Kerry hit by two smear pieces from Boston Globe on same day

[quinnox]

I know this paper hasn't been exactly glowing in their praise in stories on Kerry in the past, but this is ridiculous.

Both of these stories were put out on 11/26.

The first one is from Scot Lehigh. I have seen a few of his articles before, he has a real axe to grind with Kerry. The article is called, "On Kerry, the kids are alright"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2003/11/26/on_kerry_the_kids_are_all_right/

This is an amazing smear piece, it is so bad that it could be used as a press release for a rival campaign. It sounds like one. (which campaign I won't mention, lol)

You have to read this one to believe it.

The second isn't as bad, but it still is very negative.
It is called, "Questioning Kerry's Focus"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2003/11/26/questioning_kerrys_focus/

With a paper like this so against Kerry, heck, Fox news doesn't need any help.

[Jacobin]

1. Why would Faux have a problem with Kerry?

He voted for the IWR and he didn't vote against Smirky's 400 billion dollar medicare fiasco. sounds like a good PNAC enabler to me

[George_Bonanza]

12. Probably because he has been anti-Republican all his life

He rabidly went against Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan without mercy. He was commended by Mr. Left himself, Ralph Nader, on CNN. He has stood up all his life for gay rights, small business, environmentalism, etc. All things that he and Republicans greatly disagree on. So before you make snap judgments such as equating Kerry with PNACers, you ought to look beyond two shallow observations.

[Romberry]

2. I agree they are not favourable but...

...I don't think either piece rises to the level of smear. The fact is the Kerry campaign is in serious trouble. Both of these articles reflect that and the first does a pretty fair job of revealing part of the reason for it.

Kerry and Edwards were both early favourites for me. I just knew one or the other would emerge quickly as the strongest candidate to take on Bush and the RNC. I was wrong on both counts.

My suggestion for the Kerry camp would be not to see articles like this as smears (I define a smear as something purposely distorted or evem untrue...not the case here) but as guides on what is wrong and what must be done to fix it.

[mandyky]

11. I agree

Not favorable, but nowhere near smear. Dean haters post articles like this about Dean all the time, and Dean supporters realize that the unflattering articles are less of a smear than the posters who post them. Go figure!

I guess I am spoiled by Dean - Kerry does bore me and cannot simply say something outright and then asks Dean a question 50 times in the debate about cutting growth in Medicare.

It is pretty evident Kerry's in trouble, esp. in NH, and even in NY and MA. That is all these articles reflect - not a smear - just reading the tea leaves.

[CWebster]

3. It's true, quinnox

Kerry has poor political instincts. He just can't do much worse.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Skipping the vote on Medicare reinforces the view

that Kerry wants to have it both ways. America is not the Beltway!

[Justice]

5. Here is Why I Believe Kerry Was Wrong........

Last week, much was made in the press about Kerry missing the Iowa debate to join Kennedy in the filibuster showdown in the Senate. If the filibuster had been successful, Kerry would have been right there taking credit -- and referring to it in campaign appearances.

He should have voted against the final bill. For one, the numbers would have been closer -- here you have a dramatic sweeping change in Medicare - approved by a razor thin margin. If it turns out to be a diasaster - the republicans take the fall, and the democrats show they fought for the bill. Lieberman should have been doing his job and voting on the bill (instead I will remember him only acting like a spoiled foolish man on Hardball - digusting appearance).

I would have liked to see 54 to 46 as the final vote. Talking about 5 votes there to defeat the bill.

One conservative commentator I heard yesterday focused on people like Don Nickles - who voted no - saying here is a guy who is retiring, he has no political agenda - he voted no because he thought the cost was too high. He wanted his vote recorded to reflect his true concerns - even though he wouldn't be around after the next election.

Kerry and Lieberman were posturing - they weren't concerned one way or the other about getting their vote on the record.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Kerry wasn't posturing

he's on record with the vote supporting the filibuster and he's on record as saying the bill is bad. To suggest Kerry wasn't against the bill- now that's a smear.

[Zynx]

6. "America is not the Beltway" describes all of his problems.

He comes off as an elitist Washington insider, which he is.

[Octafish]

7. Sen. Kerry has the best chance of beating Bush in 2004.

The Boston Globe (a New York Times company) wants to do all it can to ensure four more years of Bushit.

[the_real_38]

8. Man, that first article is great...

... that's the kind of cookie-cutter corporate consultancy that did Gore in. Kerry ran a really bad campaign.

[dsc]

10. I didn't read either article

but I will assume that they are indeed smears. One telling point though. Not one Dean supporter posted these articles. Had these smear pieces been about Dean they would have been posted with light speed by a Kerry or Clark supporter telling us why they were true. Yet supposedly the Dean supporters are cutthroat bastards. Go figure.