ignoring Kerry, this would just be one more thing . You'd think his dustup with Chicken Pickens would be front page news because it's so juicy , but niete.

covered it. So you can't say they completely ignored him. However, I do think the disaster in Bangledesh was a more important story.

And whoever Kerry endorses, IF he endorses someone, will receive all of his assets in Iowa (he still has a lot), Mass. assets going to NH, plus he has that 3 million e-mail list for which he can tell them who he is endorsing, fundraise for, and so on. Honestly, I think a Kerry endorsement would be a huge boost, largely in ground organization, which actually matters just as much as what the blathering heads on TV say. But I have no idea whether he will or who he would endorse. Only time will tell ....

God, what if it turned out to be true? Imagining all the smug superficial beltway pundits that I hate having their heads explode simultaneously is just so rich!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

but it at least plants a grin on my face for awhile!

I think Kerry is in the same place Gore was in 2001 - 2003. Al was doing talks and lectures and really whaling on the administration. If it was covered, the slant was always he was bitter and kinda' nutty.

I think, now that Gore is indisputably above all this muck, Kerry has been placed in the spot.

"Hey - Lookit the looooooser."

It's tiresome. I like Kerry. But I don't know of anyone that can get the corporate media back on track - and realistically, back on track is having at least 10% of journalists actually investigate and report as opposed to spouting the talking points. This horse race is so much easier, with the bobbing heads spouting "conventional wisdom".

Yawn, wake me when it's time to vote.

Senator Kerry is still involved in politics, maintains some power and respect within the party,chairs some powerful committees and has the attention and respect of 3 million people who are on his e-mail list.

Maybe I should sign up for his emails again.

Thanks!

It would be even better this way:

"I dreamed I just got a phone call from a friend who knows someone that's an intern."

:eyes:

It will be interesting to see if the media pisses him off enough to actually do it.