HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Has Kerry changed, or did...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:56 AM

Has Kerry changed, or did the media misportray him in 2004?

I'll admit that I wasn't thrilled about Kerry in 2004, but ever since the Democratic Convention, I've seen a completely different side of him. He's funny, he's engaging, and he's giving great speeches.

48 replies, 2349 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Has Kerry changed, or did the media misportray him in 2004? (Original post)
fried eggs Jan 2013 OP
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #1
liberalmike27 Jan 2013 #17
HiPointDem Jan 2013 #34
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #2
EastKYLiberal Jan 2013 #3
seabeyond Jan 2013 #4
beachmom Jan 2013 #5
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #6
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #16
blm Jan 2013 #38
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #39
blm Jan 2013 #40
winter is coming Jan 2013 #43
Botany Jan 2013 #7
IADEMO2004 Jan 2013 #32
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #35
Bjornsdotter Jan 2013 #36
OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #8
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #9
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #15
politicasista Feb 2013 #48
LiberalAndProud Jan 2013 #10
graywarrior Jan 2013 #11
CherokeeDem Jan 2013 #12
think Jan 2013 #13
UTUSN Jan 2013 #14
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #18
butterfly77 Jan 2013 #25
annabanana Jan 2013 #19
fried eggs Jan 2013 #47
lonestarnot Jan 2013 #20
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #21
seabeyond Jan 2013 #44
karynnj Jan 2013 #22
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #23
Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #24
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #26
geomon666 Jan 2013 #27
samsingh Jan 2013 #28
karynnj Jan 2013 #29
Rider3 Jan 2013 #30
cynatnite Jan 2013 #31
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #33
blm Jan 2013 #41
Blue_In_AK Jan 2013 #37
JI7 Jan 2013 #42
DFab420 Jan 2013 #45
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #46

Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 AM

1. OF COURSE the media misportrayed him.

They had to present a credible cover story for Bush's second Grand Theft of an Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:32 AM

17. Yep

They do that to everyone, toward whatever end they want to achieve. Clearly they wanted Bush reelected, so he could continue to damage the country, and create his banking failure and depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmike27 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:15 PM

34. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 AM

2. Let's see; right wing media, liberal Senator?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:00 AM

3. The way he graciously handled that heckler situation and affirmed her rights...

 

My respect level for Secretary (too soon?) Kerry has never been higher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:00 AM

4. that was the hardest thing about 2004. media created a bullshit characterization of kerry

that was just wrong.

2004 i turned off the news and i use to always watch news, 24/7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:00 AM

5. He's better in long form than 10 second clips.

Plus journalists feel compelled to poke fun of him, including people like Jon Stewart, for no real reason.

He's the same guy he's always been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:00 AM

6. Are you kidding? The media didn't 'misportray' him, they deliberately defamed him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:16 AM

16. +1,000,000

Kerry was eminently qualified to be President. The media took a bona fide war hero and portrayed him as a guy who had "purple heart band-aids."

Kerry needed Obama's team. They would have crushed Karl Rove's nuts in a vice, and Kerry would have been inaugurated in January 2005. EASILY. The major difference about Obama's team is that they would slice your throat as soon as look at you if you tried to swiftboat Obama. That's what Kerry needed: absolute remorseless cutthroats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:13 PM

38. Different time. 2004 was post 9-11, pre-Katrina. 2008 was post Bush fail@every level.

There is no scenario whatsoever where Obama could have won 2004, even if he had already been elected and in the senate for 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:17 PM

39. Needless to say

Nothing in my post suggested Obama winning in 2004. The point is that Kerry's team let too much go, whereas Obama's team smashed everything that came their way. Kerry needed a team like Obama's team, and unfortunately, e didn't have it. Where you got "Obama in 2004," I'm not sure. Certainly not from my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:37 PM

40. Obama's team was led by Axelrod who was Edward's 2004 campaign manager. And Plouffe was working for

Daschle at the time, who ended up losing his seat in 2004.

Different times. WAY different media. Corporate media needed to keep Kerry OUT of the WH to get the ruling they were expecting (and got) in 2005. Kerry was dead set against media expansion.


KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCCS WRONGHEADED VOTE
COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, June 2, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a Resolution of Disapproval as a means to overturn todays decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect Americas small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCCs decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in todays media marketplace.In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCCs decision, Kerry said:Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Todays wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests. Todays vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the publics access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commissions responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With todays vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.-- 30 --

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:27 PM

43. And they'd be doing the same now, if he weren't a senator from Massachussetts

and the Republicans hope to replace him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:02 AM

7. I worked for him in Ohio in 2004

He was nothing like the "media picture" of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:44 PM

32. Edit Ohio to Iowa and add 2003 this is what I would post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:19 PM

35. Same here

As a Kerrytraveler from CA based in the Franklin County field office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:26 PM

36. Interesting

& good to hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:02 AM

8. I think he's always been the way you're seeing him now...

 

but I'm guessing he found it hard to be 'himself' during the campaign...even Obama didn't come across that great all the time.

In my opinion Kerry would have made an outstanding President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:03 AM

9. Defeat does wonders for one's perspective.

He's been a great Senator for Massachusetts, going back to the days when he went hunting for the BCCI criminals to the great discomfort of many.

He was not great on TV during his '04 campaign, and the news media treated him like shit, and that hurt him a lot.

He voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and that hurt even more, especially when he tried to explain why.

Has he changed? He voted for the IWR because he wanted to be president and (in 2003) thought that would help...or at least, he thought it would hurt more if he didn't. It was a terrible, awful, calamitous, brutal mistake, one that I heard him speak most regretfully about from his own lips in December of 2003.

Has he changed?

Now that the presidency is out of his reach, he has gone back to being more himself. I have a great deal of respect for Kerry. The IWR vote will forever be a dark stain on his record. Now that he's not running for anything, he does not have to make the kind of filthy calculations that led to his IWR vote. I think he will make a fantastic Secretary of State, especially in the area of procurement from his old buddies in the Senate, a vital issue underscored by Sec. Clinton yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:15 AM

15. very well said

I think the media did not portray him accurately, but I think the Kerry of 2003 and 2004 was not the real Kerry, either. He did change after he "lost" in 2004, though. Back to the old Kerry, or maybe just one who didn't have the pressure of a presidential race hanging over him, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

48. That is too bad

People are still giving him a hard time over that. Shame that so many can't get past the bitterness and hatred towards Kerry. Glad Obama respects him and thinks beyond the pettiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:03 AM

10. If you had been here in 2004, you would know that the Kerry of the six o'clock news

had little in common with the man. They were effective in portraying him in one dimension, as they did with Gore before him. Still, had it not been for hanky panky in Florida and Ohio ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:04 AM

11. I saw him speak at a town hall in Newburyport a few years ago

He was very personable and funny as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:04 AM

12. John Kerry has not changed...

at least in my opinion...he is a thoughtful, and to use your words, engaging, funny individual. I had the pleasure of meeting him in 2004 when I was living in Miami...he was delightful as was Teresa. I think the media did portray him unfairly, allowing the Republican dialog to become mainstream. The swift-boating of John Kerry should have been rebuked by the media, but they didn't care.

I was extremely impressed with Kerry during his opening statement, as well as, his reaction to the 'heckler'...embracing her right to protest.

I am very sorry that Hillary Clinton is leaving, but I believe the State Department will be in great hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:11 AM

13. Only in that his ability to deliver his message has improved greatly IMO /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:12 AM

14. Yip, FREED from "advisors" and handlers and other forms of STIFLERS. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:41 AM

18. Funny you mention this.

I was at home sick a couple of days ago, and I was watching old Dr. Phil reruns. A married couple was squabbling about something, and the husband made a nasty comment to the wife. The audience ooohed and ahhhed because they knew a beat-down was about to start. Dr. Phil looked straight at the camera and said: "you know how something seems like a good idea at the time........like John Kerry....." and continues to look at the camera while the audience tittered. I was like WTF??? what in the hell did any of this have to do with John Kerry? Later in the show I realized that it had been taped in 2006, so I suppose it was in closer proximity to the election in '04, but still, WTF??

To answer your question, of course the media misportrayed him in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:00 PM

25. I have always ..

strongly disliked Dr.Phil he stated some things during the 2008 campaign that,reminds me of some of his other rightwinged nuts like Ted nugent,pat boone, and the rest of those nuts.

Yes.media lied as always and helped them along just like they went along with Mitt Romney's lies never questioned them. Kerry won the debates bush had on earphones and a pack in his back so that they could feed him his answers. Kerry kicked his ass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:43 AM

19. You are maybe familiar with the verb: To Swiftboat??. . n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:50 PM

47. I know the right wing attacked and lied about his character and accomplishments, but

it appears that the media piled on by misrepresenting his personality. The media's portrayal of him made the election close enough to steal, and that's exactly what they did!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:43 AM

20. He's not being swiftboated because he doesn't represent a threat in 2016 and they managed to

steal it from him by flipping votes, so no threat. Fucking Ohio and Ken Blackwell motherfucker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:28 PM

44. THAT man. that is the man i saw. that is the man i respected and wanted the opportunity of seeing

what he could do for this country.

yes.

thanks will

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:50 AM

22. This is who I always saw him to be

In fact, he was all those things in 1971.

The media distorted and hid his speeches (other than on CSPAN) in 2004. I was in a cocoon - reading the blog and watching the coverage on CSPAN and elsewhere that covered him. It was an incredibly uneven playing field - where the media filtered Bush to get only the best comments (and they were still unimpressive) and covered record breaking Kerry rallies by having their talking head speaking from the parking lot (not showing the crowd) and then showing maybe 20 seconds of Kerry criticizing Bush.

Since 2004, I have seen him speak several times and he is fantastic and a genuinely nice person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:53 AM

23. The Corporate Media went after John Kerry, and sadly Democrats believed what they were saying...

John Kerry is a thoughtful, brilliant man. And like Al Gore, he was maligned by Republicans, a complicit Corporate Media, and yes, many Democrats, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:54 AM

24. People now want to have a beer with him

I always wanted to have a beer with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:03 PM

26. He's in his comfort zone here. He was less comfortable as a candidate in terms of

connecting with people on a grand scale (outside of Massachusetts)--it just wasn't his biggest strength. At least if you compare him to Obama or Bill Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:08 PM

27. The media nearly destroyed his career.

By portraying him at best as a coward and a liar and at worst a traitor to his country. Having John Edwards as his running mate was almost as bad as Gore running with Lieberman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:20 PM

28. who knows- he gave in too easily in 2004

edwards decided to spend his energy and time on an affair, instead of trying to help Americans by booting cheney bush out of office.

i remember edwards debate. i knew something was wrong when he stuck his tongue out and left it there. it seemed like an insider message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:27 PM

29. The affair was after the election

The problem with edwards in 2004 is that he was not a team player and he would tell the KE people he would do things (like defend Kerry) and then not do it.

The media and the TPTB pushed Edwards - with the media arguing that it would just be that he was afraid of being overshadowed by Edwards if he didn't take him. (In fact, Kerry was FAR better with real people than Edwards.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:28 PM

30. Of course!

The media is tied into big-dollar donations from GOP supporters. They would have done anything in their power to make Kerry look bad. Look at the Swift Boaters (perfect example)! Kerry is a decent man who was thrown under the bus by the Republicans. He's my senator, at least for now, and I'm proud of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:30 PM

31. He was great on Jon Stewart back in '04. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:08 PM

33. The Corporate Media Propaganda Machine was out to ruin him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:38 PM

41. Because in 2003 Kerry weighed in AGAINST media expansion.

KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCCS WRONGHEADED VOTE
COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, June 2, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a Resolution of Disapproval as a means to overturn todays decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect Americas small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCCs decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in todays media marketplace.In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCCs decision, Kerry said:Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Todays wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests. Todays vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the publics access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commissions responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With todays vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.-- 30 --

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:53 PM

37. He was seriously misrepresented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:23 PM

42. he is the same as he has always been

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:30 PM

45. Lol is this even a serious question? Of course the media mis-portrayed him..it fit their narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fried eggs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:37 PM

46. I've always liked him.

He would have been a terrific President. He's also very funny and always has been. It seems like he and Obama have similar senses of humor, that kind of deadpan "stick the knife in" slayers that they get in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread