There it is: the meme!

The RW meme in full effect: Kerry inarticulate!

they can come up with. His appearance on Kudlow was one of the most articulate interviews of any political leader I have seen yet. Kudlow is a hostile audience and JK answered all his questions without missing a beat--and in depth.

That's all they have and they milked the joke to try to bolster that notion.

What the article says, including the dude that does not like Kerry's oratory qualities, is that he was right. This is what should be emphasized, not the few negatives counterpoints that the Globe introduced for balance (or what they think is balance, because it is so weak that it does not really matter).

It's a good article, but the meme is there (elaborated twice) and it is inaccurate (a distortion). That is what the RW, media and trolls will emphasize! This just shows how ridiculous the meme is! That is the point!

and should be whisked away immediately to consult with those in the highest levels of business and global policy - because we always understood and understand what he's saying.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011470.php

Wow!

There should be some sort of competency test.

and for a lot of Americans that does translate into being "relatively inarticulate". I do think that he's made a lot of progress since the election in understanding how to .... get his message across to mainstream America.

I don't think it's a RW meme - Kerry has always had a problem with speaking "Senatorese", something I'm sure he realizes and has worked to correct.

Overall this seems a positive article.

i think people view it positively since they do come away with the sense that he gets the issues. the first debate is a good example of this.

i guess what benefits Kerry is more that he comes off as knowing what he is talking about and that is what some people take away rather than whether they know what he is saying or agree with it.

the things Kerry is attacked for are "i voted for it before i voted against" and the botched joke. the first seems comparable to Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of is is".

The interview w/ Kudlow was a good example of that. And the debates definitely helped him in the polls at the time.

That's not really what I'm trying to say...

First of all, I think the premise of this thread is kind of ridiculous - that the RW is trying to start the meme that Kerry is inarticulate - it wasn't the Republican in the article that even said that - it was some professor. And I do think that professor had a valid point - there are times when Kerry's very articlulateness - his knowledge of detail and attempts to explain in detail - work against him with a certain (and large) segment of the American population. You are I aren't going to be bothered by this - because we're wonks and can follow what he's talking about. But there are a lot of people who can't, and I think it's a valid criticism of him to point out that he sometimes has difficulty in reducing complex ideas into simple, bite size sound bites. Well, maybe the criticism should go to the American public who can't sit still long enough to learn for themselves that complex issues don't translate very well into bite size sound bites.

I do think he's made a lot of progress in this area, though, since he first started on his presidential quest.

The party of George Bush (1 or 2) is calling Senator Kerry inarticulate - when millions of Americans saw only one articulate man in the debates. They ignore that the basic concepts pushed by Jim Baker et al match those articulated very well by John Kerry. (Consider that in one day he laid out a detailed plan at NYU and gave a summary in less than a minute, counting off points on his fingers on the Letterman show.)

They are then saying Kerry insulted the troops - and that for that reason is not capable of speaking of the central front on terror - forgetting that is Afghanistan and ignoring the fact that the study group chose to hear from him.

I think with the media - they have grudging gone the step that Kerry was likely right on Iraq and a half year ago they gave him credit on being right on terrorism. So, given that national security was the only issue Bush won, and Kerry was right on the 2 main issues - they need a reason he lost. Examining their own reporting which gave more weight to Republicans scoffing at Kerry's ideas or saying that Kerry's announced plan was nothing new and what Bush was doing. (even though it was obvious that this was not the case.) Their new scapegoat - same as the old - Kerry. Kerry was to blame because he was inarticulate - begging the question of how they can now state what his plan was - which is proof he did get the ideas out, they were just not adeguately disseminated. Now, what types of organizations disseminate information.